FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-27-2007, 05:31 AM   #331
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: California
Posts: 2,215
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by afdave View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitschlag View Post
[the pedantic logician]
  1. The genesis flood was a catastrophe
  2. Other floods are catastrophes
  3. Therefore other floods prove the truth of the genesis flood
Boys and girls, what we have here is a fallacy of equivocation so naively constructed as to be obvious to a five-year-old.

[/the pedantic logician]
No Mitschlag ... you missed it. Here's the logic again ... just for you.

* Conventional geologists were horrendously wrong for over a hundred years about how the English Channel was formed
* Therefore, conventional geologists might be wrong about sedimentary layers and the Flood of Noah as well
* Open minded geologists would admit this and investigate the possibility of a Global Flood

Are you open minded?
Ooh! Ooh! It's the return of DopeyDave, Flood Geologist(tm)

Dave, please show us the working of that open mind and explain:

1. How does a 200,000+ year old geologic formation support a 6000 year old Earth?
2. How do 5 million year old mountains support a 6000 year old Earth?
3. How did da FLUD produce mile deep incised meanders?
4. How did da FLUD produce vertical folded unconformaties?
5. Where in Egypt can we see this 1 mi. deep sedimentary layer?

and finally Dave, your favorite question that you've cowardly refused to address for 413 straight days now, including your CM debate:

Why do the multiple independent C14 cal curves all cross-correlate so closely, and all show dates well older than 10,000 years?

Ya know Dave, every last one of your incredibly stupid "open minded' FLUD claims have been thoroughly debunked IN GREAT DETAIL on other threads. You know it, we know it. Why do you insist on droning on about the same refuted horsecrap?
Occam's Aftershave is offline  
Old 07-27-2007, 05:35 AM   #332
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Altadena, California
Posts: 3,271
Default

So, Dave, have you ever found ONE modern mammal fossil in the Morrison Formation?

Did you ever show how the Morrison dates are incorrect, given that I gave you oh, a couple of dozen radiometric dates on it from multiple methods?

Show me WHY I should accept that this magic flood deposited the Morrison so perfectly , and other strata like limestone SO neatly while in the middle of a year-long flood? Why didn't the walls of the Grand Canyon slump, Dave?

Why do you continue to avoid presenting evidence that would SUPPORT your claims and why do you instead always seek to twist science as you did with the English Channel article...an article that dates the release of Glacially-dammed flood waters at FAR beyond your flood date?
deadman_932 is offline  
Old 07-27-2007, 05:36 AM   #333
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Altadena, California
Posts: 3,271
Default

And once again, Brave Sir Davey flees the building.
deadman_932 is offline  
Old 07-27-2007, 05:45 AM   #334
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Altadena, California
Posts: 3,271
Default

OH, by the way Dave, besides the dating on the English Channel event, I'd like you to explain how it formed a "sub-horizontal bench (~4 KM wide ,~ 25 KM long) cut into CHALK BEDROCK" (my emphasis). That's on page 343 of the English Channel article:

Gupta, S. Jenny Collier, Andy Palmer-Felgate and Graeme Potter (2007) "Catastrophic Flooding Origin of Shelf Valley Systems in the English Channel." Nature 448:7151, pp. 342-345. 19 July.

How did that Chalk bedrock layer get there given even the most fantastic deposition rates in your "Young Earth Dreams/Miracles"??
deadman_932 is offline  
Old 07-27-2007, 05:46 AM   #335
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 7,834
Default

ck1 asks
Quote:
Are polls taken after debates on IIDB?
Not as some kind of standard practice, but feel free to post one, it might be worth posting a thread over in E/C to notify some of the regulars there that might have been following the trouncing debate.

afdave says:
Quote:
I have not come to any new recent understanding.
Finally, something we can all agree on.

I look forward to the results of the poll.

Cheers,
Lane
Worldtraveller is offline  
Old 07-27-2007, 05:54 AM   #336
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sunderland, England
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
I look forward to the results of the poll.
I've a feeling it'll be a close call
Pilsboy5 is offline  
Old 07-27-2007, 06:06 AM   #337
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 1,057
Default

Boy, that was a pathetic last post. But then, it was expected.

I needn't comment on any of dave's already demolished (here, and elsewhere) claims: All I have to do is remind people that:

Although CM responded to all of dave's questions, dave obviously, deliberately, desperately denied to reply to at least one specific one of CM's, up to his last post.

And that question was "explain the consillience between entirely different dating methods".


Dave had no answer. Dave lost. No poll is needed.

Seeya, dave.
Faid is offline  
Old 07-27-2007, 06:14 AM   #338
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 1,057
Default

Oh and dave- what are you doing in this thread, restating the same old refuted claims, as if they were something new that was never addressed?

Why don't you return to those old threads you abandoned, where your "arguments" were demolished, and try to resurrect them there with some extra support, if you can?

Or are you glad they fell back, and got buried, and hope that people will forget about them, and all those questions you run away from?

This is not a different forum, dave. It's still IIDb; you can't use your favorite tactics now. I you have something to say about all those claims, do so in the threads you first made them, or the ones made for just that reason. And answer all the objections and questions waiting for you there.

Let's see if you can stand the heat for once.
Faid is offline  
Old 07-27-2007, 06:49 AM   #339
mung bean
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave? Stand the heat? Deal with questions?
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
Nice one , Faid. You da funny man.
 
Old 07-27-2007, 07:18 AM   #340
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 8,473
Default

I thought that this quote showed stunning lack of logic:

Quote:
Originally Posted by afdave
Also, David Rohl has shown evidence that conventional dates for the founding of Egypt are likely wrong and that this event should be moved forward by as much as several hundred years.(45) This in turn lends support to the inferred dates for the Great Flood of Noah and the Dispersion at the Tower of Babel.
Stunning lack of logic there. If the founding date of Egypt were shown to be as he claims, all it would do is to remove an objection to the flood myth, but it would not add one jit or tottle of evidence for it.
Nialler is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:29 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.