Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2015, 10:06 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(18-05-2015 06:40 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(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.

1. Yes, I find it highly amazing and no coincidence that modern man begins circa Noah's Flood. I find it astounding that YOU don't. Your answer that man was in modern form but unable to conceive of basic written language, agronomy, etc. for 97,000 years was that man "gradually learns" is fine apart from both the biblical record of the Deluge and its recording in every ancient culture circa that time. Skeptics love to quote the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of MANKIND's oldest documents circa 2,700 BC.

2. I believe in Evolution. I guess you don't, or at least with most theories of punctuated equilibrium... I also never said "Stop/start event". I said "rapid" and I used the example of dog breeding, random and designed, which you ignored, yet it's an event in living "modern" (post-Flood!) history.

3. I'm done arguing Noah's Flood with you until you READ the account. It makes statements regarding the animals that were there on the ark in more than twos, the ground cover that had begun to grow elsewhere before the ark came to rest on a particular mountainous spot, and that the animals weren't in perfidy against each other until after debarking. Please don't waste my time, because your arguments are logical in this arena, yet groundless.

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, 01:25 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(19-05-2015 10:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 06:40 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.


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.

1. Yes, I find it highly amazing and no coincidence that modern man begins circa Noah's Flood. I find it astounding that YOU don't. Your answer that man was in modern form but unable to conceive of basic written language, agronomy, etc. for 97,000 years was that man "gradually learns" is fine apart from both the biblical record of the Deluge and its recording in every ancient culture circa that time. Skeptics love to quote the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of MANKIND's oldest documents circa 2,700 BC.

2. I believe in Evolution. I guess you don't, or at least with most theories of punctuated equilibrium... I also never said "Stop/start event". I said "rapid" and I used the example of dog breeding, random and designed, which you ignored, yet it's an event in living "modern" (post-Flood!) history.

3. I'm done arguing Noah's Flood with you until you READ the account. It makes statements regarding the animals that were there on the ark in more than twos, the ground cover that had begun to grow elsewhere before the ark came to rest on a particular mountainous spot, and that the animals weren't in perfidy against each other until after debarking. Please don't waste my time, because your arguments are logical in this arena, yet groundless.

Special pleading. Give it up - your desperation is painful to witness. Facepalm

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
19-05-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(19-05-2015 09:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Superior construction materials? You know what "gopher wood" is? Please explain.

I love that you think "the ark was made of non-existent wood!" is somehow an argument in favor of the ark. Rolleyes

By "superior materials," I was referring to the metal framing that was most likely used in the rest of the ships. Metal beats wood, when it comes to ship construction.

Quote:The referenced page was added by me since it demonstrates you were attempting to argue from a negative/null set.

You're lucky I'm arguing at all: it's not up to me to prove you wrong. It just so happens that proving the ark to be impossible is laughably easy.

Quote: 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.

Going into detail about a concept you haven't even begun to establish as factual is little more than navel-gazing fantasy. You might presuppose that the ark existed, but I won't indulge in quite as many unfounded assumptions as you.

Quote:1. Yes, I find it highly amazing and no coincidence that modern man begins circa Noah's Flood. I find it astounding that YOU don't. Your answer that man was in modern form but unable to conceive of basic written language, agronomy, etc. for 97,000 years was that man "gradually learns" is fine apart from both the biblical record of the Deluge and its recording in every ancient culture circa that time. Skeptics love to quote the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of MANKIND's oldest documents circa 2,700 BC.

As I said before, your personal opinions on our history are irrelevant, where you won't provide evidence to back them up. "I find this to be weird," is not an argument for the flood, it's an argument for you finding something weird. You seem to be ignoring this point whenever I make it, but pointing to (what you feel is) a mystery does nothing to confirm your position, as the flood is not some default answer that must be assumed to be true wherever those who disagree with you can't explain one hundred percent of a given topic.

Quote:2. I believe in Evolution. I guess you don't, or at least with most theories of punctuated equilibrium... I also never said "Stop/start event". I said "rapid" and I used the example of dog breeding, random and designed, which you ignored, yet it's an event in living "modern" (post-Flood!) history.

Of course I accept the theory of evolution, but when I say a "stop/start event," what I mean is that at a particular point in the history of the planet, in your view, every last creature on earth bar a collection of pairs... died. That would have a huge effect on evolution and the fossil record- the change in selection pressures from a completely altered ecosystem alone would constitute something noticeable- but neither of those things are present in our observations.

Rapid evolution is another irrelevant point, as there's no "normal" speed of evolution, which is why I didn't feel the need to reference it. You certainly can't extrapolate the speed at which different dog breeds emerged to every other species on the planet.

Quote:3. I'm done arguing Noah's Flood with you until you READ the account. It makes statements regarding the animals that were there on the ark in more than twos, the ground cover that had begun to grow elsewhere before the ark came to rest on a particular mountainous spot, and that the animals weren't in perfidy against each other until after debarking. Please don't waste my time, because your arguments are logical in this arena, yet groundless.

I am aware that certain kinds of animals were allowed on the ark in more than pairs, but that doesn't exactly help your position, it only makes the logistics less plausible. The other two points are irrelevant, as no matter the amount of ground cover available the animals on the ark would still need to get off the ark, putting them in close quarters right off the bat, and whether the carnivores magically became carnivorous again after disembarking or not is neither here nor there (though it's kinda hilarious that you're talking about me wasting your time, while a part of your position is literally "the carnivores just didn't eat!") because at some point they would have started hunting again, at which point my contention becomes completely valid. As is the one about not being enough of a gene pool, which you sort of ignored.

Also? Do you really want to be using the word "groundless" around someone who has had to point out, in every post he's made, that you've done nothing but go negative whenever you attempt to justify your position? Angel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Esquilax's post
20-05-2015, 08:40 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(19-05-2015 03:26 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 09:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Superior construction materials? You know what "gopher wood" is? Please explain.

I love that you think "the ark was made of non-existent wood!" is somehow an argument in favor of the ark. Rolleyes

By "superior materials," I was referring to the metal framing that was most likely used in the rest of the ships. Metal beats wood, when it comes to ship construction.

Quote:The referenced page was added by me since it demonstrates you were attempting to argue from a negative/null set.

You're lucky I'm arguing at all: it's not up to me to prove you wrong. It just so happens that proving the ark to be impossible is laughably easy.

Quote: 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.

Going into detail about a concept you haven't even begun to establish as factual is little more than navel-gazing fantasy. You might presuppose that the ark existed, but I won't indulge in quite as many unfounded assumptions as you.

Quote:1. Yes, I find it highly amazing and no coincidence that modern man begins circa Noah's Flood. I find it astounding that YOU don't. Your answer that man was in modern form but unable to conceive of basic written language, agronomy, etc. for 97,000 years was that man "gradually learns" is fine apart from both the biblical record of the Deluge and its recording in every ancient culture circa that time. Skeptics love to quote the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of MANKIND's oldest documents circa 2,700 BC.

As I said before, your personal opinions on our history are irrelevant, where you won't provide evidence to back them up. "I find this to be weird," is not an argument for the flood, it's an argument for you finding something weird. You seem to be ignoring this point whenever I make it, but pointing to (what you feel is) a mystery does nothing to confirm your position, as the flood is not some default answer that must be assumed to be true wherever those who disagree with you can't explain one hundred percent of a given topic.

Quote:2. I believe in Evolution. I guess you don't, or at least with most theories of punctuated equilibrium... I also never said "Stop/start event". I said "rapid" and I used the example of dog breeding, random and designed, which you ignored, yet it's an event in living "modern" (post-Flood!) history.

Of course I accept the theory of evolution, but when I say a "stop/start event," what I mean is that at a particular point in the history of the planet, in your view, every last creature on earth bar a collection of pairs... died. That would have a huge effect on evolution and the fossil record- the change in selection pressures from a completely altered ecosystem alone would constitute something noticeable- but neither of those things are present in our observations.

Rapid evolution is another irrelevant point, as there's no "normal" speed of evolution, which is why I didn't feel the need to reference it. You certainly can't extrapolate the speed at which different dog breeds emerged to every other species on the planet.

Quote:3. I'm done arguing Noah's Flood with you until you READ the account. It makes statements regarding the animals that were there on the ark in more than twos, the ground cover that had begun to grow elsewhere before the ark came to rest on a particular mountainous spot, and that the animals weren't in perfidy against each other until after debarking. Please don't waste my time, because your arguments are logical in this arena, yet groundless.

I am aware that certain kinds of animals were allowed on the ark in more than pairs, but that doesn't exactly help your position, it only makes the logistics less plausible. The other two points are irrelevant, as no matter the amount of ground cover available the animals on the ark would still need to get off the ark, putting them in close quarters right off the bat, and whether the carnivores magically became carnivorous again after disembarking or not is neither here nor there (though it's kinda hilarious that you're talking about me wasting your time, while a part of your position is literally "the carnivores just didn't eat!") because at some point they would have started hunting again, at which point my contention becomes completely valid. As is the one about not being enough of a gene pool, which you sort of ignored.

Also? Do you really want to be using the word "groundless" around someone who has had to point out, in every post he's made, that you've done nothing but go negative whenever you attempt to justify your position? Angel

1. You are still addressing (some) questions to me that are answered/solved in the Bible text.

2. I don't feel the questions you posed are great hurdles for a God who made the universe and life. I also feel that are reasonable and logical explanations for everything that isn't a supernatural act! I know WE can extend a person's life via medical intervention, but I don't know how Jesus rose from the dead. We who believe that nano-technology and gene therapy are real, however, shouldn't quite scoff, just yet.

3. You have the right to interpret data differently. That's why it's irksome when you make sweeping statements like "such a mass extinction would have a tremendous effect, shown in the fossil record," when I know that you know (and you know that I know) how scientists currently are considering plausible explanations for the fact that 90%-plus of species are extinct and that there was more biodiversity in some regards before now. Put another way, YOU ARE CORRECT. There SHOULD be some fossil record of the deluge. And if scientists didn't believe (now) in at least five mass extinctions, you'd have a smoking gun.

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
20-05-2015, 08:50 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(20-05-2015 08:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. You are still addressing (some) questions to me that are answered/solved in the Bible text.

The Bible is full of claims, not answers.

Quote:2. I don't feel the questions you posed are great hurdles for a God who made the universe and life. I also feel that are reasonable and logical explanations for everything that isn't a supernatural act! I know WE can extend a person's life via medical intervention, but I don't know how Jesus rose from the dead. We who believe that nano-technology and gene therapy are real, however, shouldn't quite scoff, just yet.

We don't know that Jesus rose from the dead. First provide evidence for that.

Quote:3. You have the right to interpret data differently. That's why it's irksome when you make sweeping statements like "such a mass extinction would have a tremendous effect, shown in the fossil record," when I know that you know (and you know that I know) how scientists currently are considering plausible explanations for the fact that 90%-plus of species are extinct and that there was more biodiversity in some regards before now.

You are drawing an incorrect conclusion - it doesn't mean that at all.

Quote:Put another way, YOU ARE CORRECT. There SHOULD be some fossil record of the deluge. And if scientists didn't believe (now) in at least five mass extinctions, you'd have a smoking gun.

What does that even mean? There is geologic and fossil evidence of mass extinctions.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-05-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
Q - I will ask again (for what I think is the third time),

Why do you need this flood story to be historically accurate and true? You have stated that you acknowledge evolution to be true, which would (I assume) render the creation of humans from dust just a story and not fact. So concerning the flood, the science is not there in support of the event, and you keep trying to suggest other assumptions in order to retain the slightest possibility that the global deluge took place. So I ask - why? Why does this event need to be true for you when other accounts in the bible are admittedly taken as allegory or myth?

“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
21-05-2015, 09:49 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
Quote:Put another way, YOU ARE CORRECT. There SHOULD be some fossil record of the deluge. And if scientists didn't believe (now) in at least five mass extinctions, you'd have a smoking gun.

What does that even mean? There is geologic and fossil evidence of mass extinctions.
[/quote]

If there were no mass extinctions in the record, that would say something against the Flood. There are either one from a Flood or multiple extinctions. Again, we're interpreting data differently.

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
21-05-2015, 09:52 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(20-05-2015 09:40 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Q - I will ask again (for what I think is the third time),

Why do you need this flood story to be historically accurate and true? You have stated that you acknowledge evolution to be true, which would (I assume) render the creation of humans from dust just a story and not fact. So concerning the flood, the science is not there in support of the event, and you keep trying to suggest other assumptions in order to retain the slightest possibility that the global deluge took place. So I ask - why? Why does this event need to be true for you when other accounts in the bible are admittedly taken as allegory or myth?

1. I don't need it to be true, but I think you might.

2. What do you think I take as an allegory with such detail in the Bible? "I'm going to have you and your family build a ship because I'm going to judge man for sin and preserve your family. Get on that boat or die." You are using the phrase "admittedly taken as allegory or myth" but you must be thinking of yourself or some other Christian, perhaps.

Thanks.

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
21-05-2015, 09:59 AM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2015 11:45 AM by Chas.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(21-05-2015 09:49 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:
Quote:Put another way, YOU ARE CORRECT. There SHOULD be some fossil record of the deluge. And if scientists didn't believe (now) in at least five mass extinctions, you'd have a smoking gun.

What does that even mean? There is geologic and fossil evidence of mass extinctions.

If there were no mass extinctions in the record, that would say something against the Flood. There are either one from a Flood or multiple extinctions. Again, we're interpreting data differently.

You are misinterpreting by ignoring the geologic data.
There is no combination of evidence that suggests an extinction event caused by a flood.

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
21-05-2015, 10:07 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(21-05-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 09:40 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Q - I will ask again (for what I think is the third time),

Why do you need this flood story to be historically accurate and true? You have stated that you acknowledge evolution to be true, which would (I assume) render the creation of humans from dust just a story and not fact. So concerning the flood, the science is not there in support of the event, and you keep trying to suggest other assumptions in order to retain the slightest possibility that the global deluge took place. So I ask - why? Why does this event need to be true for you when other accounts in the bible are admittedly taken as allegory or myth?

1. I don't need it to be true, but I think you might.

2. What do you think I take as an allegory with such detail in the Bible? "I'm going to have you and your family build a ship because I'm going to judge man for sin and preserve your family. Get on that boat or die." You are using the phrase "admittedly taken as allegory or myth" but you must be thinking of yourself or some other Christian, perhaps.

Thanks.

I need it to be true? Is there something really wrong with you? I am not the one trying to refute all science on dating, ice sheets, ship building, canyon formation, genetics, population growth...etc, you dishonest assjack.

And yes I am speaking in the general sense, where some stories are viewed as not exact and literal historic accounts. You do believe evolution to be true from what you have stated here before - so how can the creation of man and woman follow the biblical account if evolution explains our coming to be as we are now?

And back to the flood, answer the question of why does it have to be true? You could concede it as an unlikely event as noted in the OT story and go on as a believer in christ - can't you? Why the need for the events to be factual?

“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
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: