Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2015, 07:52 AM
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

Q thinks we have to proceed from the "assumption" that the bible is true, only then do we have the correct assumptions that he would accept.

Bible proves bible........

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
18-05-2015, 10:00 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(15-05-2015 01:32 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(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.

Here are some good thoughts on wood ships:

http://christianthinktank.com/bigark.html

And here are my thought(s):

The ark is similar in ratio to a human coffin, and serves, as we read in the NT, as a great picture of water baptism (I died with Christ, my sin died, and I'm immersed in His teachings and in water, before I "rise again" from the water).

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
18-05-2015, 10:11 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.

You're pretty civil, actually, except when you call me names and curse at me.

I can't remember what the fallacy is called when evoking a set of coincidences as fact, and you can call it that if you like, but I find it mighty coincidental (when taken together or when multiplied together) that most every advancement we call "modern man" cannot with impunity be placed earlier than circa 5,000 BP, right where The Inquisition insists the biblical Flood "happened" (and I agree with him, even though no one expects The Inquisition). And to date, your sole response to these multiple facts is something regarding the gradual accretion of knowledge circa the past 100,000 years of modern man. Fire, perhaps, but few tools, cities, documents, small population, etc. Sure...

As for biodiversity, I'm an evolutionist, and most of us believe that there must also have been periods of rapid change and adaptation in the past. (I think anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid, so please don't be stupid.) We had what, two breeds of hunting dogs a millennia ago? You could put thousands of species on that ark, especially if they were small, immature specimens, in hibernation, etc. (Atheists, by the way, love to cite the Shoah as evidence of God's improvidence, simultaneously remembering the train cars each used to transport people to the death campus while forgetting the ark had the capacity of nearly 600 train cars! Watch a train with just 100 cars go by sometime, and multiply it by 6 in your head, please. That ship was so big it could have fit two skeptics on it, also, like in that Crowe movie.)

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
18-05-2015, 10:14 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(16-05-2015 05:03 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(15-05-2015 01:25 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Are you going to address what I wrote, which was:


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!

I'm not sure Pando is a good example, anymore than me telling you people are "supposed to have lived 120 years in modern times proves something from the Bible". Pando includes extraordinary tree root growth, which "proves" only that scientists cannot accept uniform assumptions regarding recent, dramatic climate changes... like, say, a Flood or recent Ice Age...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)

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
18-05-2015, 01:50 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(18-05-2015 10:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Here are some good thoughts on wood ships:

http://christianthinktank.com/bigark.html

Why would you even post this? It lists one ship that was fully wooden and over 300 feet long, which I can't verify outside of hundred-year-old newspaper clippings (one of which featured the evocative title "New World sunk.") and a series of other ships that most likely included iron braces. Hardly good evidence, when compared to all the other ships, far more verifiable, that demonstrably did sink under far better conditions than the flood would have provided, and with the benefit of superior construction materials.

Quote:And here are my thought(s):

The ark is similar in ratio to a human coffin, and serves, as we read in the NT, as a great picture of water baptism (I died with Christ, my sin died, and I'm immersed in His teachings and in water, before I "rise again" from the water).

How is this in any way relevant to anything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Esquilax's post
18-05-2015, 01:58 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(18-05-2015 10:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Here are some good thoughts on wood ships:

And here are some better ones.





I can see by your coat, my friend
You're from the other side
There's just one thing I'd like to know
Can you tell me please, who won the war ?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
18-05-2015, 06:40 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(18-05-2015 10:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I can't remember what the fallacy is called when evoking a set of coincidences as fact, and you can call it that if you like, but I find it mighty coincidental (when taken together or when multiplied together) that most every advancement we call "modern man" cannot with impunity be placed earlier than circa 5,000 BP, right where The Inquisition insists the biblical Flood "happened" (and I agree with him, even though no one expects The Inquisition). And to date, your sole response to these multiple facts is something regarding the gradual accretion of knowledge circa the past 100,000 years of modern man. Fire, perhaps, but few tools, cities, documents, small population, etc. Sure...

Why does this require a response greater than what I've given already? "This seems coincidental to me," is hardly evidence for your position; the absolute best you could say is that it's a mystery. But your incredulity doesn't mean that you're right; if my position was just "it seems coincidental to me that we haven't had any other global floods," or something like that (please don't feel the need to respond to that, it's a matter of the format of the position, not its content) would you take that as an argument against the flood narrative? Or would you, quite rightly, point out that what I feel about a given set of events does not influence what they actually are?

So much of your argumentation on this topic revolves around fallacies like this one, where you point to something that's a blank spot at best, and then basically say "the flood could fit in there!", only this particular one is so much worse because you're not even pointing at a blank spot, you're pointing at your personal opinion about a particular set of facts, as though your suspicion- based on very little, apparently, given the lack of reasons why you find this coincidental- somehow counts as objective evidence toward a position that, even if we were to accept what you're saying, would not be furthered by you being right. Even if I was to say "alright, clearly you're right and it is significant that the advancement of modern man didn't seem to exist beyond this point in history," you would not have advanced the cause of the flood claim you do accept one iota.

We are having a discussion about the biblical flood, and presenting evidence. You are at zero, and you are attempting to add evidence for your side by subtracting. Stop doing that.

Quote:As for biodiversity, I'm an evolutionist, and most of us believe that there must also have been periods of rapid change and adaptation in the past. (I think anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid, so please don't be stupid.) We had what, two breeds of hunting dogs a millennia ago? You could put thousands of species on that ark, especially if they were small, immature specimens, in hibernation, etc. (Atheists, by the way, love to cite the Shoah as evidence of God's improvidence, simultaneously remembering the train cars each used to transport people to the death campus while forgetting the ark had the capacity of nearly 600 train cars! Watch a train with just 100 cars go by sometime, and multiply it by 6 in your head, please. That ship was so big it could have fit two skeptics on it, also, like in that Crowe movie.)

Such a pity, then, that the fossil record does not support the claims of rapid evolution in short periods of time. Instead, we see an ordered evolutionary lineage without the stop/start worldwide event therein.

As for the carrying capacity of the ark, it's not so much just a "would they fit?" question as it is a "would this be viable in any respect?" question, because the animals would have to had survived immediately after disembarking the ark too, and everything we know about genetics tells us that not only is two of a species not a sustainable breeding population, but that one of a species is even less of a viable gene pool, which is a non-trivial fact when we combine it with that one about how carnivores eat meat; the moment a carnivore successfully hunted after getting off the ark is the moment a species goes extinct. And you're proposing a situation in which every carnivore and every herbivore in existence happened to be in the same place.

A place, by the way, where the majority of plant life would have drowned.

A post-flood world would not have a sufficiently stocked ecosystem to allow anything to survive, let alone everything that has ever existed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Esquilax's post
18-05-2015, 08:57 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(18-05-2015 10:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Inquisition insists the biblical Flood "happened" (and I agree with him, even though no one expects The Inquisition).

You fucking liar, quit misrepresenting my positions!

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
19-05-2015, 09:50 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(18-05-2015 08:57 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 10:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Inquisition insists the biblical Flood "happened" (and I agree with him, even though no one expects The Inquisition).

You fucking liar, quit misrepresenting my positions!

Please know what putting a term in quotes indicates. You presented the genealogies of the Bible as if to say the Flood was placed circa 5,000 BP. To fit both our chronologies, that's when I say it happened and when you say, and I quote myself here, it ""happened"".

Take it easy, man. Calm down, please.

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
19-05-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(18-05-2015 01:50 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 10:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Here are some good thoughts on wood ships:

http://christianthinktank.com/bigark.html

Why would you even post this? It lists one ship that was fully wooden and over 300 feet long, which I can't verify outside of hundred-year-old newspaper clippings (one of which featured the evocative title "New World sunk.") and a series of other ships that most likely included iron braces. Hardly good evidence, when compared to all the other ships, far more verifiable, that demonstrably did sink under far better conditions than the flood would have provided, and with the benefit of superior construction materials.

Quote:And here are my thought(s):

The ark is similar in ratio to a human coffin, and serves, as we read in the NT, as a great picture of water baptism (I died with Christ, my sin died, and I'm immersed in His teachings and in water, before I "rise again" from the water).

How is this in any way relevant to anything?

Superior construction materials? You know what "gopher wood" is? Please explain.

The referenced page was added by me since it demonstrates you were attempting to argue from a negative/null set. The tidbit about the ark being a part of Christian foreshadowing is something I thought you might find intriguing. To me, it reinforces the ark as literal and purposeful, by design.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: