More science which destroys Young Earth Creationism and the food. Today: Elephants disprove the Flood myth! [Spirituality & Religion]
The diversity of Proboscideans (the group to which elephants and several extinct species belong) makes the Flood myth utterly impossible.
The first problem is one of diversity. Since creationists must rely on the non-scientific category "kind" as a rescue device for having far fewer animals on the Ark, this means that at most 2 or 3 members of Proboscidea would have been included. Unfortunately that means that all the members of this order must have diversified after the flood AND THE MATH DON'T ADD UP. To achieve the observed diversity then there would have to be one new species of Proboscidean in EVERY generation which has never been observed even in the fasted reproducing animals like fruit flies or bacteria. Strike one.
The second problem is that even if the creationist only includes a couple members of Proboscidea AND assumes they are juvenile animals AND assumes a metabolic rate as if they were sleeping the whole time THEN 60% OF THE AVAILABLE SPACE ON THE ARK would still be required to feed and house them. Doesn't leave much room, yeah? Strike two
The last problem is obvious and simple: If that level of rapid diversification is impossible and then the creationist must have many MORE "kinds" of Proboscidean on the ark which takes that already crippling 60% to something more like 400% Steeeerike three
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Here are my sources. Do feel free to go through them. Of course i don't expect you to actually do so, that's not a reasonable exchange of effort. But those are the data which allow me to make this argument and unless you can produce a counter argument and/or demonstrate where those sources are factually in error..... your doubt alone ain't worth jack shit🤷♀️
Deinothere face 273054368_MARKOV_G_N_SPASSOV_N_SIMEONOVSKI_V_2001_A_reconstruction_of_the_facial_morphology_and_feeding_behaviour_of_the_deinotheres_In_The_World_of_Elephants_Proceedings_of_the_1st_International_Congress_652
Proboscidean Datum Event https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-2513-8_16#:~:text=The%20expression%20%E2%80%9CProboscidean%20Datum%20Event,Miocene%20from%20Africa%20toward%20Eurasia
Elephant vs stegodon populations http://www.sovraintendenzaroma.it/sit...
lol if i'm being honest, no i don't consider as plausible the tinfoil hat conspiracy wherein all secular scientists and most Christian scientists are all lying about their research. But i guess if one can't refute the science then the only recourse is to call it a lie. Works for flat earthers, anyway😏
Tell me, what other areas of science do you believe are all lies and conspiracy?
lol were that true, godspeed, then you'd be able to describe and prove factual errors, not just grasp at the tenuous straws of conspiracy as a rescue device😁
were that true, godspeed, then you'd be able to describe and prove factual errors, not just grasp at the tenuous straws of conspiracy as a rescue device😁
It's not me that's grasping at straws here, Pikachu. Let me ask you something: Id it possible for the God of the Bible to be alive?
Let me ask you something, godspeed: If not grasping at straws, what else should we call it when you need to invoke a global conspiracy because you can't rebut the science, hmm?🤨
lol my dude. You suggested that the reason all the evidence disconfirms your worldview is because EVERY ONE OF THEM WAS LYING.😆 That is not a rational conclusion. It is grasping at straws in order to preserve a belief you hold very strongly but have difficulty making an evidence-based argument for.
Ok. I'll hold you to that. Don't prove yourself a liar.
I think it is possible that the god of the bible exists in the same way that it is possible that Allah is the one true god or that Bigfoot roams the pacific northwest. I don't think there is strong evidence nor that it is probable.
Ok, i answered your question now honour demands that you answer mine.
In any other context, what would you call someone who had to invoke a global conspiracy to support their worldview?
@Pikachu It's good to see that some things never change, it's nice to have some consistency in life. Whatever else you may think of him, @GodSpeed63 can always be counted on to consistently duck and weave and avoid honest discussion.
I think it is possible that the god of the bible exists in the same way that it is possible that Allah is the one true god or that Bigfoot roams the pacific northwest. I don't think there is strong evidence nor that it is probable.
I know you believe God lives, His Word says so. You're just trying to suppress that truth in unrighteousness.
what else should we call it when you need to invoke a global conspiracy because you can't rebut the science, hmm?🤨
Why not call your so called 'theory' for what it really is: a lot nonsense?
Why not call your so called 'theory' for what it really is: a lot nonsense?
lmao!🤣 Why not answer the question i asked as you said you would, liar? Saying evolution is nonsense is not an answer to "what else should we call it when you need to invoke a global conspiracy because you can't rebut the science". Try again or prove yourself dishonest.
I know you believe God lives, His Word says so
lol and that's a great example of why faith is not a reliable way of knowing what is true.
@GodSpeed63 No, I truly believe that no god lives. Regardless of whatever “word” you think you heard. Pure bullocks. And you still owe me a light year.
Alright then, I'll ask you another question: Do you believe it to be possible for Yahweh to be the one and only true God? Please, do not avoid this question like you keep trying to accuse me of doing.
lol so you didn't answer my question and think that asking a variation on a question i already answered is a legitimate response? You told me you'd answer my question if i answered yours. You've proved yourself a liar and i'll not waste any more time on you until you hold up your end of the bargain.
You have strongly held beliefs based in faith but you lack the education or wherewithal to rebut the science you so vehemently disagree with. Let it go at that.
