How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[Audie]

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.





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.




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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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 that claim.



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.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Your need to provide logical reasoning as to why you did not commit logical fallacies. Just claiming you didn't doesn't make it true.



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.



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.




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.



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





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



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.


I said nothing about trolling. You are imagining things.

So we see why it is that so many people find the philosophy
students to be the most tiresome people on campus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.





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.




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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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 that claim.



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.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Your need to provide logical reasoning as to why you did not commit logical fallacies. Just claiming you didn't doesn't make it true.



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.



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.




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.



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





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



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.


I said nothing about trolling. You are imagining things.

Oh my, another long fail. Let me make this short and sweet. You do not know the difference between an ad hominem attack and an ad hominem fallacy. Yes, sometimes ad hominem is used as a shortcut for ad hominem fallacy, but one can detect that by context. As I pointed out earlier you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension at times and you do not seem to understand this distinction.

First off I made no ad hominems. You are merely oversensitive about your ignorance. Pointing out your ignorance is not an attack. So you failed at the get go. Second I never used your ignorance as an explanation for why you were wrong. So no ad hominem fallacy either.

Instead of defending your bad behavior it would be much wiser to change it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So we see why it is that so many people find the philosophy
students to be the most tiresome people on campus.

I don't think he is even that. He appears to have been guilty of those fallacies far too often so he thinks that others are guilty of them too. So far he has misapplied the fallacies he does not understand just as he appears to ignore the science that he does not understand

 

[Audie]

I don't think he is even that. He appears to have been guilty of those fallacies far too often so he thinks that others are guilty of them too. So far he has misapplied the fallacies he does not understand just as he appears to ignore the science that he does not understand

Oh, I dont think he is/was* either.
I have been around philosophy students, and
they seem much more clever and skillful.

Even entertaining, for a short time.

Withal, tho, people who cry "ad hom" and then
supply the definition should, along with those
who post cut n paste from dictionaries, be sent
to their rooms.

* "is-was" is a noun. What is or was it?

 

[Rise]

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

You keep saying that, but you have yet to attempt to do it.

I made no accusation, nor do I lie.

You accused me of believing some parts of the Bible but not others.

That's a lie. You have no basis for claiming that.

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.

Because you committed the logical fallacy of red herring.

You're trying to divert the discussion into other parts of the Bible instead of dealing with the Genesis account of the flood.

Although I could address your claim directly, to do so would only serve to take the discussion on a tangent that is not relevant to discussing the historicity of the flood. Because I already clarified for the OP that my belief about what happened is based on the Genesis account of the flood, without omitting or changing any detail of it.

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

You are making another wrong accusation.

I did not post the Biblical account of the flood and ever say "this is true just because I say it is".

I only posted what I believe to be true in response to the OP's challenge that he would prove why what I believe is not true if I first posted what I believed.

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.

You are the one who made the claim:

There are various ways to show that the flood is
but a myth. The existence of polar ice that
predates any possible time for the flood will do.

The onus is on you to prove, with reason and facts, why you can say the polar ice predates any possible time for the flood.

You're the one who claimed you could do it.

Yet now you're the one saying it's unreasonable or impossible for me to ask you to do that.

You have just disproven your own claim by saying it's not possible to prove.

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.

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

The fact that the ice has been extensively studied neither proves your claim to be true nor disproves any claim I've made.
Appealing to the fact that data exists also doesn't prove or disprove anything.

You would need to present the actual data and argue logically why it proves your claim to be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep saying that, but you have yet to attempt to do it.



You accused me of believing some parts of the Bible but not others.

That's a lie. You have no basis for claiming that.



Because you committed the logical fallacy of red herring.

You're trying to divert the discussion into other parts of the Bible instread of dealing with the Genesis account of the flood.

Although I could address your claim directly, to do so would only serve to take the discussion on a tangent that is not relevant to discussing the historicity of the flood.



You are making another wrong accusation.

I did not post the Biblical account of the flood and ever say "this is true just because I say it is".

I only posted what I believe to be true in response to the OP's challenge that he would prove why what I believe is not true if I first posted what I believed.



You are the one who made a positive assertive claim:

There are various ways to show that the flood is
but a myth. The existence of polar ice that
predates any possible time for the flood will do.

The onus is on you to prove, with reason and facts, why you can say the polar ice perdates any possible time for the flood.

You're the one who claimed you could do it.

Yet now you're the one saying it's unreasonable or impossible for me to ask you to do that.

You have just disproven your own claim.



Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

The fact that the ice has been extensively studied neither proves your claim to be true, nor disproves any claim I've made.

Appealing to the fact that data exists also doesn't prove or disprove anything.
You would need to present actual data and argue why it supports your claim.

So you do believe in stoning pregnant unmarried girls. I will keep that in mind.

 

[ecco]

Me. Take offense? You don't know me. So that's understandable.
I know your kind well, and I smile broader

1. There's an old saying: Smiling faces tell lies.
2. Some people grin when they are embarrassed.
3. Others grin when they are nervous.

 

[Audie]

You keep saying that, but you have yet to attempt to do it.



You accused me of believing some parts of the Bible but not others.

That's a lie. You have no basis for claiming that.



Because you committed the logical fallacy of red herring.

You're trying to divert the discussion into other parts of the Bible instead of dealing with the Genesis account of the flood.

Although I could address your claim directly, to do so would only serve to take the discussion on a tangent that is not relevant to discussing the historicity of the flood. Because I already clarified for the OP that my belief about what happened is based on the Genesis account of the flood, without omitting or changing any detail of it.



You are making another wrong accusation.

I did not post the Biblical account of the flood and ever say "this is true just because I say it is".

I only posted what I believe to be true in response to the OP's challenge that he would prove why what I believe is not true if I first posted what I believed.



You are the one who made a laim that demands proof:

There are various ways to show that the flood is
but a myth. The existence of polar ice that
predates any possible time for the flood will do.

The onus is on you to prove, with reason and facts, why you can say the polar ice perdates any possible time for the flood.

You're the one who claimed you could do it.

Yet now you're the one saying it's unreasonable or impossible for me to ask you to do that.

You have just disproven your own claim.



Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

The fact that the ice has been extensively studied neither proves your claim to be true, nor disproves any claim I've made.

Appealing to the fact that data exists also doesn't prove or disprove anything.
You would need to present actual data and argue why it supports your claim.

You accused me of believing some parts of the Bible but not others.

No, actually, I did not. This is what I said:

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

I then offered an example, about the hills clapping.

So, with regard to your utterly phony and invidious
claim about me, I toss your own words back to you:

That's a lie. You have no basis for claiming that.

I will waste no more of my time with you.

 

[Audie]

So you do believe in stoning pregnant unmarried girls. I will keep that in mind.

Worse yet! He may be accusing Jesus or being a door, and a
baa baa sheep.

 

[Rise]

So we see why it is that so many people find the philosophy
students to be the most tiresome people on campus.

It has been my experience that people who are not accustomed to thinking logically find it tiring when they are forced to do so.

You should not come into a science debate forum if you aren't prepared to attempt to be rigorous in your logical thought processes.

 

[ecco]

God caused a whole set of quail to fly in one area, and fall to the earth as food. God caused dry bones to get up, and walk - and flesh came upon them.

Ya can't argue with that. Fact's is fact's. God said it. I believe it. End of Story.

The truly amazing part is that He did it all Last Thursday.

Prove me wrong!

 

[Rise]

So you do believe in stoning pregnant unmarried girls. I will keep that in mind.

Logical fallacy, strawman. Distorting what I said, or attributing things to me that I never said, in order to attack the invented position.

Logical fallacy, red herring. Being unable to answer my points or defend your own, you attempt to divert the discussion away onto something unrelated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has been my experience that people who are not accustomed to thinking logically find it tiring when they are forced to do so.

You should not come into a science debate forum if you aren't prepared to attempt to be rigorous in your logical thought processes.

Projection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical fallacy, strawman. Distorting what I said, or attributing things to me that I never said, in order to attack the invented position.

Logical fallacy, red herring. Being unable to answer my points or defend your own, you attempt to divert the discussion away onto something unrelated.

Yes, we all know that those are your tactics.

If you ever made a point I could easily answer it for you. I can even answer your unsupported claims.

And breaking the Ninth Commandment is never a wise move for someone that claims to be a Christian.

Can you debate properly? I will gladly help you if you can.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Radiocarbon is only good for the first 50,000 years. Even that is enough to refute the flood myth. For older dates radiometric dating of volcanic ash is used. Especially in Antarctica where there are active volcanoes there will be layers of ash that can be dated to give the age of a specific layer.

Yes, I am aware of that, and started to wax lyrical on the subject. My self-review, and subsequent edit took that out as too wordy. I really didn't want to get into radiocarbon versus uranium daughter-isotopes and other methods using radioactivity on that post. Those are just two off the top of my head, obviously there are many others.

In Dr Tyson's redo of Cosmos? One of the episodes goes deep into uranium--lead ratios as a method of dating the Earth itself. It's a wonderful, and very accessible explanation of the prepossesses involved.

And also outlines some of the problems that scientists face when doing such experiments-- they are needing to use samples that have merely billions of atoms, sometimes.

 

[Rise]

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

I then offered an example, about the hills clapping.

Logical fallacy, strawman. Attributing things to me I never said, then attacking that invention.
I said I believe what happened in the flood based on what the Bible said about it.
The topic of how I read other parts of the Bible never entered into the discussion, and I made no claim either way on the matter.

Your attempt to discredit my stance on the flood account, by preferring to other parts of the Bible, is a logical fallacy red herring. It has nothing to do with proving your claim that the Biblical account of the flood didn't happen.

You accused me of believing some parts of the Bible but not others.

No, actually, I did not. This is what I said:

The implication of your comment was to attempt to draw equivalent between historical narrative and poetic prophetic analogy, as a way of trying to claim I was not being consistent in my reading of the Bible.

Your claim is wrong, but I more importantly it is an irrelevant red herring that doesn't prove or disprove the issue in contention here. That's why I chose to ignore it, because I would rather keep the debate focused on what you claim about the history and science of the flood, rather than divert into explaining proper contextual biblical hermeneutics that ultimately has nothing to do with your flood claims.

 

[Rise]

Yes, we all know that those are your tactics.

If you ever made a point I could easily answer it for you. I can even answer your unsupported claims.

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

Merely claiming I never made a point, and repeating that claim, without demonstrating why the points I made aren't valid, doesn't make it true.

Merely claiming my arguments are unsupported, and repeating that claim, without demonstrating why the support I gave is not sufficient, doesn't make it true.

And breaking the Ninth Commandment is never a wise move for someone that claims to be a Christian.

Logical fallacy, avoiding the issue.

Unable to address the points of my argument, you avoid the issue and divert attention to a different issue.

Can you debate properly?

I've lost count of how many logical fallacies you've committed by this point. 7? 8? 9?

You don't get to talk about debating properly until you learn how to craft an argument without leaning on logical fallacies as a way of obscuring your lack of substance.

 

[Audie]

Logical fallacy, strawman. Attributing things to me I never said, then attacking that invention.
I said I believe what happened in the flood based on what the Bible said about it.
The topic of how I read other parts of the Bible never entered into the discussion, and I made no claim either way on the matter.

Your attempt to discredit my stance on the flood account, by preferring to other parts of the Bible, is a logical fallacy red herring. It has nothing to do with proving your claim that the Biblical account of the flood didn't happen.




The implication of your comment was to attempt to draw equivalent between historical narrative and poetic prophetic analogy, as a way of trying to claim I was not being consistent in my reading of the Bible.

Your claim is wrong, but I more importantly it is an irrelevant red herring that doesn't prove or disprove the issue in contention here. That's why I chose to ignore it, because I would rather keep the debate focused on what you claim about the history and science of the flood, rather than divert into explaining proper contextual biblical hermeneutics that ultimately has nothing to do with your flood claims.

circular filed, unread, ig city for you

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Merely claiming I never made a point, and repeating that claim, without demonstrating why the points I made aren't valid, doesn't make it true.

Merely claiming my arguments are unsupported, and repeating that claim, without demonstrating why the support I gave is not sufficient, doesn't make it true.



Logical fallacy, avoiding the issue.

Unable to address the points of my argument, you avoid the issue and divert attention to a different issue.


I've lost count of how many logical fallacies you've committed by this point. 7? 8? 9?

You don't get to talk about debating properly until you learn how to craft an argument without leaning on logical fallacies as a way of obscuring your lack of substance.

No logical fallacies committed by me. You simply do not understand the concept.



When you can debate properly people will respond politely to you.

 

[ecco]

Ad Hominem (Abusive)
Your own link proves your claim is wrong:
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Logical fallacy, avoiding the issue.

Let me pose an admittedly extreme hypothetical...

Person A is a high school dropout.
Person B has advanced degrees in cosmology.

Person A and Person B engage in a debate about the Universe.

Person A makes a fifteen minute statement containing many incorrect assumptions and assertions.
Person B responds by taking some of A's claims and showing they are wrong.

Person A spends his next fifteen minute time slot make more incorrect assertions.
Person B responds: It is clear, from your own statements, that you don't have the knowledge or training to discuss the subject. You are ignorant of even basic facts.

Is person B wrong for accurately pointing out the obvious?