Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-05-2015, 11:28 AM
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.

I've tried to pin you down this entire thread to provide a date for the flood and you finally did it in another thread. You gave the date of 3,000 BC for the flood.

This is falsified by a living 5,064 year old tree , you do understand a tree could not have lived through the flood don't you?

There is also the Tepe Sialk ziggurat that was built around 3000 BC with archeological excavations revealing habitation in this area going back to 5500-6000 BC.

And it is still falsified by the ice cores referenced earlier.

Also there is a mountain of evidence of uninterrupted human habitation in many cities that predates 3000 BC.

You have asserted that the flood went clear back to paleolithic times of 20,000+ years ago, who do you think you're fooling? This entire thread has been an attempt by you to dodge falsifiability.

You would've done much better to simply have stopped posting at page 6, that's when you started digging your hole and you wouldn't stop and just kept on digging.

I know, Jeebus cups your balls in his soft hands and leads you around by them. You're just being led by Jeebus.

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
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
14-05-2015, 07:04 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.

Fair enough. Just a quick point though: C14 isn't used beyond a few tens of thousands of years. Before then different elements are used that have longer half lives.

A quick primer based on specific creationist claims:



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
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
14-05-2015, 08:52 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(13-05-2015 11:28 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I've tried to pin you down this entire thread to provide a date for the flood and you finally did it in another thread. You gave the date of 3,000 BC for the flood.

This is falsified by a living 5,064 year old tree , you do understand a tree could not have lived through the flood don't you?

There is also the Tepe Sialk ziggurat that was built around 3000 BC with archeological excavations revealing habitation in this area going back to 5500-6000 BC.

And it is still falsified by the ice cores referenced earlier.

You and your assumptions of uniformity! Don't you know that the only people who are allowed to make predictions are ones who already agree with Q, for reasons? Everyone else is just assuming uniformity!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Esquilax's post
14-05-2015, 09:42 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-05-2015 07:04 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(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.

Fair enough. Just a quick point though: C14 isn't used beyond a few tens of thousands of years. Before then different elements are used that have longer half lives.

A quick primer based on specific creationist claims:



I understand. There are issues with radiometric dating as well. And I know you know that C14 dating has been done on million-year-old fossils and shown C14 remaining where there should be none.

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
14-05-2015, 09:44 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(13-05-2015 10:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-05-2015 10:09 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

Um, I've patiently explained there was a Flood, ice age, global recession, upheaval, and I believe, extensive volcanism. I believe the Grand Canyon issues have to do with post-Flood water tables and that the Canyon shows evidence of rapid, not very gradual, formation. But I cannot be blamed by you if you neither read my posts, nor my citations, nor visit websites I point out to 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
14-05-2015, 09:48 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(13-05-2015 10:22 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(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?

I never said that is my sole evidence for the Flood. We can look at models of the ship based on the dimensions given, families of flora and fauna, the documentary evidence provided by almost every ancient culture, etc.

I don't dismiss uniformity out of hand. I do rather remind my friends at TTA that radiometric dating involves looking at nearby strata and fossils and making assumptions, and that looking at things like bristlecone pine rings and C14 dating takes into account other assumptions.

For example, scientists are warning of climate change. Could another ice age or global severe warming period be on the way due to changes in the ozone layer and other factors? But if we haven't had regular seasons in the past and had extreme weather events or solar activity, etc. then the C14 "constants" would not be constant.

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
14-05-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-05-2015 09:42 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(14-05-2015 07:04 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Fair enough. Just a quick point though: C14 isn't used beyond a few tens of thousands of years. Before then different elements are used that have longer half lives.

A quick primer based on specific creationist claims:



I understand. There are issues with radiometric dating as well. And I know you know that C14 dating has been done on million-year-old fossils and shown C14 remaining where there should be none.

Citation required.

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
14-05-2015, 09:52 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
Quote:This is falsified by a living 5,064 year old tree , you do understand a tree could not have lived through the flood don't you?

I think I should not respond to you anymore. Do you know what "circa" means? I said the Flood was circa 3000 BCE which in our calendar is circa 5,015 years, and you are upset because trees that are presumed to live indefinitely have been dated a few times around this planet to 5,064 years ONLY! Please look up:

"circa"

"tree ring dating assumes no radical atmospheric changes"

"pre-history, it's anything beyond 3,000 BCE and assumes C14 and other dating methods"

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
14-05-2015, 09:53 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-05-2015 09:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-05-2015 10:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  You disingenuous twat - you know perfectly well that you strongly implied/insinuated it.

Just fuck off.

Um, I've patiently explained there was a Flood, ice age, global recession, upheaval, and I believe, extensive volcanism. I believe the Grand Canyon issues have to do with post-Flood water tables and that the Canyon shows evidence of rapid, not very gradual, formation. But I cannot be blamed by you if you neither read my posts, nor my citations, nor visit websites I point out to you.

I have read all of the above and hence once again call you out as a liar.

The web sites you reference are pseudo-scientific jokes.

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
14-05-2015, 09:55 AM (This post was last modified: 14-05-2015 10:08 AM by Chas.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-05-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  "tree ring dating assumes no radical atmospheric changes"

Bullshit. Tree rings occur every year and their size varies - they are used as one of the calibrations for ¹⁴C dating accounting for variations.

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: