Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2013, 02:22 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You can understand why I wouldn't find generalizations like "you misrepresent" and "you don't understand" compelling.

Fair enough. S'true, though.

(26-09-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Nor are there "tons" of evidence for 5mya divergence or 40,000 years of aboriginal history--especially since the last relies on dating methods touching on uniformitarian assumptions. I don't even want to continue to post citations and theories if that's what you've got. There are not multiple common ancestors, that is another assumption.

It's an assumption insofar as every scientific conclusion rests on assumption.

It is not under dispute. There is no evidence to the contrary. Natural selection is a fact. The age of the Earth is a fact. Deal with it.

(26-09-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  As for this last:

Quote:If ever anything were a known and demonstrable fact - human evolution is a fact. The amount of interconnected contingent data which must be flat-out denied to even question it is staggering. That some people actually chose to do just that is horrifying.

Which process are you posting hyperbole about it here? The staggering data that humans evolved from apes? lemurs? neither? That humans are currently exhibiting signs of transformation in their systems and body parts? What human evolution am I denying? It couldn't be the genetic descent because you've just written that is not as conclusive as the undeniable data that humans are... wait for it... at LEAST 40,000 years old. Wow, that totally decimates my worldview, along with the cave paintings, agronomy, buildings, languages, etc. that are at least tens of thousands of years old. How can I be a YEC for a second longer?

YEC is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific dishonesty.

But sure. How old do you think the Earth is? "Tens of thousands of years" is already non-Biblical, as you know.

(26-09-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If any of you know a forum where the atheists think about their replies and post scientific data and not hyperbole, please let me know. I don't need your invective again, but I'd love some facts.

I don't need to substantiate common knowledge. This is called "shifting the burden of proof". It does not warrant response.

If you are challenging the modern scientific consensus then it is incumbent on you to actually present something.

At minimum, you must show how entire disciplines - including but not limited to genetics, ecology, climatology, stratigraphy, radiometry, and anthropology - are incorrect in both their foundational assumptions and their interpretation of all extant data.

By all means, please feel free to do so.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
26-09-2013, 02:24 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 12:59 PM)GaëlK7 Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 07:32 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I bet you can think of ways that kangaroos could have left the ark and then gotten to Australia if you assume my assumptions. Have you tried it?

Liquification and sorting by body type/density in large part could explain the fossil sortation. What isn't explained by uniformitarianism are things like:

Why isn't the Grand Canyon river(s) delta the largest in the world? Where did the miles of cubic earth excavated go to?

Why are entire, multiple layers of strata in the record (including formations at the Grand Canyon) steeply angled to other layers?

How do you account for the physical limitations that shouldn't permit giant geologic plates to abut one another and move in the way geologists credit?

Etc.

Trying to shift the burden of proof already? Well no, as a matter of fact I can't figure out how kangaroos could swim that long. Besides, of course, explaining the current distribution of the species or why there's no evidence of the migration from Ararat to Australia.
And that's just one species and not even the one with the biggest handicaps. Imagine the problems flavobacterium sp. K172 had ahead of it once out Noah's jolly boat.

As for the sorting by density, no, it would make dinosaur bones always show on the lowest layer which they don't. Find something consistant with observation.

You couldn't imagine a world where once it's shaken, there are several rounds of cataclysm that follow or where receding waters would fill in trenches over time...? You've looked at the maps of the Pacific basin and etc. underwater and cannot imagine land bridges that recede over time? You couldn't imagine how if there were two kangaroos, than a few hundred as Pangea pulls apart that only the Australian ones survive? You can't find fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos? You don't see how animals larger than red kangaroos could have devolved to the present day animals? You can't visualize how secular scientists met aborigines in Australia and declared they were lower animals on the scale than homo sapiens sapiens?

I do know that bacteria can evolve over time, and also that animals were called to the ark, what we'd think of as bigger than one-celled creatures.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:26 PM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2013 02:44 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:18 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 11:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  1. No it hasn't, at least not to anyone but the person with the vested interest in defending it as the one and only Truth. You just rehash a bunch of tired and illogical arguments from other apologists and cycle through a whole litany of them, constantly evading, and eventually circling back around to earlier arguments hoping that we had forgotten about them from earlier.

How do I know that's not true? Because 1) on the logic and analogies side, I am posting original thoughts that evolve in response to your answers 2) I do repeat myself when you evade a question, yes.

Quote:2. Prove the metaphysical exists, until then, shove it (sorry, was that not kind enough for you?). You're the one picking their subjective interpretation of their reality by their 'guts'. The rest of us at least try to use evidence and reason. How funny that your 'evidence' and your god are always just our of reach, always just over the horizon; and you wonder why nobody finds your shit even remotely compelling...

I never said god is just out of your reach? The Kingdom of God is within you. But I did note that when people with biases are confronted with evidence for and against something...

Again, if you would present me with your evidence that god does not exist, I'll become an atheist. I said "evidence" and not even "empirical or compelling evidence". Whadda you got?

Maybe you could try Logic 101.
No one can prove a negative, you old troll.
I'll get right on this, but you'll forgive me and make an appointment please.
I'm busy today, and for the foreseeable future proving there is no 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto. I'll try too work you in if I have a cancellation, but the line of idiot theists, (not unlike yourself), asking for proofs of negatives is long these days, so things aren't looking too good for you right now. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:27 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You can understand why I wouldn't find generalizations like "you misrepresent" and "you don't understand" compelling.

Fair enough. S'true, though.

(26-09-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Nor are there "tons" of evidence for 5mya divergence or 40,000 years of aboriginal history--especially since the last relies on dating methods touching on uniformitarian assumptions. I don't even want to continue to post citations and theories if that's what you've got. There are not multiple common ancestors, that is another assumption.

It's an assumption insofar as every scientific conclusion rests on assumption.

It is not under dispute. There is no evidence to the contrary. Natural selection is a fact. The age of the Earth is a fact. Deal with it.

(26-09-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  As for this last:


Which process are you posting hyperbole about it here? The staggering data that humans evolved from apes? lemurs? neither? That humans are currently exhibiting signs of transformation in their systems and body parts? What human evolution am I denying? It couldn't be the genetic descent because you've just written that is not as conclusive as the undeniable data that humans are... wait for it... at LEAST 40,000 years old. Wow, that totally decimates my worldview, along with the cave paintings, agronomy, buildings, languages, etc. that are at least tens of thousands of years old. How can I be a YEC for a second longer?

YEC is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific dishonesty.

But sure. How old do you think the Earth is? "Tens of thousands of years" is already non-Biblical, as you know.

(26-09-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If any of you know a forum where the atheists think about their replies and post scientific data and not hyperbole, please let me know. I don't need your invective again, but I'd love some facts.

I don't need to substantiate common knowledge. This is called "shifting the burden of proof". It does not warrant response.

If you are challenging the modern scientific consensus then it is incumbent on you to actually present something.

At minimum, you must show how entire disciplines - including but not limited to genetics, ecology, climatology, stratigraphy, radiometry, and anthropology - are incorrect in both their foundational assumptions and their interpretation of all extant data.

By all means, please feel free to do so.

Why is tens of thousands of years non-biblical? Bible quote: "The mountains are ancient." Because some Christians say Adam's children are direct descendants and some say the word for "son" or "descendant" means "notable generation"? I see the same data as you. I see languages, agronomy, civilization, buildings, math and logic, writing, etc. as being ascribed to modern man with circa 40,000 years. Isn't empirical evidence the standard for the scientism mindset?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:30 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 02:18 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  How do I know that's not true? Because 1) on the logic and analogies side, I am posting original thoughts that evolve in response to your answers 2) I do repeat myself when you evade a question, yes.


I never said god is just out of your reach? The Kingdom of God is within you. But I did note that when people with biases are confronted with evidence for and against something...

Again, if you would present me with your evidence that god does not exist, I'll become an atheist. I said "evidence" and not even "empirical or compelling evidence". Whadda you got?

Maybe you could try Logic 101.
No one can prove a negative, you old troll.
I'll get right on this, but you'll forgive me and make an appointment please.
I'm busy today, and for the foreseeable future proving there is no 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto. I'll try too work you in if I have a cancellation, but the line of idiot theists, (not unlike yourself), asking for proofs of negatives is long these days, so things aren't looking too good for you right now. Weeping

I'm aware that no one can prove a negative in a general sense of absolute knowledge/omniscience. However, I can prove there are no loaves of bread in my cupboard by opening my cupboard and looking. "No breads here". Logically, there should be some evidence that there is no god. Your wiser choice here is agnosticism. I can tell you that it will be hard to see god if your head remains where it is now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:31 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 02:04 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Even calling me "pamphlet writer" shows you don't read carefully. I am the author of, editor of and/or contributor to over a dozen books now in print. B-o-o-k-s, not including pamphlets and tracts. Which books have you written? Perhaps you can point me to them on Amazon?

So you keep saying.
Assertion is proof of nothing.
I have written a number of things here, Mr. Minus Six.
You have contributed nothing.
Perhaps you can point to ANYTHING, ANYWHERE worth reading.

You wrote books here, on the forum? What is the URL for download, please?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:33 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:18 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I never said god is just out of your reach? The Kingdom of God is within you. But I did note that when people with biases are confronted with evidence for and against something...

Again, if you would present me with your evidence that god does not exist, I'll become an atheist. I said "evidence" and not even "empirical or compelling evidence". Whadda you got?

You've been here long enough to have gotten the ropes course. We both know that you're full of shit and that your offer is bogus. The evidence will never be good enough for you; you will always try to shift the burden of proof, be evasive of facts your don't like, and perform Olympic levels of mental gymnastics in defense of your a priori conclusions. So in light of rehashing everything that you are more than well aware of (thus making your offer disingenuous and nothing but condescending posturing), I offer you this...

[Image: save-planet-kill-yourself.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:35 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You couldn't imagine a world where once it's shaken, there are several rounds of cataclysm that follow or where receding waters would fill in trenches over time...?

That would leave evidence of its having occurred.

There is no such evidence.

(26-09-2013 02:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You've looked at the maps of the Pacific basin and etc. underwater and cannot imagine land bridges that recede over time?

There is evidence of land bridges. No where or when they'd need to be for the Flood nonsense to be true, but they are a real thing. Partial credit.

(26-09-2013 02:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You couldn't imagine how if there were two kangaroos, than a few hundred as Pangea pulls apart that only the Australian ones survive?

That would leave evidence of its having occurred.

No such evidence exists.

(26-09-2013 02:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You can't find fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos?

Possums and kangaroos share common ancestors (just like, y'know, any two species), but from one to the other? No. Partial credit.

(26-09-2013 02:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You don't see how animals larger than red kangaroos could have devolved to the present day animals?

That? That is possible. S'just not relevant.

(26-09-2013 02:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You can't visualize how secular scientists met aborigines in Australia and declared they were lower animals on the scale than homo sapiens sapiens?

Quite possible. Quite irrelevant.

Linnaeus - and thus early modern biology - considered different human populations as different species; he also considered the (known) apes to be varieties of human. Partial credit.

(26-09-2013 02:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I do know that bacteria can evolve over time

Funny how that works. Disbelief extends only so far as it does not affect you personally.

(26-09-2013 02:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  and also that animals were called to the ark, what we'd think of as bigger than one-celled creatures.

And... the one-celled creatures did what, exactly? The vast majority would die under the supposed flood conditions.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:37 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Why is tens of thousands of years non-biblical? Bible quote: "The mountains are ancient." Because some Christians say Adam's children are direct descendants and some say the word for "son" or "descendant" means "notable generation"? I see the same data as you. I see languages, agronomy, civilization, buildings, math and logic, writing, etc. as being ascribed to modern man with circa 40,000 years. Isn't empirical evidence the standard for the scientism mindset?

If you add up all the dates given in the Bible, you get ~6000 years. That math hasn't changed in centuries.

If you accept the dating of 10k, 20k, 40k year old artificts and discoveries - why do you then deny 50k, 100k, 200k year old artifacts and discoveries? 1 Mya? 10 Mya? 4.5 Bya?

The evidence is continuous. Why the cut-off?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:49 PM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2013 02:56 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 02:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Maybe you could try Logic 101.
No one can prove a negative, you old troll.
I'll get right on this, but you'll forgive me and make an appointment please.
I'm busy today, and for the foreseeable future proving there is no 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto. I'll try too work you in if I have a cancellation, but the line of idiot theists, (not unlike yourself), asking for proofs of negatives is long these days, so things aren't looking too good for you right now. Weeping

I'm aware that no one can prove a negative in a general sense of absolute knowledge/omniscience. However, I can prove there are no loaves of bread in my cupboard by opening my cupboard and looking. "No breads here". Logically, there should be some evidence that there is no god. Your wiser choice here is agnosticism. I can tell you that it will be hard to see god if your head remains where it is now.

At least I am in possession of a head. Tongue
The deaths of millions of innocent children this year, from disease and starvation is all the evidence I, and many other thoughtful,
(INCLUDING FORMER Fundamentalist scholars and religious people), need to dismiss the notion of your deities.

If I need any advise, Pamphlet Writer Extraordinaire, I be sure and ask.
I won't be asking for any from the likes of you.
You have to actually define what the word "god" means, to push that on people.
I'll stick with Igtheism. But thanks anyway.

Maybe that's your problem.You cant read English
I did not say I wrote "books" here.

You have never once written anything, or presented one paper here or anywhere. Clearly you lack even basic writing skills.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: