Continuing with Edelwise, and later Sumo

Gutsick on Radiometric and Heat - My Initial Comments with Answers · Continuing with Edelwise, and later Sumo · Continuing with Sumo

Edelwise

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "If we regard the Bible as historic evidence and don't think about Divine inspiration, it concords with lots of evidence from other sources for the Flood. Not just from Mesopotamia, but from Altai and Peru as well."

Rather it plagiarizes the Mesopotamian flood myth as much as the entire book does in its early books. The only "support" it finds from other cultures are stories of giant floods some said to be "global" too but vary greatly in everything else. In all cases the flood myths come from regions known for having regional floods and none of which are collaborated in nature. There is not enough water on the planet to even warrant a global flood and all the made up attempts at explaining where that water came from are so ridiculous it only begs to be laughed at.
There is no geological evidence for a global flood, something that would be easily identifiable had it actually happened. And in some cases, like YEC where the flood is said to have happenned some 4000 years ago besides no geological evidence we know of multiple entire civilizations that have existed at that time, have continued on as if no flood had ever happened 4000 years ago. Curious.

"The first known audience of the book has not taken it as a historic claim, but as fiction."

As probably many of ancient people reading the Bible have too.

„My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.“ — John Dominic Crossan - Biblical Scholar

"Guy Berthault has done experiments published in some Journal of Lithology. If the water is running at 20 m / sec, it can depose before calming down, does produce wharves."

Which would be identifiable as such but there's none.

"Apart from historic records, no you don't."

So now you're arguing that floods don't leave geological traces? What's the entire point of you arguing for that exact thing just a few sentences sooner?

"Indeed. But 5000 years worth of rapid burials after the Flood under such circumstances would still be dwarfed by those in the Flood."

It wouldn't as a flood would not have resulted in the fossilization we can observe.

"Possible second, post-Flood landslides while mountains rose rapidly."
For which there's no evidence and which contributes to the heat problem.

"How does a geologically confirmed bog or swamp differ from a geologically confirmed part of the Flood?"

Was it a global flood or was it a bog only flood? Use your head.

"Not every square kilometer."

Every square kilometer. Apart from completely life deprived areas in which humans would not have lived in and where you won't find human remains either.
Not a single human fossil anywhere near the age of the strata we find dinosaurs in. It's completely and utterly irrelevant where they were, they could've been at the opposite sides of the planet and not known about each other's existence, had they lived at the same time, you'd expect to find them in the same level of strata indicating they had lived at the same time.
As I said, you will never find human remains there.
Supposedly millions of people had lived before the flood that all got wiped out, and yet there's 0 evidence for any human having lived at the same time as dinosaurs, millions.

"But I was not trying to show off my capacity to discuss the dino kinds with a six year old, I was making a point."

There were hundreds, thousands of small dinosaurs species that would've been completely harmless to humans. Your point is absolutely stupid.
It's the same exact argument as if you'd said that you would never expect a human fossil to be found next to any other mammal because tigers and hippos, and elephants are scary.

"but are same kinds."
Define a kind except "it looks similar enough to me so who cares what paleontologists and it's the same".

"With Norfolk island it's a qustion of history. If it's a known historic fact, why isn't it on the wiki on Norfolk Island? "

Don't know, don't care. "Legacy of mutiny on the Bounty" is the name of the paper where genealogists have worked on DNA of Norfolk island population.
Actual physical evidence trumps historic anecdotes. Here as well as regarding your fictional flood.

"Genetic studies are irrelevant, the historic facts are known."
You can't make up someone's genes, you can lie in a history book. You've got it completely backwards, you believe human testimonies before you believe actual evidence which contradict that testimony.

"But as you mention it is "superbly inbred for global standards" do they seem to be dying? A population well over 2000 seems to be doing just fine."

The most inbred person there has only 20% genes remaining from the founders.

"I have no lust to mingle with my sibling. That's a hugely unfair charge just to vent your anger over the disagreement, or to demonise Christians who believe in these bottlenecks.

You are still not saying what info"

Demonize? You wish, make fun of rather.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "To some degree." To a large degree, we can do it for any species and we can trace global catastrophies and mass extinction events. They all line up.

"That time is inaccurate, doesn't even exist.

You have basically projected ghost images."

You meant to say "it couldn't be true because earth is 6000 years old!"

Evidence spits in your face.

"If you pretend that Miocene and Permian are from radically different events."
You misspelled "understand" there.

You won't find Miocene mammals burried together with Permian fossils, forget about humans, it's any animals. You won't even find dinosaur fossils in Permian strata.

Find a single example of either and you'll win Noble prize.

"If you carbon dated things from Permian or Miocene, first sawing up bones to find non-permineralised interiors, I think much could be carbon dated like that."

The very fact that you even uttered "carbon-dated things from Permian or Miocene" indicates you know close to nothing on the subject.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl To end this because I see there's no point in talking with a reality denier like you.

The flood had not and could not have happened.
1.The amount of water necessary for such an event is impossible to be located on the planet.
2. Such an event would not result in nearly sorted fossils of animals in geological strata which are not and could not have been the result of a flood.
3. There is no global geological traces of a flood, something we can easily detect when there actually was a flood. Floods distinct sediments.
4. Multiple human civilizations would have lived through the flood and live on to never report it.
5. Such an event would leave clear genetic traces, leading back to an extreme genetic bottleneck the scale of which cannot be found not only in humans but every other species currently living on the planet. The only bottlenecks being those that have happened long before the world even exists according to your fairy tale.
6. The genetic bottleneck necessitated by the flood myth would lead to total extinction and anihilation.
7. The flood myth itself, together with its story about gathering a pair of every animal into a single ship and having it maintained by a family of 8 for a year with no food source is too ridiculous to even consider.
8. Geology and tectonic plates, something even most creationists can't deny ( which you have the courage to deny yourself) necessitate existence of the heat problem wherein during the mythical flood so much energy would've been exerted by the tectonic plates that the entire Earth's crust would've turned into molten lava, all that magically conjured water would've boiled away and the planet would've remained a literal hellscape for the next hundred million years or so. And this is not even according to secular sources but a creationist scientist. As little as one should be called a scientist when he suggests reality should in fact, be damned, and ill-fitting facts be explained away with actual magic.

The global flood is precluded by geology, genealogy, archeology, paleontology, anthropology even physics itself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise "To end this"

You are free to do so ... I don't intent to leave the points unanswered for our audience.

Gutsick on Radiometric and Heat - My Initial Comments with Answers
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/01/gutsick-on-radiometric-and-heat-my.html

"because I see there's no point in talking with a reality denier like you."

A more theologic and less psychiatric term is heretic, thanks, I feel the same about you.

Before getting to your last, I'll be adressing the previous ones.

"Rather it plagiarizes the Mesopotamian flood myth as much as the entire book does in its early books."

1) Funny that the plagiarism is better than the original on more than one issue:
a) an Ark that's viable for global Ocean conditions and which is adequate for all kinds of vertebrate non-aquatic kinds, if one presumes 17 species per kind or even somehwta less
b) an explanation for the variation of languages that's so radical so soon after the Flood with a common origin for all men, and therefore a common language for them
c) a two part genealogy that links ultimate beginnings together with what's at least taken as historical times
d) more sensible lifespans for those genealogies, including the Genesis 5 one, than for Sumerian pre-Flood kings, which seem to have multiplied the Genesis 5 life spans (excluding Adam and Noah) by 60.
Otherwise one would presume the original is better and plagiarism is likelier to get things wrong.
2) Where do you have a Mesopotamian Adam and Eve? Where do you have a Mesopotamian Joseph in Egypt (you have an Egyptian one, Imhotep)? Where do you have a Mesopotamian Wandering in the Desert? Where do you have a Mesopotamian saga of underdogs turn by turn getting beaten by and beating a more numerous population?

"The only "support" it finds from other cultures are stories of giant floods some said to be "global" too but vary greatly in everything else."

Why shouldn't they? We collect them thousands of years after the fact.

"In all cases the flood myths come from regions known for having regional floods and none of which are collaborated in nature."

What do you mean by "none of which are collaborated in nature"? The other part is false, regional floods in Peru seem rare and none of them covered the Andes. Regional floods in the Altai region, dito.

"There is not enough water on the planet to even warrant a global flood and all the made up attempts at explaining where that water came from are so ridiculous it only begs to be laughed at."

There definitely is, if we take deep sea basins and current ocean waters as coming from flood waters by a deepening of the sea.

"There is no geological evidence for a global flood, something that would be easily identifiable had it actually happened."

There is plenty, except for the articifial and erroneous assignment of the geological layers to different times millions of years apart.

"And in some cases, like YEC where the flood is said to have happenned some 4000 years ago"

2957 BC is my go-to, the Roman Martyrology. That's 5000 years ago.

"besides no geological evidence we know of multiple entire civilizations that have existed at that time, have continued on as if no flood had ever happened 4000 years ago. Curious."

Except you do not have historic evidence for even one of them being in place 5000 years ago. You have archaeological evidence with carbon dates that are overcharged, like there is a local flooding in parts of Mesopotamia carbon dated 2900 BC - that would be 1740's BC. The real 2957 BC is carbon dated 39 000 BC.

"As probably many of ancient people reading the Bible have too."

Your "probable" rests on no documentation. My "otherwise" does rest on documentation, for instance from NT times.

// „My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.“ — John Dominic Crossan - Biblical Scholar //

I looked up that apostate from priesthood, yes ... but before priesthood was unsustainable to him, that kind of ideology had made the faith so.

"Which would be identifiable as such but there's none."

On the contrary, Permian on Crimea has been looked at from that perspective by Aleksandr Lalomov, identifiable as compatible with the process shown by Guy Berthault.

"So now you're arguing that floods don't leave geological traces? What's the entire point of you arguing for that exact thing just a few sentences sooner?"

My point is rather, the geological traces can be very misdated for lack of historic record.

"It wouldn't as a flood would not have resulted in the fossilization we can observe."

You are forgetting about water moving at 20 m / s and being oversaturated with mud - that would definitely result in many rapid burials.

"For which there's no evidence and which contributes to the heat problem."

My evidence for some dinos in US being from post-Flood land slides is that Armitage carbon dated them to more recently than 39 000 BP.

Could also be a case of radioactive contamination, as Morrisson and Hell Creek formations are close to Uranium finds.

"Was it a global flood or was it a bog only flood? Use your head."

Even in a global flood, we find mud in localities that are small enough to be only a bog.

"Every square kilometer."

You put very big confidence in a thing that's only a reconstruction, and would be the wrong one, if Christianity were true - is that because you have a big confidence in Christianity being false?

"Apart from completely life deprived areas in which humans would not have lived in and where you won't find human remains either."

That's not what we find.

"Not a single human fossil anywhere near the age of the strata we find dinosaurs in."

The ages are anyway wrong. So, irrelevant. They are typically presented as "way beyond carbon dating" and that means the only carbon dates we get from them are when a Mark Armitage steps in.

"It's completely and utterly irrelevant where they were, they could've been at the opposite sides of the planet and not known about each other's existence, had they lived at the same time, you'd expect to find them in the same level of strata indicating they had lived at the same time."

You present "level of strata" as if it were an identifiable level of anything ....

"As I said, you will never find human remains there."

No, but sometimes a few km to the side. Aude included dino finds, and Tautavel is the find of a pre-Flood erectus raced man, buried under lava from the Flood. Aude to Tautavel:
1 h 47 min (78,5 km) via D39
1 h 54 min (80,1 km) via D212

"...yet there's 0 evidence for any human having lived at the same time as dinosaurs, ..."

The key fault in your argument is "time" ...

"There were hundreds, thousands of small dinosaurs species that would've been completely harmless to humans. Your point is absolutely stupid."

Even if they were completely harmless, they may have lived alongside bigger ones that weren't.

"next to any other mammal because tigers and hippos, and elephants are scary."

Rabbits and wood mice may not be scary, but you still won't find many men living that near bears, lynx and wolves.

"Define a kind except"

Well, "looks similar" is a good start. The palaeontologists have no genetic tests to show that T Rex and Allosaurus were unrelated, and they gain fame when they name a dino species after themselves or a friend.

@Edelwise // With Norfolk island it's a qustion of history. If it's a known historic fact, why isn't it on the wiki on Norfolk Island? //

"Don't know, don't care. "Legacy of mutiny on the Bounty" is the name of the paper where genealogists have worked on DNA of Norfolk island population."

Thanks for actually giving the paper ... looked it up. It was not by genealogists, but by geneticists.

"Actual physical evidence trumps historic anecdotes. Here as well as regarding your fictional flood."

We do not deal with historic "anecdotes" we deal with history well documented in the British administration.

And when looking at the "physical evidence" some people make errors of analysis.

"You can't make up someone's genes,"

Quoting from the paper:

"By examining a single large pedigree of 5742 individuals, spanning >200 years, we analyzed the influence of admixture and founder effect on various cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related traits."

Note first, Norfolk Island is presented as "a single large pedigree" ...

"On account of the relative isolation of the population, on average one-third of the genomes of present-day islanders (single large pedigree individuals) is derived from 17 initial founders."

Wonder if that is true ... or whether the genetic analysis of the 17 founders is incomplete and other parts of the genomes come from them too.

"Of the 5742 individuals, 337 had phenotype–genotype information available. Of the 337, 295 were non-founders in the pedigree, with the remainder being married-in individuals."

To me it is not very clear what this even means.

"you can lie in a history book. You've got it completely backwards, you believe human testimonies before you believe actual evidence which contradict that testimony."

We do not get the evidence other than by testimony, in this case from Stuart Macgregor, Claire Bellis, Rod A Lea, Hannah Cox, Tom Dyer, John Blangero, Peter M Visscher & Lyn R Griffiths.

I believe evidence by testimony that was closer to the facts, namely Church books.

"The most inbred person there has only 20% genes remaining from the founders."

According to how Stuart Macgregor et al. analysed the genes.

"Demonize? You wish, make fun of rather."

There is making fun that is funny, and there is "making fun" that's meanspirited.

"To a large degree, we can do it for any species and we can trace global catastrophies and mass extinction events. They all line up."

Except they are ghost projections of the facts you extrapolate from.

@Edelwise "You meant to say "it couldn't be true because earth is 6000 years old!""

No, because it is 7200 years old.

"Evidence spits in your face."

Again, this is pointless meanness and not fun.

"You misspelled "understand" there."

No, I spelled "pretend" correctly.

"You won't find Miocene mammals burried together with Permian fossils,"

Because the seal from the Miocene at Nussdorf was a different biotope from Moschops capensis in Karoo.

"forget about humans, it's any animals. You won't even find dinosaur fossils in Permian strata."

Because if you did, it would classify the stratum differently.

"Find a single example of either and you'll win Noble prize."

I'm a Swede, known how the Nobel committee feels, and they refusing a Nobel prize to Mark Armatage is no surprise to me.

"The very fact that you even uttered "carbon-dated things from Permian or Miocene" indicates you know close to nothing on the subject."

Nice example of conditioning ... Mark Armatage has carbon dated things from Jurassic or Cretaceous.

"1.The amount of water necessary for such an event is impossible to be located on the planet."

The amount of water is even localised very well - Deep Sea Basins.

"2. Such an event would not result in nearly sorted fossils of animals in geological strata which are not and could not have been the result of a flood."

You don't find a single spot on earth where you can dig down from a dino to a Permian critter. Or from a Miocene critter to a dino.

"3. There is no global geological traces of a flood, something we can easily detect when there actually was a flood. Floods distinct sediments."

You have missed the point of where the Flood sediments are.

"4. Multiple human civilizations would have lived through the flood and live on to never report it."

Except you get that from inflated carbon dates.

"5. Such an event would leave clear genetic traces, leading back to an extreme genetic bottleneck the scale of which cannot be found not only in humans but every other species currently living on the planet. The only bottlenecks being those that have happened long before the world even exists according to your fairy tale."

They are misdated.

"6. The genetic bottleneck necessitated by the flood myth would lead to total extinction and anihilation."

Pitcairn and Norfolk Island argue otherwise.

"7. The flood myth itself, together with its story about gathering a pair of every animal into a single ship and having it maintained by a family of 8 for a year with no food source is too ridiculous to even consider."

My calculation on the ark takes sheep as medium size of the critters on the ark, most were probably smaller, and therefore it includes 7 kg food per day for a year, which is probably more than needed, since most weren't ruminants.

"8. Geology and tectonic plates, something even most creationists can't deny ( which you have the courage to deny yourself)"

I have never denied tectonic plates exist. Only that their original configuration was ever like Pangaea.

"necessitate existence of the heat problem"

If you take it they moved from Pangaean to present configuration, which I don't.

"wherein during the mythical flood so much energy would've been exerted by the tectonic plates that the entire Earth's crust would've turned into molten lava,"

And having the original plates far closer to present positions does away with that problem.

"all that magically conjured water would've boiled away and the planet would've remained a literal hellscape for the next hundred million years or so. And this is not even according to secular sources but a creationist scientist. As little as one should be called a scientist when he suggests reality should in fact, be damned, and ill-fitting facts be explained away with actual magic."

That creation scientist was too eager to not contradict secular opinions on Pangaea's configuration.

"The global flood is precluded by geology, genealogy, archeology, paleontology, anthropology even physics itself."

Apart from the points raised, would you be more precise?

Edelwise

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Wonder if that is true ... or whether the genetic analysis of the 17 founders is incomplete and other parts of the genomes come from them too."

Actual cold-hard facts don't fit my narrative, waaaaaaahhhh.

"To me it is not very clear what this even means."

The only honest thing you can say.

"We do not get the evidence other than by testimony, in this case from Stuart Macgregor, Claire Bellis, Rod A Lea, Hannah Cox, Tom Dyer, John Blangero, Peter M Visscher & Lyn R Griffiths"

Their work can be collaborated or disproved by other peers. But people like you will go as far as claim global conspiracy cabal when science proves you wrong.

"Except they are ghost projections of the facts you extrapolate from."

You know better than genealogists? Go tell them. You must know something they don't.
Hurr-durr conspiracy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise "Actual cold-hard facts don't fit my narrative, waaaaaaahhhh."

An analysis is not a cold hard fact, it's disputable. Only what it's built on is cold hard fact - when it isn't or isn't involving cold hard lies. Here I am suspecting only the method of analysis.

"Their work can be collaborated or disproved by other peers."

By the same methods ... and the corroboration or disproving would also only be available through testimony.

"But people like you will go as far as claim global conspiracy cabal when science proves you wrong."

Never mentioned a cabal - though for latest decades there is one of equating YEC to conspiracy theorists.

"You know better than genealogists? Go tell them. You must know something they don't."

They weren't doing genealogy. They were doing genetics.

They didn't dig up the 17 or 19 or 21 founders from their graves, to verify their genomes. They only reconstructed them. Then verified what didn't look like it came from that reconstruction.

"Hurr-durr conspiracy."

Well, you are into one of claiming "we are paranoid about a conspiracy" each time we mention a fault in methodology.

Edelwise

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "An analysis is not a cold hard fact, it's disputable. Only what it's built on is cold hard fact - when it isn't or isn't involving cold hard lies. Here I am suspecting only the method of analysis."

You're suspecting a global conspiracy where the entire fields of science involving genealogy, geology, paleontology all are conspiring to lie about their findings.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "By the same methods ... and the corroboration or disproving would also only be available through testimony."

That's not how science works. That's not how any of it works.

"Never mentioned a cabal - though for latest decades there is one of equating YEC to conspiracy theorists."

You're quite literally claiming that some tens of thousands of PhDs from all over the scientific fields of biology and geology, all are somehow oblivious that they're completely and utterly wrong. Yeah, sure, you're a conspiracy theorist, and your conspiracy is that they're knowingly lying.

"They didn't dig up the 17 or 19 or 21 founders from their graves, to verify their genomes. They only reconstructed them. Then verified what didn't look like it came from that reconstruction."

They didn't have to nor could they. Just like everything else you understand fuckall about genetics. You're a total ignorant fool and all you've got is arguments from incredulity.

"Well, you are into one of claiming "we are paranoid about a conspiracy" each time we mention a fault in methodology."

You wouldn't know how to tie a shoelace, but the entire scientific community is somehow too stupid to realize all their life's work is wrong because you said so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise "You're suspecting a global conspiracy where the entire fields of science involving genealogy, geology, paleontology all are conspiring to lie about their findings."

No, just global incompetence on certain questions. Bad methodology.

"That's not how science works. That's not how any of it works."

Even science cannot get around the need for testimony and that's how history works.

"You're quite literally claiming that some tens of thousands of PhDs from all over the scientific fields of biology and geology, all are somehow oblivious that they're completely and utterly wrong."

People who are utterly wrong are usually oblivious to it. PhD's don't vaccinate against being wrong - and in some cases involve catching an infection.

"Yeah, sure, you're a conspiracy theorist, and your conspiracy is that they're knowingly lying."

Nope. That's a flat lie on your part.

"They didn't have to nor could they. Just like everything else you understand fuckall about genetics."

They may in this case certainly have missed parts originally there in the genome and also have missed mutations that came along afterwards.

"You're a total ignorant fool and all you've got is arguments from incredulity."

Or in other words "prove it" or "if you claim sth, you prove it" ...

"You wouldn't know how to tie a shoelace, but the entire scientific community is somehow too stupid to realize all their life's work is wrong because you said so."

Evolutionists are not the entire scientific community. They only appear so to people who have science as their religion.

Edelwise

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "No, just global incompetence on certain questions. Bad methodology."

A but Hans-Georg knows it all and knows it better than the entire peer reviewed hundreds of thousands of combined expertise of all of those scientists.

Being a conspiracy theorist would've been better for you since you wouldn't openly claim actual experts to be idiots. Conspiritards would claim they're smart but evil. Meanwhile Hans-Georg the nordic diety of Mt.Stupid thinks he knows it better than everyone else.

"Even science cannot get around the need for testimony and that's how history works."

This is literally the entire reason for the creation of the scientific method and peer review, you dunce.

"Or in other words "prove it" or "if you claim sth, you prove it" ..."

So far all you've got is verified falsehood and liar sources. Like that guy who "carbon dated a dinosaur" and when the scientific community wanted to know his method and get a chance to verify it he refused anyone have access to his resources. Almost as if he knows he's a lying sack of shit.
Oh but "they would say he's wrong anyways so why even bother" I suspect you'll respond. Conspiracy theorist.

"Evolutionists are not the entire scientifc community. They only appear so to people who have science as their religion."

Another blatant falsehood as proven by polls among scientists themselves.
What're you gonna say? That there is actually a lot of creationist scientists but they're hiding in fear of prosecution and ridicule?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise "A but Hans-Georg knows it all"

Not the least.

"and knows it better than the entire peer reviewed hundreds of thousands of combined expertise of all of those scientists."

Whatever world we actually live in, we live in one where 100 000 scientists or plenty more have been wrong about it.

"Being a conspiracy theorist would've been better for you since you wouldn't openly claim actual experts to be idiots."

One need not the least claim someone is an idiot to claim he's wrong due to false paradigms.

"Conspiritards would claim they're smart but evil."

Them making one set of stupid moves neutralising their smartness is obviously intolerable to you.

"Meanwhile Hans-Georg the nordic diety of Mt.Stupid thinks he knows it better than everyone else."

• Deity
• Nordic deities don't have a mount
• I never claimed to be a Nordic deity
• I never claimed to know "it" better than everyone else, I claimed and do claim to know some things better than a lot of guys, who happen to subscribe to a false paradigm.

"This is literally the entire reason for the creation of the scientific method and peer review, you dunce."

You are comparing me to Scotus? Much obliged!

"So far all you've got is verified falsehood and liar sources."

Who happen to have scientific training. In other words, the guys whom you call "all scientists" are no such thing.

"Like that guy who "carbon dated a dinosaur" and when the scientific community wanted to know his method and get a chance to verify it he refused anyone have access to his resources. Almost as if he knows he's a lying sack of shit."

I am not sure Mark Armitage refused physical access, but he certainly did not refuse access to his methodology, he has shown it on videos.

"Oh but "they would say he's wrong anyways so why even bother" I suspect you'll respond. Conspiracy theorist."

Those guys were conspiracy theorists about him ...

"Another blatant falsehood as proven by polls among scientists themselves."

A scientist who pretends he and evolutionists around him are all the scientists there are is giving a worthless opinion. He's ignoring the creation scientists.

"What're you gonna say? That there is actually a lot of creationist scientists but they're hiding in fear of prosecution and ridicule?"

Take a look at the staff of CMI (Creation Ministries International) or AiG (Answers in Genesis). Some are exegetes. Some are communicators. Some are actual PhD scientists.

Are you going to say they don't exist, because they aren't "a lot"?

Edelwise

@Hans-Georg Lundahl AiG and CMI both understand tectonic plates. And both have only a handful of defrauded "experts" in their fields while the rest are no experts at all, just a bunch of Hanses having a circlejerk.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Edelwise "understand tectonic plates."

No doubt you mean they believe in Pangaea.

"only a handful of defrauded "experts" in their fields"

First, even if that were true, "only a handful" I mean, that is still an exception to your claim of the scientific community.

Second, I was going to check, but you know what? You can go through the list here:

https://creation.com/who-we-are

How many are just communicators? Not that many.

Sumo

There’s a wealth of evidence for Pangea. It’s the current scientific consensus. And it wasn’t the only super continent, just the latest.

If you have an alternative hypothesis, simply present it and it’s supporting evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sumo "There’s a wealth of evidence for Pangea."

Which is why you refuse to show even a twig of a supposed forest ...?

"It’s the current scientific consensus."

Which scientific consensuses have never ever been wrong?

"And it wasn’t the only super continent, just the latest."

Which you probably also have a wealth of evidence for that you prefer to keep to yourself?

"If you have an alternative hypothesis, simply present it and it’s supporting evidence."

Presentation:
Configuration
Before the Flood, the Earth was a supercontinent with most plates roughly in their present position, and with the Atlantic filled with above water plates that after the Flood first became the island of Atlantis which was then flooded in the younger Dryas.
Rivers were running outwards from the now Near East,
with Frat running reverse to Euphrates, above present Zagros and Black Sea, reverse to Danube, above present Alps, along Rhine, above present North Sea, reverse to Thames, above present Atlantic, reverse to present St. Lawrence river and out into the Pacific somewhere near Alaska on the NW corner of the world.
with Hiddekel running reverse to Tigris, above present Zagros and Black Sea, reverse to DON, above present Ural, along present YangTseKiang to name a few places in a geography I know less well and out into the Pacific somewhere near the Kamtchatka on the NE corner of the world.
with two remaining rivers as two Niles - Blue and White, and also reverse to, then on the one side along Congo River, over present Atlantic and reverse to Amazonas river and running out into the Pacific near the SW corner of the world at Cape Horn, the other one getting along the Ganghes and getting out near Tasmania, the SE corner of the world, also into the Pacific.
Plates were moving
mainly up and down during and just after the Flood, not so much sideways
exceptions being the sideways movements that gave high and folded mountains from Flood sediment (Himalaya, Andes, Alps, very obviously)
Evidence Fits Flood geology better than Pangaea, for the sake of the Heat problem
Makes sense of Moses giving identifiable places for the four rivers
Arguably so large rivers and so much more flatness would have made the pre-Flood climate very different, which on other evidence it should be too.

Sumo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl nothing fits flood geology.

Look how bad the RATE project had to fudge numbers and cherry pick data, all to ultimately come to the conclusion a miracle was required to solve the heat and radiation problem.

Sure scientific consensus has been wrong before. And if we know anything about the history of science, we know radical ideas are eventually accepted, as long as they have evidence.

- the photo electric effect of quantum mechanics
- ohms law
- plate tectonics

And countless others.

If flood geology had even a shred of evidence, it would be published in legitimate journals.

I don’t care at all what you believe, none of what you presented what stand up under scrutiny, and none of would make it past peer review.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sumo "nothing fits flood geology."

Blanket statement negative ... all contradictions just summarised, none mentioned by you. The one mentioned here in the video is the one my model takes care of.

"Look how bad the RATE project had to fudge numbers and cherry pick data,"

I haven't read it. I have heard of parts of what it said on C14 and think I have done better, even as amateur.

"all to ultimately come to the conclusion a miracle was required to solve the heat and radiation problem."

Perhaps because they did the bad move to believe Pangaea?

"Sure scientific consensus has been wrong before."

Thank you.

"And if we know anything about the history of science, we know radical ideas are eventually accepted, as long as they have evidence."

Does a true idea need to be radical?
Does having (some degree of) evidence mean it is true?
Does having evidence mean it always gets eventually accepted?
Even if, why conclude our own time is one where one particular field has reached an equilibrium with the right idea?

"the photo electric effect of quantum mechanics"

I don't know what that means.
The only photo electric effects I know of were discovered before QM.

"ohms law"

Was it radical?

"plate tectonics"

I think one major cause of dispute was it had been suggested by a non-specialist - do you recall any radicality in the idea as such?

"If flood geology had even a shred of evidence, it would be published in legitimate journals."

Your view on what journals are legitimate depending of course on your Evolutionist and Deep Time assumptions about reality.

"none of what you presented what stand up under scrutiny,"

Which is why you didn't try a scrutiny?

"I don’t care at all what you believe,"

Like you want others reading this to believe I don't care about evidence or scrutiny, just about naked and unmotivated belief?
Stop. That's a parody, a caricature drawn by extreme enmity.

"and none of would make it past peer review."

That of a journal leaning the Evolutionist way, you are no doubt right.
I have seen enough of Academia to know there is herd mentality and ostracism of outsiders.

Sumo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl yeah see, this whole “conspiracy, journal leading evolutionist way” - that’s not a thing.

No one out side of fundamental religious/evangelical groups uses that language. Science encompasses people from all backgrounds and religions.

We just have to take a cursory look through the history of science to see how very untrue that is.

General relative, photo electric effect, plate tectonic, ohms law - that’s just off the top of my head. But these were all ideas that were first ridiculed. But the data and evidence bore out.

Scientist do not care if the earth is old or young, no one cares if organism evolved or were created. Who cares? What’s interesting is the DATA. The evidence. The drive for knowledge. - which is very unlike flood google, which is very obviously driven by religious ideals.

If flood geology was true, it would be equally amazing and interesting as traditional geology. But there is simply no data to support. And there’s no secret cabal repressing it. Evidence will bare out. It always does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

First:
when are you going to quite the pep-talk mode and look at my arguments on the issue?
Then, to illustrate that you were purely in a pep talk mode, but not to encourage answers on those lines, except where at the end I argue, you go to my model instead, here is a detailed answer:

"yeah see, this whole “conspiracy, journal leading evolutionist way” - that’s not a thing."

I had mentioned no conspiracy. There very obviously is one about creationists and about our way of characterising bias, namely to parody it as crying out about a conspiracy.

"No one out side of fundamental religious/evangelical groups uses that language. Science encompasses people from all backgrounds and religions."

What language?
Conspiracy? Not my thing in general when it comes to Evolutionists.
Evolutionist? I am sorry, but in any controversy it is usual to label the two sides after what they hold to. If you have "Creationists" you by that very fact have as their opponents "Evolutionists"

"We just have to take a cursory look through the history of science to see how very untrue that is."

How very untrue what is?
There is a reason why I bore some people to death by quoting line after line of what I answer : it means you don't have to ask that kind of question.

"General relative, photo electric effect, plate tectonic, ohms law - that’s just off the top of my head. But these were all ideas that were first ridiculed. But the data and evidence bore out."

Photo electric effects in general can pretty well survive ridicule because they can be observed hic et nunc. Questions about the past are not in the same category.

"Scientist do not care if the earth is old or young, no one cares if organism evolved or were created. Who cares? What’s interesting is the DATA. The evidence. The drive for knowledge. - which is very unlike flood google, which is very obviously driven by religious ideals."

Flood geologists very certainly care about data.
Your pretending you don't care whether organisms evolved or were created or how old the earth is, is bogus. If it were true, you would be be looking at creationists' data.

"If flood geology was true, it would be equally amazing and interesting as traditional geology. But there is simply no data to support. And there’s no secret cabal repressing it. Evidence will bare out. It always does."

With me you are not in a position to pull that bluff (or you are in a position to get undeceived, if you really believed it).

Guy Berthault's experiments for lithology are a very interesting view on wharves.
My own look at land vertebrates in palaeontology is a fairly interesting refutation of layers.
I also modelized the rise of Himalayas, and found human habitations lacking even in the lower hills for the post-Flood era prior to when the rise had calmed down.

There is a very upfront cabal very openly ostracizing Guy Berthault (who had to turn to Russian scientists to get some research done on his lines), very openly ostracizing me (and using all and any allegations Muslims can make about a homeless man consuming some alcohol and not always washing each day to discredit me).

Sumo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl not to be rude, you’ve be polite and cordial and appreciate you’re arguing in good faith, but I just can’t be bothered. These same old arguments have been trudged out so many times. If you want to put them to the test, submit them for peer review.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sumo If that were actually your position, why the heck did you filibuster instead of peer review? Because you are as unlikely to peer review creationism as the guys at Nature?

"These same old arguments have been trudged out so many times."

I think I named at least four models that haven't.

@Sumo Honest answer, if you like.

When you say "these same old arguments" etc - have you trudged them, or are you vicariously tired on behalf of some gatekeepers you are trusting? Or are you a gatekeeper who's willing to say whatever it takes to gatekeep?

If you had trudged them, you would perhaps have noticed four of them were new and not the same ...

Sumo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl it’s not just scientific journals though is it?

The same geologic science critical to dating the earth, is also used in industry. Basin modeling relies heavily on radiometric dating. The fossil fuel industry doesn’t care how old the earth it, no one does really, but fossil fuel industry could not matter less. They’re just interested in making a project, and basin modeling interval to that goal.

The one company that did rely on flood geology, “Zion oil and gas” - went bankrupt. Because the model simply does not work.

I don’t see why flood geology should be any different than past scientific concepts that were challenged at first.

Before the photo electric effect, there wasn’t some anti quantum mechanics bias in scientific literature. It’s challenged at first, right fully so, but the evidence bore out. As it always does.

Why would the be a bias one way or the other. Who care how old the earth is or of evolution is true. They only group that seems to have a vested interest on the outcome is religious fundamentalist.

If there was sufficient evidence, it would win out, just like every other concept that was initially challenged, but had the evidence to stand upon.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sumo "The same geologic science critical to dating the earth, is also used in industry. Basin modeling relies heavily on radiometric dating."

I think it relies even more heavily on identifying types of stone layers, like shale, that typically go with petrol beneath.

"The one company that did rely on flood geology, “Zion oil and gas” - went bankrupt. Because the model simply does not work."

Or because they tried oil first and that's too few in Holy Land.

I have no evidence that the gas companies that work in the area used no Flood geology, and the gas companies work pretty well - because there is gas there.

"I don’t see why flood geology should be any different than past scientific concepts that were challenged at first."

How many were up against Nature?

Being up against a single scientist is one thing, being up against a medium is another thing. That's why Journal of Creation exists.

"Before the photo electric effect, there wasn’t some anti quantum mechanics bias in scientific literature."

You have still not explained what photo electric effects have to do with quantum mechanics, or what the prejudice against photo-electric effects was about.

You have also still not shown the equivalence between observing sth here and now and trying to prove things about the past.

"They only group that seems to have a vested interest on the outcome is religious fundamentalist."

Plus another type of fundamentalists, namely science believers.

"If there was sufficient evidence, it would win out,"

By when? By today, by yesterday or by tomorrow?
In what culture? Mine or yours?

You have given a counterexample from oil industry, fine. But you have not given a single answer on one single item from the four scenarios I gave (one from Berthault, three from me, on different subjects, so they don't contradict).

If you trust the peer review process so much, you actually let it decide for you whether an argument should be taken as an argument or not, that opens for abuse.

Sumo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl is just science mate. Flood geology isn’t special. It’s just like every other fringe science idea. The electric sun people say the same thing.

Science has a history of challenging new ideas that break the paradigm. That’s what science should do. But any idea that had evidence to back it up, was eventually accepted. There’s no conspiracy or bias against new ideas.

Whether I’ve examined every flood claim is irrelevant. I’m not a geologist. This is a YouTube comment thread. Go submit to peer review

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sumo "is just science mate. Flood geology isn’t special."

Yes, because it involves a very powerful argument for Fundamentalism of some religion (Christianity, Judaism or Islam).

The scientific community doesn't live in a vacuum. The powers in place in countries and regions where Deep Time and Evolution were soonest accepted were clearly against Fundamentalist Christianity (and alien to Jewish and Muslim Fundamentalism).

"It’s just like every other fringe science idea. The electric sun people say the same thing."

I cannot comment as long as I have no idea what that argument is about.

Except on one item. The usual view on the sun (whatever that is in relation to electric sun) vs electric sun is not a tangent of a cultural or religious debate.

"Science has a history of challenging new ideas that break the paradigm. That’s what science should do."

Flood geology was the old pardigm. New ideas from Lyell and Darwin weren't challenged enough.

Once they had taken over, challenges from newer Flood Geologists and Creationists were systematically marginalised in much the same way as Monarchists were marginalised in the Third Republic of France.

Or Jacobites in English and Scottish politics. Or Carlistas in Spanish politics.

"But any idea that had evidence to back it up, was eventually accepted."

Ah, no.

"There’s no conspiracy or bias against new ideas."

There is in wider society a bias and many conspiracies against returning to old ideas.

"Whether I’ve examined every flood claim is irrelevant."

I didn't primarily ask about "every" but about the four I gave (on different areas of the problem).

It's also absolutely not irrelevant to what it means when you speak of "same old arguments" ...

"I’m not a geologist. This is a YouTube comment thread. Go submit to peer review"

As I'm no geologists either, you are basically my peer review.

Sumo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl are you seriously comparing the Jacobite revolution and post revolutionary France to the contemplate scientific community?

Scottish Jacobites we’re marginalized after a number of revolutions and wars against England lol.

We just have to take a cursory look at the history of science to know this isn’t an apt comparison.

New ideas are championed in science. We give out Nobel prizes for it. There have been many ground breaking, paradigm shifting new ideas that were challenged at first, rightfully so, and then accepted when the evidence was too strong to deny. Flood geology isn’t special. It’s just like every other fringe hypothesis.

And what powers that be? Why would the government, or industry, or some nebulas “powers that be” care how old the earth is, or how the diversity of life came about? Plenty of prestigious scientists are religious, they don’t have any problem accept evolution.

Capitalist industry is concerned with profit, not ideology. Basin modeling works. And radiometric dating is integral to that process. Evolution is the corner stone for modern biology and medicine.

What difference would it make if the earth was young or old. What difference would it make if evolution was true or not. It’s just data. Either or would be interesting. Both would be fascinating in their own right.

The point about electric sun, is that there similar fringe hypothesis that just do not have the evidence to support them. Proponents of the electric sun claim the same thing, there’s some mass bias or conspiracy seeking to repress the truth.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl these comments are getting too long to keep track of.

Maybe we should narrow it down to one point at a time. I only have two questions really.

What documented instances has a flood geology or creationist paper failed peer review or turned down, simply because it was promoting flood geology or creationism? And turning down a paper because it invokes the supernatural is a legitimate reason - science cannot investigate the supernatural.

And second question, how does flood geology solve the heat and radiation problem incurred by accelerated radioactive decay? We can demonstrate billions of years worth of decay, so flood geology must account for all of those decay products in just 6-10k years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sumo "We just have to take a cursory look at the history of science to know this isn’t an apt comparison."

I didn't make a comparison but a connexion

Powers that be = people who fund universities, both state powers and investors.

The latter just want to make a profit - yes and reactionary and religious conservative powers in society had for centuries been against certain of their ways of making profits and have continued to get into their ways. For instance, doctors have made profits over eugenics (often on tax payers' expenses) and the Catholic Church has opposed eugenics.

So, no, nothing nebulous about "the powers" - I mean very concrete investors and philanthropists like Carnegie, who came out as a believer in Evolution and disbeliever in Christianity, and his colleague Bill Gates is no more well known for Fundie Catholic points of view, very identifiable régimes like clearly non-Jacobite and moderately anti-Catholic ones in the British Isles (except Irish Free State which is exceptional in the English speaking world), I mean well known Church politics, like the Church of England was already in Lyell's time divided into High Church, Low Church, Broad Church, with the Broad Church dominant and antiblical.

@Sumo "And turning down a paper because it invokes the supernatural is a legitimate reason - science cannot investigate the supernatural."

Science can and does (at Lourdes) investigate the consequences in nature of events that are caused from outside nature

"And second question, how does flood geology solve the heat and radiation problem incurred by accelerated radioactive decay?"

First, heat problem from plate tectonics is what I solved with rejecting Pangaea. Second, I did not subscribe to accelerated decay, except locally in the type known as hardmelts. Third, while it fits the overall topic of the video, it changes the subject from this discussion. I have nothing against a parallel discussion on this issue, but take it on a comment concerned with it. Fourth, a comment with doubts on the knowledge of the halflife already exists, and comments with doubts on the original amount of the parent isotope may well be upcoming. BUT I have been a bit delayed in watching the video and making more comments, inter alia by your making comments that are perfectly inane, since they totally deflect from my observation. And basically try to gaslight me over being a "conspiracy theorist" ...

@Sumo "Proponents of the electric sun claim the same thing, there’s some mass bias or conspiracy seeking to repress the truth."

Would electric sun prove God or the papacy?

If it would, yes, there is.

If it wouldn't, no there isn't.

Unless there is some similarily marginalised politics involved.

Sumo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl do you have an evidence of papers or research being rejected by secular scientific journals on the basis of creationism or flood geology alone?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl no, there is no weird cabal repressing fringe science. Science doesn’t care about the papacy or god.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the heat problem isn’t from plate tectonics.

The heat and radiation problem is from the accelerated nuclear decay required to account for the billions of years worth of decay product found on the earth today.

This amount of energy expended would literally melt the earth and radiation would sterilize everything on the earth - I’d they could somehow live on a melted earth.

The RATE project’s answer was a miracle was required to mitigate the heat - which kind of stops being science

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sumo To each point:
1) I had made a link list in a post and submitted it as a letter to Nature Genetics. I never got an answer. It was about the impossibility of mammals (at least placental ones) gaining more chromosomes, that however being a necessary corrolary of the evolutionist scenario.
2) Science may not care about papacy, Gospels, God, Creation, Flood. Its sponsors certainly do. My position is that in the West this has the last 100 to 150 years or longer been enemies of the Church, both in the private millionaire sector and in the state power and tax money funding. Plus quite a lot of scientists actually are freemasons, and the lodges also care, in an adverse way.
3a) The video we are commenting under is about the heat problem you mention. The comments by Gitsick Gibbon just before 7:23 are about the other heat problem of tectonic plates movement from Pangaea position. My comment on the timestamp is about that problem, I have made and will make, the latter unless robbed of occasion, further comments giving the parts of the solution to the problem you mention. You proposed yourself to take one topic at a time, and for me this means, this comment line is for the heat problem about Pangaea to modern plate configuration. I do not think RATE is the only actor in the field, and have no reason to bow down to their view, when I think they grant your side too much credence on details.
3b) Also, stating a miracle is needed is very far from disqualifying a statement from being scientific. You try to reinterpret my statements into my supposedly ultravague suspicions against very cloudy and intangible conspirators, you even do so at every turn. I insist my main issue with scientists is their bias, namely exactly the one you just stated here.

@Sumo To underline my last point : if you say "science doesn't care about God" you blatantly contradict yourself when you turn around and state "science cares very much about not using God as an explanation for anything" ...

Sumo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl science does not care about not using god as an explanation.

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

It doesn’t have a view one way or the other, it just simply lacks the capacity to empirically investigate the supernatural.

It could potentially test if god or the supernatural somehow manifested in reality. It could test that aspect. But it would have no way of investigating the source.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sumo "Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."

If the methodology excludes using God or miracle as explanation, it cares. If it is based on evidence, it has no reason to make such an exclusion.

"It could potentially test if god or the supernatural somehow manifested in reality."

Apparently not (in your version) by drawing implications from the Flood.

Sumo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl science does not “exclude” god anymore than a hammer excluded screws, or the number 3 excludes the color red. It’s a tool. A methodology. And it lacks the capacity to test the supernatural. It does not have the means to do so.

“If it is based on evidence, it has no reason make such an exclusion”

Again, it doesn’t make an exclusion. And yes, it is based on evidence, that’s exactly why I acknowledge that science could test the supernatural if it manifests in reality, but it would still be unable to test the source or directly test the supernatural.

As in, if a god or supernatural entity performed a miracle, say the resurrected a person from the dead. We could scientist investigate and document the event. We could record the person being alive, take their vitals, run tests, keep them under observation, etc. However, as it currently stands, we would be unable to investigate the SOURCE of the miracle. How could one demonstrably link the resurrection to its source? Was it invoked by a god or some other entity? How could one show any causal relationship or mechanistic process? You have it exactly backwards, the supernatural, by its very nature, excludes science.

Same with the flood. If god caused the flood, there’s no scientific means of demonstrating that causality. You can test the manifestation of the flood it self and the impact it had on the earth, but there’s no way to demonstrate the source (with science).

I mean, if you have a methodology - for empirically investigating the supernatural, by all means, explain it.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl if a miracle is needed to satisfy a scientific hypothesis, it is very much disqualified from being scientific.

A sounds scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. How is a miracle testable and falsifiable?

the whole point of science is to remove as much bias as possible.

“Main issue with scientists is their bias”

What bias? In general? Sure.

Science is the best tool we have for m mitigating bias. It’s not always perfect. But it’s self correcting over time. Results speak for them selves.

But like I said, sure, biases can be introduced across different fields for various reasons. For example, a few years ago, there was a noticeable shit to some very leftist ideals among humanities studies. But it was demonstrable and called out by other scientists, as it should be.

But there’s not some overarching bias to science in general. It’s such a diverse community, from all backgrounds, cultures, and religions - there’s not one singularly ideology. To say science is some how against god or the papacy (or any singular ideology really) is not only a ridiculous notion but it’s demonstrable false. Many scientists are theists or papists and promote god and religion in their spare time. Some of the worlds best scientists have been devoutly religious. But a good scientist checks their bias, or any personal agenda, at the lab door.

Scientists are simply interested in the data. The end result doesn’t matter. If the earth is young or old, who cares? It’s like having a strong opinion on how strong gravity should be. The “answer”, in it self, doesn’t matter, it’s all about the journey of discovery.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sumo Your answers break down into three areas, one more or less correct, one contradicting it and incorrect, and one that's hogwash missing the point (with obtusity I suspect intentional). I'll give each in turn with a comment:

A) This is the more or less correct side of your propositions:

"science does not “exclude” god anymore than a hammer excluded screws, or the number 3 excludes the color red. It’s a tool. A methodology. And it lacks the capacity to test the supernatural. It does not have the means to do so."
"Again, it doesn’t make an exclusion. And yes, it is based on evidence, that’s exactly why I acknowledge that science could test the supernatural if it manifests in reality, but it would still be unable to test the source or directly test the supernatural."
"As in, if a god or supernatural entity performed a miracle, say the resurrected a person from the dead. We could scientist investigate and document the event. We could record the person being alive, take their vitals, run tests, keep them under observation, etc. However, as it currently stands, we would be unable to investigate the SOURCE of the miracle. How could one demonstrably link the resurrection to its source? Was it invoked by a god or some other entity? How could one show any causal relationship or mechanistic process? You have it exactly backwards, the supernatural, by its very nature, excludes science."
"Same with the flood. If god caused the flood, there’s no scientific means of demonstrating that causality. You can test the manifestation of the flood it self and the impact it had on the earth, but there’s no way to demonstrate the source (with science)."

So, the traces of the Flood can be investigated, and Flood geology verified as compatible with the traces, and the heat problem, if any, put down to what science cannot test. Directly. In itself.

Causality is not limited to mechanistic, if it were, you couldn't meaningfully write, and I couldn't read.

B) This is the incorrect one, which manifests your antisupranaturalistic bias:

"if a miracle is needed to satisfy a scientific hypothesis, it is very much disqualified from being scientific."
"A sounds scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. How is a miracle testable and falsifiable?"

Like any other unique historic event.

C) This is the hogwash:

"the whole point of science is to remove as much bias as possible."
“Main issue with scientists is their bias”
"To say science is some how against god or the papacy (or any singular ideology really) is not only a ridiculous notion but it’s demonstrable false."
"Many scientists are theists or papists and promote god and religion in their spare time. Some of the worlds best scientists have been devoutly religious. But a good scientist checks their bias, or any personal agenda, at the lab door."

Again, I did not say that all Scientists are conspiring against the Bible or the Papacy, I agree that would be ridiculous.
However, when Biblical faith and specifically theses upheld by the papacy (like Geocentrism 1633) are considered "biasses" and to be laid down at the lab door, that is a bias. And it is kept up by conspiracies in the society in general.