How does the Biblical flood fit in with the natural world we see today?

[Mulefoot]

Suggesting that the only true explanations are scientific explanations is false and leads to paradoxes.

Suggesting that the only true explanations are scientific explanations is a philosophical claim, and not a scientific one.

Science makes no such claim.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I'd be delighted to enter into a discussion, even debate related to the Bible, if you want to start a thread do so, hijacking this one doesn't strengthen your already weak case for Cambrian evolution.

My little attempt at satire there was more of a de-hijacking than a hijacking, as it at least referenced the biblical flood, which is the thread topic. If anything, you/we have hijacked the thread to make it about the Cambrian.

 

[JasperL]

This might serve as a new, definitive, perfect example of an argument from authority!

If facts are a logical fallacy in your view, okee dokee.

Then again that one is an even better example!

Fine, substitute your ignorance for their expertise if you want. I'm not that arrogant.

I see, so

qualify as explanations then.

Not to me. What are the "relevant facts"?

I suppose to a moron - my puppy in her first life (she's on life 1.2 million now) created the Cambrian life forms - might qualify as an explanation, but not to non-idiots because there are no relevant facts to support that purported "explanation."

But I knew you'd do this bullshit when you asked me to define explanation. It's why I didn't want to play your stupid game.

A problem for who? why is falsifying evolution even important to you? what problems exactly does this give rise to? are you saying we should ignore, suppress, evidence that falsifies a lie because it may lead to problems?

I don't understand that sentence.

You say I can reject a theory that doesn't line up with [LACK OF] observation and I don't need an alternative - then you say that's not what I'm doing?

It is what I'm doing, I do reject evolution and I have not proposed an alternative, I do not know how they got there.

Edited to add the bolded and embiggened....

If you cannot grasp the huge difference between lack of evidence and observable evidence, we simply cannot have a worthwhile discussion.

 

[tecoyah]

I can only assume you've never critically examined many of the claims of evolution, I was guilty of this and it came as a shock to me when I began to dig down and ask probing questions.

You express a highly favorable even rose-tinted view of this subject, that's not your fault of course, our entire system has elevated evolution to the point of undeniable absolute truth, many proponents say that anyone who doubts evolution is a genuine fool, deluded and so on, they say "evolution is a fact" and so on.

All of this constant subliminal indoctrination serves to discourage healthy skepticism, discourage dissent, and it works, people who know very little about the subject, about fossilization, paleontology, chemistry, physics even basic science in general, will leap to the defense of evolution, they act as if it is one's duty to defend the truth from the deranged, hillbilly, bible thumping Neanderthals.

Many who defend it (I've seen this in forum after forum) repeat the same old tired mantra without having ever questioned it, the loyal, the faithful will bleat on and on about "fossil evidence" and "idiotic creationism" and other predictable phrases as they boldly devote themselves to the quest.

You and several others here have repeatedly stressed how the observations that are consistent with evolution are what's actually important here, any observations that seem inconsistent can be safely dismissed (they are always dismissed) they are mere inconveniences, curiosities that will go away once we learn more.

I can repeat until I'm blue in the face the reality of what falsification is, but that too is dismissed, evolution is thus on a pedestal, admired, defended, unquestionable, absolute unquestionable fact, this is what you and many people have fallen victim to, and its not your fault, this is how the intellectual priesthood want it to be.

So relax, everything is OK, reality isn't important, so long as you believe, embrace and defend the faith you'll be fine.



There's the proof, your use of the term "inconceivable" the mind is now closed, there can never be evidence to worry you because it is "inconceivable" so whatever is presented must be wrong, must be false, no need for any objective evidenced based analysis when you already know the truth.

I've not once mentioned the term "religion" yet you throw that in to imply I have, you throw that in as just another attempt to discredit me, to suggest that the only alternative to evolution is mumbo jumbo, irrationality, fire-n-brimstone, superstition, you do that because once you do that your defense of evolution is complete.

If by chance you offered up an alternate explanation instead of simply bashing people who accept evolution, that would be helpful in understanding your position and point.

 

[Yasureoktoo]

For two, the 'Flood' need only encompass what was then the Jewish world, for the same reasons.

The flood came from Mesopotamia long befor the Hebrews.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If facts are a logical fallacy in your view, okee dokee.


Fine, substitute your ignorance for their expertise if you want. I'm not that arrogant.


Not to me. What are the "relevant facts"?

I suppose to a moron - my puppy in her first life (she's on life 1.2 million now) created the Cambrian life forms - might qualify as an explanation, but not to non-idiots because there are no relevant facts to support that purported "explanation."

But I knew you'd do this bullshit when you asked me to define explanation. It's why I didn't want to play your stupid game.


Edited to add the bolded and embiggened....

If you cannot grasp the huge difference between lack of evidence and observable evidence, we simply cannot have a worthwhile discussion.

Disagreeing with "experts" is my choice, my right, I will disagree with anyone if I feel there are reasonable grounds for disagreeing, of course I respect a person's knowledge but there is more to people than raw information, everyone holds beliefs of some sort be they "expert" or not.

This is obvious when you observe two experts arguing, if there was no possibility of an "expert" being wrong then we'd never see them argue would we! I'm sure you've heard or watched experts disagreeing with one another, and you know what you likely did? you sided with one of them, thereby disagreeing with the other.

Your argument is shown to be weak when all you can do is attack me for daring to disagree with an "expert", ridiculous. I am likely more expert than you in some of this subject, I've studied it for decades, I have qualifications in the sciences, are you wrong therefore to disagree with me?

Once again: evidence is anything that gives us reason to hold a belief, that's what it means, something, some information that we feel justifies us adopting some position, some belief if you disagree, if you think I'm wrong to define it that way then simply say so.

Because it is defined in that way, the absence of Cambrian ancestral fossils for any of the 20+ phylae wherever we do find Cambrian fossils, is just that, it is information that I feel justifies my belief that there were no ancestors, it is evidence, it is consistent with the ancestors never having existed.

Using elementary logic we can see that a lack of something expected is as much evidence as the presence of something unexpected - it is relevant information.

If I was accused of holding a girl hostage, kidnapped in my house and an extensive search of the premises did not find here or any trace of her that is evidence in my favor.

 

[JasperL]

Disagreeing with "experts" is my choice, my right, I will disagree with anyone if I feel there are reasonable grounds for disagreeing, of course I respect a person's knowledge but there is more to people than raw information, everyone holds beliefs of some sort be they "expert" or not.

This is obvious when you observe two experts arguing, if there was no possibility of an "expert" being wrong then we'd never see them argue would we! I'm sure you've heard or watched experts disagreeing with one another, and you know what you likely did? you sided with one of them, thereby disagreeing with the other.

Cool. And here it's about 999-1 so there's actually NOT a debate among experts. So when I'm not one of those who have spent a lifetime in a particular specialized field, and for everything but my own I haven't, then I rationally defer to those who have. It's all we can do.

Your argument is shown to be weak when all you can do is attack me for daring to disagree with an "expert", ridiculous. I am likely more expert than you in some of this subject, I've studied it for decades, I have qualifications in the sciences, are you wrong therefore to disagree with me?

That's more of your dishonest bullshit and I'll leave it there. I'm tired of you strawmanning my arguments. I've not attacked you for disagreeing - I've attacked what I believe is your boneheaded argument, repeatedly, on the merits, and so has everyone else.

 

[devildavid]

You might be right about that.



The Cambrian explosion is that evidence, as you yourself say, if there were no ancestors (and there's no evidence of any) then "these animals would have to instantly spring from nothing", I wondered when you'd begin to get all this.



The only way to identify ancestors for Cambrian animals is cladistics, compare morphologies as best we can from the fossils, but there are none, none of the 20+ phylae (each of which appears for the first time in the Cambrian, each of which appear almost at the same time) have any evidence of being related at all, no ancestor fossils are known that represent a common ancestor for even one pair out of the 20+ morphologies. For example trilobites and anomalocaris each have keratin body parts, so there will be a common ancestor too that represents some of the earliest animals to have evolved keratin production.

So a trilobite and an anomalocari are descendants from some earlier common ancestor that has evolved (or itself inherited) the ability to synthesize keratin, lets look at each of these:


View attachment 67321736

View attachment 67321737

Yet despite obviously having keratin we find no trace of any of the expected thousand upon thousands of generations of either of these. The above animals came from different parents, I think we can agree on that, but as we go back we'd expect to see an ancestor from which each of these bifurcated, and that ancestor would have already evolved keratin in order to pass on those genes to these eventual descendants and so those ancestors would be as readily fossilized, particularly when we find fossils of tiny soft bodied animals in the strata that we know represent the prior time frame.

Yet we do not, we never have, not only have we never found a credible common ancestor we've actually never found any ancestor for either of these, and this is just two from among many many others - that all just appear in the Cambrian.

Nothing you've said or shown us changes the fact that there is no evidence of ancestors, therefore as a rational skeptic I refuse to believe they evolved, the evidence is simply non existent.

Once again, science is not about what you expect to find. It is about what you do find and what actually happens.

Science is not about what any individual chooses to believe or not, it is about what is supported by evidence, facts, and testing. DNA has not been demonstrated to stop functioning based on what time period of history it is in. No other means of life forming has been shown to occur without it. And you were the one who brought up DNA, not me. So if you understand what DNA does, how do you explain why it would cease to be part of the cause of different forms of life emerging at any point in history? Why do you bring up an example of animals with different DNA if DNA just randomly impacts what forms of life emerge?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Cool. And here it's about 999-1 so there's actually NOT a debate among experts. So when I'm not one of those who have spent a lifetime in a particular specialized field, and for everything but my own I haven't, then I rationally defer to those who have. It's all we can do.

That's more of your dishonest bullshit and I'll leave it there. I'm tired of you strawmanning my arguments. I've not attacked you for disagreeing - I've attacked what I believe is your boneheaded argument, repeatedly, on the merits, and so has everyone else.

Yes you did attack me for disagreeing, this is what you wrote:

Only problem is those whose entire careers are in those fields you mention, the best scientists in the world, at the tops of all their fields, virtually all of them also embrace evolution, because nothing they see in their part of science contradicts the theory and lots they see confirms it. I know that's not evidence, but don't blame it on the ignorant.

In a discussion about science it does not matter what others may or may not think, it does not matter how many others may agree or disagree with me, all that matters are the data, what is observed, what are the facts, attacking me (or my argument) on the basis of the perceived opinions of others is an argument from authority.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Once again, science is not about what you expect to find. It is about what you do find and what actually happens.

Once again falsification is about whether or not we actually do observe what a theory leads us to expect to observe.

Science is not about what any individual chooses to believe or not, it is about what is supported by evidence, facts, and testing. DNA has not been demonstrated to stop functioning based on what time period of history it is in. No other means of life forming has been shown to occur without it. And you were the one who brought up DNA, not me. So if you understand what DNA does, how do you explain why it would cease to be part of the cause of different forms of life emerging at any point in history? Why do you bring up an example of animals with different DNA if DNA just randomly impacts what forms of life emerge?

It doesn't matter what you think science is about, what matters is whether a theory fails an empirical test, when it does it stands falsified. If you knew anything about the history of science you'd know this already, it isn't even controversial, it's an established part of the scientific method.

 

[JasperL]

Yes you did attack me for disagreeing, this is what you wrote:

You: "when all you can do is attack me for daring to disagree with an "expert"

It's not all I can do and it's not all I've done. You know this. Any more dishonest bullshit you want to bring to the table?

In a discussion about science it does not matter what others may or may not think, it does not matter how many others may agree or disagree with me, all that matters are the data, what is observed, what are the facts, attacking me (or my argument) on the basis of the perceived opinions of others is an argument from authority.

I've attacked your argument, repeatedly.

My point about experts was because you claimed arguments on this thread are from ignorance. That is FALSE. We know that's a false claim because virtually every expert, those at the top of any related field, do not buy your IMO boneheaded claim that lack of evidence is proof of absence, and "falsifies" the theory of evolution.

But keep up hack arguments. They're digging your hole deeper.

 

[devildavid]

Once again falsification is about whether or not we actually do observe what a theory leads us to expect to observe.
It doesn't matter what you think science is about, what matters is whether a theory fails an empirical test, when it does it stands falsified. If you knew anything about the history of science you'd know this already, it isn't even controversial, it's an established part of the scientific method.

No, that is not what falsification is about. That is what you mistakenly think it is about and want it to be about to support your beliefs. There is nothing in science that is falsified by not meeting expectations. Theories are not about leading us to expectations. Theories are about showing how physical things actually work. There are no set expectations laid down by theories that need to be met. That isn't what theories do.

Evolution has not failed any tests, you just think it has. What you think does not change the science. This rule of science you just pointed out applies to you, but you don't seem to get it. You have not provided anything that equals a failed empirical test.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You: "when all you can do is attack me for daring to disagree with an "expert"

It's not all I can do and it's not all I've done. You know this. Any more dishonest bullshit you want to bring to the table?

I agree that is not "all you've done" apologies.

I've attacked your argument, repeatedly.

Yes you have, although all I've seen are rebuttals not a refutation, nothing I have said is at variance with observed facts.

My point about experts was because you claimed arguments on this thread are from ignorance. That is FALSE. We know that's a false claim because virtually every expert, those at the top of any related field, do not buy your IMO boneheaded claim that lack of evidence is proof of absence, and "falsifies" the theory of evolution.

Yes and your personal opinion of me as "ignorant" is immaterial, it is the facts, the evidence that's important not what people think or how many people think it.

But keep up hack arguments. They're digging your hole deeper.

Really? must we?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, that is not what falsification is about. That is what you mistakenly think it is about and want it to be about to support your beliefs. There is nothing in science that is falsified by not meeting expectations. Theories are not about leading us to expectations. Theories are about showing how physical things actually work. There are no set expectations laid down by theories that need to be met. That isn't what theories do.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable else they do not qualify as theories.

When an expectation arising from a theory is counter to what is observed then that theory has been falsified.

Theories also do not "show how physical things actually work" this is evidence of your ignorance when it comes to science.

Evolution has not failed any tests, you just think it has. What you think does not change the science. This rule of science you just pointed out applies to you, but you don't seem to get it. You have not provided anything that equals a failed empirical test.

If you want to believe evolution is consistent with all observations then do so, what have your beliefs got to do with the facts of the matter?

 

[devildavid]

Scientific theories must be falsifiable else they do not qualify as theories.
When an expectation arising from a theory is counter to what is observed then that theory has been falsified.
Theories also do not "show how physical things actually work" this is evidence of your ignorance when it comes to science.
If you want to believe evolution is consistent with all observations then do so, what have your beliefs got to do with the facts of the matter?

No, duh. Too bad evolution has not been falsified, even if it is possible to to do it. You seem to mistake the potential of falsification with actual falsification. Falsification must be done by scientific means, not by what anyone believes. There is no belief involved in falsification.

Theories do not set up ironclad expectations that must be followed in every instance.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, duh. Too bad evolution has not been falsified, even if it is possible to to do it.

It is possible to do it, it must be possible to do it and it has been done.

You seem to mistake the potential of falsification with actual falsification. Falsification must be done by scientific means, not by what anyone believes. There is no belief involved in falsification.

You believe it hasn't been falsified so of course there's belief.

Theories do not set up ironclad expectations that must be followed in every instance.

Back to the vacuities now?

 

[devildavid]

It is possible to do it, it must be possible to do it and it has been done.
You believe it hasn't been falsified so of course there's belief.
Back to the vacuities now?

It is possible to falsify any scientific theory. The theory of evolution has not been falsified. It has nothing to do with anyone's belief. You don't understand what it requires to falsify a scientific theory.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It is possible to falsify any scientific theory. The theory of evolution has not been falsified. It has nothing to do with anyone's belief. You don't understand what it requires to falsify a scientific theory.

You could never admit that evolution has been falsified because every time observation differs from empirical expectation your reaction is to dismiss the discrepancy as only an apparent discrepancy and not an actual discrepancy.

When expected evidence is not found that defense is "well just because we haven't found it yet doesn't mean it isn't there" which amounts to it not mattering at all what is actually found or not found, whatever is observed can be dismissed if you don't like it.

Evolutionists attach great significance to observations that are consistent with empirical expectations and attach no significance to observations that are not consistent with empirical expectations.

That isn't rational, it isn't honest and it isn't rigorous or scientific, most evolutionist are not able to be objective, the defense of the theory is more important than whether it be correct or not.

 

[devildavid]

You could never admit that evolution has been falsified because every time observation differs from empirical expectation your reaction is to dismiss the discrepancy as only an apparent discrepancy and not an actual discrepancy.
When expected evidence is not found that defense is "well just because we haven't found it yet doesn't mean it isn't there" which amounts to it not mattering at all what is actually found or not found, whatever is observed can be dismissed if you don't like it.
Evolutionists attach great significance to observations that are consistent with empirical expectations and attach no significance to observations that are not consistent with empirical expectations.
That isn't rational, it isn't honest and it isn't rigorous or scientific, most evolutionist are not able to be objective, the defense of the theory is more important than whether it be correct or not.

If evolution had been falsified, it would be known to have happened. I don't think this blockbuster news could be kept under wraps.

I don't know who theses strawman non-existent "evolutionists" are you keep insisting on referring to. There aren't any observations that indicate that DNA and the environment ever stopped being part of evolution at any point in the history of the development of life on earth.

 

[nucky9]

You could never admit that evolution has been falsified because every time observation differs from empirical expectation your reaction is to dismiss the discrepancy as only an apparent discrepancy and not an actual discrepancy.

Evolution hasn't been falsified though. It explains a great deal of historical data, the mechanisms are known and well-established, and it can be observed to occur in 'real-time' (I myself have 'evolved' a species). What you are proposing is that evolution doesn't explain the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record and that there was instead another mechanism at work for that particular event. I believe you are correct that this is possible, since I don't think there are any theories to connect the two which are considered especially strong (beyond the mountains of evidence for the occurrence of evolution in general). However, since there is no way of knowing what data we don't have, or why the data may be missing, my opinion is that the most likely explanation is still that evolution was involved, but that we are working with an incomplete data set. That seems to be the simplest explanation, but YMMV.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If evolution had been falsified, it would be known to have happened. I don't think this blockbuster news could be kept under wraps.

You do know, I brought it to your attention months ago, we've discussed it many times here in public, describing that as "under wraps" is quite and odd thing to say.

I don't know who theses strawman non-existent "evolutionists" are you keep insisting on referring to. There aren't any observations that indicate that DNA and the environment ever stopped being part of evolution at any point in the history of the development of life on earth.

There is evidence - reason to believe - that the 20+ diverse phylae that appear for the first time in the fossil record around 540 MYA did not evolve from any common ancestors, each phylae (and they are quite distinct from one another) appears already with significant biological sophistication, compound eyes, keratin parts etc.

As explained already, finding very disparate morphologies that share features like compound eyes and keratin, demands that there will have been ancestors possessing these attributes too and it is beyond unreasonable to claim these were not fossilized when we find much more delicate small soft bodied organisms fossilized at the start of the Cambrian.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Evolution hasn't been falsified though. It explains a great deal of historical data, the mechanisms are known and well-established, and it can be observed to occur in 'real-time' (I myself have 'evolved' a species). What you are proposing is that evolution doesn't explain the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record and that there was instead another mechanism at work for that particular event. I believe you are correct that this is possible, since I don't think there are any theories to connect the two which are considered especially strong (beyond the mountains of evidence for the occurrence of evolution in general). However, since there is no way of knowing what data we don't have, or why the data may be missing, my opinion is that the most likely explanation is still that evolution was involved, but that we are working with an incomplete data set. That seems to be the simplest explanation, but YMMV.

Unfortunately the more I explore the Cambrian the more unreasonable it becomes to insist the Cambrian fauna evolved, the discrepancies between observation and empirical expectation are just huge, beyond anything I can regard as credible.

 

[devildavid]

You do know, I brought it to your attention months ago, we've discussed it many times here in public, describing that as "under wraps" is quite and odd thing to say.
There is evidence - reason to believe - that the 20+ diverse phylae that appear for the first time in the fossil record around 540 MYA did not evolve from any common ancestors, each phylae (and they are quite distinct from one another) appears already with significant biological sophistication, compound eyes, keratin parts etc.
As explained already, finding very disparate morphologies that share features like compound eyes and keratin, demands that there will have been ancestors possessing these attributes too and it is beyond unreasonable to claim these were not fossilized when we find much more delicate small soft bodied organisms fossilized at the start of the Cambrian.

You brought nothing to anyone's attention but your baseless opinions. Nowhere in the news media was this astounding news ever reported.

No beliefs are involved in scientific theories or falsify them. Your opinions are just that. They do not constitute scientific falsification of a scientific theory which is still supported by a preponderance of evidence.

 

[devildavid]

Unfortunately the more I explore the Cambrian the more unreasonable it becomes to insist the Cambrian fauna evolved, the discrepancies between observation and empirical expectation are just huge, beyond anything I can regard as credible.

You haven't explored jack. You have done zero scientific exploration on your own.

 

[nucky9]

Unfortunately the more I explore the Cambrian the more unreasonable it becomes to insist the Cambrian fauna evolved, the discrepancies between observation and empirical expectation are just huge, beyond anything I can regard as credible.

Ok sure, I don't personally buy it, because the alternative explanations would involve 'seeding' by aliens or a space fairy (which to me is much less plausible then the explanation that we have a data problem), but that still doesn't disprove the theory of evolution.