Continuing Sci Debate with Marc Robidoux

Incredulity on Literal Adam and Eve, a Tracing Problem (Quora) · Tracing Efforts Continue : Given that Trent Session V treats Adam as an individual man, when did modernist Catholics start treating him as just an allegory? · Continuing Sci Debate with Marc Robidoux · Marc and Alex between them · My answer to Marc Robidoux' long comment · Answering Pismenny, More Than One Comment

I ij c

continuing after one answer on my part on May 23 in response to Marc Robidoux

Marc Robidoux

May 23

“Oh, they do have a peer review, where claims are reviewed by YEC experts in all the relevant fields”

Do they ever publish in secular independent journals where all experts can verify these claims? Of course not. But YEC “experts in all relevant fields” can certainly review scientific evidence as part of the peer review process. Oh, they’re not actually experts in those relevant fields? Experts like the PhD in Human Biology - Dr Bergman I suppose?

“YECs provide a post-publishing review” - Reference? Oh it is reviewed among YECs alone, never to actual scientific journals?

“He gives the dates given by labs, vastly lower than the pretended millions of years, then adds we know this is too high an age too, but thanks to the labs for proving the other age is too high.” Citation please? Oh you have none?

“Historic science cannot quite well be checked by achievements in technology.” - Really? How about the theory of evolution? A theory made historically and confirmed by evidence. The big bang? Same thing. Theory of relativity? Same thing. Gravitation? Germ theory of disease? And on and on.

Oh so you’r anti-vacs as well? What a surprise. Seen any cases of smallpox lately? Why don’t you go down to your local cemetery and look for children graves, and check the dates- I’ll bet you the vast majority were pre-vacc, measles, rubella, smallpox, polio and other horrible diseases eradicated by vaccines.

Duke of Ed died from the vaccine? (Here’s a hint on this one, he was 99 yrs old, but if you had a citation ? Oh you have none?

Wrt your “ I was referring to a common sense objection.“, There is nothing sensible about an objection to evidence without counter evidence. Maybe you should look at actual references instead of relying on your ’common sense’.

Wrt that Sahel Sunda BS you persist in holding against all evidence that only some animals, mostly marsupials and duck billed platipi, crossed your purported land bridge, but not animals who are much more mobile like tigers and big cats, no they stayed back in Indonesia. But the platypus made it all the way down to south eastern Australia, and is the sole living representative of its family and genus, though a number of related species appear in the fossil record all in that geographic region, so it’s not like they evolved en-route. You probably deny that with ‘common sense’ as well. Totally non-sensical.

How do you account for the age of the universe, ~13.772±0.040 billion years? Common sense? Are you on the ‘varying speed of light’ bandwagon as well?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

May 23

"Do they ever publish in secular independent journals where all experts can verify these claims? Of course not."

In fact, post-publishing peer review can be done by all experts from their own publications. Will they be published if atheist? I don't know. I don’t know if any even tried to. I do know creationist post-publishing peer reviews will not be published by [N]ature. Tried to post one small paper in Nature Genetics.

"Reference? Oh it is reviewed among YECs alone, never to actual scientific journals?"

Showing your bias where "actual scientific" = evolutionist. For the pre-publishing vetting peer review, you are right. As you spoke of the post-publishing review as more important, as said, no one is stopping you from taking a subscription on Creation Magazine.

"Citation please? Oh you have none?"

Indeed, how could you guess the youtube account had been closed (after Biden victory?)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fjjeyRxP9Q

I used it as a reference in this post, while available:

Carbon Dates, Armitage and a Volcano of Hawaii

And had to correct it by "Look up other videos on his channel." But the channel is, as said, closed. [But not this one, edit : What was unexpectedly found in dinosaur bones, coal and ...]

"Really? How about the theory of evolution? A theory made historically and confirmed by evidence."

No, evolution, big one, is a theory about history of life and it is not checkable by achievements. You can't point to any machine or progress for veterinarians as evidence cats and dogs evolved (or didn't evolve) from Miacis cognitus.

