Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2015, 02:22 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(06-05-2015 02:15 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I didn't offer dates circa 20,000 years for any Bible event...?

I've said, what four times, I don't ascribe to hydroplate theory, yet I've noticed hundreds of reference points in Walt Brown's work that can be found elsewhere yet are neatly compacted in his site online...

Again, I see no one has even LOOKED at the page I cited. How sad.

More of your dishonest BS, more demonstration of your inability to understand science or evidence.

What's sad is your delusional state of mind and your inability to understand when something is falsified.

So what's the timeline for the flood? Do you think maybe being able to present EVIDENCE for said timeline could bolster your case?

Oh that's right, you have none.

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
06-05-2015, 03:32 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
Further evidence debunking the flood:


Was the Grand Canyon Caused by a Global Flood?


A view from space of the Grand Canyon, a slow moving river over a long period of time:

[Image: canyon.jpg]

Mt. St. Helens from space, notice the straight lines cut by a fast moving flood:

[Image: 59499main_image_feature_177_jw4.jpg]

Do you really think geologists can't determine the difference between a slow moving long-term process and a fast moving catastrophic process?

Again, it isn't that hard to figure out unless your mind is tangled up with belief in a myth.

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
06-05-2015, 04:03 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(06-05-2015 02:15 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I didn't offer dates circa 20,000 years for any Bible event...?

I've said, what four times, I don't ascribe to hydroplate theory, yet I've noticed hundreds of reference points in Walt Brown's work that can be found elsewhere yet are neatly compacted in his site online...

Again, I see no one has even LOOKED at the page I cited. How sad.

What is truly sad is you repeating that lie. Drinking Beverage

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
06-05-2015, 05:40 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2015 08:50 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
Reading about Walt Brown is like reading about the Keystone cops. He goes around creating these nutty theories with no evidence, and then makes up something even nuttier the more he is refuted.

Walt Brown believes in a young Earth and universe, Q said he doesn't think such propositions are true and "unintellectual" (Q's own words in regards to young Earth creationism)

This is Q's guy, his sensei, his savior from reality, his buddy in bodacious stupidity, his hero. The one that creates theories for things Q doesn't even agree with -except when he does agree with him.

Here's a hit list of the wondrous work of Walt Brown:

Planet Earth Calling Walt Brown

Apparently Walt Brown's modus operandi is to JAQ off and ignore the scientific explanations for his questions and then declare all of cosmology, geology, and physics to be wrong and only his explanations can answer his questions.


Stellar Evolution redux


Walt Brown amusingly confirms the Salem Hypothesis

So Q are you an "unintellectual" YEC? If not, why do you ascribe to their theories?

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
06-05-2015, 06:39 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(06-05-2015 02:15 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Again, I see no one has even LOOKED at the page I cited. How sad.

Why should we?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 08:34 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(06-05-2015 02:15 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I didn't offer dates circa 20,000 years for any Bible event...?

I've said, what four times, I don't ascribe to hydroplate theory, yet I've noticed hundreds of reference points in Walt Brown's work that can be found elsewhere yet are neatly compacted in his site online...

Again, I see no one has even LOOKED at the page I cited. How sad.

I have looked at it. I looked at it the first time you posted it. I looked at it again this time around. I see a table full of crosses and circles. I'm not seeing are claims with clear surprising true predictions. I'm not talking about "just so" stories where data is cherry picked, and then after the fact someone says "see, that's the kind of thing I've been talking about all along". Science progresses through hypotheses - propositions that make clear surprising predictions and then finding out whether the predictions hold.

I suggest you
1. Identify your best and clearest claim that would defeat some significant assumption of modern geology
2. Explain the claim clearly
3. Explain its surprising predictions clearly: What those predictions are, why they follow from the claim, and how the predictions conflict with (falsify) a plank of existing geological theory
4. Show how the prediction has been proven correct

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
13-05-2015, 10:08 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(07-05-2015 08:34 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 02:15 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I didn't offer dates circa 20,000 years for any Bible event...?

I've said, what four times, I don't ascribe to hydroplate theory, yet I've noticed hundreds of reference points in Walt Brown's work that can be found elsewhere yet are neatly compacted in his site online...

Again, I see no one has even LOOKED at the page I cited. How sad.

I have looked at it. I looked at it the first time you posted it. I looked at it again this time around. I see a table full of crosses and circles. I'm not seeing are claims with clear surprising true predictions. I'm not talking about "just so" stories where data is cherry picked, and then after the fact someone says "see, that's the kind of thing I've been talking about all along". Science progresses through hypotheses - propositions that make clear surprising predictions and then finding out whether the predictions hold.

I suggest you
1. Identify your best and clearest claim that would defeat some significant assumption of modern geology
2. Explain the claim clearly
3. Explain its surprising predictions clearly: What those predictions are, why they follow from the claim, and how the predictions conflict with (falsify) a plank of existing geological theory
4. Show how the prediction has been proven correct

I think this thread has died the death (or should soon) but I would say I have issues with C14 dating that places long dates on prehistory. We all know that the assumption is we've been around nearly 3 million years, as "us" 100,000 years, then magically created written documents and etc. circa 3000 BCE. Any dates before then are C14 and other methods of dating.

As for your post, I remember being a new Christian (maybe I was still a skeptic? it was long ago) and thinking, "WTH (What The Heck)! The Flood was 5,000 years ago?" and then reading up on prehistory/Neanderthal history. My prediction was "If there was a Flood then, there should be evidence of some kind" and then finding that we were making assumptions about civilization from C14 dating and not from documentary evidence. There 'ya go. Angel

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
13-05-2015, 10:09 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(06-05-2015 03:32 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Further evidence debunking the flood:


Was the Grand Canyon Caused by a Global Flood?


A view from space of the Grand Canyon, a slow moving river over a long period of time:

[Image: canyon.jpg]

Mt. St. Helens from space, notice the straight lines cut by a fast moving flood:

[Image: 59499main_image_feature_177_jw4.jpg]

Do you really think geologists can't determine the difference between a slow moving long-term process and a fast moving catastrophic process?

Again, it isn't that hard to figure out unless your mind is tangled up with belief in a myth.

I NEVER WROTE THE GRAND CANYON WAS CAUSED BY NOAH'S FLOOD. This is typical of your come-from. Please read my posts, not my mind.

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
13-05-2015, 10:22 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(13-05-2015 10:08 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I think this thread has died the death (or should soon) but I would say I have issues with C14 dating that places long dates on prehistory. We all know that the assumption is we've been around nearly 3 million years, as "us" 100,000 years, then magically created written documents and etc. circa 3000 BCE. Any dates before then are C14 and other methods of dating.

"Magically created"? What the fuck is wrong with you? The history of writing consists of a gradual advancement in complexity over time via human invention, something you'd know if you bothered to do thirty seconds of research, and weren't so hung up on oversimplifying everything else so that it matches the pablum you're spewing.

Quote:My prediction was "If there was a Flood then, there should be evidence of some kind" and then finding that we were making assumptions about civilization from C14 dating and not from documentary evidence. There 'ya go. Angel

First of all, you're saying your evidence of the flood is "you're all just making assumptions! Nobody can make predictions!" then you're committing both a tu coque fallacy, and an argument from ignorance, because poking holes in the established science doesn't constitute evidence for your side. Furthermore, you're being wildly inconsistent when you accuse science of making assumptions, robbing the scientific community of the ability to make predictions based on consistent patterns where those patterns disagree with you, while still somehow accepting the predictions made by those who do agree with you; how are they able to make any predictions at all, if you've discarded the notion of uniformity?

Besides, radiometric dating is documentary evidence, and it's the only kind we're liable to get from before the advent of actual documents. Why is it that when scientists make these conclusions based on actual evidence you'll dismiss them as assumptions, but you'll accept way worse conclusions that are actually contradicted by the facts from people that agree with you, while still holding to a dismissal of uniformity that should prevent you from accepting any predictions or conclusions at all?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Esquilax's post
13-05-2015, 10:28 AM (This post was last modified: 13-05-2015 12:14 PM by Chas.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(13-05-2015 10:09 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 03:32 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Further evidence debunking the flood:


Was the Grand Canyon Caused by a Global Flood?


A view from space of the Grand Canyon, a slow moving river over a long period of time:

[Image: canyon.jpg]

Mt. St. Helens from space, notice the straight lines cut by a fast moving flood:

[Image: 59499main_image_feature_177_jw4.jpg]

Do you really think geologists can't determine the difference between a slow moving long-term process and a fast moving catastrophic process?

Again, it isn't that hard to figure out unless your mind is tangled up with belief in a myth.

I NEVER WROTE THE GRAND CANYON WAS CAUSED BY NOAH'S FLOOD. This is typical of your come-from. Please read my posts, not my mind.

You disingenuous twat - you know perfectly well that you strongly implied/insinuated it.

Just fuck off.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: