Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
369 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, DrJones*, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (9 members, 360 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,402 Year: 1,150/23,288 Month: 1,150/1,851 Week: 274/320 Day: 46/87 Hour: 1/17


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery: Ice Age is a Product of the Flood
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15818
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 6 of 70 (671770)
08-30-2012 10:35 AM


Cloud cover tends to moderate temperatures - making it cooler in Summer, warmer in Winter. It doesn't seem plausible that the limited period of rain in the Flood story could possibly be sufficient to cause an Ice Age in itself.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 08-30-2012 10:53 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Peeta Mellark, posted 08-31-2012 10:54 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15818
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 19 of 70 (671797)
08-30-2012 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by foreveryoung
08-30-2012 11:31 AM


And a lot of things that DIDN'T happen didn't leave evidence....

Personally, I suspect that both of your claims are false. It is not that evidence is not there at all, it's just hard to find.

And as Coyote will happily tell you, the genetic evidence rules out a recent world-wide flood (or any other event) reducing the human population to a mere 7 individuals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by foreveryoung, posted 08-30-2012 11:31 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by foreveryoung, posted 08-30-2012 7:57 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15818
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(4)
Message 31 of 70 (671903)
08-31-2012 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by foreveryoung
08-30-2012 7:57 PM


quote:

What claims are you talking about? Looking at San Francisco today without geological tools, one would have no reason to suspect there was ever a great earthquake there. It is very likely a whole egyptian city did move. The documentary made a very convincing case for it.

I am talking about the claims you refer to. The fact that you choose to qualify your claim about the San Francisco earthquake - to the point of rendering it irrelevant - shows that even you have trouble believing that one. Your claim about the Egyptian city is dubious too - how did they make a "very convincing case" that it moved unless they had evidence - and strong evidence at that.

quote:

What would happen if you wiped out the human population and reseeded it with 7 people?

More like 5 in the Flood story (you count Noah and his wife, but not the sons). You'd see a massive genetic bottleneck in humanity and a genetic and archaeological discontinuity over practically all the world, where the people all died and were eventually replaced by descendants of the survivors. We don't have any of that. So even considering humans alone the Flood story doesn't stand up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by foreveryoung, posted 08-30-2012 7:57 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 09-01-2012 12:12 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15818
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 45 of 70 (671971)
09-01-2012 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by ICANT
09-01-2012 12:12 AM


Re: 5
quote:

What happened to the three women that was no kin and therefore did not have the DNA of the 5 you mentioned? They could have all 3 had completely different DNA

The 5 are Noah, his wife and the wives of the 3 sons. As I said quite explicitly it is the three sons that are not counted out of the 8. So, if you meant the 3 wives, they are clearly included to anyone who can manage to subtract 3 from 8. If you mean some other 3 women I am going to ask where you got them from.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 09-01-2012 12:12 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15818
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 54 of 70 (672121)
09-03-2012 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by caffeine
09-03-2012 8:41 AM


I thought that might be the one, but without confirmation I didn't want to guess. But it's clearly the case that there was plenty of evidence for that - it was just a matter of looking for it. If that's the one that ForeverYoung meant, it's more evidence AGAINST the proposition that the Flood could reasonably have left no evidence at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by caffeine, posted 09-03-2012 8:41 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15818
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 66 of 70 (672437)
09-08-2012 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by foreveryoung
09-07-2012 6:12 PM


quote:

I didn't make anything up. The story is real as caffeine pointed out to you. At first glance, without looking deeper into it, you would say there was no evidence for a city being moved from one place to another. When you start asking the right questions however, the evidence starts to show up.

But that isn't what you said, was it? You said that there was NO evidence. When I objected that the evidence was there but that it just wasn't obvious you hardly rushed to agree.

quote:

I didn't make anything up. The story is real as caffeine pointed out to you. At first glance, without looking deeper into it, you would say there was no evidence for a city being moved from one place to another. When you start asking the right questions however, the evidence starts to show up.

You mean that we have to wait for someone else to guess what you are talking about because you don't know and can't be bothered to find out? And when we do we find that your central claim - that there was no evidence - turns out to be untrue? This seems to be a greater indictment of your behaviour than that of your opponents.

quote:

That will never happen though with the anti creationist hostility and mindset of people like you and many others. You just shout "NO EVIDENCE you simple minded bible thumper!!!!!" and expect us to crawl away and never think about such "absurdities" again since only erudite and sophisticated elites such as yourself have the right to determine what is and what isn't legimate subjects to investigate

Rant aside, that's hardly an excuse for demanding that your opponents do your work for you, nor does it change the fact that your initial vague assertion was false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by foreveryoung, posted 09-07-2012 6:12 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020