Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2015, 07:20 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
The other thing I've always wondered....
Which of the 5 mass extinction events was the global flood? It must have been one of them because a total, global flood would be the biggest mass extinction event ever on the planet.
I'm sure it can't be the most recent, the K/T event, since many many many animals and plants survived it, and according to traditional Noatic flood stories, absolutely no land animals would have survived, at all. So that would mean the K/T event occurred after the flood. And if an asteroid smacked us only about 4000 years ago, we'd still be living (what little would be living) under its effects today, and for many more thousands of years after.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2015, 01:19 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(15-05-2015 07:20 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  The other thing I've always wondered....
Which of the 5 mass extinction events was the global flood? It must have been one of them because a total, global flood would be the biggest mass extinction event ever on the planet.
I'm sure it can't be the most recent, the K/T event, since many many many animals and plants survived it, and according to traditional Noatic flood stories, absolutely no land animals would have survived, at all. So that would mean the K/T event occurred after the flood. And if an asteroid smacked us only about 4000 years ago, we'd still be living (what little would be living) under its effects today, and for many more thousands of years after.

Which tools are you using/which data are you interpreting how to say that there were five and not one mass extinction events? Would you consider an alternate interpretation? That the Flood caused the extinction of many species and that we are simply using our current assumptions regarding fossils and strata and etc. to parse these events?

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
15-05-2015, 01:20 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-05-2015 11:44 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(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.

Last sentence, ditto. You are just taking potshots at each of my remarks without citing evidence.

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
15-05-2015, 01:22 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(15-05-2015 01:19 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Which tools are you using/which data are you interpreting how to say that there were five and not one mass extinction events? Would you consider an alternate interpretation? That the Flood caused the extinction of many species and that we are simply using our current assumptions regarding fossils and strata and etc. to parse these events?

Still operating under the notion that poking holes in real evidence is somehow evidence for your position, eh Q?

Also, you still haven't told us how you're capable of making any predictions at all without those same "assumptions," given that each of them is based on available evidence, whereas your desire to abandon them is based on nothing but the fact that the conclusions we reach using them disagrees with what you want to be true. But then, I get the feeling that your wheelhouse is arguments from ignorance, not responses to the vapid and inane consequences of the double standards you want to foist on everyone else for questioning your fiat assertions. Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2015, 01:25 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(14-05-2015 03:17 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(14-05-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

Are you going to address what I wrote, which was:

Quote: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"

Or are you going to show us "pando" again then tell us there are trees there with 80,000 rings on them, perhaps?

I try to be patient with you at all times, but I don't feel like at this point, you want to have a discussion or even a spirited debate. I think you just have some unresolved rage and I wish you would address its root rather than project it on me all the time. If you wish to continue debating with me, kindly actually read at least some of what I write and then respond to at least some of it. I certainly do that for you.

I'm comfortable with a Flood date circa 3,000 BCE. Most of what we call culture and civilization does not extend beyond that.

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
15-05-2015, 01:28 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(15-05-2015 01:22 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(15-05-2015 01:19 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Which tools are you using/which data are you interpreting how to say that there were five and not one mass extinction events? Would you consider an alternate interpretation? That the Flood caused the extinction of many species and that we are simply using our current assumptions regarding fossils and strata and etc. to parse these events?

Still operating under the notion that poking holes in real evidence is somehow evidence for your position, eh Q?

Also, you still haven't told us how you're capable of making any predictions at all without those same "assumptions," given that each of them is based on available evidence, whereas your desire to abandon them is based on nothing but the fact that the conclusions we reach using them disagrees with what you want to be true. But then, I get the feeling that your wheelhouse is arguments from ignorance, not responses to the vapid and inane consequences of the double standards you want to foist on everyone else for questioning your fiat assertions. Dodgy

What is true is that the ANE accepted the deluge, yet wondrously, the NT predicted that scoffers would mock the Flood, which they began to really do nearly 2,000 years later. Either discuss this all with me civilly or with each mean-spirited attack you are re-proving the Bible to my way of thinking.

I'm sorry I used the word "magically" but it is a right emphasis. If homo sapiens sapiens or modern man had his advent 100,000 years ago, than we use the word "magic" unless we're pure dialectical materialists to describe the very recent advent of agronomy, language, city-states, etc. circa 5,000 BP if there was also no deluge circa 5,000 BP.

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
15-05-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(15-05-2015 01:20 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Last sentence, ditto. You are just taking potshots at each of my remarks without citing evidence.

The difference, of course, is that I actually do have evidence, whereas you just bray about "assumptions." Let's start with the ark, which would simply not be physically possible: the bible pegs it at around 450 feet long, but wooden ships shorter than that either break apart or sink due to wood flexing, only remaining stable with the aid of iron braces that were not present on Noah's ark. The ark is not physically possible, even if the size listed in the bible were sufficient to carry all the animals of the world, which it is not. That alone is enough to scuttle your claims right there, and I'd add that this is me going out of my way to prove you wrong, which I don't need to do, as I don't have the burden of proof here. You're making a claim, and in terms of justifying it all you've done is poke holes in the real science, which simply is not evidence for your position.

By contrast, the evidence for, say, the evolution of biological organisms in ways that are discordant with the flood is effusive and so vast that it would be impossible for me to properly cover it in a satisfying way here. Your only response, when people bring up things like the fossil evidence or anthropological evidence that directly contradicts what you're claiming is to make some vague assertions about assumptions, as though that completely invalidates everything, while providing nothing of your own, nor even establishing how you're able to come to any conclusions without that same framework of evidence-based inferences.

It's just nonsense, Q. You cannot simply dismiss out of hand everything you don't like, with only the thinnest of pretences, and then still pretend that you're interested in, or respectful of, evidence when it's given.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Esquilax's post
15-05-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(15-05-2015 01:28 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  What is true is that the ANE accepted the deluge, yet wondrously, the NT predicted that scoffers would mock the Flood, which they began to really do nearly 2,000 years later. Either discuss this all with me civilly or with each mean-spirited attack you are re-proving the Bible to my way of thinking.

Yeah, shocker: people mock ridiculous, unproven and patently impossible things. No way any normal human might predict that, it had to be god-magic! Dodgy

I am being quite civil, given the complete dearth of content you place into each and every fiat dismissal of the evidence based on nebulous buzzwords you give. It's simply a fact: the vast majority of your responses are arguments from ignorance, and poking holes in what other people say does not constitute evidence for a contrapositive position. If you don't like that, might I suggest getting better positions or arguments, rather than acting all offended when people call you on your fallacies? Should we just allow you to get away with flawed logic rather than hurt your feelings?

What you don't understand is how frustrating it is to deal with people like you, who'll dismiss anything I have to say on the flimsiest of arguments, but then will accept their own positions based on nothing else but the fact that they did manage to find some pretext for dismissing me. Your style is wholly negative, you only bring people down to your level, and somehow you think I'm the one being uncivil when I point that out?

Quote:I'm sorry I used the word "magically" but it is a right emphasis. If homo sapiens sapiens or modern man had his advent 100,000 years ago, than we use the word "magic" unless we're pure dialectical materialists to describe the very recent advent of agronomy, language, city-states, etc. circa 5,000 BP if there was also no deluge circa 5,000 BP.

Why? This is what you always do: "If no flood, then X. X seems impossible to me, therefore flood," but you give no reason why X is a consequence of no flood, nor why X seems impossible to you. It's an argument from personal incredulity, but it also doesn't work based on simple observations, because we've managed much greater technological advancements in a much shorter time frame in recent years, no flood required. Therefore, great technological or social strides do not require global floods; it's simply a matter of accumulation. The better we get at doing things, the faster we'll be able to do more things in future, simply because the basis we're working from is more advanced.

Put simply, your ignorance of the development of these things, is not evidence for your flood. No negative evidence is; you cannot get to a positive number from zero via subtraction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Esquilax's post
16-05-2015, 05:03 AM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2015 05:32 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(15-05-2015 01:25 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(14-05-2015 03:17 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  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.

Are you going to address what I wrote, which was:

Quote: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"

Or are you going to show us "pando" again then tell us there are trees there with 80,000 rings on them, perhaps?

I try to be patient with you at all times, but I don't feel like at this point, you want to have a discussion or even a spirited debate. I think you just have some unresolved rage and I wish you would address its root rather than project it on me all the time. If you wish to continue debating with me, kindly actually read at least some of what I write and then respond to at least some of it. I certainly do that for you.

I'm comfortable with a Flood date circa 3,000 BCE. Most of what we call culture and civilization does not extend beyond that.

Circa is a weasel word which you use to run from falsifiability. My anger at you is ENTIRELY justified. All you have done in this thread is run from falsifiability, outright lie and then whine when we call you out on your duplicitous behavior.

How many pages in was it until you eventually specified a date for your myth?

When you gave a 3000 BC date for your myth, I provided two lines of evidence that refute your claim, then you whined like a little bitch that I didn't acknowledge your weasel word of "circa".

I then showed you Pando to refute your assertion that there were living organisms only around 5000 years old, which you seem to think validates your assertion of a worldwide flood.

Every assertion you have made has been refuted, now you're down to denying the accuracy of C14 dating in this and the other thread in regards to the Tower of Babel.

You are an evasive charlatan that refuses to acknowledge reality. The funny thing is that you can't sell your snake-oil here, most of us see right through your game of cognitive dissonance, the only person you've been successful at fooling is yourself.

Let me be clear here, I recognize when you're trying to dodge falsifiability and engage in goal post shifting, you start with weasel words like "circa".

Trying to play the victim, trying to feign innocence over your abhorrent, duplicitous behavior isn't going to fly with me or anyone of us that see through your BS.

Remember, if you don't like it, you can leave!

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
16-05-2015, 05:09 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(15-05-2015 01:42 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(15-05-2015 01:28 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  What is true is that the ANE accepted the deluge, yet wondrously, the NT predicted that scoffers would mock the Flood, which they began to really do nearly 2,000 years later. Either discuss this all with me civilly or with each mean-spirited attack you are re-proving the Bible to my way of thinking.

Yeah, shocker: people mock ridiculous, unproven and patently impossible things. No way any normal human might predict that, it had to be god-magic! Dodgy

I am being quite civil, given the complete dearth of content you place into each and every fiat dismissal of the evidence based on nebulous buzzwords you give. It's simply a fact: the vast majority of your responses are arguments from ignorance, and poking holes in what other people say does not constitute evidence for a contrapositive position. If you don't like that, might I suggest getting better positions or arguments, rather than acting all offended when people call you on your fallacies? Should we just allow you to get away with flawed logic rather than hurt your feelings?

What you don't understand is how frustrating it is to deal with people like you, who'll dismiss anything I have to say on the flimsiest of arguments, but then will accept their own positions based on nothing else but the fact that they did manage to find some pretext for dismissing me. Your style is wholly negative, you only bring people down to your level, and somehow you think I'm the one being uncivil when I point that out?

Quote:I'm sorry I used the word "magically" but it is a right emphasis. If homo sapiens sapiens or modern man had his advent 100,000 years ago, than we use the word "magic" unless we're pure dialectical materialists to describe the very recent advent of agronomy, language, city-states, etc. circa 5,000 BP if there was also no deluge circa 5,000 BP.

Why? This is what you always do: "If no flood, then X. X seems impossible to me, therefore flood," but you give no reason why X is a consequence of no flood, nor why X seems impossible to you. It's an argument from personal incredulity, but it also doesn't work based on simple observations, because we've managed much greater technological advancements in a much shorter time frame in recent years, no flood required. Therefore, great technological or social strides do not require global floods; it's simply a matter of accumulation. The better we get at doing things, the faster we'll be able to do more things in future, simply because the basis we're working from is more advanced.

Put simply, your ignorance of the development of these things, is not evidence for your flood. No negative evidence is; you cannot get to a positive number from zero via subtraction.

Awesome, awesome post!

ThumbsupThumbsupThumbsupBowingBowingBowing

You are a gentleman and scholar sir!

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: