Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That was my other answer. Science should be required to learn the basics of science.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Flood Evidences — revised
- Thread starter Hockeycowboy
- Start date
You said this:
I called you on it:
then you proceeded to deny it:
…And still won’t acknowledge it, calling it my claim.
Now that’s dissonance.
Very sad, indeed.
Enough said.
People_Lack_Integrity
Member
Well. at least you made it clear this time what you found a problem with. But it's hilarious that you are misrepresenting my words as basically "Every single archaeologist that's ever existed". Anyone reading my statement, combined with my first reference to the field of archaeology can plainly see that I'm referencing all archaeologists worldwide, both past and present, that came to the conclusion that these civilizations existed prior to your flood date and existed after. I shouldn't have to clarify this for you, but given how you've approached this, it's becoming clear what kind of person I'm dealing with, in that you strawman'd my argument. You've ignored my actual points, not rebutted anything, claimed to be a victim of an insult and now claim that I was referring to every single archaeologist that's ever existed, even though in my prior post, I explained that wasn't the case. So...are you going to start being honest? I though you christians were big on "thou shall not lie"? Or is that like everything in the bible and you cherry pick?
Wow! I’m so impressed!
How??!
Since the Event cooled the Earth’s atmosphere, more so especially in the extreme northern & southern latitudes where the fresh water froze creating the existing permafrost , encasing all those animals within it (not ‘on top’ of the surface — within it) thereby causing the last Ice Age!
Talk about ignoring evidence.
PLI, you said “all archaeologists in the world”…(I think you said it twice, actually)…. That means “every single archaeologist” !
Then it seemed you had read through the lines of evidence I provided (because you began quoting them), yet you stated there wouldn’t be enough water to cover Mt Everest. That’s another straw man.
And now, you’re questioning my honesty? That’s rich.
I hope you’ll have a good day.
And when arrogance manifests itself, usually narrow-mindedness is not far behind.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, that is a problem with creationists and flood believers. One has to be very arrogant to ignore reality.
Strangely enough they tend to accuse others of this. I asked you a question. It was designed to demonstrate whether you had any evidence at all. You ducked it. Is it because of arrogance on your part? That seems to be the case.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Let's add basic physics to the science that you do not understand.
Tell us where you think that the water could have come from. It could not have come from the atmosphere. You need five vertical miles for your myth. Or you might want to lay out a clear model if you disagree with that. Give us a clear model and we can tell you how it is wrong.
This statement, alone, reveals you simply either can’t comprehend or willfully misrepresent a perspective I’ve posited here, and on which you’ve been engaging me, for close to 3 years - Oct 17, ‘18 .
Simply incredible!
Proverbs 18:13 He who answers a matter before he hears it--this is folly and disgrace to him.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are the one that will not come up with a testable model. As a result we have to rely on reality to help you to make one. Mt Everest is older than humanity. How are you going to flood the Earth if you do not cover it?
Watch the projection please. You are now blaming others for the fact that you did not properly state your model.
By the way, the fact that you do not have a proper model is the reason that you do not have any reliable evidence for your beliefs. As usual your Bible verse applies to you and not to others.
You know, SZ, I’m gonna teach you something.
Part of science, a big part, is observation. So make an observation. Does Everest look like it’s experienced millions of years of extreme weathering and erosion? No, we don’t see that all.
What do we observe? We see well-defined features! Sharp.
Heavy erosion is what we’d expect from millions of years of weathering in its extreme cold and windy environment. This is not seen.
Oh, the rocks of the Himalayas are old , millions of years no doubt. But the mountains they form, with accompanying features? It’s young, geologically speaking.
Easy to see.
Part of science, a big part, is observation. So make an observation. Does Everest look like it’s experienced millions of years of extreme weathering and erosion? No, we don’t see that all.
What do we observe? We see well-defined features! Sharp.
Heavy erosion is what we’d expect from millions of years of weathering in its extreme cold and windy environment. This is not seen.
Oh, the rocks of the Himalayas are old , millions of years no doubt. But the mountains they form, with accompanying features? It’s young, geologically speaking.
Easy to see.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
LOL! Yes, it does. Do you seriously think that it started out as a lone peak? Look at the sedimentary strata. It started out as part of a flat plane. The plate that the sediments were lying on was uplifted as a result of the collision between the Indian subcontinent and the rest off Asia. It took millions of years to erode away the vast majority of those sediments. The peaks are all that are left.
When you try to ask serious questions you only make it worse for yourself. Once again, to even have evidence the first thing that you need is a testable model. Until then all you have is handwaving and special pleading.
Thanks for verifying the observation, I didn’t think you’d do it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
My observations are "verified" yours are not. You really should try to learn the scientific method. I can help you with that. We can shelve this discussion for a while until you understand the scientific method and scientific evidence.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
@Hockeycowboy , do you know why my observations are verified and yours are not? They were all tested by the scientific method. Not by me but by thousands of scientists that have spent their lives doing just this. The first think they do is to come up with a well laid out model. One that they can test. And since it is well laid out others can test it too for concepts that the originator may have missed. After trying to refute ideas, or often showing which parts of the model are wrong and then rewriting it and testing it again, it is eventually accepted. But even then people keep testing it. That is how what I am posting has been verified.
Meanwhile flood believers, especially the scientists among them that know how to create a proper model. tend to be cowards. They have no evidence because they do not want to know if they are right or wrong. They are only looking for excuses to believe. If they really wanted to know they would put their money where their mouths are and use the scientific method.
Meanwhile flood believers, especially the scientists among them that know how to create a proper model. tend to be cowards. They have no evidence because they do not want to know if they are right or wrong. They are only looking for excuses to believe. If they really wanted to know they would put their money where their mouths are and use the scientific method.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
@Subduction Zone has explained that to you countless times already.
The last ice age started some 2.5 million years ago.
Humans as we know them today wouldn't even be around for another 2.3 million years.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Nevertheless, @People_Lack_Integrity clarified what he meant.
So perhaps you should accept the clarification and actually start addressing the points he raised, instead of pretending to have won the argument because he expressed himself in such a way on a single point, that it confused you a bit as to what he meant.
Wouldn't that be the adult thing to do?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I don't think that he ever will, but let's see if he takes me up on the offer to learn what qualifies as evidence, and understanding the scientific method. He has keeps falsely claiming that others are ignoring the evidence when there is none for his beliefs.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You do not seem to be aware that geology disagrees with your "observation".
Why is that, in your opinion?
Do you know better then geologists when it comes to how geological formations originate and develop?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Classic case of pigeon chess