Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-04-2015, 03:14 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(18-04-2015 02:38 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  MUST....CONVINCE....ATHEISTS....THEY....ARE....ALL.......WRONG.....

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

And all it takes is to completely abandon any pretense of science and embrace Last Thursdayism to the hilt.

CHECKMATE ATHEISTS.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
20-04-2015, 08:03 AM
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.

So just a few quick points for the record:
- A singularity doesn't refer to infinite mass, but rather an infinite curvature of space-time[1]
- There is no firm reason to think that a singularity ever has existed or can exist in nature, though we can't quite rule them out either probably
- Instead, the term really describes the point at which certain equations no longer provide predictions that we know how to interpret. It describes a limit to our current knowledge.
- Black holes have finite mass and corresponding finite gravity. It may be that each has a singularity at the centre, but it is likely that the picture painted by relativity is incomplete and that quantum effects come into play in an as-yet-undetermined way.
- It is not known if the universe has finite mass or not. It may be that the universe began with a singularity, but I'm not aware of any particularly compelling reason to think it did.
- As with black hole theory big bang theory doesn't give us complete and consistent answers that make testable predictions at this time. We know that the mass of the currently-observable universe was highly compressed about 13.7 billion years ago. We have good reason to think it then expanded faster than the speed of light for a while[2] before beginning to operate in a way we are more familiar with.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29

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
20-04-2015, 10:40 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(20-04-2015 08:03 AM)Hafnof 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.

So just a few quick points for the record:
- A singularity doesn't refer to infinite mass, but rather an infinite curvature of space-time[1]
- There is no firm reason to think that a singularity ever has existed or can exist in nature, though we can't quite rule them out either probably
- Instead, the term really describes the point at which certain equations no longer provide predictions that we know how to interpret. It describes a limit to our current knowledge.
- Black holes have finite mass and corresponding finite gravity. It may be that each has a singularity at the centre, but it is likely that the picture painted by relativity is incomplete and that quantum effects come into play in an as-yet-undetermined way.
- It is not known if the universe has finite mass or not. It may be that the universe began with a singularity, but I'm not aware of any particularly compelling reason to think it did.
- As with black hole theory big bang theory doesn't give us complete and consistent answers that make testable predictions at this time. We know that the mass of the currently-observable universe was highly compressed about 13.7 billion years ago. We have good reason to think it then expanded faster than the speed of light for a while[2] before beginning to operate in a way we are more familiar with.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29

I was responding to Robby's post.

Regarding your post, I'm a little surprised that you wrote that "We know that the mass of the currently-observable universe was highly compressed about 13.7 billion years ago."

I would say we assume that or extrapolate that... I would encourage you to be less rigid in your thinking.

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
20-04-2015, 10:42 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'm unfamiliar with Oard's work and did not at any time refer to it or read during this thread--please confine your remarks to my comments if you would.

I saw you echo the cited post's comments that they are free from uniformitarian assumptions but I've several times pointed out where they must logically employ a number of assumptions, even if they are aware of skirting any possible uniformitarian biases.

Thanks.

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
20-04-2015, 05:19 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(20-04-2015 10:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(20-04-2015 08:03 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So just a few quick points for the record:
- A singularity doesn't refer to infinite mass, but rather an infinite curvature of space-time[1]
- There is no firm reason to think that a singularity ever has existed or can exist in nature, though we can't quite rule them out either probably
- Instead, the term really describes the point at which certain equations no longer provide predictions that we know how to interpret. It describes a limit to our current knowledge.
- Black holes have finite mass and corresponding finite gravity. It may be that each has a singularity at the centre, but it is likely that the picture painted by relativity is incomplete and that quantum effects come into play in an as-yet-undetermined way.
- It is not known if the universe has finite mass or not. It may be that the universe began with a singularity, but I'm not aware of any particularly compelling reason to think it did.
- As with black hole theory big bang theory doesn't give us complete and consistent answers that make testable predictions at this time. We know that the mass of the currently-observable universe was highly compressed about 13.7 billion years ago. We have good reason to think it then expanded faster than the speed of light for a while[2] before beginning to operate in a way we are more familiar with.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29

I was responding to Robby's post.

Regarding your post, I'm a little surprised that you wrote that "We know that the mass of the currently-observable universe was highly compressed about 13.7 billion years ago."

I would say we assume that or extrapolate that... I would encourage you to be less rigid in your thinking.

Re "I would encourage you to be less rigid in your thinking."

Yes Hafnof, you should be more like Q....an open book, intellectually honest, Smartass and in no way manacled by traditional Christian dogma. Drooling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3Fi_xxw_hQ
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
21-04-2015, 07:00 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(20-04-2015 10:42 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'm unfamiliar with Oard's work and did not at any time refer to it or read during this thread--please confine your remarks to my comments if you would.

I saw you echo the cited post's comments that they are free from uniformitarian assumptions but I've several times pointed out where they must logically employ a number of assumptions, even if they are aware of skirting any possible uniformitarian biases.

Thanks.

I see now that you are going to apply your dishonest interpretations to scientific evidence as well. If scientific data doesn't match your religious beliefs, then it needs to be interpreted with "different" assumptions. Assumptions that no doubt confirm your worldview, I knew you were a dishonest person before, but you've sank to a new low, there doesn't seem to be any bar set too low for you to crawl right under it intellectually.

I keep thinking you might want to rise above the muck of your intellectual dishonesty, but all you ever do is dig yourself deeper into the filth.

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
21-04-2015, 09:49 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(20-04-2015 10:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Regarding your post, I'm a little surprised that you wrote that "We know that the mass of the currently-observable universe was highly compressed about 13.7 billion years ago."

I would say we assume that or extrapolate that... I would encourage you to be less rigid in your thinking.

Science is rigid about rejecting hypotheses that make false predictions. It is a rigid merciless system that doesn't make room for disproven ideas. When I say we "know" I of course mean it provisionally and that if new evidence comes along it may hypothetically support a different hypothesis, but I don't use the word "know" here lightly. When I say "know" I mean that all serious competing hypotheses have really been eliminated in this space.

Contrast my "knowing" that the observable universe was highly compressed about 13.7 billion years ago with my "having good reason to believe" regarding Inflation. Inflation is very well evidentially supported with the flat curvature of spacetime and various other things but I think enough credible alternative hypotheses exist to limit the degree of certainty attached to it. The compressed state of the universe about 13.7 billion years ago is not only very well attested by evidence such as the cosmic microwave background but really all competing hypotheses I'm aware of that have not been disproven fit this basic model.

Was there a singularity? Competing hypotheses exist. Is there a temporal edge to the universe? Competing hypotheses exist. Is the universe infinite or finite? Competing hypotheses exist. Is the expansion of space-time being driven by dark energy or is there unknown physics involved? Competing hypotheses exist. Was the observable universe highly compressed around 13.7 billion years ago such that the observable universe was at a constant temperature, and has it been expanding since then as per the hubble constant? Yes, that much is "known". If you are working to an alternate hypothesis you can be sure it has been well considered and falsified. Significant new physics would likely need to be uncovered to open up the possibility of new viable hypotheses in this space.

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
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
21-04-2015, 02:33 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(21-04-2015 09:49 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(20-04-2015 10:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Regarding your post, I'm a little surprised that you wrote that "We know that the mass of the currently-observable universe was highly compressed about 13.7 billion years ago."

I would say we assume that or extrapolate that... I would encourage you to be less rigid in your thinking.

Science is rigid about rejecting hypotheses that make false predictions. It is a rigid merciless system that doesn't make room for disproven ideas. When I say we "know" I of course mean it provisionally and that if new evidence comes along it may hypothetically support a different hypothesis, but I don't use the word "know" here lightly. When I say "know" I mean that all serious competing hypotheses have really been eliminated in this space.

Contrast my "knowing" that the observable universe was highly compressed about 13.7 billion years ago with my "having good reason to believe" regarding Inflation. Inflation is very well evidentially supported with the flat curvature of spacetime and various other things but I think enough credible alternative hypotheses exist to limit the degree of certainty attached to it. The compressed state of the universe about 13.7 billion years ago is not only very well attested by evidence such as the cosmic microwave background but really all competing hypotheses I'm aware of that have not been disproven fit this basic model.

Was there a singularity? Competing hypotheses exist. Is there a temporal edge to the universe? Competing hypotheses exist. Is the universe infinite or finite? Competing hypotheses exist. Is the expansion of space-time being driven by dark energy or is there unknown physics involved? Competing hypotheses exist. Was the observable universe highly compressed around 13.7 billion years ago such that the observable universe was at a constant temperature, and has it been expanding since then as per the hubble constant? Yes, that much is "known". If you are working to an alternate hypothesis you can be sure it has been well considered and falsified. Significant new physics would likely need to be uncovered to open up the possibility of new viable hypotheses in this space.

You and others are misunderstanding not only my post but my intent. I absolutely, without question, accept the approx. 13.7 Billion year date for the universe. However, my logical, rationalist mind reminds me that I am taking certain constants for granted for the whole length of the 13.7B years, including rates of expansion, speeds shortly after the Big Bang, etc.

But you hit the nail on the head where you wrote that competing hypotheses exist. They exist for the Flood, for the Big Bang, for the extinction of the dinosaurs, etc. This is why I am tempted to resent--while remaining steadfastly patient--the constant inference that when I offer alternative hypotheses for events in the distant past that I'm somehow being unscientific or skirting modern science, as if EVERY and ALL academic in EVERY secular university and research lab is in TOTAL, univocal agreement.

Then again, I'm always interested in a level playing field.

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
21-04-2015, 07:51 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(21-04-2015 02:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(21-04-2015 09:49 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Science is rigid about rejecting hypotheses that make false predictions. It is a rigid merciless system that doesn't make room for disproven ideas. When I say we "know" I of course mean it provisionally and that if new evidence comes along it may hypothetically support a different hypothesis, but I don't use the word "know" here lightly. When I say "know" I mean that all serious competing hypotheses have really been eliminated in this space.

Contrast my "knowing" that the observable universe was highly compressed about 13.7 billion years ago with my "having good reason to believe" regarding Inflation. Inflation is very well evidentially supported with the flat curvature of spacetime and various other things but I think enough credible alternative hypotheses exist to limit the degree of certainty attached to it. The compressed state of the universe about 13.7 billion years ago is not only very well attested by evidence such as the cosmic microwave background but really all competing hypotheses I'm aware of that have not been disproven fit this basic model.

Was there a singularity? Competing hypotheses exist. Is there a temporal edge to the universe? Competing hypotheses exist. Is the universe infinite or finite? Competing hypotheses exist. Is the expansion of space-time being driven by dark energy or is there unknown physics involved? Competing hypotheses exist. Was the observable universe highly compressed around 13.7 billion years ago such that the observable universe was at a constant temperature, and has it been expanding since then as per the hubble constant? Yes, that much is "known". If you are working to an alternate hypothesis you can be sure it has been well considered and falsified. Significant new physics would likely need to be uncovered to open up the possibility of new viable hypotheses in this space.

You and others are misunderstanding not only my post but my intent. I absolutely, without question, accept the approx. 13.7 Billion year date for the universe. However, my logical, rationalist mind reminds me that I am taking certain constants for granted for the whole length of the 13.7B years, including rates of expansion, speeds shortly after the Big Bang, etc.

But you hit the nail on the head where you wrote that competing hypotheses exist. They exist for the Flood, for the Big Bang, for the extinction of the dinosaurs, etc. This is why I am tempted to resent--while remaining steadfastly patient--the constant inference that when I offer alternative hypotheses for events in the distant past that I'm somehow being unscientific or skirting modern science, as if EVERY and ALL academic in EVERY secular university and research lab is in TOTAL, univocal agreement.

Then again, I'm always interested in a level playing field.

You have presented no credible evidence for the Biblical flood. None. Zilch.
This is because you can't - there isn't any. All of the evidence shows that it is a myth.

You should give up this fantasy.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
21-04-2015, 08:02 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(21-04-2015 07:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  You have presented no credible evidence for the Biblical flood. None. Zilch.
This is because you can't - there isn't any. All of the evidence shows that it is a myth.

You should give up this fantasy.

It's worse than fantasy. If he's looking for physical evidence of a worldwide flood to somehow provide ultimate authority and veracity for some ancient text written before we even fucking understood rain that mentions a worldwide flood barely in passing, then he's looking under all the wrong rocks.

[Image: rock-1.jpg]

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: