Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: First Half of a Pretended Flood Debunk, Debunked

Saturday, January 4, 2025

First Half of a Pretended Flood Debunk, Debunked

Noah's Flood Has Some PROBLEMS
Faith In Question | 31 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2GfrNczmOw

1:39 I'd like your source for the anteaters.

Anteaters feed almost exclusively on ants and termites, whose nests they rip open with their powerful forelimbs and claws, and then ingest with their sticky tongue. They only consume about 140 insects from each mound during a single feeding. They rarely drink, but instead receive their water from the foods they eat or possibly moisture left on plants after rain.

My source is Smithsonian Zoo.

The Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute: Giant anteater
Myrmecophaga tridactyla
https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/giant-anteater

2:06 1) We don't know where these animals lived before the Flood
2) Getting across landmasses after the Flood, especially if an Antlantis still bridged the Atlantic at first, as some Spanish theologians thought, is not a matter of hundreds of generations, it can be done in one or two generations, depending on speed.
3) How much fossil records are left is overrated.

Here is one where you might want to invoke point 3.

If the fossils are mainly from the Flood, some times also post-Flood landslides, and if the fossils that were dragged a long way were disshevelled into small pieces, so that fossils that are sth like whole skeleta or recognisable skeleton parts were buried in or near situ, we would expect for each place - term used in the normal sense - to leave one level of land biota. One level in the normal, and not the geological sense. A geologist may say a Dinosaur in one end of North Dakota is "above" a Pelycosaur in the other end of the state, non-specialists wouldn't use the word "above" or "below" in such a loose sense.

If on the other hand any given spot on earth had gone through millions and perhaps billions of years under land and water and land again and water again, we would expect sooner or later, somewhere on earth, a Dinosaur to be found, they dig ten metres deeper same hole, and they find a Pelycosaur, or just any two levels. The reason given me is "you misunderstand how much is fossilised and how much of fossils are preserved" ... I think we can play that game too.

2:44 You do see world wide layers of sediment laid in the same one year period, up to six different ones, according to Flood geologists.

You are only dividing them between different times and most especially doing so according to an ideology of faunal succession.

If there was no faunal succession, if the Dinosaur and Pelykosaur in two ends of North Dakota were buried the same year, then the layers in different ends of North Dakota were also laid down within a year, and the problem is answered.

3:02 Flood geologists have debunked this over and over.

The limits between layers are too flat for the earlier one to have been exposed to slow erosion after solidification, as opposed to rapid planing by abrasion, before solidification.

3:14 Why would the Flood event have been "chaotic" in the sense you think of?

Strong currents of oversaturated water doing abrasion and setting down sediment by precipitation from the oversaturation would certainly have directions.

3:19 That argument only works if you think it's proven that Permian layers of fossils are older than Triassic ones.

I've specifically asked Karoo if they had ever found a Triassic one, dug deeper, and then found a Permian one below it. No, they haven't.

And drill holes usually reflect mainly water biota.

3:35 "those layers would be absolutely mixed up and all over the place"

By what exact process? Can there be Flood Geologists who imagine the processes of the Flood a bit different from you?

4:19 There is a bottleneck, which culled out perhaps all of Homo erectus, and most genes of the Neanderthal and Denisovan populations. Of the Neanderthal genome 30 % are left, usually c. 3 % (2 to 4, 2 to 5) are found in non-African (and North African) people, but mitochondriae, Y chromosomes and 70 % of the genes are missing. Even more is missing of the Denisovan genome.

I'd call that a bottleneck. Specifically, if one daughter in law to Noah was the daughter of a "sapiens sapiens" or "Cro Magnon" mother, her mitochondriae would not reflect Neanderthal ancestry. If her father was a Neanderthal, she still wouldn't have a Neanderthal Y chromosome, being a woman. She would preserve 50 % autosomal Neanderthal DNA, and by 5000 years later, there might be two fifths of that gone.

4:50 Mutations aren't a sign of inbreeding. Mutations surfacing despite being recessive can be due to inbreeding.

And the bottle-neck happened 5000 years ago, but you think of 5000 years in carbon dates, which is later, the actual date for carbon date 3000 BC being close to 1769 BC:

1779 BC: 85.963 pmC, dated as 3029 BC
1759 BC: 86.359 pmC, dated as 2971 BC

5:13 2500 BC, Neolithic, dated as 7500 BC.

2511 BC: 54.143 pmC, dated as 7583 BC
2488 BC: 55.327 pmC, dated as 7381 BC

Or 7450.

5:22 Oh, you meant carbon dated 2500 BC!

Thank you for clarifying. That carbon date would have been 1667 or sth in real dates:

1678 BC: 89.449 pmC, dated as 2600 BC
1656 BC: 91.353 pmC, dated as 2404 BC

5:26 "written records and architecture, as well as continuous cultural development"

Which is hard to date, for Ancient Egypt, especially before the New Kingdom. You see, prior to that, we don't have too many records actually preserved, in sequence of events, and they were not dating things from an epoch, each accession of a Pharao was a new epoch. Once you said a year was the fifth year of Djoser, you never bothered to mention how many years that was after Narmer unified Egypt. Even that was not an epoch. This being so, it was easy to falsify records of previous reigns in flattering someone with having reigned longer than he did. And the father of lies would have been a keen observer of the rising level of Carbon 14, he would have been told by God how that would work in the end times in carbon dating, and he would be able to adapt such lies to how the carbon dates would appear ... very roughly. In fact, prior to the New Kingdom some parts are notoriously shifty in carbon dating vs expected actual dates.

5:34 Old Kingdom, according to wikipedia:

2700–2200 BC.

Carbon dates, with presumably not too much missmatch to recorded dates, or rather vice versa.

1700 BC: 87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC
1687: Joseph dies.
1678 BC: 89.449 pmC, dated as 2600 BC

2700 would have been when Joseph died. Raw carbon dates, that is. The 2800 BC carbon date is the raw carbon date for Djoser's burial boat. Calibrated, he is younger.

And 2200 BC would have been in the soujourn:

1634 BC: 93.251 pmC, dated as 2212 BC

6:12 What did you just say?

The 6:02 Indus Valley in modern-day Pakistan who 6:05 were flourishing during this same period 6:07 of time again there's no break in their 6:10 written history

Indeed. The Indus Valley culture doesn't even have a written history at all, let alone any break in it.

This is the second clear inaccuracy, after how many ants an ant eater eats per day ... were you more tired than I am when I misspell, or were you deliberately lying?

6:25 Have you never come across any creationist telling you that you are dealing with misdated accounts usually more by carbon dating than by good written chronology of when these civilisations were around?

Come on, you sound very brazen, but this is not even taking baby steps in debating YEC, at least if your favourite debate tactic isn't strawmanning.

[Just in case he pretends this wasn't even posted under his video, here are two screen shots from two close by minutes, between which I refreshed the page by clicking "sort by latest"]