How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[Audie]

No, he makes no such assumption about Kent's nonsense. He refutes Kent's nonsense. Do you even know what "assume" means?

wonder who you guys been talkin' to

 

[nPeace]

No, he makes no such assumption about Kent's nonsense. He refutes Kent's nonsense. Do you even know what "assume" means?

Did you understand what I said. It seems to me you didn't
The guy did an experiment to refute what Kent proposed happened.
I am saying that he therefore assumes that what Kent proposed is the Gospel of what happened, in the Bible. Therefore, by doing the experiment to disprove Kent's proposal, he believes he has won points against the Biblical flood. Do you understand that sir?

 

[nPeace]

The Talk.Origins Archive: Flood Geology FAQs
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
Twenty-One Reasons Noah’s Worldwide Flood Never Happened - CSI
Better?

Thanks. I'll take a look as soon as I'm finished what I am dealing with at the moment.

 

[nPeace]

No, he makes no such assumption about Kent's nonsense. He refutes Kent's nonsense. Do you even know what "assume" means?

Okay. He failed to disprove anything about the Biblical flood. Would you like to make a valid argument?

 

[nPeace]

The Talk.Origins Archive: Flood Geology FAQs
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
Twenty-One Reasons Noah’s Worldwide Flood Never Happened - CSI
Better?

Great! I looked at the first link, and I like what I see. This is really way better than what I've been getting throughout this thread.
I have to handle each point, so just give me some time to respond. Thanks.

 

[Valjean]

First. I'll ignore the outright insults - You so love doing that, and you are still on these forums. Hmmm.
Second. Say what you like.
Third. The proof you have that believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus, and that God is a liar, is no different to the proof you have that a flood did not happen.
So why should that faze me? You have nothing.

But there is no evidence for God or Santa. There is no reason to believe in them, no phenomena are explained by them.
Likewise, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood -- a phenomenon that would have left clear evidence everywhere, nor is there any reasonable hypothesis about how it might have happened.

I believe I am going by the science.
Scientific Proof Is A Myth

What's your point? This has been pointed out here thousands of times, in hundreds of threads. Science doesn't "prove." It gathers information, proposes explanations, tests them, &c. Proof is a mathematics term. You don't find scientific journals claiming to prove things

You do find science amassing enough evidence for things that denying it would be obtuse, and a great many people, in everyday conversation, do talk about things like the germ theory or heliocentric theory being 'proven facts'.

The fact is, science has found no evidence for a worldwide flood, nor can it come up with any explanation of how it could have occurred.

 

[nPeace]

But there is no evidence for God or Santa. There is no reason to believe in them, no phenomena are explained by them.
Likewise, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood -- a phenomenon that would have left clear evidence everywhere, nor is there any reasonable hypothesis about how it might have happened.
What's your point? This has been pointed out here thousands of times, in hundreds of threads. Science doesn't "prove." It gathers information, proposes explanations, tests them, &c. Proof is a mathematics term. You don't find scientific journals claiming to prove things

You do find science amassing enough evidence for things that denying it would be obtuse, and a great many people, in everyday conversation, do talk about things like the germ theory or heliocentric theory being 'proven facts'.

The fact is, science has found no evidence for a worldwide flood, nor can it come up with any explanation of how it could have occurred.

Isn't that the same thing as saying, "We found no evidence of the garden of Eden, so therefore the garden of Eden never existed."
By that logic, a lot of things do not exist - including our thoughts.

 

[Valjean]

Isn't that the same thing as saying, "We found no evidence of the garden of Eden, so therefore the garden of Eden never existed."
By that logic, a lot of things do not exist - including our thoughts.

Finding no evidence of something that could be expected to have left evidence is different from finding none in situations where none would be expected.

 

[Audie]

Finding no evidence of something that could be expected to have left evidence is different from finding none in situations where none would be expected.

My analogy on that is along the lines of-

Call the police to complain that a million-strong
herd of wild buffaloes has trampled through your house.

The police dutifully come but find no sign of disturbance.
The carpet is still white; the furniture is in order,
the doorframes are undamaged.

No hair, scent, hoofprints or other signs of
large animals. Not in the house nor anywhere
near.

The neighbours report no sightings, heliopters
sent to look fail to make contact.

Lack of evidence in this case is very powerful
evidence that the caller has not told the truth.

Ye world wide flood would leave unmistakeable
evidence of its having happened.

Some say that "god" then cleaned up the mess,
for, lo, to not have done so would constitute
leaving proof of the flood, and hence of god.

With proof there is no virtue in faith.

Faith is what keeps flood-belief alive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I accept that many accepted theories can change... at any given moment, and be replaced. There are some things that may not change immediately - but note I did not specify anything. Nor will I attempt to.

That happens very rarely if at all these days. In fact most examples given of theories changing do not involve scientific theories. You would be hard pressed to find a scientific theory that has been refuted. There are only a handful at best.

 

[Rise]

If by flood event,you mean a world wide
flood, that did not happen so the rest is moot.

Merely saying something is true doesn't prove it is true.
You need to give reasons why you can prove it never happened.

It is of course, not strictly accurate to say you
go by what the bible says.

Your accusation is a lie.
I said I go by what the Bible says concerning the events of the flood, and nothing I listed as what I believe is in contradiction to what the Bible says on the matter. Nor is there anything in the Biblical account of the flood that I would say did not happen, so you can't accuse me of cherrypicking anything in it.

The existence of polar ice that
predates any possible time for the flood will do.

Merely claiming that polar ice existed before the flood doesn't make it true - You need to present evidence to prove your claim is true that polar ice had to predate the Biblical flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you understand what I said. It seems to me you didn't
The guy did an experiment to refute what Kent proposed happened.
I am saying that he therefore assumes that what Kent proposed is the Gospel of what happened, in the Bible. Therefore, by doing the experiment to disprove Kent's proposal, he believes he has won points against the Biblical flood. Do you understand that sir?

I understood what you said. And he refuted just one simple claim. Did you watch all of both video?

And no, he did not assume that what Kent proposed is "Gospel" (by the way that is not a wise term to use either). Kent Hovind is rather low hanging fruit, but then that applies to anyone that believes the flood myth.

You really need to work on your use of terms. There was no assumption on his part. You read into that video something that did not exist. As someone that does not understand the sciences at all the odds are huge, or if you are a Trump follower "YUGE!" that you cannot tell when someone makes an assumption or not so it would be best not to use such a term. It quite often ends up in being a breaking of the Ninth Commandment on your part.

 

[Audie]

Merely saying something is true doesn't prove it is true.
You need to give reasons why you can prove it never happened.



Your accusation is a lie.
I said I go by what the Bible says concerning the events of the flood, and nothing I listed as what I believe is in contradiction to what the Bible says on the matter. Nor is there anything in the Biblical account of the flood that I would say did not happen, so you can't accuse me of cherrypicking anything in it.



Merely claiming that polar ice existed before the flood doesn't make it true - You need to present evidence to prove your claim is true that polar ice had to predate the Biblical flood.

I dont just say things, of course I can demonstrate that
the flood could not have happened.


I made no accusation, nor do I lie.
You left out, so conveniently,the rest of what I said.

You choose go with
your chosen reading. The bible also says the hills
will clap, and some few other things that one might
not want to take too literally.

As for"merely claiming" that is all you can do with your
bible story, is claim it it true. Evidence hast thou none.

I dont say things are so just coz I say they are, as you
twice now suggested I do. (accused me of doing? )
Nor did I say I can prove something is true. More phoniness
from you is all that is.

You need to present evidence to prove your claim is true that polar ice had to predate the Biblical flood.

To be more accurate, that would be "predate any possible date for a flood
such as in the bible". Hard to predate something that did not happen.

Are you actually unaware of the very extensive work that
has been done in the polar ice?

There is an enormous body of data showing the age of the ice.

The data that shows the ark fairy tale is true?
Other than the story itself, that is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Merely saying something is true doesn't prove it is true.
You need to give reasons why you can prove it never happened.

And she has. You have merely not been paying attention at best.

Your accusation is a lie.
I said I go by what the Bible says concerning the events of the flood, and nothing I listed as what I believe is in contradiction to what the Bible says on the matter. Nor is there anything in the Biblical account of the flood that I would say did not happen, so you can't accuse me of cherrypicking anything in it.

Really? When was the last time you stoned an unmarried mother? It appears that you are now changing your claim after the fact to account for parts of the Bible that you can't follow. And by choosing which parts of the Bible to believe you are cherry picking. You may decide to believe the flood myth, but you have decided not to believe other parts of the Bible.

Merely claiming that polar ice existed before the flood doesn't make it true - You need to present evidence to prove your claim is true that polar ice had to predate the Biblical flood.

Evidence has been presented. The problem is that you may be rejecting valid evidence. What sort of evidence would you accept?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You're right that I personally can't get the water out.

... The point of the OP is that it's impossible for there to be a planetary flood.

The point is that it is impossible to have the geologic record we have if there was a planetary flood in the last 10,000 years. For example, we shouldn't have ice caps at the poles that are millions of years old if there was a planetary flood during that time.

It's not God's guess. God knows ... He doesn't guess.

God didn't write Genesis. Human beings did.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Isn't that the same thing as saying, "We found no evidence of the garden of Eden, so therefore the garden of Eden never existed."
By that logic, a lot of things do not exist - including our thoughts.

We have geologic records that would record a flood if one occurred, and there is no evidence of a flood in those records. That is why we conclude that there was no global flood.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The Noah Flood Narrative is the Babylonian myth partially demythologized and refracted through the lens of a primitive ethical monotheism.

It is, first and foremost, a theological polemic which invests a monotheistic god with moral purpose....

What J. says on this is absolutely factual.

All it takes is directly examining the Gilgamesh Epic and contrasting it to Noah's own miniature epic. We live in privileged times when these original stories ancient stories long lost have been found again and deciphered! Now we get to see what for thousands of years has been forgotten. Its an empowering experience to see how culture can be changed for the benefit of all through patience and dedication. It is very moving.

 

[ecco]

And we believe in myths that were written by testimony from firsthand observers.

Perhaps I am reading that out of context.

However, if you are stating that you believe in the flood because there is "written ... testimony from firsthand observers", I would have to ask which firsthand observers wrote testimony?

 

[sealchan]

No problem. i hope you didn't... get confused, I mean.

If you can understand why what I said was sarcasm and explain it to me (to prove that you understand it) then I will continue the conversation if you like. Otherwise, based on how everyone else is doing with you, I think we are done.

 

[Rise]

You are making two separate errors here. First what you are describing is an ad hominem, an attack against a person, not an ad hominem fallacy. That is when you take an ad hominem and try to claim that because of that that the person is wrong.

Ad Hominem (Abusive)
Your own link proves your claim is wrong:

Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

When the attack on the person is relevant to the argument, it is not a fallacy.

As we can see, an ad hominem fallacy is when you attack someone rather than address their argument, not when you claim their argument is wrong because you've attacked them.

You committed the former.

Further supported by
Ad hominem - Wikipedia

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

You don't get to make up your own definition of ad hominem and claim it is the commonly accepted definition.

And that was a weak argument on your part.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely claiming my argument was weak doesn't mean your statement is true.
You need to demonstrate with facts, reason, and logic why my argument was supposedly weak.

And I even offered to go into more depth on the refutation if you could argue properly.

It is ironic everytime you talk about arguing properly, when you are the only one committing multiple logical fallacies in every post.

Again, with rude and arrogant people it is a waste of time to give them answers. I need to know that I am not wasting my time.

Logical fallacy, avoiding the issue.

You're responding to my argument without addressing it, trying to divert the debate away from the real issue.

You can't justify making claims you can't back up, and committing numerous logical fallacies trying to defend your unsupported claims, by coping out that you don't want to actually debate when you are challenged on your claims.
If you didn't actually want to debate then you can just say so and leave it at that. Instead you're trying to have it both ways. You're trying to make claims and arguments but then when pressed for proof on your claims you fall back on saying you don't actually want to debate because you don't like the tone, yet then you continue trying to debate anyway.
You're just using it as a diversion excuse to avoid the real issue.

Oh my, so reading comprehension may be a problem as well.

Logical fallacy, ad hominem.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Instead of answering the question, you turn to personal attacks.
Further, you have not even attempted to demonstrate why anything I said showed a lack of reading comprehension. Just claiming I did not comprehend your post, and that it was my error that your post lacked clarity, doesn't make it true. Nor does fixating on that claim absolve you of the requirement to clarify the point you were trying to make.

No problem. you just showed a classic dishonest debating tactic, quoting out of context. The full phrase, that you edited, was "polite and honest" Not even a full sentence.

Either you were accusing me of being both impolite and dishonest, in which case my parsing of the comment was correct.

Or you were not accusing me of being dishonest. In which case I accept your acknowledgement of my honesty and I withdraw my response to that part of the phrase as unnecessary.

The rest of what I said stands.

It is not a proper debating technique.

You don't get to talk about proper debating technique as long as you continue to have every post of yours littered with logical fallacies that you refuse to correct.

And you have yet to find one logical fallacy.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely claiming I was in error by pointing out your logical fallacies doesn't make what you say true.
You have to demonstrate, logically, why you think I was in error.

You have many fallacies racked up and have only tried to address one, which you failed to do because even our own link disproves your claim about the definition of ad hominem.

Let's try to keep the false claims to a minimum.

So far you're the the only one here who has refused to support their claim.
You claim the ice caps existed for before the flood but are unwilling to provide proof of your claim.

You don't even see the error that you keep making. I made no presumption.

Presumption:
an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain.

By definition, you can't claim the presence of ice caps proves the flood didn't happen unless you presume to be true the idea that the ice caps existed before the flood.

Your claim had an underlying presumption. The onus is on you to prove your presumption to be true.

No such fallacy,

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Your need to provide logical reasoning as to why I incorrectly pointed out how you commited logical fallacies. Just claiming I was in error doesn't make it true.

and it is only a reaction to your rudeness. If you want a full answer you need to be a bit more polite. And no, your rudeness threw such rules out the window. The first rule in a discussion is that both sides need to be polite.

Logical fallacy, nonsequitur. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

Step 1: Commit logical fallacy.
Step 2. Claim the other person is rude.
Step 3. Therefore any logical fallacy you commit is no longer a logical fallacy because you think the other person was rude.

You committed the logical fallacy of argument by assertion, and it doesn't stop being a logical fallacy just because you claim I was rude.
The laws of academic logic don't change just because you get offended.
You might choose not to engage in logic anymore because you're offended, but that doesn't mean our logical fallacies magically stop being fallacies just because you are offended.

That is not a point. It is an ignorant claim.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely claiming my point was an ignorant claim doesn't make it true.
You need to demonstrate with fact, reason, or logic, why you think it is an ignorant claim.

1. It is not "just because I say".
This question has been already answered to some degree earlier in the thread.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot prove you did not commit a logical fallacy argument by assertion by commiting another logical fallacy argument by assertion.
Which also makes you guilty of logical fallacy argument ad nauseum, thinking that you prove something is true just because you keep repeating it.

2. No ad homs committed. You could not even identify one.

As I pointed out at the start of this post, you did commit that fallacy by any commonly accepted definition of the term.

And more unsupported claims.

Logical fallacy, arugment by assertion. Just claiming what I said is unsupported doesn't make it true. You don't demonstrate why the support I gave is somehow insufficient.

I gave you the definition of tone policing and reasons why you committed the fallacy. That is the definition of supporting an argument.

You are getting rather boring merely repeating your prior errors,

You keep making the same error repeatedly, unwilling to modify what you're doing.

making the logical fallacies that you claim I am making.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely claiming I am committing logical fallacies doesn't make it true.
You need to demonstrate with reason why anything I've said is committing a logical fallacy.

You see what I just did was give you a reason as to why what you said was the given logical fallacy, and how you can correct it.

And watch the "trolling" comment. That is mere projection on your part and is getting close to a rule violation.

I said nothing about trolling. You are imagining things.