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, 02:52 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:33 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(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]

EK: I love you, man [hug]. Thanks for posting a picture of a sign. "Jews look for signs, Gentiles for wisdom." Angel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:55 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 02:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.
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.

My dear ignominious ignostic (and I LOVE you, man):

Post your name on this thread then I'll post mine, and then you can Google my work. I write 6,000 words-plus per month for one secular website alone and have more readers than likely TTA on a daily basis (all of TTA).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:58 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(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?

I'm not asking for skeletal remains. I'm asking which human endeavors/achievements are older than 40-50K years. ? You see, I believe in "intelligent design" of human artifacts. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 03:00 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(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.

Was that post @ you? Can he not defend himself? Sheesh, I was just venting. I don't want to explain to you how bacteria could live on the people or animals on the ark or on the ark itself and then thrive after the Flood to become new strains, etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 03:00 PM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2013 07:36 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
Everything I've written here, has been here, in plain sight for months.
You're just not quite up to finding it.
Just as I thought. Pamphlets. Actually, not even pamphlets.
Nothing ever of any scholarly value.

(26-09-2013 02:55 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  (and I love you, man)
Post your name on this thread then I'll post mine, and then you can Google my work. I write 6,000 words-plus per month for one secular website alone and have more readers than likely TTA on a daily basis (all of TTA).

Mommy warned me about strangers who said they loved me, and wanted to play "show me yours and I'll show you mine".
It's not the the size of a man's ... um ... *pamphlet* that counts, ... but ... well. never mind.

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, 03:08 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm not asking for skeletal remains.

No? Although, they do exist...

(26-09-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm asking which human endeavors/achievements are older than 40-50K years. ? You see, I believe in "intelligent design" of human artifacts. Smile

You might start with an overview. And a follow-up.

There are 45kya artifacts. There are 50kya artifacts. There are 55kya artifacts. Etc, all the way to Olduwan artifacts ~1.8Mya.

The distribution of evidence is continuous. It extends gradually back in time (as determined by very reliable stratigraphic and radiometric means). There is no cut-off. That is to say - the means by which 40kya artifacts are dated are exactly the same as and exactly as reliable as the means by which 50+kya artifacts are dated. I am very curious as to how you can make a distinction at an arbitrary point in time.

Supposing a recent creation, the only teneble hypothesis is that every was created so as to look exactly as if the universe were entirely natural and had proceeded by entirely explicable natural means all along. Is that your hypothesis?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
26-09-2013, 03:09 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 03:00 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Was that post @ you? Can he not defend himself? Sheesh, I was just venting. I don't want to explain to you how bacteria could live on the people or animals on the ark or on the ark itself and then thrive after the Flood to become new strains, etc.

It made some very silly claims, which I couldn't leave well enough alone. What can I say?

You can't explain that. Not without denying numerous scientific conclusions about just about everything.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 03:19 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!




Yeah, well, I have sold more records than all of you combined... and I will never post my real name. Tongue

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 02:51 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 03:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm not asking for skeletal remains.

No? Although, they do exist...

(26-09-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm asking which human endeavors/achievements are older than 40-50K years. ? You see, I believe in "intelligent design" of human artifacts. Smile

You might start with an overview. And a follow-up.

There are 45kya artifacts. There are 50kya artifacts. There are 55kya artifacts. Etc, all the way to Olduwan artifacts ~1.8Mya.

The distribution of evidence is continuous. It extends gradually back in time (as determined by very reliable stratigraphic and radiometric means). There is no cut-off. That is to say - the means by which 40kya artifacts are dated are exactly the same as and exactly as reliable as the means by which 50+kya artifacts are dated. I am very curious as to how you can make a distinction at an arbitrary point in time.

Supposing a recent creation, the only teneble hypothesis is that every was created so as to look exactly as if the universe were entirely natural and had proceeded by entirely explicable natural means all along. Is that your hypothesis?

Are you saying there is evidence for paleolithic man beyond artifacts which rely on dating methods that follow uniformitarian patterns?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 03:44 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(30-09-2013 02:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Are you saying there is evidence for paleolithic man beyond artifacts which rely on dating methods that follow uniformitarian patterns?

Stratigraphy and radiometry. They are assumed reliable because - let me emphasize this - there are no inconsistent results. Dating is a relative practice. If all available observation suggets that artifact A is older than artifact B then the sane conclusion is that artifact A is older than artifact B. This process is attempted and repeated for literally everything we've ever found. This is why the evidence presents a collective picture.

You have thrown out a ~50k date. This is already non-Biblical; it is therefore attested by... yup, dating methods following uniformitarian patterns. To accept such practices, with their collective success and power as explained above, up to a certain point but not past it, when the nature and scope of evidence does not change at that point, is, plainly and simply, obstinate folly. And so I question it. On what possible grounds can you accept ~50kya artifacts as genuine and yet have to invent some specious fable to explain away ~55kya artifacts?

"Uniformitarian" means scientific. As in, past conditions resembled present conditions; future conditions will resemble present conditions. The corroboration for this assumption is, incidentally, every. single. observation. ever. made.

Radiometric dating must be a uniform process. If it is not then the conclusion is that the weak nuclear force is inconstant on cosmological timescales. This is utterly untenable. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest this. Thanks to relativity we have the ability to observe events from our own 'present' all the way back to the birth of the universe. No observable phenomenon suggests that the fundamentals of physics have ever varied.

If evidence cannot admit of that possibility, either on Earth or throughout the known observable universe, then it cannot be supposed - the only rational conclusion is that the universe operates by constant rules of interaction exactly as all observation indicates. If it is not, in fact, as old as it appears to be, the only viable alternative is that it was designed (intelligently? Rolleyes ) to appear as though it were. There is no other alternative with even a shred of intellectual consistency. The only reason to suppose an omphalic model is to support a strictly literalist interpretation of certain bits of scripture, the actual details of which are contradicted regardless!

And even then - if all available data and all consistent reasoning suggest a certain pattern and interpretation, what possible purpose could there be in ignoring it?

So no. The methods for dating artifacts are scientifically determined and entirely interally consistent.

It is lunacy to pretend a distinction can be made at an arbitrary point in time for an arbitrary reason.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: