News:

In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.

Main Menu

THE GREAT FAITH OF THE EVOLUTIONIST

Started by perspective, June 10, 2009, 09:59:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

perspective

- The past is gone. It can never be observed and it can never be experimented on. The scientific methods in operational science can not be employed in origins science. The only option science has in studying the past is to assume that the present earth conditions are the same as in the past. This is a massive leap of faith. All conclusions of the past are conjectures and speculations based on the earth as observed today. This assumption is called Geological Uniformitarianism. (you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science) ) This is the idea that geological evidence of the past can be interpreted and tested in light of the geologic processes we see today. However, this is pure non-scientific faith. There is absolutely no way to either verify or test if this is indeed the case because no one can or has gone back to see if the conditions were the same. Since there has not been a world wide flood that divided the continents and tilted the world and made hundreds of layers of strata in modern time, scientists conclude that it must never have happened. Yet, we have never seen giant asteroids fly from space and smash all life into extinction either (which apparently happened more then once). At this point the naturalist exclaims, “But the evidence!” (read about evidence below) There is plentiful evidence that matches what would be expected in a catastrophic world flood. You can read about an excellent module here (http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF ). This article absolutely proves that the world flood was not only scientifically possible, but it has strong explanatory power for a great deal of other evidence we find in the geologic layers. Secondly, evolution has NEVER been observed or tested. There have been an overwhelming amount of examples of natural selection, but never evolution. Natural selection is change within kinds. (read about it here http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -evolution ) Natural selection is happening right now to change a light peppered moth into a dark peppered moth (still a moth). A large cod fish into a small cod fish (still a cod fish) A flu virus into a flu virus resistant to vaccine (still a flu virus). A snail with slow metabolism into a snail with fast metabolism (still a snail) A finch with a blunt beak into a finch with a sharp beak (still a finch) A butterfly with an average mouth into a butterfly with a mouth able to bite into certain fruits (still a butterfly). A lizard with a smaller head and eats bugs on one island, into a lizard with a bigger head and ability to eat vegetation when introduced on another island (still a lizard). Etc. etc. etc. Evolution requires and demands that one kind (lizard) changes into a new kind (bird).  This has NEVER been seen in recorded history and there is absolutely ZERO evidence that it ever has. Scientists are either being willfully deceptive or all of them are completely ignorant when it comes to this fact. To say that natural selection and evolution are interchangeable terms is scientific dishonesty in the highest degree. What natural selection does falls crushingly short compared to what evolution demands. Yet the faithful choose blind faith over actual fact. Finally, it is soundly established science that life only is produced from life. Possibly the best experiment to attempt to prove otherwise came from the Scripps Research Institute in which the researchers spent eight years designing enzymes that could form RNA strands that in turn could self replicate. ( read about it here http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 173205.htm ) First, viruses are considered the simplest form of life. (Although there is debate about if viruses are living) Of these, “when compared to a computer file, the simplest of plant viruses (called viroids) contains a miniscule 240 'bits' of information to sustain their circular chromosome.” (http://www.astrobio.net/news/article416.html ) However, the RNA that took eight years to design was a mere 30 ‘bits’ and the report points out, “The subunits in the enzymes the team constructed each contain many nucleotides, so they are relatively complex and not something that would have been found floating in the primordial ooze.” I think viruses are not living ( read about it here http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/ ) The next simplest life form is the Mycoplasma genitalium. By comparison to the replicating RNA the mycoplasma genitalium is like the tallest building in the world with all its complex inter workings and the designed RNA is like a manure hut. However, even the mycoplasma genitalium can not survive on its own, so even  something more complex then this is required as the first self sustaining organism. (read about it here http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/196.asp#r3 ) Second, the highly designed and expertly engineered RNA could only self replicate more RNA of the like. There is no expectation that the RNA could ever reproduce something more complex then itself. I’m going to give the evolutionist answer to this. “You have to wait 14 billion years and something more complex is sure to come.” Sounds like faith to me. So why all the daunting, extravagant effort to produce life spontaneously? These experiments are not trying to test if it is possible (which it is scientifically obvious after 50 years of research that it is not) but these scientists are bent on forcing it to happen even if they have to design a mechanism to do so that would never be found in nature, let alone form by itself. The motivation in these experiments is not to seek the truth, but to force evidence to fit the module. Evolution is only possible if life can form spontaneously. It has never been seen or accomplished even in the most intelligently designed experiments. This by far is the greatest leap of faith for the evolutionist. This is the very starting point of your faith and it has never been observed, there is zero evidence that it ever has, and science can not make it happen. This is anti-science to believe something despite all the research that clearly and absolutely indicates the exact opposite. This is pure illogical willingly ignorant faith in the highest degree of any religion. So which takes more faith, believing in something that has never been seen and that has never happened once ever even with the most sophisticated research and dedication to the field, or believing that a being of infinite power is the only author of life?  

- Evidence doesn’t prove anything, nor does it speak. Evidence can not say anything about the past. Evidence can not conclude anything about the past. Evidence can not show anything about the past. Evidence can not argue about the past. Evidence can not defend anything about the past. Anyone who uses these terms is in violation of the Pathetic fallacy. You can read about that here (http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/PatheticFallacy.html ) Evidence is absolutely neutral is regard to the creation / evolution debate. All evidence about the past can only be interpreted. The process of interpreting is the weakest form of science as far as proving something and it is willing deception on the part of naturalists to say anything conclusive about how something happened in the past. Interpretation is extremely subjective and vulnerable to bias. There can be a host of explanations about any one piece of evidence and a lot of times, when “better” science comes along, those explanations are changed. So which takes more faith? Believing the ever changing, fallible, subjective conclusions of naturalists about the past, or believing that God (who was there, is all knowing, and has never changed His story about the past) actually knows what He is talking about.

- Playing the same game. Often creationists are charged with believing the Bible even if it means “ignoring the evidence.” However, this same game is clearly played by the naturalist who denies miracles, any phenomena of spirituality, or any evidence that does not fit the evolution module. (there are many examples read about it here http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... m/evol.htm ) For the creationist the Bible is our starting point and we interpret everything from it. For the naturalist it is no different. Evolution is the starting point and everything is interpreted from this vantage point. The evidence is bent and distorted to fit the module, even if it means highly unlikely complicated answers. Anything that can’t be made to fit is dismissed and ignored. For the naturalist it is the unproven evolution module determining science, not science determining an accurate module of life. So which takes more faith, believing the Bible (which came from God) no matter what, or believing a faltering, changing, incomplete assumption about life no matter what?

- “Gimme.” Another tactic to attack creation is for the naturalist to argue that if a Creationist can’t perfectly and scientifically explain every phenomenon in the Bible then it must be false. The answer that Creationist would give is that “we have faith that the Bible is true and that more answers will be developed with advanced science.” This is not considered good enough to the science community. However, this same “have faith in the system” is over and over again deployed by evolutionist. “Why have we not ever seen life spontaneously form?” The naturalist answer is, “We are working diligently to prove that this is possible, but even though it has never happened we will not abandon our beliefs.” “Why have we never seen any kind of animal turn into a different kind of animal and where are the super abundance of transitional forms that evolution demands?” the naturalist answer is, “We have the best archeologists digging up the entire world in search of the evidence we are looking for and even though it has never happened in recorded history and we have no evidence we will not abandon our faith in evolution.” “How can we be sure about your interpretation of evidence from the past?” The naturalist answer is, “No one can be certain past educated assumption, but the interpretation we have come up with fits the evolution module and so we are going to teach it as fact and have faith that the evidence will pan out one day.” “Why is it that when secular scientist, which are expert in their field, question the unproven theory of evolution they are fired and “black listed” from the scientific community?” The evolutionist answer is, “We are the faithful, dogmatic followers of the religion of evolution and anyone who questions it let them be anathema. We determine what good science is and we will follow our faith despite any obstacle.” Sounds like a jihad to me. It takes an abundant amount of faith to believe something despite science, when the very thing you claim as the highest source of knowledge is science. That would be the same as a Christian exalting the word of God as the highest infallible source of knowledge, but calling God a liar. It is a pretty self defeating system is it not. However, the faith must prevail.

- Fairy tales. Finally, one of the favorite things for the naturalist is to mock the “Bible thumpers” about all the odd phenomena in the Bible such as Jonah and Noah. So let’s look at some great science stories about how life began. How about Gold’s “Deep Hot Biosphere” module. He suggested that deep in the crust of the earth the first life formed. I think he took his module from Lord of the Rings. I think it was the Orcs that were summoned from the lava pits of the deep. How about the “primitive extraterrestrial life” module. This is the idea that life really started on Mars (somehow) and then a chuck of Mars was blown off and it traveled between 35,000,000 to 250,000,000 miles across space entered our atmosphere, wasn’t burned up and then that primitive complex organic material thrived here.(sigh) I don’t even need to comment of this one. Finally my very favorite is the “Sea bubble” theory. This is the idea that simple life could have formed while in the protective layer of bubbles. Really…Bubbles! Let’s deny a supreme God and have faith in the bubbles. Sounds like something the Care Bears would say.    

- Concluding, if you are still convinced about your views then know that is only by illogical blind faith that your cling to them. You have no intellectual high ground, and you have no claim on logic. Your science is at best junk science and at worst pure deception. Evolution is so far from being proven that to say otherwise you have to be completely brainwashed or ignorant or have great blind faith that it is true despite all. The naturalist motto, “If they have a PhD in front of their name and they don’t believe in God, I believe whatever they tell me.”

- Side note. Many of you before you even read the full post will hurriedly scramble and post links to websites that prove my post wrong. Many will mock and still others will brush it off. To this I say that if an adequate and complete module was out there, then there still would not be a debate and scientist wouldn’t still be working so hard to bolster the faith.

Whitney

Perspective, if you want people to be able to read your posts, please break them up into smaller paragraphs.  It's pretty easy, just hit enter twice each time you finish covering once of your subtopics within your overall post.  If you create a paragraph that ends up being more than about an inch long, it starts to get hard to read on the screen.  So, in the future, just take the time to break up your text into something easier for the reader to manage.  Feel free to do that now if you like..I thought about doing it for you but decided I didn't feel like it.

Anyway, I don't have the time to try to go through all of your post right now nor am I a scientist.  I'm sure that someone on this forum will be more than happy to take apart your post and address the issues.  (If you look around the forum enough you'll probably find that much of what you wrote is already addressed here...I'm just guessing  ;) )

curiosityandthecat

-Curio

JillSwift

Quote from: "perspective"- The past is gone. It can never be observed and it can never be experimented on. The scientific methods in operational science can not be employed in origins science. The only option science has in studying the past is to assume that the present earth conditions are the same as in the past. This is a massive leap of faith. All conclusions of the past are conjectures and speculations based on the earth as observed today. This assumption is called Geological Uniformitarianism. (you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science) )
What? There isn't any assumption, there is simply no evidence for a massive change in the geological mechanisms. That is, there is no point in adding entities when you don't need them - parsimony. Also, there is evidence of big changes in geological structure over time, as well as climactic conditions. However, mentioning evidence means zip to you because:

Quote from: "perspective"- Evidence doesn’t prove anything, nor does it speak. Evidence can not say anything about the past. Evidence can not conclude anything about the past. Evidence can not show anything about the past. Evidence can not argue about the past. Evidence can not defend anything about the past. Anyone who uses these terms is in violation of the Pathetic fallacy. You can read about that here (http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/PatheticFallacy.html )
You've just conflated anthropomorphism with deduction. Never the less, from the perspective you just demonstrated here, nothing is knowable. Everything must be taken on faith - essentially, perspectives chosen at random. Our legal system has incarcerated millions, even executed people, based on what boils down to a random choice in belief because evidence is utterly useless and nothing can be known.

Quote from: "perspective"- Playing the same game. Often creationists are charged with believing the Bible even if it means “ignoring the evidence.” However, this same game is clearly played by the naturalist who denies miracles, any phenomena of spirituality, or any evidence that does not fit the evolution module.
As long as evidence is meaningless, this would seem true. Or not, as this is the presentation of evidence, and evidence is meaningless, right?

Quote from: "perspective"- “Gimme.” Another tactic to attack creation is for the naturalist to argue that if a Creationist can’t perfectly and scientifically explain every phenomenon in the Bible then it must be false. The answer that Creationist would give is that “we have faith that the Bible is true and that more answers will be developed with advanced science.” This is not considered good enough to the science community. However, this same “have faith in the system” is over and over again deployed by evolutionist. “Why have we not ever seen life spontaneously form?”
And again, a creationist tries to make evolution about abiogenesis. Well, since evidence is meaningless, it matters not. One world view is as good as another.

Quote from: "perspective"- Fairy tales. Finally, one of the favorite things for the naturalist is to mock the “Bible thumpers” about all the odd phenomena in the Bible such as Jonah and Noah. So let’s look at some great science stories about how life began.
More abiogenesis when the discussion is evolution. Tsk. Still, no matter. Evidence is meaningless, so what one chooses to believe is as good as anything else.

Quote from: "perspective"- Concluding, if you are still convinced about your views then know that is only by illogical blind faith that your cling to them. You have no intellectual high ground, and you have no claim on logic. Your science is at best junk science and at worst pure deception. Evolution is so far from being proven that to say otherwise you have to be completely brainwashed or ignorant or have great blind faith that it is true despite all. The naturalist motto, “If they have a PhD in front of their name and they don’t believe in God, I believe whatever they tell me.”
I don't care how much evidence you have for this point - evidence is meaningless. Any given belief is as good as another, since there is no way to measure truth without an evidential matrix. I think today I'll believe that life was put on this planet by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Do not question her, for unbelievers are crushed under her Golden Pink Hooves.

Quote from: "perspective"- Side note. Many of you before you even read the full post will hurriedly scramble and post links to websites that prove my post wrong. Many will mock and still others will brush it off. To this I say that if an adequate and complete module was out there, then there still would not be a debate and scientist wouldn’t still be working so hard to bolster the faith.
Odd how you keep trying to posit evidence when you already said that evidence is meaningless.
[size=50]Teleology]

Jolly Sapper

Quote from: "perspective"The past is gone. It can never be observed and it can never be experimented on.

Its not the past that get's experimented on, the past gives us things that we can see and from there we try to figure out what it is we are looking at.  In the process of trying to figure out what we are looking at (since we can't travel back in time and observe in person the actual event that caused the effect we are currently looking at) we often try to find a way to recreate an event that produces similar results.  

Quote from: "JillSwift"
Quote from: "perspective"perspective wrote:- Concluding, if you are still convinced about your views then know that is only by illogical blind faith that your cling to them. You have no intellectual high ground, and you have no claim on logic. Your science is at best junk science and at worst pure deception. Evolution is so far from being proven that to say otherwise you have to be completely brainwashed or ignorant or have great blind faith that it is true despite all. The naturalist motto, “If they have a PhD in front of their name and they don’t believe in God, I believe whatever they tell me.”
I don't care how much evidence you have for this point - evidence is meaningless. Any given belief is as good as another, since there is no way to measure truth without an evidential matrix. I think today I'll believe that life was put on this planet by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Do not question her, for unbelievers are crushed under her Golden Pink Hooves.

 :drool

rlrose328

I will answer your meandering, illogical, fabricated, and meaningless post with a quote from within said post, slightly modified:

Quote... if you are still convinced about your views then know that is only by illogical blind faith that you cling to them. You have no intellectual high ground, and you have no claim on logic. Your science is at best junk science and at worst pure deception. Creationism is so far from being proven that to say otherwise you have to be completely brainwashed or ignorant or have great blind faith that it is true despite all. The creationist motto, “If they have a Bible in their hands and they believe in God, I believe whatever they tell me.”

Quote from: "perspective"- Side note. Many of you before you even read the full post will hurriedly scramble and post links to websites that prove my post wrong. Many will mock and still others will brush it off. To this I say that if an adequate and complete module was out there, then there still would not be a debate and scientist wouldn’t still be working so hard to bolster the faith.

There is nothing to mock or brush off... to do so would mean I have any interest whatsoever in arguing with your drivel, which I do not have any intention of doing.  I did read it, I find it nonsensical and pure creationist BS.  'Nuf said.
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!


Sophus

Concerning your title Perspective I would like to direct you here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3286

QuoteThe past is gone. It can never be observed and it can never be experimented on.

And this makes belief in Jesus appear more logical how?
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

McQ

Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Whitney

^
When McQ responds with pictures....you know it's bad.

JillSwift

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"
Quote from: "JillSwift"I don't care how much evidence you have for this point - evidence is meaningless. Any given belief is as good as another, since there is no way to measure truth without an evidential matrix. I think today I'll believe that life was put on this planet by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Do not question her, for unbelievers are crushed under her Golden Pink Hooves.

 :rainbanana:
[size=50]Teleology]

Recusant

Oooh!  Wall of text rant!  You, perspective, have supplied such a big, beefy chew toy that it's hard for me to resist.  Thank you.  Though I must admit, my reaction was graphically summed up by McQ's post.  I don't think I can masticate the whole of it in one post, I'll start, and see how far I get-- perhaps returning later to growl and roll around on the floor worrying at the thing.

 
Quote from: "perspective"The past is gone. It can never be observed and it can never be experimented on. The scientific methods in operational science can not be employed in origins science. The only option science has in studying the past is to assume that the present earth conditions are the same as in the past.

Science does not assume that the present earth conditions are the same as in the past.  In fact there is evidence (I know, you consider evidence essentially meaningless, which is a great position to take for somebody defending intelligent design/creationism, but I don't share that position, sorry) that conditions on the earth have varied quite a lot at various times in the past.  Those varied conditions, as evidenced in the geologic record, show no sign of violating what we understand as scientific laws, though.  There are several things in the biblical flood story that do violate scientific law, which is a big reason why it's been discounted as mythology for quite a while now, by all but the most stiff-necked fundamentalists and others whose ignorance allows them to be duped.

 
Quote from: "Ted Noel & Ken Noel"The very authority of Scripture is jeopardized if the flood account is not true.
(In A Scientific Paradigm for the Genesis Flood)

You may see this as the case, as the authors of the quoted article do, but there are many faithful Christians who do not share this view, and are quite willing to accept that there are portions of the bible that are meant to teach moral lessons, while not necessarily relating actual events.  To assume that the biblical god meant every word of the bible to be taken as literal fact, turning a blind eye to the reality we find around us, seems to be an attempt to know the mind of that god, which I think is generally posited to be impossible.  That assumption borders on blasphemy, in my opinion.

The Noel article actually starts off by dispensing with a major objection to the historicity of the flood narrative by recourse to the miraculous.  I'm supposed to just swallow that whole and keep reading?
In fact I am continuing to read it, and follow up important footnotes.  I'm not surprised to find that they often cite sources which can only be found on creationist websites.  I think I'll wade through the rest of it and perhaps get back to you, but don't be surprised if I simply throw my hands in the air and accept that there's really no point in trying to have a discussion on this.  As I said before, my reaction to your post was essentially the same as McQ's, but, speaking only for myself, I feel that the effort you put into it deserves at least an attempt at a response.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Whitney

Warning, my response will contain a lot of non-scientific terms because I am not a scientist.  Most atheists are not scientists and I have even met atheists who don't fully accept evolution.  And...;)

Quote from: "perspective"The only option science has in studying the past is to assume that the present earth conditions are the same as in the past.
But we don't assume that it is the same now as in the past.  The large majority of scientists will agree that Earth at one point was more like a volcano planet with lots of magma everywhere.  
QuoteAll conclusions of the past are conjectures and speculations based on the earth as observed today.
Well, unless you know how to perform time travel, I think we are all in the same boat of having to understand the past based on the evidence we can see today.  (If you do know how to time travel, please share the equation.)

QuoteThis assumption is called Geological Uniformitarianism. (you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science) ) This is the idea that geological evidence of the past can be interpreted and tested in light of the geologic processes we see today. However, this is pure non-scientific faith. There is absolutely no way to either verify or test if this is indeed the case because no one can or has gone back to see if the conditions were the same.

You forget that we do have the data collected over the time of human history to look at.  We can see that equations developed a few hundred or more years ago still apply today as they did then.  So, other than it just making sense to assume that the "laws of nature" have not changed during Earth's timeline, we do have at least a small chunk of Earth history we can look at to verify this assumption.  

QuoteThere is plentiful evidence that matches what would be expected in a catastrophic world flood.
No, there is not.  See the other huge forum thread about this:  viewtopic.php?f=2&t=105


QuoteThere have been an overwhelming amount of examples of natural selection, but never evolution. Natural selection is change within kinds. (read about it here http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -evolution )
Oh, so you do accept evolution...you just don't know what it means.  What happens when a "kind" go through so many mutations that it can no longer mate with it's original kind...a new species.  No one is claiming that a fish becomes a lizzard in one generation...that's silly.

QuoteFinally, it is soundly established science that life only is produced from life.
I thought you wanted to prove how evolution was faith based?  Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, the view that life could have developed from non-life under certain circumstances.  Anyway, organic compounds can be made fro inorganic compounds:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment

Anyway, that was the end of my attention span.

Squid

I thought about replying in my usual manner...then I thought "I would just be wasting valuable time on someone who won't read nor attempt to understand what I write and therefore it would be a futile effort to educate this person."

Recusant

Perspective, you might be able to learn something by reading this thread; in particular I would direct you to the excellent posts there by PipeBox.  Somehow I doubt that you are willing to approach the subject with the intent of learning anything, since it's much safer for you to ignore anybody but perpetrators of "creation science," but on the off chance I'm wrong...

So, back to me and the chew toy:  I continue my reading of A Scientific Paradigm for the Genesis Flood by Noel & Noel:  

 
Quote from: "Noel & Noel"Biblical creationism('s)  ...reliance on a miracle appears mystical to onlookers.
Fortunately, the intelligent design movement has provided good scientific
evidence for the reasonableness of divine creation of life. In this respect, the
creationist paradigm stands on a firmer scientific footing than the evolutionary,
since to date it has proven impossible to assemble the chemical building blocks
of life by purely natural means.


  How divine creation fits with a "scientific paradigm," I'm at a loss to explain. The "good scientific evidence" of creationism/intelligent design would be able to meet the same standards applied to any other scientific evidence, but it simply does not. Baldly asserting that it does is not acceptable. Perhaps you could enlighten me:  How is saying that a god did it a firm scientific footing? This is really the crux of the matter isn't it?  If there were sound scientific evidence for divine intervention, then it would still be the predominant theory, rather than a red-headed stepchild.  Why not simply dispense with the tedious effort to reconcile biblical mythology and reality?  Miracles and science are oil and water, and an emulsion of the two, as attempted by creationism/intelligent design, will never pass muster.  Better to stand firmly in god's camp, science be damned. (In reality, that is exactly what creationists are doing, but they refuse to admit it.) As I've mentioned before, there is a third way.  It's fairly easy to reconcile the Christian god with scientific fact, as long as you don't insist that every word of the bible is the literal truth. There are plenty of Christians who do just that.

I won't even go into the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, which seems to be something which is impossible for pretty much all creationist thinkers to see.  It's been said before, but bears repeating:  The fact that scientists have been unable to create life in the laboratory up to now does not in any way have bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution.

 
Quote from: "Noel & Noel"...it is important to understand that we do not believe the biblical
account of the flood is true because we can prove it scientifically. Rather,
we believe the biblical account because it is God's word.

They seem to agree with me, but then they cannot resist attempting to prove it scientifically.  They fail.

 
Quote from: "Noel & Noel"There were no substantial high mountains in the ante-diluvian world. We say
this for two reasons. First, if the general nature of weather in Eden were similar
to modern times, the humidity would cause a high mountain to be constantly
shrouded in cloud. Such a feature seems out of place in the narrative as given.
Also, high mountains create weather. Air moving against mountains is lifted and
cooled, resulting in clouds and precipitation. This creates complex airflows
that are incompatible with the calm climate of Eden.

It seems that the authors are espousing a form of *gasp* Uniformitarianism here.  Unfortunately, the geologic record shows high mountains having existed in one place or another on the planet going back for millions and millions of years.  There is evidence of formidable mountain chains having risen and been worn down to nubs repeatedly in the immense expanse of time that is the history of the earth.

It has become apparent by this point in the article that, true to their word but contrary to the title, Noel & Noel are not really interested in science, but in creating what they believe to be a scientifically plausible exegesis of the biblical story of the flood.  They take the text as a given, and try to come up with "science" that will fit with the text.  As in the above example; they conclude from the text that there were no high mountains "before the flood," and the geological record be damned.  

I honestly admit that I'm not sure I'm willing to wade through any more from this particular source.  I'm going to have to retire to a peaceful place and commune with some strong spirits (from north of Hadrian's Wall, I think, this evening) to fortify myself to go on...
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


McQ

Quote from: "Squid"I thought about replying in my usual manner...then I thought "I would just be wasting valuable time on someone who won't read nor attempt to understand what I write and therefore it would be a futile effort to educate this person."

You have chosen wisely.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette