Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith&Co. · 04-06-2009, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Indeed

I believe I explained that concerning the different accounts of Genesis 10 adn 11.

You invoked a standard apology, yes. Doesn't exactly address the contradictions in the two accounts.

Quote:

Have you ever written a letter about what you did over a period of time, then went back and got more detailed later in the letter?

How does improving details change multiple tongues into one?

Free Indeed · 04-06-2009, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Indeed

That was just a lighthearted answer. I didn't think people really needed to have an explanation on why man does things.

So, your response to facts that can't be explained in your made-up history is to fend them off with a joke.
And, yes, we need an explanation for why a culture's memory shows evidence you need it to, but runs counter to human nature when you need it to.

As you mention, we still refer to Darwin a hundred years after. Why did the Egyptians and Chinese fail to refer to the God that destroyed the world and split up the nations?

Of course that was supernatural event, so anything is possible. I can't speculate at this time.

Johnny Skeptic · 04-06-2009, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What flood are you referring to, and what evidence do you have that it occurred?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Indeed

The world wide deluge from the Bible in which evidences can be seen through out the world where the same sediments cover the whole world, we can look at the Grand Canyon and see the different laywers of sediment put down by the flood, and we can see marine fossils on every mountain over the earth.

I just started a new thread at the Evolution/Creation Forum and quoted you. The link is http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....48#post5881448. The title is "Another fundie proponent of the global flood." There has already been a reply.

Are you a young earth creationist (YEC)?

Are you an inerrantist?

Wooster · 04-06-2009, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DancesWithCoffeeCups

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underseer

Here's what I don't understand about the Tower of Babel story: if building a tall building was enough to incur God's wrath, why wasn't there even greater punishment meted out to mankind once we started building things far taller than the Tower of Babel was (there are limits to how tall it could have been, because it didn't have a steel skeleton like modern skyscrapers). For that matter, why didn't we get a more severe punishment when we started sending men into space and even the moon? If the Tower of Babel was presumptuous of man, sending astronauts above the atmosphere would have been far more presumptuous.

Hey, it's only been a few thousand years. Never mind that bible god did a lot more smiting back in the olden days of yore. Fear not, bible gods due back any minute now. :devil1:

Even worse, we are out of lemon soaked napkins!

Keith&Co. · 04-06-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Indeed

Of course that was supernatural event, so anything is possible. I can't speculate at this time.

This whole thread is your speculation on justifying scripture and historical relics into a single story, rather erroneously referred to as 'evidence.'

I suspect you're just making shit up as you go at this point, and this shows the limit of your ability to pull more out of your behind.

Avaunt thee, get thee from this place, til canst plug up t' holes in thy sieve-like narrative.

Martian Astronomer · 04-06-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Indeed

That's just a number I threw out to mean "after the flood". Uniformatiranists don't take the world wide flood into account when adjusting their measuring meters.

This is probably as good a time to ask as any: Does anyone here know where I can find that graph that shows the consilience of the different radiometric dating methods from one of afdave's old "Why do the curves agree?" threads? I've been looking around for it, and I haven't been able to find it anywhere. There was a neat one showing the consilience between dendrochronology and carbon dating, too, if I remember correctly.

Jedi Mind Trick · 04-06-2009, 01:48 PM

Look up the time line for the Clovis culture in America and you'll see that they existed from before the *fludd* too. Hell, even before the creation for that matter.

Martian Astronomer · 04-06-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Indeed

Quote:

Originally Posted by funinspace

So why is 4,000 the magic number? It wouldn't happen to be because it is convenient, in that it helps you manage your dogma, would it? Or is there some scientific reasoning you can point to (I'm not going to hold my breath, expecting any real source to be referenced)?

That's just a number I threw out to mean "after the flood". Uniformatiranists don't take the world wide flood into account when adjusting their measuring meters.

Free Indeed, you just made a comment disparaging "uniformitarianism" with respect to "The Flood." We can start a new thread about this if you want, but your comment just begs for me to ask this question.

As I hope you're aware, carbon dating is not the only means for determining the age of an object. (Moreover, for many types of object it's not even the right technique.) There are at least a dozen different radiometric dating methods, out there, and there are many more techniques for determining the age of specific structures, Dendrochronology (tree rings) and lake varves are just a few.

All of the methods that I've mentioned have been used to give dates that are much older than 6000 years. You can claim that these methods are invalid due to "the Flood," but you're left with a big problem: The curves agree.

Below is a graph from a paper called Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based
on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals

Citation: R.G. Fairbanks et al, Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (2005) 1781–1796

N/A

In the paper, the dates obtained from several different dating methods are compared, including tree rings, lake sedimentation layers, Carbon-14, and U/Th. And, what do you know, different dating methods, carried out by different individuals, all agree pretty closely. Does this constitute evidence for uniformitarianism? If not, then why do the calibration curves agree?

show_no_mercy · 04-06-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Indeed

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Varves

My information is 300 to 360 laminae formed in 160 years in Lake Walensee, Switzerland. We can't always assume that the rate of deposition that we see today has been the same for the past.

The rate of deposition would only matter if there were no seasons. The earth has always had a tilt of 23.5 degrees so there were always seasons. If there were no seasons then there would be no cyclical differences in deposits throughout the year.

Unless you add to your magic box of "the flood" that the earth only gained its tilt after the flood.

Zeluvia · 04-06-2009, 02:07 PM

The real problem with the story of Noah and Babel happened already, in the past, and was resolved already by declaring them metaphorical stories afaik.

It came up while the RCC tried to explain which children of Noah fathered the Native Americans, the Inca's, the Aztecs, and the Aboriginies. Some people asserted since there was no way to link these peoples to Noah, they could not have souls.

So, which child of Noah came to America, and what year? Which one went to Australia, and when?

I think science does a much better job of explaining the migration of humans over the planet with recent DNA research, see Spencer Wells.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-06-2009, 01:48 PM	#77
Jedi Mind Trick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianaplolis Posts: 4,998	Look up the time line for the Clovis culture in America and you'll see that they existed from before the fludd too. Hell, even before the creation for that matter.

04-06-2009, 02:07 PM	#80
Zeluvia Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 5,172	The real problem with the story of Noah and Babel happened already, in the past, and was resolved already by declaring them metaphorical stories afaik. It came up while the RCC tried to explain which children of Noah fathered the Native Americans, the Inca's, the Aztecs, and the Aboriginies. Some people asserted since there was no way to link these peoples to Noah, they could not have souls. So, which child of Noah came to America, and what year? Which one went to Australia, and when? I think science does a much better job of explaining the migration of humans over the planet with recent DNA research, see Spencer Wells.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.