"The big bang? Same thing."

Similarily uncheckable by any actual progress in what we are able to do. Similarily about history of the universe and not about how it works right now.

"Theory of relativity? Same thing. Gravitation? Germ theory of disease? And on and on."

While I'd dispute Relativity, these are not historic science, but science or non-science, about what is going on now and every day. Btw, germ theory is only about some types of disease, humours is not refuted by it, since endocrinological and cancerous diseases are nothing like germs.

"Oh so you’r anti-vacs as well? What a surprise. Seen any cases of smallpox lately?"

When smallpox was eradicated, the tissue used to indirectly cultivate viruses was not yet human fetal cells. It was usually bovine liver cells.

"Duke of Ed died from the vaccine?"

I was careful not to say so.

"(Here’s a hint on this one, he was 99 yrs old"

A good hint about some dying from Covid as well.

"but if you had a citation ? Oh you have none?"

For him, no. For Norway, yes:

Norsk studie om Astras vaccin: ”Skyhöga” nivåer av antikroppar

"There is nothing sensible about an objection to evidence without counter evidence."

Well, unless the evidence is too poor. I gave C14 as evidence a lab test about the half life is not enough and you have given no counter evidence against possibility of some Pb being there from actual scratch.

"Wrt that Sahel Sunda BS you persist in holding against all evidence that only some animals, mostly marsupials and duck billed platipi, crossed your purported land bridge, but not animals who are much more mobile like tigers and big cats, no they stayed back in Indonesia."

These more agile animals were also better suited to actually survive in for instance Indonesia or further inland. You also forgot my reference to the men who, after Flood and Ark, went to Oz, and who may have taken marsupials along for a mercy mission or because koalas are cuddly.

"How do you account for the age of the universe, ~13.772±0.040 billion years? Common sense? Are you on the ‘varying speed of light’ bandwagon as well?"

Nope, I'm geocentric, giving as immediate corrollary that "parallax" is not necessarily any such thing and does not prove distances.

I i b

continuing after one answer on my part on May 23 in response to Alex Pismenny. Marc Robidoux is repeating some from above, but look at what he's leaving out:

Marc Robidoux

May 23

“ The geologists simply are at loggerheads“ - Citation? Even from the “one” you spoke to? I do recall pointing out that there is 0-nada evidence for a global flood, ever. Deluge for 40 days covers the earth in water…right! You’ve never been to Scotland have you? It rains for 60+ straight days there sometimes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

May 24

The one I spoke to = Howard F, on this debate:

Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further

Perhaps the direct claim of Pelycosaur under Dinosaur was an earlier stage of same debate.

Other reference:

The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota

Discussed by me here:

Glenn Morton caught abusing words other people were taught as very small children

Btw, you are bluffing when you BOTH want a reference for global flood AND give a pretended argument against it. Unless you admit these are two different levels of argument.

60+ straight days in Scotland are not 24/24, the rain is local, not global, and the Bible doesn’t say the rain was the sole source of the Flood water.

Did you get tired of my other debate, did you find yourself loosing it?

Marc Robidoux

May 24

Let’s get a few things straight here:

• 1) Debate, and argumentation, by you, with or by an anonymous ‘Howard F’ or anyone, is not evidence of anything.
• 2) Quoting yourself as a citation is i) not evidence, ii) bad form. You may well be an expert in something, but if you can’t point to a single bit of evidence from independent sources (I note, being published in a peer reviewed source would be an example of this), you are tilting at windmills. If there was actually any evidence that you had a brilliant finding in paleontology or carbon dating chemistry or whatever, you should be publishing that and maybe you’d even get a Nobel prize for demonstrating that all the science is wrong, and you, Hans-Georg Lundahl, the brilliant (Insert specialty) refuted all known evidence to show the Bible is 100% accurate and true.
• 3) You should read what you post, this The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota is actually a refutation of any purported evidence contained in sedimentary deposits for any biblical catastrophe like a worldwide flood. I quote directly from it here : ‘the data shows that there is no strata which can be identified as the flood strata and there is no way to have the whole column be deposited in a single year. Thus, if we are to believe in a Flood, it must have been local in extent.’
• 4) I am not bluffing. I am requesting that you provide evidence for any claim you make. If you claim there was a global flood, where’s the evidence? I am also engaged in a discussion with you, so I may make arguments of my own (such as ‘how did they carry the platipi without getting stung?’), and I have a bucket load of arguments to make against the claim there ever was a global flood. Unfortunately for you, the maker of the claim is the one that has the burden of proof (must show the evidence) and has to also refute counter arguments (venomous platipi e.g.).
• 5) “ 60+ straight days in Scotland are not 24/24, ……, and the Bible doesn’t say the rain was the sole source of the Flood water.“ - Clearly, you have never been to Scotland. And now, you’re introducing another argument, that there was another source of water than rain for the biblical flood. Do tell, do you have a reference or citation to back that up? I wonder what that other source could possibly be?
• 6) I’m not sure what you are referring to when you say “ my other debate“. I’m not loosing it, but in any case, see point 1. as to the value of your debates in a quest for evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

May 25

• 1) "Debate, and argumentation, by you, with or by an anonymous ‘Howard F’ or anyone, is not evidence of anything."
  
  You asked for a reference, not for evidence. It is evidence someone considered a pelycosaur in one end of ND as lying "under" a dino in the other end of it.
  
  
• 2) "Quoting yourself as a citation is i) not evidence, ii) bad form."
  
  In this case, the quote involved evidence of what someone else had said. In a debate. In other cases, it may involve a piece of math or logic I am to lazy to repeat, and the math and logic, not the "citation" are the evidence I am giving.
  
  
• 3) "You should read what you post, this The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota is actually a refutation of any purported evidence contained in sedimentary deposits for any biblical catastrophe like a worldwide flood. I quote directly from it here : ‘the data shows that there is no strata which can be identified as the flood strata and there is no way to have the whole column be deposited in a single year. Thus, if we are to believe in a Flood, it must have been local in extent.’ "
  
  I agree with no stratum being THE Flood stratum, but disagree with whole column (or most of it) not being deposited in a year. Quoting a conclusion from a source is not evidence, unless the source also provides a good argument, which that citation of yours doesn't give.
  
  
• 4) "I am not bluffing. I am requesting that you provide evidence for any claim you make. If you claim there was a global flood, where’s the evidence?"
  
  For one thing, the strata (all / most of the column any place on earth, nearly).
  
  For another, the dying off of Neanderthals and Denisovans at same carbon date, 40 000 BP (Gorham cave is carbon dated more recently, but has no organic remains of Neanderthals, though it has Mousterian tools : the 28 000 BP date is from charcoal in the entrance). With a partial survival of genome compatible with half breeds among Noah's daughters in law.
  
  Note, this is evidence, it is however not citation. I think you know academic citations will support what I said about Gorham cave on Gibraltar. And if there is any such claim - relating to a specific discovery, not a general observation - if I don't give a citation, and you don't believe it, do shout out for one.
  
  "I am also engaged in a discussion with you, so I may make arguments of my own (such as ‘how did they carry the platipi without getting stung?’), and I have a bucket load of arguments to make against the claim there ever was a global flood. Unfortunately for you, the maker of the claim is the one that has the burden of proof (must show the evidence) and has to also refute counter arguments (venomous platipi e.g.)."
  
  Venomous platypi would actually be your burden of proof. But I'll believe you (though you could have made it up to make a point about "need" for citations), and answer : same way that zoologists today avoid getting stung - if true.
  
  So, if your argument against a global Flood involves a calculation of what heat would have been generated, you need to cite it. It would probably involve taking mountain heights like at present, which we dispute, and also involve minimising the part from subterranean waters. Plus omit that heat generated over a level of water would have a way of radiating outward into space.
  
  
• 5) //“ 60+ straight days in Scotland are not 24/24, ……, and the Bible doesn’t say the rain was the sole source of the Flood water.“ - Clearly, you have never been to Scotland. And now, you’re introducing another argument, that there was another source of water than rain for the biblical flood. Do tell, do you have a reference or citation to back that up? I wonder what that other source could possibly be? //
  
  I have been to Scotland. While there was rain, it was not 24/24 all the days in a row when I was there, and those were fewer than 60. The other source is this : all the fountains of the great deep were broken up,.
  
  In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened: [12] And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
  
  
• 6) "I’m not sure what you are referring to when you say “ my other debate“. I’m not loosing it, but in any case, see point 1. as to the value of your debates in a quest for evidence."
  
  Not the point. I find it neater to present the debates we are having sorted after the subthreads, and not each subthread getting cluttered by arguments from the other one. Oh, yes, this is getting to my blog too. Here is first instalment, you’ll have to scroll down a bit before you come to Pismenny’s answer:
  
  Tracing Efforts Continue : Given that Trent Session V treats Adam as an individual man, when did modernist Catholics start treating him as just an allegory?

Marc Robidoux

May 25

Apparently, I missed a point when making things clear previously:

0. Evidence: evidence can be defined as - verifiable facts accepted as knowledge of a claim, typically repeatable by testing by uninterested parties (given sufficient training/understanding). When I ask for a reference or a citation for a claim, I mean a reference or citation of evidence for that claim. The purpose of peer reviews are to have experts examine evidence and confirm that the evidence is actually evidence. If you need an explicit example of this, see this dialog:

HGL"The geologists simply are at loggerheads” - MR ‘Citation?’ - I am asking for a citation for the claim that "geologists are at loggerheads.”.

To paraphrase a quote from you that “miracles are miracles” - evidence is evidence.

“evidence of what someone else had said. In a debate.“ - The common term for this is ‘hearsay’, and it is not evidence.

"someone considered a ‘xyz’ ’” is not evidence of ‘xyz', (and to top it all off, it’s anonymous as well, kind of like all the gospels btw).

"Quoting a conclusion from a source is not evidence” - you’re right, such as when you say “I disagree with whole column.” - That is not evidence, and see my original point # 5 regarding who has the burden of (evidence is more correct than proof). YOU are claiming there was a global flood, YOU have a burden of providing evidence for your claims. Arguments, in and of themselves, are not evidence, and it is not my job to provide evidence against your claims. The citation YOU provided, for which I quoted the conclusion, is a counter argument to your claim, and is backed by over 50 references which you would have to refute if your evidence contradicts it.

“For one thing, the strata (all / most of the column any place on earth, nearly).” - Is this a claim? Citation (of evidence) please?

You are really not being clear at all when you say

“For one thing, the strata (all / most of the column any place on earth, nearly).For another, the dying off of Neanderthals and Denisovans at same carbon date, 40 000 BP (Gorham cave is carbon dated more recently, but has no organic remains of Neanderthals, though it has Mousterian tools : the 28 000 BP date is from charcoal in the entrance). With a partial survival of genome compatible with half breeds among Noah's daughters in law. Note, this is evidence, it is however not citation. I think you know academic citations will support what I said about Gorham cave on Gibraltar. And if there is any such claim - relating to a specific discovery, not a general observation - if I don't give a citation, and you don't believe it, do shout out for one.”

If you are suggesting there is citable evidence of something here, then 1. Please cite it, and 2. Please clarify what claim this citation supports?

Frankly, whether or not you believe platipi are venomous or not is really up to you to check. This is simply a fact. Like the fact that the earth revolves around the sun e.g. Now you are claiming your purported men (Middle East goat herders from 5000 years ago) carried the platipi using modern methods and technology? You’re a real hoot.

"involves a calculation of what heat would have been generated” - Huh? I made no such claim.

You made the claim there was a global flood, I simply have many counter-arguments that reasonably intelligent people can use to see the absurdity of your claim, such as the existence of a historical record dating back millions of years for the family and genus of platipi in the extreme southern end of Australia.

"all the fountains of the great deep were broken up,.” - Oh so it came from groundwater? And none of the earth collapsed under the weight of dirt? And you believe the groundwater was sufficient to cover the earth in enough water to circumvent the earth? Do you realize the sum total of all water, oceanic, atmospheric and groundwater, looks like this in comparison to the earth?

- Do note that quotes from the Bible, are not considered evidence.

“ I find it neater to present the debates we are having sorted after the subthreads,”

Well sorry that I’m not operating in the most efficient manner for you, but if you make a claim in one subthread comment I will reply to that comment, that’s what happened here with your claim that "The geologists simply are at loggerheads”

“Oh, yes, this is getting to my blog too”. - I consider Quora as a public domain, so you may quote me in your blog, I ask that you do so integrally and in context.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

May 25

"The common term for this is ‘hearsay’, and it is not evidence."

No. It is not hearsay. It is a test of what someone else had to offer against my evidence.

// "someone considered a ‘xyz’ ’” is not evidence of ‘xyz' //

Exactly. Your considering my evidence from debates as "hearsay" is not evidence of evidence from my debates being hearsay. For instance.

"(and to top it all off, it’s anonymous as well, kind of like all the gospels btw)."

It's generic. Someone = in this case you. Considered = which you did. xyz = in this case that evidence from my debates is not evidence. Even of the state of argument my opponents have had to offer me. As to Howard F being “anonymous”, I am citing his screen name as given.

" you’re right, such as when you say “I disagree with whole column.” - That is not evidence,"

So, what kind of evidence do you want? I have more than one.

"and see my original point # 5 regarding who has the burden of (evidence is more correct than proof). YOU are claiming there was a global flood,"

And Glenn Morton is claiming it could not have laid down all the layers. Glenn Morton. Not me. His onus probandi to prove it couldn't.

Are you asking me to prove it could? Well, the mathematic formula would be "little water at low speeds for a long time" equates to "much water at high speeds for a short time". That's prima facie evidence, you contest that if you like, the ball is yours.

"Arguments, in and of themselves, are not evidence,"

Arguments are what evaluates evidence as proof or non-proof.

"and it is not my job to provide evidence against your claims."

But if you volunteer to dispute them as not just unfounded (that's one thing, inviting me to prove) but as impossible - that is another thing, you are claiming sth that you will have to prove.

"The citation YOU provided, for which I quoted the conclusion, is a counter argument to your claim,"

In fact, it didn't include one when I read it years ago, and you are not showing what I would have missed back then.

A citation is neither a good nor a bad argument, unless the source is infallible, and that only to those accepting its infallibility. A citation contains an argument.

"and is backed by over 50 references which you would have to refute if your evidence contradicts it."

Which exact reference did he give for a year long flood not being able to lay down the layers? As said, it was years since I read it, and I did not find any such proof back then. You read him more recently.

// “For one thing, the strata (all / most of the column any place on earth, nearly).” - Is this a claim? //

How about learning to parse instead of citing a half sentence? I'll have to look up the complete sentence:

You: If you claim there was a global flood, where’s the evidence?"
Me: For one thing, the strata (all / most of the column any place on earth, nearly).

Yes, this is a claim. I claim that strata lower than Younger Dryas strata are the material evidence of a Flood, except some for an Ice age between the Flood and Younger Dryas. If you had paid any attention to the discussion of historic science, it so happens, it can't be checked against achievements. You have material pieces of evidence. You have stories that compete about fitting the material evidence best. My claim is, the layers lower than Ice Age and Younger Dryas are material evidence left from the Flood.

"Citation (of evidence) please?"

You don't cite for your interpretation, you interpret. Do you want a citation for Permian existing in Karoo or Jurassic in Kayenta in Arizona?

Tapinocephalus atherstonei - Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/tapinocephalus

Horizon: Lower to Upper Tapinocephalus assemblage zone, Lower Beaufort beds, Middle Permian (Capitanian).
Type locality: Beaufort West, Karoo basin, South Africa.

Capitanian exists in Karoo.

Kayentatherium wellesi - Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/by-group/cynodontia/kayentatherium

Horizon: Kayenta Formation. Lower Jurassic (Late Sinemurian-Early Plienbaschian).
Locality: San Bernale locality, Many Farms, Arizona.

Jurassic exists in Kayenta formation.

My point is, Jurassic and Permian remains are material evidence of the Flood. OK, some might be so of land slides after the Flood too.

Proof? The proof is in the discussion. You try to show why it can't be, I try to show why it can.

"If you are suggesting there is citable evidence of something here, then 1. Please cite it, and 2. Please clarify what claim this citation supports?"

Neanderthal remains from index by wikipedia

• Archaic (430 ka) Miguelón
• Intermediate (250–130 ka) Saccopastore skulls Ehringsdorf 9 Altamura 1
• Typical (130–50 ka) La Ferrassie 1 (site) La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 (site) La Quina 5 and 18 Krijn Scladina Saccopastore 1 and 2 Altamura man Mt. Circeo 1 Krapina remains Shanidar 1-4 Teshik-Tash 1 Kebara 2 (site)Tabun C1 Amud 1 and 7 (site) OR-1
• In radiocarbon range (50–40 ka) Neanderthal 1 (typesite) Spy 1 and 2 Engis 2 Sidrón remains Gibraltar 1 and 2 Saint-Césaire 1 Le Moustier Fontéchevade Mezmaiskaya 1

// The original find was done in a time where the palaeontological dating was still in its infancy, and no stratigraphic information was supplied with the skull, making dating at best guesswork. Another specimen from a different locale on Gibraltar (Gibraltar 2) has however been dated to between 30 thousand to 50 thousand years old.[6] The skull is that of an adult woman, also with typical Neanderthal features.[7] While the skull was one of the first to be found, it was also possibly from one of the last surviving Neanderthal populations.[4]

Until the late twentieth century, it was believed that the last Neanderthals disappeared about 35,000 years ago. However, studies have suggested that Neanderthals survived in southern Iberia and Gibraltar to less than 30,000 years before the present. Radiocarbon dating performed on charcoal in Gorham's Cave in Gibraltar in 2006 suggests that Neanderthals lived there 24,000 to 28,000 years ago, well after the arrival of Homo sapiens in Europe 40,000 years ago.//

Gibraltar 1 - Wikipedia

// At the end of the 20th century, it was believed that the Neanderthals disappeared c. 35,000 years ago. In 2006, radiocarbon dating of charcoal from Gorham's Cave, Gibraltar, suggested that Neanderthals survived in southern Spain and Gibraltar at least to 28,000 BP, well after the arrival of Homo sapiens in Europe c. 45,000 years ago. More recently, new decontaminated radiocarbon dating (from the same Oxford laboratory that published the late date in 2006) suggests Neanderthals had vacated Gibraltar by 42,000 BP, earlier than elsewhere in Europe. //

Gibraltar 2 - Wikipedia

Now, what is this supporting? That Neanderthal actual remains (as opposed to charcoal) are from before one specific carbon date. 40 000 BP. You could do exactly the same thing for Denisovans, I won't here unless you challenge me.

At the academia I am from, no one was required to cite for "bonis" being dative/ablative plural of all three genders of I-II declinsion adjective "bonus". I was however required to cite Maius having a side form Madius in the Middle Ages, and found the citation in Habel-Gröbel.

Now, for Neanderthals I know (Pääbo, El Sidrón, look it up) that the mitochondria and the Y-chromosomes are not found in modern man. Flood is among other things a genetic bottleneck and if a daughter in law of Noah had a Neanderthal father and a Cro Magnon mother, she would have handed on neither. Though to be fair, I may have overdone the case as some Neanderthal / Sapiens hybrid in Italy seems to have had Neanderthal like mitochondriae.

Denisovans also being represented by very small portions of the genome of only some men, I take this to be a parallel.

Early post-Flood dates for more Denisovan types would be a parallel to the Italian, and we have that in Red Deer Cave people:

// The fossils exhibit a mix of archaic and modern features and are tentatively thought to represent a late survival of an archaic human species, or of a hybrid population of Denisovan hominin and modern human descent, or alternatively just "robust early modern humans, probably with affinities to modern Melanesians". //

Red Deer Cave people - Wikipedia

citing for this exact passage:

Cave Fossil Find: New Human Species or "Nothing Extraordinary"?

"Frankly, whether or not you believe platipi are venomous or not is really up to you to check."

Sounds like initiation and metadiscussion, not my cup of tea.

"Like the fact that the earth revolves around the sun e.g."

Is supposed to ... how do you check that? References to NASA who are wed to this ideology? Or is there an argument you are trying to make?

"Now you are claiming your purported men (Middle East goat herders from 5000 years ago) carried the platipi using modern methods and technology? You’re a real hoot."

I am in fact claiming the 5000 BP carbon dated people are much more recent - real date like after Genesis 14 (since that carbon dates to 3500 BC, as per evacuated temple material on reed mats from En Geddi = Asason Tamar). And as per Roman martyrology for Christmas day, 2015 BC birth of Abraham => Genesis 14 c. 1935 BC.

That the people in the pre-Flood world or early post-Flood one would reduce to goat herders is your claim - to back up or leave.

// "involves a calculation of what heat would have been generated” - Huh? I made no such claim. //

How about citing the particle "if" that begins the statement? No, you didn't, but AronRa did, citing some Nelson or sn. I took this as an example.

"I simply have many counter-arguments that reasonably intelligent people can use to see the absurdity of your claim,"

I'll be happy to take them one by one ...

"such as the existence of a historical record dating back millions of years"

No, there is not. Not even on your view. You may mean there is a palaeontological record, that is something else. It involves the interpretation of the material evidence involving a fossil platypus. And you may want to cite why you think it reaches back millions of years (hint : they were not recorded by any chroniclers, hence not historical), and as I did that challenge, you might challenge my carbon date interpretations, here is a piece of maths for you:

New Tables

" Oh so it came from groundwater? And none of the earth collapsed under the weight of dirt?"

On the contrary, lots collapsed. Hence lots of sediments.

"And you believe the groundwater was sufficient to cover the earth in enough water to circumvent the earth? Do you realize the sum total of all water, oceanic, atmospheric and groundwater, looks like this in comparison to the earth?"

I take it your picture is giving modern (post-Flood) contours of heights and depths of earth. We are aware, with these the waters could not have covered all the high mountains. However, the flatter and less deep pre-Flood lands and depths, the water we now have would have been adequate.

"Do note that quotes from the Bible, are not considered evidence."

They should, they are prima facie evidence of history, same as other stories from old days - even before being admitted as Word of God.

// Well sorry that I’m not operating in the most efficient manner for you, but if you make a claim in one subthread comment I will reply to that comment, that’s what happened here with your claim that "The geologists simply are at loggerheads” //

But the problem is you transferred discussions from the other subthread too.

// “Oh, yes, this is getting to my blog too”. - I consider Quora as a public domain, so you may quote me in your blog, I ask that you do so integrally and in context. //

As long as you don't require every image. I have consistently done so, even if some in Atheist community seem to have consistently given me the opposite reputation (if not, why the demand? It would be obvious, right? I am not the one making a truncated quote like "involves a calculation of what heat would have been generated” without citing the initial "So, if your argument" making the following hypothetical).

Note

before looking, I don't think a platypus has any part of the body able to sting anyone, it's not a snake, it's not an insect. My comment on men transporting platypi same way as zoologists would now would therefore hold, very easily, without special equipment. It is a peaceful and shy creature, it has a beak like that of a duck and lays eggs but is a mammal with fur, and its tail looks like that of a beaver. I don't see any part of the body where a sting could fit as coming from. I am not sure if it has teeth even, spontaneously I'd think not, and bad teeth being venomous is more like komodo dragon than any mammal I know of.