Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-04-2015 05:55 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  For matters geological I suggest you ask your questions of WildwoodClaire1:




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

Claire made a great point that bears repeating on this thread, just in case anyone is perusing this thread and missed it, I'll repeat it here.

Andrew Snelling; one of the paid creationist shills that Q "admires but doesn't ascribe to", claims that most of the world's limestone was formed during the Noahtic deluge.

Typical limestone consists of 80% calcium carbonate, when it precipitates it generates heat at the rate of 2698 calories a gram.

It takes one calorie to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Fahrenheit.

The estimated amount of limestone in the world is estimated to be 5x10^23 grams.
The amount of water on the planet is estimated to be at 1.37x10^24 grams.

The amount of calories released by the precipitation of limestone would be 1.08x10^27 calories.

This would raise the temperature of the oceans to:

788 deg. Celsius

1,767 deg. Fahrenheit!

Noah is deader than a doornail! This is what happens when psuedo-scientists create fantasy lands, everyone ends up dead when their fantasy land meets reality.

[Image: b92e29984c4965764c5b6ef7303b8e35caaee9f6...4e8fcf.jpg]

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
29-04-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
BREAKING NEWS

The great global flood DID happen, but it was on MARS not earth....*key dramatic music* duhn duhn duhn.......then god populated earth for a second try at his little human experiment. The ARK was actually a spaceship, and after offloading the family of 8 and all of the animals, it flew into the sun, never to be seen again.......they knew no one would believe this story, so they wrote it as if it happened on earth...that is why there is no evidence of the global flood, jesus, resurrection, exodus etc on EARTH Yes

You heard it here first

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
29-04-2015, 01:51 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(29-04-2015 01:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  BREAKING NEWS

The great global flood DID happen, but it was on MARS not earth....*key dramatic music* duhn duhn duhn.......then god populated earth for a second try at his little human experiment. The ARK was actually a spaceship, and after offloading the family of 8 and all of the animals, it flew into the sun, never to be seen again.......they knew no one would believe this story, so they wrote it as if it happened on earth...that is why there is no evidence of the global flood, jesus, resurrection, exodus etc on EARTH Yes

You heard it here first

Ohhh okay, that makes much more sense lol

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
30-04-2015, 04:51 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(29-04-2015 01:51 PM)jennybee Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 01:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  BREAKING NEWS

The great global flood DID happen, but it was on MARS not earth....*key dramatic music* duhn duhn duhn.......then god populated earth for a second try at his little human experiment. The ARK was actually a spaceship, and after offloading the family of 8 and all of the animals, it flew into the sun, never to be seen again.......they knew no one would believe this story, so they wrote it as if it happened on earth...that is why there is no evidence of the global flood, jesus, resurrection, exodus etc on EARTH Yes

You heard it here first

Ohhh okay, that makes much more sense lol

Big Grin

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 05:47 AM
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?

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

As long as we're linking to stuff we know the other side won't take seriously, this says you're wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
30-04-2015, 12:09 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(29-04-2015 09:00 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(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

Quote:if you are legitimately asking scientific questions you direct those questions to forums where there is high level of expertise on the given subject

You are correct, I think. TTA should not represent itself as such--and it doesn't. The tragedy, rather, is that people keep asking for sources including peer reviewed work and the literature from scientists, and then refuse to even look at sites I suggest. Not 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
30-04-2015, 12:13 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(29-04-2015 08:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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
You know, that's the only link I can find that refers to the "mysteries" of the Grand Canyon.
There is some debate involved in it, like its age, its precise origin, etc... but this is in almost every structure. The Grand Canyon doesn't appear to be anything unique or special in this regard.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 12:13 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(30-04-2015 12:09 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You are correct, I think. TTA should not represent itself as such--and it doesn't. The tragedy, rather, is that people keep asking for sources including peer reviewed work and the literature from scientists, and then refuse to even look at sites I suggest. Not a level playing field.

Yes, it's not a level playing field: you're being asked for peer reviewed works, and you're responding by giving non-peer reviewed, non-mainstream websites from organizations using the term "creation science," as though that's likely to be a non-biased source, and then complaining when we won't take Baby's First Science Bible with the same esteem as what we actually asked for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Esquilax's post
30-04-2015, 01:46 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(30-04-2015 12:09 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You are correct, I think. TTA should not represent itself as such--and it doesn't. The tragedy, rather, is that people keep asking for sources including peer reviewed work and the literature from scientists, and then refuse to even look at sites I suggest. Not a level playing field.

Just because we don't blindly accept hack sites that already have their minds made up, like creationscience or answersingenesis, doesn't mean we aren't thinking. It actually means the opposite.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
30-04-2015, 03:42 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(30-04-2015 12:09 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 09:00 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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

Quote:if you are legitimately asking scientific questions you direct those questions to forums where there is high level of expertise on the given subject

You are correct, I think. TTA should not represent itself as such--and it doesn't. The tragedy, rather, is that people keep asking for sources including peer reviewed work and the literature from scientists, and then refuse to even look at sites I suggest. Not a level playing field.

You offer non-scientific sites as support for a matter of science. If you presented actual scientific evidence instead of pseudo-science from charlatans we would accept them as evidence.

But you don't.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: