Mesopotamia and the early dynastic.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-01-2014, 09:50 PM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2014 10:23 PM by WindyCityJazz.)
RE: Mesopotamia and the early dynastic.
Sorry, posted in wrong thread.

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 07:58 AM
RE: Mesopotamia and the early dynastic.
(27-12-2013 06:38 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(27-12-2013 06:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yeah, except we have tree ring data that goes back 11,000 years. And it shows complete agreement with carbon dating results.

Checkmate and go fuck yourselves YECs. Thumbsup

When pressed YEC's are forced to admit all their data shows a universe much older than 6000 years.

When pressed that far, they either change the subject for go full Last Thursdayism Six-Thousand-Yearism on you.


(27-12-2013 06:38 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Look at Zetamale when he got backed into a corner on comets, was arguing they showed millions of years as opposed to billions which still disproved his case.Look at Zetamale when he got backed into a corner on comets, was arguing they showed millions of years as opposed to billions which still disproved his case.

Well, he's clever in that he was arguing against a literal claim someone made when they said every piece of evidence points to a billions-year-old universe. So, Alpha was just picking the low-hanging fruit and disproving an absolute statement.

That being said, know one actually knows what his point of view on anything is, since he never explicitly states it. He just seems to poke holes in anything he finds here without actually backing up his own beliefs. When pressed, he basically says "agree to disagree".

I can only think of a handful of positive claims he's actually made, and they're all fully non-falsifiable. He's careful to not actually make any claims that can be held to any real scrutiny. So far as I can tell, he's here to tell us all why we're wrong without putting his own beliefs up on the table.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 08:21 AM
RE: Mesopotamia and the early dynastic.
(02-01-2014 07:58 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(27-12-2013 06:38 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  When pressed YEC's are forced to admit all their data shows a universe much older than 6000 years.

When pressed that far, they either change the subject for go full Last Thursdayism Six-Thousand-Yearism on you.


(27-12-2013 06:38 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Look at Zetamale when he got backed into a corner on comets, was arguing they showed millions of years as opposed to billions which still disproved his case.Look at Zetamale when he got backed into a corner on comets, was arguing they showed millions of years as opposed to billions which still disproved his case.

Well, he's clever in that he was arguing against a literal claim someone made when they said every piece of evidence points to a billions-year-old universe. So, Alpha was just picking the low-hanging fruit and disproving an absolute statement.

That being said, know one actually knows what his point of view on anything is, since he never explicitly states it. He just seems to poke holes in anything he finds here without actually backing up his own beliefs. When pressed, he basically says "agree to disagree".

I can only think of a handful of positive claims he's actually made, and they're all fully non-falsifiable. He's careful to not actually make any claims that can be held to any real scrutiny. So far as I can tell, he's here to tell us all why we're wrong without putting his own beliefs up on the table.

Actually it was a clever trap he walked into. He pushed hard showing those comets were not billion of years old and absolutely stood by their tested age... of several million years. 6,000 year old earth is pathetically easy to debunk and all the adherants can do is wave their hands and gnash their teeth about it.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
02-01-2014, 08:22 AM
RE: Mesopotamia and the early dynastic.
(02-01-2014 07:58 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Well, he's clever in that he was arguing against a literal claim someone made when they said every piece of evidence points to a billions-year-old universe. So, Alpha was just picking the low-hanging fruit and disproving an absolute statement.

Eh. Not really, because that was me who said something along those lines, and even though my original statement was highly sarcastic hyperbole (here I'd say fundies have no sense of humour, but I guess they just can't help taking things too literally...) what I was actually referring to was the overwhelming internal consistency of all available evidence with current best explanations.

So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 08:24 AM
RE: Mesopotamia and the early dynastic.
(02-01-2014 08:21 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Actually it was a clever trap he walked into. He pushed hard showing those comets were not billion of years old and absolutely stood by their tested age... of several million years. 6,000 year old earth is pathetically easy to debunk and all the adherants can do is wave their hands and gnash their teeth about it.

The ones with the tiniest shred of originality are forced into the omphalic hypothesis.

Which is the single most useless mindset ever, but at least it isn't self-refuting.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: Mesopotamia and the early dynastic.
(02-01-2014 08:22 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Eh. Not really, because that was me who said something along those lines, and even though my original statement was highly sarcastic hyperbole (here I'd say fundies have no sense of humour, but I guess they just can't help taking things too literally...) what I was actually referring to was the overwhelming internal consistency of all available evidence with current best explanations.

So there's that.

That is true. And while I recognized it as hyperbole (and it's likely he did), I just meant that he was addressing something that was wrong in the most literal sense and kept arguing that one point. He would refuse to add anything to the statement or state his own beliefs, because his goal was to attack that one piece of low-hanging fruit.

I'd call it pedantic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: