Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(20-03-2015 03:32 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 02:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

You are shifting the posts again, I'm afraid.

I've already said that an ice age requires cold conditions to freeze water plus warm oceans to precipitate extra rainfall. I'm not blaming you for being unlearned on current creationist and flood-advocate theory.

The recent, comprehensive (millions of persons) National Geographic gene study shows a track of people remarkably similar to the Flood and Babel "myths". I also imagine you've all read pages from websites explaining genetic diversity since Adam or Noah, and etc. and I'm tired of citing them here--for two reasons--1) I get back garbage (from the same atheists who insist I cite sources) like one sentence jabs, "That site is a joke" or "Those Christians aren't really scientists or scientific" and 2) you are all being rather unreasonable--about everything. I rather expected more discussion and discourse from you. Example: The Greenland ice cores can only be taken for data from the previous 2,000 years, below which, compression reduces everything to assumptions about dust within the compacted ice that--surprise--HAS to be X millions of years old or we lose--a recent Flood--a young Earth--etc. The blind leading the blind, but I'd hoped some of you would engage, in the words of The Q's old friend.

You understand nothing, it has been shown to you several times on this thread that they have ice core data going back 800,000 years and you still fail to understand that. You showed even further ignorance with childish excel math.
You have no evidence for the Gilgamesh myth.

You have to play these games of cognitive dissonance, your world view has no evidence, you engage in flights of fantasy with zero proof. Go back to your church and pray, we don't want you here.

Take five minutes and research how the "800,000" years are determined or else actually respond to what I write instead of going into rapturous (pun not intended) paroxysms of uniformitarian assumptions.

We can gauge 2,000 years of ice core. Then the ice and snow are so compacted by weight that assumptions are made. Period.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(20-03-2015 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 02:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

You are shifting the posts again, I'm afraid.

I've already said that an ice age requires cold conditions to freeze water plus warm oceans to precipitate extra rainfall.

No, there is no "extra rainfall". Where do you get your misinformation?

Quote:I'm not blaming you for being unlearned on current creationist and flood-advocate theory.

The recent, comprehensive (millions of persons) National Geographic gene study shows a track of people remarkably similar to the Flood and Babel "myths".

Citation required.

Quote: I also imagine you've all read pages from websites explaining genetic diversity since Adam or Noah, and etc. and I'm tired of citing them here

But you haven't cited them - here or anywhere.

Quote:--for two reasons--1) I get back garbage (from the same atheists who insist I cite sources) like one sentence jabs, "That site is a joke" or "Those Christians aren't really scientists or scientific"

Not garbage. If you actually understood any science, you would know that.

Quote:and 2) you are all being rather unreasonable--about everything. I rather expected more discussion and discourse from you. Example: The Greenland ice cores can only be taken for data from the previous 2,000 years, below which, compression reduces everything to assumptions about dust within the compacted ice that--surprise--HAS to be X millions of years old or we lose--a recent Flood--a young Earth--etc. The blind leading the blind, but I'd hoped some of you would engage, in the words of The Q's old friend.

Citation required.

To have an ice age, snow/rain has to precipitate. In select areas, over time. Precipitation can be enhanced by warm oceans. Ice is enhanced by cold air. There are some unique conditions involved or at least that's what science tells us, including liberal and conservative scientists.

And yes, you are one of the people I was thinking of when I wrote how dismissive everyone is here of citations and sources. If you quote a webpage, I at least do you the courtesy of reading the page, than asking you questions. You keep saying every Christian scientist I quote is "joke" and refuse to engage their science.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2015, 01:48 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(24-03-2015 01:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, there is no "extra rainfall". Where do you get your misinformation?


Citation required.


But you haven't cited them - here or anywhere.


Not garbage. If you actually understood any science, you would know that.


Citation required.

To have an ice age, snow/rain has to precipitate. In select areas, over time. Precipitation can be enhanced by warm oceans. Ice is enhanced by cold air. There are some unique conditions involved or at least that's what science tells us, including liberal and conservative scientists.

There is no extra rainfall required, nor warmer than normal oceans. You still have not supported your assertion.

Quote:And yes, you are one of the people I was thinking of when I wrote how dismissive everyone is here of citations and sources. If you quote a webpage, I at least do you the courtesy of reading the page, than asking you questions. You keep saying every Christian scientist I quote is "joke" and refuse to engage their science.

I dismiss patently biased websites that are Christian apologetics of pseudo-science.

Your citations almost invariably are unworthy of serious consideration; I look at the few you have cited.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2015, 07:06 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2015 08:18 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(24-03-2015 01:40 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:32 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You understand nothing, it has been shown to you several times on this thread that they have ice core data going back 800,000 years and you still fail to understand that. You showed even further ignorance with childish excel math.
You have no evidence for the Gilgamesh myth.

You have to play these games of cognitive dissonance, your world view has no evidence, you engage in flights of fantasy with zero proof. Go back to your church and pray, we don't want you here.

Take five minutes and research how the "800,000" years are determined or else actually respond to what I write instead of going into rapturous (pun not intended) paroxysms of uniformitarian assumptions.

We can gauge 2,000 years of ice core. Then the ice and snow are so compacted by weight that assumptions are made. Period.

Why should I have to educate you? It's pointless, you'll believe this myth regardless of evidence against it.

800,000 ice core record

Do you actually have scientific references that invalidate the 800,000 year samples from EPICA?

A reference to a creationist site is a non-response.

This is a side issue as far as I'm concerned, the bible asserts that Noah was over 600 years old, he would've been long dead before he even had the impossible boat half-constructed.

The bible asserts many people were living almost 1000 years back then, where is the archeological proof of this fantastic assertion?

Would it be a better question to ask, why wouldn't an assertion by this mythology of people living hundreds of years be an obvious indication of a story that was pure myth?

Why would you continue to believe this without a shred of archeological evidence to prove these ridiculous claims?

Because bible says?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
27-03-2015, 01:20 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(24-03-2015 07:06 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 01:40 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Take five minutes and research how the "800,000" years are determined or else actually respond to what I write instead of going into rapturous (pun not intended) paroxysms of uniformitarian assumptions.

We can gauge 2,000 years of ice core. Then the ice and snow are so compacted by weight that assumptions are made. Period.

Why should I have to educate you? It's pointless, you'll believe this myth regardless of evidence against it.

800,000 ice core record

Do you actually have scientific references that invalidate the 800,000 year samples from EPICA?

A reference to a creationist site is a non-response.

This is a side issue as far as I'm concerned, the bible asserts that Noah was over 600 years old, he would've been long dead before he even had the impossible boat half-constructed.

The bible asserts many people were living almost 1000 years back then, where is the archeological proof of this fantastic assertion?

Would it be a better question to ask, why wouldn't an assertion by this mythology of people living hundreds of years be an obvious indication of a story that was pure myth?

Why would you continue to believe this without a shred of archeological evidence to prove these ridiculous claims?

Because bible says?

You don't understand the page you pointed me to--there is nothing on that page indicating WHY the samples are 800,000 years old, only that they are 800,000 years old and therefore the CO2 in them must have uniformly... what we call ice cores can only be measured for 2,000 years and not for 800,000. Sorry.

Quote:A reference to a creationist site is a non-response.

How convenient for you. I call "No True Scientist" on you. First, I give you my lay understanding of the theories of creationists, then I'm asked for citations, but any citations appearing on a creation website are invalidated by default? That is nonsense.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 02:07 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-03-2015 01:20 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 07:06 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Why should I have to educate you? It's pointless, you'll believe this myth regardless of evidence against it.

800,000 ice core record

Do you actually have scientific references that invalidate the 800,000 year samples from EPICA?

A reference to a creationist site is a non-response.

This is a side issue as far as I'm concerned, the bible asserts that Noah was over 600 years old, he would've been long dead before he even had the impossible boat half-constructed.

The bible asserts many people were living almost 1000 years back then, where is the archeological proof of this fantastic assertion?

Would it be a better question to ask, why wouldn't an assertion by this mythology of people living hundreds of years be an obvious indication of a story that was pure myth?

Why would you continue to believe this without a shred of archeological evidence to prove these ridiculous claims?

Because bible says?

You don't understand the page you pointed me to--there is nothing on that page indicating WHY the samples are 800,000 years old, only that they are 800,000 years old and therefore the CO2 in them must have uniformly... what we call ice cores can only be measured for 2,000 years and not for 800,000. Sorry.

Quote:A reference to a creationist site is a non-response.

How convenient for you. I call "No True Scientist" on you. First, I give you my lay understanding of the theories of creationists, then I'm asked for citations, but any citations appearing on a creation website are invalidated by default? That is nonsense.


You have no evidence. Yawn....

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2015, 08:02 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-03-2015 01:20 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  How convenient for you. I call "No True Scientist" on you. First, I give you my lay understanding of the theories of creationists, then I'm asked for citations, but any citations appearing on a creation website are invalidated by default? That is nonsense.

Citations to reliable sources stating only things they can say for sure are preferable over those that have particular agenda in mind and are prepared to state things well beyond what they can back up with clear evidence. References to original papers are generally the best sources, but it is hard to quantify a good source. Doubly so when the good sources are speaking in technical terms that are difficult for the layman to understand.

My suggestion: Read the creationist pages. Check their the papers they refer to and read them. Then, state your argument citing the papers rather than citing the creationist site.

The same is true for wikipedia. It's best to read and cite wikipedia's sources rather than its content.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
28-03-2015, 09:01 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(24-03-2015 01:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If you quote a webpage, I at least do you the courtesy of reading the page, than asking you questions. You keep saying every Christian scientist I quote is "joke" and refuse to engage their science.

What? There is no "my science", "your science" or "their science". There is one, one and only one. If something doesn't satisfy the basic standard requirements for being scientifically accurate, then it's not science anymore, it's not "someone else's science".

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Polyglot Atheist's post
28-03-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-03-2015 01:20 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 07:06 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Why should I have to educate you? It's pointless, you'll believe this myth regardless of evidence against it.

800,000 ice core record

Do you actually have scientific references that invalidate the 800,000 year samples from EPICA?

A reference to a creationist site is a non-response.

This is a side issue as far as I'm concerned, the bible asserts that Noah was over 600 years old, he would've been long dead before he even had the impossible boat half-constructed.

The bible asserts many people were living almost 1000 years back then, where is the archeological proof of this fantastic assertion?

Would it be a better question to ask, why wouldn't an assertion by this mythology of people living hundreds of years be an obvious indication of a story that was pure myth?

Why would you continue to believe this without a shred of archeological evidence to prove these ridiculous claims?

Because bible says?

You don't understand the page you pointed me to--there is nothing on that page indicating WHY the samples are 800,000 years old, only that they are 800,000 years old and therefore the CO2 in them must have uniformly... what we call ice cores can only be measured for 2,000 years and not for 800,000. Sorry.

Quote:A reference to a creationist site is a non-response.

How convenient for you. I call "No True Scientist" on you. First, I give you my lay understanding of the theories of creationists, then I'm asked for citations, but any citations appearing on a creation website are invalidated by default? That is nonsense.
It's like being sent to a flat earth website after asking a flat earther For citations.
I could argue that the universe is only 2 light years across and I'm sure I could find a website that would agree. Doesn't make it factual..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Drunkin Druid's post
28-03-2015, 10:01 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
I often wonder how some people distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: