Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-04-2015, 09:44 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(06-04-2015 09:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All, we are going in circles, for which I do take some of the responsibility:

1. My "thousands of pages online" comment has to do with the fact that there are legitimate scientists commenting on the issues. However, we as individuals still need to read the facts and look them without simply parroting the page (either Christian or skeptic pages). For example, not one post in this 26-long pages of thread (unless I missed it) addressed my point re: the Greenland Ice Core research--that once you are taking cores of compacted snowfall, there is no way to determine the age of such snowfall, and therefore uniformitarian assumptions regarding a very old Earth are employed.

2. I'm not interested in repeating myself yet again on the Ice Core data--since I've opened lots of doors to look at the reasonable nature of the data on the ark, the Flood, etc. Let's move on or call it quits, please.

You didn't read the links, did you. Dodgy

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-04-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(06-04-2015 09:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  You didn't read the links, did you. Dodgy

Of course he didn't. You must have mistaken him with someone else who's actually interested in learning something. Silly you...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2015, 10:09 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(06-04-2015 09:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All, we are going in circles, for which I do take some of the responsibility:

1. My "thousands of pages online" comment has to do with the fact that there are legitimate scientists commenting on the issues. However, we as individuals still need to read the facts and look them without simply parroting the page (either Christian or skeptic pages). For example, not one post in this 26-long pages of thread (unless I missed it) addressed my point re: the Greenland Ice Core research--that once you are taking cores of compacted snowfall, there is no way to determine the age of such snowfall, and therefore uniformitarian assumptions regarding a very old Earth are employed.

Again, we have centuries of evidence of uniformity. You have no evidence at all of non-uniformity, so if anyone is making an assumption, it's you. But since you're so very set on this, if you're disagreeing so intently with uniformity, why have you settled on a young earth model instead of, say, an instant earth model? I mean, you're not assuming uniformity, you apparently believe that physical phenomena happen completely at random with no discernible patterns, accelerating and decelerating due to forces (or no forces at all!) that are equally unpredictable; on what basis are you assuming a young earth rather than, say, an earth that popped into existence a few seconds ago? Maybe those ice cores appeared spontaneously around the probes that collected them? Maybe they just- poofed!- into existence in the open air! You have no way to know, do you? Perhaps the evidence of a young earth only appears to be there, but in actuality all the evidence just formed like that yesterday!

That's where your train of argument leads, if you're just going to arbitrarily discard uniformity because it leads somewhere you don't like.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Esquilax's post
06-04-2015, 10:11 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(06-04-2015 10:05 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 09:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  You didn't read the links, did you. Dodgy

Of course he didn't. You must have mistaken him with someone else who's actually interested in learning something. Silly you...

You know me - ever the optimist. Smile

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
07-04-2015, 06:05 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
The point of uniformity is not that it must been that way, but rather that we must assume something to start making predictions upon. We originally chose catastrophism as the standard model for studying geology and fossils. Of course we chose catastrophism. So many among us were Christians and that's what the Bible says happened. It was hard for us to acknowledge that the predictions made by our standard model do not hold up. It was hard for us to acknowledge that with very little careful study we would be faced with unconformities and other phenomena that our prevailing theory could not handle.

It must have been hard for so many to give up on a prevailing model based on the Bible because of its failed predictions, but a better model came along. Better in science means "makes more reliable predictions". And so it did, and so it continues to do. If we assume the laws of physics throughout the geological history of the earth are constant we are able to make extensive detailed precise predictions that hold true in reality. We find what we expect to find where we expect to find it. We didn't pick these models because we hate God. We didn't pick these models because we wanted to sin. We didn't pick these models because we want to believe in a materialistic universe. We picked them because they work. We can't afford to spend our time drilling for valuable ores and deposits in the places catastrophism would have us look because they aren't there. There is big money on the line to get this right and geologists in particular must get it right in order to keep their jobs. That is why they have no room for vague and provably false myths.

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
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
13-04-2015, 08:03 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
I'm just going to leave this here:



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
13-04-2015, 09:20 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(06-04-2015 09:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  the Greenland Ice Core research--that once you are taking cores of compacted snowfall, there is no way to determine the age of such snowfall,
There isn't?
There's no method we have of determining the age of the snow?
Consider

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2015, 01:49 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(07-04-2015 06:05 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The point of uniformity is not that it must been that way, but rather that we must assume something to start making predictions upon. We originally chose catastrophism as the standard model for studying geology and fossils. Of course we chose catastrophism. So many among us were Christians and that's what the Bible says happened. It was hard for us to acknowledge that the predictions made by our standard model do not hold up. It was hard for us to acknowledge that with very little careful study we would be faced with unconformities and other phenomena that our prevailing theory could not handle.

It must have been hard for so many to give up on a prevailing model based on the Bible because of its failed predictions, but a better model came along. Better in science means "makes more reliable predictions". And so it did, and so it continues to do. If we assume the laws of physics throughout the geological history of the earth are constant we are able to make extensive detailed precise predictions that hold true in reality. We find what we expect to find where we expect to find it. We didn't pick these models because we hate God. We didn't pick these models because we wanted to sin. We didn't pick these models because we want to believe in a materialistic universe. We picked them because they work. We can't afford to spend our time drilling for valuable ores and deposits in the places catastrophism would have us look because they aren't there. There is big money on the line to get this right and geologists in particular must get it right in order to keep their jobs. That is why they have no room for vague and provably false myths.

Interesting points all--where to drill for oil, however, has nothing to do with how ice cores are reviewed--just look at the post nearby where a skeptic says, "Gee, is it really impossible to determine the age of snow/ice"?

Yes, beyond 2,000 years without adding assumption to assumption--we know Greenland must be millions of years old so we must be looking at 800,000 years of snowfall.

Then we have to assume multiple ice ages and receding snow. Say there is an average of 7 feet of snowfall in Greenland per annum. You can imagine what 800,000 years of snowfall would be without the ice and snow receding as well.

We know that incorrect first premises lead to incorrect conclusions.

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
14-04-2015, 05:05 AM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2015 05:13 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(02-04-2015 10:22 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Actually, there are thousands of webpages online debunking uniformitarian science and a very old Earth.
(13-04-2015 01:49 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(07-04-2015 06:05 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The point of uniformity is not that it must been that way, but rather that we must assume something to start making predictions upon. We originally chose catastrophism as the standard model for studying geology and fossils. Of course we chose catastrophism. So many among us were Christians and that's what the Bible says happened. It was hard for us to acknowledge that the predictions made by our standard model do not hold up. It was hard for us to acknowledge that with very little careful study we would be faced with unconformities and other phenomena that our prevailing theory could not handle.

It must have been hard for so many to give up on a prevailing model based on the Bible because of its failed predictions, but a better model came along. Better in science means "makes more reliable predictions". And so it did, and so it continues to do. If we assume the laws of physics throughout the geological history of the earth are constant we are able to make extensive detailed precise predictions that hold true in reality. We find what we expect to find where we expect to find it. We didn't pick these models because we hate God. We didn't pick these models because we wanted to sin. We didn't pick these models because we want to believe in a materialistic universe. We picked them because they work. We can't afford to spend our time drilling for valuable ores and deposits in the places catastrophism would have us look because they aren't there. There is big money on the line to get this right and geologists in particular must get it right in order to keep their jobs. That is why they have no room for vague and provably false myths.

Interesting points all--where to drill for oil, however, has nothing to do with how ice cores are reviewed--just look at the post nearby where a skeptic says, "Gee, is it really impossible to determine the age of snow/ice"?

Yes, beyond 2,000 years without adding assumption to assumption--we know Greenland must be millions of years old so we must be looking at 800,000 years of snowfall.

Then we have to assume multiple ice ages and receding snow. Say there is an average of 7 feet of snowfall in Greenland per annum. You can imagine what 800,000 years of snowfall would be without the ice and snow receding as well.

We know that incorrect first premises lead to incorrect conclusions.

Q, my commentary was about uniformitarianism. I didn't specifically address ice core data. It's not a specific area of expertise for me therefore I little to contribute to that topic. I have a general understanding of how ice cores are counted and I understand the error margins for the counts are fairly well understood - and that these account for a few percentage points of error rather than the mountain of error you seem to require to come to your conclusions. Tree ring data is counted in roughly the same way and also goes back well beyond most creation models based on Genesis.

The real point here though is that what you are willing to dismiss with a wave of your hand is knowledge carefully obtained, measured, and tested. It is not a guess or one person's account. It is a range of interconnected fields producing consistent results that verify each others' predictions and which consistently conflict with the models you are working from. Nor is this some global conspiracy to stick it Christianity, but rather many good Christian men gathered the data and fearlessly followed it to conclusions that spun their faith into an entirely new context. This has been consistently the case for at least a hundred years now close to two hundred years, and this was not driven by some idle speculation or desire to destroy someone's worldview but by the cold hard dollar. Being right about these things has been and continues to be vital to the way our global economy runs. We simply cannot afford to be wrong or ignorant on these subjects.

As much as a man like Ken Ham is proud to don his biblical glasses and let conflicting information bounce off his visor never to interrupt his certainty, I hope that a man such as yourself can one day consider and evaluate the evidence on its merits rather than on its fit to his existing beliefs. If there is a god I would hope he is trustworthy enough for the evidence we find of our world's history can be trusted. Sure we must assume that what we see and find in this world was not planted by a devil, but what good god would allow us to be deceived by such tricks? What good god would present evidence in an old book alongside evidence we can see and touch with our own hands and say "you must trust the old book over all of the other evidence I have given you, or you will burn"? Or worse: "you must trust a particular interpretation of the old book over all of the other evidence I have given you. You must trust the word of Ham over the evidence of God.".

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
[+] 6 users Like Hafnof's post
14-04-2015, 11:50 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(06-04-2015 09:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  For example, not one post in this 26-long pages of thread (unless I missed it) addressed my point re: the Greenland Ice Core research--that once you are taking cores of compacted snowfall, there is no way to determine the age of such snowfall, and therefore uniformitarian assumptions regarding a very old Earth are employed.

BS I answered it in great detail here:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid759674

You are spouting more ignorance of the facts as usual. We CAN determine the age of the ice cores, what caused each ring and how long ago. Read the post, click the link. You are smarter than this Q, I just know it.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: