Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2015, 12:02 PM
RE: Question about flood
(03-04-2015 11:09 PM)Dusky Wrote:  I've watched that debate countless of times and I love it. Really though, it's a debate between 2 biologists and for some reason an engineer thrown in. Where exactly does Kent "demolish" them?

If any post could be used to demonstrate that the winner of debates is truly in the eye/ear of the beholder, it is this one.

(03-04-2015 11:09 PM)Dusky Wrote:  Can you point out a single argument Kent uses that just completely destroys the theory?

I've read over this thread a few times and it actually sparked enough interest for me to create an account.

The fundamental lack of knowledge you have on the subject is pretty laughable, and what tops it off is you think you are somehow "winning" against the evolutionists. Did you happen to read the link I posted earlier?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...2214010471

It's a great read since you claim there cannot be a link between dinosaurs and birds. The evidence is clearly laid out, and you can actually go through the sources to learn more. Fascinating stuff. Sadly though, you won't take the time to read it and will just dismiss it as propaganda, most likely. =/

Hey, if you honestly think that Kent didn't demolish those jokers, then...more power to you...I aint mad at cha...aint got nothing but love for ya Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2015, 01:07 PM
RE: Question about flood
(04-04-2015 12:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 11:09 PM)Dusky Wrote:  I've watched that debate countless of times and I love it. Really though, it's a debate between 2 biologists and for some reason an engineer thrown in. Where exactly does Kent "demolish" them?

If any post could be used to demonstrate that the winner of debates is truly in the eye/ear of the beholder, it is this one.

(03-04-2015 11:09 PM)Dusky Wrote:  Can you point out a single argument Kent uses that just completely destroys the theory?

I've read over this thread a few times and it actually sparked enough interest for me to create an account.

The fundamental lack of knowledge you have on the subject is pretty laughable, and what tops it off is you think you are somehow "winning" against the evolutionists. Did you happen to read the link I posted earlier?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...2214010471

It's a great read since you claim there cannot be a link between dinosaurs and birds. The evidence is clearly laid out, and you can actually go through the sources to learn more. Fascinating stuff. Sadly though, you won't take the time to read it and will just dismiss it as propaganda, most likely. =/

Hey, if you honestly think that Kent didn't demolish those jokers, then...more power to you...I aint mad at cha...aint got nothing but love for ya Thumbsup

You going to read the paper, or brush over it? I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2015, 01:38 PM
RE: Question about flood
(04-04-2015 01:07 PM)Dusky Wrote:  
(04-04-2015 12:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If any post could be used to demonstrate that the winner of debates is truly in the eye/ear of the beholder, it is this one.


Hey, if you honestly think that Kent didn't demolish those jokers, then...more power to you...I aint mad at cha...aint got nothing but love for ya Thumbsup

You going to read the paper, or brush over it? I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.

He has no thoughts, just programmed canned replies.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
04-04-2015, 08:49 PM
RE: Question about flood
(04-04-2015 01:07 PM)Dusky Wrote:  You going to read the paper, or brush over it? I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.

But I can easily find papers that agree with my position, too. So in the end, where would we stand?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2015, 08:55 PM
RE: Question about flood
(04-04-2015 08:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-04-2015 01:07 PM)Dusky Wrote:  You going to read the paper, or brush over it? I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.

But I can easily find papers that agree with my position, too. So in the end, where would we stand?

There are no scientific papers that support your position. None.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
04-04-2015, 09:24 PM
RE: Question about flood
(04-04-2015 08:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-04-2015 08:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But I can easily find papers that agree with my position, too. So in the end, where would we stand?

There are no scientific papers that support your position. None.

^THIS!!!1000 times this

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2015, 09:56 PM
RE: Question about flood
(04-04-2015 08:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-04-2015 01:07 PM)Dusky Wrote:  You going to read the paper, or brush over it? I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.

But I can easily find papers that agree with my position, too. So in the end, where would we stand?

Uncited and non-peer reviewed opinion pieces from the ignorant don't count.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-04-2015, 10:31 PM
RE: Question about flood
(04-04-2015 08:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-04-2015 01:07 PM)Dusky Wrote:  You going to read the paper, or brush over it? I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.

But I can easily find papers that agree with my position, too. So in the end, where would we stand?

It explains the very situation you're asking us to explain. Earlier in the thread you wanted to hear why scientists think dinosaurs evolved into birds. This paper explains it very well, why ask the questions if you aren't willing to meet us halfway and at least review what is posted?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2015, 10:38 PM
RE: Question about flood
(04-04-2015 10:31 PM)Dusky Wrote:  
(04-04-2015 08:49 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But I can easily find papers that agree with my position, too. So in the end, where would we stand?

It explains the very situation you're asking us to explain. Earlier in the thread you wanted to hear why scientists think dinosaurs evolved into birds. This paper explains it very well, why ask the questions if you aren't willing to meet us halfway and at least review what is posted?


Because he's an ignorant jackass more interested in spewing forth his bullshit than in actually educating himself.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
04-04-2015, 10:43 PM
RE: Question about flood
Holy crap I can't believe I missed this one.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  ... Do you... not know what a pseudepigraph is? Undecided

No.

(04-04-2015 01:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You do know that the authorship of Luke, the claim that it was the Luke, companion to Paul, was a second century addition made by the church, right? I mean, you do know that this is a literal part of the history of your church?

Yeah, I know that...but why would they claim that Paul's friend wrote it, instead of saying that Paul wrote it himself? Which name carried more weight, Paul's, or Luke's? That is my point, if the Gospel's were sacred and inspired books to the early church fathers, and they were going to falsely or innocently attribute names of the authorship to books, why in the HELL would they choose friends of the disciples (Mark and Luke), and not the disciples themselves (Peter and Paul)...unless they were genuinely following tradition, or they had genuinely had reasons to believe that those men actually wrote the books, and they just reported the truth, whether we like it or not.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Or does the atheist know more about the history of the gospels than you do?

Dude, I was refuting these same petty objections that was raised in the other forum we were on regarding these same topics...so you aren't relaying anything new to me...so don't flatter yourself, buddy.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Are you really going to pretend that the epistles are the only books in the gospels, or are you going to stop dodging and accept that there are multiple other pieces of writing involved here, the majority of which are, indeed, "a friend of a friend" stories at best?

Umm, my point was the Gospels aren't the earliest sources we have of the Resurrection account, the Epistles are. So in other words, we have sources regarding the Resurrection from someone who wasn't even a follower of Jesus, even before the biographies of were written.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  What I said earlier still applies, especially given that the author of Luke isn't mentioned in either volume. It's also interesting that you attribute Galatians to Luke, given that it's, you know, written by Paul. Do you actually know anything about the gospels at all?

Dude, first off, the beginning of the very book and chapter we are talking about starts off with "Paul, an apostle"...I simply forgot to close the quotation after "Peter", but of course I know that Paul wrote Galatians...if Paul is testifying that he spent time with Peter, then Paul has a first hand account of an actual eyewitness of Jesus/Resurrection. So there isn't this second-hand/third-hand bullshit that you are making it to be.

Peter was the one person besides James and John that was the closest to Jesus, and Paul spent 15 days with him...that is about as close as you can get to Jesus without being with Jesus.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Oh, and while you're here, and since you think Paul and Luke were so very, very tight, can you explain why Paul states that after his conversion he was unknown to the churches of Judea (Gal: 1: 17-24) whereas Luke was all "no, Paul totally preached the word of Jesus everywhere in Jerusalem, all the time!" Seems like kind of a huge contradiction, for Paul's bestest, best bud; in fact, it's one of many that leaves the scholarly consensus with a large amount of doubt that Luke was authored by, well, Luke.

Nonsense. In Galatians, Paul stated that he first went to Arabia and then to Damascus...Luke's account skips over the Arabia bit and jumps right into when he arrived in Damascus. In other words, he was unknown at FIRST, but once he went to Damascus (9:19), where he began to preach in the synagogues and he eventually went to Jerusalem and joined the disciples.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  And yours is, apparently, to demonstrate how little you know the bible by asserting that an epistle was a part of Luke-Acts. Rolleyes

Mannn please. Like I said, I forgot to close the quotation. Of course I know that Paul wrote Galatians. I've already had these same discussions on the other forum where the same petty objections you are making about Galatians were brought up there, and I did not equate the authors of Luke-Galatians.

It was just a mistake, bro. Again, don't flatter yourself.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Big ol' argument from popularity, all based around the idea that some books got a few details mostly right, at one of the important bits of the story. Wow.

It would be an argument from popularity if I said "X amount of us believe it, therefore, it is true", which is not what I said nor implied.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  So it's gotta be an accurate claim to authorship, because you can think up a better lie in hindsight? Dodgy

Are you assuming that it was a lie, thus fallaciously begging the question?

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  "They had their reasons," is not much of an argument.

Ohhh, so the fact that you "have your reasons" for NOT believing..you are admitting that your reasons is not much of an argument...fortunately for me, I don't share that belief, so it doesn't apply to me, but since you apparently have that belief, you've just admitting that your reasons for not believing is not much of an argument Laughat

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Pseudepigrapha. Look it up.

"I don't have any, so look up pseudepigrapha while I stall just a little bit longer".

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Again, the fact that you can concoct a better lie after the fact is not evidence for the truth of the original claim, especially in light of the fact that what you're looking at is not a single false claim, but rather embellishment;

Again, you are fallaciously assuming that they were lying. You don't have any counter-evidence against their claims, so at best all you can say is "we don't know"...but if you are calling them liars, that is a claim of knowledge, as if you have some kind of counter-evidence against their claims...you obviously don't have such evidence, so you are committing the obvious fallacy of begging the question.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  the names were attributed to the books based on church tradition, and then later on, different church fathers added the claim that those names corresponded to the biblical figures. The initial names weren't set out with the aim of showing that the authors were the disciples, that was a thing that happened after.

You are making it seem as if their "tradition" is false by default. Newsflash for you, buddy...a tradition could be based on truth. Apparently this possibility isn't even considered in your closed mind. Again, TRADITION COULD BE BASED ON TRUTH. I don't know where you are getting this fallacious idea that "since it was tradition, it is false".

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  I'm responding to something you said, please don't then pretend that I was making some bigger point that I obviously wasn't. I don't know or care what the disciples believed, since they probably had nothing to do with the claims of the gospels.

Dude, it was a yes or no question that didn't require a bullshit paragraph of a response. But wait a minute, so you "dont know or care what the disciples believed", but you "know" that the early church lied about who wrote the Gospels?? Laugh out load

You are more up and down than a damn roller coaster.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Grave robbers. Much more rational than magic.

I've never heard of grave robbers that not only steals the treasures of the tomb, but also take the dead bodies as well. These kind of robbers would put the old Egyptian tomb robbers to shame Laugh out load

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Scoffing is not an argument.

Ok, so you choose not to deal with the content of what was said. Ok, movingo n.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  So in some of them you would attribute it to a flaw in their memory. Thank you for proving my point.

I am not sure how it follows that if one says "I deal with things on a point by point basis, so let me hear the story and decide what to believe"....I am not sure how such a statement allows for the response of "....you would attribute it to a flaw in their memory".

But hey, that is just me.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  It's a more reasonable explanation than magic. At least we know it's possible for people to look like Jesus.

So grave robbers broke into the tomb, stole the body, and his disciples happen to meet with a guy that looked like Jesus...and this Jesus look-a-like had a fully restored body after being whipped and beaten? Laughat

Ok, dude.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Got any proof that magic is even possible?

*Braces for incoming tu coque fallacy dodge*

Got any proof of life from nonlife?

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Scoffing and the tu coque fallacy are not arguments.

Nonsense. You are asking me for evidence of what I claim to be supernatural, and I am asking you for evidence for what you claim to be natural...now, the natural is supposed to be the EASY thing to explain, and you can't even give me that much...yet you have the nerve to ask for proof of the supernatural??? Mannn please.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Do you accept other purported historical accounts that contain magic, or not?

No.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Luke wouldn't know shit. It wasn't even written by Luke.

Yes it was.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  It's more polite than "smug, dodging fuckery."

Oh, we are being polite now? Laugh out load

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Find me a single mainstream source that claims that's what should happen, and then we'll talk. Since you can't do that, I'll just say that lying through your teeth is not an argument.

Who said it should happen, atheists believe it DID happen. I don't believe either.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Not for magic claims. I could claim to do magic right now, and you wouldn't believe me, so obviously first hand accounts alone are not sufficient.

A reptile-bird transformation IS a magic claim...and you have no problem with that. Life from nonlife is a magic claim, and you have no problem with that. A man can't rise from the dead, but inanimate matter can come to life?

It blows my mind.

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Natural things. That doesn't matter: I've made the claim, under your own argument you now have to believe it until you can prove it conclusively false.

Huh?

(31-03-2015 10:44 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Are all visions Jesus?

No.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: