Evidence of a Global Flood

>Liberal gibs, nothing more.

The one that occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago.

AGW is a global tax.

>no new information added
That's just not true. Spontaneous mutations have been observed in nature. They're happening as we read. Galileo taught that we can interrogate nature by observation and experiment. Then "facts which at first sight seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which had hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty." Are not these facts, available even for skeptics to confirm, a surer insight into God's Universe than all the speculations of the theologians?

That's not how sequence stratigraphy works. Oil drilling companies rely on accurate knowledge of epicontinental assemblages. When you drive to church, the gasoline in your car is many tens of millions of years older than the erroneous scriptures you "worship" when you get there. Scripture isn't literal truth, but a reflection of the rudimentary science which prevailed at the time of its writing.

Nobody is suppressing your opinions, they're being ignored because they aren't independently verifiable.

This. Creationists are the ones who'd love to suppress opinions they don't like. You aren't being persecuted, merely ignored and occasionally made fun of.

answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oila-creationist-answer/
icr.org/article/chemistry-oil-explained-by-flood-geology/

>That's just not true. Spontaneous mutations have been observed in nature. They're happening as we read.
Degenerative mutations, as everything after the fall would be.

apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2489

>Veeky Forums - Science & Math
>1.All science and math related topics welcome.
>2.Homework threads will be deleted, and the poster banned.
>3.No "religion vs. science" threads.

go away these garbage threads are rules violations.

But it's not explicitly a "religion vs science" thread. If flat-earth shit can stay, then I can stay.

the funny thing is those "evidences" are not supressed (I don't even know how you'd do that.) those are observation that are commonly used in the process of recreating and understanding earth's history.

The only thing is that, when you actually use a bit more than two neurons and a half they don't point to a global flood.

Even if there were a great flood that covered the earth (there wasn't) why would it matter? I mean geologically it would be impressive, but its not like theres any evidence that your imaginary god made it happen.

>This suggests that a third alternative is needed, especially as neither model fits into a young-earth scenario.

that's not how it works. If you got an observation that doesn't fit into your model, you modify the model, not the observation.

>They didn't have cities in those days, only nomadic tribes who utilized iron.

according to the biblical chronology of James Ussher, the Noah flood happened in 2348 BC.

The city of Jericho in palestine dates back to 9000 BC, Byblos to 6500 BC, Aleppo 4300, Sidon 4000 BC, and that's only for the somewhat biblical cities.

I'm not even christian, and yet it feels like I know the bible better than you.

answersingenesis.org/bible-history/chronology-wars/

>being so deluded that you can't understand plate tectonics and how mountains are made.
>tfw never seeing the fossil record of the dino cities

that's criminally oversimplified and impressively false. Yet better and more accurate than most of the OP "papers"

very nicely written. Except we nowadays have a bit more material than Sir Isaac Newton had.
Namely we don't rely on dubious texts and records, but rather on archeological evidence. the datation of those cities is rather well constrained and coherent.

Furthermore, the way of thinking is, again faulty.
The Bible is not "assumed to be inaccurate right out of the gate." but it isn't assumed to be accurate either, which would be a humongous bias.

>how would natural selection drive evolution if evolution didn't happen?
These comics are moronic

also , the presence of random events doesn't mean the whole is random. for example, if you give small random impulses to a marble on a inclined slab, you can still see it rolling in a non random direction.

Hence, even if the impulses at the base of evolution (mutations) are random, it doesn't mean the result of it is fully random.

>Degenerative mutations, as everything after the fall would be.
Richard Lenski observed a strain of E. coli spontaneously acquiring the ability to metabolize citrate in the presence of oxygen. If that's not an addition of information, what is?
And of course there's all times that resistance of antibiotics or herbicides has arisen. How do you explain those?

Creationists never actually have an answer for this question. They either pretend it never happened, or claim that it's somehow a loss of information despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2489
>waaah! those mean evolutionists aren't letting me teach public school students something that has no evidence to support it! how """open-minded""" are they if they only listen to claims that have a basis in fact?

>unironically posting a Chick tract

>that it's somehow a loss of information
Because it is.

your ability to see in multiple colors comes from a replications of a gene responsible for light sensitive receptors, followed by mutations, which leaded to three different types of receptors, each sensitive to three different wave lenght.
Redpill me on how that is a loss of information.

oh, and BTW, two points : technically speaking, the amount of information comes from the total number of nitrogenous bases in the DNA, so the amount of information hasn't changed in those bacterias.

And secondly, why does the amount of information matter at all?
(and according to your logic being trisomic is a gian of information, and hence an evolution and a good thing)
less information doesn't mean "devolution"

He found in Java a piece of
a skull, seeming by its contour to be smaller than the human. Somewhere
near it he found an upright thigh-bone and in the same scattered fashion
some teeth that were not human. If they all form part of one creature,
which is doubtful, our conception of the creature would be almost
equally doubtful. But the effect on popular science was to produce a
complete and even complex figure, finished down to the last details of
hair and habits. He was given a name as if he were an ordinary
historical character. People talked of Pithecanthropus as of Pitt or Fox
or Napoleon. Popular histories published portraits of him like the
portraits of Charles the First and George the Fourth. A detailed drawing
was reproduced, carefully shaded, to show that the very hairs of his
head were all numbered No uninformed person looking at its carefully
lined face and wistful eyes would imagine for a moment that this was the
portrait of a thigh-bone; or of a few teeth and a fragment of a cranium.

We talk very truly of the patience of science; but in this department it
would be truer to talk of the impatience of science. Owing to the
difficulty above described, the theorist is in far too much of a hurry.
We have a series of hypotheses so hasty that they may well be called
fancies, and cannot in any case be further corrected by facts. The most
empirical anthropologist is here as limited as an antiquary. He can only
cling to a fragment of the past and has no way of increasing it for the
future He can only clutch his fragment of fact, almost as the primitive
man clutched his fragment of flint. And indeed he does deal with it in
much the same way and for much the same reason. It is his tool and his
only tool. It is his weapon and his only weapon. He often wields it with
a fanaticism far in excess of anything shown by men of science when they
can collect more facts from experience and even add new facts by
experiment. Sometimes the professor with his bone becomes almost as
dangerous as a dog with his bone. And the dog at least does not deduce a
theory from it, proving that mankind is going to the dogs–or that it
came from them.

>Why are the uniformitarian evolutionists actively suppressing evidence contrary to their worldview?

They aren't. The on again off again argument over a "steady state" view of speciation and a more catastrophist punctuated equilibrium is revving up again as we type bait at each other on Veeky Forums.
Whichever side wins , for now, the evidence is being argued about, not suppressed.

To be fair, "the Biblical chronology of James Ussher" is not quite the same thing as "what it says in the Bible."

Ussher made a lot of assumptions, interpretations, etc.

Some of us who are Christians but not antagonistic to science would contend that Ussher's fundamental error was taking a parable from the Bible meant to reveal a spiritual truth, and using it as a science text book.

Not sure why that matters. New species arising by adapting to new conditions, whether through "adding information" or "deleting information,: in either case you have speciation happening in response to changes in the environment.

Even if you continue to maintain that the world was created relatively recently, you still are admitting that species are not immutable, and can evolve into new ones.

of course, I know, being christian doesn't stop from being clever. And actually, there are even some creationnists that can be rather rational and based.
But the OP is obviously none of the above, and that's why I used the Ussher chronology, which is in line with his ideas to prove him wrong.

>evolution doesn't rea-
youtube.com/watch?v=Sne1uO6RxLE

>Aleppo

I suspected you would post that stupid misinformed comic, and I was not wrong.

Antibiotic resistance does not arise through the LOSS of the antibiotic's target. Think about it for maybe five seconds; if the action of the antibiotic interfering with the enzyme is enough to kill the bacterium, how would losing the essential enzyme entirely allow the bacterium to survive?
When resistance arises, it's generally through one of two mechanisms: either the target is modified in such a way that it retains its function but no longer interacts with the drug, or a DIFFERENT enzyme is repurposed to break down the drug.
This is observed over and over and over again; you are fundamentally ignorant of how resistance works.

Like I said,
>Creationists never actually have an answer for this question. They either pretend it never happened, or claim that it's somehow a loss of information despite all the evidence to the contrary.
And you've done the former in the case of the Lenski experiment, and the latter in the case of resistance. Thanks for walking right into it.