Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-05-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(13-05-2015 10:22 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  [quote]"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.

The history of everything man has done is gradual advancement over time. I may not be that smart, but I'm not that stupid. There's zero reason to curse and hurl invective at me, especially when in other threads you accuse me of being insecure in my beliefs.

I'm just trying to stimulate you via the Socratic method to question how we didn't spill over into a population greater than 7 Billion given 100,000 and not 5,000 years of growth as "modern man"? Or how documentary evidence beyond circa 5000 BP would indeed be a smoking gun against the Genesis Flood but is nowhere extant?

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, 10:01 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
Come now Q, you did confess that you were not anti-science, but the evidence in these type of threads tells me....you are a liar once again.

“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
14-05-2015, 11:12 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-05-2015 09:57 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The history of everything man has done is gradual advancement over time. I may not be that smart, but I'm not that stupid. There's zero reason to curse and hurl invective at me, especially when in other threads you accuse me of being insecure in my beliefs.

Zero reason? Did you, or did you not, choose to describe the advent of written language as "magical creation"? You say you're not stupid enough to believe that, but you did say it; now, you either are stupid enough to believe that, in which case my invective is entirely justified by how breathtakingly moronic that is, or you are, as I hinted at the time, attempting to oversimplify the actual state of affairs in order to make a cartoonish parody of it, and thereby give your own... what was it? Ah, yes, tower of Babel solution more credibility, in which case my invective was equally justified, being that it was aimed at a lazy strawman.

I'm sorry you chose to phrase things as you did, but just backpedaling on it in the next post doesn't make the original inanity disappear, you know. Like I said before, and I'll say again, I don't think you're stupid enough to believe what you originally characterized this as; my irritation was, and is, at the entirely negative means by which you attempt to grant your position credibility.

Quote:I'm just trying to stimulate you via the Socratic method to question how we didn't spill over into a population greater than 7 Billion given 100,000 and not 5,000 years of growth as "modern man"?

Why would you assume otherwise? Human life expectancy, for the majority of our history, has been absolutely limited, by so many factors I could be here all day listing them and not be done. I mean, take away modern medicine and you shave decades off of how long we could expect to live, introduce a multitude of old diseases that used to be lethal, skyrocket the rate of women dying in childbirth, or children dying the same way, and turn injuries that today would be an inconvenience at best into lethal wounds... and that's just removing one element of our current state of affairs. Add in war, famine, simple ignorance, a lack of modern forensics leading to killers having much longer runs, our long love affair with the death penalty, and our combined superstitions that lead us to use it on many more people than might have deserved it... I simply cannot fathom why you would expect anywhere near a constant population growth rate. You don't just add new people every year, Q; we aren't immortal. You also have to subtract people every year too.

Quote: Or how documentary evidence beyond circa 5000 BP would indeed be a smoking gun against the Genesis Flood but is nowhere extant?

We don't need to prove you wrong, Q. The burden of proof lies with you, and there is no evidence of the Genesis flood. In fact, there's evidence that it's impossible, such as the lengthy layers in the geologic column at the Loesse Plateau, that could only have been formed via windswept conditions, which would have been impossible had the area been underwater.

I mean, that's aside from the logistical impossibilities of the ark; I see you mention some of those areas in your other reply to me on the last page. I'll get to them, I promise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Esquilax's post
14-05-2015, 11:44 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-05-2015 09:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I never said that is my sole evidence for the Flood.

Your direct words were "My prediction was X, and then I found out that there's all these assumptions about C14 dating." Should I just not take you at your word, from now on?

Quote: We can look at models of the ship based on the dimensions given,

Which demonstrably would not float.

Quote: families of flora and fauna,

Which demonstrably evolved in ordered patterns not possible with the flood.

Quote:the documentary evidence provided by almost every ancient culture, etc.

Which is obviously in reference to local floods, as a global one is demonstrably impossible.

Quote: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.

If there is no evidence of anything that would disrupt a pattern of consistency, then there is no reason to assume that such a thing exists, except to reach a conclusion that is disproved by the available evidence.

Quote: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.

You got any evidence of non-regular weather patters, or even how they would affect C14 dating processes? Or, like usual, are you just attempting to cast doubt on the real evidence, as if that makes your strange assertions any more credible?

I feel like I must remind you, what you're presenting here is in no way positive evidence for your claims. It's just more poking holes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Esquilax's post
14-05-2015, 03:17 PM (This post was last modified: 14-05-2015 05:42 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-05-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
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"

Running from falsifiability again. Yes, you should stop responding , because you are desperate. You've been reduced to denying basic science such as radiometric dating. You think your belief in myth somehow invalidates scientific dating methods. BTW-radiometric dating is not the only way to date things, scientists are fully aware of the shortcomings of any radiological dating, they can and do make adjustments that yield HIGHLY accurate results, again, they cross-correlate with other accurate dating methods.

If you are going to make accusations like this you must provide solid evidence for any doubts, and lets be honest here, this evidence doesn't exist except in creationist's minds.

Odd that you dismiss evidence because of some ephemeral "assumptions" that you won't define or specify, but you''ll believe a Noah-sized boatload of myth with zero proof.

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
14-05-2015, 04:54 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
So let's sum up:

When evidence of ice cores nuke the flood myth, Q dismisses the evidence because of "assumptions made"

When evidence of tree rings falsify the flood myth, Q dismisses the evidence because of "assumptions made"

When pressed for evidence, he points to creationist websites that JAQ off with "anomalies" that are "unexplained" without providing any evidence.

He shifts dates around and runs from specifics so he can hide behind accusations of "assumptions" and "anomalies"

When we dismiss his creationist bilge as unscientific, he whines about an "uneven playing field"

This is what cognitive dissonance looks like.

[Image: c078f660ee0dc8d95941c4180893e525.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
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
14-05-2015, 04:59 PM (This post was last modified: 14-05-2015 05:03 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-05-2015 09:57 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The history of everything man has done is gradual advancement over time.

It's not surprising that you are ignorant of Moore's Law.

(14-05-2015 09:57 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm just trying to stimulate you via the Socratic method ...

Tomasia does this much better than you without coming across as a completely pompous ass.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
14-05-2015, 08:11 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-05-2015 09:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-05-2015 10:22 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  "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.


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.

You've rambled about assumptions, I figured out what you mean now. If we make assumptions other than the bible being true, than those assumptions are in error.

We can only begin with the assumption of the bible being true and then we have to "interpret" any evidence in light of biblical truth and make the evidence fit under the assumption of the bible's truth.

You're a vapid intellectual con-artist.

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
15-05-2015, 05:18 AM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2015 05:26 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-05-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
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 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!

Once again, you are interminably ignorant of science, this is Pando:

[Image: October_12_2005_Alpine_Loop_Utah_United_States.JPG]

This is a clonal colony that's been dated to be 80,000 years old, Pando is a living clonal colony of trees and is the largest, oldest living organism on Earth, Pando has lived for 80,000 years. Pando should be dead if a global flood occurred, if it somehow survived the flood, it would've left unmistakeable proof in it's rings.

The ice cores refute your biblical nonsense, Pando refutes your biblical nonsense. I'm not going to even bother wasting my time explaining the science of dendrochronology to you, you wouldn't understand it anyway.

I note that you've accepted carbon 14 dating methods in regards to some things, but when it refutes the bible, uh-oh! Those scientists have made some incorrect "assumptions".

Maybe it's a Satan tree, put there by Beelzebub to test our faith -or outright destroy faith.

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
15-05-2015, 06:59 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-05-2015 09:42 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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 would say there are limits to the applicably of particular techniques, the main one for carbon dating being that it dates living matter whose carbon was obtained directly from the atmosphere. It can't date fossils and it generally can't be used in aquatic environments. As for dating fossils I believe I am aware of the case you are referring to and that the dating was fun the protective shallac coating.

An accessible summary, mind the language:



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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: