Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for a recent flood
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 106 of 404 (639428)
10-31-2011 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Panda
10-31-2011 12:31 PM


Re: Evidence for a recent flood
Ah. Well, I will wait for Portillo's explanation as I cannot face watching another Kent Hovind video - one was enough.
Youtube user Thunderf00t does a smashing job at dissecting a number of Hovinds videos. They are much more fun to watch.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Panda, posted 10-31-2011 12:31 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 404 (639435)
10-31-2011 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Panda
10-31-2011 12:31 PM


Re: Evidence for a recent flood
Panda writes:
But even from your summary of Kent's position it is not obvious how a 'flood + ice-age' can rapidly freeze mammoths mid-stride while in deep flood-water.
I was trying to leave you some reason to watch the video. Hovind "explains" all of that and more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Panda, posted 10-31-2011 12:31 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Panda, posted 10-31-2011 3:40 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 108 of 404 (639437)
10-31-2011 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by NoNukes
10-31-2011 3:21 PM


Re: Evidence for a recent flood
NoNukes writes:
I was trying to leave you some reason to watch the video.
I'd need a REALLY good reason to watch another Kent Hovind video...

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2011 3:21 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 109 of 404 (639444)
10-31-2011 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Portillo
10-31-2011 5:03 AM


Re: Evidence for a recent flood
The mammaths are crushed as if something came on top of them and pushed them down. Many are standing, kneeling or looking up. Some still have undigested food in their stomachs. Fresh flowers have been found in there mouths, which they were chewing on before they were fast frozen.
Question: if these mammoths were, as you imply, preserved in situ by this supposedly catastrophic flood --- does that mean that all the strata on which they're standing are pre-flood? Or is it your supposition that the flood waters picked up the mammoths, deposited the strata, and then carefully put the mammoths back down in lifelike poses?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Portillo, posted 10-31-2011 5:03 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 110 of 404 (639457)
10-31-2011 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by NoNukes
10-31-2011 11:57 AM


Re: Evidence for a recent flood
Portillio seems to make reference here to Kent Hovind's inane wankering that the Flood was caused by a massive ice meteor (comet?) that made craters on the moon, created the rings of Saturn and froze woolly mammoths standing up, started an ice age, and touched of Noah's flood, among other things.
What is it with these people?
If we provide them with a naturalistic explanation for something which actually did happen, like the origin of stars or planets or species, they throw a fit about how this is evil atheist godless dogmatic materialism.
But for this one thing that didn't happen --- Noah's flood --- they're falling all over themselves to provide a totally naturalistic explanation for it. Hovind with his comet, Henry Morris with his vapor canopy, they've just got to find a way to take God out of the picture.
Now if there was actually evidence for a global flood and we came along and offered up naturalistic explanations, they'd throw a fit, wouldn't they.
It's almost as if there's a sort of conservation of stupid in creationist arguments: they can explain real things by imaginary causes, or imaginary things by real causes, but they baulk at explaining imaginary things by imaginary causes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2011 11:57 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2011 9:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 111 of 404 (639467)
11-01-2011 12:40 AM


Why can't you come up with a date for the flood?
To our creationist friends...
Why can't you come up with a date for the flood?
Common sense would seem to tell us that it occurred during historic times, after the development of writing.
Certainly it came after the development, however that occurred, of modern humans.
The begats should offer some clues as well.
Why then are we getting age estimates back to the Cambrian (>500 million years ago)?
Didn't the flood occur during recent, that is historic and human, times? Certainly something under 8,000 or so years?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-01-2011 1:12 AM Coyote has replied
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2011 2:58 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 112 of 404 (639470)
11-01-2011 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Coyote
11-01-2011 12:40 AM


YEC is wrong, right from the Y
Why then are we getting age estimates back to the Cambrian (>500 million years ago)
Your getting estimates back to the Cambrian, from someone who thinks the Cambrian happened in the last 5 to 10 thousand years. When young Earth creationism is totally wrong in the big picture, what's the point in arguing the dating of a detail in that big picture?
To a YEC, 500 million years ago doesn't exist, but the events of the Cambrian still do.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Coyote, posted 11-01-2011 12:40 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Coyote, posted 11-01-2011 10:24 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 113 of 404 (639487)
11-01-2011 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Coyote
11-01-2011 12:40 AM


Re: Why can't you come up with a date for the flood?
It's worse than that. If the Cambrian is the start of the flood and the KT boundary is the end, where the hell do mammoths come into it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Coyote, posted 11-01-2011 12:40 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 114 of 404 (639492)
11-01-2011 5:33 AM


You guys and girls expect me to answer a million questions. Not to mention the small minority who uses swear words and insults. Im just here to have some friendly debate. Its 2011 and were still talking about Noahs Flood!
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2011 6:26 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 116 by Panda, posted 11-01-2011 7:51 AM Portillo has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 115 of 404 (639493)
11-01-2011 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Portillo
11-01-2011 5:33 AM


You guys and girls expect me to answer a million questions. Not to mention the small minority who uses swear words and insults. Im just here to have some friendly debate. Its 2011 and were still talking about Noahs Flood!
Well, this is the "Geology and the Great Flood" forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Portillo, posted 11-01-2011 5:33 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 116 of 404 (639496)
11-01-2011 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Portillo
11-01-2011 5:33 AM


Portillo writes:
Im just here to have some friendly debate.
Part of debating is addressing the points raised by others.
When you make claims in a debate, it is normal for people to ask you to support those claims or to point out errors/contradictions/etc.
Portillo writes:
You guys and girls expect me to answer a million questions.
You are free to answer as many or as few questions as you choose.
If you choose to not answer any questions then that is not debating, but if you do decide to support your claims, then remember that there is no hurry - so you can take your time when replying.
Its 2011 and were still talking about Noahs Flood!
And people still talk about Jesus too!
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Portillo, posted 11-01-2011 5:33 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Pressie, posted 11-01-2011 9:05 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 119 by Portillo, posted 11-02-2011 5:33 AM Panda has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 117 of 404 (639499)
11-01-2011 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Panda
11-01-2011 7:51 AM


And don't forget that people still talk about Siddhrtha Gautama, too!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Panda, posted 11-01-2011 7:51 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 118 of 404 (639506)
11-01-2011 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Minnemooseus
11-01-2011 1:12 AM


Re: YEC is wrong, right from the Y
To a YEC, 500 million years ago doesn't exist, but the events of the Cambrian still do.
Entirely correct.
But in the dating threads YECs make no headway in showing modern dating methods are in error.
Even the RATE group, spending over a million dollars of creationist money didn't come up with anything that would show that science is wrong. In fact, their data showed science is correct--but in typical creationist fashion they refused to accept their own results.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-01-2011 1:12 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 119 of 404 (639577)
11-02-2011 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Panda
11-01-2011 7:51 AM


quote:
You are free to answer as many or as few questions as you choose.
If you choose to not answer any questions then that is not debating, but if you do decide to support your claims, then remember that there is no hurry - so you can take your time when replying.
Thanks. Im happy to debate here, but it can be daunting when I receive a stormy reception.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Panda, posted 11-01-2011 7:51 AM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Pressie, posted 11-03-2011 8:02 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 120 of 404 (639715)
11-03-2011 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Portillo
11-02-2011 5:33 AM


Portillo, maybe you won't get such a stormy reception if you stopped all the porkies you've used in the past? Ever thought of that alternative? For example, stop using dishonest quote-mines from creationist sources. Porkies are really not endearing you to people who want to have an honest conversation. All the quote-mines you've used so far showed, upon further investigation, to be very misleading quotes or/as well as outright porkies.
How about starting to think for yourself? Your reception won't be hostile once you attempted honest conversations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Portillo, posted 11-02-2011 5:33 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024