Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-04-2015, 04:46 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-04-2015 02:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ..... I've mentioned ideas like rapid plate movement theory, anomalies we can see in the Grand Canyon, the fact that much of our current debate has to do with debating the ice cores in polar regions, when we all know snow is water and that assumptions have to be made below a certain depth of snow, etc.

Consider

Okay... lets start from something narrower/simpler/easier to define.

Forget about the "How toos". Forget about the "Where fores".

For starters, lets just work on the "When of", okay?

'Q', you are seeming quite happy with an 'Old Earth' (As in the science of Geology/Astronomy etc are correct) and thence you've put forwards the idea that the last ice age might have been recorded strangely as a flood by the creators of the Bible after the fact (Again, dismissing the where fores and such of how much later after the glaciation).

Are we good on that? Is there anything you'd like the add or tweak or clarify in the above postulation?

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 10:34 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-04-2015 04:46 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(22-04-2015 02:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ..... I've mentioned ideas like rapid plate movement theory, anomalies we can see in the Grand Canyon, the fact that much of our current debate has to do with debating the ice cores in polar regions, when we all know snow is water and that assumptions have to be made below a certain depth of snow, etc.

Consider

Okay... lets start from something narrower/simpler/easier to define.

Forget about the "How toos". Forget about the "Where fores".

For starters, lets just work on the "When of", okay?

'Q', you are seeming quite happy with an 'Old Earth' (As in the science of Geology/Astronomy etc are correct) and thence you've put forwards the idea that the last ice age might have been recorded strangely as a flood by the creators of the Bible after the fact (Again, dismissing the where fores and such of how much later after the glaciation).

Are we good on that? Is there anything you'd like the add or tweak or clarify in the above postulation?

Much cheers to all.

How can I respond to people who do not read my posts before responding?

I've said multiple times there was a Flood, then later, an Ice Age. I've pointed to the likely factors that would contribute to an ice age, talked about snowfall and compaction, etc.

I think what this is really about is there is no room for any kind of Flood event because that opens the door to the Bible and other religious texts. Bias.

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
23-04-2015, 10:38 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(23-04-2015 10:34 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-04-2015 04:46 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Consider

Okay... lets start from something narrower/simpler/easier to define.

Forget about the "How toos". Forget about the "Where fores".

For starters, lets just work on the "When of", okay?

'Q', you are seeming quite happy with an 'Old Earth' (As in the science of Geology/Astronomy etc are correct) and thence you've put forwards the idea that the last ice age might have been recorded strangely as a flood by the creators of the Bible after the fact (Again, dismissing the where fores and such of how much later after the glaciation).

Are we good on that? Is there anything you'd like the add or tweak or clarify in the above postulation?

Much cheers to all.

How can I respond to people who do not read my posts before responding?

I've said multiple times there was a Flood, then later, an Ice Age. I've pointed to the likely factors that would contribute to an ice age, talked about snowfall and compaction, etc.

I think what this is really about is there is no room for any kind of Flood event because that opens the door to the Bible and other religious texts. Bias.

The last ice age covered very little of the earth. Other ice ages occurred millions of years before the existence of humanity. So what is your point?

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
23-04-2015, 10:55 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(23-04-2015 10:34 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I think what this is really about is there is no room for any kind of Flood event because that opens the door to the Bible and other religious texts. Bias.

No, the reality is that there is no room for a flood event because there is no evidence that any such thing ever occurred, and because a worldwide flood as described in the Bible is scientifically impossible. There are all kinds of good reasons why such a flood could not have happened, and did not happen -- and not one good reason to suppose that it did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
23-04-2015, 11:02 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(23-04-2015 10:34 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-04-2015 04:46 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Consider

Okay... lets start from something narrower/simpler/easier to define.

Forget about the "How toos". Forget about the "Where fores".

For starters, lets just work on the "When of", okay?

'Q', you are seeming quite happy with an 'Old Earth' (As in the science of Geology/Astronomy etc are correct) and thence you've put forwards the idea that the last ice age might have been recorded strangely as a flood by the creators of the Bible after the fact (Again, dismissing the where fores and such of how much later after the glaciation).

Are we good on that? Is there anything you'd like the add or tweak or clarify in the above postulation?

Much cheers to all.

How can I respond to people who do not read my posts before responding?

I've said multiple times there was a Flood, then later, an Ice Age. I've pointed to the likely factors that would contribute to an ice age, talked about snowfall and compaction, etc.

I think what this is really about is there is no room for any kind of Flood event because that opens the door to the Bible and other religious texts. Bias.

Q, you admitted in another thread that you accept evolution, which would debunk the OT story of man from dust, and woman from a rib in the garden. So why are you clinging to the flood story so strongly, and not the instant creation of humans story? Why can't you chalk up the noah and the flood story to being just that, a story, and not a historical event?

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
23-04-2015, 12:39 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(23-04-2015 10:34 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I think what this is really about is there is no room for any kind of Flood event because that opens the door to the Bible and other religious texts. Bias.

I want to make another comment about this. I think you have it backwards. We do not reject the flood narrative because it's in the Bible. Rather, we reject the Bible in large part because it is full of preposterous claims like the flood narrative. No bias is needed to reject the flood narrative -- it conflicts with everything we know about reality, and the way physical processes actually work (not to mention the available evidence of what has happened). When we keep encountering things like that throughout the Bible, we tend to conclude that it is an unreliable document. It is its own worst enemy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
23-04-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(23-04-2015 10:34 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-04-2015 04:46 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Consider

Okay... lets start from something narrower/simpler/easier to define.

Forget about the "How toos". Forget about the "Where fores".

For starters, lets just work on the "When of", okay?

'Q', you are seeming quite happy with an 'Old Earth' (As in the science of Geology/Astronomy etc are correct) and thence you've put forwards the idea that the last ice age might have been recorded strangely as a flood by the creators of the Bible after the fact (Again, dismissing the where fores and such of how much later after the glaciation).

Are we good on that? Is there anything you'd like the add or tweak or clarify in the above postulation?

Much cheers to all.

How can I respond to people who do not read my posts before responding?

I've said multiple times there was a Flood, then later, an Ice Age. I've pointed to the likely factors that would contribute to an ice age, talked about snowfall and compaction, etc.

I think what this is really about is there is no room for any kind of Flood event because that opens the door to the Bible and other religious texts. Bias.

That's your great hypothesis eh? And the ice cores falsify that. The EVIDENCE falsifies that. You're done Q-ball.

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
24-04-2015, 04:33 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
What I'm wanting to hear, Q, is a set of surprising accurate predictions. What is your model and what are its surprising accurate predictions? What predictions does your model make that when verified will disprove consensus science?

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
24-04-2015, 05:58 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(23-04-2015 10:34 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I've said multiple times there was a Flood, then later, an Ice Age. I've pointed to the likely factors that would contribute to an ice age, talked about snowfall and compaction, etc.

Were there people around during this flood that happened before the ice age?


(23-04-2015 10:34 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I think what this is really about is there is no room for any kind of Flood event because that opens the door to the Bible and other religious texts. Bias.

No. I believe there have been floods. I don't know anything about any global floods, but there have been floods. I'm saying there's no evidence that the flood as presented in Genesis ever happened. If some random guy goes on trial for murder, it doesn't matter if other people committed other murders. Those don't count as evidence when discussing the case at hand.

You're just trying to play fast and loose with what counts as "the flood" so you can maintain that Genesis is correct. Don't go accusing us of bias.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
24-04-2015, 08:09 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(24-04-2015 05:58 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(23-04-2015 10:34 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I've said multiple times there was a Flood, then later, an Ice Age. I've pointed to the likely factors that would contribute to an ice age, talked about snowfall and compaction, etc.

Were there people around during this flood that happened before the ice age?


(23-04-2015 10:34 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I think what this is really about is there is no room for any kind of Flood event because that opens the door to the Bible and other religious texts. Bias.

No, your facts are incorrect. Over 100 ancient cultures have global flood myths.
No. I believe there have been floods. I don't know anything about any global floods, but there have been floods. I'm saying there's no evidence that the flood as presented in Genesis ever happened. If some random guy goes on trial for murder, it doesn't matter if other people committed other murders. Those don't count as evidence when discussing the case at hand.

You're just trying to play fast and loose with what counts as "the flood" so you can maintain that Genesis is correct. Don't go accusing us of bias.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: