Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2015, 07:12 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.

When I hear "mystery", I think "things we don't know (at least, yet)".

You're not filling that gap in our knowledge with something convenient, are you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
28-04-2015, 07:20 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-04-2015 07:27 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(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

Yep, he creates his own universe based on his own interpretations without letting evidence from science affect his world views. He refuses to honestly evaluate evidence that refutes his world view.
It always comes down to him shoving his square peg Jesus into every orifice whether it really fits or not.

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
28-04-2015, 09:16 AM
Dat Noah Flood
So no chance at uniform natural occurrences?

Isn't it an awesome god that makes a universe with absolutely no chance of us ever figuring it out? Wow, a completely chaotic and random existence. How appropriate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Clockwork's post
28-04-2015, 09:22 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(28-04-2015 09:16 AM)Clockwork Wrote:  So no chance at uniform natural occurrences?

Isn't it an awesome god that makes a universe with absolutely no chance of us ever figuring it out? Wow, a completely chaotic and random existence. How appropriate.

Nonfalsifiable God is not falsifiable. That's how we know he's the for really real deal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
28-04-2015, 11:33 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(28-04-2015 09:16 AM)Clockwork Wrote:  So no chance at uniform natural occurrences?

Isn't it an awesome god that makes a universe with absolutely no chance of us ever figuring it out? Wow, a completely chaotic and random existence. How appropriate.

No, no, no: you only can't figure things out if the conclusions you might come to from attempting to don't lead to the christian god. If they do lead to the christian god, then obviously you can totally figure it out, somehow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Esquilax's post
29-04-2015, 08:27 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
Repeating,

I'm not advocating hydroplate theory. I'm pointing out the references Walt Brown makes to issues in geology. The Canyon has caused a lot of debate/discussion in geology. Here are some reasons why... what do you think of this page/chapter?

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

Thank you.

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
29-04-2015, 08:31 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(29-04-2015 08:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Repeating,

I'm not advocating hydroplate theory. I'm pointing out the references Walt Brown makes to issues in geology. The Canyon has caused a lot of debate/discussion in geology. Here are some reasons why... what do you think of this page/chapter?

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

Thank you.

I think that I can safely ignore anything that comes from a website called "Creation Science". Creation Science is an oxymoron, and its proponents are notoriously dishonest. I'm not going to waste my time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
29-04-2015, 09:00 AM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2015 04:38 PM by Hafnof.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(29-04-2015 08:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm not advocating hydroplate theory. I'm pointing out the references Walt Brown makes to issues in geology. The Canyon has caused a lot of debate/discussion in geology. Here are some reasons why... what do you think of this page/chapter?

What are you advocating at this point? You don't seem to be arguing either for or against any particular proposition, but instead throwing claims from creationist web sites against the wall. You seem to be expecting some point by point breakdown and refutation from non experts of opinions you don't claim to hold.

You seem to be doing this to try and muddy the waters and make a gap for God to fill, or to give some kind of impression that there is some legitimate debate between creationists and everyone else in the scientific arena.

My suggestion is that
- if you are legitimately asking scientific questions you direct those questions to forums where there is high level of expertise on the given subject
- if you are wanting to know what the scientific consensus is you should be evaluating published papers and experts whose work is published in scientific journals
- if you are wanting to argue for or against a given proposition that you state the proposition and your argument clearly, and preferably that you cite published papers if you are addressing scientific topics

Edit:
Something to consider
[Image: FLICC_med.jpg]
Source: http://skepticalscience.com/inoculating-...enial.html

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
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
29-04-2015, 10:12 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(29-04-2015 08:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Repeating,

I'm not advocating hydroplate theory. I'm pointing out the references Walt Brown makes to issues in geology. The Canyon has caused a lot of debate/discussion in geology. Here are some reasons why... what do you think of this page/chapter?

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

Thank you.

Stop being such a slippery, slimy, disingenuous twat.

Seriously, you keep referencing ridiculous shit without stating why or how it has anything to do with the question.

State your hypothesis about the Biblical flood or just shut the fuck up.

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
29-04-2015, 12:02 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(29-04-2015 10:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  State your hypothesis about the Biblical flood or just shut the fuck up.

From what I've read, it seems to be little more than "science doesn't know X, Y, and Z, and what it does know is based on assumptions of uniformitarianism. In reality, one cannot make those predictions at all, but actually I can, because reasons, and I predict that those holes in the knowledge will be filled with Noah's Flood-confirming data."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Esquilax's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: