IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> From Up, Young Earth Creationism, I take it this is the right forum?
zaragosa
post Mar 22 2003, 08:26 PM
Post #91


False mirror
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,111
Joined: 25-June 02
From: Brussels, Belgium
Member No.: 62



QUOTE (Sir Buckethead @ Mar 22 2003, 09:22 PM)
Young Earth Creationism.

Earth is 6K years old, created by God.

The bible is literal.

Thats basically it.

That's too vague to be a theory.

Please define your terms (i.e. God and the Bible)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Erebus
post Mar 22 2003, 10:07 PM
Post #92


Veteran
***

Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 18-March 03
Member No.: 289



When you start having to assume that many facts-not-in-evidence, something is seriously wrong with your "theory". Particularly when you have to start bastardizing real science to try and cover up your flaws. How much time does evolution on this scale take? Much longer than the 3k years or so we've been around since the flood.

Where am I getting the lenght of the flood? How about you read your own goddamned "literal" book?

Gen 7:12 40 days
Gen 8:3 +150 days
Gen 8:4-5 +3 months (91 days) (7th month to 10th month)
Gen 8:6 +40 more days
Gen 8:10 +7 days
Gen 8:14 +4 months and 27 days (150 days) (10th month to 2nd month and 27th day)
-----------------------------
438 days.

I was guessing LOW. They were in that ark for 438 days.

Now for a happy math excersise.

Assume there are, oh, 300 kinds of animals in those days (absurdly low number).
And let's assume that every animal eats one cubic meter of generic animal chow per day (elephants eat alot more, rabbits eat alot less, lions can't even eat animal chow, so once again this is a conservative estimate).
The volume of food needed to feed all those animals for 438 days, not counting the 7 pairs of clean critters, is (300x2)x438= 262,800m^3.

Ok. How much volume did the ark have, total?
A cubit is 45.72cm

Gen 6:15 specifies that the ark is 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits tall.
13716 2286 1371.6
(300x45.72) x (50x45.72) x (30x45.72) = 18,815,151.6cm^3 = 188,151.516m^3

The volume of food needed for ONLY 300 animal types is about 140% of the total volume of the entire ark. The ark wouldn't even have been able to transport the FOOD for the animals, much less the animals and the people. In order for just the FOOD to fit, each animal would have to eat 7/10ths of a cubic meter of food every day. Then the food (but no animals) would fit. And I didn't even count the extra pairs of clean animals, since we don't know how many of the "kinds" were clean.

And then when they landed, the would have still needed food provided for them, since all the vegitation of the earth (except for the magical olive tree) would have been wiped clean away. That WAS God's intention: kill everything.

So we have a "short flood" of 438 days that violates all geologically known flood formations, magically gifted animals with the ability to evolve into completely new forms in only a couple thousand years, and somehow magically made it so a whole bunch of animals didn't need to eat.

Now on to your "critiques":

You ignored the geology argument.
You claimed that somehow there was a land bridge between Turkey and the most remote land mass on the planet, but for some reason absolutely no trace of it survives today, only 3,000 years later, and there's no record of it anywhere. You also claimed that evolution can radically alter a species in that amount of time. God must have done that, since it no longer happens at anything close to that rate.
You claimed that an olive tree (a plant that grows in relatively DRY climates, I might add) can survive being underwater for at least a year
You claimed that Noah had the technology to store meat for 438 days without it rotting in a form that carnivores would eat (note: carnivores won't eat jerky)
You claimed that one window is important enough for God to specifically mention, but the other windows that allow for breathing just sort of slipped His mind
You claimed that it only takes an animal a couple thousand years to hit massive numbers and then die out mysteriously. God must have done that, too, and forgotten to mention it. Why aren't there any records of men encountering velociraptors? They were certainly pretty abundant. How did cows manage to not go extinct?
You claimed that a 450foot long boat could be made using only SOFTWOOD with no metal, by a man with no shipbuilding experience and no shipbuilding tradition to work from, can float even though cultures with metal and shipbuilders and a long shipbuilding tradition can't copy that feat even to this day. Yet another miracle God forgot to mention?
Claimed that extinct animals have sex (Gen 8:20 - EVERY clean beast and EVERY clean fowl)
You claimed to not understand that in order for vast "fountains of the deep" to exist, rocks would have to float on top of them for thousand of years until God decided to let it out
You once again claimed that MACROevolution can occur over a period of only a thousand-odd years
And you claimed that someone from a landlocked culture with no shipbuilding experience somehow knew the incredibly complex process of maintaining a SOFTWOOD keel at sea.

This honestly gets more complicated and less plausible every time you try to explain it. How many ungrounded assumptions do you have to make before you feel like you should start providing evidence for some of it? Christ on a rubber raft! Next you'll be saying that after the flood was Pangea, and when all the animals got where they were supposed to be, the entire land mass broke and the pieces flew at 100mph to their current locations. Who's to say they didn't?

Can't you see that this is getting just a teensy bit ABSURD?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thurisaz
post Mar 22 2003, 10:09 PM
Post #93


Veteran
***

Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 1-February 03
Member No.: 251



QUOTE
Young Earth Creationism.
Earth is 6K years old, created by God.
The bible is literal.
Thats basically it.


According to the bible, as I showed above, the earth must be older than 6000 years, thus either the bible is not literal or the earth is older than 6000 years (of course not excluding the possibillity of both).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raider
post Mar 22 2003, 11:31 PM
Post #94


Why?
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,814
Joined: 19-August 02
Member No.: 130



The bible was meant literally. The were just wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
marleyfrost
post Mar 22 2003, 11:33 PM
Post #95


Ol' Coot
Group Icon

Group: Forum Donor

Posts: 3,258
Joined: 18-July 02
Member No.: 83



Raider, Nope.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raider
post Mar 22 2003, 11:36 PM
Post #96


Why?
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,814
Joined: 19-August 02
Member No.: 130



I will grant you that the author(s) (of genesis specifically) were not acting upon knowlege and didn't know for sure.

This post has been edited by Raider: Mar 22 2003, 11:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir Buckethead
post Mar 23 2003, 12:48 AM
Post #97


Conformist4life
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 7,585
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Washington State Views: Conservative and playfully racist
Member No.: 71



[quote]When you start having to assume that many facts-not-in-evidence, something is seriously wrong with your "theory".[/quote]

you utter, complete moron. How many times do I have to say it before you understand? I'm not claiming that the Flood happened! So long as it is POSSIBLE for the flood to have happened, the test is still sound. That is why its ok to say 'koalas could have been able to eat otehr foods back then' I'm not saying "koalas were capable of eating other foods,a dn then evolved" I'm saying "so long as it is POSSIBLE for koalas to have been able to, the flood is still POSSIBLE and therefore the test is sound."

That is ALL I'm saying. NOTHING more, I am NOT saying that these things happened, I'm saying that it is possible that they did, or other things did with similar consequences! And yet, there is apparently some fundamental aspect of your character that requires you to completely misinterpret what I say despite literally DOZENS of corrections. After saying I am just conducting a possibility test until I'm blue in the face, you still come after me with "you are assuming that happened" when I'm doing nothing of the sort!


That was your opening sentence. There is so much wrong withthe rest of your post it will take me a half an hour to respond. So I want you to read very carefully. I mean, this goes beyond misinterpreting. You took my words and substituted them with entirely new ones. You didnt like my arguments so you made your own, pretended they were mine, and responded to them.

[quote]Where am I getting the lenght of the flood? How about you read your own goddamned "literal" book?[/quote]

What do you mean "my own" this isnt even my theory what the fuck is wrong with you how many times do I have to say that?

[quote]You claimed that somehow there was a land bridge between Turkey and the most remote land mass on the planet, but for some reason absolutely no trace of it survives today, only 3,000 years later, and there's no record of it anywhere.[/quote]

I claimed nothing of the sort, I just said we dont know what hte world looked like.

Listen very carefully:

I made no positive assertions on how koalas got there. I said "maybe there was a land bridge. Maybe there wasnt, maybe there was a period of ocean displacement, maybe the oceans were lowered after the flood. I DONT KNOW, I NEVER CLAIMED TO KNOW. You, on the other hand, did make apositive assertion. You claimed it was impossible for koalas to make it to australia.

WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT THE GEOLOGY OF THE TIME you said that it would be impossible for koalas to reach Australia. You never did anything to back this up. If you can prove to me that it was impossible for koalas to reach australia, and in so doing prove to me exactly whaqt the post-flood continents looked like, we can end this right here, but because, despite your position as a stringent proponent of the burden of proof, you have done nothing of the sort, we'll have to go with option b, where you actually read my post AND STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! I NEVER CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS A LANDBRIDGE!

[quote]You also claimed that evolution can radically alter a species in that amount of time. God must have done that, since it no longer happens at anything close to that rate.[/quote]

"radically alter"? "radically alter"? I said that evolution could have allowed the koalas to adapt to their local food source. THIS IS NOT A RADICAL ALTERATION! ITS VERY SIMPLE MICROEVOLUTION!

[quote]You claimed that an olive tree (a plant that grows in relatively DRY climates, I might add) can survive being underwater for at least a year[/quote]

and you claimed that it couldnt.

[quote]You claimed that Noah had the technology to store meat for 438 days without it rotting in a form that carnivores would eat (note: carnivores won't eat jerky)[/quote]

Carnivores CAN eat jerky. Remember, all we need is two animals here. We can ignore the laws of generality. This applies as well to the olive tree. all we need is one leaf on one olive tree to survive, and it is possible.

[quote]You claimed that one window is important enough for God to specifically mention, but the other windows that allow for breathing just sort of slipped His mind[/quote]

and whats wrong with that? It was specifically mentioned that that window was for light, but if the ventilation system was complex, it wouldnt be recorded, as the ark was only outlined in general specifications.

[quote]You claimed that it only takes an animal a couple thousand years to hit massive numbers and then die out mysteriously. God must have done that, too, and forgotten to mention it.[/quote]

do you understand what "exponential growth" is?

[quote]Why aren't there any records of men encountering velociraptors?[/quote]

i dont know. however there are possibilities:
1) velociraptors and man moved away from each other followinghte flood
2) velociraptors died out before the flood
3) they did encounter each other, but since writing wasnt very prevalent and they were considered a "normal" animal noone wrote it down.

[quote]How did cows manage to not go extinct?[/quote]

how the fuck should I know? Can you prove that they would have to?

[quote]You claimed that a 450foot long boat could be made using only SOFTWOOD with no metal, by a man with no shipbuilding experience and no shipbuilding tradition to work from, can float even though cultures with metal and shipbuilders and a long shipbuilding tradition can't copy that feat even to this day. Yet another miracle God forgot to mention?[/quote]

*sigh*

1) prove noah had no shipbuilding experience.
2) prove he could only work with softwood
3) prove that we cant do it (the fact that we HAVENT done it is irrelevent)

[quote]Claimed that extinct animals have sex (Gen 8:20 - EVERY clean beast and EVERY clean fowl)[/quote]

Wrong, I claimed that animals on the ark had sex, and therefore sacrifices made of every type of clean animal could have gone on and the species could have still survived.

[quote]You claimed to not understand that in order for vast "fountains of the deep" to exist, rocks would have to float on top of them for thousand of years until God decided to let it out[/quote]

Um, this is, to be fair, total horseshit. Why does a "fountain of the deep" have to be suspended in midair or midsea or whatever? Why can it not be on the ocean floor? "floating rocks"? What are you smoking?

[quote]And you claimed that someone from a landlocked culture with no shipbuilding experience somehow knew the incredibly complex process of maintaining a SOFTWOOD keel at sea.[/quote]

All I claimed was that it was possible for him to have the technology. and it is, technically, he might not have even been landlocked, as the seas might have shifted and there were definitely lakes about.

Once again, it was YOU who made the unverified assertions. You said it was a landlocked culture without knowing the geology, you said it was softwood without knowing what materials might have been available, you said that he had no shipbuilding experience. You dont even know the guy or the place or hte environment and yet you claim to know what cannot be in all three.

[quote]How many ungrounded assumptions do you have to make before you feel like you should start providing evidence for some of it?[/quote]

IM NOT SAYING THESE THINGS HAPPENED! I'M SAYING ITS POSSIBLE THEY HAPPENED!


[quote]I was guessing LOW. They were in that ark for 438 days.[/quote]

dude, I'm getting a year, almost exactly.

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month"

"And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth"

a little less, but a year is close enough.

[quote]Assume there are, oh, 300 kinds of animals in those days (absurdly low number).[/quote]

all right.

[quote]And let's assume that every animal eats one cubic meter of generic animal chow per day (elephants eat alot more, rabbits eat alot less, lions can't even eat animal chow, so once again this is a conservative estimate).[/quote]

Here's where I dont agree. I'd say less. A lot less. For starters, some animals could be feeding others. I'm certain there are creatures that eat other creatures' waste on board. There are alsoalso, I disagree with the number itself. A cubic meter is extremely large. Especially if you assume they were juveniles. Heck, for the carnivores it would be best if they were practically babies at the start. Also, I have read something about grain or wheat compression or something like that. In short, I am not claiming to know anything about the goings-on. but you sure are if you are ruling out any of these possibilities.

[quote]And I didn't even count the extra pairs of clean animals, since we don't know how many of the "kinds" were clean.[/quote]

went over this above, but it is entirely possible that these were second-generation sacrifices. There was certainly enough time for some stir-crazy animals to get it on.

[quote]And then when they landed, the would have still needed food provided for them, since all the vegitation of the earth (except for the magical olive tree) would have been wiped clean away. That WAS God's intention: kill everything[/quote]

Prove it, from where I'm standing, it sure as hell looks like it was just "kill all humanity" (with a few very notable exceptions).

[quote]This honestly gets more complicated and less plausible every time you try to explain it.[/quote]

I care not for plausibility. I'm trying to establish possibility.

[quote]Can't you see that this is getting just a teensy bit ABSURD?[/quote]

Of course its absurd! Its completely ridiculous! Doesnt change the fact you said you could disprove it and yet you did nothing of the sort. Why dont we drop this decidedly unscientific discussion (or you can drop all of your topics that cannot be conclusively proven) and go back to the actual scientific discussions, there are a lot of loose ends.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir Buckethead
post Mar 23 2003, 12:52 AM
Post #98


Conformist4life
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 7,585
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Washington State Views: Conservative and playfully racist
Member No.: 71



QUOTE
According to the bible, as I showed above, the earth must be older than 6000 years, thus either the bible is not literal or the earth is older than 6000 years (of course not excluding the possibillity of both).


call it ten thousand then. I dont care.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir Buckethead
post Mar 23 2003, 12:56 AM
Post #99


Conformist4life
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 7,585
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Washington State Views: Conservative and playfully racist
Member No.: 71



QUOTE
That's too vague to be a theory.

Please define your terms (i.e. God and the Bible)


the bible

god: I cant, sorry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Clean
post Mar 23 2003, 01:39 AM
Post #100


Make 7 Up Yours.
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,175
Joined: 16-June 02
From: Colorado
Member No.: 15



QUOTE
I'm not claiming that the Flood happened!


Then don't. End of story. The flood is not a part of your argument.

QUOTE
So long as it is POSSIBLE for the flood to have happened, the test is still sound.


So long as it's possible that my girlfriend is Heidi Klum... Anything is possible. But not everything is plausible. You're not even arguing anything here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Erebus
post Mar 23 2003, 01:46 AM
Post #101


Veteran
***

Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 18-March 03
Member No.: 289



SB: So you're saying it's perfectly possible for all this to have happened?

I'm not wasting any more time with this. If HALF this much shit happened, we'd have more evidence than an old book.

You've completely failed to understand how science works. Science NEVER starts with a conclusion and then sets out to support it. Science takes current data and builds a theory AROUND it. Your little "test" is just an excuse to go to your FCA friends and say "Nobody could disprove creationism! It must be true!". If all the absurdities and impossibilities in this argument don't convince you that it's less than sound, nothing will. You prove the flood, we'll talk about the flood's affect on radiometric dating. Otherwise, it didn't happen, and saying "I'm not claiming it happened" doesn't mean we have to take it any more seriously.

This little model lets you make all the improbable, idiotic claims you want by saying "Who says it DIDN'T happen that way?" Who says that CA wasn't actually a part of Turkey, and while the tectonic plate moved, it went past Australia, the Australian marsupials hopped off, and the CA's plate continued to its current position today. We don't know it DIDN'T happen that way. Even though it would have had to be moving at an insane speed, and the fossils there don't match any near Turkey, it's still POSSIBLE.

I'm not going to keep ramming my head into a brick wall for your amusement.

Oh, one more thing: Fountains of the deep:

THEY'D HAVE TO BE UNDERGROUND. Underground. As in, with rock above them. Under pressure (if it was all aquifer, there'd never have been a desert for Moses to wander around in). In order for that much water to be underneath rock, the rock has to NOT SINK. It might work if there were no cracks in the crust of the earth, but how likely is that? I suppose we don't KNOW there were cracks in the earth's crust at the time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raider
post Mar 23 2003, 01:47 AM
Post #102


Why?
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,814
Joined: 19-August 02
Member No.: 130



This is hilarious. (IMG:http://www.utopia-politics.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir Buckethead
post Mar 23 2003, 01:48 AM
Post #103


Conformist4life
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 7,585
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Washington State Views: Conservative and playfully racist
Member No.: 71



QUOTE
Then don't. End of story. The flood is not a part of your argument.


you misunderstand. I'm not claiming ANYTHING happened. 6K, 10K, I'm not caliming any of it.

QUOTE
So long as it's possible that my girlfriend is Heidi Klum... Anything is possible. But not everything is plausible. You're not even arguing anything here.


As long as it is possible that she's your girlfriend what? that's and incomplete comparison.

here's the exercise:

problem: Is YEC contradicted by science?

process: go through all the basic anti-YEC arguments until you find a conclusive one (we stopped this process to debate the window on the ark, for pete's sake!)

in so doing, you are testing the theory in its entirety. That is, we are including the flood in our reasonings.

since the entire process is a TEST of POSSIBILITY, we dont have to prove that the flood happened before we begin, the only thing that takes the flood out of the equation is proving it didnt happen.

See, the trick to your misunderstanding lies in what goes beyond the three little dots (i forget what they're called) Its possible that shes your girlfriend so... its possible that she's your girlfriend! That's all I'm claiming here!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Erebus
post Mar 23 2003, 01:50 AM
Post #104


Veteran
***

Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 18-March 03
Member No.: 289



Edit: Oops, double post.

This post has been edited by Erebus: Mar 23 2003, 01:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raider
post Mar 23 2003, 01:56 AM
Post #105


Why?
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,814
Joined: 19-August 02
Member No.: 130



What gives you the notion that something being possible adds validity to it?

It is possible that you are god. It is possible you are 500 years old. It is possible you are a monkey.

All of these ideas are possible, but none probable. In fact they are highly improbable. It is logical to conclude that none of these are consistent with reality.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir Buckethead
post Mar 23 2003, 02:07 AM
Post #106


Conformist4life
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 7,585
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Washington State Views: Conservative and playfully racist
Member No.: 71



QUOTE
I'm not wasting any more time with this.


You would not believe how good it feels to hear you say that.

QUOTE
You've completely failed to understand how science works.


And yopu've completely failed to undertand that I never claimed I was being scientific! In fact, I explicitly saidthe precise opposite! I was taking a FAITH BASED theory and seeing if it was contradicted by scientific evidence. Scientific evidence being used in a non-scientific test. that is both why it is in this thread and why I am working backwards like this.

QUOTE
Your little "test" is just an excuse to go to your FCA friends and say "Nobody could disprove creationism!


1) What is FCA?
2) this is fine. Its not what I'm doing, I am actually testing it, but it is fine nonetheless. then you say this:

QUOTE
It must be true!"


what do you take me for? A child?

QUOTE
If all the absurdities and impossibilities in this argument don't convince you that it's less than sound, nothing will. You prove the flood, we'll talk about the flood's affect on radiometric dating. Otherwise, it didn't happen, and saying "I'm not claiming it happened" doesn't mean we have to take it any more seriously.


actually, yes it does, because thats the entire point. read my last post to mr clean. And read this: IF (and I highly doubt it) NOONE CAN DISPROVE YEC, I AM NOT GOING OT SAY YEC IS TRUE, OR PLAUSIBLE, OR ANYTHING. Read that, again and again. ***********************************************Realize that in a test for possibility you do not have to first establish proof.******************************************

(btw, absurdities you have shown plenty of. impossibilities none)

QUOTE
This little model lets you make all the improbable, idiotic claims you want by saying "Who says it DIDN'T happen that way?" Who says that CA wasn't actually a part of Turkey, and while the tectonic plate moved, it went past Australia, the Australian marsupials hopped off, and the CA's plate continued to its current position today. We don't know it DIDN'T happen that way. Even though it would have had to be moving at an insane speed, and the fossils there don't match any near Turkey, it's still POSSIBLE.


WHAT CLAIMS? THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS EXAMPLE AND WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT I AM NOT CLAIMING ANYTHING! *IF* I were taking established possibility and making claims with it, this would be a viable, even devastating, comparison. But I am not!

lets repeat that nine times, it is the basis of our entire misunderstanding.

*IF* I were taking established possibility and making claims with it, this would be a viable, even devastating, comparison. But I am not!

*IF* I were taking established possibility and making claims with it, this would be a viable, even devastating, comparison. But I am not!

*IF* I were taking established possibility and making claims with it, this would be a viable, even devastating, comparison. But I am not!

*IF* I were taking established possibility and making claims with it, this would be a viable, even devastating, comparison. But I am not!

*IF* I were taking established possibility and making claims with it, this would be a viable, even devastating, comparison. But I am not!

*IF* I were taking established possibility and making claims with it, this would be a viable, even devastating, comparison. But I am not!

*IF* I were taking established possibility and making claims with it, this would be a viable, even devastating, comparison. But I am not!

*IF* I were taking established possibility and making claims with it, this would be a viable, even devastating, comparison. But I am not!

*IF* I were taking established possibility and making claims with it, this would be a viable, even devastating, comparison. But I am not!
Please read this! Please try to understand what I am conveying!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir Buckethead
post Mar 23 2003, 02:09 AM
Post #107


Conformist4life
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 7,585
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Washington State Views: Conservative and playfully racist
Member No.: 71



QUOTE
What gives you the notion that something being possible adds validity to it?


what gives you the notion I think that? I dont! I think possibility makes something possible, nothing more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Clean
post Mar 23 2003, 02:09 AM
Post #108


Make 7 Up Yours.
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,175
Joined: 16-June 02
From: Colorado
Member No.: 15



Let me repeat what Erebus said:

QUOTE
You've completely failed to understand how science works. Science NEVER starts with a conclusion and then sets out to support it. Science takes current data and builds a theory AROUND it.


If you're not claiming anything, then YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT! Period! End of story!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir Buckethead
post Mar 23 2003, 02:13 AM
Post #109


Conformist4life
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 7,585
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Washington State Views: Conservative and playfully racist
Member No.: 71



QUOTE
If you're not claiming anything, then YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT! Period! End of story!


I DONT HAVE AN ARGUMENT! PRECISELY!

I have an argument in things like the dating issue, because hte test requires argument to validify counterarguments. But on YEC itself I'm not pretending to have an argument!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Erebus
post Mar 23 2003, 02:15 AM
Post #110


Veteran
***

Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 18-March 03
Member No.: 289



If you don't have the backbone to actually make some claims to define what we're arguing, please go back to UP.

Once again, there's no such thing as a faith-based theory. If you're not going to accept scienctific absurdities as evidence against, there's nothing we can say. If you're not being scientific, you're implying that rational laws of science and rhetoric are immaterial to the discussion. Thus, we have nothing. In your magical pink-unicorn universe (that you don't believe in and don't claim exists, but will hit us over the head with it regardless), maybe such a thing is possible. In real life, we've given you enough specifics to choke a dog, as Mr. Clean put it, as to why it's less probable than Michael Jackson opening for a Hanson concert.

I also really like how you only attack the points that look easy, and convieniently forget about the rest of them. Don't think we don't notice when you "leave out" a point to rebut.

You have no theory. You have no science. You have no evidence. All you have is a book and a psychotic disorder. Why should we take you seriously?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Clean
post Mar 23 2003, 02:18 AM
Post #111


Make 7 Up Yours.
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,175
Joined: 16-June 02
From: Colorado
Member No.: 15



QUOTE
But on YEC itself I'm not pretending to have an argument!


Goodnight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir Buckethead
post Mar 23 2003, 02:33 AM
Post #112


Conformist4life
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 7,585
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Washington State Views: Conservative and playfully racist
Member No.: 71



QUOTE
If you don't have the backbone to actually make some claims to define what we're arguing, please go back to UP.


I have defined what we're arguing. Its just not proven. IF IT WERE WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF ARGUING IT?

Honestly, think about it for a second.

QUOTE
Once again, there's no such thing as a faith-based theory.


Dictionary dot com: definition #6:

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

alright then, we'll call it an assumption based on faith-based precepts. But for short, I'm gonna keep calling it a "theory", now pull the stick outta yer ass and shut up.

QUOTE
If you're not going to accept scienctific absurdities as evidence against, there's nothing we can say


Scientific absurdities? you call your complete lack of regard for the burden of proof, directly after lecturing me on the same, "scientific absurdities"?

and if youd GET OFF THE FLOOD FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE, you'd understand what the purpose is.

QUOTE
If you're not being scientific, you're implying that rational laws of science and rhetoric are immaterial to the discussion.


the theory is not proven. it is not a scientific theory, because it is based on faith. this does not mean it is immune to the "rational laws of science and rhetoric".

QUOTE
I also really like how you only attack the points that look easy, and convieniently forget about the rest of them. Don't think we don't notice when you "leave out" a point to rebut.


I respond to EVERY ARGUMENT. if one slips thorugh, it is because I honestly missed it. The only argument I saw but ignored was the tree rings one, because I just never got around to it because immediately afterwards you hijacked the thread, simultaneously cutting short all of the scientific discussion and claiming that I was not interested in scientific discussion.

QUOTE
You have no theory. You have no science. You have no evidence. All you have is a book and a psychotic disorder. Why should we take you seriously?


Theory: i dont have a scientific theory, I have a faith-based theory which I am TRYING to analyze through science.
science: Damn right i have no science, all I have is some pathetivc fraud trying his damndest to kill this thread before it can return to scientific discussion just to prove to himself that it doesnt involve scientific discussion.
evidence: I dont claim to have evidence, you stupid dumbfuck.


YOU HAVE MADE THE CLAIM that this excercise is flawed because the theory cannot be disproven.

THE LAST TIME I CONDUCTED THIS EXERCISE, yec was disproven.

WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SO STUPID?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir Buckethead
post Mar 23 2003, 02:51 AM
Post #113


Conformist4life
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 7,585
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Washington State Views: Conservative and playfully racist
Member No.: 71



QUOTE
Goodnight.


good riddance to bad rubbish.

I'm having trouble with my research into tree rings, i found one site that said that by matching overlapping patterns they have brought trees back to 9000 years, and it seems to be a fairly straightforward process that would invalidate 6K years. (I hesitate to switch to the 10K model, though, as it might extend this travesty of a debate) then i found another site that said that multiple-ring years calibrate even the 15000 numbers down to around 8000. funny that the 9000 site didnt mention that. Anyway, I'll read more tomorrow into this mutliple ring growth stuff and then we'll continue. For now, good night from me as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Erebus
post Mar 23 2003, 03:27 AM
Post #114


Veteran
***

Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 18-March 03
Member No.: 289



If you've already disproven it, why are you insisting on wasting our time?

Dropped arguments #1: GEOLOGY
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Clean
post Mar 23 2003, 03:46 AM
Post #115


Make 7 Up Yours.
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,175
Joined: 16-June 02
From: Colorado
Member No.: 15



QUOTE
I have defined what we're arguing. Its just not proven. IF IT WERE WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF ARGUING IT?


QUOTE
But on YEC itself I'm not pretending to have an argument!


Someone else can take it from here. I'm done with this dumbass.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zaragosa
post Mar 23 2003, 02:43 PM
Post #116


False mirror
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,111
Joined: 25-June 02
From: Brussels, Belgium
Member No.: 62



Sir Buckethead,

If you cannot define the basic terms of your theory, there is very little to discuss.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir Buckethead
post Mar 23 2003, 07:23 PM
Post #117


Conformist4life
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 7,585
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Washington State Views: Conservative and playfully racist
Member No.: 71



Erebus:
QUOTE
If you've already disproven it, why are you insisting on wasting our time?


It was disproven last time on the issue of supernovae, so I modified the prompt to exclude that becasue I wanted to continue arguing the earth-related issues.

QUOTE
Dropped arguments #1: GEOLOGY


This argument hasnt been dropped I made my response, and essentially the only response you made to that was to contend that it wasnt that short of a flood. THis is valid, but since the thrust of my argument has not been changed (in the scale of geologic time it is still slight) I have not dropped the argument. In fact, I even replied, qualifying hte time period that I believe you incorrectly calculated.

Dropped argument my ass.

Anyway, you said that there would have to be a global flood layer. i disagree. A year is not all that long, when you're talking abnout geologic time. And I did not drop the issue! I said as much, I offered, purely out of guesswork, a reinterpretation of the end of the carboniferous era, when huge amounts of plants were buried.

Your example of the earth's geologic history being severely split (you said there would be three basic layers) is, I believe, unfounded. The flood was massive in scale, but in local impact, there is little reason to suspect it had any more effect than being submerged for a year would normally have.

zaragosa:
QUOTE
If you cannot define the basic terms of your theory, there is very little to discuss.


Who the hell can define "god"?

Now honestly. Can you people not see the immense amount of stonewalling and stalling you are doing? I want to argue! I learn a lot when I argue! I understand that this is not a purely scientific test, but it is still dealing with scientific evidence and it can still be used to gain a greater understanding.

You dont need me to define "god" to argue whether it is possible for the earth to be X years old. Its just not necessary.

QUOTE
QUOTE 
I have defined what we're arguing. Its just not proven. IF IT WERE WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF ARGUING IT?



QUOTE 
But on YEC itself I'm not pretending to have an argument!

Someone else can take it from here. I'm done with this dumbass.


gimme a break, Mr C.

Is it so hard for you to understand that I am arguing without having a position on the issue? I was unaware that objectivity was so fiercely frowned upon, even making one a "dumbass" for attaining it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Erebus
post Mar 23 2003, 07:32 PM
Post #118


Veteran
***

Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 18-March 03
Member No.: 289



Psst... you realize that flood geology is present during current-day floods, when the flood only lasts about a week, right? Stupidity makes Baby Jesus cry.

This post has been edited by Erebus: Mar 23 2003, 07:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir Buckethead
post Mar 23 2003, 07:34 PM
Post #119


Conformist4life
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 7,585
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Washington State Views: Conservative and playfully racist
Member No.: 71



I'm not suggesting it was a stealth flood, I'm just saying you are being practically hyperbolic when you say it would split the geologic layers into three types.

And I see no reason whyt he end of the carboniferous cannot be reinterpreted as a flood layer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Erebus
post Mar 23 2003, 08:05 PM
Post #120


Veteran
***

Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 18-March 03
Member No.: 289



How many times do I have to explain flood geology to you?

Three layers, world-wide, more than a mile thick (because the flood carried ALL the sediment in the world). Top layer: fine sediment the flood carried in solution. Middle layer: Deepest layer, small sediment carried by suspension. Bottom layer: Coarse rocks carried by saltation.

I should be able to go out into my back yard, dig down through 3k years worth of layers (about 20 feet) and find these. Odd how nobody's EVER found them. Definition of a stealth flood.

And no, I'm not going to scan in the pages from my textbook and send them to you.

This post has been edited by Erebus: Mar 23 2003, 08:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th December 2014 - 12:05 AM