Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

This thread is mainly for TWD39, though other people who believe the flood, Noah and so on really happened are welcome to chime in. It is an extension of the other thread discussing language and the tower of Babel, which started some questions about Noah's flood.

If you believe that the Flood happened as the Bible states, then you must have rational answers to the following questions:

 

 

1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

3 If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?

4 How did the animals get to the arc? If Noah gathered them, how did he get around the world so quickly? If the animals came of their own accord, how did the giant tortoises get there in time? How did animals that can’t swim cross seas to get there?

5 How did Noah feed the animals? Some animals have very specific diets (pandas eat only bamboo, koalas eat only eucalyptus, for example) so how did Noah get these foods, which don’t grow in Mesopotamia?

6 How did Noah keep meat fresh for the hungry carnivores?

7 How did the freshwater fish survive? Did the arc carry fresh water? How were these fish collected and stored?

8 The flood would have killed all plant life. What would the ‘saved’ herbivores eat? What about those that feed only on adult trees that take a long time to grow?

9 What about the carnivores? They must have had to eat the herbivores – they were on the arc for over a year, so any corpses would be completely rotten, as well as being buried under sediment.

10 Where would the animals find fresh water to sustain themselves?

11 How did the plants survive being underwater for more than a year? Some might have seeds that survive, but vast numbers of plant species would have become extinct. How come the are still here today?

12 When the flood ended, only 6 people survived that would go on to breed. The bible indicates that the tower of Babel happened 100 years after the flood. How were there enough people to build the tower, which must have been massive?

13 How did the Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals get to their continents (Which don’t have land bridges with Asia) after the flood?

14 How did God ‘create’ the rainbow as part of the promise he’d never flood the whole world again? If there was refracted sunlight and rain ever before the flood, there must have been rainbows.

15 Why did god change his mind about how many of each type of animal had to be taken into the arc? Genesis 6 says take 2 of each, Genesis 7 says take up to 7.

16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?

 

 

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Phew, I'll need a cup of tea

Phew, I'll need a cup of tea for this one! Also, we are officially done here (aside from one small section I might address as you'll see below). You have conceded defeat here by responding with crap so ridiculous, it's not worth the discussion any more. You can say what you want. I am actually done with you after this response. it's not the first time you have said things this stupid, but I'm just done being generous here. You are either a troll, or a complete moron. There is no in-between here. Those Christians who are ignorant and actually REFUSE to hear the other side, refuse to be educated about things that could shatter their faith, are being ignorant. You, however, take it to a new level. You come on a forum like this one, and are confronted with actual problems with your specific interpretation of Christianity. Your response is to either play dumber than you are, or somehow be stupid to a level I thought actually impossible. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

No, that's not correct at all. We DO have concrete evidence to support it. DNA. You should learn something about it. As far as I know, there is nothing that forces DNA to have the exact sequences that all organisms alive do, unless we ALL come from a common ancestor. 
or common creator.  DNA is not concrete for your perspective.  It is perspective based evidence be it that both sides use it to support their understanding. I find it helarious that you're arguing with me about a non-religious perspective of creation at this point... mulitple starts does not come from the Bible. 
The similarities in DNA between all living things is not neccessary for life to exist. The natural explanation works. The supernatural one requires a designer who is either limited, or stupid. If you want to think that a mutation that allows our brains to get big, but also makes us far more succeptible to brain cancer than our primate cousins (or primate "similars, but not cousins as you might think&quotEye-wink is the result of a perfect all-powerful designer, so be it. It is not a position that is reasonable in any way shape or form.  
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 From here forth, I am going to give you the same response every time you bring up this point.
alright, from here forth, I'll pull out random species and see where you go with it.  I'll start with Elephants and dogs. something tells me we're not going to get anywhere with this blind based approach.
This whole discussion was based on the evolution of the bipedal pelvis (and more broadly, "gaps" in the fossil record as you claim). When you were being vague, you provided vague "this mostly quadrupedal pelvis vs. this very much bipedal one, with nothing in between" (except you didn't word it as concisely, clearly due to your lack of education). So now that I insist that you name me species, you provide me with an order and a family (although elephants are of the same family too). I have asked you to research before you post on multiple occasions. You have refused to do that. Not only that, but your response here displays your evasive nature. This whole discussion was about holes in the fossil record where we were keeping on topic somewhat. However, I asked you to get more specific. So you then get out of the order of primates entirely and go to something completely different. The only possible reason to do so is to keep your actual position from being properly examined, and therefore exposed for the absurd position that it is. The only other alternative is that you are actually stupid enough to believe that those who understand and accept biology believe that elephants and dogs evolved from one another. This is a level of stupidity I can not believe. The sudden change in order to me suggests that it's evasiveness. So congratulations to you. You have admitted to me, and everyone who has the patience to read through my long-winded posts (and your short but fucking stupid ones) that your position can not possibly stand up to scrutiny and examination, without being exposed as clearly false. You have also shown that you feel that lying about how stupid you are is an acceptable thing to do, as long as it's in the name of Jeeezus. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Name me two species between which you see a problematic gap in the fossil record. 
Bats and aardvarks
See above. Evasive. Nobody suggests that one of those evolved from the other. Different orders.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 No, we went through that. However here we are not talking about human vs. non-human. We are talking about quadrupedal vs. bipedal. The reason I am asking you to name the two species is because creationists lie a lot, and you like to move the goalposts. I want you to be specific (to, yourself, establish where the goalposts are) so that I can address your actual problem. You have stated that the pelves suddenly go from quadrupedal to bipedal. I don't think that's exactly the case. If you don't know the names as you said above, look them up! It's not hard to find what biologists propose as a progression of species towards homo-sapiens. Find where your gap is, then tell me it's between "species X" and "species Y" in a response in this thread (in any place of the many places I request it) and I will gladly address it. Since creationism uses the strategy of being vague and unspecific to its advantage all the time (such as use of the word "kind&quotEye-wink I will refuse to address anything unless you get into specifics. Name me the problem and I will address it the best that I can. Until then, I refuse to address your argument. 
we had gotten very specific.  I dont' know how much more specific we can get.  the quadrupedal vs. bipedal is human vs. non-human by standards of evolution based on what we've been discussing. Let's put it this way becasue again, I'm asking you to teach me and you're response is "I refuse to address your arguement".  What fossil would you say is the first bipedal species and what would the previous fossil species be... there i can look them both up and see if there is a gap or not.  
No we haven't. I tasked you with looking up the evolution of homo sapiens (as proposed by biologists) and to find me the two species between which you find that the difference between the pelvis in each was too great a leap to possibly have evolved from one to the other through a series of yet not-located intermediaries. Creationists move the goalposts a lot (or in your case, simply play without a net to begin with, and every one of your shots is in between the posts, whereas I can kick a ball between your legs and you would say it went over the cross-bar). Because of that, I insist that they state what they actually do believe are problems with mainstream biology. In your case, it is even more necessary than in most, as you seem to disagree even with mainstream creationists. Seeing as you are unable to point to a creationist with a website that you fully agree with on at least MOST things (so that I could read a summary of their beliefs and assertions to get an idea of what lines you are thinking on), I insist that you mention what you actually DO believe. Until that point, we are having a useless discussion. I will accept what mainstream science will accept. If there is a dispute in mainstream science, point me to it and I will be happy to state what I think on the matter (if I am qualified to even have an opinion, as I am not a scientist). Another reason I insist that you provide your position, is because when I provided you with evidence we have, you simply said that the change in pelves is too great for you to believe that there was a common ancestor. When I pointed out that breeds of dog (that are the SAME species) exhibit differences in proportion in their bones about as great as the difference you had trouble accepting between a human pelvis, and an ancestral primate with a quadrupedal pelvis, your response was to mock me for bringing up that example. When I asked you if my response was fit for mockery because dog breeds are a result of artificial selection (because creationist arguments ARE that predictable) you said yes. Of course, the difference between natural and artifical selection are nothing other than who does the selecting (and the selection pressures are therefore artificial). The process of mutation and the rate of mutation functions exactly the same, of course, unless you can find a mechanism in biology that KNOWS it's being artifically selected and therefore behaves differently for some reason, suggesting that mutation rates are governed by something sentient which is ABSURD! And above, while you at least stayed on the topic of fossils and gaps, you proposed two pairs of animals that nobody says evolved from one another (and were of a different order from one another in both cases, showing a remarkable ignorance in biology for someone who wants to actually argue on the topic). Last time we had this argument, I showed you how mutation and isolation can cause a major difference in bone proportion within a species, one close to as great as the pelvis problem you were having. Instead of staying on that point, you decided to veer off to "artificial selection is not natural selection" (except once again, worded in a way dumber manner). You shouldn't be surprised that I am fed up with it, and refusing to address your argument unless it is CONCISE! See, in the Bill Nye v. Ken Ham debate, Ken Ham did have a specific date for the flood. Bill Nye challenged him on the # of animals on the ark. When Ham said that "kinds" were somewhere around the family level (in normal biological classification) then suggested a much smaller number, Bill Nye pointed out that they would then have had to evolve so quickly that we would have noticed (something to the tune of over a dozen new species every single DAY since then on average). After that, Ham pretty much just glossed over the point. At least he put down one goal post (the time during which the flood occurred). You, in this thread are arguing that a maybe world-wide flood occurred at some point which you don't know and refuse to examine, and instead insist that we prove to you that it didn't happen in 2013, or 2012, or 2011, all the way back to 2 million or so BCE year by year. Moronic.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
No, not the fossil progression. The DNA alone is enough actually. If we lived in a world where fossilization didn't occur, the DNA evidence would be enough. The fossils do help us find in which parts of the world certain changes occurred, and allow us to find evidence for organisms which we may have never otherwise known existed (like dinosaurs). If there were multiple starts to all life on earth today, the DNA would be more distinct. There is conclusive evidence that all life on earth is related in our DNA. As Maury would say "LUCA, in the case of every living thing on earth....you ARE the great great great great great great great great great great great great great.....etc....grand-fathermother." The same technology used to determine paternity shows us this. With 100% certainty. 
The Bible says we're all related... DNA evidence again is used on both sides.  We all have the same "father"
The commonalities vs. the differences in DNA over the human species shows that we were down to a group of between 1 and 10 thousand, but at no point were humans ever reduced to one single male-female pair (let alone twice..and if you believe in the flood, and not in common ancestry between all extant primates, you would have to believe that). The DNA suggests what biologists say, not what creationists say. Sorry.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Hahaha, what? You want me to determine the time that the flood was claimed to have happened?
welcome to the forum... glad you could join us.
What year was Anakin Skywalker born? That is just as valid a question for me to ask you, as you asking me when the flood occurred. You probably don't believe that Anakin Skywalker was born. Imagine for a moment though, that I did (or at least convincingly pretended that I did). Imagine then that I asserted that you can't prove he didn't exist unless you can eliminate the possibility of his birth in every possible year since the dawn of humanity (and possibly in a galaxy far far away). That would be ridiculous...right? Please agree with that...oh wait. Of course you will, but then you will engage in your usual special pleading and somehow exempt your ridiculous claim, and say it's not ridiculous to assert a completely ass backwards standard of evidence. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
You are making the claim, but you won't tell me or even give me any hints (or at least you will, but then say we can't pinpoint it exactly, as if that somehow makes it impossible to disprove). YECs claim about 4500 years ago. We know they're wrong, and you don't agree with them either. That is NOT the method of determining that no such flood happened (propose a date, then check that date). We don't find evidence of a flood of that magnitude anywhere on Earth that happened at any time. No physical evidence of such a flood.We don't know how many animals were on the boat, as it would be hard to determine until "we understand what 'kinds' are". I do understand what it is though. What is a "species"? A species is a word describing a category in biological classification. What separates one species from another can be at times ambiguous when two similar but distinct organisms are presented. One commonly accepted definition is that animals that are able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring are considered to be of the same species.  What is a "kind"? A kind is a word describing a category in biological classification. What separates one kind from another is always ambiguous, because it is a word used only by creationists who work very hard to keep it that way. Like your missing pelvis progression, the word kind is vague. There is a reason that they keep it that way.  So what you're saying is that due to different conditions, life was able to become quite different over a long period of time? With help from natural selection and random mutation?

you said, it it's ambiguous.  We can't determine what Kind was as determined in scripture.  why?  it was not defined by the author... creationists use the word because usually when talking about creation, the Bible uses "kind" and no other reference to creation of "kinds"   whatever that might be.  You say creationists work hard to keep it that way... either that or maybe they're not about to jump to conclusions based on nothing. life was able to become quite different based on natural selection and random mutation according to the science of evolution as it is observed. 
Again, the only way you can argue your point is to define a time, you cannot do that, I ask you to tell me the timeframe becasue you're the one claiming to have evidence from that time period proving that the flood never happened.  I never claimed I had any idea when the flood took place, only that it did.  I base that on scripture, a scripture that has historocity proven through archaeology and geology as well as internal coherency despite it's diversity and span of writing.
The bolded part is so wrong, it's not even funny. The scriptures disagree with archaeology, geology and is incoherent. The fact that you refuse to accept that doesn't make it so.  Once again, flood evidence....it doesn't just disappear. The biggest flood ever would have left evidence probably still visible today if it happened 50 million years ago. Are you suggesting that it was before that? If so, how come we find no hominid fossils in those fossil layers? If there were no humans to punish, your scriptures are invalid.  Are you suggesting that creationists aren't defining kind because they want to be intellectually honest (AKA not jump to conclusions)? That is the funniest fucking thing I have heard in a long time. Creationists going out of their way to be intellectually honest. As I said above though, when Ken Ham was put to task on that, he refused to address the obvious problem with a flood that occurred ~4500 ago (either evolution occurring too fast, or too many animals would have had to be on the ark to possibly fit). What would intellectual honesty be in that situation, when one's assertion is found to be unreasonable? It would be to admit that after examination, their position has been proven impossible, and therefore untrue. Creationists haven't, won't, and really can't do that (or else they wouldn't be creationists). Creationists don't follow the evidence where it leads, and it shows with you. You have 2 standards of evidence. One that is required to disprove a biblical claim (basically a time machine, so a standard that is impossible to meet) and one required to prove it (ie. no evidence at all). Creationism has nothing in common with intellectual honesty and never will, regardless of which view of creation you take. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 No. That's fucking absurd!
alright, let's have fun with this response then.
Bashing my head against concrete sounds more interesting. Let's see what kind of feces in print you provide below.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
If I were to do that, you would then propose a different date, until we die, because you could propose different dates for that long.
how can I propose a date  I have repeatedly claim I don't know?
See below
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Floods leave evidence behind. There is no evidence of a flood of that magnitude.
from what time period are you looking?
See below
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Religious people often scoff at the phrase "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence". I actually agree that in some cases it does not apply.
it's not scientifically sound.  lack of evidence never implies anything because originally there was no evidence of anything until we started looking for it... and we're still finding new evidence today which has proven over and over again that that statement is false. Me personally, I don't care either way, i dont' feel it applies to my belief.
Never....NEVER??? You then go on to say "until we started looking for it"....well, yeah. Once we did, we can then evaluate for what there is evidence, and if some assertions based on no evidence exist, we can also say if there is NO evidence for such an assertion. Russell's teapot. One could say there is no evidence for OR against it, since Russell posited a teapot that was too small to be seen with the strongest telescopes (of the time...who is to say that today's telescopes are strong enough either in that case?). The strength of a telescope is your "time of the flood". You will simply claim that until we propose a date, we can't say it didn't happen. Then, if we propose a date and search evidence for a flood of that date, you will say we have the wrong date. Once again....soccer without a net. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Since floods leave physical evidence behind, and you are proposing the biggest flood EVER, a world-wide one bigger in every spot than any local flood, we should expect to find the biggest flood footprint ever world-wide.
which just proves you have NOT been following the thread.
There is enough to read just in our posts responding to one another. If there is something that addressed what I said here that's relevant, I might even respond to just that one bit if you can provide anything compelling.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
We don't. In this case absence of evidence is evidence of no flood.
absense of evidence is evidence... interesting.  been proven wrong scientificaly over and over again, but I've met more radical religious belief systems.
Jesus existed, but a leprechaun lived up his asshole. Right up there. That was the source of most of his power (the rest being a result of witchcraft which is real). You can't prove otherwise. Absence of evidence of a leprechaun in Jesus's ass is not evidence of absence of a leprechaun up Jesus's ass. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that a leprechaun, lived in the rectum of Christ. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
You are the one proposing this happened, and you have provided 0 evidence, and tried, instead, to shift the burden of proof in the most absurd example I've seen in a long time.
only to the people claiming they do have evidence be it that in any other case where I would claim to have evidence the burden of proof would very quickly be put on me.
Haha...seriously. We simply say that the lack of evidence for the flood is a problem in the claim that it happened. Further, a number of questions were posed in the thread specific to the flood, that if they were not answered well, would further suggest that the flood couldn't even possibly have happened. You concede that there is no evidence for the flood, yet assert that it happened for some other reason. You don't provide evidence of any sort. You don't solve the actual problems that would make such a proposition unreasonable. I don't know how there is any burden of proof on the atheist (or the Christian or Jew who sees it for the fable it is).
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
caposkia wrote:
I won't provide you evidence that the flood happened,
I know... because you don't have any.I will address nothing but your evidence for the flood from here forth. If you provide none, then you concede that there is none. 
We have the Bible.  I never claimed anything more about this story... YOU have.. I have only claimed that I understand it happened based on the accuracy of what we know is true about scripture.. which is a lot... also my relationship with God. Those who have told me they have evidence that it did not happen have nothing to show for it other than guesses. So I guess i should address nothing but your evidence against the flood from here forth... but I've been doing that the whole time. 
As usual, trying to use someone's arguments against them when they don't apply. The bible is the claim, not evidence. We know it's mostly bullshit. Your relationship with god...hook yourself up to an fMRI and tell me if god is just you, or if it's actually someone else. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
There is truth in witchcraft?
yea 
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
pop quiz... why would I say that... based on scripture...  let's see if you really do know what you're talking about or not.
Of course I know why you would say it. But any other evidence? Nope. So another piece of scripture with no evidence to support it. Where are all those parts that DO have evidence (a claim that you DO make)? 
jabberwocky wrote:

Well if it doesn't happen to that extreme, doesn't that tell you everything? As the very original post in this thread says, the moisture in the air required for such a flood would drown us. 

And graves...so nobody else was in Jerusalem? When ALL of the graves of Jerusalem opened up, only one guy decided to write that down (and decades later I might add)?

caposkia wrote:

no, Consider that God commanded this flood to happen, so of coures it was going to be something very unique.  Again, it would not be enough moisture to drown us if it was localized as we also discussed much earlier in this thread. 

And graves... you assume no one else was in Jerusalem?  One guy decided to write it down... I dno't know, maybe because the majority at that time was illiterate.... just maybe?  and decades later... it was officialized at least... who knows if He had notes.  

you seem surprised that without typewriters, word processors, and mass media that it took decades to write a book.  I'm surprised by that.  Just to add to that, they also lacked pencils and paper and note pads were a few years shy of being invented.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, but before writing was commonplace, oral tradition was sufficient. People made sure to accurately pass on these stories...or at least that's what you yourself have said on multiple occasions. You're really shooting yourself in the foot, HARD here. 

caposkia wrote:

am i or did you just prove my point.  you just confirmed the very thing you argued against.  People did make sure to accurately pass on these stories and thus it was written down in a book.    Now explain to me how I shot myself in the foot... hard here?

What the actual fuck?? You deleted some context which I have re-added just to show everyone how fucking absurd you are. You have asserted in other places when biblical accuracy was put into question, that oral tradition was meticulous and accurate. You even posted a link to wikipedia that suggested that prior to writing, some ancient cultures passed down information by having people memorize such things word for word in a very accurate fashion. So when it suits you, and you need the bible stories based on oral tradition to be accurate accounts, oral tradition is accurate. But here, we have 4 different accounts of the same event, some with extraordinary details missing. Of course, nobody would merely forget to mention such a thing like graves opening up. Then you chalk it up to "well nobody wrote it down". So suddenly your accurate oral passing down of events is no longer that reliable? That is how you shot yourself in the foot. The accuracy of oral tradition varies post to post here in order to suit your argument in that particular place. You must be able to see this...right? Or, awesome troll job. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You said I shouldn't expect to find any evidence, and that it would "make sense". Do you agree with that? You seem to now suggest that there is a way to know god here. Of course, you outlined a method elsewhere which was vague, as all religious propositions are typically.
I said you shouldn't expect to find evidence of God's actions or work.. taht was the topic being discussed when I mentioned that and I was specific.  but if God was completely undetectable adn unknowable there would be no Bible, there would be no following and nothing to adhere to.
If Allah were completely undetectable and unknowable, there would be no Qu'ran. If Krishna were completely undetectable (or imaginary), then there would be no Bhagavad Gita...right? Logic. You fail at it. Special pleading. You fail to see it (except where it isn't there)
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
So you believe that a snake talked to someone? 
I believe Satan talked to someone... I believe those people saw a snake. 
So you believe that god let that guy into the garden knowing how good he is at deceiving. Shitty parent. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Haha. I don't know why it's my homework to help you validate your own claims. Now, remember where I said that you were shooting yourself in the foot with this post? This is the best part! It's been addressed by someone else, but you don't even have to read as far. Just the intro is enough! 
link wrote:
given survival of life andgiven as many as 10 independent origins of life, the odds are thatall but one would have gone extinct, yielding the monophyletic biotawe have now.
based on what?I need more than what you quoted to contradict that whole link. might i add; odds are there were many more than 10 independent origins of life

I asked you to provide evidence for multiple starts "to the degree that you're talking about". Of course, since you refuse to accept common ancestry between humans and other apes, that would include that. You posted a link where in the introduction...before they started explaining anything....in the throat clearing process, it says in almost plain English (biological terms) "monophyletic biota we have now"....that means that the people who wrote the paper to which you linked me say that all life on earth today had a common ancestor. Hence your link proves exactly what you are arguing against. It's great when I don't even have to argue with you, because you do it yourself. 

caposkia wrote:
 

Jabberwocky wrote:

You really didn't understand that link at all. It is proposing that there were multiple starts very early on, and that the descendants of only one of those starts remains today. Did you even read much of that link, other than find that it proposed multiple starts?
the question was based on multiple starts...  you denied the possibility, this article uses scientific reasoning to confirm it.  Beyond that, what would you say supports only one of thsoe starts being successful?
I denied the possibility of life today being descended from multiple starts. As I outlined above, you failed at reading comprehension. As far as what I would say supports only one of those starts being successful? I don't know why I have to explain that, as the article does itself. Once again...DNA. It's confirmed by DNA. 100%. Plug your ears and sing all you want, but it's true. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
So now that you see that the link doesn't say what you think it did, do you agree that all life we see today came from one common ancestor as the link that you posted says?
once I can see why after so many starts only one would have survived.  What reasonings for that do we have?
Because one of the starts may have been better adapted. That's probably why only one would have survived. We know that only one did because of....you guessed it. DNA. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Standards of evidence? You have shown that your standard of evidence is not rigid, multiple times. You posit that every bible verse is true, until proven false. You also propose an impossible standard of disproof to biblical claims. You say that we must deduce with 100% certainty when and where the bible is describing an event (a point you would probably never agree we have reached) and then find 100% certain historical evidence that said event did not happen.
you expect me to know with complete certainty all the evidence that points to the Biblical truth, so likewise really
No. I asked you only to point me to how one can deem the bible a reliable document. You yourself say that there is no good evidence of the flood. You say you believe it due to the bible's reliability as a document in other places. Even though that isn't a good argument, as it's made up of many books (As you know, and remind us of constantly as if it's some sort of great success). So when I ask you to point me to those other places where I can verify their reliability and it has reprecussions on other parts making them more believable, etc., you have been unable to do so thus far. This is a surprise to nobody. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Then, when it comes to biology, you insist that we find every single fossil, even though it's been explained to you that fossilization is relatively rare. Also, I'm not sure if this has been brought up, but punctuated evolution is a thing. It doesn't occur instantly, but it occurs quicker. The rate is still disputed among biologists as far as I know. However, biologists agree that any sudden change in selection pressures would speed up evolution. Also, a reduction in population speeds it up as well. These two things often go hand in hand. Hence think about that for a moment. Fossilization occurs rarely, and the instances when change occurs the quickest, we have the least specimens that could possibly fossilize. But when we have countless intermediary fossils of all sorts, vestigial organs and appendages, homology between species, and DNA that shows we all came from a common ancestor, you say "nope. There is no way we have a common ancestor. There is no good evidence" 
so... biologists agree taht any sudden change in selection pressures would speed up evolution and a reduction speeds it up as well... interesting...
A reduction in population, yes. Smaller populations experience more genetic drift. This is an observed fact. So imagine, for a moment, if there was a climate catastrophe, reducing a population to a fraction of what it was a generation or two ago. Imagine, then, that this population escapes to a new environment (barely making it as a species). The new environment differing from the old, would have different selection pressures. Also, the population is drastically reduced. These are things we know, and every time we observe life under such conditions, we find exactly what I have outlined, whether it's in a lab or in the wild. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
There are actually three standards of evidence in this thread. There is one held by rational posters who hold to the same standard for all things. Then you, yourself, hold to two opposing standards of evidence. One is the bible is 100% true unless you get a time machine and disprove it all 100%. Your other standard is that the mountains of evidence (both figuratively and literally) for evolution by natural selection, and common ancestry among all living things on Earth (except the aforementioned viruses), is NOT sufficient. The only one who holds to two different standards is you Cap. 
I'm not the one claiming I have "evidence" that the Bible is false and/or that the flood did not happen, so of course I'm expecting you to show me that evidence... when you do, you say there is none... what would you say to me if I made that same statement?  I also don't dispute evolution as the process that it is, only the origin idea which we don't seem to have concrete evidence for, rather only conclusions based on compiled subjective reasoning... which again, both sides use to their advantage.
Look. I moved into my the house I'm living in now about a half a year ago. If, before I lived here, anybody ever broke into the house through the front door, so long as the door got replaced/the frame fixed, it might be hard to EVER notice. If it was through a window that was smashed, I might not notice for years, then when lifting the carpet to put in nicer flooring, I would maybe find a small shard or two, suggesting that the window was once broken. Ever have a window in your car broken? You'll never get all the glass out. You'll always find more every year or two. What you are suggesting is like having a high rise building worth of glass smashed, and thrown into your car, but somehow nobody ever sees the glass. Floods leave evidence. A flood that big would leave massive evidence. We don't see it. And it's not because we aren't "looking in the right place". It would be evident everywhere. You won't accept or understand this though, so let me just say, enjoy your continued delusion. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Caposkia wrote:
but that has nothing to do with true followers.  none of that explains the outliers.  IT also doesn't explain the faith in other religions of very rich communities.  e.g. Jews are stereotyped to be rich and snobby, Buhiddists tend to be higher on the pay scale, etc...  What source did you get that from btw? 
Hahahaha, true followers. How do you determine that? 
how do I determine "true followers"?  The Bible
Of course. Every Christian can claim the same and call you an apostate. More assertions.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_IndexWhile some of the higher nations on this list do have a high percentage of affiliated members, the level of religiosity is also something to consider. I don't know about you, but the Church of Iceland and the Church of Denmark don't strike me as major fundamentalist denominations. Attendance is probably a result of nationality more-so than of religiosity. The nations you would typically hold as devout religious followers are the ones you will find on that list. The USA just BARELY missed being in the top...100. The top 100. If Christianity were a positive thing, wouldn't such a "Christian Nation" rank better on this list?
well:1, we've for the past several decades been pushing God away2, Consider where most disruptions of peace occur in scripture and in the world today.  Ironically in places that were supposed to be very "christian" or jewish. Is it because of Christianity or other outside causes against the faith. Also, how many claimed "Christians" do you think really are followers of Jesus Christ?
As religiosity goes down, societal health goes up. Disruptions of peace occur in places that are supposed to be very "Christian" or Jewish...well of course. Religion is the enemy of peace as it deals in absolutes (and only a sith deals in absolutes Sticking out tongue). I don't see how you've said anything here other than agreeing with me. You're suggesting that very Christian places are punished because of the few non-Christians there, but atheist nations like Norway are healthy...because....I have no idea what you're getting at here. None at all. Oh wait, I've got it. Nothing. As usual. You're only concerned wth responding in a vacuum. It's nonsense.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:

Well yes, there would. Is that a problem for god? Is it too much work? 

it's non-sensical if the product works.  There's also a reason for the design the way it is. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Assertion of a reason. No explanation given. Again. The only reason to design it that way is so that we CAN choke if the design was done from the ground up. 

assertion for a change, no rational explanation given. 

consider we'd need an extra hold for breathing and eating then... more opportunity for disease to enter the body.  with a population today of over seven BILLION people, something tells me choking is not an issue with the design. 

Let's consider other issues then, more people die of infections from cuts, scrapes and other superficial injuries in the world than choking... should skin be more durable?  Maybe our immune systems should be preprogrammed.  why or why not?  and if it was, what would that mean for skins plyability, sensitivity and the need for vaccinations? 

I mean we can go on for thousands of pages on how we should all be these mighty morphed freaks that are completely indestructable, but it brings no progression to teh conversation.  I can come up with a problem for anything if you want, does that mean it's not the best the way it is?  of course not. 

When it comes down to it, everything is perfectly flawed.  to suggest otherwise is to suggest that you have already designed and tested a better way... have you designed and tested a new and improved human?

A "change"? A change from what? An ancestor that didn't need to breathe? If we were designed, it wouldn't be a change, it would just be "the design". Infections wouldn't be a problem if we were designed to not be succeptible to them. If our immune systems were preprogrammed to combat disease properly, there would be no disease. We don't take vaccinations because it's cool, we do it because it's the best way to protect ourselves from these infections. 

And you end this piece of post with another ridiculous skewing of standards. Are you an engineer who designs cars? If not, then until you design and test a better car, you have no right to say what's wrong with yours. Seriously, are you 12 years old?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

I'm a serf to society? No. I'm a part of society. 

There is no reason a good designer would have designed it this way. 

or wouldn't have for that matter

Wankel engines burn oil "by design". By that, I mean they couldn't figure out a way to make them NOT burn oil due to problems with sealing the rotors. Or in other words, Mazda engineers aren't omnipotent. Is god? Just saying that the design is ideal doesn't make it so. Also, my status as a non-god doesn't mean that all my commentary on the problems of how our body works are automatically invalid.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Now where does anything say that every flaw results in extinction?

the same place it says every flaw needs to be fixed to perfection leaving everything flawless

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if a perfect designer designed us, we would be flawless, no? Unless he created us deliberately flawed, including succeptibility to ebola (which is sort of a problem lately in case you haven't heard)

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't personally know enough about the biology of our aquatic ancestors to tell you why it evolved that way. Your very language is telling "why evolution designed us the way it did"...evolution didn't design anything. Evolution happened. It's blind. A mutation can result in a benefit. It doesn't have to be perfect. However, if it's advantageous it can, and often does, stick. I'll look up the evolution of this flawed system at a later date, as this post is already taking me some time. 

you said it.  YOu personally don't know enough about the biology of our aquatic ancestors... or probably modern day humans as well I'm assuming and yet you have these critiques of the design.  It seems you've just admitted you're not qualified to criticize. 

No. I said I'm not qualified to tell you exactly why the systems evolved the way they did. I'm not sure what systems evolved to cause our breathing to utilize the same path as some of the start of our digestive tract. I still haven't looked it up. Clearly you can't be bothered yourself. Just because I say I don't know a certain thing doesn't mean that I know nothing (and it certainly doesn't mean that I can't comment on something almost completely unrelated).

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

*sigh*. You are proposing not only a designer, but a perfect one. When I look at the design of cars (something I'm somewhat knowledgable in), I can see design flaws and compromises. However, I can understand why they happen. A desire to be economical is almost always the reason of course. Other times it's because they wanted to use the same part in many cars (also a financial question in the end, but we can delve deeper into these things). Then, sometimes it's just a bad design because the engineers were not very good at their jobs. To say that bad design exists in life on earth is to say that god had limitations as a designer, either resource or ability. Is either of those what you are proposing, or are you proposing another possibility as to why this is badly designed? If so, outline what it is. 

...and I understand why we are created as we are.  Without "problems" there'd be no need for... well... anything... life would be quite dull. 

for example, without the ability to "choke"  how many people of the world would be improperly chewing up their food and thus dying of malnurishment due to lack of proper processing? 

A digestive system that can properly digest unchewed food is beyond your god's ability too? Seriously, can god even like...play mini-golf?

 

P.S. that was 3 cups of tea.

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:You

Jabberwocky wrote:

You probably don't believe that Anakin Skywalker was born.
 I wouldn't assume that with Cap. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:What year

Jabberwocky wrote:
What year was Anakin Skywalker born?

In 42 BBY (Before Battle of Yavin 4).

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:You state

Jabberwocky wrote:

You state 3 options. 

1. God knows all (past present and future)

2. God knows all past present, but not all future due to suppressing it from himself, or

3. God knows all past and present, but exact knowledge of the future is beyond his ability, only a range of possibilities is known to him, and the result could be one of many.

If I misrepresented your position, describe where. Point out where I am mistaken. What you've done instead is answer me anyhow, suggesting that maybe I wasn't far off what you meant anyhow. 

Ok God knows all possibilities... that does not imply that God knows THE future, rather all possibilities for the future... which possibility might come to pass might be elusive depending on how far and when and whether God is influencing the outcome.   It is also God's intention to leave the future up to us with the implication that all possible futures we choose will have the same ultimate outcome. 

The idea that future would be beyond Gods ability only suggests that the future cannot be known, not that the future isn't known, but that it is constantly changing and thus is impossible to know at any level.  God can influence future events to come to be the way He intended them and thus ultimately can have control over the future, but also can choose to allow us to make our own choices.  Does that clarify a bit?

Jabberwocky wrote:

If god created their brains, then he bears that responsibility. What if the bridge had 20 different signs with 20 different weight limits? Because if the bible is your moral guide in any way shape or form, that is the case here as well. The engineer didn't create the trucker's brain. In your world-view, god created ours. Therefore, he is responsible. 

So in other words, it is the computer manufacturers that should be getting arrested and jailed for child porn, security breaches and identity thefts around the world... no they didn't create the brains of the people committing those crimes, but they did create the means by which the crimes are being committed.  By your reasoning, they are responsible.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Here, you didn't even address my point properly. This one also has the added implication that god is less than omniscient. However, he is knowledgable enough to know that it could end in a worst case scenario, and it's just as likely as any other outcome. Yet, he pretends to know more than he does, and allows the project to proceed anyway. You are getting worse at reading comprehension. 

It seems then that this scenario cannot apply to God.

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you're saying that god is neither evil or reckless in this sense because it COULD have been better? If god saw this as a possibility and just decided to NOT create the universe, then you wouldn't have even noticed as you would have never sensed anything, therefore you wouldn't have noticed this decision. Knowing what you do have today, that may seem like a bleak alternative compared to the life you probably enjoy. However, to those that died breathing in poisonous gas that was painful every single breath, that may be a favourable alternative. 

I am a being that can predict the future....somewhat. In a very basic sense, I can. I make decisions based on that very frequently. If your god is omniscient, however you want to limit it, it means that he knows more than me, and as a result also has better foreknowledge. Now pick any dictator who has committed genocide. Any single one. If I knew that my decision to create the universe could result in even a remote possibility of any single one of them existing, I believe it would be an evil thing to proceed anyway. According to your worldview, your god did it anyway. Even if he saw that better outcomes were possible as well. 

God has told us we have the freedom to choose.  There are consequences for all of our actions good or bad, but we still choose these outcomes.  for God to dictate the future takes away any freedom we have... including having this very conversation. 

Let's take your scenario to people having children... I'm willing to bet all parents "HOPE" their children grow up to be good human beings, but I also know as a parent myself that you know the possibilities of them being terrible people.  So are all parents evil because they birth children that have the potential to be murderers, rapists, theives.... politicians???


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Phew, I'll

Jabberwocky wrote:

Phew, I'll need a cup of tea for this one! Also, we are officially done here (aside from one small section I might address as you'll see below). You have conceded defeat here by responding with crap so ridiculous, it's not worth the discussion any more. You can say what you want. I am actually done with you after this response. it's not the first time you have said things this stupid, but I'm just done being generous here. You are either a troll, or a complete moron. There is no in-between here. Those Christians who are ignorant and actually REFUSE to hear the other side, refuse to be educated about things that could shatter their faith, are being ignorant. You, however, take it to a new level. You come on a forum like this one, and are confronted with actual problems with your specific interpretation of Christianity. Your response is to either play dumber than you are, or somehow be stupid to a level I thought actually impossible. 

then I guess the rest of this extensive post is hardly worth reading through.  If that's your view of me then you have failed to even try to read what I've wrote.  I am not a troll or a moron, I have actually decided to open my mind to the idea that someone might know something I don't... when challenged, I get the ignorance response and nothing too different than the post above.  Really I've been waiting for you to show me why i've been wrong in my understanding...  I have kept an open mind thorugh it all, but just like you I will challenge what is brought to the table so you can be sure what you're presenting is actually credible...... let's just see what we have to work with for the sake of integrity in this final response.

Jabberwocky wrote:

The similarities in DNA between all living things is not neccessary for life to exist. The natural explanation works. The supernatural one requires a designer who is either limited, or stupid. If you want to think that a mutation that allows our brains to get big, but also makes us far more succeptible to brain cancer than our primate cousins (or primate "similars, but not cousins as you might think&quotEye-wink is the result of a perfect all-powerful designer, so be it. It is not a position that is reasonable in any way shape or form.  

 

This whole discussion was based on the evolution of the bipedal pelvis (and more broadly, "gaps" in the fossil record as you claim). When you were being vague, you provided vague "this mostly quadrupedal pelvis vs. this very much bipedal one, with nothing in between" (except you didn't word it as concisely, clearly due to your lack of education). So now that I insist that you name me species, you provide me with an order and a family (although elephants are of the same family too). I have asked you to research before you post on multiple occasions. You have refused to do that. Not only that, but your response here displays your evasive nature. This whole discussion was about holes in the fossil record where we were keeping on topic somewhat. However, I asked you to get more specific. So you then get out of the order of primates entirely and go to something completely different. The only possible reason to do so is to keep your actual position from being properly examined, and therefore exposed for the absurd position that it is. The only other alternative is that you are actually stupid enough to believe that those who understand and accept biology believe that elephants and dogs evolved from one another. This is a level of stupidity I can not believe. The sudden change in order to me suggests that it's evasiveness. So congratulations to you. You have admitted to me, and everyone who has the patience to read through my long-winded posts (and your short but fucking stupid ones) that your position can not possibly stand up to scrutiny and examination, without being exposed as clearly false. You have also shown that you feel that lying about how stupid you are is an acceptable thing to do, as long as it's in the name of Jeeezus. 
for this second response, I had originally asked you for the missing fossil line that would show the transition... you consistently either ignored that request and/or didn't understand it, either way, you have not provided the evidence I asked for.  Others have given me more on this subject than you have.  ... my vague responses came after I realized you had nothing to go on and I continued simply to play your game.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 See above. Evasive. Nobody suggests that one of those evolved from the other. Different orders.
but if all originated from one, there must have been a connection somewhere... where is that connection?  I know, I'm not expecting an answer... you know like usual, but this time without an actual response. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 

caposkia wrote:
What fossil would you say is the first bipedal species and what would the previous fossil species be... there i can look them both up and see if there is a gap or not.  

No we haven't.
never heard of 'em
Jabberwocky wrote:
I tasked you with looking up the evolution of homo sapiens (as proposed by biologists) and to find me the two species between which you find that the difference between the pelvis in each was too great a leap to possibly have evolved from one to the other through a series of yet not-located intermediaries. Creationists move the goalposts a lot (or in your case, simply play without a net to begin with, and every one of your shots is in between the posts, whereas I can kick a ball between your legs and you would say it went over the cross-bar). Because of that, I insist that they state what they actually do believe are problems with mainstream biology. In your case, it is even more necessary than in most, as you seem to disagree even with mainstream creationists. Seeing as you are unable to point to a creationist with a website that you fully agree with on at least MOST things (so that I could read a summary of their beliefs and assertions to get an idea of what lines you are thinking on), I insist that you mention what you actually DO believe. Until that point, we are having a useless discussion. I will accept what mainstream science will accept. If there is a dispute in mainstream science, point me to it and I will be happy to state what I think on the matter (if I am qualified to even have an opinion, as I am not a scientist). Another reason I insist that you provide your position, is because when I provided you with evidence we have, you simply said that the change in pelves is too great for you to believe that there was a common ancestor. When I pointed out that breeds of dog (that are the SAME species) exhibit differences in proportion in their bones about as great as the difference you had trouble accepting between a human pelvis, and an ancestral primate with a quadrupedal pelvis, your response was to mock me for bringing up that example. When I asked you if my response was fit for mockery because dog breeds are a result of artificial selection (because creationist arguments ARE that predictable) you said yes. Of course, the difference between natural and artifical selection are nothing other than who does the selecting (and the selection pressures are therefore artificial). The process of mutation and the rate of mutation functions exactly the same, of course, unless you can find a mechanism in biology that KNOWS it's being artifically selected and therefore behaves differently for some reason, suggesting that mutation rates are governed by something sentient which is ABSURD! And above, while you at least stayed on the topic of fossils and gaps, you proposed two pairs of animals that nobody says evolved from one another (and were of a different order from one another in both cases, showing a remarkable ignorance in biology for someone who wants to actually argue on the topic). Last time we had this argument, I showed you how mutation and isolation can cause a major difference in bone proportion within a species, one close to as great as the pelvis problem you were having. Instead of staying on that point, you decided to veer off to "artificial selection is not natural selection" (except once again, worded in a way dumber manner). You shouldn't be surprised that I am fed up with it, and refusing to address your argument unless it is CONCISE! See, in the Bill Nye v. Ken Ham debate, Ken Ham did have a specific date for the flood. Bill Nye challenged him on the # of animals on the ark. When Ham said that "kinds" were somewhere around the family level (in normal biological classification) then suggested a much smaller number, Bill Nye pointed out that they would then have had to evolve so quickly that we would have noticed (something to the tune of over a dozen new species every single DAY since then on average). After that, Ham pretty much just glossed over the point. At least he put down one goal post (the time during which the flood occurred). You, in this thread are arguing that a maybe world-wide flood occurred at some point which you don't know and refuse to examine, and instead insist that we prove to you that it didn't happen in 2013, or 2012, or 2011, all the way back to 2 million or so BCE year by year. Moronic.
yet through all that, I still didn't get my answer... 
Jabberwocky wrote:
The commonalities vs. the differences in DNA over the human species shows that we were down to a group of between 1 and 10 thousand, but at no point were humans ever reduced to one single male-female pair (let alone twice..and if you believe in the flood, and not in common ancestry between all extant primates, you would have to believe that). The DNA suggests what biologists say, not what creationists say. Sorry.
if that were true, both sides would not be using DNA as a means of reasoning... but they do.... sorry.  and by saying that I'm simply stating a fact that shows why the DNA arguement... on either side... did not and is not giong to convince me either way. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
What year was Anakin Skywalker born? That is just as valid a question for me to ask you, as you asking me when the flood occurred. You probably don't believe that Anakin Skywalker was born. Imagine for a moment though, that I did (or at least convincingly pretended that I did). Imagine then that I asserted that you can't prove he didn't exist unless you can eliminate the possibility of his birth in every possible year since the dawn of humanity (and possibly in a galaxy far far away). That would be ridiculous...right? Please agree with that...oh wait. Of course you will, but then you will engage in your usual special pleading and somehow exempt your ridiculous claim, and say it's not ridiculous to assert a completely ass backwards standard of evidence. 
my point exactly, but to claim as you do, you would have to know the date... which you obviously stated is not possible at this time.  therefore any speculation you make is not valid.  In order to claim something did or did not happen, you must have some evidence as to why on either case... I have a story written... you have nothing.  No the story itself does not validate it's basis in reality, but the congruency of the stories of the Bible and the evidences that support most of those stories in reality add some gravity toward reality for this particular story.   
Jabberwocky wrote:
Never....NEVER??? You then go on to say "until we started looking for it"....well, yeah. Once we did, we can then evaluate for what there is evidence, and if some assertions based on no evidence exist, we can also say if there is NO evidence for such an assertion. Russell's teapot. One could say there is no evidence for OR against it, since Russell posited a teapot that was too small to be seen with the strongest telescopes (of the time...who is to say that today's telescopes are strong enough either in that case?). The strength of a telescope is your "time of the flood". You will simply claim that until we propose a date, we can't say it didn't happen. Then, if we propose a date and search evidence for a flood of that date, you will say we have the wrong date. Once again....soccer without a net. 
the problem with that comparison is that everything at one time had no evidence for or against it, therefore none of it existed until we decided it did... It's hardly reasoning against something or for something. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
There is enough to read just in our posts responding to one another. If there is something that addressed what I said here that's relevant, I might even respond to just that one bit if you can provide anything compelling.
we've already established in this thread that the flood did not have to be worldwide and likely wasn't to have the impact it did, yet you assert repeatedly that it was world wide.   
Jabberwocky wrote:
Jesus existed, but a leprechaun lived up his asshole. Right up there. That was the source of most of his power (the rest being a result of witchcraft which is real). You can't prove otherwise. Absence of evidence of a leprechaun in Jesus's ass is not evidence of absence of a leprechaun up Jesus's ass. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that a leprechaun, lived in the rectum of Christ. 
except that there is nothing to go on there, not even other stories that could even remotely connect to such a claim as the Bible stories do and thus there is the difference between you and me.  I at least look at all the evidence present, when there is none I'll admit it and claim as i did repeatedly in this thread that we cannot make conclusions based on evidences of this story alone and yet you want to assert something from left field as if it's relevant to my claims of this story. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Haha...seriously. We simply say that the lack of evidence for the flood is a problem in the claim that it happened. Further, a number of questions were posed in the thread specific to the flood, that if they were not answered well, would further suggest that the flood couldn't even possibly have happened. You concede that there is no evidence for the flood, yet assert that it happened for some other reason. You don't provide evidence of any sort. You don't solve the actual problems that would make such a proposition unreasonable. I don't know how there is any burden of proof on the atheist (or the Christian or Jew who sees it for the fable it is).
Then the teapot does exist... woah.. or maybe the Earth was really flat until we decided it was round.  I mean lack of evidence pointed to a flat Earth.   
Jabberwocky wrote:
Of course I know why you would say it. But any other evidence? Nope. So another piece of scripture with no evidence to support it. Where are all those parts that DO have evidence (a claim that you DO make)? 
Start with the Archaeological Study Bible
jabberwocky wrote:

 

What the actual fuck?? You deleted some context which I have re-added just to show everyone how fucking absurd you are.

oh come now, if i was actually as absurd as you claim, you wouldn't need to make an effort to show everyone else... it would be that obvious...

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have asserted in other places when biblical accuracy was put into question, that oral tradition was meticulous and accurate. You even posted a link to wikipedia that suggested that prior to writing, some ancient cultures passed down information by having people memorize such things word for word in a very accurate fashion. So when it suits you, and you need the bible stories based on oral tradition to be accurate accounts, oral tradition is accurate. But here, we have 4 different accounts of the same event, some with extraordinary details missing. Of course, nobody would merely forget to mention such a thing like graves opening up. Then you chalk it up to "well nobody wrote it down". So suddenly your accurate oral passing down of events is no longer that reliable? That is how you shot yourself in the foot. The accuracy of oral tradition varies post to post here in order to suit your argument in that particular place. You must be able to see this...right? Or, awesome troll job. 

as I posted just in the other thread we're... er.. we were discussing in [depending on the extent of you being done talking with me] there are literally thousands of copies of the manuscripts just in the new testament alone... and for people here, no not copies of the Bible, but of the written documented occurances.. the variences between the thousands are minimal.  to claim it wasn't dramatically documented in that time would be a dramatic understatement. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

If Allah were completely undetectable and unknowable, there would be no Qu'ran. If Krishna were completely undetectable (or imaginary), then there would be no Bhagavad Gita...right? Logic. You fail at it. Special pleading. You fail to see it (except where it isn't there)
no, your statement makes perfect sense... let's put it in perspective.... you know... historically....Allah is the same God as the Jewish and Chrsitian God...  Muhammad grew up as a... Jew I believe... either that or He was a Chrsitian trying to preach to the Jews... I'd have to look it up again, eithter way, He wrote the Qu'ran with a Basis that Allah is the same God, the God of Abraham.  Krishna was an actual person in history... So Logic... it works
Jabberwocky wrote:

 

So you believe that god let that guy into the garden knowing how good he is at deceiving. Shitty parent. 
or didn't have a reason to believe there'd be a problem with him in the garden... typical parenting.   
Jabberwocky wrote:

I asked you to provide evidence for multiple starts "to the degree that you're talking about". Of course, since you refuse to accept common ancestry between humans and other apes, that would include that. You posted a link where in the introduction...before they started explaining anything....in the throat clearing process, it says in almost plain English (biological terms) "monophyletic biota we have now"....that means that the people who wrote the paper to which you linked me say that all life on earth today had a common ancestor. Hence your link proves exactly what you are arguing against. It's great when I don't even have to argue with you, because you do it yourself. 

Because one of the starts may have been better adapted. That's probably why only one would have survived. We know that only one did because of....you guessed it. DNA.
may have been... if I said that to you, would you buy it?  that's probably why... same questionWe know that one did... sure of course, but why did literally hundreds of other starts fail.. logic would suggest several of them should have been successful if one was... and by several, I mean even a little as maybe three or four starts maybe out of hundreds.  I don't see the logic in only one being successful. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 No. I asked you only to point me to how one can deem the bible a reliable document. You yourself say that there is no good evidence of the flood. You say you believe it due to the bible's reliability as a document in other places. Even though that isn't a good argument, as it's made up of many books (As you know, and remind us of constantly as if it's some sort of great success). So when I ask you to point me to those other places where I can verify their reliability and it has reprecussions on other parts making them more believable, etc., you have been unable to do so thus far. This is a surprise to nobody. 
"One of the first internal evidences that the Bible is truly God’s Word is seen in its unity. Even though it is really sixty-six individual books, written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by more than 40 authors who came from many walks of life, the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction. This unity is unique from all other books and is evidence of the divine origin of the words which God moved men to recordThere are also external evidences that indicate the Bible is truly the Word of God. One is the historicity of the Bible. Because the Bible details historical events, its truthfulness and accuracy are subject to verification like any other historical document. Through both archaeological evidences and other writings, the historical accounts of the Bible have been proven time and time again to be accurate and true. In fact, all the archaeological and manuscript evidence supporting the Bible makes it the best-documented book from the ancient world." QOTW Just for the record too.. I dont' know if it was this thread... It hink it was the other one,b ut I had claimed hundreds of authors... Obviously with this post I was mistaken to suggest hundreds.  I didn't get much sleep last night and was not reading carefully when I wrote that.  I apologize for that. 
Jabberwocky wrote:

 

A reduction in population, yes. Smaller populations experience more genetic drift. This is an observed fact. So imagine, for a moment, if there was a climate catastrophe, reducing a population to a fraction of what it was a generation or two ago. Imagine, then, that this population escapes to a new environment (barely making it as a species). The new environment differing from the old, would have different selection pressures. Also, the population is drastically reduced. These are things we know, and every time we observe life under such conditions, we find exactly what I have outlined, whether it's in a lab or in the wild. 
I see that as more reasoning to believe such a flood is possible. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Look. I moved into my the house I'm living in now about a half a year ago. If, before I lived here, anybody ever broke into the house through the front door, so long as the door got replaced/the frame fixed, it might be hard to EVER notice. If it was through a window that was smashed, I might not notice for years, then when lifting the carpet to put in nicer flooring, I would maybe find a small shard or two, suggesting that the window was once broken. Ever have a window in your car broken? You'll never get all the glass out. You'll always find more every year or two. What you are suggesting is like having a high rise building worth of glass smashed, and thrown into your car, but somehow nobody ever sees the glass. Floods leave evidence. A flood that big would leave massive evidence. We don't see it. And it's not because we aren't "looking in the right place". It would be evident everywhere. You won't accept or understand this though, so let me just say, enjoy your continued delusion. 
maybe I'm not getting your perspective then.. give me this answer... are you assuming with that statement that the flood was world wide?  just a simple yes or no here would suffice. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Of course. Every Christian can claim the same and call you an apostate. More assertions.
until I ask them to prove it and hand them the Bible... then they falter... you can try if you'd like.. a bit off topic, but i'd be fun just the same.... or wait, if you're not talking to me, i can challenge anyone else on a new thread if they'd like to try to use the Bible against my way of following God..
Jabberwocky wrote:
 As religiosity goes down, societal health goes up. Disruptions of peace occur in places that are supposed to be very "Christian" or Jewish...well of course. Religion is the enemy of peace as it deals in absolutes (and only a sith deals in absolutes Sticking out tongue). I don't see how you've said anything here other than agreeing with me. You're suggesting that very Christian places are punished because of the few non-Christians there, but atheist nations like Norway are healthy...because....I have no idea what you're getting at here. None at all. Oh wait, I've got it. Nothing. As usual. You're only concerned wth responding in a vacuum. It's nonsense.
so in other words, you can't support yourself here?  religosity and following God are two different things.  \
Jabberwocky wrote:

A "change"? A change from what? An ancestor that didn't need to breathe? If we were designed, it wouldn't be a change, it would just be "the design". Infections wouldn't be a problem if we were designed to not be succeptible to them. If our immune systems were preprogrammed to combat disease properly, there would be no disease. We don't take vaccinations because it's cool, we do it because it's the best way to protect ourselves from these infections. 

And you end this piece of post with another ridiculous skewing of standards. Are you an engineer who designs cars? If not, then until you design and test a better car, you have no right to say what's wrong with yours. Seriously, are you 12 years old?

the design is made to adapt....

...and I've never heard a twelve year old use such reasoning.  rather it's usually because someone else says so. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

P.S. that was 3 cups of tea.

future suggestion... I use a large cup and leave the bag in. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:but if all

caposkia wrote:

but if all originated from one, there must have been a connection somewhere... where is that connection?  I know, I'm not expecting an answer... you know like usual, but this time without an actual response.

I am pretty sure that Jabberwocky already addressed this, it certainly has been mentioned at least in passing in several of the links. The answer is Luca. 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/four-billion-year-old-mystery-last-universal-common-ancestor-solved-1460866

Edit: (http://www.biolbull.org/content/196/3/373.full.pdf) this article is a little dated, but I had it in my bookmarks and thought it was interesting enough at one time to bother putting it there. 

Kind of hypocritical to accuse Jabberwocky of not providing answers. For three pages now he has been asking exactly what gap in the fossils you have a problem with. You seem to think that he should tell you where the gap is, when he doesn't believe one exists. Much like you insist we provide a date for an event we don't believe is possible.

Meanwhile, I'm still checking in to see if you have bothered to answer my questions regarding meteorology and show me why me and the sources I referenced are wrong about the maximum amount of rain physically possible. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 So why did God choose to

 So why did God choose to design and create things like the Ebola virus, malaria parasites, and other disease causing critters which we are not responsible for, but we have to try and protect ourselves and our helpless children from, and keep doing it as they adapt to our current vaccines or antibiotics?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
I'll summarize most of

I'll summarize most of this.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Either you're lying or you're stupid.

Still ignoring the blatant lack of evidence for the biblical flood, and the obvious evidence against such a proposition.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Pointing out your complete changing of which animals we are discussing, in order to evade my question.  
Incomprehensibly written sentence about how somehow Jabberwocky should show me where the missing links are, instead of myself going on the internet, finding the progression of hominind ancestral fossils that biologists accept, then telling Jabberwocky what the 2 species are between which I find a problematic gap. So in other words, establishing nothing, so that anything Jabberwocky says is automatically a straw-man as I can just say "that's not my position" every single time. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Further pointing out evasive tactics
Showing a complete lack of knowledge of how biology works. 
It's a mammal. That's what the common ancestor was between bats and Aardvarks. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 

caposkia wrote:
Completely messed up the quotes

This made it sound like I said something unrelated entirely. 
Responded anyway due to his stupidity, and once again proving that he never goes back to actually read the context of posts after mass-deleting things. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Long post explaining some biology, and displaying how evasive you are
Asserting that for some reason I should be providing both your arguments, and my own. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
The commonalities vs. the differences in DNA over the human species shows that we were down to a group of between 1 and 10 thousand, but at no point were humans ever reduced to one single male-female pair (let alone twice..and if you believe in the flood, and not in common ancestry between all extant primates, you would have to believe that). The DNA suggests what biologists say, not what creationists say. Sorry.
if that were true, both sides would not be using DNA as a means of reasoning... but they do.... sorry.  and by saying that I'm simply stating a fact that shows why the DNA arguement... on either side... did not and is not giong to convince me either way. 
DNA as a means of reasoning? Do you mean "DNA as evidence for their position"? If so, what DNA evidence supports your position?
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Comparing finding evidence for bible stories to finding evidence for Anakin Skywalker
my point exactly, but to claim as you do, you would have to know the date... which you obviously stated is not possible at this time.  therefore any speculation you make is not valid.  In order to claim something did or did not happen, you must have some evidence as to why on either case... I have a story written... you have nothing.  No the story itself does not validate it's basis in reality, but the congruency of the stories of the Bible and the evidences that support most of those stories in reality add some gravity toward reality for this particular story.  
I'll let this stand unedited too. You just said "to claim as you do, you would have to know the date". So I would need to give you a date for Anakin Skywalker to suggest that he exists? Then how come you don't need to provide your own date for the flood, and are asking everyone else to do it for you?  Also, you have a story written. You have an assertion. For the last time, it's not evidence. It is the claim. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Pointing out your completely skewed idea of what burden of proof is.
the problem with that comparison is that everything at one time had no evidence for or against it, therefore none of it existed until we decided it did... It's hardly reasoning against something or for something. 
Another unedited response. Because everyone should read this a second time. It's stupid. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
There is enough to read just in our posts responding to one another. If there is something that addressed what I said here that's relevant, I might even respond to just that one bit if you can provide anything compelling.
we've already established in this thread that the flood did not have to be worldwide and likely wasn't to have the impact it did, yet you assert repeatedly that it was world wide. 
If the flood was for the purpose of wiping out all lineages except for Noah (something which we know did not happen. This has been proven genetically), then the flood while not having to be world-wide, it would have at least had to have occurred anywhere that humans live. So we're back to where we were pages upon pages ago. We know the history of humans and their ancestors well enough that we know where we originated, and where we migrated over time. From this, we can determine if the flood occurred x mYa, then it would have had to cover region Y entirely. To wipe out all human life (and perhaps all life) in those regions, it would neccessitate a flood that killed EVERYONE except 8 people on a special boat. Bigger floods leave behind more evidence. No evidence of such a flood has been found in the regions we know humans came from/migrated around to. World-wide or not, there is no evidence for a phenomenon that would leave evidence behind. That suggests that the event did not happen. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Jesus existed, but a leprechaun lived up his asshole. Right up there. That was the source of most of his power (the rest being a result of witchcraft which is real). You can't prove otherwise. Absence of evidence of a leprechaun in Jesus's ass is not evidence of absence of a leprechaun up Jesus's ass. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that a leprechaun, lived in the rectum of Christ. 
except that there is nothing to go on there, not even other stories that could even remotely connect to such a claim as the Bible stories do and thus there is the difference between you and me.  I at least look at all the evidence present, when there is none I'll admit it and claim as i did repeatedly in this thread that we cannot make conclusions based on evidences of this story alone and yet you want to assert something from left field as if it's relevant to my claims of this story. 
Out of left field...like bats and aardvarks?
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Haha...seriously. We simply say that the lack of evidence for the flood is a problem in the claim that it happened. Further, a number of questions were posed in the thread specific to the flood, that if they were not answered well, would further suggest that the flood couldn't even possibly have happened. You concede that there is no evidence for the flood, yet assert that it happened for some other reason. You don't provide evidence of any sort. You don't solve the actual problems that would make such a proposition unreasonable. I don't know how there is any burden of proof on the atheist (or the Christian or Jew who sees it for the fable it is).
Then the teapot does exist... woah.. or maybe the Earth was really flat until we decided it was round.  I mean lack of evidence pointed to a flat Earth. 
I'll take this as a comment and a brilliant example of your level of intelligence. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Of course I know why you would say it. But any other evidence? Nope. So another piece of scripture with no evidence to support it. Where are all those parts that DO have evidence (a claim that you DO make)? 
Start with the Archaeological Study Bible
I'll be happy to if you pay for it. 
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:

 

What the actual fuck?? You deleted some context which I have re-added just to show everyone how fucking absurd you are.

oh come now, if i was actually as absurd as you claim, you wouldn't need to make an effort to show everyone else... it would be that obvious...

It's possible that someone is coming into this late, and read just that one post, not seeing the context. I re-added it for anyone who is not reading the entire thread start to finish. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Pointing out

J: How do you know info was passed down accurately before they knew how to write?
C: Oral tradition was super accurate

J: Why did they get this part (census...) obviously wrong in the NT?

C: Well they couldn't have written it down, so how were they supposed to get it exact?

Irrelevant response

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Showing that your arguments can be used to support other religions
Allah = Yahweh despite giant differences in detailsKrishna was a real person
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Called god a shitty parent
Called him a typical parent (far less than omnipotent) 
caposkia wrote:
made a complete mess of quotes, and failed to address the argument
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Request to show me what parts of the bible have good evidence for them
Like...all of it. So amazing! Look at it!
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Smaller populations experiencing new selection pressures evolve quicker.
I think that means the flood happened!
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Explanation as to when absence of evidence does = evidence of absence
Asking an atheist who believes the bible to be bullshit if he thinks the flood was world-wide for some reason. 
To add to this, I explained up there what would have to be the case for the flood to have been theologically sound. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Phrase about myriad ways to interpret the bible
But my way is right!
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Lower religion = healthier nation
Religion doesn't mean god!!!...(ignored specific details in post)
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:

Shows ridiculousness of "intelligent design" argument.

Basically agrees he is 12 years old

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

P.S. that was 3 cups of tea.

future suggestion... I use a large cup and leave the bag in. 

Loose leaf tea for me. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I am

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am pretty sure that Jabberwocky already addressed this, it certainly has been mentioned at least in passing in several of the links. The answer is Luca. 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/four-billion-year-old-mystery-last-universal-common-ancestor-solved-1460866

Edit: (http://www.biolbull.org/content/196/3/373.full.pdf) this article is a little dated, but I had it in my bookmarks and thought it was interesting enough at one time to bother putting it there. 

Kind of hypocritical to accuse Jabberwocky of not providing answers. For three pages now he has been asking exactly what gap in the fossils you have a problem with. You seem to think that he should tell you where the gap is, when he doesn't believe one exists. Much like you insist we provide a date for an event we don't believe is possible.

Meanwhile, I'm still checking in to see if you have bothered to answer my questions regarding meteorology and show me why me and the sources I referenced are wrong about the maximum amount of rain physically possible. 

To address the link.  I get the understanding of a universal common ancestor.  What I don't understand is how if there were many starts, only one survived... or by this explanation, why did only one end up with a leaky membrane that allowed it to adapt better?  It is my understanding that logically if one developed something like that, several others could have as well and should have.  Either that or this is proving that life really shouldn't have happened and it is quite an amazing fluke if there is no God.

 

Addressing Jabberwocky not providing answers.  I've told him exactly where I think the gap is.  The problem is, I don't know names, so to make a long argument short, i've asked him to show me where He thinks the transition took place, or the range of fossils where it took place.  This should be easy considering it didn't just happen overnight according to Jab.  also should be easy considering he's the one claiming there is a transition.

 

I have addressed every question that has been brought to my attention on this thread.. if it "wasn't answered" then you have failed to tell me so.  My intention was and is always to answer questions presented.  If I don't know the answer, I will tell you. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote: So why did

BobSpence wrote:

 So why did God choose to design and create things like the Ebola virus, malaria parasites, and other disease causing critters which we are not responsible for, but we have to try and protect ourselves and our helpless children from, and keep doing it as they adapt to our current vaccines or antibiotics?

Hey Bob.  I love when you ask questions.  They are rational, legitimate, to the point and usually quite good.

Like this one.  A very good question. 

I think there are a lot of Christians that are out there that ask this same question.  IT leads to the more general question, why did God create us?  or anything for that matter?   I honestly don't know.  There are theories as to exactly what's going on with disesase and other ailments.

Some base it on the Sin of Adam and Eve and how that sin brought evil and sickness into the world.

There's one more reasonable theory like God trying to show His existence through creation and to show us that we are not in control, but that He is. 

There are other more left field theories too like Satan actually created them, etc.

I adhere to the evolution of disease moreso.  God gave us very specific guidelines to follow in scripture.  First to Adam and Eve, they broke it, then to the rest of us through the Law's of Moses and Jesus.  Through out the millenia, people continuously stray.  I beleive disease is more of an evolutionary butterfly effect gone wrong.  Whatever these diseases originated from, i believe they were not bad, but through many mistakes, even small ones and long evolutionary processes, they evolved into something that ails us today.  As you said, we have to adapt as they adapt to our current vaccines or antibiotics.  It's clear that it's a continuing evolutionary process.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:I'll

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'll summarize most of this.

thought we were done?... I'll address some of this

Jabberwocky wrote:

DNA as a means of reasoning? Do you mean "DNA as evidence for their position"? If so, what DNA evidence supports your position?
they use the sheer complexity of it and that it's too organized to be a random evolutionary process.  Point and case, DNA is not going to convice them of your case.  Nor I.  Based on what we see today in DNA, we take an educated guess as to what it is suggesting about our history.  Based on human limitations, there is a probability that we're wrong especially seeing as some scientists discovered several starts to life and yet somehow still concluded that out of the several one managed to be successful and then suddenly the life starting processes stopped.
Jabberwocky wrote:
I'll let this stand unedited too. You just said "to claim as you do, you would have to know the date". So I would need to give you a date for Anakin Skywalker to suggest that he exists? Then how come you don't need to provide your own date for the flood, and are asking everyone else to do it for you? 
becasue I'm not the one claiming I have evidence other than the story and the Bible itself for or against the flood.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Also, you have a story written. You have an assertion. For the last time, it's not evidence. It is the claim. 
yup, yet you've been trying to tell me that the story never happened, which would suggest you have evidence to back up that claim, which would mean you found a date, which you have neither of.  You also have an assertion.  Unless some evidence comes to the surface around this story.  I at least back it up with the reasoning that other stories within the volume have evidences and there is a congruency between them all. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
If the flood was for the purpose of wiping out all lineages except for Noah (something which we know did not happen. This has been proven genetically), then the flood while not having to be world-wide, it would have at least had to have occurred anywhere that humans live. So we're back to where we were pages upon pages ago. We know the history of humans and their ancestors well enough that we know where we originated, and where we migrated over time. From this, we can determine if the flood occurred x mYa, then it would have had to cover region Y entirely. To wipe out all human life (and perhaps all life) in those regions, it would neccessitate a flood that killed EVERYONE except 8 people on a special boat. Bigger floods leave behind more evidence. No evidence of such a flood has been found in the regions we know humans came from/migrated around to. World-wide or not, there is no evidence for a phenomenon that would leave evidence behind. That suggests that the event did not happen. 
which then would suggest that we've found the evedences for every major flood that has ever occured in history... doubt that.  Again, we must know a timeframe that we are suggesting this couldn't have happened otherwise you're claiming that the needle in the haystack really isn't there because you couldn't find it. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
I'll be happy to if you pay for it. 
get a library card, they're free and most libraries I think would have it or be able to get it for you.. 
jabberwocky wrote:

Loose leaf tea for me. 

done that too from the local tea place


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: I have

caposkia wrote:

I have addressed every question that has been brought to my attention on this thread.. if it "wasn't answered" then you have failed to tell me so.  My intention was and is always to answer questions presented.  If I don't know the answer, I will tell you. 

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32780?page=10#comment-411854

 

Comments #541, 545, & 547-549

 

I'm looking for any model that suggests the rainfall you claim is possible, is in fact possible. You referred me to a movie, then claimed there was a real model underlying that movie. Link me to it please, because I can't find it and as you can see, I found a lot of stuff about meteorology. I just want to know why everything I found is apparently wrong according to you. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32780?page=10#comment-411854

 

Comments #541, 545, & 547-549

 

I'm looking for any model that suggests the rainfall you claim is possible, is in fact possible. You referred me to a movie, then claimed there was a real model underlying that movie. Link me to it please, because I can't find it and as you can see, I found a lot of stuff about meteorology. I just want to know why everything I found is apparently wrong according to you. 

sorry you've had so much trouble.  Basically for the movie they took an extra-tropical cyclone and enlarged it... then multiplied it.  They did that based on a superstorm theory that suggests that very pattern can bring dramatic severe weather changes.. The theory by itself is insufficient to suggest it triggers an ice age like the movie likes to think, but the superstorms do exist in history including in our recent history.  The smaller ones like Superstorm Sandy and the Blizzard of ninety three.  Now part of the theory could also include a stalled extra-tropical cyclone and/or a series of larger more intense extra-tropical cyclones. 

Of course you must consider other geological factors that can magnify an ordinary storm on average, which then would multiply with much larger storms. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extratropical_cyclone

is this sufficient?  I mean if you're looking for someone to construct a model of THEE flood, we have no idea exactly what the weather pattern that God could have created would look like.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:sorry you've

caposkia wrote:

sorry you've had so much trouble.  Basically for the movie they took an extra-tropical cyclone and enlarged it... then multiplied it.  They did that based on a superstorm theory that suggests that very pattern can bring dramatic severe weather changes..

Okay, so the movie took a small reality and made it exponentially false. Movies do that all the time- for example a body flying 10 feet backwards when shot with a shotgun, a very common scene in any action flick, doesn't happen no matter what load you put in the gun. So it is completely irrelevant to your argument. 

 

Quote:

The theory by itself is insufficient to suggest it triggers an ice age like the movie likes to think, but the superstorms do exist in history including in our recent history.  The smaller ones like Superstorm Sandy and the Blizzard of ninety three.  Now part of the theory could also include a stalled extra-tropical cyclone and/or a series of larger more intense extra-tropical cyclones. 

Of course you must consider other geological factors that can magnify an ordinary storm on average, which then would multiply with much larger storms. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extratropical_cyclone

is this sufficient?  I mean if you're looking for someone to construct a model of THEE flood, we have no idea exactly what the weather pattern that God could have created would look like.

 No, it isn't sufficient at all. All you did was link me to a wikipedia site that says big storms happen (which is insulting on its face since I have already gone much further than wiki-deep in this discussion and you were the one who claimed expertise and interest in this field). Yes, I know that. We have seen many big storms and evidence of many big storms in history. That does nothing to support your throwing out that 100 feet of rain in 40 days is physically possible. (Which is several hundred feet less than you assured me was possible using you expertise in meteorology as the authority to make such a statement.) None of the storms referenced in your link or any of the models referred to suggest that the storm you are proposing is possible. 

I am looking for an actual meteorologist who has proposed an actual theoretical model that suggests something even moderately close to what you suggested has happened is actually possible. Specifically, one that explains how you get around the limitations caused by the laws of physics. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I do understand the

 I do understand the importance of slow deconstructors who are willing to wade through a yellow brick road ancient comic book. But Caposkia fails to see is that there is an increase of believers of religions worldwide that know that science is leaving their ancient books in the dust. I have myself over the years debated not just Caposkia but Muslims and Jews and and just this past year a couple of Hindus. All who also claim science backs up their god/s and that their religion were the starting point of science.

You can certainly ask questions about how all the dangerous animals didn't hurt Noah and his family, and they know "poof" is all they have. You can also point out that only one family left would require a bit of incest to to repopulate the planet. You could ask why all the resets from the garden to Noah to Jesus. You can point out to them that their are even older flood motifs in prior polytheism like the Epic of Gilgamesh. Not to mention science says it did NOT happen as the bible dipicts it. 

But not one of word of that book or any holy book with any claimed god, can be worth a damned thing untill you establish that a god is required. Not only is a god not required(any god) science is pointing away from any god being a good answer to fill in a gap. 

Evidence does not start with a naked assertion. So before you get to the meat you have to establish the credibility of the claim before you plug it into an established formula.

You have been at this for years Cap, and all of us including me would say you have been a good sport and you are welcome to continue to try. But the reality is that you have no more evidence that you got it right and you have the one true book and the one correct interptation anymore than a Muslim does or Jew does or Hindu does.

Good logic and good methodogy works like this.

Prior tested established data=established peer accepted formula= Outcome outside personal bias. (handed over afterwards to others for peer reivew)

 

Bad logic is what you do. It is what believers of all religions do.

 

Swallow god claim first first<=Use a book of myth to justify your claim<=Desired outcome based on selection bias and sample rate error.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Stories of major floods are

Stories of major floods are found all over the world, but none of the original ones actually describe fully a truly global flood, because in those times they had no conception of the scale of the world and what a truly global flood would imply or require. The idea, the meme, was very 'catchy', so it spread widely, which is a far more plausible explanation for the wide distribution of vaguely similar stories than that it really occurred on a truly global scale.

If there really had been such a catastrophic event mere thousands of years ago, there is no way to account for the global extent and variety of life we observe today, especially if you are assuming what life eists now had multiplied and evolved from the tiny sample of life forms that could have survived on a single boat, let alone one that could have been constructed at the time.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Stories of

BobSpence wrote:

Stories of major floods are found all over the world, but none of the original ones actually describe fully a truly global flood, because in those times they had no conception of the scale of the world and what a truly global flood would imply or require. The idea, the meme, was very 'catchy', so it spread widely, which is a far more plausible explanation for the wide distribution of vaguely similar stories than that it really occurred on a truly global scale.

If there really had been such a catastrophic event mere thousands of years ago, there is no way to account for the global extent and variety of life we observe today, especially if you are assuming what life eists now had multiplied and evolved from the tiny sample of life forms that could have survived on a single boat, let alone one that could have been constructed at the time.

 

 

There does not have to be a direct connection or record of overlap. Cosmos the series talked about independent worldwide superstitions about comets.  And independent astrological symbols unconnected cultures made up. The simple answer to why superstition and god beliefs and religions exist is that humans have flawed  perceptions.

Flood stories do not have to overlap to pop up in different cultures for the reasons you stated. Ignorance of reality will cause people to come up with independent stories that dipict similar events. 

 

OH CRAP BOB, I cant make a slight correction to what you said, we are butt buddies. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Okay, so

Beyond Saving wrote:

Okay, so the movie took a small reality and made it exponentially false. Movies do that all the time- for example a body flying 10 feet backwards when shot with a shotgun, a very common scene in any action flick, doesn't happen no matter what load you put in the gun. So it is completely irrelevant to your argument. 

but it's based on a theory that they could grow to that size.  The problem the meteorological department had with the movie was not the size of the storms depicted, rather the idea that those storms would suck drastically cold temperatures from upper layers of the atmosphere and instantaniously freeze things on the surface.  There is no rationale that such a phenomenon could possibly occur with any storm... rather most storms suck up, not down... downdrafts are the only exception that I can think of right now and that air is taken from close to the surface and forced downward.   I have yet to experience a downdraft that changed the temperature instantaniously.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 No, it isn't sufficient at all. All you did was link me to a wikipedia site that says big storms happen (which is insulting on its face since I have already gone much further than wiki-deep in this discussion and you were the one who claimed expertise and interest in this field). Yes, I know that. We have seen many big storms and evidence of many big storms in history. That does nothing to support your throwing out that 100 feet of rain in 40 days is physically possible. (Which is several hundred feet less than you assured me was possible using you expertise in meteorology as the authority to make such a statement.) None of the storms referenced in your link or any of the models referred to suggest that the storm you are proposing is possible. 

I am looking for an actual meteorologist who has proposed an actual theoretical model that suggests something even moderately close to what you suggested has happened is actually possible. Specifically, one that explains how you get around the limitations caused by the laws of physics. 

The wiki link was a link to a picture of a superstorm... not the article... if the link sent you to the article I apologize.  The intention was the visual.

You're looking for someone to construct something that can't even be comprehended at this point... Mainly because there has never been any storm since that could compare as suggested by scripture.  Basically it'd be like asking someone to create a model for the lifecycle of a creature you thought up the other night... we don't have knowledge of the storm pattern that occured, we don't know how it came in and whether it was a chain of several storms or one large storm that stalled.   If meteorologists decided to each create their own model for the flood storms you would find likely a thousand different models because it could have happened a thousand different ways. 

What you're looking for is illogical for evidence.. it would hold as much water in the evidence bin as someone modeling the lifecycle of unicorns.  It would have to be imagined... what would you expect them to base it on? 

Throughout the time on here, I have linked you to many many historical storms that not only showed the capability of weather dumping rediculous amounts of rain in short periods of time, but storms that can cause drastic life loss.  Sure, ninety-six inches of rain fell in 3 minutes... that didn't kill 10,000 people, another storm that dropped less rain did... something tells me the volume doesn't need to be to the maximum of nature's abilities necessarily.  We've discussed ground saturation or drought and how sudden rain can react with that, we've talked about pooling and channeling by means of geography, winds, ocean etc... We've looked at it from so many different angles, it's getting really hard to excuse the possibility [even without a god to cause it] and you're looking for a model... as if that would be the only evidence you'd need to consider the possibility despite the fact that the model would have to be from someone's imagination and rationale rather than actual historical evidence of the flood. 

I don't believe the model would work for you even if I could find one.  i'm sure I could call up a friend and ask him [a non-believer mind you]  to create said model for you if you really wanted one, but again, what are you expecting to see that would suddenly convince you that this actually happened?  I can't figure that part out. 

yes, I've expressed expertise in this field... my expertise tells me what you're asking for is not rational.  Models that are not based on observed weather phenomenon are just that, models... they could be a model of the U.S.S. Enterprise for all I care, it would hold just as much credibility without observable evidence. 

Just in case you're going to come up with another excuse, lets' close the deal... I will describe to you the model your'e looking for.

Let's assume they were located somewhere near the southeastern med, reed sea area.  You would need a strong upflow from below the Atlantic tropical convergence zone maybe by a stalled high or upperlevel low.  taht stalled system would likely be somewhere near Florida and/or the Gulf of Mexico... maybe a bit further in the atlantic, but it would turn allt hat tropical moisture north up the Eastern seaboard of the current U.S. of A.  Then we would have a chain of low pressure systems pushing off the eastern seaboard of moderate category, maybe nor-easter type storms or moderate cold fronts.  They would then converge with the ocean storms and be carried northeast.  A dip in the jetstream over the atlantic would then channel the storms to a southeastern direction and start kicking them off fast ... that southeastern direction would bring them south of Europe and into the Med channel directly in to the location in question.  Due to the speed the jetstream would move the storms, they may lose wind potency but would not have been able to lose much moisture since the conversion and would drop it on the desert regions... be it that they were converged storms, they are then superstorms that would cover a range of probably 1000 miles average north to south.  they would finally peter out by the time they got to the Indan Ocean. 

Considering the direction of inflow from the storms hitting the Med directly at the mouth, there would be catestrophic tides that would constantly get pushed with each cycle and the dry desert ground if it was desert at the time would not take in all the moisture and have to flow it out somewhere... likely to the Red sea flooding that out for the time being.

Now this is assuming that Pangea had separated enough to allow such an event... if the lands were much closer together at that time, we would have to think of a whole new scenario... Also just as possible to explain as the situation above... and it would make the land in question even drier... unless we decide they were not located in that land and had since all migrated out to another location.  Then we would have to consider that location and range of migration. 

How far do you really want to go with this?  I can explain it all, just give me the specifics as to where you think the ark was and where people had migrated to as well as geological time frames so we can see exactly what the land looked like at the time. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Stories of

BobSpence wrote:

Stories of major floods are found all over the world, but none of the original ones actually describe fully a truly global flood, because in those times they had no conception of the scale of the world and what a truly global flood would imply or require. The idea, the meme, was very 'catchy', so it spread widely, which is a far more plausible explanation for the wide distribution of vaguely similar stories than that it really occurred on a truly global scale.

If there really had been such a catastrophic event mere thousands of years ago, there is no way to account for the global extent and variety of life we observe today, especially if you are assuming what life eists now had multiplied and evolved from the tiny sample of life forms that could have survived on a single boat, let alone one that could have been constructed at the time.

 

we had established much earlier in this thread that the likely scenario was that it was more localized and that the perspective of anyone witnessing the event would have been that the world flooded out.  Be it that the Bible is written perspectively, it makes sense. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I do

Brian37 wrote:

 I do understand the importance of slow deconstructors who are willing to wade through a yellow brick road ancient comic book. But Caposkia fails to see is that there is an increase of believers of religions worldwide that know that science is leaving their ancient books in the dust. I have myself over the years debated not just Caposkia but Muslims and Jews and and just this past year a couple of Hindus. All who also claim science backs up their god/s and that their religion were the starting point of science.

You can certainly ask questions about how all the dangerous animals didn't hurt Noah and his family, and they know "poof" is all they have. You can also point out that only one family left would require a bit of incest to to repopulate the planet. You could ask why all the resets from the garden to Noah to Jesus. You can point out to them that their are even older flood motifs in prior polytheism like the Epic of Gilgamesh. Not to mention science says it did NOT happen as the bible dipicts it. 

But not one of word of that book or any holy book with any claimed god, can be worth a damned thing untill you establish that a god is required. Not only is a god not required(any god) science is pointing away from any god being a good answer to fill in a gap. 

Evidence does not start with a naked assertion. So before you get to the meat you have to establish the credibility of the claim before you plug it into an established formula.

You have been at this for years Cap, and all of us including me would say you have been a good sport and you are welcome to continue to try. But the reality is that you have no more evidence that you got it right and you have the one true book and the one correct interptation anymore than a Muslim does or Jew does or Hindu does.

Good logic and good methodogy works like this.

Prior tested established data=established peer accepted formula= Outcome outside personal bias. (handed over afterwards to others for peer reivew)

 

Bad logic is what you do. It is what believers of all religions do.

 

Swallow god claim first first<=Use a book of myth to justify your claim<=Desired outcome based on selection bias and sample rate error.

Brian hey bud.  Long time.. where've you been? 

do you have something substantial to add to the conversation this time or are you just here to side track again?

I like your formula for logic and good methodology... it's why there are so many believers in the world, though many of them do add in the personal bias... but just as you do with your belief, everyone who adds the pesonal bias does base it on accepted formulas and established data.  The Bible has been subject to thousands of years of "peer review" and yet no conclusive reasoning to discredit the scriptures.  You seem to think you found something new, but unfortunately I haven't seen it yet from you.  You're welcome to show me what you have on the subject though.  I'm always willing to discuss with you. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: but it's

caposkia wrote:

but it's based on a theory that they could grow to that size.  The problem the meteorological department had with the movie was not the size of the storms depicted, rather the idea that those storms would suck drastically cold temperatures from upper layers of the atmosphere and instantaniously freeze things on the surface.  There is no rationale that such a phenomenon could possibly occur with any storm... rather most storms suck up, not down... downdrafts are the only exception that I can think of right now and that air is taken from close to the surface and forced downward.   I have yet to experience a downdraft that changed the temperature instantaniously.

 

Ok, where is this theory hypothesized? Just the journal citation or at least the name of the person who came up with the theory, I can track it down from there.

 

Quote:

The wiki link was a link to a picture of a superstorm... not the article... if the link sent you to the article I apologize.  The intention was the visual.

So you intended your argument to be even more vacant than it was. I'm not a four year old, I want numbers, not pretty pictures.

 

Quote:

You're looking for someone to construct something that can't even be comprehended at this point... Mainly because there has never been any storm since that could compare as suggested by scripture.  Basically it'd be like asking someone to create a model for the lifecycle of a creature you thought up the other night... we don't have knowledge of the storm pattern that occured, we don't know how it came in and whether it was a chain of several storms or one large storm that stalled.   If meteorologists decided to each create their own model for the flood storms you would find likely a thousand different models because it could have happened a thousand different ways.  

What you're looking for is illogical for evidence.. it would hold as much water in the evidence bin as someone modeling the lifecycle of unicorns.  It would have to be imagined... what would you expect them to base it on? 

Do you even know what a model is? A model that only predicted what already happened would be useless. Models provide mathematical functions that represent the actual physics of weather. Then you input the variables and the model provides a prediction. If it is an accurate model and the variables accurately reflect reality, the prediction will be accurate. Our weather models are continuously reviewed for accuracy. There are also hundreds of them, the most consistently accurate ones are what we use to rely on, but there are always new theoretical models being added, tweaked and proposed that try to be even more accurate. The current models are available at http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gcwmb/mdls.php

It is also very common for scientists to theorize on the worst case scenarios, by putting the worst possible variables into the model. Entire academic journals are devoted to proposing, critiqueing and modifying these models. What are they based on? The laws of physics and the myriad of other variables that influence weather.

 

Quote:

Throughout the time on here, I have linked you to many many historical storms that not only showed the capability of weather dumping rediculous amounts of rain in short periods of time, but storms that can cause drastic life loss.  Sure, ninety-six inches of rain fell in 3 minutes... that didn't kill 10,000 people, another storm that dropped less rain did... something tells me the volume doesn't need to be to the maximum of nature's abilities necessarily.  We've discussed ground saturation or drought and how sudden rain can react with that, we've talked about pooling and channeling by means of geography, winds, ocean etc... We've looked at it from so many different angles, it's getting really hard to excuse the possibility [even without a god to cause it] and you're looking for a model... as if that would be the only evidence you'd need to consider the possibility despite the fact that the model would have to be from someone's imagination and rationale rather than actual historical evidence of the flood. 

No, they just need to create a model that follows the laws of physics. Generally, a model starts with certain assumptions, those are laid out at the beginning, then a description of the variables considered, the constants used and the actual function of the model. For example, the theory of hypercanes is a completely theoretical model proposed. (Emanuel, K. A.K. SpeerR. RotunnoR. Srivastava, and M. Molina (1995), Hypercanes: A possible link in global extinction scenariosJ. Geophys. Res.100(D7), 1375513765)

This theory uses known physics, but relies on the extreme assumption of an ocean that reaches boiling temperatures. The team suggests that such high temperatures could be achieved by a massive underwater volcano or by a large meteorite. Even this theory doesn't predict anywhere near 200 feet of rain. Of course, with such a storm, rain is the least of your worries. The 58 foot high swells of boiling ocean water would be far more dangerous and a wooden boat isn't going to save you.

 

Quote:

I don't believe the model would work for you even if I could find one.  i'm sure I could call up a friend and ask him [a non-believer mind you]  to create said model for you if you really wanted one, but again, what are you expecting to see that would suddenly convince you that this actually happened?  I can't figure that part out. 

Lol, a friend? I'll have my billionaire Nigerian Prince uncle wire you the money..... you shouldn't have to create a model. There are hundreds if not thousands of models designed to predict rainfall, and many are accurate witgin inches. You asserted to me as a fact that 200 feet of rain in 40 days is physically possible. I am asking for proof. Which model are you using, what assumptions and what would the variables have to be for that to occur? (and because I am generous, I am happy to consider just 100 feet) Are you telling me that you asserted the possibility as a fact and argued from your own authority without any kind of theoretical framework to surround it?

Do you still stand by your statement that 200 feet of rain in 40 days is possible?

 

Quote:

yes, I've expressed expertise in this field... my expertise tells me what you're asking for is not rational.  Models that are not based on observed weather phenomenon are just that, models... they could be a model of the U.S.S. Enterprise for all I care, it would hold just as much credibility without observable evidence. 

Just in case you're going to come up with another excuse, lets' close the deal... I will describe to you the model your'e looking for.

Let's assume they were located somewhere near the southeastern med, reed sea area.  You would need a strong upflow from below the Atlantic tropical convergence zone maybe by a stalled high or upperlevel low.  taht stalled system would likely be somewhere near Florida and/or the Gulf of Mexico... maybe a bit further in the atlantic, but it would turn allt hat tropical moisture north up the Eastern seaboard of the current U.S. of A.  Then we would have a chain of low pressure systems pushing off the eastern seaboard of moderate category, maybe nor-easter type storms or moderate cold fronts.  They would then converge with the ocean storms and be carried northeast.  A dip in the jetstream over the atlantic would then channel the storms to a southeastern direction and start kicking them off fast ... that southeastern direction would bring them south of Europe and into the Med channel directly in to the location in question.  Due to the speed the jetstream would move the storms, they may lose wind potency but would not have been able to lose much moisture since the conversion and would drop it on the desert regions... be it that they were converged storms, they are then superstorms that would cover a range of probably 1000 miles average north to south.  they would finally peter out by the time they got to the Indan Ocean. 

Considering the direction of inflow from the storms hitting the Med directly at the mouth, there would be catestrophic tides that would constantly get pushed with each cycle and the dry desert ground if it was desert at the time would not take in all the moisture and have to flow it out somewhere... likely to the Red sea flooding that out for the time being.

Now this is assuming that Pangea had separated enough to allow such an event... if the lands were much closer together at that time, we would have to think of a whole new scenario... Also just as possible to explain as the situation above... and it would make the land in question even drier... unless we decide they were not located in that land and had since all migrated out to another location.  Then we would have to consider that location and range of migration. 

How far do you really want to go with this?  I can explain it all, just give me the specifics as to where you think the ark was and where people had migrated to as well as geological time frames so we can see exactly what the land looked like at the time. 

And you pull more stuff out your ass. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I don't trust you. I believe you flat out lied to me. That is why I am asking for an outside source that supports you. I have found journal articles that propose models to predict the strongest possible hurricanes, the strongest possible tornados the largest possible tsunamis etc. These all get a lot of media attention, so they are easy to find for someone like me who doesn't read meteorlogical journals regularly. But I am confident that there has to be articles proposing the most possible rain too. Since you have the expertise, you ought to be able to point me towards the relevent articles. If you can't do that than your idea and my idea of having 'expertise' in a field are radically different. If I claim expertise, I can provide numerous sources to support my assertions of facts.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

they use the sheer complexity of it and that it's too organized to be a random evolutionary process.  Point and case, DNA is not going to convice them of your case.  Nor I.  Based on what we see today in DNA, we take an educated guess as to what it is suggesting about our history.  Based on human limitations, there is a probability that we're wrong especially seeing as some scientists discovered several starts to life and yet somehow still concluded that out of the several one managed to be successful and then suddenly the life starting processes stopped.
 Didn't we already address this? Creationists say "oh look how complex DNA is. Must have been god!". They of course don't study it any further. Those who aren't creationists and actually study it, find that like homology, geographic distribution, the fossil record, DNA follows precisely the same pattern and to anyone who isn't willfully ignorant, can only lead one to one conclusion. The thing is, this doesn't mean that a god didn't design the DNA code. Is there room in your model for god to have designed the DNA code to just run on its own as it does, and have let evolution run its course from the start? If yes, you must concede that the flood didn't happen. If no, then you must be willing to ignore facts. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
I'll let this stand unedited too. You just said "to claim as you do, you would have to know the date". So I would need to give you a date for Anakin Skywalker to suggest that he exists? Then how come you don't need to provide your own date for the flood, and are asking everyone else to do it for you? 
becasue I'm not the one claiming I have evidence other than the story and the Bible itself for or against the flood.
I know that. Except you are still adamant that it happened, and you continue to post in this thread despite admitting you have no evidence. The only thing you've done since the very beginning of this thread is misrepresent people, provide arguments that contradict ones you made earlier, and attempt to propose the most absurd shifting of the burden of proof that I've ever heard somebody try.  
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
Also, you have a story written. You have an assertion. For the last time, it's not evidence. It is the claim. 
yup, yet you've been trying to tell me that the story never happened, which would suggest you have evidence to back up that claim, which would mean you found a date, which you have neither of.  You also have an assertion.  Unless some evidence comes to the surface around this story.  I at least back it up with the reasoning that other stories within the volume have evidences and there is a congruency between them all. 
I do have evidence that the flood never happened. There is no convceivable way that all of the animals necessary could have fit on that boat. Whichever numbers you want to toss in, you either end up with evolution having to have occurred extremely rapidly, or not enough room on the boat. No creationist has been able to solve this problem, and such a problem is actually evidence for the event having never happened. If you don't wish to come up with a model that works, then we are done (maybe, I seem to keep coming back...) The other part of the bolded section is asinine as well! What does finding a date have to do with it? We're not checking this via time machine. We're checking this by examining the evidence. What difference does it make if the flood occurred 4000 years ago or 2 million? The evidence may look different for sure. However, the evidence for a flood big enough to wipe out all such life (whether it was world-wide or not) would have left a noticeable footprint that we could examine today. Our failure to find that suggests it didn't happen. So how would it help, then, if I were to propose a date? It wouldn't. You have simply come up with this wacky standard to disprove your claim. You would either not agree on any date proposed, or you would agree on a date, and then say "it must have happened at a different time" if we were able to somehow check evidence that we would specifically only find if the flood occurred during a certain timeframe. This is just like you did with fossils. You still have not gone back and mentioned the 2 historical human ancestral species between which you find a problematic gap concerning the transition in pelvis from a quadrupedal one to a bipedal one. This is for the exact same reason. You keep everything as vague and open-ended as possible. I think it was Matt Dillahunty who said this, but I'm not sure. I just think it was quite brilliant, and it applies here. He was told by a caller into his show that they feel like he's trying to back them into a corner (or something of the sort). His response was basically "yes I am." The reason for that is that the caller's position was logically impossible (much like yours). If you don't even let our discussion get to the point where we can get specific about your claim, then you will feel that you've won, because your position hasn't been disproven. It's much like someone saying "I bet you it never gets hotter than 30 degrees in Canada" and then feel like they've won the argument, because the person refused to look at a thermometer. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
If the flood was for the purpose of wiping out all lineages except for Noah (something which we know did not happen. This has been proven genetically), then the flood while not having to be world-wide, it would have at least had to have occurred anywhere that humans live. So we're back to where we were pages upon pages ago. We know the history of humans and their ancestors well enough that we know where we originated, and where we migrated over time. From this, we can determine if the flood occurred x mYa, then it would have had to cover region Y entirely. To wipe out all human life (and perhaps all life) in those regions, it would neccessitate a flood that killed EVERYONE except 8 people on a special boat. Bigger floods leave behind more evidence. No evidence of such a flood has been found in the regions we know humans came from/migrated around to. World-wide or not, there is no evidence for a phenomenon that would leave evidence behind. That suggests that the event did not happen. 
which then would suggest that we've found the evedences for every major flood that has ever occured in history... doubt that.  Again, we must know a timeframe that we are suggesting this couldn't have happened otherwise you're claiming that the needle in the haystack really isn't there because you couldn't find it. 
No, I'm not at all saying that. For the flood to have happened within your parameters (seemingly), it would have to have happened to all humans alive at some point. So the flood wouldn't have predated humans. We have a very good idea where, and almost as good an idea of when the human species originated. If the flood occurred in the very early days, it would have had to occur in Africa. Due to migration, the later it occurred, the bigger an area it would have had to cover, as humans were spread out more widely. Do you agree so far? 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
I'll be happy to if you pay for it. 
get a library card, they're free and most libraries I think would have it or be able to get it for you.. 
I will give that a look at some point. It will be entertaining. 
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:

Loose leaf tea for me. 

done that too from the local tea place

Yum

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Ok,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ok, where is this theory hypothesized? Just the journal citation or at least the name of the person who came up with the theory, I can track it down from there.

well they don't really have to theorize after superstorm Sandy, but look up any credible meteorologists analysis of superstorm Sandy and why that storm was so big. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So you intended your argument to be even more vacant than it was. I'm not a four year old, I want numbers, not pretty pictures.

numbers of what? you were looking for where they got the idea from, i gave you a picture of the actual storm. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you even know what a model is? A model that only predicted what already happened would be useless. Models provide mathematical functions that represent the actual physics of weather. Then you input the variables and the model provides a prediction. If it is an accurate model and the variables accurately reflect reality, the prediction will be accurate. Our weather models are continuously reviewed for accuracy. There are also hundreds of them, the most consistently accurate ones are what we use to rely on, but there are always new theoretical models being added, tweaked and proposed that try to be even more accurate. The current models are available at http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gcwmb/mdls.php

It is also very common for scientists to theorize on the worst case scenarios, by putting the worst possible variables into the model. Entire academic journals are devoted to proposing, critiqueing and modifying these models. What are they based on? The laws of physics and the myriad of other variables that influence weather.

the link you gave me is of forecast models.  Those are based on current weather patterns and progressions that allow a computer to calculate the most likely outcome within the next few days.  The further out you go with those computer based models, the worse the accuracy is.  If that's your idea of a model, then your margin or error is going to be worse than your odds of winning the lottery ten times in the same year when considering the Noah flood. 

It is common for scientists to theorize the worst case scenarios... which is why Ted Fugita had put an F6 ranking on his original tornado scale though one to that magnitude had never existed... To solve the problem of that being exceeded his new scale goes on level of damage and leaves the high end open.   The thing with predicting the worst case scenarios with weather is we've learned that we just can't.  Just when we think we've seen the "storm of the century" another one comes to dwarf it. 

though I'd like to see a link to weather models of predicted worst case scenarios... I'm not sure if I've ever seen one. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, they just need to create a model that follows the laws of physics. Generally, a model starts with certain assumptions, those are laid out at the beginning, then a description of the variables considered, the constants used and the actual function of the model. For example, the theory of hypercanes is a completely theoretical model proposed. (Emanuel, K. A.K. SpeerR. RotunnoR. Srivastava, and M. Molina (1995), Hypercanes: A possible link in global extinction scenariosJ. Geophys. Res.100(D7), 1375513765)

This theory uses known physics, but relies on the extreme assumption of an ocean that reaches boiling temperatures. The team suggests that such high temperatures could be achieved by a massive underwater volcano or by a large meteorite. Even this theory doesn't predict anywhere near 200 feet of rain. Of course, with such a storm, rain is the least of your worries. The 58 foot high swells of boiling ocean water would be far more dangerous and a wooden boat isn't going to save you.

yes, hurricanes of that magnitude woudl be more damaging by their winds, not the rainfall necessarily, though that would be magnified as well. 

Let me ask you this... how many feet of rain do you think would fall then if one of those hypercanes stalled over a location.  You can use that source you provided... and yes it would be feet.

Then consider how that would affect the land and local waters. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lol, a friend? I'll have my billionaire Nigerian Prince uncle wire you the money..... you shouldn't have to create a model. There are hundreds if not thousands of models designed to predict rainfall, and many are accurate witgin inches. You asserted to me as a fact that 200 feet of rain in 40 days is physically possible. I am asking for proof. Which model are you using, what assumptions and what would the variables have to be for that to occur? (and because I am generous, I am happy to consider just 100 feet) Are you telling me that you asserted the possibility as a fact and argued from your own authority without any kind of theoretical framework to surround it?

Do you still stand by your statement that 200 feet of rain in 40 days is possible?

I based that on all the links I had posted and information I had compiled showing the vast amounts of rain that can fall in short periods... Considering that it is possible in short periods, if there is a God, why could He not make that happen in a sequence that could cause catestrophic flooding in an area?  I mean we are talking about the possibility that GOD caused a flood that wiped out humanity right?  You know, the one that allegedly created everything including the weather patterns of Earth and its limitations. 

So yes, I still stand by that statement...

In my efforts to find you something that might appease your strange model addiction, I came across this link.  No "model" as in what you're looking for, but a lot of information as to the probability of the flood being severe enough to be like the Bible described and why it could have been so severe in the likely location that it happened in;

http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-flood-may-have-happened-not-over-whole-earth

...and yes they use references... even one better for you, the author of the article uses his geology expertise to counter arguements by anti-evolutionists. 

If this doesn't appease you, I'm going to conclude nothing really will.

Beyond Saving wrote:

And you pull more stuff out your ass. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I don't trust you. I believe you flat out lied to me. That is why I am asking for an outside source that supports you. I have found journal articles that propose models to predict the strongest possible hurricanes, the strongest possible tornados the largest possible tsunamis etc. These all get a lot of media attention, so they are easy to find for someone like me who doesn't read meteorlogical journals regularly. But I am confident that there has to be articles proposing the most possible rain too. Since you have the expertise, you ought to be able to point me towards the relevent articles. If you can't do that than your idea and my idea of having 'expertise' in a field are radically different. If I claim expertise, I can provide numerous sources to support my assertions of facts.

yea, I knew that was going to be a waste of my time.... and to think I almost decided not to post it.

and for the record, I assume non-believers don't trust me.   Why would you?  However, once someone explains in great detail a meteorological scenario that climatologically works, you need to explain to me why what I just explained couldn't happen, otherwise you have no basis for your distrust other than ignorance.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote: Didn't

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Didn't we already address this? Creationists say "oh look how complex DNA is. Must have been god!". They of course don't study it any further. Those who aren't creationists and actually study it, find that like homology, geographic distribution, the fossil record, DNA follows precisely the same pattern and to anyone who isn't willfully ignorant, can only lead one to one conclusion. The thing is, this doesn't mean that a god didn't design the DNA code. Is there room in your model for god to have designed the DNA code to just run on its own as it does, and have let evolution run its course from the start? If yes, you must concede that the flood didn't happen. If no, then you must be willing to ignore facts. 
I'm sure we did, but you seem to prefer redundancy.  Creationists study it too.  It's the patterns that convince them becuase without an intelligient designer, patterns don't exist or are just a fluke right?and didn't I already say that I believe God set the system into motion and let's it run its course.  however I don't see your reasoning that I must concede that the flood didn't happen if I accept that unless you found a date for the flood.  Have you found a date for the flood?  If so please link me that source. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
I know that. Except you are still adamant that it happened, and you continue to post in this thread despite admitting you have no evidence. The only thing you've done since the very beginning of this thread is misrepresent people, provide arguments that contradict ones you made earlier, and attempt to propose the most absurd shifting of the burden of proof that I've ever heard somebody try. 
as do you... so where does that leave us?
Beyond Saving wrote:
 
jabberwocky wrote:
I do have evidence that the flood never happened. There is no convceivable way that all of the animals necessary could have fit on that boat. Whichever numbers you want to toss in, you either end up with evolution having to have occurred extremely rapidly, or not enough room on the boat. No creationist has been able to solve this problem, and such a problem is actually evidence for the event having never happened. If you don't wish to come up with a model that works, then we are done (maybe, I seem to keep coming back...)
and we've established that rapid evolutionary segments are possible and depending on the date fo the flood and the "kinds" can work.  but to decide it can't would again suggest you have figured out a date... Creationists can't empirically solve the evolutionary problem because they don't buy into the delusion that they can figure out the date of the flood. 
Beyond Saving wrote:
 The other part of the bolded section is asinine as well! What does finding a date have to do with it? We're not checking this via time machine. We're checking this by examining the evidence. What difference does it make if the flood occurred 4000 years ago or 2 million? The evidence may look different for sure. However, the evidence for a flood big enough to wipe out all such life (whether it was world-wide or not) would have left a noticeable footprint that we could examine today. Our failure to find that suggests it didn't happen. So how would it help, then, if I were to propose a date? It wouldn't. You have simply come up with this wacky standard to disprove your claim. You would either not agree on any date proposed, or you would agree on a date, and then say "it must have happened at a different time" if we were able to somehow check evidence that we would specifically only find if the flood occurred during a certain timeframe.
actually, I just posted a link in the response to Beyond Saving that explains evidence of the flood by what seems to be a non-believer.  He also holds my understanding that the flood wasn't world wide and goes on to explain why the Biblical account could have perspectively seemed so.  Your failure to do your homework on the subject doesn't help your case though be it that many talk about its likelihood be it that pretty much everyone believes the severe flood in that area was not unusual in ancient times anyway, this one would have just topped them all... and considering that if the Noah flood was real that would assume a God did create it, even more reason to consider its liklihood.
Beyond Saving wrote:
 This is just like you did with fossils. You still have not gone back and mentioned the 2 historical human ancestral species between which you find a problematic gap concerning the transition in pelvis from a quadrupedal one to a bipedal one. This is for the exact same reason. You keep everything as vague and open-ended as possible. I think it was Matt Dillahunty who said this, but I'm not sure. I just think it was quite brilliant, and it applies here. He was told by a caller into his show that they feel like he's trying to back them into a corner (or something of the sort). His response was basically "yes I am." The reason for that is that the caller's position was logically impossible (much like yours). If you don't even let our discussion get to the point where we can get specific about your claim, then you will feel that you've won, because your position hasn't been disproven. It's much like someone saying "I bet you it never gets hotter than 30 degrees in Canada" and then feel like they've won the argument, because the person refused to look at a thermometer. 
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question of which fossils are the transitional fossils, you refused to answer.  that would help me explain to you what I think the problem is here... wanna progress in the conversation?  provide that answer... just that.   
Jabberwocky wrote:
No, I'm not at all saying that. For the flood to have happened within your parameters (seemingly), it would have to have happened to all humans alive at some point. So the flood wouldn't have predated humans. We have a very good idea where, and almost as good an idea of when the human species originated. If the flood occurred in the very early days, it would have had to occur in Africa. Due to migration, the later it occurred, the bigger an area it would have had to cover, as humans were spread out more widely. Do you agree so far? 
more specifically northern Africa into current day Iraq, so yea


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ok, where is this theory hypothesized? Just the journal citation or at least the name of the person who came up with the theory, I can track it down from there.

well they don't really have to theorize after superstorm Sandy, but look up any credible meteorologists analysis of superstorm Sandy and why that storm was so big. 

Yes, it was big. It was also exponentially smaller than what you have proposed is possible. Do you know the meaning of the word "exponential"? How much rain did Sandy produce? 10.2 inches (and unconfirmed, maybe over 1 foot in some places). That is 199 ft less than you have proposed is possible. Which isn't a surprise because hurricanes are generally not the source of the heaviest observed rainfalls. I explained earlier about cloudbursts, how the are caused and why they produce such large amounts of rain in such a short time. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121101172152.htm

 

caposkia wrote:

numbers of what? you were looking for where they got the idea from, i gave you a picture of the actual storm. 

I want the numbers from the model that predicts it. What would the barometric pressure have to be? What would the surface temperatures have to be? What about the air temperatures? Etc. I am asking you, as someone who claims to have knowledge on the subject, what conditions would theoretically have to look like to create the storm you claim is possible, and please link to the model that you use to put the variables in- because I am becoming increasingly convinced that your knowledge of physics is less than mine and mine isn't that great. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

the link you gave me is of forecast models.  Those are based on current weather patterns and progressions that allow a computer to calculate the most likely outcome within the next few days.  The further out you go with those computer based models, the worse the accuracy is.  If that's your idea of a model, then your margin or error is going to be worse than your odds of winning the lottery ten times in the same year when considering the Noah flood. 

Yes, that is what we are doing. You are forcasting a storm as possible- I am asking what conditions (what the variables would have to be) to create the storm you are proposing. I am suggesting that whatever model you use, there are NO realistic variables you could put into the model that would predict anywhere near the amount of rain you asserted as possible. The link about hypercanes proposed what would happen if the entire ocean was literally boiling and that isn't enough to create the rain you suggest. It doesn't get much more extreme than that and I think we can say with near certainty, that if the ocean were boiling, any humans near the ocean would be dead long before it started raining. Why would a model that is capable of predicting the amount of rain in a given location to within an inch or two as well as the time it will happen to within a couple of minutes? There are few models in the world that are as accurate, consistently tweaked and updated as often as our weather models. What variables would we have to enter in to these models to create a prediction of 200 feet of rain over 40 days? 

 

Caposkia wrote:

It is common for scientists to theorize the worst case scenarios... which is why Ted Fugita had put an F6 ranking on his original tornado scale though one to that magnitude had never existed... To solve the problem of that being exceeded his new scale goes on level of damage and leaves the high end open.   The thing with predicting the worst case scenarios with weather is we've learned that we just can't.  Just when we think we've seen the "storm of the century" another one comes to dwarf it. 

though I'd like to see a link to weather models of predicted worst case scenarios... I'm not sure if I've ever seen one. 

I provided you with the journal reference for a model that hypothesizes hypercanes, read it. 

 

caposkia wrote:

yes, hurricanes of that magnitude woudl be more damaging by their winds, not the rainfall necessarily, though that would be magnified as well. 

Let me ask you this... how many feet of rain do you think would fall then if one of those hypercanes stalled over a location.  You can use that source you provided... and yes it would be feet.

Then consider how that would affect the land and local waters.

Hypercanes wouldn't produce large amounts of concentrated rainfall. I thought you had expertise in meteorology? Faster storms produce less rainfall than slow storms. A hypercane, with wind speeds over several hundred miles per hour would likely only produce much less rain than we observe in hurricanes. 

caposkia wrote:

I based that on all the links I had posted and information I had compiled showing the vast amounts of rain that can fall in short periods... Considering that it is possible in short periods, if there is a God, why could He not make that happen in a sequence that could cause catestrophic flooding in an area?  I mean we are talking about the possibility that GOD caused a flood that wiped out humanity right?  You know, the one that allegedly created everything including the weather patterns of Earth and its limitations.

Yes, and I shredded the absurdity of your linear thinking. Weather doesn't happen linearly. That is why I am asking you to provide evidence from a meteorologist that supports what you expressed as fact. If your answer is that god made an exception to the laws of physics, then fine. I can't argue against that. So it is physically impossible, but physical impossibility doesn't matter when you are talking about an omnipotent being. That is directly contrary to your earlier statement that you believed god follows the rules he implemented and only influenced the world in ways consistent with them. But if that is your position, don't sit there and pretend that you have expertise in meteorology and that 200 feet of rain in 40 days is possible within our weather system without divine intervention. 

 

caposkia wrote:

In my efforts to find you something that might appease your strange model addiction, I came across this link.  No "model" as in what you're looking for, but a lot of information as to the probability of the flood being severe enough to be like the Bible described and why it could have been so severe in the likely location that it happened in;

http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-flood-may-have-happened-not-over-whole-earth

...and yes they use references... even one better for you, the author of the article uses his geology expertise to counter arguements by anti-evolutionists. 

If this doesn't appease you, I'm going to conclude nothing really will.

Did you read the link? The author suggests that there was merely a large flood in the area- nowhere near the largest flood in the world, but likely a worldwide flood to someone who lived in that time period. Indeed, that is exactly what I have suggested ALL along that the story is simply the exagerations of a real flood that wiped out a few villages and maybe there was even someone named Noah, who survived and as far as he knew, was the only family of survivors. (Finding other survivors after a flood in those days would have been a real pain in the ass. Especially if you loaded a couple goats on your boat and had no clue where you were when the water slows.) Then went on to establish a family, which grew to a tribe and the story got passed down and suddenly the little boat for the family became an ark and their couple of goats became every animal in the world and god gets thrown in. It is easy to see how such a story could evolve with history being passed by oral tradition among superstitious people. Just look at how quickly movies influence what people think happened in history even though they are fictional and we live in a society where things can be fact checked quickly with minimal effort. People like their superstitions. 

Nowhere in that link does the author suggest anywhere near 200 feet of rain. It suggests a really large localized flood in 2900 BC as the source of the myth. Obviously, long after humans were spread over a much larger portion of the world, so it was "worldwide" only for those who lived in the village. The rest of the humans (and animals) in the world didn't even notice. There have been a few other floods in that area that people have suggested might have been the source of the myth. 

 

Cap wrote:

yea, I knew that was going to be a waste of my time.... and to think I almost decided not to post it.

and for the record, I assume non-believers don't trust me.   Why would you?  However, once someone explains in great detail a meteorological scenario that climatologically works, you need to explain to me why what I just explained couldn't happen, otherwise you have no basis for your distrust other than ignorance.

I don't mistrust you because of your religion. I don't trust you because I believe you flat out lied to me and you have been extremely evasive when I called you out on it. You said you have expertise in meteorology, you said that 200 feet of rain in 40 days is physically possible. I have asked REPEATEDLY for a source that agrees with you. You have responded with lists of large storms that didn't produce anywhere near that level of rain, you produced world records showing heavy rainfall for minutes and tried to extrapolate that linearly when anyone who knows jack shit about weather ought to know that weather isn't linear. You have demonstrated a complete disregard for the basics of meteorology, you completely failed to address my points about cloud bursts and why they are limited. You have failed to provide any reason why Dr. Lyons isn't credible with his estimates of the maximum possible rainfall. You seem to readily disregard any discussion of the limitations on rainfall caused by the laws of physics, and you seem to have a complete disregard for the usefullness of models to predict what type of weather is possible- odd for someone who claims expertise in a field that is almost completely dependent on models- creating, testing and analyzing models is what meteorologists DO. I'm not entirely certain that you actually grasp what a model is. 

The only conclusions I can come to is that either you don't know as much about meteorology as you claimed, you are intentionally lying to me about what is possible in regards to rainfall because it fits your desired narrative better, or you think I am too stupid to have an in depth discussion regarding meteorology.  Which one is it? None of the above?

Then why are you unwilling or incapable of providing a decently in depth source that supports your assertion that 200 feet of rainfall in 40 days is possible? Forget all the peripheral stuff- I want the ONE fact corroborated. After that is corroborated, or you agree that it can't be, then we can move on to the other stuff.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I want

Beyond Saving wrote:

I want the numbers from the model that predicts it. What would the barometric pressure have to be? What would the surface temperatures have to be? What about the air temperatures? Etc. I am asking you, as someone who claims to have knowledge on the subject, what conditions would theoretically have to look like to create the storm you claim is possible, and please link to the model that you use to put the variables in- because I am becoming increasingly convinced that your knowledge of physics is less than mine and mine isn't that great. 

Barametric pressure would be variable depending on whether it was one large stalled storm or several smaller storms that consistently dropped rain.  Surface temperatures would have to be warm enough to allow rain and not frozen precip, but cold enough to allow warm moist tropical air to be squeezed out onto the location.  Air temps would have to be warm moist air with a layer of colder air on top and likely warmer surface temperatures to allow storm clouds to peak and drop the largest amount of rain..

for someone who claims they don't have much knowledge of physics you have no basis then to analyze someone elses knowledge of the subject.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, that is what we are doing. You are forcasting a storm as possible- I am asking what conditions (what the variables would have to be) to create the storm you are proposing. I am suggesting that whatever model you use, there are NO realistic variables you could put into the model that would predict anywhere near the amount of rain you asserted as possible. The link about hypercanes proposed what would happen if the entire ocean was literally boiling and that isn't enough to create the rain you suggest. It doesn't get much more extreme than that and I think we can say with near certainty, that if the ocean were boiling, any humans near the ocean would be dead long before it started raining. Why would a model that is capable of predicting the amount of rain in a given location to within an inch or two as well as the time it will happen to within a couple of minutes? There are few models in the world that are as accurate, consistently tweaked and updated as often as our weather models. What variables would we have to enter in to these models to create a prediction of 200 feet of rain over 40 days? 

Do you know what fore-casting means?  Fore means before the event and casting is analyzing the locatino of said storm and its likely track... Forecasting is not used to predict what has already happened. 

AS I said, i wasted my time giving you the previous analyzation and verbal model, so why bother here when you've already determined that anything I present is not going to be realistic.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Hypercanes wouldn't produce large amounts of concentrated rainfall. I thought you had expertise in meteorology? Faster storms produce less rainfall than slow storms. A hypercane, with wind speeds over several hundred miles per hour would likely only produce much less rain than we observe in hurricanes. 

IF IT STALLED.. that's what i was asking you

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, and I shredded the absurdity of your linear thinking. Weather doesn't happen linearly. That is why I am asking you to provide evidence from a meteorologist that supports what you expressed as fact. If your answer is that god made an exception to the laws of physics, then fine. I can't argue against that. So it is physically impossible, but physical impossibility doesn't matter when you are talking about an omnipotent being. That is directly contrary to your earlier statement that you believed god follows the rules he implemented and only influenced the world in ways consistent with them. But if that is your position, don't sit there and pretend that you have expertise in meteorology and that 200 feet of rain in 40 days is possible within our weather system without divine intervention. 

what was linear about that statement?  I believe my original statement about how God works is that he typically doesnt' break the laws, not that He never does or never has.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Did you read the link? The author suggests that there was merely a large flood in the area- nowhere near the largest flood in the world, but likely a worldwide flood to someone who lived in that time period.

 

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU.  His perspective is that it wasn't the largest in the world, but comparable to others int he location... the point is, severe floods happen in that location... the severity being compared as not the worst is merely speculation. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Indeed, that is exactly what I have suggested ALL along that the story is simply the exagerations of a real flood that wiped out a few villages and maybe there was even someone named Noah, who survived and as far as he knew, was the only family of survivors. (Finding other survivors after a flood in those days would have been a real pain in the ass. Especially if you loaded a couple goats on your boat and had no clue where you were when the water slows.) Then went on to establish a family, which grew to a tribe and the story got passed down and suddenly the little boat for the family became an ark and their couple of goats became every animal in the world and god gets thrown in. It is easy to see how such a story could evolve with history being passed by oral tradition among superstitious people. Just look at how quickly movies influence what people think happened in history even though they are fictional and we live in a society where things can be fact checked quickly with minimal effort. People like their superstitions. 

well, we're getting somewhere... at least you're admiting even a remote possibility at this point, even if you're downsizing the likelihood of the story as written.  That's further than we've gotten in a long time.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Nowhere in that link does the author suggest anywhere near 200 feet of rain. It suggests a really large localized flood in 2900 BC as the source of the myth. Obviously, long after humans were spread over a much larger portion of the world, so it was "worldwide" only for those who lived in the village. The rest of the humans (and animals) in the world didn't even notice. There have been a few other floods in that area that people have suggested might have been the source of the myth. 

yea, I read the article... the point was that major floods happen and that a non-believer is adimittinig it's possibility in that part of the world... I dont' agree with his dating and that the flood he found was likely not thee flood, but that his reasoning is based on real world evidence.  It supports what i've been telling you the whole time that the flood was not worldwide, likely was localized, but wide enough to have covered a large portion of land.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't mistrust you because of your religion. I don't trust you because I believe you flat out lied to me

 

quote my lie so I may address it

Beyond Saving wrote:

and you have been extremely evasive when I called you out on it.

and every time you use the evasive card I address it directly.  These to me are excuses from you at this point.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You said you have expertise in meteorology, you said that 200 feet of rain in 40 days is physically possible. I have asked REPEATEDLY for a source that agrees with you. You have responded with lists of large storms that didn't produce anywhere near that level of rain, you produced world records showing heavy rainfall for minutes and tried to extrapolate that linearly when anyone who knows jack shit about weather ought to know that weather isn't linear.

no storm has existed to the severity of the flood storm since the flood storm, why would you expect a source?  The minutes of heavy rain should be evidence that rediculous amounts of rain over longer periods of time is very possible considering the apporpriate conditions. 

anyone who knows Jack shit about weather would not have asked me to waste my time proving the possibility of large amounts of rain that could cause drastic volumes of ground water.  I have more than proven my knowledge of weather by giving you a full explanatino that obviously was way over your head and was dismissed without proper analyzation and regard to the detail. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

You have demonstrated a complete disregard for the basics of meteorology, you completely failed to address my points about cloud bursts and why they are limited. You have failed to provide any reason why Dr. Lyons isn't credible with his estimates of the maximum possible rainfall.

maybe I missed Dr. Lyons predictions of maximum possible rainfall, where was that linked?  or was that the guy who was predicting it based on a world wide flood and not the localized flood that I've been talking about.  If He was reasoning using the volume of water in the oceans and on Earth to rationalize that the noah flood couldn't happen, thent aht would be why it wasn't addressed... The noah flood likely was not world wide and would nto need the volume of water that Dr. Lyons predicted if that's the one I'm thinking it is.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You seem to readily disregard any discussion of the limitations on rainfall caused by the laws of physics, and you seem to have a complete disregard for the usefullness of models to predict what type of weather is possible- odd for someone who claims expertise in a field that is almost completely dependent on models- creating, testing and analyzing models is what meteorologists DO. I'm not entirely certain that you actually grasp what a model is. 

I'm not entirely certain that you actually grasp what meteorology is.  your statements are definitely based on ignorance. no offense.

Beyond Saving wrote:

The only conclusions I can come to is that either you don't know as much about meteorology as you claimed, you are intentionally lying to me about what is possible in regards to rainfall because it fits your desired narrative better, or you think I am too stupid to have an in depth discussion regarding meteorology.  Which one is it? None of the above?

Then why are you unwilling or incapable of providing a decently in depth source that supports your assertion that 200 feet of rainfall in 40 days is possible? Forget all the peripheral stuff- I want the ONE fact corroborated. After that is corroborated, or you agree that it can't be, then we can move on to the other stuff.  

I'm incapable because I don't think anyone ever found it necessary to actually try to create a model or several models covering all the possibilities of a stom that we don't know the exact location of, intensity of, year of, and pattern of. 

I ahve shown you not only rediculous possibilities of rain in short periods of time opening the possibility of more rain in longer periods of time.  I found a non-believer using real world information to confirm the possibility of a noah like flood despite the dating discrepencies. 

i haev written up for you a model verbally so as to show you a possible pattern taht could cause such a catestrophic flood.  You are stuck on a random prediction of 200 feet of rain falling in fourty days... does 200 feet  of rain have to fall to cause 200 feet of water on the ground?  of coures not... channeling could take record rainfalls and make it that deep if need be.  If you look up rain on wiki, you will find the record rainfall ina  single year in the past 200 years alone was about seventy-five feet.  There are predictions of arcstorms that could drop up to ten feet of rain on radius of hundreds of miles:

http://www.theskichannel.com/news/20110119/usgs-predicts-arkstorm-for-california-40-days-and-10-feet-of-rain/

how much more could even taht ten feet of rain be if it was channeled into mountain ranges?  What if some of it was naturally damed.  Ice dams have caused catestrophic flooding in particular locations. 

I have given you every reason to consider even a remote possibility and you have still come up with excuses. 

Honestly, I'm not here to prove to you why it could have happened, I'm looking for logical reasoning as to why it couldn't have happened.  I've read excuses, complaints, ignorance and accusations... nothing logical though as to why it couldn't have happened.  In the end, I really don't care if you believe what I say or not.  i've given you lots of information.  You use your ignorance to excuse that information as not evidence enough for the possibility of a flood that is said to ahve never been as bad previously and never would be as bad again.. so a once in a lifetime flood, not a hundred year flood, or thousand year flood, a once in a billion year flood.  

If anything given to you at this piont has not made you question your rationality, then nothing will.  You can believe it never happened and be happy with that.  but nothing you have presented has convinced me that it didn't happen.   Only that you want your understanding to be correct regardless of reasoning.  


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:for someone

caposkia wrote:

for someone who claims they don't have much knowledge of physics you have no basis then to analyze someone elses knowledge of the subject.

Which is why I have asked you multiple times to provide links to credible sources to back up what you are saying. Over 200 posts later, you have yet to link to a single source.

 

Quote:

Do you know what fore-casting means?  Fore means before the event and casting is analyzing the locatino of said storm and its likely track... Forecasting is not used to predict what has already happened. 

Yes, but I don't care if it has actually happened or not. I asked if it was theoretically possible, you stated that it was and I asked for evidence to support your claim. If you can show it is theoretically possible, then we have a good starting point to consider that it might have happened in the past and for whatever crazy fucked up reason, we have no evidence. 

 

Quote:

AS I said, i wasted my time giving you the previous analyzation and verbal model, so why bother here when you've already determined that anything I present is not going to be realistic.

I don't want your analysis. I do not believe you are a credible source. I believe you are a liar. I want you to link me to someone else who is credible and supports the ridiculous claims you have made. 

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Hypercanes wouldn't produce large amounts of concentrated rainfall. I thought you had expertise in meteorology? Faster storms produce less rainfall than slow storms. A hypercane, with wind speeds over several hundred miles per hour would likely only produce much less rain than we observe in hurricanes. 

IF IT STALLED.. that's what i was asking you

I fail to see how an atmospheric block would change anything. The reason a hypercane wouldn't produce massive amounts of condensed rainfall is because the winds would be upwards of 500 mph. 500 mph winds create a lot of agitation, agitation causes rain to fall before the clouds become too saturated, thus it would be far less rain than in a cloud burst- which occurs in relatively calm air which allows massive amounts of moisture to build up without being released. 

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, and I shredded the absurdity of your linear thinking. Weather doesn't happen linearly. That is why I am asking you to provide evidence from a meteorologist that supports what you expressed as fact. If your answer is that god made an exception to the laws of physics, then fine. I can't argue against that. So it is physically impossible, but physical impossibility doesn't matter when you are talking about an omnipotent being. That is directly contrary to your earlier statement that you believed god follows the rules he implemented and only influenced the world in ways consistent with them. But if that is your position, don't sit there and pretend that you have expertise in meteorology and that 200 feet of rain in 40 days is possible within our weather system without divine intervention. 

what was linear about that statement?  I believe my original statement about how God works is that he typically doesnt' break the laws, not that He never does or never has.

I was referring to your earlier claim that 72 inches fell in one day, therefore that is evidence that it can rain 72 inches a day for 40 days in a row. You used your authority as knowledgeable about meteorology to support that claim, I have been asking since 200 posts ago for you to support that assertion.

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Did you read the link? The author suggests that there was merely a large flood in the area- nowhere near the largest flood in the world, but likely a worldwide flood to someone who lived in that time period.

 

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU.  His perspective is that it wasn't the largest in the world, but comparable to others int he location... the point is, severe floods happen in that location... the severity being compared as not the worst is merely speculation.

If it was a regular sized flood, then what is special about it? Did god lie when he said it would never happen again, since much worse floods have happened?

Regardless, I want to focus very specifically on your claim that it could rain 240 feet in 40 days. I believe that is completely wrong and you claimed that it is possible using your expertise in meteorology as your support for the claim. Either prove it, or admit that it isn't possible and we can move on and discuss whether a smaller flood is the flood. Until you are honest, I'm not going to put up with goal post shifting. 

 

Quote:

well, we're getting somewhere... at least you're admiting even a remote possibility at this point, even if you're downsizing the likelihood of the story as written.  That's further than we've gotten in a long time.

I have never doubted small floods. I've doubted a flood that killed all humanity and a prehistoric man who built a boat that carried all the surviving animals in the world.

 

Quote:

yea, I read the article... the point was that major floods happen and that a non-believer is adimittinig it's possibility in that part of the world... I dont' agree with his dating and that the flood he found was likely not thee flood, but that his reasoning is based on real world evidence.  It supports what i've been telling you the whole time that the flood was not worldwide, likely was localized, but wide enough to have covered a large portion of land.  

Yes, and I asked how much rain. You asserted that 72 inches a day over 40 days was possible. I expressed doubt that such high levels of rain were possible and you said "I know about meteorology and I assure you it is possible." (paraphrasing) I expressed doubt and asked you to provide sources to back up your assertion and you have since failed to do so. Until you address the possibility of 200 feet of rain (it is actually 240, but I'm giving you a free 40 fucking feet) and provide evidence that it is theoretically possible or renounce that statement, I am not interested in moving on. I am questioning you on a very specific assertion. If you can't address that honestly, I have no interest in pursuing any other question with you.  

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't mistrust you because of your religion. I don't trust you because I believe you flat out lied to me

quote my lie so I may address it

It started in post 391.

Caps Lie wrote:

caposkia wrote:

It is said that it rained 40 days and 40 nights.  that's 960 hours of rain.  World record rainfall in 1 day was in Foc Foc, La Re'unio'n in 1966 at 72 inches.  40 days of that would = ironically another 240 ft.   So we'd hit 480 Ft. ground water over a 40 day period if these scenarios played out... not including all the ice at the North Pole.  

I expressed doubt and asked for evidence

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if it rained at the world record for a single location across the entire world.... we get to 240 feet. Okay, that is alot, and probably deadly. Is it meteorlogically possible? 

caposkia wrote:

yes in theory.  It would be likened to the channeling of moisture kind of like El Nino.  where it would constantly suck moisture from tropical locations and drop it in the cooler climate.  There would have to be a dramatic shift in the jet streams and a convergence over a specific location for such a dramatic flood to occur, but it is theoretically possible.

I've asked for evidence ever since, and you have failed to provide any. 

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

and you have been extremely evasive when I called you out on it.

and every time you use the evasive card I address it directly.  These to me are excuses from you at this point.

Okay, then address it directly. How is 240 feet (or even 100 feet because I'm generous like that) of rain over 40 days possible. Provide SOURCES because I don't trust you. 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

no storm has existed to the severity of the flood storm since the flood storm, why would you expect a source?  The minutes of heavy rain should be evidence that rediculous amounts of rain over longer periods of time is very possible considering the apporpriate conditions. 

No it isn't because those large amounts of rain are caused by cloud bursts which by definition are short. The cloud literally lands on the ground. I found a source for Hypercanes and I don't read meteorlogical journals regularly. Why wouldn't there be a source for the most theoretically possible rain? Oh wait, I found one of those too, Dr. Lyons. You have failed to address why he is wrong. 

 

Quote:

anyone who knows Jack shit about weather would not have asked me to waste my time proving the possibility of large amounts of rain that could cause drastic volumes of ground water.  I have more than proven my knowledge of weather by giving you a full explanatino that obviously was way over your head and was dismissed without proper analyzation and regard to the detail.

You have provided me bullshit that doesn't line up with what I have read. I provided links to what I have read and you haven't addressed any of them or explained why they are wrong or how I am misinterpreting them. Your "knowledge" of weather was to take the world record rainfall and extrapolate on it in a linear fashion, which anyone who knows jack shit about weather would know is not valid. I didn't know jack shit and it smelled really wrong to me. Sure enough, my research since proved that my gut instinct was right. 

 

Quote:

maybe I missed Dr. Lyons predictions of maximum possible rainfall, where was that linked?  or was that the guy who was predicting it based on a world wide flood and not the localized flood that I've been talking about.  If He was reasoning using the volume of water in the oceans and on Earth to rationalize that the noah flood couldn't happen, thent aht would be why it wasn't addressed... The noah flood likely was not world wide and would nto need the volume of water that Dr. Lyons predicted if that's the one I'm thinking it is.

I don't see how since I talked about it for four fucking posts and asked you every time to tell me why he is wrong, but here it is again.

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_12893.html

 

Quote:

I'm not entirely certain that you actually grasp what meteorology is.  your statements are definitely based on ignorance. no offense.

Then educate me. I've spent literally hours reading stuff for this thread. I am willing to learn, I will read absolutely anything you link me to. I enjoy learning. So give me a link, show me why I am wrong and how 200 feet of rain over 40 days is a viable possibility. I will pay for any journal article, buy any book. I will read it and when I realize you were right and such rainfall is a theoretical possibility, I will come right back to this thread, eat some crow and apologize for calling you a liar. 

 

Quote:

I'm incapable because I don't think anyone ever found it necessary to actually try to create a model or several models covering all the possibilities of a stom that we don't know the exact location of, intensity of, year of, and pattern of. 

Prove it is possible in any location at any year past or present in any pattern. I've found models for all sorts of theoretical shit. The theoretically strongest possible hurricanes, the theoretically strongest possible tornados, you link to a theoretical storm in California that could dump 10 feet over 40 days. Such theoretical models exist. Why don't any of them show 200 feet (or something close) over 40 days? Because it ISN'T theoretically possible and you were either ignorant or lying when you said it was and you were lying when you said you had expertise in the field that supports that ridiculous claim. 

 

Quote:

I ahve shown you not only rediculous possibilities of rain in short periods of time opening the possibility of more rain in longer periods of time.  I found a non-believer using real world information to confirm the possibility of a noah like flood despite the dating discrepencies.

Yes, and as anyone with a fucking first google page of knowledge on rainfall could tell you, heavy rain over short periods is not proof that such rain could be sustained indefinitely. The "noah like flood" was nowhere near as large as you said was possible (it doesn't even rank in the top 100 of floods we know happened). Like I said, either back up your claim of 240 feet over 40 days or just admit that the claim is bullshit and we can move on down other lines. Until then, I demand proof of this specific claim.

 

Quote:
 

i haev written up for you a model verbally so as to show you a possible pattern taht could cause such a catestrophic flood.  You are stuck on a random prediction of 200 feet of rain falling in fourty days... does 200 feet  of rain have to fall to cause 200 feet of water on the ground?  of coures not... channeling could take record rainfalls and make it that deep if need be.  If you look up rain on wiki, you will find the record rainfall ina  single year in the past 200 years alone was about seventy-five feet.  There are predictions of arcstorms that could drop up to ten feet of rain on radius of hundreds of miles:

http://www.theskichannel.com/news/20110119/usgs-predicts-arkstorm-for-california-40-days-and-10-feet-of-rain/

how much more could even taht ten feet of rain be if it was channeled into mountain ranges?  What if some of it was naturally damed.  Ice dams have caused catestrophic flooding in particular locations. 

Yes, ice dams have caused much larger floods than rain ever has. You said that 240 feet over 40 days was theoretically possible, using your knowledge in the area of meteorology as a support, I have asked you to support that claim. Once you either support or renounce that claim we can consider other possibilities like ice dams. 

 

Quote:

I have given you every reason to consider even a remote possibility and you have still come up with excuses. 

You've given me bullshit asserting your expertise. You have yet to support it with a single source. I find it hard to believe that on an internet with billions of webpages on every subject from theoretical time travel to quantum physics to how to fit a dozen pool balls in your twat that you can't find a single source to support your theoretical rain storm. But if you can't, I can and will haul my happy ass down to the library and read whatever source you give me. 

 

Quote:

Honestly, I'm not here to prove to you why it could have happened, I'm looking for logical reasoning as to why it couldn't have happened.  I've read excuses, complaints, ignorance and accusations... nothing logical though as to why it couldn't have happened.  In the end, I really don't care if you believe what I say or not.  

If it is physically impossible that would be a pretty logical reason it couldn't have happened right? 

 

Quote:

i've given you lots of information.  You use your ignorance to excuse that information as not evidence enough for the possibility of a flood that is said to ahve never been as bad previously and never would be as bad again.. so a once in a lifetime flood, not a hundred year flood, or thousand year flood, a once in a billion year flood.  

If anything given to you at this piont has not made you question your rationality, then nothing will.  You can believe it never happened and be happy with that.  but nothing you have presented has convinced me that it didn't happen.   Only that you want your understanding to be correct regardless of reasoning.  

I'm asking you for evidence to support a very specific claim you made. I don't think that is the least bit irrational. I'm asking you to fix my ignorance, I've learned more about meteorology since we started this conversation than I have in my whole life prior- no thanks to you. If I am wrong, ignorant or completely missing something, please show me. You have a willing and fairly intelligent student. You haven't given me "lots of information" you have spouted off random bullshit and I don't trust you. Link me to some sources. You claimed knowledge in the field, so you should know where good sources are.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Didn't we already address this? Creationists say "oh look how complex DNA is. Must have been god!". They of course don't study it any further. Those who aren't creationists and actually study it, find that like homology, geographic distribution, the fossil record, DNA follows precisely the same pattern and to anyone who isn't willfully ignorant, can only lead one to one conclusion. The thing is, this doesn't mean that a god didn't design the DNA code. Is there room in your model for god to have designed the DNA code to just run on its own as it does, and have let evolution run its course from the start? If yes, you must concede that the flood didn't happen. If no, then you must be willing to ignore facts. 
I'm sure we did, but you seem to prefer redundancy.  Creationists study it too.  It's the patterns that convince them becuase without an intelligient designer, patterns don't exist or are just a fluke right?and didn't I already say that I believe God set the system into motion and let's it run its course.  however I don't see your reasoning that I must concede that the flood didn't happen if I accept that unless you found a date for the flood.  Have you found a date for the flood?  If so please link me that source.
I can't find a date for something for which there is no evidence, and I don't believe actually happened. I have told you multiple times that I reject that it is my job to figure out when the bible actually implies the flood happened, and anybody whose job it is to examine scientific evidence would agree with me that such a standard is absurd. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
I know that. Except you are still adamant that it happened, and you continue to post in this thread despite admitting you have no evidence. The only thing you've done since the very beginning of this thread is misrepresent people, provide arguments that contradict ones you made earlier, and attempt to propose the most absurd shifting of the burden of proof that I've ever heard somebody try. 
as do you... so where does that leave us?
Oh, I forgot to mention that you also accuse everyone of exactly what you have just been accused of, with no basis. 
Caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
I do have evidence that the flood never happened. There is no convceivable way that all of the animals necessary could have fit on that boat. Whichever numbers you want to toss in, you either end up with evolution having to have occurred extremely rapidly, or not enough room on the boat. No creationist has been able to solve this problem, and such a problem is actually evidence for the event having never happened. If you don't wish to come up with a model that works, then we are done (maybe, I seem to keep coming back...)
and we've established that rapid evolutionary segments are possible and depending on the date fo the flood and the "kinds" can work.  but to decide it can't would again suggest you have figured out a date... Creationists can't empirically solve the evolutionary problem because they don't buy into the delusion that they can figure out the date of the flood. 
We have established no such thing. You have made a similar argument regarding rainfall in this thread with another poster. You basically say "oh, massive amounts of rainfall can occur". However, you seem to not realize that massive rainfall over a short period can happen, but sustained rainfall over 40 days in that manner would create many problems (some of them mentioned in the very original post that started this thread). A very strong human could potentially lift a small car. He could not lift a semi-truck. There is nothing magical about a semi-truck that prevents it from being lifted. It is simply too heavy for a human to lift, nothing more. We know what weight is the main issue, and we can predict with relatively good accuracy where the limit is on how heavy an object a human can lift with no assistance. If someone for example comes out, and blows the strongest man on record out of the water (let's say by...oh, 200lbs which is probably ambitious to begin with), that would be remarkable. If, however, a claim is made that someone blew the strongest man on record out of the water by lifting 20 000lbs more, I think you would agree that the claim is without merit, and probably an exaggeration if not a complete fabrication. The speed of speciation you propose here, and the level of rainfall you propose elsewhere, fall into exactly this category of absurd claim. Sure, we've established that heavy rainfall can occur, or that rapid evolutionary segments are possible. If the flood occurred 2 million years ago, it would require about 8 new species a year to emerge. Considering that the species which reproduce faster, and more frequently evolve faster (faster by time, but not necessarily when counting by generation), you would need the faster reproducing animals to evolve at a rate faster than that to get that average number (since presumably, animals which reproduce at slower rates won't be evolving at 8 species a year). The Experiments done with fruit flies (a great example in a lab as many generations elapse over a short period of time compared to say, mammals) some of the quickest reproducing things we can test for this, have found that it can take 5 years for enough genetic variation to occur that only sterile offspring result from mating the two separated groups wtih a common ancestor (Dobzhansky and Pavlovski, 1971). 5 years. Yet even with a date of 2 million years ago, you have 8 new species a year required to get what we have today. Anywhere much past 2 million years and we aren't talking about humans anymore. Let's give you TWICE the time though, and say 4 million years (where we know 100% that humans were not around yet). It would still require 4 new species a year. Your model requires that we accept speciation at a rate so fast, nothing even close has ever been observed, much like the bodybuilder lifting a semi-truck. I don't need "a date for the flood". I need a range of possible dates which I have given you. None of them work. Your flood is disproven. Deal with it. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 The other part of the bolded section is asinine as well! What does finding a date have to do with it? We're not checking this via time machine. We're checking this by examining the evidence. What difference does it make if the flood occurred 4000 years ago or 2 million? The evidence may look different for sure. However, the evidence for a flood big enough to wipe out all such life (whether it was world-wide or not) would have left a noticeable footprint that we could examine today. Our failure to find that suggests it didn't happen. So how would it help, then, if I were to propose a date? It wouldn't. You have simply come up with this wacky standard to disprove your claim. You would either not agree on any date proposed, or you would agree on a date, and then say "it must have happened at a different time" if we were able to somehow check evidence that we would specifically only find if the flood occurred during a certain timeframe.
actually, I just posted a link in the response to Beyond Saving that explains evidence of the flood by what seems to be a non-believer.  He also holds my understanding that the flood wasn't world wide and goes on to explain why the Biblical account could have perspectively seemed so. Your failure to do your homework on the subject doesn't help your case though be it that many talk about its likelihood be it that pretty much everyone believes the severe flood in that area was not unusual in ancient times anyway, this one would have just topped them all... and considering that if the Noah flood was real that would assume a God did create it, even more reason to consider its liklihood.
From your article, Thus, it would be possible for a flood to have occurred in mid- Mesopotamia, perhaps about 2900 BCE, as evidenced by the scientifically dated flood deposits.This person proposes a date for the biggest flood in the area for which there is physical evidence. I plugged 2900 BCE into my spreadsheet (4914 years ago). With anywhere between 1 and ~725000 "kinds" 4914 years ago rounded to the nearest number, it would require 9 new species a day. From there to about 2.5 million it would require 8 new species a day. To the one species every 5 years (and that number given above applied to some of the fastest reproducing animals on earth, and therefore the quickest to evolve new species, so I) to get to an underestimated number of species today (16 million) would have required 15.625 million kinds (so 31.250 million animals) on the ark. This article you posted, and presented as a secular piece of evidence for your flood, does not work with your model. Further, this is not a secular person saying "Noah's flood happened as described!". This is an article trying to figure out what sort of large flood inspired the flood myths. In fact, it even makes reference to the Babylonian myths (which pre-date your myth). So just like with the link you gave me regarding multiple starts for life, you have once again posted a link that disproves your position.  
Caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 This is just like you did with fossils. You still have not gone back and mentioned the 2 historical human ancestral species between which you find a problematic gap concerning the transition in pelvis from a quadrupedal one to a bipedal one. This is for the exact same reason. You keep everything as vague and open-ended as possible. I think it was Matt Dillahunty who said this, but I'm not sure. I just think it was quite brilliant, and it applies here. He was told by a caller into his show that they feel like he's trying to back them into a corner (or something of the sort). His response was basically "yes I am." The reason for that is that the caller's position was logically impossible (much like yours). If you don't even let our discussion get to the point where we can get specific about your claim, then you will feel that you've won, because your position hasn't been disproven. It's much like someone saying "I bet you it never gets hotter than 30 degrees in Canada" and then feel like they've won the argument, because the person refused to look at a thermometer. 
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question of which fossils are the transitional fossils, you refused to answer.  that would help me explain to you what I think the problem is here... wanna progress in the conversation?  provide that answer... just that. 
Your question shows that you don't have even the simplest understanding of evolution. Since all life is constantly changing based on what is most ideally adapted to the environment, one could say that all fossils are transitional. This is simply the case in a broad sense.  If you're asking something specific though (like the transition from quadrupedal to bipedal pelves), there is not one transitional fossil. There are also many. However, a big change can be seen in Australopithecus Afarensis. The pelvis has features that actually put into question whether it was bipedal or quadrupedal. The evidence seems to show that it was quite an efficient bipedal walker, but it may have not been a habitual one. The pelvis quite literally shares traits with an adapted bipedal human pelvis, and a quadrupedal primate pelvis. It shares traits with both...is this not an example of a transitional fossil? If not, why not?See wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
No, I'm not at all saying that. For the flood to have happened within your parameters (seemingly), it would have to have happened to all humans alive at some point. So the flood wouldn't have predated humans. We have a very good idea where, and almost as good an idea of when the human species originated. If the flood occurred in the very early days, it would have had to occur in Africa. Due to migration, the later it occurred, the bigger an area it would have had to cover, as humans were spread out more widely. Do you agree so far? 
more specifically northern Africa into current day Iraq, so yea

Ok, so does your personal theology require that the flood had to have been big enough to wipe out all humans on earth at the time that it occurred? 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Which is

Beyond Saving wrote:

Which is why I have asked you multiple times to provide links to credible sources to back up what you are saying. Over 200 posts later, you have yet to link to a single source.

I've done you one better, I've given you the exact description of a scenario you would need... if you want to cross reference, it would follow all meteorlogical rules... but nah, you'd rather pretend I dont' know what I'm talking about. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, but I don't care if it has actually happened or not.... snip

then there's nothing else to discuss on the subject

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't want your analysis. I do not believe you are a credible source. I believe you are a liar. I want you to link me to someone else who is credible and supports the ridiculous claims you have made. 

I challenge you to find the flaws in my analysis.  Please do.  I would love to actually have you find errors... I will then correct them and further validate the possibility for you using real world meteorological knowledge.  cause.. ya know.... it's possible I made a mistake somewhere in the analysis... I am human. 

I have claimed that I have knowledge in the field.. I have exampled that knowledge.. so now if you're going to make a claim that I'm a liar, then you must prove this.  Otherwise you're just making naked assertions.  I have explained too many times now why you likely won't find someone actually trying to write up a scenario for the Noah flood considering the numerous possibilites and unkonwns... regardless I gave you a meteorological rundown of one of possible hundreds of scenarios.  One from what I can tell works within the confins of our weather possibilites.... this of course would be assuming that it could just happen and not have any supernatural influence... of course logically if God is real, then the liklihood of such an event goes way up. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I fail to see how an atmospheric block would change anything. The reason a hypercane wouldn't produce massive amounts of condensed rainfall is because the winds would be upwards of 500 mph. 500 mph winds create a lot of agitation, agitation causes rain to fall before the clouds become too saturated, thus it would be far less rain than in a cloud burst- which occurs in relatively calm air which allows massive amounts of moisture to build up without being released. 

right, but when any hurricane winds down, the storm becomes extra-tropical and if winding down over land, causes usually pretty severe flooding in many areas. 

If an atmospheric scenario setup to stall such a system over a particular area, regardless of the original wind volume...which btw, if landfall was made just right would cause catestrophic tides, waves and ultimately flooding to a degree beyond any hurricane we've seen, the rainfall from such a system would severely drench the land it covers... even after the sea-water receeds.  You must consider that if this scenario played out, there then would be an initial flooding from the storm surge, then followup flooding from the consistent rainfall as the storm wound down.  Again, channeling and ponding can take a moderate flood and turn it severe very quickly as well depending on the layout of the land. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I was referring to your earlier claim that 72 inches fell in one day, therefore that is evidence that it can rain 72 inches a day for 40 days in a row. You used your authority as knowledgeable about meteorology to support that claim, I have been asking since 200 posts ago for you to support that assertion.

I remember stating that... the point was the possibility of it happening is there becuase it has been observed and documented.  No it has not been observed to happen 40 days in a row... but noah's flood is not comparable to any other flood.  none has happened like it before or after according to scripture.  the point was such an event is possible on so many levels... that was just one example of many other examples provided of catestrophic rainfall in short periods of time. 

If God is real, He would be able to recreate such a scenario and extend it without breaking any laws He put in place... that's the point of this discussino isn't it?  that it's actually possible within the confines of the creation?  Your'e not going to see anything that actually compares to the flood, if we did, then the Bible story must be false. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

If it was a regular sized flood, then what is special about it? Did god lie when he said it would never happen again, since much worse floods have happened?

I had stated... and I will restate it here... the idea that it was not the worst flood is merely speculation.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Regardless, I want to focus very specifically on your claim that it could rain 240 feet in 40 days. I believe that is completely wrong and you claimed that it is possible using your expertise in meteorology as your support for the claim. Either prove it, or admit that it isn't possible and we can move on and discuss whether a smaller flood is the flood. Until you are honest, I'm not going to put up with goal post shifting. 

how do I prove to you an event that took place at a date and time that we don't know and is claimed to have been the worst ever, never to happen again?  I don't get that.  To me, the proof should be in the rediculous amounts of rainfall that actually is possible in literally just a few minutes... I guarantee if I told you several feet of rain fell in just a few minutes, you would cry BS if I didn't have anything to back it up regardless of the actual occurance.  Unlike that event, there are no sources that actually measured the rainfall during that event.  No one was able to observe the weather patterns or exactly how the storm/s stacked up. 

I really don't know what you're looking for here.. I know you've told me models... there are literally hundreds of possibilities.. so instead of doing what I did and waste my time with an actual possibile scenario, I first took real historically recorded extreme weather facts and presented them as perspective to the actual extremes that can happen... not to say any of them are considered the extreme limit, but show that what we think is possilbe with weather or is the limit may not be or may be much much greater.  

No one knows the real limit of weather.  We only know what we've seen and observed... and every time we think we've seen the worst, something even worse comes by. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, and I asked how much rain. You asserted that 72 inches a day over 40 days was possible. I expressed doubt that such high levels of rain were possible and you said "I know about meteorology and I assure you it is possible." (paraphrasing) I expressed doubt and asked you to provide sources to back up your assertion and you have since failed to do so. Until you address the possibility of 200 feet of rain (it is actually 240, but I'm giving you a free 40 fucking feet) and provide evidence that it is theoretically possible or renounce that statement, I am not interested in moving on. I am questioning you on a very specific assertion. If you can't address that honestly, I have no interest in pursuing any other question with you.  

I back up my "assertion" by showing you evidence of 72 inches falling within a few small minutes... why would it be so far fetched to see that much fall in a day and even each day for 40 days if a God that created the whole system of things decided He wanted that to happen without breaking the rules? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is said that it rained 40 days and 40 nights.  that's 960 hours of rain.  World record rainfall in 1 day was in Foc Foc, La Re'unio'n in 1966 at 72 inches.  40 days of that would = ironically another 240 ft.   So we'd hit 480 Ft. ground water over a 40 day period if these scenarios played out... not including all the ice at the North Pole.  

that wasn't a lie, that was a real world example of rainfall and an if then scenario... I never claimed that's what actually happened, only the sheer volume that would have been if such an event played out over 40 days... now that I can see where you think i claimed that this many inches actually fell, it is my perspective that much less needed to fall to cause such a catestrophic flood.  This scenario gives a lot fo leeway as far as rainfall is concerned becuase of the sheer volume.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I've asked for evidence ever since, and you have failed to provide any. 
what exactly would be evidence for something like that beyond the example i showed?  again, that was an if then scenario that gave a rainfall total much larger than i think necessary to cause the Noah flood.  I am actually shocked you were stuck on that this whole time.  I get it now, but you definitely read into that a lot further than I had... My simple point is that if God wanted to create a flood within the confines of the rules He put in place in His creation, He could do it based on that example of a real world recording of catestrophic rainfall.  if one storm is capable of doing it, several others could be under the right conditions as well...For example, under the right conditions, Florida could be hit with 5 consecutive category 5 hurricanes... can I give you an example of that?  No, it's never happened in our recorded history, but it's possible because category 5 hurricanes have hit florida and florida has been hit with several hurricanes within the same season.  would you now suggest that this scenario is also not possible because I cannot give you an actual example?  Please explain your reasoning beyond [you can't provide it]

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Okay, then address it directly. How is 240 feet (or even 100 feet because I'm generous like that) of rain over 40 days possible. Provide SOURCES because I don't trust you. 

not being evasive here, but I am confused, so I need clarification... Are you asking me to research an actual example in history where 240 feet of rain actually fell... or even just 100 ft fell over a 40 day period?  or if not, what are you looking for?  if you're looking for an actual example, then you're not being realistic be it that we're talking about an ancient flood that is said to have been the worst in the history of the world and no flood will ever be as severe again... so in other words, you'd actually be asking me to find the evidence of the Noah flood an show you the source for that evidence... as to which we've already established isn't in our posession or realm of capability at this time. 

so if you're looking for actual scenarios to have been recorded that could compare to such a volume, I cannot provide them.  It wouldnt logically exist, what we do have is examples of short bouts of extreme weather that could be set up in a repeat fassion if the patterns formed right.  

beyond that, I've already mentioned too that the amount of water on the ground doens't all have to come from rainwater, rain could have just been the end all for the events taking place.  There are so many possibilites as to exactly how the lands got flooded. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't see how since I talked about it for four fucking posts and asked you every time to tell me why he is wrong, but here it is again.

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_12893.html

 

it's possible with all the fluff that is added to the posts that it was overlooked.. I try to literally set aside hours to appropriately and accurately respond to your posts.  Even so, i sometimes get rushed and miss key points... instead of coming up with excuses, just clarify. 

Let's see what Dr. Lyons has to say:

ok, so by his math, the maximum amount of rainfall in a 40  day period would end up being somewhere between 30 and 40 feet.   So what affect would that have on ground water and would it be enough to wipe out life in the area? 

This of course depends on the water table and the season as well as the normal rainfall amounts for the area... again the factors of channeling and tides come into play as well. 

I wish I could find more details surrounding the equation he uses, but a google search yeilded no explanation.  I'm assuming it's a constant they figured out from some law basis, but if you have a link that could further explain the maximum rainfall equation, I would find that very helpful.  

I have yet to see an example of a limit to weather such as this and I'm curious as to who came up with it and how it was determined. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

If it is physically impossible that would be a pretty logical reason it couldn't have happened right? 

If my prediction is physically impossible it is only because I haven't seen a means of a physical limit to weather... my prediction would not have the power to render the Bible story false...  I may be in error to suggest such large amounts can fall all at once, but as I've also said, now that you brought that statement you called a lie back up again, it was literally an if, then and was never meant to be taken literally as thee thing that happened, but only a possibility of what could be if such a concentrated scenario played out in a repeated pattern. 

I will be able to elaborate further when I can find a source for that equation the Dr. presented... if you could help in that front, that would be great. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm asking you for evidence to support a very specific claim you made. I don't think that is the least bit irrational. I'm asking you to fix my ignorance, I've learned more about meteorology since we started this conversation than I have in my whole life prior- no thanks to you. If I am wrong, ignorant or completely missing something, please show me. You have a willing and fairly intelligent student. You haven't given me "lots of information" you have spouted off random bullshit and I don't trust you. Link me to some sources. You claimed knowledge in the field, so you should know where good sources are.

well, at least we've been able to establish at this point that my claimed "claim" was never actually a claim, but the if then idea that if such an event could progress for such a period of time, that much rain would fall... I had not seen a limiting equation as presented by the doctor and figured that we have no means to suggest that it can't happen... again, at this point I would like to see a source for the equation.   Once I can, I can modify my understanding of what limits our weather and how the equation plays out logically, that would give us a better scope for what the flood weather might have looked like. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:I can't

Jabberwocky wrote:

I can't find a date for something for which there is no evidence, and I don't believe actually happened. I have told you multiple times that I reject that it is my job to figure out when the bible actually implies the flood happened, and anybody whose job it is to examine scientific evidence would agree with me that such a standard is absurd. 
The Bible doesn't from what I can tell imply when the flood happens... which is part of the problem... you seem to claim that you know it didn't happen, which then would suggets you found a way of dating it... thank you for admitting it's not possible despite your claim that you have the evidence.
Jabberwocky wrote:
Oh, I forgot to mention that you also accuse everyone of exactly what you have just been accused of, with no basis. 
no,, not everyone... just you... and maybe one or two others I've talked with.  The basis is in the posts you provide..  you know. the claim you have about your basis for accusations on me.
jabberwocky wrote:
We have established no such thing. You have made a similar argument regarding rainfall in this thread with another poster. You basically say "oh, massive amounts of rainfall can occur". However, you seem to not realize that massive rainfall over a short period can happen, but sustained rainfall over 40 days in that manner would create many problems (some of them mentioned in the very original post that started this thread). A very strong human could potentially lift a small car. He could not lift a semi-truck. There is nothing magical about a semi-truck that prevents it from being lifted. It is simply too heavy for a human to lift, nothing more. We know what weight is the main issue, and we can predict with relatively good accuracy where the limit is on how heavy an object a human can lift with no assistance. If someone for example comes out, and blows the strongest man on record out of the water (let's say by...oh, 200lbs which is probably ambitious to begin with), that would be remarkable. If, however, a claim is made that someone blew the strongest man on record out of the water by lifting 20 000lbs more, I think you would agree that the claim is without merit, and probably an exaggeration if not a complete fabrication.
the weight comparison doesn't work for rainfall amounts...  the thing is a very strong man could potentially lift a small car.. that same strong man could also potentially lift the equivallence of a semi-truck over a period of time if the weight was divided into small car fractions... same with the rain.    We are making progress with a link i seemed to have missed somehow.  I think I was lost in the run-around, but I now seek out information on the equation the Dr. provided to see where the reasoning for it came from. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 The speed of speciation you propose here, and the level of rainfall you propose elsewhere, fall into exactly this category of absurd claim. Sure, we've established that heavy rainfall can occur, or that rapid evolutionary segments are possible. If the flood occurred 2 million years ago, it would require about 8 new species a year to emerge. Considering that the species which reproduce faster, and more frequently evolve faster (faster by time, but not necessarily when counting by generation), you would need the faster reproducing animals to evolve at a rate faster than that to get that average number (since presumably, animals which reproduce at slower rates won't be evolving at 8 species a year). The Experiments done with fruit flies (a great example in a lab as many generations elapse over a short period of time compared to say, mammals) some of the quickest reproducing things we can test for this, have found that it can take 5 years for enough genetic variation to occur that only sterile offspring result from mating the two separated groups wtih a common ancestor (Dobzhansky and Pavlovski, 1971). 5 years. Yet even with a date of 2 million years ago, you have 8 new species a year required to get what we have today. Anywhere much past 2 million years and we aren't talking about humans anymore. Let's give you TWICE the time though, and say 4 million years (where we know 100% that humans were not around yet). It would still require 4 new species a year. Your model requires that we accept speciation at a rate so fast, nothing even close has ever been observed, much like the bodybuilder lifting a semi-truck. I don't need "a date for the flood". I need a range of possible dates which I have given you. None of them work. Your flood is disproven. Deal with it. 
I will... once you've actually disproven it... your reasoning is speculation at best... maybe like Dr. Lyons, you could find an evolutionary equation that proves the rate of speciation and ti's maximum output possible over periods of time... then let's talk about what's possible. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 

ticle, Thus, it would be possible for a flood to have occurred in mid- Mesopotamia, perhaps about 2900 BCE, as evidenced by the scientifically dated flood deposits.

This person proposes a date for the biggest flood in the area for which there is physical evidence. I plugged 2900 BCE into my spreadsheet (4914 years ago). With anywhere between 1 and ~725000 "kinds" 4914 years ago rounded to the nearest number, it would require 9 new species a day. From there to about 2.5 million it would require 8 new species a day. To the one species every 5 years (and that number given above applied to some of the fastest reproducing animals on earth, and therefore the quickest to evolve new species, so I) to get to an underestimated number of species today (16 million) would have required 15.625 million kinds (so 31.250 million animals) on the ark. This article you posted, and presented as a secular piece of evidence for your flood, does not work with your model. Further, this is not a secular person saying "Noah's flood happened as described!". This is an article trying to figure out what sort of large flood inspired the flood myths. In fact, it even makes reference to the Babylonian myths (which pre-date your myth). So just like with the link you gave me regarding multiple starts for life, you have once again posted a link that disproves your position. 
be it that in this paragraph your focus was on speciation, please explain how that article disproves my position... quote particular parts please. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Your question shows that you don't have even the simplest understanding of evolution. Since all life is constantly changing based on what is most ideally adapted to the environment, one could say that all fossils are transitional. This is simply the case in a broad sense.  If you're asking something specific though (like the transition from quadrupedal to bipedal pelves), there is not one transitional fossil. There are also many. However, a big change can be seen in Australopithecus Afarensis. The pelvis has features that actually put into question whether it was bipedal or quadrupedal. The evidence seems to show that it was quite an efficient bipedal walker, but it may have not been a habitual one. The pelvis quite literally shares traits with an adapted bipedal human pelvis, and a quadrupedal primate pelvis. It shares traits with both...is this not an example of a transitional fossil? If not, why not?See wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
THERE  finally got the answer i was looking for, thank you.  When looking into your link, it seems there is a lot of question as to what was capable with this creature, so I wonder, what would be the next in line toward homo-sapien?  I'm trying to peice a puzzle together here.  It seems that another fossil referenced in the article; Orrorin tugenensis  is considered more human like than this one, yet it was from five to eight million years ago... this one was considered bipedal and capable of tool making and  A. afarensis may have been a tangent from the lineage and/or maybe of a separate lineage. 
Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok, so does your personal theology require that the flood had to have been big enough to wipe out all humans on earth at the time that it occurred? 

yes


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I can't find a date for something for which there is no evidence, and I don't believe actually happened. I have told you multiple times that I reject that it is my job to figure out when the bible actually implies the flood happened, and anybody whose job it is to examine scientific evidence would agree with me that such a standard is absurd. 
The Bible doesn't from what I can tell imply when the flood happens... which is part of the problem... you seem to claim that you know it didn't happen, which then would suggets you found a way of dating it... thank you for admitting it's not possible despite your claim that you have the evidence.
Jabberwocky wrote:
Oh, I forgot to mention that you also accuse everyone of exactly what you have just been accused of, with no basis. 
no,, not everyone... just you... and maybe one or two others I've talked with.  The basis is in the posts you provide..  you know. the claim you have about your basis for accusations on me.
jabberwocky wrote:
We have established no such thing. You have made a similar argument regarding rainfall in this thread with another poster. You basically say "oh, massive amounts of rainfall can occur". However, you seem to not realize that massive rainfall over a short period can happen, but sustained rainfall over 40 days in that manner would create many problems (some of them mentioned in the very original post that started this thread). A very strong human could potentially lift a small car. He could not lift a semi-truck. There is nothing magical about a semi-truck that prevents it from being lifted. It is simply too heavy for a human to lift, nothing more. We know what weight is the main issue, and we can predict with relatively good accuracy where the limit is on how heavy an object a human can lift with no assistance. If someone for example comes out, and blows the strongest man on record out of the water (let's say by...oh, 200lbs which is probably ambitious to begin with), that would be remarkable. If, however, a claim is made that someone blew the strongest man on record out of the water by lifting 20 000lbs more, I think you would agree that the claim is without merit, and probably an exaggeration if not a complete fabrication.
the weight comparison doesn't work for rainfall amounts...  the thing is a very strong man could potentially lift a small car.. that same strong man could also potentially lift the equivallence of a semi-truck over a period of time if the weight was divided into small car fractions... same with the rain.    We are making progress with a link i seemed to have missed somehow.  I think I was lost in the run-around, but I now seek out information on the equation the Dr. provided to see where the reasoning for it came from. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 The speed of speciation you propose here, and the level of rainfall you propose elsewhere, fall into exactly this category of absurd claim. Sure, we've established that heavy rainfall can occur, or that rapid evolutionary segments are possible. If the flood occurred 2 million years ago, it would require about 8 new species a year to emerge. Considering that the species which reproduce faster, and more frequently evolve faster (faster by time, but not necessarily when counting by generation), you would need the faster reproducing animals to evolve at a rate faster than that to get that average number (since presumably, animals which reproduce at slower rates won't be evolving at 8 species a year). The Experiments done with fruit flies (a great example in a lab as many generations elapse over a short period of time compared to say, mammals) some of the quickest reproducing things we can test for this, have found that it can take 5 years for enough genetic variation to occur that only sterile offspring result from mating the two separated groups wtih a common ancestor (Dobzhansky and Pavlovski, 1971). 5 years. Yet even with a date of 2 million years ago, you have 8 new species a year required to get what we have today. Anywhere much past 2 million years and we aren't talking about humans anymore. Let's give you TWICE the time though, and say 4 million years (where we know 100% that humans were not around yet). It would still require 4 new species a year. Your model requires that we accept speciation at a rate so fast, nothing even close has ever been observed, much like the bodybuilder lifting a semi-truck. I don't need "a date for the flood". I need a range of possible dates which I have given you. None of them work. Your flood is disproven. Deal with it. 
I will... once you've actually disproven it... your reasoning is speculation at best... maybe like Dr. Lyons, you could find an evolutionary equation that proves the rate of speciation and ti's maximum output possible over periods of time... then let's talk about what's possible. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 

ticle, Thus, it would be possible for a flood to have occurred in mid- Mesopotamia, perhaps about 2900 BCE, as evidenced by the scientifically dated flood deposits.

This person proposes a date for the biggest flood in the area for which there is physical evidence. I plugged 2900 BCE into my spreadsheet (4914 years ago). With anywhere between 1 and ~725000 "kinds" 4914 years ago rounded to the nearest number, it would require 9 new species a day. From there to about 2.5 million it would require 8 new species a day. To the one species every 5 years (and that number given above applied to some of the fastest reproducing animals on earth, and therefore the quickest to evolve new species, so I) to get to an underestimated number of species today (16 million) would have required 15.625 million kinds (so 31.250 million animals) on the ark. This article you posted, and presented as a secular piece of evidence for your flood, does not work with your model. Further, this is not a secular person saying "Noah's flood happened as described!". This is an article trying to figure out what sort of large flood inspired the flood myths. In fact, it even makes reference to the Babylonian myths (which pre-date your myth). So just like with the link you gave me regarding multiple starts for life, you have once again posted a link that disproves your position. 
be it that in this paragraph your focus was on speciation, please explain how that article disproves my position... quote particular parts please. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Your question shows that you don't have even the simplest understanding of evolution. Since all life is constantly changing based on what is most ideally adapted to the environment, one could say that all fossils are transitional. This is simply the case in a broad sense.  If you're asking something specific though (like the transition from quadrupedal to bipedal pelves), there is not one transitional fossil. There are also many. However, a big change can be seen in Australopithecus Afarensis. The pelvis has features that actually put into question whether it was bipedal or quadrupedal. The evidence seems to show that it was quite an efficient bipedal walker, but it may have not been a habitual one. The pelvis quite literally shares traits with an adapted bipedal human pelvis, and a quadrupedal primate pelvis. It shares traits with both...is this not an example of a transitional fossil? If not, why not?See wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
THERE  finally got the answer i was looking for, thank you.  When looking into your link, it seems there is a lot of question as to what was capable with this creature, so I wonder, what would be the next in line toward homo-sapien?  I'm trying to peice a puzzle together here.  It seems that another fossil referenced in the article; Orrorin tugenensis  is considered more human like than this one, yet it was from five to eight million years ago... this one was considered bipedal and capable of tool making and  A. afarensis may have been a tangent from the lineage and/or maybe of a separate lineage. 
Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok, so does your personal theology require that the flood had to have been big enough to wipe out all humans on earth at the time that it occurred? 

yes

 

Ok. Good. Finally, for once, you make a specfic statement about your position. I'm going to stop responding to every point, though, as it's a waste of time. I'll just summarize here.

 

So the link you posted regarding someone showing evidence for a flood that may have inspired the myths dates it at even later than young earth creationists date it. A localized flood after 3000BC couldn't have wiped out all humans, so that's out. The article disproves your position based on that, and the speciation numbers I brought up would require 9 new species a day. So it's disproven twice. The reason I brought up the speciation numbers because my spreadsheet was still open. However, while your position is LESS ridiculous if the flood happened up to 4 million years ago (which, as mentioned, is definitely before humans) speciation would have had to occur since then at an AVERAGE rate of 4 new species a year. Considering the fastest evolving things take a few years to yield a single speciation event (under laboratory conditions, meaning a smaller population in the wild, meaning it occurs faster than in the wild typically), this isn't just a slight exaggeration. This is at least equivalent to my semi-truck lifting comparison, if not more-so. You say "oh, he could lift the equivalent weight of a semi over a period of time". I have shown you using simple math that there is simply too tight a time constraint. To get to a rate of speciation that is close to those fruit flies (once again, close to the fastest evolving animals we have, so I'm making a concession here), you would have to go 80 million years back to get 0.2 speciation events a year (equivalent to 1 every 5 years). At this point, it really doesn't matter if there were 2 kinds on the Ark or 1000 (and 2000 animals is already too much to reasonably fit on that boat). The math alone shows that if I give you the most favourable conditions (everything evolves as fast as a fruit fly) you would need 80 million years for this to occur. The earliest evidence of hominids is around 20 million years ago, and those weren't human yet. Since your theology requires humans. If they were Homo Habilis (some of the very earliest), they were around somewhere from 1.4-2.3 million years ago. There is a 78 million year gap here that you need to bridge. Until you provide me with hard evidence that either humans are 80 million years old, or that speciation can that occur many orders of magnitude quicker than what we actually examine, your position is clearly proven false. We are talking 40 times faster here. So if you can find me a group of fruit flies that speciate every 45 days (about 40x faster than the 5 year figure given earlier) then you may be able to make a rational point. 

 

One quick point on your comment on A. Afarensis. You ask what would be next in line towards Homo-Sapien....ever think of looking it up? Regarding Orrorin, there are far less specimens compared to A. Afarensis. It is dated earlier, and is thought in some situations to be morphologically more similar to humans in the femur, although there is dispute on this. Keep in mind, there are far less specimens, so far less conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions should not be jumped to. This is how intellectual honesty works. Remember, when Neanderthals were first discovered, they were hypothesized to be far less human-like than we know them to have been (and have proven 100% by sequencing their genomes). It's possible that they are mistaken. It's also possible that they are right, and A. Afarensis was a branch in the chain leading to us that differed more than we thought, and Orrorin are closer to our actual ancestors (keyword: closer!). It's perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils we find are actually our ancestors, but we can piece together an increasingly accurate evolutionary tree the more specimens that we find. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Which is why I have asked you multiple times to provide links to credible sources to back up what you are saying. Over 200 posts later, you have yet to link to a single source.

I've done you one better, I've given you the exact description of a scenario you would need... if you want to cross reference, it would follow all meteorlogical rules... but nah, you'd rather pretend I dont' know what I'm talking about.

 

According to the numerous sources I have linked to, such a storm wouldn't produce anywhere near the rain you claim. It isn't "one better" because I don't believe you have a clue what you are talking about. That is why I am asking for a source other than you.

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, but I don't care if it has actually happened or not.... snip

then there's nothing else to discuss on the subject

You should read the rest of what I wrote, it is quite relevant. 

Quote:

I challenge you to find the flaws in my analysis.  Please do.  I would love to actually have you find errors... I will then correct them and further validate the possibility for you using real world meteorological knowledge.  cause.. ya know.... it's possible I made a mistake somewhere in the analysis... I am human. 

For starters it would produce far less rain than 240 feet.

 

Quote:

I have claimed that I have knowledge in the field.. I have exampled that knowledge.. so now if you're going to make a claim that I'm a liar, then you must prove this.  Otherwise you're just making naked assertions. 

My evidence is that you attempted to extrapolate maximum rainfall linearly, which is clearly not an accepted model in meteorological circles. Rain isn't linear and it is constrained by the laws of physics. Beyond that, the rainfall of 72 inches over 24 hours you extend for 40 days was caused by orographic lift- as pretty much all world record rainfall is. One of the major features of orographic rainfall is that it occurs over a very limited area. All the rain falls on one side of the mountain, leaving the other side completely dry. Someone with significant knowledge about meteorology would know this. So when you take the record 24 hour rainfall and multiply it times 40 to determine the maximum possible over 40 days, it has so many conflicts with our understanding of meteorology that either you don't have the knowledge you claimed or you made an assertion you knew flew in the face of modern meteorology.  

Quote:

I have explained too many times now why you likely won't find someone actually trying to write up a scenario for the Noah flood considering the numerous possibilites and unkonwns... regardless I gave you a meteorological rundown of one of possible hundreds of scenarios.  One from what I can tell works within the confins of our weather possibilites.... this of course would be assuming that it could just happen and not have any supernatural influence... of course logically if God is real, then the liklihood of such an event goes way up. 

Yet I have found meteorologists working up scenarios for hypercanes, the worst possible tornados and the maximum possible rain. Often imagining storms far worse than anything we know happened. None of them agree with your 240 feet, none are even close.

Quote:

right, but when any hurricane winds down, the storm becomes extra-tropical and if winding down over land, causes usually pretty severe flooding in many areas. 

If an atmospheric scenario setup to stall such a system over a particular area, regardless of the original wind volume...which btw, if landfall was made just right would cause catestrophic tides, waves and ultimately flooding to a degree beyond any hurricane we've seen, the rainfall from such a system would severely drench the land it covers... even after the sea-water receeds.  You must consider that if this scenario played out, there then would be an initial flooding from the storm surge, then followup flooding from the consistent rainfall as the storm wound down.  Again, channeling and ponding can take a moderate flood and turn it severe very quickly as well depending on the layout of the land. 

Obviously, you didn't bother to read the journal article. And yes, the hypercane theory does predict castastrophic waves. Pretty irrelevent for humans though since it requires the ocean to be at boiling temperatures, any human close enough to see the storm would be dead without modern protection equipment from the heat alone. 

 

Quote:

I remember stating that... the point was the possibility of it happening is there becuase it has been observed and documented.  No it has not been observed to happen 40 days in a row... but noah's flood is not comparable to any other flood.  none has happened like it before or after according to scripture.  the point was such an event is possible on so many levels... that was just one example of many other examples provided of catestrophic rainfall in short periods of time. 

If God is real, He would be able to recreate such a scenario and extend it without breaking any laws He put in place... that's the point of this discussino isn't it?  that it's actually possible within the confines of the creation?  Your'e not going to see anything that actually compares to the flood, if we did, then the Bible story must be false.

And the meteorologists I have linked to have really good explanations for why it isn't possible that such rain happen 40 days in a row. Also, since such rain was caused by orographic lift, building a big boat is terrible advice. The much wiser advice would be to walk around the mountain. The leeward side would remain dry. Reunion, the island where this record rainfall occurred is only 28 miles wide. The west side gets less than 40 inches of rain a year, even while the east side get ridiculous amounts. The cause of the massive rainfall amounts is the 10000 ft high volcano on an island which the storms crash into and are rapidly forced upwards causing them to release all their moisture rapidly.

 

Quote:

how do I prove to you an event that took place at a date and time that we don't know and is claimed to have been the worst ever, never to happen again?  I don't get that.  To me, the proof should be in the rediculous amounts of rainfall that actually is possible in literally just a few minutes... I guarantee if I told you several feet of rain fell in just a few minutes, you would cry BS if I didn't have anything to back it up regardless of the actual occurance.  Unlike that event, there are no sources that actually measured the rainfall during that event.  No one was able to observe the weather patterns or exactly how the storm/s stacked up. 

I really don't know what you're looking for here.. I know you've told me models... there are literally hundreds of possibilities.. so instead of doing what I did and waste my time with an actual possibile scenario, I first took real historically recorded extreme weather facts and presented them as perspective to the actual extremes that can happen... not to say any of them are considered the extreme limit, but show that what we think is possilbe with weather or is the limit may not be or may be much much greater.  

No one knows the real limit of weather.  We only know what we've seen and observed... and every time we think we've seen the worst, something even worse comes by.

Yes, we do know. We might not know exactly, but we can be confident that our models are really close. No meteorologist would ever say we've seen the worst, we haven't and we know it. But your claim of 200+ feet isn't even in the ballpark of possibilities. We would not be slightly wrong because we round off the physical constants, our entire understanding of physics would have to be completely wrong.

Quote:

I back up my "assertion" by showing you evidence of 72 inches falling within a few small minutes... why would it be so far fetched to see that much fall in a day and even each day for 40 days if a God that created the whole system of things decided He wanted that to happen without breaking the rules? 

Comments like this are why I doubt that you know anything about meteorology. Rain ISN'T linear. It can't rain 72 inches 40 days in a row for the same reason that no human could run 360 miles in 24 hours even though several have ran 4 minute mile

 

Quote:

what exactly would be evidence for something like that beyond the example i showed? 
 A credible meteorologist suggesting such a thing was possible would be a great start. An actual journal reference to a well reasearched theory like the hypercane reference would be ideal.  
Quote:
 if one storm is capable of doing it, several others could be under the right conditions as well...For example, under the right conditions, Florida could be hit with 5 consecutive category 5 hurricanes... can I give you an example of that?  No, it's never happened in our recorded history, but it's possible because category 5 hurricanes have hit florida and florida has been hit with several hurricanes within the same season. would you now suggest that this scenario is also not possible because I cannot give you an actual example?  Please explain your reasoning beyond [you can't provide it]

Several climate models have suggested increased hurricane activity and many have focused on theoretical extremes. I would expect something like this http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/PDF/Research/JaggerElsner2006.pdf

or

www.agci.org/docs/2068.pdf

 

 

Quote:

not being evasive here, but I am confused, so I need clarification... Are you asking me to research an actual example in history where 240 feet of rain actually fell... or even just 100 ft fell over a 40 day period?  or if not, what are you looking for?  if you're looking for an actual example, then you're not being realistic be it that we're talking about an ancient flood that is said to have been the worst in the history of the world and no flood will ever be as severe again... so in other words, you'd actually be asking me to find the evidence of the Noah flood an show you the source for that evidence... as to which we've already established isn't in our posession or realm of capability at this time.

I don't know how to be more clear. See the articles I linked to above regarding hurricanes, I want something similar except for theoretical rainfall as opposed to hurricanes. There are rainfall models and none are close to your assertion.

www.image.ucar.edu/pub/nychka/manuscripts/cooleyFR.pdf 

This is a local model, so the maximum possible rainfall predicted here is far less than is possible somewhere else, but I'm sure someone has done similar modeks in other lications. 

 

Quote:

beyond that, I've already mentioned too that the amount of water on the ground doens't all have to come from rainwater, rain could have just been the end all for the events taking place.  There are so many possibilites as to exactly how the lands got flooded. 

Yes, there are many possibilities, but I focused on rainfall because you claimed knowledge in the field, your other possibilities have problems too. But you said 240ft in 40 days is possible. You have said you stand by that using your meteorlogical knowledge. I have found many apparently credible sources that disagree with you, I am asking for one source that agrees with you. 

 

Quote:

it's possible with all the fluff that is added to the posts that it was overlooked.. I try to literally set aside hours to appropriately and accurately respond to your posts.  Even so, i sometimes get rushed and miss key points... instead of coming up with excuses, just clarify. 

Let's see what Dr. Lyons has to say:

ok, so by his math, the maximum amount of rainfall in a 40  day period would end up being somewhere between 30 and 40 feet.   So what affect would that have on ground water and would it be enough to wipe out life in the area? 

No, it wouldn't. See my post to Vastet a few pages back.

 

Quote:
 

I have yet to see an example of a limit to weather such as this and I'm curious as to who came up with it and how it was determined. 

Really?!? Every weather model I've seen has limits and they aren't all new. Read the abive links, most of the limiting factors were borrowed from previous research and can be found in the sources footnoted at the bottom.

 

Quote:

If my prediction is physically impossible it is only because I haven't seen a means of a physical limit to weather... my prediction would not have the power to render the Bible story false...  I may be in error to suggest such large amounts can fall all at once, but as I've also said, now that you brought that statement you called a lie back up again, it was literally an if, then and was never meant to be taken literally as thee thing that happened, but only a possibility of what could be if such a concentrated scenario played out in a repeated pattern.

No, but you have repeatedly stated that kind of rain was possible, when clearly it is not according to modern meteorology. So either you don't have the meteorlogical knowledge you claimed, or you stated something you knew was false. So is 200 feet in 40 days possible or not? Or is 40-50 feet more likely the maximum possible? 

Quote:

well, at least we've been able to establish at this point that my claimed "claim" was never actually a claim, but the if then idea that if such an event could progress for such a period of time, that much rain would fall... I had not seen a limiting equation as presented by the doctor and figured that we have no means to suggest that it can't happen... again, at this point I would like to see a source for the equation.   Once I can, I can modify my understanding of what limits our weather and how the equation plays out logically, that would give us a better scope for what the flood weather might have looked like. 

[/quote

So you don't actually know anything about meteorology. Read the links above and their source references. It is clear there are many limiting factors on weather. For starters, the laws of physics

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Ok. Good.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok. Good. Finally, for once, you make a specfic statement about your position. I'm going to stop responding to every point, though, as it's a waste of time. I'll just summarize here.

 

So the link you posted regarding someone showing evidence for a flood that may have inspired the myths dates it at even later than young earth creationists date it. A localized flood after 3000BC couldn't have wiped out all humans, so that's out. The article disproves your position based on that, and the speciation numbers I brought up would require 9 new species a day. So it's disproven twice. The reason I brought up the speciation numbers because my spreadsheet was still open. However, while your position is LESS ridiculous if the flood happened up to 4 million years ago (which, as mentioned, is definitely before humans) speciation would have had to occur since then at an AVERAGE rate of 4 new species a year. Considering the fastest evolving things take a few years to yield a single speciation event (under laboratory conditions, meaning a smaller population in the wild, meaning it occurs faster than in the wild typically), this isn't just a slight exaggeration. This is at least equivalent to my semi-truck lifting comparison, if not more-so. You say "oh, he could lift the equivalent weight of a semi over a period of time". I have shown you using simple math that there is simply too tight a time constraint. To get to a rate of speciation that is close to those fruit flies (once again, close to the fastest evolving animals we have, so I'm making a concession here), you would have to go 80 million years back to get 0.2 speciation events a year (equivalent to 1 every 5 years). At this point, it really doesn't matter if there were 2 kinds on the Ark or 1000 (and 2000 animals is already too much to reasonably fit on that boat). The math alone shows that if I give you the most favourable conditions (everything evolves as fast as a fruit fly) you would need 80 million years for this to occur. The earliest evidence of hominids is around 20 million years ago, and those weren't human yet. Since your theology requires humans. If they were Homo Habilis (some of the very earliest), they were around somewhere from 1.4-2.3 million years ago. There is a 78 million year gap here that you need to bridge. Until you provide me with hard evidence that either humans are 80 million years old, or that speciation can that occur many orders of magnitude quicker than what we actually examine, your position is clearly proven false. We are talking 40 times faster here. So if you can find me a group of fruit flies that speciate every 45 days (about 40x faster than the 5 year figure given earlier) then you may be able to make a rational point. 

The flood was also localized as we discussed.  Humans were the target.   I have concluded the possibility that if animals had spread across the world that the arc really was saving the local species where humans had spread to.  If this is the case, then your math is irrelevant. 

We've talked about speculation of the writer.  The whole world or every living creature may not mean literally the whole world as we know it today or every living creature as we know it today.  This already had been discussed as well.

when it comes down to it, your lack of evidence is all you have to support your belief that it's a false story.  there are too many variables we just don't know. 

all of the above is repeated discussion that has already happend on this thread.

just to avoid the goal post excuse here, even if it was every living creature, the liklihood of the speciation occuring over the couple of millions of years as is makes sense... your math assumes a linear evolutionary path when we all know evolution does not work linearly.   it is inconsistent and has bursts of progression with lulls inbetween.  You seem to think the progression of speciation had to be to extreme to happen... why couldn't it have been different for a while?  what rule suggests that speciation didn't speed up for an extended period of time over the ancient world. 

Also, the problem with your math is that things must have evolved much faster than you think.  YOu claim for this story to be true we'd need eighty million years, however we all know most life had been wiped out only 65 million years ago and yet here we are with the variety of species that we have.. several million years shorter than your claim above.  How do you explain the obvious margin of error?

Jabberwocky wrote:

One quick point on your comment on A. Afarensis. You ask what would be next in line towards Homo-Sapien....ever think of looking it up? Regarding Orrorin, there are far less specimens compared to A. Afarensis. It is dated earlier, and is thought in some situations to be morphologically more similar to humans in the femur, although there is dispute on this. Keep in mind, there are far less specimens, so far less conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions should not be jumped to. This is how intellectual honesty works. Remember, when Neanderthals were first discovered, they were hypothesized to be far less human-like than we know them to have been (and have proven 100% by sequencing their genomes). It's possible that they are mistaken. It's also possible that they are right, and A. Afarensis was a branch in the chain leading to us that differed more than we thought, and Orrorin are closer to our actual ancestors (keyword: closer!). It's perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils we find are actually our ancestors, but we can piece together an increasingly accurate evolutionary tree the more specimens that we find. 

I have thought of looking it up.  I have a hard time seeing a smooth timeline of progression... which is why I see the gaps...which is why I'm asking for your help in the matter. 

I find it very interesting that in the same statement you can say; "it's perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils we find are actually our ancestors" and then add" but we can piece together an increasingly accurate evolutionary tree the more specimines that we find."  if its' perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils are actually our ancestor, how do we accurately piece together that tree?  The only way we can be accurate is to know for certain, which you claimed just now is "perhaps impossible". 

I'm being serious and want a serious answer from you. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

According to the numerous sources I have linked to, such a storm wouldn't produce anywhere near the rain you claim. It isn't "one better" because I don't believe you have a clue what you are talking about. That is why I am asking for a source other than you.

IN short, beleivers don't need to see a weather pattern, non-believers wouldn't believe it anyway...as you so clearly showed. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, but I don't care if it has actually happened or not.... snip

then there's nothing else to discuss on the subject

You should read the rest of what I wrote, it is quite relevant. 

I did, it doesn't matter if you don't care if it actually happened or not.   there's really no point in discussing it further if you could care less... that means there's no effort on your part to try. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Quote:

I challenge you to find the flaws in my analysis.  Please do.  I would love to actually have you find errors... I will then correct them and further validate the possibility for you using real world meteorological knowledge.  cause.. ya know.... it's possible I made a mistake somewhere in the analysis... I am human. 

For starters it would produce far less rain than 240 feet.

The analysis I gave didn't claim 240 feet and I'll say again that was an if-then statement and was not my statement of conclusion that it must have been that volume of rainfall.  I'm talking about the verbal model I posted for you. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet I have found meteorologists working up scenarios for hypercanes, the worst possible tornados and the maximum possible rain. Often imagining storms far worse than anything we know happened. None of them agree with your 240 feet, none are even close.

none of them are looking at the past with those scenarios and you need to reread my original post about the 240 feet.  I don't care if it was 30 feet of rain, the volume of groundwater is what really matters. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Obviously, you didn't bother to read the journal article. And yes, the hypercane theory does predict castastrophic waves. Pretty irrelevent for humans though since it requires the ocean to be at boiling temperatures, any human close enough to see the storm would be dead without modern protection equipment from the heat alone. 

hmmm... what random factors in reality could cause the oceans in moderately localized areas to boil or become a rediculous temperature???  Also maybe causing tsunami's that could magnify a floods effect...

Beyond Saving wrote:

Comments like this are why I doubt that you know anything about meteorology. Rain ISN'T linear. It can't rain 72 inches 40 days in a row for the same reason that no human could run 360 miles in 24 hours even though several have ran 4 minute mile

why would it need to be so linear?  I don't think I ever claimed that an exact seventy two inches of rain must fall every day for 40 days, rather I'm using that to explain that extreme levels of rain can fall in short periods of time.  Considering the type of storm, water tables and direction of impact, the flood waters can pile up drastically from such an event.  mind you the rain lasted for fourty days, but the Bible says the flood waters lasted much longer... leads me to believe there was more to it than just rain. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 A credible meteorologist suggesting such a thing was possible would be a great start. An actual journal reference to a well reasearched theory like the hypercane reference would be ideal.
I've given you links to extreme weather... all you need now is logical understandings of weather patterns and how a stalled jetstream and/or a particlular world weather pattern can cause catastrophic events.   knowing those extremes should be answer enough.  Again, the one who created the very system of things would have also influenced the patterns to set up an ideal catestrophic situation that logically wouldn't normally happen,b ut again I don't think He would have necessarily had to have broken any rules in the matter. 
Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Several climate models have suggested increased hurricane activity and many have focused on theoretical extremes. I would expect something like this http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/PDF/Research/JaggerElsner2006.pdf

or

www.agci.org/docs/2068.pdf

considering the length of each link in this case and how late it is right now for me, I skimmed through them.  Do you mind just specifying in a statment what you're expecting based on these articles?  I get the gist that it has to do with liklyhood of reoccurance within a specified timeframe and and process of lower impact with each consecutive storm. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't know how to be more clear. See the articles I linked to above regarding hurricanes, I want something similar except for theoretical rainfall as opposed to hurricanes. There are rainfall models and none are close to your assertion.

www.image.ucar.edu/pub/nychka/manuscripts/cooleyFR.pdf 

This is a local model, so the maximum possible rainfall predicted here is far less than is possible somewhere else, but I'm sure someone has done similar modeks in other lications. 

I've looked up those models too trying to find you something that you might consider relevant... somehow linking it to the flood that would likely not have any direct link to anything I could link you to.  Similar models have been made all over the world with the world record rainfall happening in a moist location in India.  They apparently have a record of over 2300 cm of rain in a season. 

the problem with all of those models is they are all based on a local rainfall focus and do not compare to worl wide records or historical or max possibilities.  they are not relevant to this discussion I felt.  If I'm wrong, I'll find you a good link for the india one. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Really?!? Every weather model I've seen has limits and they aren't all new. Read the abive links, most of the limiting factors were borrowed from previous research and can be found in the sources footnoted at the bottom.

No, but you have repeatedly stated that kind of rain was possible, when clearly it is not according to modern meteorology. So either you don't have the meteorlogical knowledge you claimed, or you stated something you knew was false. So is 200 feet in 40 days possible or not? Or is 40-50 feet more likely the maximum possible? 

well, through your links, i have not seen an explanation on that particular formula, so I'm not sure.  I originally thought that there was nothing restricting the extreme possibility in a very unique situation, but if there is reason to consider it's not, I'll look into it. as I said, those links were long, but if they explain why that amount of rain is impossible, I'll sit down at another time when Ih ave more time and read through them. 

basically I"m looking for what the limiting factors are and how they can be a hard line. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So you don't actually know anything about meteorology. Read the links above and their source references. It is clear there are many limiting factors on weather. For starters, the laws of physics

so you don't actually have logical reasoning to belive that equation is valid... because what I had asked was for an explanation behind the equation.. this was your reply.    Is phyiscs the basis for that equation?  were there other factors?  where did it come from?  who created it?  I know there are limiting factors in weather, they are dependent on location and weather patterns.  Your ignorance in Meteorology obviously allows you to overlook how many limiting factors have a moving line depending on many other factors.  

If you look up typically weather extremes and ask a meteorologist, what the worst storm could possibly be, they would asnwer, we really don't know. and would add we haven't seen anthing worse than X and most storms are usually around Y. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I did, it

caposkia wrote:

I did, it doesn't matter if you don't care if it actually happened or not.   there's really no point in discussing it further if you could care less... that means there's no effort on your part to try. 

Fuck you, I've put 100 times more effort into this discussion than you have. I said I don't care if it actually happened or not because I am asking you to show that it COULD happen, a much lower burden of proof. I care very much if it could happen. 

 

caposkia wrote:

The analysis I gave didn't claim 240 feet and I'll say again that was an if-then statement and was not my statement of conclusion that it must have been that volume of rainfall.  I'm talking about the verbal model I posted for you. 

Yes, what you gave to me (it isn't a model- models require math by definition) was in response to me asking you to prove that 200 feet of rain over 40 days is possible. 

 

caposkia wrote:

none of them are looking at the past with those scenarios and you need to reread my original post about the 240 feet.  I don't care if it was 30 feet of rain, the volume of groundwater is what really matters. 

No, they are looking at the future and what is physically possible. 

 

caposkia wrote:

hmmm... what random factors in reality could cause the oceans in moderately localized areas to boil or become a rediculous temperature???  Also maybe causing tsunami's that could magnify a floods effect...

They suggested the most plausible scenario would be a really large or perhaps several superheated meteors hitting the ocean.

 

caposkia wrote:

why would it need to be so linear? 

Because your god didn't make it linear. Due to a variety of physical realities (gravity, thermodynamics, friction, entropy) storms are best modeled using exponential models, not linear ones. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I don't think I ever claimed that an exact seventy two inches of rain must fall every day for 40 days, rather I'm using that to explain that extreme levels of rain can fall in short periods of time.  Considering the type of storm, water tables and direction of impact, the flood waters can pile up drastically from such an event.  mind you the rain lasted for fourty days, but the Bible says the flood waters lasted much longer... leads me to believe there was more to it than just rain. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if it rained at the world record for a single location across the entire world.... we get to 240 feet. Okay, that is alot, and probably deadly. Is it meteorlogically possible? That kind of sustained downpour requires exponentially more evaporated water than there was above Foc Foc in 1966.

Caposkia wrote:

yes in theory. It would be likened to the channeling of moisture kind of like El Nino. where it would constantly suck moisture from tropical locations and drop it in the cooler climate. There would have to be a dramatic shift in the jet streams and a convergence over a specific location for such a dramatic flood to occur, but it is theoretically possible.

We then went back and forth, and at that time I was focussed on the amount of water that would have to evaporate, because in my ignorance, I thought that would be a major problem. It was when I educated myself further exploring the subject that I discovered all these other problems. And that is when I got pissed off and stopped talking to you because I asked you to prove that such rainfall was possible and you presented me with a simplistic linear equation.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

I've given you links to extreme weather... all you need now is logical understandings of weather patterns and how a stalled jetstream and/or a particlular world weather pattern can cause catastrophic events.   knowing those extremes should be answer enough. 
According to every link presented, the extreme is far less than 200 feet over 40 days. Rain can fall at that rate, but not for more than a short period of time.   
caposkia wrote:
Again, the one who created the very system of things would have also influenced the patterns to set up an ideal catestrophic situation that logically wouldn't normally happen,b ut again I don't think He would have necessarily had to have broken any rules in the matter.
 Exactly. That is why I will take any theoretical model that suggests such rain is possible in any type of conditions. Like the hypercane model which proposes a storm using some extremely unlikely conditions.   
caposkia wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
 Several climate models have suggested increased hurricane activity and many have focused on theoretical extremes. I would expect something like this http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/PDF/Research/JaggerElsner2006.pdf

or

www.agci.org/docs/2068.pdf

considering the length of each link in this case and how late it is right now for me, I skimmed through them.  Do you mind just specifying in a statment what you're expecting based on these articles?  I get the gist that it has to do with liklyhood of reoccurance within a specified timeframe and and process of lower impact with each consecutive storm. 

In this case, these articles provide the mathematical models one might use to predict the liklihood that 5 category 5 hurricanes hit Florida within the same season. All the math is there, and if you are so inclined, you could put in the desired result and solve the equation to determine what the variables would have to be. You could then come up with a probability that such an event could happen given certain variables, or you might discover that a solution is impossible and therefore, within the model such an event is impossible. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

I've looked up those models too trying to find you something that you might consider relevant... somehow linking it to the flood that would likely not have any direct link to anything I could link you to.  Similar models have been made all over the world with the world record rainfall happening in a moist location in India.  They apparently have a record of over 2300 cm of rain in a season. 

the problem with all of those models is they are all based on a local rainfall focus and do not compare to worl wide records or historical or max possibilities.  they are not relevant to this discussion I felt.  If I'm wrong, I'll find you a good link for the india one. 

I'd be ecstatic with any model that suggested even 100 feet is possible over 40 days anywhere in the world under any theoretical conditions. I just want to know if it is theoretically possible, anywhere, anytime. You said it was, I questioned it, you used your authority as someone with knowledge about meteorology, I dug and found out what you were saying didn't mesh with what other meteorologists say. 

2300 cm is only 75.5 feet. You are saying more than twice that is possible over 40 days, which is why I stopped the conversation and got hung up on this point, because that didn't smell right. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

so you don't actually have logical reasoning to belive that equation is valid... because what I had asked was for an explanation behind the equation.. this was your reply.    Is phyiscs the basis for that equation?  were there other factors?  where did it come from?  who created it?  I know there are limiting factors in weather, they are dependent on location and weather patterns.  Your ignorance in Meteorology obviously allows you to overlook how many limiting factors have a moving line depending on many other factors.

Well it was created by Dr. Lyons and obviously it is a major simplification 16.6 x (Duration (hours)** 0.475)- written for consumption of average people who don't have a deep meteorlogical background. Initially, I took him completely on his authority as a professional meteorologist (I posted this link very early on before I knew anything about meteorology) I was hoping that you with you vast knowledge could explain why he was wrong or perhaps reveal to me that he is a quack because prior to this I had no idea who he was. It turns out, that Dr. Lyons is a very well respected meteorologist who specializes in tropical weather and has created and revised several hurricane models. 

Since then, I have found that his rough formula falls inline with the far more in depth models that I have linked to.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

If you look up typically weather extremes and ask a meteorologist, what the worst storm could possibly be, they would asnwer, we really don't know. and would add we haven't seen anthing worse than X and most storms are usually around Y. 

Any scientist is going to say "we don't really know" about virtually any question. But when I ask, hey "what is the most possible rainfall in 40 days" they might say "we don't really know, but this model over here suggests 480 inches" They don't mean "we have no fucking clue we are guessing 480 inches", they mean that our models aren't perfect, we round a lot of numbers and our models for physics are approximations. So there is error in the models. We know that. If someone comes along and says "I have a model that show 500 inches is possible" you probably shouldn't discount it until reviewing the model and comparing it to current models to see which is more accurate. When you say 2,880 inches over 40 days is possible, you aren't talking about a few minor inaccuracies in our models caused by rounding and unknown factors, you are saying that they are completely wrong.  


 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok. Good. Finally, for once, you make a specfic statement about your position. I'm going to stop responding to every point, though, as it's a waste of time. I'll just summarize here.

 

So the link you posted regarding someone showing evidence for a flood that may have inspired the myths dates it at even later than young earth creationists date it. A localized flood after 3000BC couldn't have wiped out all humans, so that's out. The article disproves your position based on that, and the speciation numbers I brought up would require 9 new species a day. So it's disproven twice. The reason I brought up the speciation numbers because my spreadsheet was still open. However, while your position is LESS ridiculous if the flood happened up to 4 million years ago (which, as mentioned, is definitely before humans) speciation would have had to occur since then at an AVERAGE rate of 4 new species a year. Considering the fastest evolving things take a few years to yield a single speciation event (under laboratory conditions, meaning a smaller population in the wild, meaning it occurs faster than in the wild typically), this isn't just a slight exaggeration. This is at least equivalent to my semi-truck lifting comparison, if not more-so. You say "oh, he could lift the equivalent weight of a semi over a period of time". I have shown you using simple math that there is simply too tight a time constraint. To get to a rate of speciation that is close to those fruit flies (once again, close to the fastest evolving animals we have, so I'm making a concession here), you would have to go 80 million years back to get 0.2 speciation events a year (equivalent to 1 every 5 years). At this point, it really doesn't matter if there were 2 kinds on the Ark or 1000 (and 2000 animals is already too much to reasonably fit on that boat). The math alone shows that if I give you the most favourable conditions (everything evolves as fast as a fruit fly) you would need 80 million years for this to occur. The earliest evidence of hominids is around 20 million years ago, and those weren't human yet. Since your theology requires humans. If they were Homo Habilis (some of the very earliest), they were around somewhere from 1.4-2.3 million years ago. There is a 78 million year gap here that you need to bridge. Until you provide me with hard evidence that either humans are 80 million years old, or that speciation can that occur many orders of magnitude quicker than what we actually examine, your position is clearly proven false. We are talking 40 times faster here. So if you can find me a group of fruit flies that speciate every 45 days (about 40x faster than the 5 year figure given earlier) then you may be able to make a rational point. 

The flood was also localized as we discussed.  Humans were the target.   I have concluded the possibility that if animals had spread across the world that the arc really was saving the local species where humans had spread to.  If this is the case, then your math is irrelevant. 

We've talked about speculation of the writer.  The whole world or every living creature may not mean literally the whole world as we know it today or every living creature as we know it today.  This already had been discussed as well.

when it comes down to it, your lack of evidence is all you have to support your belief that it's a false story.  there are too many variables we just don't know. 

all of the above is repeated discussion that has already happend on this thread.

just to avoid the goal post excuse here, even if it was every living creature, the liklihood of the speciation occuring over the couple of millions of years as is makes sense... your math assumes a linear evolutionary path when we all know evolution does not work linearly.   it is inconsistent and has bursts of progression with lulls inbetween.  You seem to think the progression of speciation had to be to extreme to happen... why couldn't it have been different for a while?  what rule suggests that speciation didn't speed up for an extended period of time over the ancient world. 

Also, the problem with your math is that things must have evolved much faster than you think.  YOu claim for this story to be true we'd need eighty million years, however we all know most life had been wiped out only 65 million years ago and yet here we are with the variety of species that we have.. several million years shorter than your claim above.  How do you explain the obvious margin of error?

So that particular math is irrelevant if that's the case, yes. However, just like we can determine through DNA roughly how low the human population got at a certain point, we can do the same with other animals. The questions you would then ask are 

1. Where did the flood happen, and

2. What animals lived there? 

Since we can examine how small a genetic bottleneck occured in the history of species by examining their DNA, you would figure that a creationist biologist (they somehow do exist) would examine this with all animals, as some species would display a tiny bottleneck of 1-7 pairs of animals (all species if you're a young earth creationist, only some if you're a Caposkian creationist). No creationist has ever presented such evidence. The reason for this is there IS no evidence of that small a bottleneck within any species, or genus, or family, or order (we needn't go further back than that, you'll probably agree). Young earth creationists would rejoice at finding just ONE such example. They have found 0. Finding such a bottleneck (especially if they find many that are confined to only one region) would provide evidence for your claim. Why aren't creationist biologists doing this if they think it's plausible?

And yes, the lack of evidence is what leads me to believe that the flood myth is....well, a myth. There may be much we don't know, but there are a lot of tests that could be done (one I just outlined) by creationists to provide at least some evidence for their position. They either aren't trying because they know the answer isn't what they want, or they have tried to no avail. No such tests have ever been conducted by creationists to my knowledge, so if it's the former, they are afraid of the truth. If it's the latter, they simply refuse to publish findings that don't support their already pre-determined conclusion (which is VERY intellectually dishonest). 

What suggests that speciation didn't occur that quickly is that speciation requires a some significant amount of accumulated mutations. Every single organism we examine experiences mutations within a predictable range. You are proposing a range that is not just slightly beyond, not just significantly beyond, but ridiculously beyond what we have examined. Therefore, you are making an extraordinary claim. That requires extraordinary evidence. You are, instead, providing no evidence at all. 

As far as your comment on most life being wiped out 65 million years ago...it's not like a catastrophe went "Hmm...well let's eliminate all but a few little lineages!" If many population groups survived (even if their numbers were significantly reduced), there is absolutely no problem with the explanation accepted by biologists....and geologists...and archaeologists. You seem to think that the catastrophe that "wiped out the dinosaurs" (even though it didn't, as birds are their descendants, but many of them, yes) was some targeted ordeal. It wasn't. Your comment is no different than wondering why when a tsunami hits a region, there are still several unique cultures living there when it all subsides. The answer is as Ann as a nose on a plain's face. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

One quick point on your comment on A. Afarensis. You ask what would be next in line towards Homo-Sapien....ever think of looking it up? Regarding Orrorin, there are far less specimens compared to A. Afarensis. It is dated earlier, and is thought in some situations to be morphologically more similar to humans in the femur, although there is dispute on this. Keep in mind, there are far less specimens, so far less conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions should not be jumped to. This is how intellectual honesty works. Remember, when Neanderthals were first discovered, they were hypothesized to be far less human-like than we know them to have been (and have proven 100% by sequencing their genomes). It's possible that they are mistaken. It's also possible that they are right, and A. Afarensis was a branch in the chain leading to us that differed more than we thought, and Orrorin are closer to our actual ancestors (keyword: closer!). It's perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils we find are actually our ancestors, but we can piece together an increasingly accurate evolutionary tree the more specimens that we find. 

I have thought of looking it up.  I have a hard time seeing a smooth timeline of progression... which is why I see the gaps...which is why I'm asking for your help in the matter. 

I find it very interesting that in the same statement you can say; "it's perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils we find are actually our ancestors" and then add" but we can piece together an increasingly accurate evolutionary tree the more specimines that we find."  if its' perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils are actually our ancestor, how do we accurately piece together that tree?  The only way we can be accurate is to know for certain, which you claimed just now is "perhaps impossible". 

I'm being serious and want a serious answer from you. 

You have THOUGHT of looking it up? You are sitting here saying "no, there is no way this could have happened this way" without actually examining what the scientists are saying? I mean, I knew that you didn't understand it, but to admit to not even giving it an honest effort is truly a new level of ignorance. There is no reason to discuss human evolution with you until you go examine it. It would quite literally be a waste of my time, as the information is very readily available on the internet. Here are some starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution Wikipedia (which has many links)

[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/[/url] 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NWdU_MMOo4&list=UUAJfDidJyukTekgSRZrjadw (a 35 minute video by Aronra that flies by)

Now, don't just read the 2 links and listen to the third. Research more. When you see each piece of the puzzle on the wikipedia page, read about the individual clade. Look up pictures of the fossils. Until you put in the time, I have no interest in discussing human evolution with you any longer, as the level to which you are informed about it is not sufficient for you to draw a conclusion either way on the topic (whether humans evolved from other primates or not). 

 

As to how we piece together a tree without knowing for certain which specimens are actually ancestors (rather than, say, distant cousins), it's the same way you can determine that I am quite closely genetically related to my cousin's children by examining DNA. It's evident that we're in the same family. Is it possible to determine if we share a common ancestor, or if one descended from the other? Probably as we're dealing with close family relation here. I don't know enough about the specifics of examing DNA in this way to know whether that is determinable. However, a close relation is most certainly deducable by examining DNA like that. While with older specimens we are dealing simply with homology rather than DNA (unless we are very fortunate to stumble upon finds that still have DNA left to examine). So what if (on a larger scale) I (with no descendants) am the specimen found, but my cousin with the chlidren is not? Would it be reasonable to say that I was my cousin's child's ancestor? Not with certainty, no. Would it be reasonable to say that we are closely related? Yes. Would it be absurd to go and say "you can't prove that!"? Yes. Yes it would. 

I have to comment on what I bolded. Certainty is not a binary thing. Your implication is that one can either be 100% certain, or that they know nothing on the topic. In these situations, there is a degree of certainty, and we can even test that! Casinos don't know that they're going to win every hand. In case, they know they're not. However, the games at a casino are all designed to favour the house with a slight edge (typically very slight, although the margins vary between games). So is a casino owner certain that he'll make money? Well, technically he's not 100% certain. However, the odds are so stacked in his favour (slight odds in every game) that the idea of losing money is one so unlikely that it doesn't deserve mention, and usually involves cheating on the part of a player (or card counting in blackjack, which while technically not cheating if you're not assisted by a device, is frowned upon and usually results in your ejection and denial of re-entry ever to said casino). This is the sort of certainty we have about these fossils being remains of our ancestors AND their relatives. We may only have their relatives in many cases, but it does not make them irrelevant. The gradual change in morphology over the fossil record tells us enough. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Fuck

Beyond Saving wrote:

Fuck you, I've put 100 times more effort into this discussion than you have. I said I don't care if it actually happened or not because I am asking you to show that it COULD happen, a much lower burden of proof. I care very much if it could happen. 

I have just  like you.  I put hours in each time I go through posts.  I meant no disrespect by that statement, only that it's what you portray by stating that.  Obviously you mean to be disrespectful rather than productive.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, what you gave to me (it isn't a model- models require math by definition) was in response to me asking you to prove that 200 feet of rain over 40 s is possible. 

how is math going to show you more than that detailed description? By your responses, even just what I wrote in plain English was beyond your understanding

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, they are looking at the future and what is physically possible. 

with current conditions and their hypothesized progression... none of them are estimating the sheer limits of weather possibility on the planet throughout all past and future timelines. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

They suggested the most plausible scenario would be a really large or perhaps several superheated meteors hitting the ocean.

or simply an massive underwater erruption, though those are also theorized. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because your god didn't make it linear. Due to a variety of physical realities (gravity, thermodynamics, friction, entropy) storms are best modeled using exponential models, not linear ones. 

I asked you why it WOULD need to be linear... you seem to be arguing that my portrayal is linear.  my point is you don't have to view it linearly.  You're right, my God didn't make it linear... if He did, then your arguement might hold more credibility. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if it rained at the world record for a single location across the entire world.... we get to 240 feet. Okay, that is alot, and probably deadly. Is it meteorlogically possible? That kind of sustained downpour requires exponentially more evaporated water than there was above Foc Foc in 1966.

that would be assuming the flood was world wide again right?  What do you mean by "single location across the entire world"?

Beyond Saving wrote:

We then went back and forth, and at that time I was focussed on the amount of water that would have to evaporate, because in my ignorance, I thought that would be a major problem. It was when I educated myself further exploring the subject that I discovered all these other problems. And that is when I got pissed off and stopped talking to you because I asked you to prove that such rainfall was possible and you presented me with a simplistic linear equation.

every time I get more complicated, it goes over your head and you start ranting.  Seems like we need to keep it simple for now. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

According to every link presented, the extreme is far less than 200 feet over 40 days. Rain can fall at that rate, but not for more than a short period of time. 
unless influenced by an outside force... The big aspect of this I think we're forgetting is that we're talking about the possibility that the God of the Bible caused a catestrophic event enough to wipe out life in a localized area, but wide enough to take out humanity.  We've also discussed that this type of rainfall over fourty days would not need to be steady or consistent, only that it had to be progressive through fourty days.  How much rain would fall if the record rainfall fell for two minutes every day for fourty days?  Would that be significant enough?  If not, how much more needs to fall and what is your reasoning? 
Beyond Saving wrote:
 Exactly. That is why I will take any theoretical model that suggests such rain is possible in any type of conditions. Like the hypercane model which proposes a storm using some extremely unlikely conditions.
Alright then, let's talk hypercane, what kind of damage to life would one expect from a moving hypercane... then what kind of increase would be expected if it ended up stalling on a specific location?  Let's just focus on the specific location for both scenarios.    
Beyond Saving wrote:

In this case, these articles provide the mathematical models one might use to predict the liklihood that 5 category 5 hurricanes hit Florida within the same season. All the math is there, and if you are so inclined, you could put in the desired result and solve the equation to determine what the variables would have to be. You could then come up with a probability that such an event could happen given certain variables, or you might discover that a solution is impossible and therefore, within the model such an event is impossible. 

I think those are the best links I've gotten yet.  I'll have to really sit down and go through the processes.  I like that they use the ENSO and NAO variables.. those are universal to all weather pattern predictions and can affect weather world wide.  More importantly, the ENSO formula for volume for warm water can determine the amount and severity of each storm, which is how they predict whether we're going to have a mild season or a stormy season.  The possibilit of 5 cat 5 hurricanes hitting florida within a season is within the realm of possibility based simply on the history charts in the link. 

Considering the theorietical location of Noah's flood, the NAo is likely more relevant, but both should be factored in.  Have you found reason based on these formulas to believe the flood could never happen in the likely location?

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'd be ecstatic with any model that suggested even 100 feet is possible over 40 days anywhere in the world under any theoretical conditions. I just want to know if it is theoretically possible, anywhere, anytime. You said it was, I questioned it, you used your authority as someone with knowledge about meteorology, I dug and found out what you were saying didn't mesh with what other meteorologists say. 

2300 cm is only 75.5 feet. You are saying more than twice that is possible over 40 days, which is why I stopped the conversation and got hung up on this point, because that didn't smell right. 

we've been through this... I had gone back to my alledged claim on the subject only to find I never actually claimed that it was possible or not possible, only that if the math was done on one particular amount of rainfall, it would add up that number linearly.  We both know linear is not how weather works, but the point was to suggest that a large amount of rainfall, not specifically that amount would have had to fall. 

let's talk seventy-five feet.  what would be expected as a result of that much rain?  how about in a desert region?  mountainous?  etc? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well it was created by Dr. Lyons and obviously it is a major simplification 16.6 x (Duration (hours)** 0.475)- written for consumption of average people who don't have a deep meteorlogical background. Initially, I took him completely on his authority as a professional meteorologist (I posted this link very early on before I knew anything about meteorology) I was hoping that you with you vast knowledge could explain why he was wrong or perhaps reveal to me that he is a quack because prior to this I had no idea who he was. It turns out, that Dr. Lyons is a very well respected meteorologist who specializes in tropical weather and has created and revised several hurricane models. 

Since then, I have found that his rough formula falls inline with the far more in depth models that I have linked to.

yes, He is among the best.  I thought it seemed a bit too simplified, I couldn't figure out based on that model how it determines the true limitations of worldwide precipitation.  considering its simplified nature, it is quite irrelevant to our conversation be it that we're trying to analyze way beyond the simple.  Your links are a better source at this point.  Even so his formula does portray a drastic amount of rainfall within a fourty day period.  Again I will ask you waht you would expect from what his simplified model predicts?  Would it not be enough?  HOw much more would be needed to wipe out life in a localized region?  Remember his simplified formula is an average maximum and has a variable range. 

It's good to know Dr. Lyons created the formula, it's also good to know that Dr. Lyons is an expert at dumbing down Meteorology for the general public.. you know, for those who are curious, not for those who are trying to determine actual weather events in history.    I will also point out that his focus is specifically on Hurricanes... which means Dr. Ted Fugita is actually more of an expert on Tornados than Dr. Lyons, yet Dr. Lyons knows more about hurricanes than Dr. Fugita.  Each are the best in Meteorology at their particular focus.  Neither claim to be experts in historical weather patterns.  Both are focused on current and future weatehr events, how we can better prepare for them, better predict them and better understand them.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Any scientist is going to say "we don't really know" about virtually any question. But when I ask, hey "what is the most possible rainfall in 40 days" they might say "we don't really know, but this model over here suggests 480 inches" They don't mean "we have no fucking clue we are guessing 480 inches", they mean that our models aren't perfect, we round a lot of numbers and our models for physics are approximations. So there is error in the models. We know that. If someone comes along and says "I have a model that show 500 inches is possible" you probably shouldn't discount it until reviewing the model and comparing it to current models to see which is more accurate. When you say 2,880 inches over 40 days is possible, you aren't talking about a few minor inaccuracies in our models caused by rounding and unknown factors, you are saying that they are completely wrong.

well, when no model factors in God, they could be completely wrong.  Again, you're stuck on a number taht was not even a claim... you have been holding onto an "if then" as if it was an "it is" statement.  We need to move past this and talk about what you would expect from the extremes we have just talked about... you know the parts where I aske dyou what you would expect from X.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:So that

Jabberwocky wrote:

So that particular math is irrelevant if that's the case, yes. However, just like we can determine through DNA roughly how low the human population got at a certain point, we can do the same with other animals. The questions you would then ask are 

1. Where did the flood happen, and

2. What animals lived there? 

Since we can examine how small a genetic bottleneck occured in the history of species by examining their DNA, you would figure that a creationist biologist (they somehow do exist) would examine this with all animals, as some species would display a tiny bottleneck of 1-7 pairs of animals (all species if you're a young earth creationist, only some if you're a Caposkian creationist). No creationist has ever presented such evidence. The reason for this is there IS no evidence of that small a bottleneck within any species, or genus, or family, or order (we needn't go further back than that, you'll probably agree). Young earth creationists would rejoice at finding just ONE such example. They have found 0. Finding such a bottleneck (especially if they find many that are confined to only one region) would provide evidence for your claim. Why aren't creationist biologists doing this if they think it's plausible?

And yes, the lack of evidence is what leads me to believe that the flood myth is....well, a myth. There may be much we don't know, but there are a lot of tests that could be done (one I just outlined) by creationists to provide at least some evidence for their position. They either aren't trying because they know the answer isn't what they want, or they have tried to no avail. No such tests have ever been conducted by creationists to my knowledge, so if it's the former, they are afraid of the truth. If it's the latter, they simply refuse to publish findings that don't support their already pre-determined conclusion (which is VERY intellectually dishonest). 

What suggests that speciation didn't occur that quickly is that speciation requires a some significant amount of accumulated mutations. Every single organism we examine experiences mutations within a predictable range. You are proposing a range that is not just slightly beyond, not just significantly beyond, but ridiculously beyond what we have examined. Therefore, you are making an extraordinary claim. That requires extraordinary evidence. You are, instead, providing no evidence at all. 

As far as your comment on most life being wiped out 65 million years ago...it's not like a catastrophe went "Hmm...well let's eliminate all but a few little lineages!" If many population groups survived (even if their numbers were significantly reduced), there is absolutely no problem with the explanation accepted by biologists....and geologists...and archaeologists. You seem to think that the catastrophe that "wiped out the dinosaurs" (even though it didn't, as birds are their descendants, but many of them, yes) was some targeted ordeal. It wasn't. Your comment is no different than wondering why when a tsunami hits a region, there are still several unique cultures living there when it all subsides. The answer is as Ann as a nose on a plain's face. 

many smaller population groups survived.  but as we noticed, most did not.  Few did.  For the beginning, I would say most creationists don't consider the Noah story soemthign they need to prove, therefore the research into its possibility was deemed unncessary.  what is needed is to prove that Jesus Christ Is the Son of God and that He came to die so that we may live.  That's where the majoirty of creationist research has gone as well as the lineage thorugh the kings and that history. 

It's actually quite ignorant to try to take the story of NOah and use that to prove or disprove the Bible let alone God.  It's a poor place to start. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

One quick point on your comment on A. Afarensis. You ask what would be next in line towards Homo-Sapien....ever think of looking it up? Regarding Orrorin, there are far less specimens compared to A. Afarensis. It is dated earlier, and is thought in some situations to be morphologically more similar to humans in the femur, although there is dispute on this. Keep in mind, there are far less specimens, so far less conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions should not be jumped to. This is how intellectual honesty works. Remember, when Neanderthals were first discovered, they were hypothesized to be far less human-like than we know them to have been (and have proven 100% by sequencing their genomes). It's possible that they are mistaken. It's also possible that they are right, and A. Afarensis was a branch in the chain leading to us that differed more than we thought, and Orrorin are closer to our actual ancestors (keyword: closer!). It's perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils we find are actually our ancestors, but we can piece together an increasingly accurate evolutionary tree the more specimens that we find. 

I have thought of looking it up.  I have a hard time seeing a smooth timeline of progression... which is why I see the gaps...which is why I'm asking for your help in the matter. 

I find it very interesting that in the same statement you can say; "it's perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils we find are actually our ancestors" and then add" but we can piece together an increasingly accurate evolutionary tree the more specimines that we find."  if its' perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils are actually our ancestor, how do we accurately piece together that tree?  The only way we can be accurate is to know for certain, which you claimed just now is "perhaps impossible". 

I'm being serious and want a serious answer from you. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have THOUGHT of looking it up? You are sitting here saying "no, there is no way this could have happened this way" without actually examining what the scientists are saying? I mean, I knew that you didn't understand it, but to admit to not even giving it an honest effort is truly a new level of ignorance. There is no reason to discuss human evolution with you until you go examine it. It would quite literally be a waste of my time, as the information is very readily available on the internet. Here are some starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution Wikipedia (which has many links)

[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/[/url] 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NWdU_MMOo4&list=UUAJfDidJyukTekgSRZrjadw (a 35 minute video by Aronra that flies by)

Now, don't just read the 2 links and listen to the third. Research more. When you see each piece of the puzzle on the wikipedia page, read about the individual clade. Look up pictures of the fossils. Until you put in the time, I have no interest in discussing human evolution with you any longer, as the level to which you are informed about it is not sufficient for you to draw a conclusion either way on the topic (whether humans evolved from other primates or not). 

so instead of directly answering my question, you tangent on my statement that sarcastically repeats your exact thatment that asks me if I "thought of looking it up" which in turn I replied "I have thought of looking it up" which if you had been reading our posts and my posts to others on this thread from the start you would know that I have been looking it up... so let's get back to my question now.  f its' perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils are actually our ancestor, how do we accurately piece together that tree?

answered below possibly... let's see.

 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

As to how we piece together a tree without knowing for certain which specimens are actually ancestors (rather than, say, distant cousins), it's the same way you can determine that I am quite closely genetically related to my cousin's children by examining DNA. It's evident that we're in the same family. Is it possible to determine if we share a common ancestor, or if one descended from the other? Probably as we're dealing with close family relation here. I don't know enough about the specifics of examing DNA in this way to know whether that is determinable. However, a close relation is most certainly deducable by examining DNA like that. While with older specimens we are dealing simply with homology rather than DNA (unless we are very fortunate to stumble upon finds that still have DNA left to examine). So what if (on a larger scale) I (with no descendants) am the specimen found, but my cousin with the chlidren is not? Would it be reasonable to say that I was my cousin's child's ancestor? Not with certainty, no. Would it be reasonable to say that we are closely related? Yes. Would it be absurd to go and say "you can't prove that!"? Yes. Yes it would. 

by that reasoning, it then would be absurd to claim that jellyfish are not closely related to watermelon.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I have to comment on what I bolded. Certainty is not a binary thing. Your implication is that one can either be 100% certain, or that they know nothing on the topic. In these situations, there is a degree of certainty, and we can even test that! Casinos don't know that they're going to win every hand. In case, they know they're not. However, the games at a casino are all designed to favour the house with a slight edge (typically very slight, although the margins vary between games). So is a casino owner certain that he'll make money? Well, technically he's not 100% certain. However, the odds are so stacked in his favour (slight odds in every game) that the idea of losing money is one so unlikely that it doesn't deserve mention, and usually involves cheating on the part of a player (or card counting in blackjack, which while technically not cheating if you're not assisted by a device, is frowned upon and usually results in your ejection and denial of re-entry ever to said casino). This is the sort of certainty we have about these fossils being remains of our ancestors AND their relatives. We may only have their relatives in many cases, but it does not make them irrelevant. The gradual change in morphology over the fossil record tells us enough. 

well point and case, we are more closely related to an ancestor that is dated much earlier in history than our theoretical conclusion of the flood.  That ancestor also looks and supposedly acted like a human... point and case, we aer several million years into that ancestry by the time noah's flood happens... that ancestor is also said ot have the ability to create tools... This bodes well for the case at hand.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, what you gave to me (it isn't a model- models require math by definition) was in response to me asking you to prove that 200 feet of rain over 40 s is possible. 

how is math going to show you more than that detailed description? By your responses, even just what I wrote in plain English was beyond your understanding

Because math is a precise language that is supported by copious amounts of evidence. When you say X amount of rain is possible, here is the mathematical model I used to determine this, anyone can test, run the numbers and see if you are right or wrong. Furthermore, we can then test the model for accuracy and test the assumptions. Words are very vague everything you said is completely meaningless and even if I went through the effort to dig up a model and develop something along the lines of your scenario, it would show that such a storm would produce less than 240 feet of rain. Then you would hide behind the vagueness and your wirds 'strong', 'fast' etc. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

I asked you why it WOULD need to be linear... you seem to be arguing that my portrayal is linear.  my point is you don't have to view it linearly.  You're right, my God didn't make it linear... if He did, then your arguement might hold more credibility. 

Huh? I'm not the one arguing rain is linear, you are. Several times you have taken short periods of rain as evidence it could happen consecutively. You do so again later in this post.

 

Caposkia wrote:

every time I get more complicated, it goes over your head and you start ranting.  Seems like we need to keep it simple for now. 

Where exactly have you gotten complicated? I've asked you dozens of times now for a single link to an academic journal or other reliable source with a model that supports your claim. So far, the ONLY defense you have made is extrapolating world record rainfall linearly. Plus a vague description of multiple storms meeting which provided no evidence that the jet streams would react the way you asserted. The only links you provided were to a MOVIE which you assured me was based on a real model, but you have failed to show me where that model exists. 

On the other hand, I have linked you to several models that directly refute your claims in great detail.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

According to every link presented, the extreme is far less than 200 feet over 40 days. Rain can fall at that rate, but not for more than a short period of time. 
unless influenced by an outside force... The big aspect of this I think we're forgetting is that we're talking about the possibility that the God of the Bible caused a catestrophic event enough to wipe out life in a localized area, but wide enough to take out humanity.
No, there is no "unless" anything. The links I have provided are not filled with caveats and speculations. 
caposkia wrote:
 We've also discussed that this type of rainfall over fourty days would not need to be steady or consistent, only that it had to be progressive through fourty days.  How much rain would fall if the record rainfall fell for two minutes every day for fourty days?  Would that be significant enough?  If not, how much more needs to fall and what is your reasoning?
Here you go again with a linear rain argument. It would be less tan 80 inches. And it wouldn't fall for two minutes a day for 40 days, that isn't how rain works so speculating about the effects if it did happen are as pointless as arguing about what would happen if Harry Potter joined Slytherin.   
Caposkia wrote:
Alright then, let's talk hypercane, what kind of damage to life would one expect from a moving hypercane... then what kind of increase would be expected if it ended up stalling on a specific location?  Let's just focus on the specific location for both scenarios.
 Of human life? 100% before the storm even struck. Even firemen in a firesuit can only survive in 200 degrees for a short time. All humans in the area would die from heat, building an ark wouldn't save you. Perhaps going deep into a cave might protect you from the heat.  
Caposkia wrote:

I think those are the best links I've gotten yet.  I'll have to really sit down and go through the processes.  I like that they use the ENSO and NAO variables.. those are universal to all weather pattern predictions and can affect weather world wide.  More importantly, the ENSO formula for volume for warm water can determine the amount and severity of each storm, which is how they predict whether we're going to have a mild season or a stormy season.  The possibilit of 5 cat 5 hurricanes hitting florida within a season is within the realm of possibility based simply on the history charts in the link. 

Considering the theorietical location of Noah's flood, the NAo is likely more relevant, but both should be factored in.  Have you found reason based on these formulas to believe the flood could never happen in the likely location?

Both of these models predict maximum rainfalls well below 200 feet. Link me to the mdel that makes such a prediction, that is what I have been asking for. 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

we've been through this... I had gone back to my alledged claim on the subject only to find I never actually claimed that it was possible or not possible, only that if the math was done on one particular amount of rainfall, it would add up that number linearly.  We both know linear is not how weather works, but the point was to suggest that a large amount of rainfall, not specifically that amount would have had to fall. 

let's talk seventy-five feet.  what would be expected as a result of that much rain?  how about in a desert region?  mountainous?  etc?

Okay, so are you admitting that 200+ feet is NOT theoretically possible? That is all I have been trying to get from you for the last several pages, either admit it isn't theoretically possible or show evidence to support that it is possible.

Why should we talk about 75 feet? Do you have a basis to believe that is possible?

 

 

Caposkia wrote:
Again I will ask you waht you would expect from what his simplified model predicts?  Would it not be enough?  HOw much more would be needed to wipe out life in a localized region?  Remember his simplified formula is an average maximum and has a variable range.

Since we know that primitive humans have survived floods much larger than those caused by rainfall not much less than the extremes Dr. Lyons predicts, I think it is obvious that it wouldn't be anywhere near enough.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

It's good to know Dr. Lyons created the formula, it's also good to know that Dr. Lyons is an expert at dumbing down Meteorology for the general public.. you know, for those who are curious, not for those who are trying to determine actual weather events in history.    I will also point out that his focus is specifically on Hurricanes... which means Dr. Ted Fugita is actually more of an expert on Tornados than Dr. Lyons, yet Dr. Lyons knows more about hurricanes than Dr. Fugita.  Each are the best in Meteorology at their particular focus.  Neither claim to be experts in historical weather patterns.  Both are focused on current and future weatehr events, how we can better prepare for them, better predict them and better understand them.

Well yeah, it was one of the first links I found very early on. It is a rule of thumb, not precise, but rules of thumb are useful to know if something is so far out of the norm it requires more substantial evidence. You are the one who claimed expertise, so point me to the relevant experts. I didn't know any of these peoples names a couple months ago, and you haven't helped at all.

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

So that particular math is irrelevant if that's the case, yes. However, just like we can determine through DNA roughly how low the human population got at a certain point, we can do the same with other animals. The questions you would then ask are 

1. Where did the flood happen, and

2. What animals lived there? 

Since we can examine how small a genetic bottleneck occured in the history of species by examining their DNA, you would figure that a creationist biologist (they somehow do exist) would examine this with all animals, as some species would display a tiny bottleneck of 1-7 pairs of animals (all species if you're a young earth creationist, only some if you're a Caposkian creationist). No creationist has ever presented such evidence. The reason for this is there IS no evidence of that small a bottleneck within any species, or genus, or family, or order (we needn't go further back than that, you'll probably agree). Young earth creationists would rejoice at finding just ONE such example. They have found 0. Finding such a bottleneck (especially if they find many that are confined to only one region) would provide evidence for your claim. Why aren't creationist biologists doing this if they think it's plausible?

And yes, the lack of evidence is what leads me to believe that the flood myth is....well, a myth. There may be much we don't know, but there are a lot of tests that could be done (one I just outlined) by creationists to provide at least some evidence for their position. They either aren't trying because they know the answer isn't what they want, or they have tried to no avail. No such tests have ever been conducted by creationists to my knowledge, so if it's the former, they are afraid of the truth. If it's the latter, they simply refuse to publish findings that don't support their already pre-determined conclusion (which is VERY intellectually dishonest). 

What suggests that speciation didn't occur that quickly is that speciation requires a some significant amount of accumulated mutations. Every single organism we examine experiences mutations within a predictable range. You are proposing a range that is not just slightly beyond, not just significantly beyond, but ridiculously beyond what we have examined. Therefore, you are making an extraordinary claim. That requires extraordinary evidence. You are, instead, providing no evidence at all. 

As far as your comment on most life being wiped out 65 million years ago...it's not like a catastrophe went "Hmm...well let's eliminate all but a few little lineages!" If many population groups survived (even if their numbers were significantly reduced), there is absolutely no problem with the explanation accepted by biologists....and geologists...and archaeologists. You seem to think that the catastrophe that "wiped out the dinosaurs" (even though it didn't, as birds are their descendants, but many of them, yes) was some targeted ordeal. It wasn't. Your comment is no different than wondering why when a tsunami hits a region, there are still several unique cultures living there when it all subsides. The answer is as Ann as a nose on a plain's face. 

many smaller population groups survived.  but as we noticed, most did not.  Few did.  For the beginning, I would say most creationists don't consider the Noah story soemthign they need to prove, therefore the research into its possibility was deemed unncessary.  what is needed is to prove that Jesus Christ Is the Son of God and that He came to die so that we may live.  That's where the majoirty of creationist research has gone as well as the lineage thorugh the kings and that history. 

It's actually quite ignorant to try to take the story of NOah and use that to prove or disprove the Bible let alone God.  It's a poor place to start. 

Creationists don't ever feel that they need to prove anything. They merely assert. That's why they are irrational. As far as that lineage stuff...what? What research?

Why is it ignorant to use the story of Noah to use that to prove or disprove the bible/god? It's in the bible. Many Christians view it as a parable. I'm not arguing with them (at least not on that point). You are asserting that the flood happened, and that it is theologically necessary for your position. You have failed to provide one bit of evidence that it happened, or one bit of evidence that it was even possible. Many people in this thread have pointed out the extraordinary things which would have had to have taken place in order for the flood to be a real story. You have failed to refute any individual point, but like any creationist, or any pigeon playing chess, rather than provide a sound refutation, you shit on the point (metaphorically in your case) and claim victory. Until you address my point in the other thread, I'm done with biblical errancy/inerrancy with you, as you have demonstrated that you can't be honest about that topic. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

One quick point on your comment on A. Afarensis. You ask what would be next in line towards Homo-Sapien....ever think of looking it up? Regarding Orrorin, there are far less specimens compared to A. Afarensis. It is dated earlier, and is thought in some situations to be morphologically more similar to humans in the femur, although there is dispute on this. Keep in mind, there are far less specimens, so far less conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions should not be jumped to. This is how intellectual honesty works. Remember, when Neanderthals were first discovered, they were hypothesized to be far less human-like than we know them to have been (and have proven 100% by sequencing their genomes). It's possible that they are mistaken. It's also possible that they are right, and A. Afarensis was a branch in the chain leading to us that differed more than we thought, and Orrorin are closer to our actual ancestors (keyword: closer!). It's perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils we find are actually our ancestors, but we can piece together an increasingly accurate evolutionary tree the more specimens that we find. 

I have thought of looking it up.  I have a hard time seeing a smooth timeline of progression... which is why I see the gaps...which is why I'm asking for your help in the matter. 

I find it very interesting that in the same statement you can say; "it's perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils we find are actually our ancestors" and then add" but we can piece together an increasingly accurate evolutionary tree the more specimines that we find."  if its' perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils are actually our ancestor, how do we accurately piece together that tree?  The only way we can be accurate is to know for certain, which you claimed just now is "perhaps impossible". 

I'm being serious and want a serious answer from you. 

Look it up. List the species you see that are said to have progressed to modern humans (homo sapiens). Identify real problems (gaps too large to possibly be accounted) between them. I will do my best to address them. Until you actually learn what biologists are actually saying, you do not have the mental tools in order to proclaim them wrong, because some ancient book written by barbaric men says so. I will not address any problems in evolution you present regarding "gaps" unless you name the actual species involved. Last time I got you to get closer and closer to this, you abruptly stopped talking about humans, and went to bats and aardvarks or some other such ridiculous comparison. 

I provided an example with close family, because it's the same idea on a smaller scale. Were you to compare genes between people where you already know the relation (immediate family, extended family, etc.) you find that there is a predictable pattern to the inherited genes. The same is the case if you were to very very closely examine people physically. So if you DNA test me, then a random Polish person, a random British person, and a random Vietnamese person, we can predict right now which would have the closest genetic relation vs. the furthest. We can determine (with less accuracy, but still somewhat accurately) by examining people physically. Some differences are more obvious than others. 

As far as your bolded part, you must realize that I rejected your assertion that I bolded. Certainty about certain things can be binary. Other things (such as comprehensive descriptions of how life evolved) operate on a spectrum of certainty. The more evidence we find, the more accurate we can make our description. The broad idea is definitely correct though (pending actual disproving evidence...which I bet you nobody will ever find). It's much like Newton's law of gravity. It seemed very accurate at the time when tested. However, Einstein made a revision with his theory of relativity, and was correct. Newton's equation, however, was not tossed out wholesale. It was revised, because it had proven itself very accurate. It just has a few extra variables to account for relativity. The theory of evolution by natural selection (in its entirety) is the same in that sense. The details are revised and updated as new evidence comes in. Nothing is claimed 100% certain if it is not known to be 100% certain. However, the level of certainty is very high. It is extraordinarily rare for a find to be made, be it in DNA or in geological strata, that completely surprises or shocks biologists. Our description is so good now, that we find what we expect to find. Why do you reject this type of research?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have THOUGHT of looking it up? You are sitting here saying "no, there is no way this could have happened this way" without actually examining what the scientists are saying? I mean, I knew that you didn't understand it, but to admit to not even giving it an honest effort is truly a new level of ignorance. There is no reason to discuss human evolution with you until you go examine it. It would quite literally be a waste of my time, as the information is very readily available on the internet. Here are some starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution Wikipedia (which has many links)

[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/[/url] 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NWdU_MMOo4&list=UUAJfDidJyukTekgSRZrjadw (a 35 minute video by Aronra that flies by)

Now, don't just read the 2 links and listen to the third. Research more. When you see each piece of the puzzle on the wikipedia page, read about the individual clade. Look up pictures of the fossils. Until you put in the time, I have no interest in discussing human evolution with you any longer, as the level to which you are informed about it is not sufficient for you to draw a conclusion either way on the topic (whether humans evolved from other primates or not). 

so instead of directly answering my question, you tangent on my statement that sarcastically repeats your exact thatment that asks me if I "thought of looking it up" which in turn I replied "I have thought of looking it up" which if you had been reading our posts and my posts to others on this thread from the start you would know that I have been looking it up... so let's get back to my question now.  f its' perhaps impossible to ever know for certain which fossils are actually our ancestor, how do we accurately piece together that tree?

answered below possibly... let's see.

 

Hah! Accusing me of not directly answering your question....that's rich. As I said. When it comes to gaps, name the species you find a gap in (one where biologists actually say that one modern species evolved from an older one they've found) that is problematic. Until then, you are evading my challenge blatantly, since I described very specifically what I want from you as a "gap".

caposkia wrote:

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

As to how we piece together a tree without knowing for certain which specimens are actually ancestors (rather than, say, distant cousins), it's the same way you can determine that I am quite closely genetically related to my cousin's children by examining DNA. It's evident that we're in the same family. Is it possible to determine if we share a common ancestor, or if one descended from the other? Probably as we're dealing with close family relation here. I don't know enough about the specifics of examing DNA in this way to know whether that is determinable. However, a close relation is most certainly deducable by examining DNA like that. While with older specimens we are dealing simply with homology rather than DNA (unless we are very fortunate to stumble upon finds that still have DNA left to examine). So what if (on a larger scale) I (with no descendants) am the specimen found, but my cousin with the chlidren is not? Would it be reasonable to say that I was my cousin's child's ancestor? Not with certainty, no. Would it be reasonable to say that we are closely related? Yes. Would it be absurd to go and say "you can't prove that!"? Yes. Yes it would. 

by that reasoning, it then would be absurd to claim that jellyfish are not closely related to watermelon.

What? How? Explain how what I said led you to that conclusion! I can tell you that it's brighter at noon than it is at dusk in the winter, and you then say "by that reasoning, it would be absurd to claim that day and night are not alike". You seem to have a problem with the concept of examining something in this sort of comparative way. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I have to comment on what I bolded. Certainty is not a binary thing. Your implication is that one can either be 100% certain, or that they know nothing on the topic. In these situations, there is a degree of certainty, and we can even test that! Casinos don't know that they're going to win every hand. In case, they know they're not. However, the games at a casino are all designed to favour the house with a slight edge (typically very slight, although the margins vary between games). So is a casino owner certain that he'll make money? Well, technically he's not 100% certain. However, the odds are so stacked in his favour (slight odds in every game) that the idea of losing money is one so unlikely that it doesn't deserve mention, and usually involves cheating on the part of a player (or card counting in blackjack, which while technically not cheating if you're not assisted by a device, is frowned upon and usually results in your ejection and denial of re-entry ever to said casino). This is the sort of certainty we have about these fossils being remains of our ancestors AND their relatives. We may only have their relatives in many cases, but it does not make them irrelevant. The gradual change in morphology over the fossil record tells us enough. 

well point and case, we are more closely related to an ancestor that is dated much earlier in history than our theoretical conclusion of the flood.  That ancestor also looks and supposedly acted like a human... point and case, we aer several million years into that ancestry by the time noah's flood happens... that ancestor is also said ot have the ability to create tools... This bodes well for the case at hand.

Which one? Are we? The species you cited (orrorin tugenesis) has far less fossils found than A. Afarensis. You'll notice when reading up on this, that the scientific community has currently no consensus on whether Orrorin is more likely to be our ancestor than A. Afarensis yet, because the lack of unique specimens makes an accurate comparison difficult. Due to their intellectual honesty, no conclusion are being jumped to. You'll notice that this specimen was found in Kenya. That's nothing out of the ordinary. It's exciting because it's new and seemingly distinct in a way. It's possible that A. Afarensis was an extinct cousin and Orrorin is our ancestor. It's also possible that A Afarensis is our ancestor (or very closely related to it) and Orrorin evolved more human-like teeth separate from us. These are both potential conclusions that can be drawn from the information (and probably not the only possibilities either)

As far as being a few million years into that ancestry by the time noah's flood happens...how does that help your case? I thought you agreed that for theological reasons, all humans must be wiped out by the flood if the story is to be accurate. If they spread from Kenya to North Africa and Mesopotamia, then that's a pretty big fucking flood, no? Why is there no physical evidence for such a flood (as we would expect from such a flood)?

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Because

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because math is a precise language that is supported by copious amounts of evidence. When you say X amount of rain is possible, here is the mathematical model I used to determine this, anyone can test, run the numbers and see if you are right or wrong. Furthermore, we can then test the model for accuracy and test the assumptions. Words are very vague everything you said is completely meaningless and even if I went through the effort to dig up a model and develop something along the lines of your scenario, it would show that such a storm would produce less than 240 feet of rain. Then you would hide behind the vagueness and your wirds 'strong', 'fast' etc. 

right, and the simplest math had been used... precice documented numbers of the events taking place.  The problem with testing math is you need a constant... which weather is not. 

Here... let's look at it from another perspective.  Let's figure how many gallons of water needed to fall... how many do you think would need to fall for a Noah like flood to occur... or what would be reasonable to you?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Huh? I'm not the one arguing rain is linear, you are. Several times you have taken short periods of rain as evidence it could happen consecutively. You do so again later in this post.

consecutive storms aren't necessarily linear... you claimed my arguement was linear and I asked you why.  What matters is the grand total, the ground conditions, terrain, climate, etc.  All that factors into how severe the flood result is.  One inch of rain falling over an area of only one acre drops over twenty-seven thousand gallons of water.  what does that amound of water look like when channeled or concentrated? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Where exactly have you gotten complicated? I've asked you dozens of times now for a single link to an academic journal or other reliable source with a model that supports your claim. So far, the ONLY defense you have made is extrapolating world record rainfall linearly. Plus a vague description of multiple storms meeting which provided no evidence that the jet streams would react the way you asserted. The only links you provided were to a MOVIE which you assured me was based on a real model, but you have failed to show me where that model exists. 

On the other hand, I have linked you to several models that directly refute your claims in great detail.

Jet streams do what I claimed through several years.. they would just need to align right to channel the weather into the particular location in question... see what I mean about being over your head? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, there is no "unless" anything. The links I have provided are not filled with caveats and speculations.
yet everything you rant about is based on speculation despite your belief that it's not.  Even mathematical problems when tied to a theoretical situaion become speculation.  We speculate based on our limited knowledge of weather or whatever the subject may be that math problem X will determine the range of possibility.  If you notice throughout science, those math problems change with new knowledge... e.g. there's a reason why Ted Fugita modified his wind scale for tornados. 
Beyond Saving wrote:
 
caposkia wrote:
 We've also discussed that this type of rainfall over fourty days would not need to be steady or consistent, only that it had to be progressive through fourty days.  How much rain would fall if the record rainfall fell for two minutes every day for fourty days?  Would that be significant enough?  If not, how much more needs to fall and what is your reasoning?
Here you go again with a linear rain argument. It would be less tan 80 inches. And it wouldn't fall for two minutes a day for 40 days, that isn't how rain works so speculating about the effects if it did happen are as pointless as arguing about what would happen if Harry Potter joined Slytherin.
good job ignoring the question and trying to deter the point.  This is a hypothetical... not an equation,  answer the questions.
Beyond Saving wrote:
   
Caposkia wrote:
Alright then, let's talk hypercane, what kind of damage to life would one expect from a moving hypercane... then what kind of increase would be expected if it ended up stalling on a specific location?  Let's just focus on the specific location for both scenarios.
 Of human life? 100% before the storm even struck. Even firemen in a firesuit can only survive in 200 degrees for a short time. All humans in the area would die from heat, building an ark wouldn't save you. Perhaps going deep into a cave might protect you from the heat.
again, good job ignoring the focus... last i remember we weren't discussing temperatures.  and odds are that teh whole world wouldn't end up being taht hot in order for the hypercane to affect an area.. it's likely that there is life not in extreme temperatures that will be affected by such a storm if it were to occur. 
Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Both of these models predict maximum rainfalls well below 200 feet. Link me to the mdel that makes such a prediction, that is what I have been asking for. 

we've already established that your tangent on this two hundred feet was an if then scenario and not an actual prediction by me or anyone else.  The models predict the absolute possibility of the 5 cat 5 hurricanes, that's what we were talking about here. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Okay, so are you admitting that 200+ feet is NOT theoretically possible? That is all I have been trying to get from you for the last several pages, either admit it isn't theoretically possible or show evidence to support that it is possible.

Why should we talk about 75 feet? Do you have a basis to believe that is possible?

wow really, you finally see that?  Thank you, maybe we'll make progress now...

why should we talk about seventy five feet?  that is based on a link you posted a few back that shows that might be the likely maximum from one storm event over a period of 40 days... remember that forumla that I had asked its origins and basis?   Dr. Lyons I believe

Beyond Saving wrote:

Since we know that primitive humans have survived floods much larger than those caused by rainfall not much less than the extremes Dr. Lyons predicts, I think it is obvious that it wouldn't be anywhere near enough.

in all locations?  Rainfall does not determine flood severity necessarily... e.g. 10 inches of rain in a short period of time in New England can cause catestrophic damage... however 10 inches of rain over a village in the middle of the amazon would do nothing be it that it's a more normal occurance. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Well yeah, it was one of the first links I found very early on. It is a rule of thumb, not precise, but rules of thumb are useful to know if something is so far out of the norm it requires more substantial evidence. You are the one who claimed expertise, so point me to the relevant experts. I didn't know any of these peoples names a couple months ago, and you haven't helped at all.

right, neither of them help us better understand the subject at hand.  We both know that this event is "far out of the norm" and would require more substantial evidence.  We both also know we don't have substantial evidence of this flood.  If we did there'd be no discussion... so instead we have to base everything on hypothetical weather patterns that could happen and then determine how the climate, terrain, geology etc would affect the maximum predicted amount of rainfall in a fourty day period.... which means we must first determine where this flood supposedly occured... or more specifically, where the human population had migrated to by the piont of the flood. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because math is a precise language that is supported by copious amounts of evidence. When you say X amount of rain is possible, here is the mathematical model I used to determine this, anyone can test, run the numbers and see if you are right or wrong. Furthermore, we can then test the model for accuracy and test the assumptions. Words are very vague everything you said is completely meaningless and even if I went through the effort to dig up a model and develop something along the lines of your scenario, it would show that such a storm would produce less than 240 feet of rain. Then you would hide behind the vagueness and your wirds 'strong', 'fast' etc. 

right, and the simplest math had been used... precice documented numbers of the events taking place.  The problem with testing math is you need a constant... which weather is not. 

Weather has many constants, someone who was knowledgeable about meteorology would know that. Read the sources I linked to, they have many constants.

 

caposkia wrote:

Here... let's look at it from another perspective.  Let's figure how many gallons of water needed to fall... how many do you think would need to fall for a Noah like flood to occur... or what would be reasonable to you?

Whether you measure water by gallons or square inches is irrelevant, you are talking about the same amount. You suggested 240 ft was "theoretically possible" apparently you are abandoning that claim and now saying 70 ft. I don't think 70 feet is anywhere near a "Noah like" flood. The Missoula flood released water at an estimated 17 million cubic meters a second. (That would be 4.5 BILLION gallons A SECOND) Since God promised that no larger flood would ever occur, the Missoula flood must have been smaller (otherwise your God is a liar), therefore, you need rainfall that exceeds the amount of the Missoula flood. Now that was a flood that could very well wipe out an entire population... except it didn't and it was on the opposite side of the world from Noah and no rain was involved. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

consecutive storms aren't necessarily linear... you claimed my arguement was linear and I asked you why.  What matters is the grand total, the ground conditions, terrain, climate, etc.  All that factors into how severe the flood result is.  One inch of rain falling over an area of only one acre drops over twenty-seven thousand gallons of water.  what does that amound of water look like when channeled or concentrated? 

A decent sized swimming pool. 18X40 and 5 ft deep to be exact. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Jet streams do what I claimed through several years.. they would just need to align right to channel the weather into the particular location in question... see what I mean about being over your head? 

Lol, over my head? Your argument is infantile. You have yet to show that if the jet streams did exactly as you suggested that the result would be a gigantic amount of rain. You haven't even specifically stated where the jet streams would have to be, you instead were extraordinarily vague. While at the same time, you have obviously just glossed over the actual in depth articles I referred you to. 

 

caposkia wrote:

yet everything you rant about is based on speculation despite your belief that it's not.  Even mathematical problems when tied to a theoretical situaion become speculation.  We speculate based on our limited knowledge of weather or whatever the subject may be that math problem X will determine the range of possibility.  If you notice throughout science, those math problems change with new knowledge... e.g. there's a reason why Ted Fugita modified his wind scale for tornados.

Someone who was trained in any science class, including meteorology ought to know the difference between speculation and a theory. Speculation is something that is drawn out of thin air with no supportable evidence- like say claiming a massive flood wiped out all of humanity when there is no physical evidence. A theory is a conclusion or series of conclusions drawn from the available evidence that best explains all of the evidence. Our meteorlogical theories are able to rather accurately predict future weather. Are they perfect? No. But as we get new data, we tweak them a bit. There are A LOT of variables in weather and A LOT of constants that you say don't exist. Eventually we might know them all perfectly, as of now we know a great deal of them. Enough that with specific and accurate information, we can predict almost perfectly what will happen tomorrow. Further out, more error creeps in- most of our inaccuracy comes from the practical real world consideration of accurately collecting the massive amount of data needed to predict weather. Then again. someone who is knowledgeable about meteorology wouldn't need me to give them a 101 course on such basic scientific fundamentals. (especially since Jabberwocky already did such a good job on this very subject- it isn't you Jabberwocky, the student can be dense) 

   
Quote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
 
caposkia wrote:
 We've also discussed that this type of rainfall over fourty days would not need to be steady or consistent, only that it had to be progressive through fourty days.  How much rain would fall if the record rainfall fell for two minutes every day for fourty days?  Would that be significant enough?  If not, how much more needs to fall and what is your reasoning?
Here you go again with a linear rain argument. It would be less tan 80 inches. And it wouldn't fall for two minutes a day for 40 days, that isn't how rain works so speculating about the effects if it did happen are as pointless as arguing about what would happen if Harry Potter joined Slytherin.
good job ignoring the question and trying to deter the point.  This is a hypothetical... not an equation,  answer the questions. 
 I answered your question. It would be 80 inches. Which no sane person would consider a world ending flood. Pain in the ass? Yep. Destroy the crops? Maybe. Kill every human in a village? No. And again, pointless because it bears no relation to real world meteorology. Something that someone knowledgeable about meteorology would know, and therefore not bother to bring up such an absurd hypothetical.    
Caposkia wrote:
Alright then, let's talk hypercane, what kind of damage to life would one expect from a moving hypercane... then what kind of increase would be expected if it ended up stalling on a specific location?  Let's just focus on the specific location for both scenarios. 
Beyond Saving wrote:
Of human life? 100% before the storm even struck. Even firemen in a firesuit can only survive in 200 degrees for a short time. All humans in the area would die from heat, building an ark wouldn't save you. Perhaps going deep into a cave might protect you from the heat.
 again, good job ignoring the focus... last i remember we weren't discussing temperatures.  and odds are that teh whole world wouldn't end up being taht hot in order for the hypercane to affect an area.. it's likely that there is life not in extreme temperatures that will be affected by such a storm if it were to occur. 
 If we are talking hypercanes, you have to talk temperature since it plays a key role. Obviously, you didn't bother to read the article on hypercanes. Hypercanes are completely irrelevent to the flood, there effects are nothing like what is described in the bible. The ONLY reason I brought them up was because you said that no meteorologist would create a theory about a meteorological event that never happened and that they didn't model such extreme weathers. I provided you with one, in hopes that with you vast meteorlogical knowledge you would then realize what I was looking for in terms of a model for the rainfall that you said was theoretically possible.   
Caposkia wrote:
we've already established that your tangent on this two hundred feet was an if then scenario and not an actual prediction by me or anyone else.  The models predict the absolute possibility of the 5 cat 5 hurricanes, that's what we were talking about here.
 Why would we talk about cat 5 hurricanes? Strong hurricanes don't produce large amounts of rain. Something that someone with knowledge about meteorology should know. I provided that link as another example of a scientist calculating the probability of something that we haven't observed happening. It was in direct refutation to your ridiculous claims that they don't do such things and that is why you can't find support for your claims regarding Noah's Flood.   

Caposkia wrote:

wow really, you finally see that?  Thank you, maybe we'll make progress now...

why should we talk about seventy five feet?  that is based on a link you posted a few back that shows that might be the likely maximum from one storm event over a period of 40 days... remember that forumla that I had asked its origins and basis?   Dr. Lyons I believe

No, Dr. Lyons predicted 36 feet. We've seen 30 feet. Also, you entirely gloss over the reality that such large rainfalls are always caused by orographic lift. A form of rain that doesn't fit with the flood myth. But then, I wouldn't need to explain that yet again to someone with knowledge of meteorology. (For any lurkers who don't have knowledge of meteorology, and are capable of learning, I described orographic lift in depth on page 11)

 

caposkia wrote:

in all locations?  Rainfall does not determine flood severity necessarily... e.g. 10 inches of rain in a short period of time in New England can cause catestrophic damage... however 10 inches of rain over a village in the middle of the amazon would do nothing be it that it's a more normal occurance. 

What location do you think the flood occurred in where such small amounts of rain would be life threatening? 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

right, neither of them help us better understand the subject at hand.  We both know that this event is "far out of the norm" and would require more substantial evidence.  We both also know we don't have substantial evidence of this flood.  If we did there'd be no discussion... so instead we have to base everything on hypothetical weather patterns that could happen and then determine how the climate, terrain, geology etc would affect the maximum predicted amount of rainfall in a fourty day period.... which means we must first determine where this flood supposedly occured... or more specifically, where the human population had migrated to by the piont of the flood. 

Why should I provide specifics for the story that you believe in and I don't? I've asked you repeatedly for evidence that the story could have happened anytime, anywhere. You have provided zero evidence. Then even talking about a hypothetical rainstorm, you throw around numbers you pulled from your ass as if they are facts and when I question them in depth, you change the subject and run away from them. You are intellectually dishonest and a coward. That you have the audacity to suggest that your pathetic attempts at defending you position are over my head is almost funny.

Obviously, you lied about your knowledge regarding meteorology and you have zero evidence for any of your random assertions. I couldn't possibly have been more specific in regards to the evidence I wanted, and you have failed to share your great knowledge with me. I appreciate the inspiration you gave me to get a google crash course in meteorology, but I find your blatant dishonesty irritating. If you care to link me to a scientific article that actually supports your position, I will be happy to read it. But I am finished with you ignorant baseless speculation. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Weather

Beyond Saving wrote:

Weather has many constants, someone who was knowledgeable about meteorology would know that. Read the sources I linked to, they have many constants.

this coming from the one who knows nothing about meteorology.  i skimmed through your links yet again... Please reference your "many constants".  I'm having trouble finding them... in fact, of all the equations I've found in your links, none of the parts of any of the equations are labeled as constants... What is your definition of a constant? and don't forget to please reference those constants you claim your links have for me.  that way I know what i"m looking for and can respond appropriately.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Whether you measure water by gallons or square inches is irrelevant, you are talking about the same amount. You suggested 240 ft was "theoretically possible" apparently you are abandoning that claim and now saying 70 ft. I don't think 70 feet is anywhere near a "Noah like" flood. The Missoula flood released water at an estimated 17 million cubic meters a second. (That would be 4.5 BILLION gallons A SECOND) Since God promised that no larger flood would ever occur, the Missoula flood must have been smaller (otherwise your God is a liar), therefore, you need rainfall that exceeds the amount of the Missoula flood. Now that was a flood that could very well wipe out an entire population... except it didn't and it was on the opposite side of the world from Noah and no rain was involved. 

I think you proved my points right here in your post;

1. the means of measuring flood water is relevant

2.  a flood has been recorded that could wipe out an entire population without any rainwater, which means the amount of rain that actually fell in the Noah flood could actually be irrelevant. 

Either way, i've already addressed that "if/then" scenario... before seeing any math problem that actually defined the theoretical limits, I do believe it is theoretically possible.  I still don't understand the basis of the math involved in the limitation expectations, it seems you are unable to further reference sources that could explain it... I have failed in my attempts to search for an explanation behind the problem... this leads me to believe the math problem is loosely based.  yes, smart intelligent people in their field of expertise are at liberty to present information that could be loosely based.  Considering the audience for that platform, it would be sufficient for the intent.

Beyond Saving wrote:

A decent sized swimming pool. 18X40 and 5 ft deep to be exact. 

precisely.  now lets consider the coverage of an average storm which would be somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 of those swimming pools perfectly fitted together.  Let's consider that compounded volume of water is allowed to freely flow from one pool to the next, Consider that some of the pools can completely empty out into other pools and allow those other pools to far exceed their maximum capacity without spilling any water. 

What would this look like? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lol, over my head? Your argument is infantile. You have yet to show that if the jet streams did exactly as you suggested that the result would be a gigantic amount of rain. You haven't even specifically stated where the jet streams would have to be, you instead were extraordinarily vague. While at the same time, you have obviously just glossed over the actual in depth articles I referred you to. 

you can downplay it all you want... it's over your head.  Your responses prove this.  I gave you a very detaled scenario and you hadn't a clue what to do with it as you here again proved.

I have glossed through parts of your links and carefully read other parts... there is a lot to read and I don't have a ton of time to do it.  I read more each week, but if there's something key that I'm missing that can help this conversation progress, please point it out... you know, like the constants for starters. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Someone who was trained in any science class, including meteorology ought to know the difference between speculation and a theory. Speculation is something that is drawn out of thin air with no supportable evidence- like say claiming a massive flood wiped out all of humanity when there is no physical evidence. A theory is a conclusion or series of conclusions drawn from the available evidence that best explains all of the evidence. Our meteorlogical theories are able to rather accurately predict future weather. Are they perfect? No. But as we get new data, we tweak them a bit. There are A LOT of variables in weather and A LOT of constants that you say don't exist. Eventually we might know them all perfectly, as of now we know a great deal of them. Enough that with specific and accurate information, we can predict almost perfectly what will happen tomorrow. Further out, more error creeps in- most of our inaccuracy comes from the practical real world consideration of accurately collecting the massive amount of data needed to predict weather. Then again. someone who is knowledgeable about meteorology wouldn't need me to give them a 101 course on such basic scientific fundamentals. (especially since Jabberwocky already did such a good job on this very subject- it isn't you Jabberwocky, the student can be dense)

I don't need the 101 course, but if it helps you better understand it, by all means.

I mean really?  You're resorting to sheer childish banter and belittlement?  Why don't you just try to comprehend this conversation instead.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 
caposkia wrote:
 I answered your question. It would be 80 inches. Which no sane person would consider a world ending flood. Pain in the ass? Yep. Destroy the crops? Maybe. Kill every human in a village? No. And again, pointless because it bears no relation to real world meteorology. Something that someone knowledgeable about meteorology would know, and therefore not bother to bring up such an absurd hypothetical.
actually closer to 100 inches.  hmm... destroy the crops... for 40 days... no food for animals... for 40 days.... no food for animals and no crops means no food for people.. for the duration of the flood which far exceeded 40 days.. how would people survive exactly... I mean if I was so ignorant to bring that up in the first place, let's pretend that this actually is what happened and go with it.  Consider that the vast volume of rain in such a short period of time would have likely destroyed the crops in the first few days regardless of the recovery time.  i see your insults as an excuse for not having a legitimate defense or understanding of the subject matter... do you want to try an take a more mature approach to this?    
Beyond Saving wrote:
 If we are talking hypercanes, you have to talk temperature since it plays a key role. Obviously, you didn't bother to read the article on hypercanes. Hypercanes are completely irrelevent to the flood, there effects are nothing like what is described in the bible. The ONLY reason I brought them up was because you said that no meteorologist would create a theory about a meteorological event that never happened and that they didn't model such extreme weathers. I provided you with one, in hopes that with you vast meteorlogical knowledge you would then realize what I was looking for in terms of a model for the rainfall that you said was theoretically possible.
I'm pretty sure I said that no meteorologist would create a theoretical model about a historical event we know so little about, including exactly when it took place... that is again what meteorologists do which is predict a future event... a hypercane is said to have never happened, but is understood to be a possible... FUTURE event. 
Beyond Saving wrote:

No, Dr. Lyons predicted 36 feet. We've seen 30 feet. Also, you entirely gloss over the reality that such large rainfalls are always caused by orographic lift. A form of rain that doesn't fit with the flood myth. But then, I wouldn't need to explain that yet again to someone with knowledge of meteorology. (For any lurkers who don't have knowledge of meteorology, and are capable of learning, I described orographic lift in depth on page 11)

oh yea, my mistake.  36 feet... let's talk that then...

also, what is your basis for orographic lift not fitting iwth the flood myth? 

you seem to think you need to explain a lot to someone with meteorological knowledge... you know stuff that you don't fully understand yourself as you originally claimed.  or is it that you just keep saying that in hopes that someone will be convinced that you might know more than I on the subject. 

let's put it this way... I don't need to acknowledge that I have to explain something to you for people to see you don't understand meteorology.. you also don't have to admit it for people to see it, so I wonder why you think that's necessary to say. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

What location do you think the flood occurred in where such small amounts of rain would be life threatening? 

well the theoretical location which is still quite vast expands through what today is dry arid desert areas. 

The other theoretical location that is used to more rain and even catestrophic floods had a geology that can channel and harbor water in a dangerous way... all that would need to happen there is as said... a storm like no other.  or a chain of storms like none other. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why should I provide specifics for the story that you believe in and I don't? I've asked you repeatedly for evidence that the story could have happened anytime, anywhere. You have provided zero evidence. Then even talking about a hypothetical rainstorm, you throw around numbers you pulled from your ass as if they are facts and when I question them in depth, you change the subject and run away from them. You are intellectually dishonest and a coward. That you have the audacity to suggest that your pathetic attempts at defending you position are over my head is almost funny.

you should provide the specifics because you're the one making claims as if you have the information on hand.

you've asked me repeatedly for evidence that the story happened and I"ve told you repeatedly we just don't have any other than the Bible claim

I throw around numbers because you seem to think there must be an explanation of how a flood unlike any other could possibly happen.  Many of my numbers at first were if then's and had no basis anywhere, but within the last few pages the numbers I allegedly pull out of my ass are from your links.  

If I'm running away from something, I challenge you to bring it up below so I can't run from them anymore... I feel like I've said that before to you as well

the audacity I have to claim that my pathetic attempts at defending my position are over your head don't need to be defended by me.  They speak for themselves.  You admitted to not understanding it, then you post a few links and act like your the expert.  So much for getting a college degree... we should all save money and use the BS method.. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Obviously, you lied about your knowledge regarding meteorology and you have zero evidence for any of your random assertions. I couldn't possibly have been more specific in regards to the evidence I wanted, and you have failed to share your great knowledge with me. I appreciate the inspiration you gave me to get a google crash course in meteorology, but I find your blatant dishonesty irritating. If you care to link me to a scientific article that actually supports your position, I will be happy to read it. But I am finished with you ignorant baseless speculation. 

I know what you're looking for and I"ve already told you it likely doesn't exist... Meteorologists concern themselves about the future of weather events, not the past... they only use the recorded past to better understand future possibilities... but with your crash course in meteorology, you already knew this and knew what you posted didn't make me look bad at all. 

I figured we were done with this a while ago.  I could tell you were upset that no one has cared to sketch out a purely speculative weather model of one of possibly thousands of possibilites of how a catestrophic flood of a magnitude unlike any other could have happened.  From there you became an expert overnight and decided that your knowledge trumps even the experts.   

Again, if you can come up with a more exact location, an actual focused dating of the event, we might be able to get more details about how the event took place the way it did. 

how about this... let's take your record rainfall of 35 feet... that's just how much rain we considered is the maximum according to the formula Dr. Lyons came up with.  Let's just for sheer speculative reasoning assume the catchment area is only 10 square miles.  How many cubic feet of water does that end up being, you tell me considering you're now the expert.  After figuring that out, how would that volume of water affect life within that 10 mile radius?   how about just beyond that 10 mile radius? 

I find it funny how this number far exceeds even your claim of my prediction of 240 feet. 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Weather has many constants, someone who was knowledgeable about meteorology would know that. Read the sources I linked to, they have many constants.

this coming from the one who knows nothing about meteorology.  i skimmed through your links yet again... Please reference your "many constants".  I'm having trouble finding them... in fact, of all the equations I've found in your links, none of the parts of any of the equations are labeled as constants... What is your definition of a constant? and don't forget to please reference those constants you claim your links have for me.  that way I know what i"m looking for and can respond appropriately.

http://ploneprod.met.psu.edu/weather/other-resources/meteorological-measurements-units-and-conversions-1

 

Caposkia wrote:

I think you proved my points right here in your post;

1. the means of measuring flood water is relevant

2.  a flood has been recorded that could wipe out an entire population without any rainwater, which means the amount of rain that actually fell in the Noah flood could actually be irrelevant. 

Either way, i've already addressed that "if/then" scenario... before seeing any math problem that actually defined the theoretical limits, I do believe it is theoretically possible.  I still don't understand the basis of the math involved in the limitation expectations, it seems you are unable to further reference sources that could explain it... I have failed in my attempts to search for an explanation behind the problem... this leads me to believe the math problem is loosely based.  yes, smart intelligent people in their field of expertise are at liberty to present information that could be loosely based.  Considering the audience for that platform, it would be sufficient for the intent.

You are literally denying gravity. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

A decent sized swimming pool. 18X40 and 5 ft deep to be exact. 

precisely.  now lets consider the coverage of an average storm which would be somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 of those swimming pools perfectly fitted together.  Let's consider that compounded volume of water is allowed to freely flow from one pool to the next, Consider that some of the pools can completely empty out into other pools and allow those other pools to far exceed their maximum capacity without spilling any water. 

What would this look like? 

Do you have a point? Floods don't act like swimming pools.

Caposkia wrote:

you can downplay it all you want... it's over your head.  Your responses prove this.  I gave you a very detaled scenario and you hadn't a clue what to do with it as you here again proved.

I have glossed through parts of your links and carefully read other parts... there is a lot to read and I don't have a ton of time to do it.  I read more each week, but if there's something key that I'm missing that can help this conversation progress, please point it out... you know, like the constants for starters. 

You have given a vague description and then turned around and described meteorlogical models as 'loosely based', because the authors didn't feel a need to reprove gravity.

caposkia wrote:

I don't need the 101 course, but if it helps you better understand it, by all means.

I mean really?  You're resorting to sheer childish banter and belittlement?  Why don't you just try to comprehend this conversation instead.

Childish? Rich from the asshole who has yet to provide even ONE link to a source that supports his assertions while dismissing models designed by professional meteorologists as 'loosely based'. I have no more patience for you, I'm simply not a nice enough person to treat your willful ignorance nicely any more.

 

caposkia wrote:
actually closer to 100 inches.  hmm... destroy the crops... for 40 days... no food for animals... for 40 days.... no food for animals and no crops means no food for people.. for the duration of the flood which far exceeded 40 days.. how would people survive exactly...I mean if I was so ignorant to bring that up in the first place, let's pretend that this actually is what happened and go with it.  Consider that the vast volume of rain in such a short period of time would have likely destroyed the crops in the first few days regardless of the recovery time. i see your insults as an excuse for not having a legitimate defense or understanding of the subject matter... do you want to try an take a more mature approach to this? 
Considering you are asserting the flood occurred some point several million years before a human ever planted a crop, it is a moot point. Regardless, many human civilizations have survived floods, droughts, war and other calamities that destroyed their local food sources.  
Caposkia wrote:
I'm pretty sure I said that no meteorologist would create a theoretical model about a historical event we know so little about, including exactly when it took place... that is again what meteorologists do which is predict a future event... a hypercane is said to have never happened, but is understood to be a possible... FUTURE event. 
Good thing I never asked for a model to prove exactly when it took place then, as you well know. Remember when I said I didn't care if it ever occurred because all I wanted was a model showing it is possible any time any where?   
Caposkia wrote:

oh yea, my mistake.  36 feet... let's talk that then...

also, what is your basis for orographic lift not fitting iwth the flood myth?

What is one of the main features of orographic lift I have pointed out half a dozen fucking times? Orographic lift occurs over a very limited area. The opposite side of the mountain (a feature required to create the phenomena) is dry. So in terms of the flood myth, Noah could have walked around the mountain.

 

Quote:
 

you seem to think you need to explain a lot to someone with meteorological knowledge... you know stuff that you don't fully understand yourself as you originally claimed.  or is it that you just keep saying that in hopes that someone will be convinced that you might know more than I on the subject. 

let's put it this way... I don't need to acknowledge that I have to explain something to you for people to see you don't understand meteorology.. you also don't have to admit it for people to see it, so I wonder why you think that's necessary to say. 

I wait in breathless anticipation for you to correct my ignorance. I have specifically asked you to share your knowledge with me. I have asked you for links to sources that explain why I am wrong. I started completely ignorant, and was completely honest about it, but more than willing to learn. If you have some knowledge to share, share it. Instead, you have done nothing but make flat assertions. It is your continuous assertions without a single source to support them that makes me believe you lied.

 

Quote:

well the theoretical location which is still quite vast expands through what today is dry arid desert areas. 

The other theoretical location that is used to more rain and even catestrophic floods had a geology that can channel and harbor water in a dangerous way... all that would need to happen there is as said... a storm like no other.  or a chain of storms like none other. 

Where are these theoretical locations? I assumed it was where scientific evidence suggests humans were millions of years ago- Ethiopia and Kenya, which are not arid. 

Quote:

you should provide the specifics because you're the one making claims as if you have the information on hand.

you've asked me repeatedly for evidence that the story happened and I"ve told you repeatedly we just don't have any other than the Bible claim

I throw around numbers because you seem to think there must be an explanation of how a flood unlike any other could possibly happen.  Many of my numbers at first were if then's and had no basis anywhere, but within the last few pages the numbers I allegedly pull out of my ass are from your links.  

If I'm running away from something, I challenge you to bring it up below so I can't run from them anymore... I feel like I've said that before to you as well

the audacity I have to claim that my pathetic attempts at defending my position are over your head don't need to be defended by me.  They speak for themselves.  You admitted to not understanding it, then you post a few links and act like your the expert.  So much for getting a college degree... we should all save money and use the BS method.. 

I've asked you repeatedly for evidence that it is possible. Obviously, you have none.

 

Caposkia wrote:

I know what you're looking for and I"ve already told you it likely doesn't exist... Meteorologists concern themselves about the future of weather events, not the past... they only use the recorded past to better understand future possibilities... but with your crash course in meteorology, you already knew this and knew what you posted didn't make me look bad at all. 

What I know is that I was able to find meteorologists who did concern themselves with purely theoretical weather events. It was this assertion made by you that I proved wrong with the paper on Hypercanes.

 

Quote:

I figured we were done with this a while ago.  I could tell you were upset that no one has cared to sketch out a purely speculative weather model of one of possibly thousands of possibilites of how a catestrophic flood of a magnitude unlike any other could have happened.  From there you became an expert overnight and decided that your knowledge trumps even the experts.

All my knowledge comes directly from the experts I've linked to. You were the one asserting they are wrong.  

 

Quote:

how about this... let's take your record rainfall of 35 feet... that's just how much rain we considered is the maximum according to the formula Dr. Lyons came up with.  Let's just for sheer speculative reasoning assume the catchment area is only 10 square miles.  How many cubic feet of water does that end up being, you tell me considering you're now the expert.  After figuring that out, how would that volume of water affect life within that 10 mile radius?   how about just beyond that 10 mile radius? 

I find it funny how this number far exceeds even your claim of my prediction of 240 feet. 

35 ft is not larger than 240 ft. 

Round up to 280 million sq ft in 10 square miles, the volume would be 280 million * 280 million * 35 or approximately 2.7 trillion cubic ft. Call it 20.2 trillion gallons. Tons of water. Yet still not the largest flood to occur in the world. The Missoula flood released as much in a little over an hour. Nor is it enough to wipe out human life. ?Humans have survived storms close to that size, albeit a major setback for anything they built.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

You claimed that "weather" has many constants.  This link shows scientific constants which can be used meteorologically, but as this link also shows, any direct weather based constant isn't a constant, but rather a specific state of either pressure, temperature of water or air... all of which change depending on many many factors. 

So again I'll state, I didn't see the "weather" constants in your links, please reference them. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

You are literally denying gravity. 

no, I'm questioning your reasoning... as to which I'm also questioning whether you understand what you're representing or if you're just posting it because it looks like it supports your understanding. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

A decent sized swimming pool. 18X40 and 5 ft deep to be exact. 

Caposkia wrote:

precisely.  now lets consider the coverage of an average storm which would be somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 of those swimming pools perfectly fitted together.  Let's consider that compounded volume of water is allowed to freely flow from one pool to the next, Consider that some of the pools can completely empty out into other pools and allow those other pools to far exceed their maximum capacity without spilling any water. 

What would this look like? 

Do you have a point? Floods don't act like swimming pools.

which is why the scenario above defies the rules of swimming pools... the point is the volume of water when compounded is catestrophic just on this scale.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You have given a vague description and then turned around and described meteorlogical models as 'loosely based', because the authors didn't feel a need to reprove gravity.

yup... sounds good so far. 

I'm guessing you see a problem with a vague description of a scenario we can literally only guess the details about and an issue with the loosely based claim be it that intelligent meteorologists absolutely didn't feel the need to reprove gravity. 

There really isn't a problem here.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Childish? Rich from the asshole who has yet to provide even ONE link to a source that supports his assertions while dismissing models designed by professional meteorologists as 'loosely based'. I have no more patience for you, I'm simply not a nice enough person to treat your willful ignorance nicely any more.

all I want you to do is link me to an explanation as to the basis and reasoning behind the very equation you posted...  if you can't find one, explain the details to me if you are so sure you fully understand how it works.  Instead you become childish.  I have provided you links and sources and full explanations... none of which are good enough for you.  So then we are at an impass... you are not going to find a model of something that literally has thousands of possibilities and pretty much 0 evidence in hand.  It's not rational.  Why build a model of something that cannot be specified? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Considering you are asserting the flood occurred some point several million years before a human ever planted a crop, it is a moot point. Regardless, many human civilizations have survived floods, droughts, war and other calamities that destroyed their local food sources.
several million years before humans ever planted a crop... yet an 8 million year old fossil is said to have the capability of building tools... you're telling me it's not possible that somewhere between 8 million years and 2 million years ago there wasn't at least a small strand of ancestry that figured out that they can grow a few things to eat? Beyond that, yes civilizations have survived flood, droughts, war and other calamities that destroyed local food sources... civilizations have also died off due to floods, droughts, war  and other calamities that destroyed local food sources... so that is a moot point. 
Beyond Saving wrote:
 Good thing I never asked for a model to prove exactly when it took place then, as you well know. Remember when I said I didn't care if it ever occurred because all I wanted was a model showing it is possible any time any where? 
...and a scenario was given, links were given showing the extremes of weather that we are aware of.  All of these scenarios were confined within the last 1000 years or so... and we're likely talking a few million years before that, a time where weather was likely drastically different. The most concrete reasoning you have come up with is an equation you have no understanding of and cannot present an explanation for.  If you have nothing to support it's rationale and construction other than; 'it came from a meteorologist', then I have to throw it out.  As you have clearly shown, in this thread, talking to an expert in the field doesn't validate any claim from that expert. 
Beyond Saving wrote:

What is one of the main features of orographic lift I have pointed out half a dozen fucking times? Orographic lift occurs over a very limited area. The opposite side of the mountain (a feature required to create the phenomena) is dry. So in terms of the flood myth, Noah could have walked around the mountain.

unless it's a geo flow scenario and/or it was a nor'easter type scenario that used orographic lift to compound an already severe storm. 

It is possible too that they could have just "walked around the mountain' but it would have been too late by the time the storm started too... and if that was a possibility, it is logical to assume the Ark was God's way of making a point rather than just saying, you escape and chance others following him. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Where are these theoretical locations? I assumed it was where scientific evidence suggests humans were millions of years ago- Ethiopia and Kenya, which are not arid. 

actually it is assumed people had migrated further north to the desert areas and even as far as present day Turkey.  Even if they stayed in Ethiopia and Kenya, the terrain is perfect for a catestrophic flood scenario.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I've asked you repeatedly for evidence that it is possible. Obviously, you have none.

I've presented extensive reasoning and links to the idea that planet Earth has the capacity to produce a catestrophic event to the theoretical degree of the Noah Flood... the evidence you seem to be looking for is something I've told you repeatedly we don't have. 

If I have none, then we're done.

Beyond Saving wrote:

What I know is that I was able to find meteorologists who did concern themselves with purely theoretical weather events. It was this assertion made by you that I proved wrong with the paper on Hypercanes.

I claimed they don't concern themselves with past events, not theoretical future events. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

All my knowledge comes directly from the experts I've linked to. You were the one asserting they are wrong.  

not at all, I asked for the basis of reasoning.  You could not provide it... I asked you to explain the construction of the formula... you were unable to.

I'm not friends with Dr. Lyons, but I'm willing to bet if I asked him about his formula, He would say these are the theoretical limits... could there be a unique outlier scenario that far exceeds the limits of the equation?  sure, but it would be an isolated event that likely would never happen again...

Wonder why he would say that about his formula...  hmmmm.....

yes, I know he didn't, but it is a logical statement nonetheless, because I"m not 100% sure about the construction of this formula, but my guess is it is based on the roughly 200 years of recorded and documented weather knowledge we have on file as well as the very limited ancent documentations of extreme weather scnearios that are also limited to roughly the last 1000-3000 years..

The only further reasoning could be based on ice core samples which are also limited to generalization beyond the first few layers be it that deeper samples are indistinguishable to specific events... this again would limit to only a few thousand years back.

Considering we're talking millions of years... that is a very small sample size to base a concrete limit on. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

35 ft is not larger than 240 ft. 

Round up to 280 million sq ft in 10 square miles, the volume would be 280 million * 280 million * 35 or approximately 2.7 trillion cubic ft. Call it 20.2 trillion gallons. Tons of water. Yet still not the largest flood to occur in the world. The Missoula flood released as much in a little over an hour. Nor is it enough to wipe out human life. ?Humans have survived storms close to that size, albeit a major setback for anything they built.

2.7 trillion cubic ft... and yet not the largest flood to occur that we are aware of... not enough to wipe out human life yet smaller floods have wiped out settlements... it's all about the details... you're so stuck on 240 ft. you forget to follow the progression of the conversation...  I'm trying to work with your 35 ft here.  35 ft. of rain as you can see in your statement above, can compound into a single area that can exceed 240 ft.  

now let's put this scenario into current day New England... why?  because I'm most familiar with that area.  the link below talks about a mere 2 trillion gallons falling over a space of 370,000 sq. miles and yet is still seen as a moderate flood concern... what if that number was compiled to 20 trillion?  what would that look like in this catchment?  would ancient settlements survive in this location if such an event occured?  if so how?

http://www.wfmynews2.com/story/weather/2014/04/30/trillion-gallons-of-water-us/8544313/ 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Alright, it is a rainy day,

Alright, it is a rainy day, I have a new bottle of Eagle Rare, let's see how many fingers it takes to wade through your bullshit. (What can I say, I'm a bit of a masochist.) 

caposkia wrote:

You claimed that "weather" has many constants.  This link shows scientific constants which can be used meteorologically, but as this link also shows, any direct weather based constant isn't a constant, but rather a specific state of either pressure, temperature of water or air... all of which change depending on many many factors. 

So again I'll state, I didn't see the "weather" constants in your links, please reference them. 

Yes, constants are modified by variables. They would be pretty worthless mathematically speaking if they weren't. Which is why I've asked you a million times to provide a model of what the pressure, temperatures and other factors would have to be in order to produce the rain you claimed was "theoretically possible"- although to be fair you have backed off that, but you still haven't apologized for using your authority as knowledgable about meteorology as support that it was when you damn well should have known it isn't. I'm quite confident that 240 feet of rain in 40 days is at least theoretically possible on some planet somewhere in the universe. I'm also fairly confident that such a planet couldn't host human life, at least not without significant technological protections. 

And yes, meteorology is an intedisplinary study, as such it uses the same constants other sciences such as physics and chemistry. Wow, that girl in Meteorology 101 must have really caught your eye. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

no, I'm questioning your reasoning... as to which I'm also questioning whether you understand what you're representing or if you're just posting it because it looks like it supports your understanding. 

I'm open to any counter argument you have. I've practically begged you to provide links to countering evidence. Maybe it is out there, but I can't find it. Then again, you are the expert, so you should know where it is. The question is why are you hiding it? Are you actually a minion the devil sent to make sure I don't believe in god so that I go to hell?

Damn, two fingers gone. BRB. 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

A decent sized swimming pool. 18X40 and 5 ft deep to be exact. 

Caposkia wrote:

which is why the scenario above defies the rules of swimming pools... the point is the volume of water when compounded is catestrophic just on this scale.

I've never questioned catostrophic floods. There is tons of evidence of gigantic floods happening. I question a gigantic flood larger than anything in the world that wiped out all of human civilization except Noah & Co. who conveniently built a gigantic boat.(Which leads to a whole shitload of incest, something I thought bible thumpers are against, but that is another issue) 

 

Cap wrote:

I'm guessing you see a problem with a vague description of a scenario we can literally only guess the details about and an issue with the loosely based claim be it that intelligent meteorologists absolutely didn't feel the need to reprove gravity. 

There really isn't a problem here.

Are you seriously comparing your pointless rant to the detailed and well footnoted journal articles I linked you to?!? Well I know you aren't serious, but c'mon you can at least try. 

 

Cap wrote:

all I want you to do is link me to an explanation as to the basis and reasoning behind the very equation you posted...  if you can't find one, explain the details to me if you are so sure you fully understand how it works.  Instead you become childish. 

I've already moved past Dr. Lyons. As I have already said, his story was from my first google search and his equation is just a rule of thumb. You know, those things you use to detect bullshit. For example, my area of expertise is in valuing businesses. If you say wanted to buy a liquor store, an area I have personal hands on experience with, I could give you a ballpark estimate of its value with very little data. Suppose you told me it has $500,000 in annual sales. The general rule of thumb is 40-45%+ inventory. So that would be $200,000-225,000 + inventory. Typical inventory for a place that size would be $200-250k. So anything in the ballpark of $400-500k is what you would expect. If you asked me what the highest possible that liquor store might sell for in extraordinary circumstances, I would tell you $1-$1.25 million. 2-2.5 times gross sales. That is very unusual but it can happen especially if it is underutilized in a premium location and an area with limited liquor licenses.

You tell me that the liquor store sells for $1.4 million and I'm not going to question much beyond "wow, that is a lot for a store that size" but I won't suspect you of lying because I was using a rule of thumb and rules of thumb aren't perfect. There is probably some exceptional reason why that liquor store was worth that much that I might have found if I took the time to look at it closer.  

Now if you tell me that it sold for $20 million, then I don't believe you. Either your initial numbers for sales was way off, you have bad information about the sale, or you are lying to me. (Happens all the time in my current industry of real estate appraisal, people try to bullshit all the time, when the rule of thumb is violated dramatically you look for evidence, most of the time you don't find it.)

Dr. Lyons just provided the rule of thumb for me to sniff out your bullshit. Your claim isn't slightly extraordinary, it is ridiculously off the charts extraordinary ($20 million sale). That is why I presented you with his article and requested that you provide evidence to support your position, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you had started with the number 40 feet over 40 days, which is only slightly higher than Dr. Lyons, I would have thought that maybe you did have a clue what you were talking about it. That you flippantly threw out the number 240 feet and said it was theoretically possible like I flippantly throw out $1 million as a theoretically possible value for a liquor store, I assumed it is a number that most meteorologists wouldn't argue against too vehemently. When I looked up Dr. Lyons, I discovered that number was way off the reservation. After you questioned Dr. Lyons, I couldn't find his articles that support his particular formula, so I linked you to two very detailed articles that create actual models attempting to predict the most extreme rain possible in their area. Those articles were in line with Dr. Lyons' rule of thumb. I then asked you to find something similar from somewhere else that supports your ridiculous claim. 

 

Cap wrote:
 

I have provided you links and sources and full explanations... none of which are good enough for you. 

WHERE?!?!? You haven't posted a single link that supports your position. If I have missed it, please post it again here. I have asked you dozens of times for links. You have just spouted off even after I have made it clear that I don't trust you and I believe you are a liar. 

 

Cap wrote:

So then we are at an impass... you are not going to find a model of something that literally has thousands of possibilities and pretty much 0 evidence in hand.  It's not rational.  Why build a model of something that cannot be specified? 

Obviously, you haven't bothered to look up the article I referenced you to on Hypercanes. Not that I expected you would. But yes, meteorologists do create models of things that haven't happened and aren't specific. This is just another lie you insist on repeating.

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Considering you are asserting the flood occurred some point several million years before a human ever planted a crop, it is a moot point. Regardless, many human civilizations have survived floods, droughts, war and other calamities that destroyed their local food sources.
 several million years before humans ever planted a crop... yet an 8 million year old fossil is said to have the capability of building tools... you're telling me it's not possible that somewhere between 8 million years and 2 million years ago there wasn't at least a small strand of ancestry that figured out that they can grow a few things to eat? Beyond that, yes civilizations have survived flood, droughts, war and other calamities that destroyed local food sources... civilizations have also died off due to floods, droughts, war  and other calamities that destroyed local food sources... so that is a moot point. 
 Yes, I'm telling you that pre-humans didn't farm and there are mountains of evidence that back that up. Because you choose to be blind and ignore evidence you don't like is irrelevant.   
Quote:
 
Beyond Saving wrote:
 Good thing I never asked for a model to prove exactly when it took place then, as you well know. Remember when I said I didn't care if it ever occurred because all I wanted was a model showing it is possible any time any where? 
...and a scenario was given, links were given showing the extremes of weather that we are aware of.  All of these scenarios were confined within the last 1000 years or so... and we're likely talking a few million years before that, a time where weather was likely drastically different. The most concrete reasoning you have come up with is an equation you have no understanding of and cannot present an explanation for.  If you have nothing to support it's rationale and construction other than; 'it came from a meteorologist', then I have to throw it out.  As you have clearly shown, in this thread, talking to an expert in the field doesn't validate any claim from that expert.
 I have linked to at least one publication that analyzed floods as far back as 2.5 million years ago. pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1254/pdf/circ1254.pdf And yeah, I trust a well respected meteorologists word far more than I trust yours. Regardless, I've linked to other articles in respected peer reviewed journals with significant primary support that have conclusions that fall in line with his, and not yours. Obviously, you aren't reading the links I provide. Your intellectual dishonesty reaches yet another height.    
Beyond Saving wrote:

What is one of the main features of orographic lift I have pointed out half a dozen fucking times? Orographic lift occurs over a very limited area. The opposite side of the mountain (a feature required to create the phenomena) is dry. So in terms of the flood myth, Noah could have walked around the mountain.

unless it's a geo flow scenario and/or it was a nor'easter type scenario that used orographic lift to compound an already severe storm. 

It is possible too that they could have just "walked around the mountain' but it would have been too late by the time the storm started too... and if that was a possibility, it is logical to assume the Ark was God's way of making a point rather than just saying, you escape and chance others following him. 

So god is just a sadistic ass who decided to make Noah build a boat for kicks and giggles? There isn't anything logical about that at all. You really are stretching to justify your God now. I don't get what your point of nor'easters have anything to do with anything. And "geo flow" doesn't turn up any hits combined with meteorology. Are you making up your own meteorological terms again? You know I'm going to google it, why bother?

 

Caposkia wrote:

actually it is assumed people had migrated further north to the desert areas and even as far as present day Turkey. 

Why are we assuming that? Turkey would be a horrible place for Noah's Flood anyway. No storm can reach it without going over a bunch of land first. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Even if they stayed in Ethiopia and Kenya, the terrain is perfect for a catestrophic flood scenario.

How so? I love nudity. Naked people, naked wings, naked sauce, naked noodles, naked truth. Not a fan of naked assertions. 

 

Quote:

I've presented extensive reasoning and links to the idea that planet Earth has the capacity to produce a catestrophic event to the theoretical degree of the Noah Flood... the evidence you seem to be looking for is something I've told you repeatedly we don't have. 

If I have none, then we're done.

Lol, you haven't even specified what you think the degree of Noah's flood was yet either in terms of area covered or amount of rain. You haven't provided evidence to support anything. Are you delusional or stupid?

Like I've said, I'm not looking for evidence, I'm looking for a plausible theory. We know you have zero evidence of anything you believe in. As far as I can tell, your strategy for determining what to believe is to shake a magic 8 ball. 

 

Quote:

I claimed they don't concern themselves with past events, not theoretical future events. 

Another false claim, as I pointed you to meteorologists who do. But like I said, I'm not looking for evidence that it actually happened, we know that it didn't thanks to other fields like geology and archaeology. I'm asking for evidence that it could happen in theory. 

 

Quote:

I'm not friends with Dr. Lyons, but I'm willing to bet if I asked him about his formula, He would say these are the theoretical limits... could there be a unique outlier scenario that far exceeds the limits of the equation?  sure, but it would be an isolated event that likely would never happen again...

Wonder why he would say that about his formula...  hmmmm.....

He would probably get very interested and ask for evidence of the event, then go back to his computer and work on modifying his formula. That is how science works, it takes in new evidence and theories adjust to find a way to explain everything. Science doesn't just dismiss inconvenient data because it is an outlier. 

 

Quote:

Considering we're talking millions of years... that is a very small sample size to base a concrete limit on.

Yet more evidence you paid zero attention in meteorology class. Serriously, your professor should be fired for passing you.

 

Quote:

2.7 trillion cubic ft... and yet not the largest flood to occur that we are aware of... not enough to wipe out human life yet smaller floods have wiped out settlements... it's all about the details... you're so stuck on 240 ft. you forget to follow the progression of the conversation...  I'm trying to work with your 35 ft here.  35 ft. of rain as you can see in your statement above, can compound into a single area that can exceed 240 ft.  

now let's put this scenario into current day New England... why?  because I'm most familiar with that area.  the link below talks about a mere 2 trillion gallons falling over a space of 370,000 sq. miles and yet is still seen as a moderate flood concern... what if that number was compiled to 20 trillion?  what would that look like in this catchment?  would ancient settlements survive in this location if such an event occured?  if so how?

http://www.wfmynews2.com/story/weather/2014/04/30/trillion-gallons-of-water-us/8544313/ 

It would look like a lot of water, it would wipe out most if not all structures and the survivors may or may not rebuild in the same location. A huge flood, yes. Wiping out all of humanity and every animal on the planet? Nope. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:*snip*So

caposkia wrote:

*snip*

So again I'll state, I didn't see the "weather" constants in your links, please reference them.

Beyond Saving wrote:
constants are modified by variables. They would be pretty worthless mathematically speaking if they weren't. Which is why I've asked you a million times to provide a model of what the pressure, temperatures and other factors would have to be in order to produce the rain you claimed was "theoretically possible"- although to be fair you have backed off that, but you still haven't apologized for using your authority as knowledgable about meteorology as support that it was when you damn well should have known it isn't. I'm quite confident that 240 feet of rain in 40 days is at least theoretically possible on some planet somewhere in the universe. I'm also fairly confident that such a planet couldn't host human life, at least not without significant technological protections. 

And yes, meteorology is an intedisplinary study, as such it uses the same constants other sciences such as physics and chemistry. Wow, that girl in Meteorology 101 must have really caught your eye. 

or you really just don't know what you're talking about when it comes to meteorology and you're using your ignorance as an excuse to defend your perspective. 

You ask me for a model of what the pressure, temperature and other factors are of a weather pattern that is completely unkonwn, a weather climate that can at best only be estimated and a time period that can literally only be guessed at this point... do you see the problem with your reasoning?

you still stick on the 240 ft as if I actually stated that as a fact and not an if then as I've repeatedly told you.  Try again and maybe this time answer my question for the direct references to the "weather" constants... or were you just referring to the mathematical constants and applying them to weather... if so then they aren't weather constants, but constants in math that we apply to an ever changing weather pattern. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Caposkia wrote:

no, I'm questioning your reasoning... as to which I'm also questioning whether you understand what you're representing or if you're just posting it because it looks like it supports your understanding. 

I'm open to any counter argument you have. I've practically begged you to provide links to countering evidence. Maybe it is out there, but I can't find it. Then again, you are the expert, so you should know where it is. The question is why are you hiding it? Are you actually a minion the devil sent to make sure I don't believe in god so that I go to hell?

Damn, two fingers gone. BRB. 

I enjoy these conversations, you shouldn't take them so personal. 

I have shown you what is meteorologically possible about such an unknown situation in an unknown time in history.... the rest is up to you.  I still question your reasoning and understanding. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I've never questioned catostrophic floods. There is tons of evidence of gigantic floods happening. I question a gigantic flood larger than anything in the world that wiped out all of human civilization except Noah & Co. who conveniently built a gigantic boat.(Which leads to a whole shitload of incest, something I thought bible thumpers are against, but that is another issue) 

that is a whole other issue... Bible thumpers don't always know the book they're thumping. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Cap wrote:

I'm guessing you see a problem with a vague description of a scenario we can literally only guess the details about and an issue with the loosely based claim be it that intelligent meteorologists absolutely didn't feel the need to reprove gravity. 

There really isn't a problem here.

Are you seriously comparing your pointless rant to the detailed and well footnoted journal articles I linked you to?!? Well I know you aren't serious, but c'mon you can at least try. 

both statements here are completely unrelated... I'm talking about the Bible.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Cap wrote:

all I want you to do is link me to an explanation as to the basis and reasoning behind the very equation you posted...  if you can't find one, explain the details to me if you are so sure you fully understand how it works.  Instead you become childish. 

I've already moved past Dr. Lyons. As I have already said, his story was from my first google search and his equation is just a rule of thumb. You know, those things you use to detect bullshit. For example, my area of expertise is in valuing businesses. If you say wanted to buy a liquor store, an area I have personal hands on experience with, I could give you a ballpark estimate of its value with very little data. Suppose you told me it has $500,000 in annual sales. The general rule of thumb is 40-45%+ inventory. So that would be $200,000-225,000 + inventory. Typical inventory for a place that size would be $200-250k. So anything in the ballpark of $400-500k is what you would expect. If you asked me what the highest possible that liquor store might sell for in extraordinary circumstances, I would tell you $1-$1.25 million. 2-2.5 times gross sales. That is very unusual but it can happen especially if it is underutilized in a premium location and an area with limited liquor licenses.

You tell me that the liquor store sells for $1.4 million and I'm not going to question much beyond "wow, that is a lot for a store that size" but I won't suspect you of lying because I was using a rule of thumb and rules of thumb aren't perfect. There is probably some exceptional reason why that liquor store was worth that much that I might have found if I took the time to look at it closer.  

Now if you tell me that it sold for $20 million, then I don't believe you. Either your initial numbers for sales was way off, you have bad information about the sale, or you are lying to me. (Happens all the time in my current industry of real estate appraisal, people try to bullshit all the time, when the rule of thumb is violated dramatically you look for evidence, most of the time you don't find it.)

Dr. Lyons just provided the rule of thumb for me to sniff out your bullshit. Your claim isn't slightly extraordinary, it is ridiculously off the charts extraordinary ($20 million sale). That is why I presented you with his article and requested that you provide evidence to support your position, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you had started with the number 40 feet over 40 days, which is only slightly higher than Dr. Lyons, I would have thought that maybe you did have a clue what you were talking about it. That you flippantly threw out the number 240 feet and said it was theoretically possible like I flippantly throw out $1 million as a theoretically possible value for a liquor store, I assumed it is a number that most meteorologists wouldn't argue against too vehemently. When I looked up Dr. Lyons, I discovered that number was way off the reservation. After you questioned Dr. Lyons, I couldn't find his articles that support his particular formula, so I linked you to two very detailed articles that create actual models attempting to predict the most extreme rain possible in their area. Those articles were in line with Dr. Lyons' rule of thumb. I then asked you to find something similar from somewhere else that supports your ridiculous claim. 

based on your explanation, there is plenty of room in Dr. Lyons equation for such a flood to occur.... but why wouldn't it be an outlier??? just curious...

The Bullshit I see here though is you using an equation you obviously don't understand yourself....  I get it's a rule of thumb... show me what this rule is based on... what is the source of the equation besides Dr. Lyons.. I know you've moved on from the Dr... just like a long time ago I moved on from 240 ft... yet you still bring that up as well.

Beyond Saving wrote:

WHERE?!?!?

start reading links.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Obviously, you haven't bothered to look up the article I referenced you to on Hypercanes. Not that I expected you would. But yes, meteorologists do create models of things that haven't happened and aren't specific. This is just another lie you insist on repeating.

a hypercane is a specific type of storm... why do you feel this storm would have been a hypercane?  That is understood to be a possible "future" event, not past.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Yes, I'm telling you that pre-humans didn't farm and there are mountains of evidence that back that up. Because you choose to be blind and ignore evidence you don't like is irrelevant. 
no, I like to look at specifics... one being that we have no rationale as to when farming actually started and a fossil 8 million years old is said to have the capability of creating tools despite the fact that evidence would suggest tools weren't used much before 1.5 million years ago.    
Beyond Saving wrote:
 I have linked to at least one publication that analyzed floods as far back as 2.5 million years ago. pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1254/pdf/circ1254.pdf And yeah, I trust a well respected meteorologists word far more than I trust yours. Regardless, I've linked to other articles in respected peer reviewed journals with significant primary support that have conclusions that fall in line with his, and not yours. Obviously, you aren't reading the links I provide. Your intellectual dishonesty reaches yet another height. 
no, you don't, because i do... and I ask questions about those links you cannot answer... or chose not to... either way, doesn't give you much credibility here.btw, your link happens to show the most severe flood blamed on ice dam failure... ironically around the time we've estimated the Noah incindent to have occured.  Also close to a similar location of Russia and Mongolia.  They also based this solely on geographic data and have used it as "an idea" of the diversity of floods in our world history... this from your link... therefore it sounds to me that this link further supports the Noah flood idea.    
Beyond Saving wrote:

So god is just a sadistic ass who decided to make Noah build a boat for kicks and giggles? There isn't anything logical about that at all. You really are stretching to justify your God now. I don't get what your point of nor'easters have anything to do with anything. And "geo flow" doesn't turn up any hits combined with meteorology. Are you making up your own meteorological terms again? You know I'm going to google it, why bother?

I'm giving you possibilities... God wanted to wipe out all life... Sadistic?  that's ironic considering what is said of the people during that time.  I guess you can call a judge sadistic for making a fair call and sentencing a friend of yours to death for a crime they've clearly committed, but that's kind of ignorant isn't it?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Caposkia wrote:

actually it is assumed people had migrated further north to the desert areas and even as far as present day Turkey. 

Why are we assuming that? Turkey would be a horrible place for Noah's Flood anyway. No storm can reach it without going over a bunch of land first. 

today... and depends on the storm type and track:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Turkish_flash_floods

Beyond Saving wrote:

How so? I love nudity. Naked people, naked wings, naked sauce, naked noodles, naked truth. Not a fan of naked assertions. 

 really??? do you read anything?  Dont you know the persistent problems that have happened in those locations in recent times?  I'll give you a link for Ethiopia:

http://reliefweb.int/report/ethiopia/ethiopia-preventing-flooding-and-hunger  Do some homework before claiming  "naked assertions"

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lol, you haven't even specified what you think the degree of Noah's flood was yet either in terms of area covered or amount of rain. You haven't provided evidence to support anything. Are you delusional or stupid?

guess I"m a massochist, just like you ;p

Beyond Saving wrote:

Like I've said, I'm not looking for evidence, I'm looking for a plausible theory. We know you have zero evidence of anything you believe in. As far as I can tell, your strategy for determining what to believe is to shake a magic 8 ball. 

You know nothing beyond this thread about what I believe in... yes, i know you talk to me on another thread... my statement stands... This thread is specifically about Noah's flood, hardly a basis for reasoning in my belief.  

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Quote:

I claimed they don't concern themselves with past events, not theoretical future events. 

Another false claim, as I pointed you to meteorologists who do. But like I said, I'm not looking for evidence that it actually happened, we know that it didn't thanks to other fields like geology and archaeology. I'm asking for evidence that it could happen in theory. 

I've given you several links to the puzzle... even you have provided links that allow for an extreme case that could apply to the Noah flood.  Point and case, you have not understood what you do here.

Beyond Saving wrote:

He would probably get very interested and ask for evidence of the event, then go back to his computer and work on modifying his formula. That is how science works, it takes in new evidence and theories adjust to find a way to explain everything. Science doesn't just dismiss inconvenient data because it is an outlier. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

, as you said, it is a basis for extremes... there'd be no reason to modify a formula for one outlier event... e. 

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Quote:

Considering we're talking millions of years... that is a very small sample size to base a concrete limit on.

Yet more evidence you paid zero attention in meteorology class. Serriously, your professor should be fired for passing you.

yea, because your logic on this topic has proven you have the understanding to determine this.  Try again.

Beyond Saving wrote:

It would look like a lot of water, it would wipe out most if not all structures and the survivors may or may not rebuild in the same location. A huge flood, yes. Wiping out all of humanity and every animal on the planet? Nope. 

explain your logic here please.  I'm looking for meteorlogical rationale in your answer as well as what the survivors did to survive.  What would allow them to escape such a flood? etc.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:you still

caposkia wrote:

you still stick on the 240 ft as if I actually stated that as a fact and not an if then as I've repeatedly told you.  Try again and maybe this time answer my question for the direct references to the "weather" constants... or were you just referring to the mathematical constants and applying them to weather... if so then they aren't weather constants, but constants in math that we apply to an ever changing weather pattern. 

Call them weather constants, physics constants, mathematical constants or whatever you want, the fact is that weather modeling relies on various constants and those constants put limits on what weather can and can't do. You know that is exactly what my point has been all along, no need to get pedantic. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

I have shown you what is meteorologically possible about such an unknown situation in an unknown time in history.... the rest is up to you.  I still question your reasoning and understanding. 

Where? Can you at least be honest about what has been said in this thread?

 

Caposkia wrote:

both statements here are completely unrelated... I'm talking about the Bible.

And I'm not. I don't care to talk about the bible. In case you haven't realized, I don't consider it a reliable source. I have asked you for sources OTHER THAN THE BIBLE. Focussed on meteorology because you claimed knowledge in the field. To date, you have failed to provide a single meteorlogical source.

 

caposkia wrote:

based on your explanation, there is plenty of room in Dr. Lyons equation for such a flood to occur.... but why wouldn't it be an outlier??? just curious...

The Bullshit I see here though is you using an equation you obviously don't understand yourself....  I get it's a rule of thumb... show me what this rule is based on... what is the source of the equation besides Dr. Lyons.. I know you've moved on from the Dr... just like a long time ago I moved on from 240 ft... yet you still bring that up as well.

See the following two journal articles I linked you to that attempted to predict the maximum rain possible in their areas. The math is laid out in detail with numerous references. If you can pick it apart and show me where the modeling is wrong, feel free. Their conclusions are in line with Dr. Lyons.  

 

Cap wrote:

start reading links.

You haven't given me any links. Every link we have discussed has come from me. And obviously, you haven't read them. 

 

Cap wrote:

a hypercane is a specific type of storm... why do you feel this storm would have been a hypercane?  That is understood to be a possible "future" event, not past.

I don't think it was a hypercane. The only reason I provided the hypercane reference was to prove your claim that meteorologists don't create extreme models that haven't happened. FWIW, the authors of the original journal article argued that a hypercane DID happen in the past. However, their work was studied by peers and numerous powerful arguments were provided demonstrating that it couldn't have happened. Unlike bible thumpers, the authors retracted their position. 

You said that meteorologists didn't create models of purely hypothetical storms, I proved you wrong. 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
 I have linked to at least one publication that analyzed floods as far back as 2.5 million years ago. pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1254/pdf/circ1254.pdf And yeah, I trust a well respected meteorologists word far more than I trust yours. Regardless, I've linked to other articles in respected peer reviewed journals with significant primary support that have conclusions that fall in line with his, and not yours. Obviously, you aren't reading the links I provide. Your intellectual dishonesty reaches yet another height. 
no, you don't, because i do... and I ask questions about those links you cannot answer... or chose not to... either way, doesn't give you much credibility here.
I've already admitted this is a field where my knowledge is limited. Which is why I've asked YOU to provide links that refute what I have found.  
Cap wrote:
btw, your link happens to show the most severe flood blamed on ice dam failure... ironically around the time we've estimated the Noah incindent to have occured.  Also close to a similar location of Russia and Mongolia. They also based this solely on geographic data and have used it as "an idea" of the diversity of floods in our world history... this from your link... therefore it sounds to me that this link further supports the Noah flood idea.
 So Noah was in Mongolia now? Someone needs to buy a globe. Mongolia is farther away from the middle east than New York is from San Francisco. There is no way this supports your story at all. If anything, it lends credence to the idea that if such a large flood occurred in the Middle East, we would have geological evidence of it.     
Cap wrote:

I'm giving you possibilities... God wanted to wipe out all life... Sadistic?  that's ironic considering what is said of the people during that time.  I guess you can call a judge sadistic for making a fair call and sentencing a friend of yours to death for a crime they've clearly committed, but that's kind of ignorant isn't it?

The death penalty is sadistic. By definition, you are killing a threat that has already been neutralized without death.

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

today... and depends on the storm type and track:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Turkish_flash_floods

Once again you link me to a small flood. 3 ft and 39 (out of a population of 14 million) killed is nowhere near the size you posit. And it was the worst flood in Turkey in 500 years. I've never disputed that large floods occur. I've disputed that a world ending flood caused by 40 days of rain and was so deep that a boat landed on top of a mountain filled with a significant number of animals and the last human survivors in the world occurred.

 

Caposkia wrote:

 really??? do you read anything?  Dont you know the persistent problems that have happened in those locations in recent times?  I'll give you a link for Ethiopia:

http://reliefweb.int/report/ethiopia/ethiopia-preventing-flooding-and-hunger  Do some homework before claiming  "naked assertions"

Yes, I expect you to support your assertions. And that link doesn't. Yes, Ethiopia and Kenya both get REGULAR flooding. The formation of their geology, combined with being a convenient spot for storms to approach from the east cause parts of them to get significant amounts of rain. Often of the orographic variety discussed earlier. If you look at the maps, areas immediately inland (on the other side of the mountains) get very little water. Why is there a huge humanitarian problem? Because it has a population of 94 million and everywhere that the refugees who lived in the flooded areas, they aren't exactly welcome. That isn't a problem when all of humanity fits in the flooded area, there is no one outside of it that is going to be angry. And it is merely a few hundred miles to areas that see virtually no rain at all. More like 20 miles to get out of the regions that are flooded. Distances much closer than what you have suggested people walked back then. 

Plus, supporting such a population requires intensive agriculture. Something that even during the best years, Ethiopia has not been able to produce enough to be self sufficient. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

You know nothing beyond this thread about what I believe in... yes, i know you talk to me on another thread... my statement stands... This thread is specifically about Noah's flood, hardly a basis for reasoning in my belief.

We've discussed archaeology, history, morality, meteorology, genetics, evolution, how far humans can walk in a day and in another thread, demons, demonic possession, and ghosts. Perhaps not enough to say for sure, but definitely enough to state with confidence that you are readily willing to believe things without evidence. Or perhaps that you value the explanative over physical evidence. 

  

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

He would probably get very interested and ask for evidence of the event, then go back to his computer and work on modifying his formula. That is how science works, it takes in new evidence and theories adjust to find a way to explain everything. Science doesn't just dismiss inconvenient data because it is an outlier. 

, as you said, it is a basis for extremes... there'd be no reason to modify a formula for one outlier event... e. 

That is absurd. There is every reason to modify a formula intended to model something anytime it is wrong, BECAUSE it is wrong. Extreme events often make it easier to modify the formula because their extremeness might highlight a particular variable that was incorrect, whereas a smaller deviation it is much harder to determine why it was wrong because it is within the margin of error. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

It would look like a lot of water, it would wipe out most if not all structures and the survivors may or may not rebuild in the same location. A huge flood, yes. Wiping out all of humanity and every animal on the planet? Nope. 

explain your logic here please.  I'm looking for meteorlogical rationale in your answer as well as what the survivors did to survive.  What would allow them to escape such a flood? etc.

The numerous examples in history where such floods occurred and humanity was not wiped out even within a single village. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Call

Beyond Saving wrote:

Call them weather constants, physics constants, mathematical constants or whatever you want, the fact is that weather modeling relies on various constants and those constants put limits on what weather can and can't do. You know that is exactly what my point has been all along, no need to get pedantic. 

yes, I know what you were gettting at... and despite the mathematical constants that help us figure out average ranges, they do not put "limits" on the weather... they only typically show a likely range... e.g. a storm that would normally drop 2 inches of rain in warm weather could drop anywhere between 1 and 3 feet of snow depending on temperature, speed, sheer, elevation etc... all of those are different, but are figured out by mathematical constants that help determine the typical 2 inch rainstorm in that particular situation.... those mathematical constants help us understand what likely would happen, not the maximum weather possibility.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have shown you what is meteorologically possible about such an unknown situation in an unknown time in history.... the rest is up to you.  I still question your reasoning and understanding. 

Where? Can you at least be honest about what has been said in this thread?

yes i can.. can you?

Remember back?  I'm not going to search the post now, but the one where I took the time to write out for you a hypotheitical model of what could have happened to cause such a catastrophy just naturally in nature, without the influence of a God... and you replied with something about it being all gibberish...

Beyond Saving wrote:

And I'm not. I don't care to talk about the bible. In case you haven't realized, I don't consider it a reliable source. I have asked you for sources OTHER THAN THE BIBLE. Focussed on meteorology because you claimed knowledge in the field. To date, you have failed to provide a single meteorlogical source.

right, because there isn't one to determine a storm that we can't figure out the date or time or type or even specific location... Good luck finding a source for any weather event with such particular unknowns in history. 

And this is all about the Bible becuase we're using IT to determine that this whole thread is worth discussing.  Yes, you don't see it as a reliable source, but this topic isn't going to help you there.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You haven't given me any links. Every link we have discussed has come from me. And obviously, you haven't read them. 

i know most... not every link has come from you... and it's obvious that you have not been reading your own links... start reading them before posting them is what I was saying.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't think it was a hypercane. The only reason I provided the hypercane reference was to prove your claim that meteorologists don't create extreme models that haven't happened. FWIW, the authors of the original journal article argued that a hypercane DID happen in the past. However, their work was studied by peers and numerous powerful arguments were provided demonstrating that it couldn't have happened. Unlike bible thumpers, the authors retracted their position. 

You said that meteorologists didn't create models of purely hypothetical storms, I proved you wrong. 

I said hypothetical storms?  If I remember correctly it's about the hypothetical storm that no one knows if it happened.  hypercanes are a future possibility if particular things took place... the knowns with a hypercane are what the conditions must be for one to take place.... we can't even determine that with this situation.  We don't know exactly what the conditions were and how the storm came in despite what the storm even was... or storms... do you see the difference here?  That's what I meant by hypothetical storms.  A meteorologist would literally have to invent the conditions and superimpose their ideal storm into that situation.. you have not proved me wrong.

Beyond Saving wrote:
 I've already admitted this is a field where my knowledge is limited. Which is why I've asked YOU to provide links that refute what I have found. 
i've refuted your "findings" using your links simply by asking you questions about your links you cannot answer... or choose not to...
Beyond Saving wrote:
 So Noah was in Mongolia now? Someone needs to buy a globe. Mongolia is farther away from the middle east than New York is from San Francisco. There is no way this supports your story at all. If anything, it lends credence to the idea that if such a large flood occurred in the Middle East, we would have geological evidence of it.  
We don't know where Noah was... if you were following the conversation that is one of the problems with your request for evidence.    and there are all kinds of evidences of severe floods in those areas throughout history... the other problem is we still don't really know WHEN the flood occured... pick one of teh hundreds or possibily thousands of floods that are evidenced in geology in those areas and tell me if it could have been the Noah flood why or why not... it doens't help if we don't know when... geology only helps if we have a specific location and a specific timeframe.... as to which we have neither. 
Beyond Saving wrote:

The death penalty is sadistic. By definition, you are killing a threat that has already been neutralized without death.

it's a punishment, not a way of eliminating a threat... I can see why someone without a grasp of God can't see that perspective.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Once again you link me to a small flood. 3 ft and 39 (out of a population of 14 million) killed is nowhere near the size you posit. And it was the worst flood in Turkey in 500 years. I've never disputed that large floods occur. I've disputed that a world ending flood caused by 40 days of rain and was so deep that a boat landed on top of a mountain filled with a significant number of animals and the last human survivors in the world occurred.

of course I did...

YOu never disputed large floods occuring..... except this one because of the parameters claimed in scripture... you ignore everything else discussed in this thread and then wonder why you can't see a rationale.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, I expect you to support your assertions. And that link doesn't. Yes, Ethiopia and Kenya both get REGULAR flooding. The formation of their geology, combined with being a convenient spot for storms to approach from the east cause parts of them to get significant amounts of rain. Often of the orographic variety discussed earlier. If you look at the maps, areas immediately inland (on the other side of the mountains) get very little water. Why is there a huge humanitarian problem? Because it has a population of 94 million and everywhere that the refugees who lived in the flooded areas, they aren't exactly welcome. That isn't a problem when all of humanity fits in the flooded area, there is no one outside of it that is going to be angry. And it is merely a few hundred miles to areas that see virtually no rain at all. More like 20 miles to get out of the regions that are flooded. Distances much closer than what you have suggested people walked back then. 

Plus, supporting such a population requires intensive agriculture. Something that even during the best years, Ethiopia has not been able to produce enough to be self sufficient. 

again, another link that supports the idea and you claim it does not despite what the floods do... again, do you have the location of NOah's flood?  the date?  and type of storm, how it came in etc?  if not, then you cannot appropriately claim this link doesn't support it. 

NO I"m not claiming the flood was here, but it does support how a flood can wipe out a whole population if severe enough in the right situation.  Again, we have to use links that don't directly correlate with the noah flood BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT HELPS US FIND THE NOAH FLOOD.  We instead must look at weather on the planet as a whole and decide how possible such a drastic occurrence allegedly 2 million years ago or so was.  AGain, another link that supports the possibilty. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

We've discussed archaeology, history, morality, meteorology, genetics, evolution, how far humans can walk in a day and in another thread, demons, demonic possession, and ghosts. Perhaps not enough to say for sure, but definitely enough to state with confidence that you are readily willing to believe things without evidence. Or perhaps that you value the explanative over physical evidence. 

to the contrary, I only accept things with evidences or logical reasoning.  which is why i have a hard time accepting your perspective.

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is absurd. There is every reason to modify a formula intended to model something anytime it is wrong, BECAUSE it is wrong. Extreme events often make it easier to modify the formula because their extremeness might highlight a particular variable that was incorrect, whereas a smaller deviation it is much harder to determine why it was wrong because it is within the margin of error. 

Right, and ted fugita, instead of modifying his formula to meet the standards of new extremes in tornados decided to broaden its standards to determine the storm severety based on volume of damage, which limits it to total destruction... unfortunately when looking back at it from the future would not tell us how severe the storm actually got, only that it got bad enough to utterly destroy everything in its path... which a storm of 200 mph can do despite the record of I think it was 318 mph. 

One outliar in many cases in meteorology reminds the experts that they can't put a limit on weather and instead of doing so either leave their formula as a "base" for all weather possibilities, or broaden it to cover the points that matter in a storm... in the case of tornadoes, the damage they leave behind.   In Ted's mind, after the windspeed hits 200 mph, it really doesn't matter how much stronger it was because it already obliterates everything in its path. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Quote:

explain your logic here please.  I'm looking for meteorlogical rationale in your answer as well as what the survivors did to survive.  What would allow them to escape such a flood? etc.

The numerous examples in history where such floods occurred and humanity was not wiped out even within a single village. 

that doesn't answer any of my requests above.  We've already determined that villages can survive severe floods, we also know that some haven't... so what determines their survival in this hypothetical?  you gave me no meteorological ratoniale as asked nor what would allow them to escape... proof of a few villages surviving does not determine the survival liklihood of any particular flood. 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:right,

caposkia wrote:

right, because there isn't one to determine a storm that we can't figure out the date or time or type or even specific location... Good luck finding a source for any weather event with such particular unknowns in history. 

That's not how this works. 

That's not how any of this works!!! 

You kept going on about that in your discussion with me here too (and you've stopped responding to me here I see...I wonder why?). What could a meteorologist possibly do if he DID know the time, date, and place that the biblical flood had to have happened if it did at all? The answer is....NOTHING! You don't go "Hmm...I guess in that time, and that place, it's possible for everything we know about meteorology to have shit itself, and did something completely random". 

 

 Oh, and bonus hilarity...from page one of this very thread!!

caposkia wrote:

I do believe the flood of the Bible was much much worse.  To back that claim up even further, archaeology has found evidence of a dramatic flood in that area during that time period.  There is speculation as to whether it really was during the time of Noah or whether it was the flood in question, but there is evidence of a great flood in history that could be compared to the flood of the Bible.  

Did you ever specify which flood that was? If it was the flood of Noah, how do you know? If not, then why is there not evidence of a dramatic flood elsewhere that WAS the flood of Noah?

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.