Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-04-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(16-04-2015 07:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I've seen you decry young Earth creationists on another thread as "unintellectual", but here you are on this thread parroting a young Earth creationist argument for how the ice cores can't be as old as the evidence points to. How do paleontologists arrive at their estimates for the age of our ancestors? Do you think that maybe a similar methodology was used in the ice core data? Do you accept the paleontologists estimates but reject the climatologists methods using similar methodologies?

It's obvious you are depending on Michael J Oard's nonsensical article found here:

Ice Cores vs the Flood


Here's an excellent article that addresses all of the points creationists try to use to cast doubt on ice core ages:

The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah’s Flood Was Not Global

I will use this quote from Seely's article:

Quote:Oard concludes by saying that uniformitarian scientists base their interpretation of the oscillations as annual “on their long-ages model with an ice sheet in equilibrium for several million years” and thus “manage to ‘squeak out’
110,000 years of ‘annual’ cycles by using several parameters.”
Against this interpretation he sets forth “the creationist young-earth model, including a rapid ice age.”41 Thus Oard would have his readers believe that it is
all just a matter of which model one follows. There is a particle of truth in this for some cores other than GISP2 and for the bottom of GISP2 below the 110,000 annual layers; but it is a false and misleading statement with regard to
the 110,000 annual layers counted in the upper part of the GISP2 core, which are not dependent upon a model. In addition, Oard’s young-earth model is essentially
just speculation. It does not have the extensive empirical foundation that underlies the dating of the GISP2 ice core.
As explained and documented above, there is good empirical evidence showing that the light bubbly hoar layers, the heavier dust concentrations, and the greater electrical conductivity of the summer layers are indeed annual, and not from storms or sub-annual differences.
If they had not been annual, they would not have correlated chronologically with the dates of historically known volcanic eruptions and there is no objective evidence indicating that they changed from being annual to being sub-annual indicators.

I will emphasize again, Ooard's entire article at answersingenesis is speculation with no evidence!

I will also emphasize again, you yourself decry the unintellectual thinking of young-Earth creationists, yet you are using their arguments!

Who do you think you are fooling here? Certainly not any of us, we don't doubt actual science backed up with evidence, yet you casually toss aside any evidence against this myth for young-Earth creationist speculation THAT HAS NO EVIDENCE!

This whole thread has been a demonstration of the utter failure of creationists to cast aside science for their presuppositional speculation, this thread has been a demonstration of your inability to accept science and evidence that falsifies the flood myth.

The entire book of Genesis is simply a Babylonian myth regurgitated by ancient Hebrews to spin the Babylonian creation/flood/Tower of Babel myths as their own story. They are plagiarizers, plain and simple. Their myths, and the Babylonian myth that they copied, are all false and science puts the lie to any notion that these ancient myths have any real truth to them.

You seem very much at peace with people that use devious methods to pervert what science says about these things, you accept some things that science says and reject other things, based only on your desire to believe.

When you actually realize that people like Ooard are liars and you get tired and even angry about being lied to, then perhaps you can go beyond these childish fantasies, but until you realize that these creationist goofs are playing you like a fiddle, you will spin in these delusions like a pig on a spit.

That was a very good article. It is appreciated. I hope you understood in reading it that again, once you go below a certain age/time-this article says circa 8,000-14,000 years or layers, that the snow is left somewhere for a year's time as a core sample to change, and then tests are run. Also, assumptions that must be used--must--included assumptions about snowfall rates, ice ages and their durations, volcanism, etc.

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
16-04-2015, 10:11 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(16-04-2015 09:39 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Isn't it a mere semantics difference to say the Law says matter or energy may not be created or destroyed so it had to be introduced into this space/time via a catalyst? Our two choices are 1) intelligent design 2) mechanical process - which process or designer MUST violate the Law or there is no matter or energy in the present universe!

How does a singularity that contains all mass violate the conservation of matter and energy?


(16-04-2015 09:39 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, the fact that people on this thread keep saying "The Law of Conservation as observed currently cannot be assumed to always hold true"!

Ignore that conservation thing; there's no reason to believe it was violated in the first place. Besides, once you go down the road of "the laws of physics and reality can just change at a whim", how do you know the entire Bible wasn't created by quantum forces, or some bullshit? You can't make any predictions or inferences about anything.


(16-04-2015 09:39 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  **No, I'm not saying the Flood was 2,000 years ago. I'm saying that scientists, whether religious or skeptics as individuals, agree that we can accurately look at permafrost and date it to 2,000 years and then the weight of all that snowfall compacts the ice core so utterly that--wait for it--we must then make some assumptions regarding the data for the ice beneath/older than the most recent 2,000 years. In this case, the Greenland permafrost is "800,000 years old because we feel that..." now, what happens if we prove that over a number of ice ages, the area where the core was measured at one point was melted utterly? Then you'll see a note on a website, "scientists re-date ice core age to 400,000 years..."

Assumptions--wait for it--based on evidence and inferring things that we know. Your assumptions are based on claims of magic and copious amounts of mind caulk to fill any gaps we have in our current understanding of things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
16-04-2015, 11:08 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(16-04-2015 09:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(16-04-2015 07:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I've seen you decry young Earth creationists on another thread as "unintellectual", but here you are on this thread parroting a young Earth creationist argument for how the ice cores can't be as old as the evidence points to. How do paleontologists arrive at their estimates for the age of our ancestors? Do you think that maybe a similar methodology was used in the ice core data? Do you accept the paleontologists estimates but reject the climatologists methods using similar methodologies?

It's obvious you are depending on Michael J Oard's nonsensical article found here:

Ice Cores vs the Flood


Here's an excellent article that addresses all of the points creationists try to use to cast doubt on ice core ages:

The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah’s Flood Was Not Global

I will use this quote from Seely's article:


I will emphasize again, Ooard's entire article at answersingenesis is speculation with no evidence!

I will also emphasize again, you yourself decry the unintellectual thinking of young-Earth creationists, yet you are using their arguments!

Who do you think you are fooling here? Certainly not any of us, we don't doubt actual science backed up with evidence, yet you casually toss aside any evidence against this myth for young-Earth creationist speculation THAT HAS NO EVIDENCE!

This whole thread has been a demonstration of the utter failure of creationists to cast aside science for their presuppositional speculation, this thread has been a demonstration of your inability to accept science and evidence that falsifies the flood myth.

The entire book of Genesis is simply a Babylonian myth regurgitated by ancient Hebrews to spin the Babylonian creation/flood/Tower of Babel myths as their own story. They are plagiarizers, plain and simple. Their myths, and the Babylonian myth that they copied, are all false and science puts the lie to any notion that these ancient myths have any real truth to them.

You seem very much at peace with people that use devious methods to pervert what science says about these things, you accept some things that science says and reject other things, based only on your desire to believe.

When you actually realize that people like Ooard are liars and you get tired and even angry about being lied to, then perhaps you can go beyond these childish fantasies, but until you realize that these creationist goofs are playing you like a fiddle, you will spin in these delusions like a pig on a spit.

That was a very good article. It is appreciated. I hope you understood in reading it that again, once you go below a certain age/time-this article says circa 8,000-14,000 years or layers, that the snow is left somewhere for a year's time as a core sample to change, and then tests are run. Also, assumptions that must be used--must--included assumptions about snowfall rates, ice ages and their durations, volcanism, etc.

I knew you didn't read the article, I will post this part from the article:

Quote:The estimated annual thickness of the layers is relevant to the way some ice cores like the Devon Island core have been dated, but it is not an assumption underlying the visual counting of hoar frost/dust, LLS, or ECM methods of counting annual layers; and these are the methods that were used to count the first 110,000 layers of the GISP2 ice core. Contrary to Oard, the expected annual thickness of the layers down the core does not determine what uniformitarian scientists conclude with these latter methods.
The truth is exactly the opposite: LLS counting is used to correct the initial estimated thickness of the annual layers. Oard’s statement that the
hoar frost, LLS, and ECM methods of dating the annual layers are dependent upon an assumption as to the thickness of the annual layers, is false and should be retracted.

This is always what it comes down to, scientists reach conclusions based on actual evidence, creationists reach conclusions based on speculation and distorting the evidence that real scientists gather.

I can see the casual disdain you make from solid science that backs up all of their assertions with multiple lines of evidence, you think you can equate a creationists speculation with actual scientists with evidence to back up what they say.

I will say this once again -you and Oord HAVE NO EVIDENCE!

The ice cores falsify the flood myth, you have also asserted a "global shaking" associated with the flood, the geologic column falsifies this as well.

Atmospheric physics falsifies the possibility of a flood, the inability of a small paleolithic tribe to build such a ship falsifies the flood myth.

Hell, can you even show evidence of anyone ever living to over 500 years?

NO YOU CAN'T!

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
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
17-04-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(16-04-2015 10:11 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(16-04-2015 09:39 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Isn't it a mere semantics difference to say the Law says matter or energy may not be created or destroyed so it had to be introduced into this space/time via a catalyst? Our two choices are 1) intelligent design 2) mechanical process - which process or designer MUST violate the Law or there is no matter or energy in the present universe!

How does a singularity that contains all mass violate the conservation of matter and energy?


(16-04-2015 09:39 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, the fact that people on this thread keep saying "The Law of Conservation as observed currently cannot be assumed to always hold true"!

Ignore that conservation thing; there's no reason to believe it was violated in the first place. Besides, once you go down the road of "the laws of physics and reality can just change at a whim", how do you know the entire Bible wasn't created by quantum forces, or some bullshit? You can't make any predictions or inferences about anything.


(16-04-2015 09:39 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  **No, I'm not saying the Flood was 2,000 years ago. I'm saying that scientists, whether religious or skeptics as individuals, agree that we can accurately look at permafrost and date it to 2,000 years and then the weight of all that snowfall compacts the ice core so utterly that--wait for it--we must then make some assumptions regarding the data for the ice beneath/older than the most recent 2,000 years. In this case, the Greenland permafrost is "800,000 years old because we feel that..." now, what happens if we prove that over a number of ice ages, the area where the core was measured at one point was melted utterly? Then you'll see a note on a website, "scientists re-date ice core age to 400,000 years..."

Assumptions--wait for it--based on evidence and inferring things that we know. Your assumptions are based on claims of magic and copious amounts of mind caulk to fill any gaps we have in our current understanding of things.

Erm, what is the mass of something inside a black hole, please? No, wait, a singularity that holds the entire mass of the universe in something infinitely smaller than a black hole? Also, you should rethink what you are saying about infinitely compacted mass and matter.

The road about the Law being violated and etc. was opined all over this thread by TTA skeptics. They opened the door. I'm pretty over it at this point, but...

I don't recall professing a belief in magic--unless it's in a young girl's heart as the band America sang about. I recall saying the power strong enough to catalyze the birth of the universe is quite able to move matter and energy at levels that resemble magic to the uninitiated. But we are not uninitiated, are we, Robby? No, we are members of the League of Shadows!

And there's not a lot of mind caulk in my mind and conscience. Thousands of complaints about Flood judgment and Israelite warfare--God judges. Thousands of people protesting their right to sin online--God forgives. Etc. I think it's not that you reject Christian answers other than that you are very smart and find many of our answers too simple.

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
17-04-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(16-04-2015 11:08 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(16-04-2015 09:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  That was a very good article. It is appreciated. I hope you understood in reading it that again, once you go below a certain age/time-this article says circa 8,000-14,000 years or layers, that the snow is left somewhere for a year's time as a core sample to change, and then tests are run. Also, assumptions that must be used--must--included assumptions about snowfall rates, ice ages and their durations, volcanism, etc.

I knew you didn't read the article, I will post this part from the article:

Quote:The estimated annual thickness of the layers is relevant to the way some ice cores like the Devon Island core have been dated, but it is not an assumption underlying the visual counting of hoar frost/dust, LLS, or ECM methods of counting annual layers; and these are the methods that were used to count the first 110,000 layers of the GISP2 ice core. Contrary to Oard, the expected annual thickness of the layers down the core does not determine what uniformitarian scientists conclude with these latter methods.
The truth is exactly the opposite: LLS counting is used to correct the initial estimated thickness of the annual layers. Oard’s statement that the
hoar frost, LLS, and ECM methods of dating the annual layers are dependent upon an assumption as to the thickness of the annual layers, is false and should be retracted.

This is always what it comes down to, scientists reach conclusions based on actual evidence, creationists reach conclusions based on speculation and distorting the evidence that real scientists gather.

I can see the casual disdain you make from solid science that backs up all of their assertions with multiple lines of evidence, you think you can equate a creationists speculation with actual scientists with evidence to back up what they say.

I will say this once again -you and Oord HAVE NO EVIDENCE!

The ice cores falsify the flood myth, you have also asserted a "global shaking" associated with the flood, the geologic column falsifies this as well.

Atmospheric physics falsifies the possibility of a flood, the inability of a small paleolithic tribe to build such a ship falsifies the flood myth.

Hell, can you even show evidence of anyone ever living to over 500 years?

NO YOU CAN'T!

I did read the article. I note you have not responded to the yearlong thawing process of samples mentioned in the article as I had mentioned it... Nor the simple math... annual snowfall of seven feet across 5,000 years is how much snowfall, please? An ice shelf miles deep...

I'm uncertain what evidence would constitute the proof that primitive men lived 500 years. A fossilized birthday cake perhaps? Consider But I'm here offering proof that Jesus has been alive for over 2,000 years to date. Consider

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
17-04-2015, 12:41 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(17-04-2015 10:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Erm, what is the mass of something inside a black hole, please? No, wait, a singularity that holds the entire mass of the universe in something infinitely smaller than a black hole? Also, you should rethink what you are saying about infinitely compacted mass and matter.

What about this violates any laws you know of? You're asking vague questions, but I cannot see what your objection is. It's that singularities aren't possible, or something?


(17-04-2015 10:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The road about the Law being violated and etc. was opined all over this thread by TTA skeptics. They opened the door. I'm pretty over it at this point, but...

That's fine, and I'm not citing that. I'm saying that I don't see any reason why conservation has to be violated, thus, I don't see why you get some freebie for dismissing scientific assumptions in lieu of accepting theological assumptions.


(17-04-2015 10:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I don't recall professing a belief in magic--unless it's in a young girl's heart as the band America sang about. I recall saying the power strong enough to catalyze the birth of the universe is quite able to move matter and energy at levels that resemble magic to the uninitiated. But we are not uninitiated, are we, Robby? No, we are members of the League of Shadows!

And there's not a lot of mind caulk in my mind and conscience. Thousands of complaints about Flood judgment and Israelite warfare--God judges. Thousands of people protesting their right to sin online--God forgives. Etc. I think it's not that you reject Christian answers other than that you are very smart and find many of our answers too simple.

Not magic, but just eternal entities, resurrections, talking snakes, and people who can turn sticks into snakes. Sorry I called it the wrong thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
17-04-2015, 01:13 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(17-04-2015 12:41 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(17-04-2015 10:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Erm, what is the mass of something inside a black hole, please? No, wait, a singularity that holds the entire mass of the universe in something infinitely smaller than a black hole? Also, you should rethink what you are saying about infinitely compacted mass and matter.

What about this violates any laws you know of? You're asking vague questions, but I cannot see what your objection is. It's that singularities aren't possible, or something?


(17-04-2015 10:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The road about the Law being violated and etc. was opined all over this thread by TTA skeptics. They opened the door. I'm pretty over it at this point, but...

That's fine, and I'm not citing that. I'm saying that I don't see any reason why conservation has to be violated, thus, I don't see why you get some freebie for dismissing scientific assumptions in lieu of accepting theological assumptions.


(17-04-2015 10:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I don't recall professing a belief in magic--unless it's in a young girl's heart as the band America sang about. I recall saying the power strong enough to catalyze the birth of the universe is quite able to move matter and energy at levels that resemble magic to the uninitiated. But we are not uninitiated, are we, Robby? No, we are members of the League of Shadows!

And there's not a lot of mind caulk in my mind and conscience. Thousands of complaints about Flood judgment and Israelite warfare--God judges. Thousands of people protesting their right to sin online--God forgives. Etc. I think it's not that you reject Christian answers other than that you are very smart and find many of our answers too simple.

Not magic, but just eternal entities, resurrections, talking snakes, and people who can turn sticks into snakes. Sorry I called it the wrong thing.

The difference between a singularity containing all of the matter in the universe and all of the matter in the universe is its mass/size/dimensions/"space". It's the same thing except in different states.

Let me try to make this simpler for both of us. Let's instead call it "The Law of Cookie Dough". Cookie dough may neither be batched afresh nor eaten. There are a few cups of dough on the Earth. Whether the cookie dough is in a bowl three foot across or scattered across the surface of a lake from an airplane, it is indeed the same amount of cookie dough--as you wrote.

In other words, where did the singularity come from? Because it's got matter in it as you wrote.

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
17-04-2015, 01:16 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(17-04-2015 01:13 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(17-04-2015 12:41 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  What about this violates any laws you know of? You're asking vague questions, but I cannot see what your objection is. It's that singularities aren't possible, or something?



That's fine, and I'm not citing that. I'm saying that I don't see any reason why conservation has to be violated, thus, I don't see why you get some freebie for dismissing scientific assumptions in lieu of accepting theological assumptions.



Not magic, but just eternal entities, resurrections, talking snakes, and people who can turn sticks into snakes. Sorry I called it the wrong thing.

The difference between a singularity containing all of the matter in the universe and all of the matter in the universe is its mass/size/dimensions/"space". It's the same thing except in different states.

Let me try to make this simpler for both of us. Let's instead call it "The Law of Cookie Dough". Cookie dough may neither be batched afresh nor eaten. There are a few cups of dough on the Earth. Whether the cookie dough is in a bowl three foot across or scattered across the surface of a lake from an airplane, it is indeed the same amount of cookie dough--as you wrote.

In other words, where did the singularity come from? Because it's got matter in it as you wrote.

There is no matter at the Big Bang - it's all energy. Matter doesn't exist until the universe has expanded enough to cool sufficiently for matter to exist.

Jesus Hadron Christ, people, if you're going to argue about this, argue about the actual theory - not some dumb shit.

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
17-04-2015, 07:26 PM (This post was last modified: 17-04-2015 08:01 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(17-04-2015 10:29 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(16-04-2015 11:08 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I knew you didn't read the article, I will post this part from the article:


This is always what it comes down to, scientists reach conclusions based on actual evidence, creationists reach conclusions based on speculation and distorting the evidence that real scientists gather.

I can see the casual disdain you make from solid science that backs up all of their assertions with multiple lines of evidence, you think you can equate a creationists speculation with actual scientists with evidence to back up what they say.

I will say this once again -you and Oord HAVE NO EVIDENCE!

The ice cores falsify the flood myth, you have also asserted a "global shaking" associated with the flood, the geologic column falsifies this as well.

Atmospheric physics falsifies the possibility of a flood, the inability of a small paleolithic tribe to build such a ship falsifies the flood myth.

Hell, can you even show evidence of anyone ever living to over 500 years?

NO YOU CAN'T!

I did read the article. I note you have not responded to the yearlong thawing process of samples mentioned in the article as I had mentioned it... Nor the simple math... annual snowfall of seven feet across 5,000 years is how much snowfall, please? An ice shelf miles deep...

I'm uncertain what evidence would constitute the proof that primitive men lived 500 years. A fossilized birthday cake perhaps? Consider But I'm here offering proof that Jesus has been alive for over 2,000 years to date. Consider

You are so bereft of understanding, do you not know how archeologists determine the ages of people that die?

I showed in the article where it COMPLETELY refutes the uniformitarian accusations of "assumptions" that Oord made against the scientists, the MEASUREMENTS determined the age of the ice cores up to 110,000 years, not assumptions.

They made these measurements WHILE THE ICE WAS FROZEN! Do you understand that? Show me in the article where the the ice core was melted before they made the three cross-correlated measurements. Because I didn't see it in there, besides, it is IRRELEVANT, the three measurement methods were done before it was melted -if it was melted.


Quote:Nor the simple math... annual snowfall of seven feet across 5,000 years is how much snowfall, please?

Uh oh! Q broke out his Excel math again! It's time to rewrite all of the science we know about ice cores!

If you can proceed from an assumption that "simple math" can disprove evidence-based scientific inquiry, then you are truly Qlueless. You are making a definitive statement to just how ignorant of science you truly are.

Quote:But I'm here offering proof that Jesus has been alive for over 2,000 years to date.

Got a live body to prove that? No, just subjective feels and biased presupposition. Laughat

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
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
18-04-2015, 02:38 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
MUST....CONVINCE....ATHEISTS....THEY....ARE....ALL.......WRONG.....

[Image: d6255859_32238-Beating-Dead-Horse-gif-7zfM.gif]

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: