Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-04-2015, 08:16 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(24-04-2015 04:33 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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?

I do admit a bit of word salad is easier than presenting facts, just as it is for most posters at TTA (not you!).

Here's the deal, it's been on my mind since looking at Walt Brown's hydroplate theory--I don't subscribe to hydroplate theory--there are parts of Dr. Brown's ideas that have been debunked. However, Doc Brown (who is going back to the future when he looks at the Flood--isn't that neat!) shows in his book online, hundreds of geologic anomalies listed along with several schools of current theories. I hear what you're saying about consensus but when he shows (he's not the only onion in the field but makes a great resource online) a dozen or two unresolved matters touching the Grand Canyon formation or etc. along with a table of current schools of thought, both his and mainstream science... you may not be aware of these anomalies, but I am and it's hard to hear statements like your "predictions--results--against consensus science". His book online, available now, contains numerous such predictions and their subsequent verification in mainstream scientific research and discovery.

Again, I wouldn't concur that Brown can make every green check he does on this page, but:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlineboo...nyon6.html

And yes, I've read this entire book, some years ago. What do you think, for example, of his brief Grand Canyon chapter?

In other words, consensus of modern science seems to be that the Grand Canyon, along with other natural wonders, has features not accounted for over long periods of time, assumptions that go with that...

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
[+] 1 user Likes The Q Continuum's post
24-04-2015, 08:21 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
Q, your entire response to me on the last page was just you quoting me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2015, 08:38 AM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2015 08:44 AM by Chas.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(24-04-2015 08:16 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  In other words, consensus of modern science seems to be that the Grand Canyon, along with other natural wonders, has features not accounted for over long periods of time, assumptions that go with that...

Thanks.

Citation required regarding that consensus.

The citation cannot be from the "creation science" web site.

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
24-04-2015, 10:43 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(24-04-2015 08:16 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(24-04-2015 04:33 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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?

I do admit a bit of word salad is easier than presenting facts, just as it is for most posters at TTA (not you!).

Here's the deal, it's been on my mind since looking at Walt Brown's hydroplate theory--I don't subscribe to hydroplate theory--there are parts of Dr. Brown's ideas that have been debunked. However, Doc Brown (who is going back to the future when he looks at the Flood--isn't that neat!) shows in his book online, hundreds of geologic anomalies listed along with several schools of current theories. I hear what you're saying about consensus but when he shows (he's not the only onion in the field but makes a great resource online) a dozen or two unresolved matters touching the Grand Canyon formation or etc. along with a table of current schools of thought, both his and mainstream science... you may not be aware of these anomalies, but I am and it's hard to hear statements like your "predictions--results--against consensus science". His book online, available now, contains numerous such predictions and their subsequent verification in mainstream scientific research and discovery.

Again, I wouldn't concur that Brown can make every green check he does on this page, but:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlineboo...nyon6.html

And yes, I've read this entire book, some years ago. What do you think, for example, of his brief Grand Canyon chapter?

In other words, consensus of modern science seems to be that the Grand Canyon, along with other natural wonders, has features not accounted for over long periods of time, assumptions that go with that...

Thanks.

Q, Q, Q ....are you freaking kidding! Referencing a creation website (not going to say science cuz it ain't!), and after all this time here at TTA - you should be ashamed. I could post on a website that a huge alien dog dug out the canyon looking for a bone about 12,000 years ago, but does my opinion qualify as a "theory" that validates some "assumptions" on how it may have been formed? IDIOT.

Again Q, answer why you need this story to be historically accurate when you admittedly believe in evolution of humans?

“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
27-04-2015, 10:15 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
Based on the responses so far, I take it that no one is willing to note the anomalous features of the Canyon as listed on that site. And yet, we all know the Canyon is unique. The Hydroplate book actually lists hundreds of geology mysteries, and places several modern schools of thought side-by-side with hydroplate theory responses.

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
27-04-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-04-2015 10:15 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Based on the responses so far, I take it that no one is willing to note the anomalous features of the Canyon as listed on that site. And yet, we all know the Canyon is unique. The Hydroplate book actually lists hundreds of geology mysteries, and places several modern schools of thought side-by-side with hydroplate theory responses.

May I ask why you're using "geological mysteries" as evidence for your model? As a mystery, isn't the implication that we have no answer to it, meaning that therefore you don't either, making it unsuitable as evidence for anything at all?

This is an argument from ignorance, Q; you're taking things we don't currently have the answer to and asserting that holes in the current consensus somehow add up to evidence against it/for your alternative. They don't; you can't get a positive number from zero by only subtracting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Esquilax's post
27-04-2015, 10:34 AM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2015 12:10 PM by Chas.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-04-2015 10:15 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Based on the responses so far, I take it that no one is willing to note the anomalous features of the Canyon as listed on that site. And yet, we all know the Canyon is unique. The Hydroplate book actually lists hundreds of geology mysteries, and places several modern schools of thought side-by-side with hydroplate theory responses.

How is the Grand Canyon unique? Consider

Bryce Canyon:
[Image: 264.jpg]

Blyde River Canyon:
[Image: 529.jpg]

Gorge du Verdon:
[Image: 725.jpg]

Charyn Canyon:
[Image: 927.jpg]


Nine breathtaking canyons.

12 Most Beautiful Canyons of the World.

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
27-04-2015, 11:53 AM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2015 08:54 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-04-2015 10:15 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Based on the responses so far, I take it that no one is willing to note the anomalous features of the Canyon as listed on that site. And yet, we all know the Canyon is unique. The Hydroplate book actually lists hundreds of geology mysteries, and places several modern schools of thought side-by-side with hydroplate theory responses.

So Q finally has the nerve to show where his intellectual diarrhea comes from.

So Walt Brown, the mechanical engineer has a geologic theory:





This is another reason why rational people laugh at creationists:





This is an example at just how deep the delusion goes, all of these intricate theories to explain why the Earth "appears" to be younger than it really is.

Of course, if we find evidence of things such as ice cores, geological columns, the age of rocks brought back from the moon, etc. it would falsify this "theory", we have, and it does falsify the hydroplate theory of Walt Brown.

This creationist site is just a madhouse of bizarre psuedo-science so Christians can go on believing their bible and ignore the evidence.

Again Q is being duplicitous, he stated that he believes the universe and Earth are old, yet this site provides explanations for a young Earth. So which is it?

Do you think you might want to use arguments from sites that are consistent with your beliefs?

Here's another example of the so-called science from this site:

The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian Objects

The fountains of the deep shot all of the asteroids, meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian objects into interplanetary orbits with the energy of billions of thermonuclear bombs.

Apparently this had no effect on Noah or his 450 ft. long ship. Laughat

This level of ignorance is breathtaking, it's beyond bizarre and it ventures into being sad as to what levels a person is willing to sink to, to prop up their religious beliefs.

This thread has been a showcase as to how far credulity can stretch.

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
27-04-2015, 05:55 PM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2015 06:05 PM by Hafnof.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
For matters geological I suggest you ask your questions of WildwoodClaire1:




Playlist here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...42F5083ED2

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
27-04-2015, 07:27 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-04-2015 11:53 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Of course, if we find evidence of things such as ice cores, geological columns, the age of rocks brought back from the moon, etc. it would falsify this "theory", we have, and it does falsify the hydroplate theory of Walt Brown.

If memory serves, Q dismisses all that evidence due to the fact that they rely on "assumptions of uniformitarianism." Of course, the obvious answer to this is that without the clear and well evidenced phenomenon of consistent and predictable physical effects, if one abandons the idea that past consistency is a good indicator of regular consistency, one ought not to be able to make any predictions at all, as they've now accepted a reality in which things can accelerate and decelerate at random due to unknown- or entirely un-real, in Q's case!- forces... but somehow that doesn't stop Q from making predictions himself.

Apparently he can predict the whens, wheres and whys of these mystical forces that affect the physical world and destroy the idea of uniformity, he just won't share that information with the rest of us.

Or, more realistically, it's just a way to dismiss those models he doesn't like, while accepting by fiat those he does, no explanation required. Rolleyes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Esquilax's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: