Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for a recent flood
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(6)
Message 26 of 404 (637424)
10-15-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 2:35 AM


Re: Flood
quote:
I assume 50 people don't have to dogpile one member who (has the guts to participate) like ICANT seems to be encountering.
Hilarious. From the summary posted in the forum, it looks like ICANT's five posts have drawn 8 responses so far, and that ICANT has made four responses.
That's quite some dogpile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 2:35 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 103 of 404 (639409)
10-31-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Panda
10-31-2011 9:22 AM


Re: Evidence for a recent flood
Panda writes:
Portillio writes:
How did that massive, violent death happen? How did the woolly mammaths freeze so quickly and turn into blocks of ice? Did it happen over millions of years or did it happen quickly with lots of water and catastrophe?
Why do you think that the Flood could rapidly freeze the mammoths?
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.
See the video below from about 2:15 to about 8:00 or however long you can stand it.
Of course, the questions of why Portillio believes that Hovind's snow job and why Portillio accepts without any credible source that millions of frozen mammoths have been discovered is something you'll have to work out for yourself.
In order for this tale to constitute evidence, we need the frozen mammoths and an explanation that doesn't make people tear up from laughing.
Ha-ha stop it!!! Stop it!! Wiping tears from eyes. Ha-ha!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Panda, posted 10-31-2011 9:22 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Panda, posted 10-31-2011 12:31 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2011 9:31 PM NoNukes has 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

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 404 (639789)
11-03-2011 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Dr Adequate
10-31-2011 9:31 PM


Re: Evidence for a recent flood
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.
In Hovind's defense(?), comets and meteors cannot do the kind of stuff he claims this one did, so perhaps we cannot call the explanation 'totally naturalistic'.
quote:
they can explain real things by imaginary causes, or imaginary things by real causes, but they baulk at explaining imaginary things by imaginary causes.
Astonishing.
ABE
After thinking about this some more, it is probably true that Hovind is purporting to believe that comets act as he describes and that the video is an attempt at a naturalistic explanation. It's just that Hovind is a professional loon.
Edited by NoNukes, : ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2011 9:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 404 (641567)
11-20-2011 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Portillo
11-20-2011 6:23 AM


Re: Evidence for a recent flood
You guys and girls are the ones that are obsessed with evolution vs creation. Do you want creationists to come here and have friendly debate and discussion or is this a creationist rehabilitation centre?
Uh, this is a debate site where evolution, creationism, and intelligent design are the principal topics of discussion. Outside of the Coffee House, you should not expect discussion about trick-or-treating for UNICEF. Surely you read the marquee right above the entrance?
As long as you are here, I'd like to ask you a question. In your opinion, what would have been a proper response to your posts about the 5 million frozen mammoths?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Portillo, posted 11-20-2011 6:23 AM Portillo has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 404 (641896)
11-23-2011 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Portillo
11-23-2011 1:36 AM


Re: Evidence for a recent flood
Well seeing how the Bible is a fable and myth, how can there be evidence for something that is false?
Of course you don't believe the Bible is false, so what's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Portillo, posted 11-23-2011 1:36 AM Portillo has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 404 (641968)
11-24-2011 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Coyote
11-24-2011 10:05 AM


Re: Lets take the initiative
This is the last thing creationists want. If they specify a date for the flood then that can be examined scientifically.
The above is an inaccurate charge. There are plenty of YECs who are completely convinced that they can date Noah's flood to within 50 years or less. If I am not mistaken, one such person posted in this thread.
Yes, it is true that the physical evidence cited for such a thing does not bear close scrutiny, and might even be laughable, but let's not pretend that such people do not exist.
Other Christians honestly hold beliefs that the flood and the beginning of the universe are much more ancient events that happened an unknowable time in the past. They aren't necessary moving the goal posts just because they acknowledge that a that your evidence that the the flood did not happen during some particular time period is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2011 10:05 AM Coyote has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 404 (641973)
11-24-2011 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 12:22 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
Happy thanksgiving brother. And many happen returns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 12:22 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 192 of 404 (642026)
11-24-2011 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Coyote
11-24-2011 11:07 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
creationists as a whole just can't agree on much of anything, let alone the date and nature of the global/regional/local/mythical flood.
I think the above sentiment is absurd. For one thing, the term creationist does not refer to all people who believe that God created the universe. The term specifically refers to a specific type of Genesis literalist who believes that the entire universe was created during one seven day week, about 6000 years ago.
IMO, that particular group of people are deluded, and this particular Christian does not accept even the smallest responsibility for any nonsense they spout. Even if you expand the term creationist to include YEC literalists, I don't feel any responsibility to defend their take on Genesis either. They are wrong.
Two different people, each of whom steadfastly maintains a constant position should not be accused of shifting the goal posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2011 11:07 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2011 11:43 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 404 (642031)
11-24-2011 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Coyote
11-24-2011 11:43 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
But until creationists can come up with some kind of evidence to evaluate these competing claims, why should scientists and others who rely on evidence not just summarily reject them all?
I didn't say that scientist shouldn't summarily reject them.
Really, discussing things with creationists is a case of moving goalposts. No sooner does one claim the flood was ca. 4,350 years ago but another interjects that the K-T boundary represents the flood, and then another chimes in with the Cambrian explosion. It doesn't matter that any particular creationist or group sticks to their own TRVTH. In the aggregate, they can't agree on much of anything.
Yeah, you earthmen are an inconsistent bunch. You can't seem to agree on whether there is heaven above you or just sky. Why should we Frizbatans believe anything you say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2011 11:43 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Coyote, posted 11-25-2011 12:04 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 308 of 404 (642513)
11-29-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by ICANT
11-29-2011 1:10 PM


Re: looking at the likely reagion's geography
removed
Edited by NoNukes, : Percy already covered this stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2011 1:10 PM ICANT has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 320 of 404 (642585)
11-29-2011 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Percy
11-29-2011 4:30 PM


Re: Back of an envelope calculation.
Just to add to the confusion.
It would have been a little easier to estimate the volume of water using the surface area of a sphere times the elevation of Mt Everest above see level.
So H*4*pi*R^2 = 4*pi* (6.4*10^3 kilometers)^2 *(8.800 kilometers)
= 4.5 * 10^9 cubic kilometers
I'm not sure why you are using 4 kilometers for the height of Mt. Everest. Wiki gives 8.85 kilometers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Percy, posted 11-29-2011 4:30 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Percy, posted 11-29-2011 10:15 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 324 by Trixie, posted 11-30-2011 5:11 AM NoNukes has seen this message but 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