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?

 

 

 


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

caposkia wrote:

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.

No, that isn't what constants do at all. Constants are constant, the variables are what gives weather a range, constants influence the variables and limit the theoretical minimums and maximums. A raindrop can never fall faster than terminal velocity, period. There is a maximum speed that raindrops can achieve because of constants.

 

Caposkia wrote:

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...

Yes, and that didn't "prove" anything unless I consider you an authority and take your word for it. I don't even believe that you took meteorology 101 let alone have any authority on the subject, which is why I have asked for you to provide sources OTHER THAN YOU countless times. You have yet to provide anything. 

 

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. 

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.

And yet I have found several meteorlogical sources that explore meteorlogical phenomena that has never happened as far as we know. Proving you a liar or ignorant yet again. Meteorologists can and do create models that predict extreme weather that has never happened as far as we know. I haven't asked you to prove it happened, I've asked you to prove it possibly could have. 

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

I have read every link I've posted and a good bit more, which is how I know you are making shit up. 

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

I'm just asking you to tell me what the conditions would need to be. Whether or not they actually occurred is irrelevant to that point. Why can't we determine what the conditions must be to cause Noah's Flood?

 

Caposkia wrote:
i've refuted your "findings" using your links simply by asking you questions about your links you cannot answer... or choose not to...
 Why would you expect me to answer questions that aren't answered within the links themselves? I'm not a meteorlogical expert, the people who wrote  those articles are, anything they don't describe in detail is presumably because the articles were written for people who are. Their sources are at the bottom, you are free to read them if you want to delve into them deeper. I'm not looking to get a doctorate in meteorology for an internet discussion. Are you saying that the people who wrote the articles are wrong? I'd be interested in any evidence of that you could provide from a reputable source. Between you, a person on an internet forum who has not displayed any intelligent knowledge of the subject, and a meteorologist who is published in a peer reviewed meteorology journal, I'm trusting the meteorologist every time unless you can point to very compelling evidence that they are wrong.    
Caposkia wrote:
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. 
 We know that hominids lived constantly in north eastern Africa for over 4 million years, so it seems reasonable to assume that Noah's flood had to affect that area, since it supposedly killed every human except Noah.      
Caposkia wrote:
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.

And punishment for purposes other than reforming the person being punished is sadistic, but I've already determined that you are not the good person I assumed you were. My initial question was how a good person could see god as moral, maybe all the people I think are good people actually aren't good people and I need to be more careful making that assumption.  

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

So are you saying that scripture is wrong about the parameters? 

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

Because the link doesn't suggest that any such flood happened any time anywhere.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

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.

No it doesn't. The flood didn't wipe out the whole population, it didn't even wipe out a large percentage of it. It shows how 99% of the population managed to survive despite the flood destroying their homes.

 

Caposkia wrote:
 

 BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT HELPS US FIND THE NOAH FLOOD.

Obviously, because it never happened. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

  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. 

No, the link doesn't support that possibility. I've asked for a meteorlogical theory that a flood that more or less fulfills the parameters described in the bible is possible.  The flood in the link is nowhere near the parameters in the bible. I agreed that 200 ft in 40 days would be close enough to the parameters (although still makes the bible a lying exaggeration). Being the nice guy I am, I cut that in half to 100 feet.

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

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. 

I can't speak to what Fugita decided to do or why he decided to do it. Meteorologists do create models that predict tornados and they do collect detailed information when tornados happen, that information is incorporated into future models. I don't know if Fugita does that or not, I don't know who he is. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

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. 

Well if his goal is to determine the damage caused by tornados and not the details of the tornado itself that seems a sensible way to do it. But whether he does it or not, there are meteorologists who study tornados and they are interested in their exact speed even over 200 mph. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

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. 

Show me a single flood in history that wiped out 100% of a population of a village. I doubt that one has occurred. I will allow for a single survivor or family of survivors. Hell, because I'm generous, I will allow for 5% of the village population to survive. I'll bet you that you can't even find a flood that killed 50% of the population of a 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
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

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!!! 

I saved twice that much in half the time!

...sorry, couldn't resist.

Jabberwocky wrote:

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". 

I have stopped??? huh.

Anyway, it is how it works... what could a meteorologist do if he did know the date and time and place?  use geology to find out the magnitude, water flow, volume, possibly ice samples to understand a better comprehension of the weather patterns of the time, etc... in ohter words, they could build a model... go figure.

Jabberwocky wrote:

 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?

It wasn't likely the flood of Noah.  I don't remember if I linked it or not.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:No, that

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, that isn't what constants do at all. Constants are constant, the variables are what gives weather a range, constants influence the variables and limit the theoretical minimums and maximums. A raindrop can never fall faster than terminal velocity, period. There is a maximum speed that raindrops can achieve because of constants.

There are constants that are associated with scientific law... e.g. terminal velocity... and those same constants can be associated with variables that do not determine a limit... again, this is obviously a bit beyond your comprehension... stick with what you know. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, and that didn't "prove" anything unless I consider you an authority and take your word for it. I don't even believe that you took meteorology 101 let alone have any authority on the subject, which is why I have asked for you to provide sources OTHER THAN YOU countless times. You have yet to provide anything. 

...and do you remember why?

Beyond Saving wrote:

And yet I have found several meteorlogical sources that explore meteorlogical phenomena that has never happened as far as we know. Proving you a liar or ignorant yet again. Meteorologists can and do create models that predict extreme weather that has never happened as far as we know. I haven't asked you to prove it happened, I've asked you to prove it possibly could have. 

what does something that has never happend have to do with something that has happened historically?

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have read every link I've posted and a good bit more, which is how I know you are making shit up. 

if you did, you wouldn't think I was making shit up... I have quoted several times the very links you posted...  unless you're claiming your links are "making shit up"

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm just asking you to tell me what the conditions would need to be. Whether or not they actually occurred is irrelevant to that point. Why can't we determine what the conditions must be to cause Noah's Flood?

...and I did... but I'm not a credible source in your eyes, so it didn't matter.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Why would you expect me to answer questions that aren't answered within the links themselves? *snip*
because you're using them to defend your position... which means you must understand the link enough to be able to answer some basic quesitons about it...
Beyond Saving wrote:
 We know that hominids lived constantly in north eastern Africa for over 4 million years, so it seems reasonable to assume that Noah's flood had to affect that area, since it supposedly killed every human except Noah.    
...and vacinity... there's quite a milage range involved that extends north and as far south as South Africa.http://diariodepuertorico.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Spreading_homo_sapiens.svg_.png
Beyond Saving wrote:

And punishment for purposes other than reforming the person being punished is sadistic, but I've already determined that you are not the good person I assumed you were. My initial question was how a good person could see god as moral, maybe all the people I think are good people actually aren't good people and I need to be more careful making that assumption.  

I like how you use a religious term to define it... and what makes a "good person" good?  Please be objective in your answer.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So are you saying that scripture is wrong about the parameters? 

no, how would we have determined that?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because the link doesn't suggest that any such flood happened any time anywhere.

does the link happen to suggest that it could have never happened, or that we just don't have any evidence at this time?  My guess is we have evidence for proabaly 10% of all the floods that have occured in the history of the world... and so that means nothing to me.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Obviously, because it never happened. 

then it's settled, we're done here


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:

No, that isn't what constants do at all. Constants are constant, the variables are what gives weather a range, constants influence the variables and limit the theoretical minimums and maximums. A raindrop can never fall faster than terminal velocity, period. There is a maximum speed that raindrops can achieve because of constants.

There are constants that are associated with scientific law... e.g. terminal velocity... and those same constants can be associated with variables that do not determine a limit... again, this is obviously a bit beyond your comprehension... stick with what you know. 

Lol, says the man incapable of finding a single source to support his bullshit.

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, and that didn't "prove" anything unless I consider you an authority and take your word for it. I don't even believe that you took meteorology 101 let alone have any authority on the subject, which is why I have asked for you to provide sources OTHER THAN YOU countless times. You have yet to provide anything. 

...and do you remember why?

Because you are making up complete bullshit that isn't even supported by other idiots let alone reputable  sources.

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

And yet I have found several meteorlogical sources that explore meteorlogical phenomena that has never happened as far as we know. Proving you a liar or ignorant yet again. Meteorologists can and do create models that predict extreme weather that has never happened as far as we know. I haven't asked you to prove it happened, I've asked you to prove it possibly could have. 

what does something that has never happend have to do with something that has happened historically?

To have happened historically, it must be possible, by only asking you to prove it is possible, I am lowering the bar for you, because I'm a nice guy.

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have read every link I've posted and a good bit more, which is how I know you are making shit up. 

if you did, you wouldn't think I was making shit up... I have quoted several times the very links you posted...  unless you're claiming your links are "making shit up"

Where?

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Why would you expect me to answer questions that aren't answered within the links themselves? *snip*
because you're using them to defend your position... which means you must understand the link enough to be able to answer some basic quesitons about it...
You claimed expertise in the field, I have nothing outside the links I provided, if they are wrong, or if my understanding is wrong because I have incomplete information, explain EXACTLY where, and please provide me with a reference to where I can correct my ignorance. Unlike you, I like to fix my ignorance. 
Quote:

I like how you use a religious term to define it... and what makes a "good person" good?  Please be objective in your answer.

Good is a subjective term, it is not a religious term. It is a judgement, and I judge that you are an immoral asshole, which you making a similar judgement about me would be unchristian based on my understanding of the Christian idea that it is God's role to judge, not mans.

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So are you saying that scripture is wrong about the parameters? 

no, how would we have determined that?

You have stated that the flood was much smaller than the bible claims.

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because the link doesn't suggest that any such flood happened any time anywhere.

does the link happen to suggest that it could have never happened, or that we just don't have any evidence at this time?  My guess is we have evidence for proabaly 10% of all the floods that have occured in the history of the world... and so that means nothing to me.

Where does 10% come from? See, just making shit up.

 

 

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:

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!!! 

I saved twice that much in half the time!

...sorry, couldn't resist.

Jabberwocky wrote:

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". 

I have stopped??? huh.

Anyway, it is how it works... what could a meteorologist do if he did know the date and time and place?  use geology to find out the magnitude, water flow, volume, possibly ice samples to understand a better comprehension of the weather patterns of the time, etc... in ohter words, they could build a model... go figure.

Jabberwocky wrote:

 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?

It wasn't likely the flood of Noah.  I don't remember if I linked it or not.

You stopped responding to me in this thread as of my last post, before the more recent one you just responded to. You ignored challenges to

Explain what evidence there is for biblical lineages

The fact that the flood being true is necessary for your point to stand, as you personally deem it theologically necessary for your position

Biblical errancy/inerrancy, which you have proven you can't be honest about in the other thread, as I mentioned

Show me fossil gaps which I pointed out you were obviously being DELIBERATELY evasive on, and you still have gone on to not point out where a gap exists in the lineage of ancestry that led to homosapiens by using lineages that are accepted by modern biologists. You continue to be evasive about this. 

Show me problems regarding how biologists show the web of life, and how DNA factors in (including how DNA testing close relationships you WOULD accept shows further relationships that you currently don't accept)

Your ridiculous assertion of how we discern truth (which is basically you attacking the scientific method, even though you would never claim that you are)

Me pointing out that you were being evasive, and have even admitted that you were under-informed on evolution but STILL dismissing it as false without having actually put in the work to research it.

Once again, your insistence that every body of knowledge is binary, and levels of certainty can't exist

My direct response to your challenge regarding Orrorin Tugensis, with an explanation of what we've found, and why we are more certain about certain fossils than others (largely to do with how many samples we have of each)

How your own argument regarding O. Tugensis hurts your broad argument regarding the flood.

 

You are almost certainly wrong about every one of these things. You ignored my entire post on that. It's quite hilarious really. 

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:Lol,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lol, says the man incapable of finding a single source to support his bullshit.

Because you are making up complete bullshit ...

 

I have read every link I've posted and a good bit more, which is how I know you are making shit up. 

See, just making shit up.

one of many quotes used by atheists when they have nothing left to defend their position and yet don't want to conceed to the idea that they're in over their head...

just makin shit up...

Other common options are:

1.. the delusion delusion

2.  the ignorance concept

3. 

 3a.  3 is also known as the silent treatment

4.  the 'prove the improvable to prove my point' point.

5. the circular arguement

among many others. 

Beyond saving, if you want to maybe try instead of resorting to common unilateral non-progressive retort, I'd be happy to respond to that post the right way. 


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

You stopped responding to me in this thread as of my last post, before the more recent one you just responded to. You ignored challenges to

Explain what evidence there is for biblical lineages.

oh, sorry... there's davidian artifacts found in the areas plus many artifacts referencing to the davidian lineage.

There are also artifacts alleged to be property of Solomon and the kingdom mentioned.  Jesus was also known as the 'son of David' which would not have been said if the people did not at least understand the lineage to have come from that... There is extra-Biblical evidence of the davidian references associated with Jesus. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

The fact that the flood being true is necessary for your point to stand, as you personally deem it theologically necessary for your position

Biblical errancy/inerrancy, which you have proven you can't be honest about in the other thread, as I mentioned

Show me fossil gaps which I pointed out you were obviously being DELIBERATELY evasive on, and you still have gone on to not point out where a gap exists in the lineage of ancestry that led to homosapiens by using lineages that are accepted by modern biologists. You continue to be evasive about this. 

I had pointed out the gaps as to which I don't remember if you or another retorted that those "gaps" are obviously going to exist and that gaps don't matter anymore. 

I forgot in my last post to mention the dishonesty approach.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Show me problems regarding how biologists show the web of life, and how DNA factors in (including how DNA testing close relationships you WOULD accept shows further relationships that you currently don't accept)

Your ridiculous assertion of how we discern truth (which is basically you attacking the scientific method, even though you would never claim that you are)

uh... no I wouldn't claim to attack the scientific method be it that i use it for may evidences....

Jabberwocky wrote:

Me pointing out that you were being evasive, and have even admitted that you were under-informed on evolution but STILL dismissing it as false without having actually put in the work to research it.

Once again, your insistence that every body of knowledge is binary, and levels of certainty can't exist

My direct response to your challenge regarding Orrorin Tugensis, with an explanation of what we've found, and why we are more certain about certain fossils than others (largely to do with how many samples we have of each)

How your own argument regarding O. Tugensis hurts your broad argument regarding the flood.

explain please... don't excuse your way out of that... I really want to hear your reasoning. specifically about how my own arguemnt regarding O. hurts my broad arguement.

Jabberwocky wrote:

You are almost certainly wrong about every one of these things. You ignored my entire post on that. It's quite hilarious really. 

yup... funny


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:

Lol, says the man incapable of finding a single source to support his bullshit.

Because you are making up complete bullshit ...

 

I have read every link I've posted and a good bit more, which is how I know you are making shit up. 

See, just making shit up.

one of many quotes used by atheists when they have nothing left to defend their position and yet don't want to conceed to the idea that they're in over their head...

just makin shit up...

Other common options are:

1.. the delusion delusion

2.  the ignorance concept

3. 

 3a.  3 is also known as the silent treatment

4.  the 'prove the improvable to prove my point' point.

5. the circular arguement

among many others. 

Beyond saving, if you want to maybe try instead of resorting to common unilateral non-progressive retort, I'd be happy to respond to that post the right way. 

Well if you aren't making shit up, where is your evidence? You have made two specific claims recently I have asked you to support.

1. That there have been floods we know of that wiped out entire populations. I asked you for one known example where 50% or more of a single village died. You ignored it.

2. You said we only have evidence of 10% of floods, I asked you to explain how you came to that determination.

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:Well if

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well if you aren't making shit up, where is your evidence?

start reading the thread

Beyond Saving wrote:

You have made two specific claims recently I have asked you to support.

1. That there have been floods we know of that wiped out entire populations. I asked you for one known example where 50% or more of a single village died. You ignored it.

http://filipinotimes.ae/news/2014/01/16/landslide-floods-wipe-out-entire-village-in-davao-oriental/

Beyond Saving wrote:

2. You said we only have evidence of 10% of floods, I asked you to explain how you came to that determination.

This is where reading the thread might help you a bit... You claim i said we only have evidence for 10% of floods... you missed the part where I said" "my guess is"... which would imply that I have not come to any determination, but took a guess....would you like to show me how my guess might be wrong? 

If you're wondering why I said 10% vs. 90% then that would be because we have only roughly 150 years of recorded weather history, the rest is geological that only goes back to a few thousand years.  There is only less than 5000 years of written history giving any hope of any documentation during any occuring flood limited to only a few thousand years.  Be it that human history goes back millions of years and Earth history Billions, 10% seemed like a more logical guess. 

 


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:

Well if you aren't making shit up, where is your evidence?

start reading the thread

Beyond Saving wrote:

You have made two specific claims recently I have asked you to support.

1. That there have been floods we know of that wiped out entire populations. I asked you for one known example where 50% or more of a single village died. You ignored it.

http://filipinotimes.ae/news/2014/01/16/landslide-floods-wipe-out-entire-village-in-davao-oriental/

Only ten people died, nowhere near half the village. Try again.

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

2. You said we only have evidence of 10% of floods, I asked you to explain how you came to that determination.

This is where reading the thread might help you a bit... You claim i said we only have evidence for 10% of floods... you missed the part where I said" "my guess is"... which would imply that I have not come to any determination, but took a guess....would you like to show me how my guess might be wrong? 

If you're wondering why I said 10% vs. 90% then that would be because we have only roughly 150 years of recorded weather history, the rest is geological that only goes back to a few thousand years.  There is only less than 5000 years of written history giving any hope of any documentation during any occuring flood limited to only a few thousand years.  Be it that human history goes back millions of years and Earth history Billions, 10% seemed like a more logical guess. 

 

Yet we have geological evidence of floods from millions of years ago, I linked you to it. Read the thread. I am not going to provide evidence against something you term as a "guess". That just makes me accurate when I pointed out you were pulling shit out of thin air. It isn't even an educated guess based on some underlying information, it is a number you said because you thought it sounded good, much like every other number you have thrown out and demanded I disprove. Your dishonesty and hypocrisy reaches new depths every post. You must be a natural at the limbo.

 

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:

You stopped responding to me in this thread as of my last post, before the more recent one you just responded to. You ignored challenges to

Explain what evidence there is for biblical lineages.

oh, sorry... there's davidian artifacts found in the areas plus many artifacts referencing to the davidian lineage.

There are also artifacts alleged to be property of Solomon and the kingdom mentioned.  Jesus was also known as the 'son of David' which would not have been said if the people did not at least understand the lineage to have come from that... There is extra-Biblical evidence of the davidian references associated with Jesus. 

Davidian artifacts I found (The Tel Dan Stele and the Mesha Stele) seem to suggest his existence, although only because they refer to a "house of David". Considering that the Jewish people saw themselves as the sons of David, it's not too surprising. However, they both require either interpretation (in the case of the former) or full-on interpolation (in the case of the latter) to even get to that point. Even if this was good evidence for the existence of a historical King David, it does not make the lineages in the bible regarding this person true in any sense. 

So you said there are davidian artifcats found (true) plus many (emphasis on many) artifacts referencing to the davidian lineage. Where? Where are these artifcats referencing to that lineage? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

The fact that the flood being true is necessary for your point to stand, as you personally deem it theologically necessary for your position

Biblical errancy/inerrancy, which you have proven you can't be honest about in the other thread, as I mentioned

Show me fossil gaps which I pointed out you were obviously being DELIBERATELY evasive on, and you still have gone on to not point out where a gap exists in the lineage of ancestry that led to homosapiens by using lineages that are accepted by modern biologists. You continue to be evasive about this. 

I had pointed out the gaps as to which I don't remember if you or another retorted that those "gaps" are obviously going to exist and that gaps don't matter anymore. 

I forgot in my last post to mention the dishonesty approach.

No you didn't. I asked for something very specific. I asked you to look at the lineage of homo sapien ancestors as understood by biologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc, and to find within that lineage big gaps that could not possibly be explained by gradual change. We were getting closer and closer to the answer, then you randomly threw out elephants and ostriches or something like that. I don't remember precisely, but I do remember that one of the things you said (in one of your two comparisons, which were erroneous for reasons I will say in a bit), one was a family, and the other an entire order. 

The reason your comparison was awful was because you were asking where the transition was between two currently existing species which biologists don't even acknowledge a close relation between the two (when compared to the relationship between either of those two and their closer cousins). We were on the topics of hominids and australopiths the entire time, and when you finally couldn't evade naming actual examples, you went to something completely out of left field, as if you feared the actual answer.

The reason that those gaps probably wouldn't matter is because we can clearly see very large variations within species of animals that aren't far less pronounced (and in some cases, probably even more pronounced) than the differences between modern humans and our ancestors like Homo Erectus, or Australopithecus Afarensis further back. So in this situation you are stuck having to admit that all of the changes that young earth creationists state aren't possible, are indeed possible after all. So once again. Go research the understood progression through Australopiths, and Hominids leading to us, and locate me with some gaps that are just so massive that to believe that it transitioned over would be a new form of ridiculous. Until then, you are the one who is being dishonest, by evading a direct question over many pages, and many months of posting, even though I have asked you to provide me this same thing on multiple occasions. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Show me problems regarding how biologists show the web of life, and how DNA factors in (including how DNA testing close relationships you WOULD accept shows further relationships that you currently don't accept)

Your ridiculous assertion of how we discern truth (which is basically you attacking the scientific method, even though you would never claim that you are)

uh... no I wouldn't claim to attack the scientific method be it that i use it for may evidences....

I like how you ignored the first part of the post. Again...

As I said. You would never claim that you're attacking the scientific method, but you are. You are proposing a situation where all knowledge is binary, and the only levels of certainty that you can attach to any proposition is 0%, or 100%. This is not the case in science, as there are varying levels of certainty about many concepts in science. You seem to be unable to grasp this concept entirely. 

In the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate, Bill Nye compared those who deny that evolution happened to those who believe that the Earth is flat. Ken Ham, proving how little he knows about the scientific method, provided satellite photography of the Earth from space (sped up so you could see it spin around in a few seconds). However, he didn't even make a single bit of reference to the fact that in various parts of the world, people over 2000 years ago proved that the Earth is round, and even predicted its circumference with somewhat flawed, but clever methods for the time. Eratosthenes proved it in 194BCE. It was proven in various parts of the world independantly. Is it possible that they were wrong? Sure. But the implications of them being wrong would require a large pile of ridiculous assumptions. Similarly, those who still believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe, but are unable to throw away modern physics, must believe that the earth is actually stationary, and everything simply moves around relative to that. Of course, that's at LEAST as ridiculous as those jokes about Chuck Norris that say when he punches something, the object actually doesn't fly back, but the strength of his punch (for some reason) causes the universe to simply move around the person instead.

If creationists (at least creationist enough to not believe that humans and other apes had common ancestors) have to believe that everything seems to be related when considering homology in physical features and DNA, and would have to believe that while evolution is POSSIBLE given a 4.54 billion year old earth, it didn't actually happen that way (unless creationists can offer some sort of genetic mechanism that would prevent that from being true, which they have never even tried!) Furthermore, they would have to concede that at least one pair of gorillas, one pair of chimps (an ancestor of bonobos and common chimps), and one pair of Orangutans (as well as a whole assortment of other primates) would have to have been on the ark, as chimpanzees share more genes with us than any of the other aforementioned, unless you allow for a situation where there was one common ancestor for all of those apes, but then they split into all of these kinds, but not homo-sapiens. You must see that such a proposition is ridiculous, right?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Me pointing out that you were being evasive, and have even admitted that you were under-informed on evolution but STILL dismissing it as false without having actually put in the work to research it.

Once again, your insistence that every body of knowledge is binary, and levels of certainty can't exist

My direct response to your challenge regarding Orrorin Tugensis, with an explanation of what we've found, and why we are more certain about certain fossils than others (largely to do with how many samples we have of each)

How your own argument regarding O. Tugensis hurts your broad argument regarding the flood.

explain please... don't excuse your way out of that... I really want to hear your reasoning. specifically about how my own arguemnt regarding O. hurts my broad arguement.

Because you then have another unique specimen that was fossilized 5+ million years ago, at which point no hominids existed yet, and since you seemed to acknowledge that hominids are what qualifies as human (which is actually correct, just not "modern humans&quotEye-wink, then Orrorin Tugenensis was fossilized before your flood. I mean, sure, you might not agree with a timeline for the earth, or dating methods, but you have provided no consistent criteria on which to decide these things. Until you do, then I can assume anything I want. You have provided me with no literature (even creationist literature) that describes your beliefs regarding when the flood occurred, the age of the earth, and how old humans are. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You are almost certainly wrong about every one of these things. You ignored my entire post on that. It's quite hilarious really. 

yup... funny

Still funny. You somehow manage to think you address things without actually addressing anything. Thanks for bringing up how slim the evidence is for David though. 

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:Only ten

Beyond Saving wrote:

Only ten people died, nowhere near half the village. Try again.

oh, so the potential of death in a village that was entirely wiped out is irrelevant.  You actually want to see people die in the scenario.  Consider that if an entire village was wiped out, there was potential of a 100% death rate... in today's age, we're likely more aware of weather events and their potential than so many years ago.  people are more likely to evacuate before the event that could cause catestrophic death.

Try again.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet we have geological evidence of floods from millions of years ago, I linked you to it. Read the thread. I am not going to provide evidence against something you term as a "guess". That just makes me accurate when I pointed out you were pulling shit out of thin air. It isn't even an educated guess based on some underlying information, it is a number you said because you thought it sounded good, much like every other number you have thrown out and demanded I disprove. Your dishonesty and hypocrisy reaches new depths every post. You must be a natural at the limbo.

 

what percentage of the floods of the world do we have evidence for millions of years ago?  Too hard?  What if I asked how many floods we have evidence for millions of years ago?  Do you have an answer to either?  

So taking factual information and applying it to a guess is literally "pulling shit out of thin air."   no wonder our conversation is going nowhere.


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:

Only ten people died, nowhere near half the village. Try again.

oh, so the potential of death in a village that was entirely wiped out is irrelevant.  You actually want to see people die in the scenario.  Consider that if an entire village was wiped out, there was potential of a 100% death rate... in today's age, we're likely more aware of weather events and their potential than so many years ago.  people are more likely to evacuate before the event that could cause catestrophic death.

Try again.  

That is nothing but speculation- speculation that isn't supported by any facts anywhere. You claimed that a flood has been recorded that could wipe out an entire population. Exactly which flood is that? Since it has been recorded, we must know the specifics of where and when. If you can't produce it, then your specific claim is false. I know you don't like dealing with specifics, because your argument always fails when it encounters anything that isn't protected by the murky waters of vagueness and unknown variables. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

what percentage of the floods of the world do we have evidence for millions of years ago?  Too hard?  What if I asked how many floods we have evidence for millions of years ago?  Do you have an answer to either?  

What percentage? I have no clue. I'm not the one who made a claim to that effect. I provided a link that listed all the major floods we have evidence for, if you want to know exactly how many including small floods, that would take a long time because there are tens of thousands of them if not hundreds of thousands. Since it doesn't help my case whatsoever, I'm not going to worry about evidence of the Nile having yet another average sized flood 10,000 years ago. You are free to do that research if you are interested. 

It IS safe to say that the larger the flood is, the greater amount of physical evidence is left over. So it is much easier to imagine us missing a river flooding 20 feet than an ice dam breaking causing a 200 foot wall of water to rampage through a valley. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

So taking factual information and applying it to a guess is literally "pulling shit out of thin air."   no wonder our conversation is going nowhere.

You haven't provided any factual information, you have provided guesses with no factual basis. See above- we have found that the evidence left behind by large floods is consistently greater in quantity than evidence left by small floods. That is an undisputable fact as it relates to every flood we have found evidence for. Then, I extrapolate from that evidence that it is unlikely that we missed a flood hundreds of times larger than any of the floods we have found evidence for because a flood that large would have left even larger amounts of evidence behind. That is an extrapolation based on the available evidence. 

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:Davidian

Jabberwocky wrote:

Davidian artifacts I found (The Tel Dan Stele and the Mesha Stele) seem to suggest his existence, although only because they refer to a "house of David". Considering that the Jewish people saw themselves as the sons of David, it's not too surprising. However, they both require either interpretation (in the case of the former) or full-on interpolation (in the case of the latter) to even get to that point. Even if this was good evidence for the existence of a historical King David, it does not make the lineages in the bible regarding this person true in any sense. 

So you said there are davidian artifcats found (true) plus many (emphasis on many) artifacts referencing to the davidian lineage. Where? Where are these artifcats referencing to that lineage? 

Artifacts are usually the key point in finding factual history.  YOu claimed; "even if this was good evidence for the existence of a historical King David, it doesn't make the lineages in the bible regarding this person true in any sense."  I say how so?  If King David were real, it was almost a necessessity for a king to have a child to carry on the name and rule the kingdom, what evidence do you have suggesting this possible King David didn't have any kids?  IF there were a King David, and the Bible happens to have a written lineage of said king, if anything, that would make the lineages in the Bible at least a bit more plausible pending further evidence... you decide to bypass logic and go with no reasoning despite the evidence.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

No you didn't. I asked for something very specific. I asked you to look at the lineage of homo sapien ancestors as understood by biologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc, and to find within that lineage big gaps that could not possibly be explained by gradual change. We were getting closer and closer to the answer, then you randomly threw out elephants and ostriches or something like that. I don't remember precisely, but I do remember that one of the things you said (in one of your two comparisons, which were erroneous for reasons I will say in a bit), one was a family, and the other an entire order. 

The reason your comparison was awful was because you were asking where the transition was between two currently existing species which biologists don't even acknowledge a close relation between the two (when compared to the relationship between either of those two and their closer cousins). We were on the topics of hominids and australopiths the entire time, and when you finally couldn't evade naming actual examples, you went to something completely out of left field, as if you feared the actual answer.

The reason that those gaps probably wouldn't matter is because we can clearly see very large variations within species of animals that aren't far less pronounced (and in some cases, probably even more pronounced) than the differences between modern humans and our ancestors like Homo Erectus, or Australopithecus Afarensis further back. So in this situation you are stuck having to admit that all of the changes that young earth creationists state aren't possible, are indeed possible after all. So once again. Go research the understood progression through Australopiths, and Hominids leading to us, and locate me with some gaps that are just so massive that to believe that it transitioned over would be a new form of ridiculous. Until then, you are the one who is being dishonest, by evading a direct question over many pages, and many months of posting, even though I have asked you to provide me this same thing on multiple occasions. 

So, either I was evading the necessity to name actual examples out of fear for the answer, or there are gaps... which is it?  YOu initially say I evade out of fear, then you add the gaps probably wouldn't matter... either I was evading out of fear or the gaps exist and they don't matter... pick one.  

Hint:  If I'm directly addressing your accusation that I evade out of fear, its' likely the latter answer be it that it wouldn't be beneficial to my arguement to bring that assertion up again... rather I should just... fearfully evade again right?

If I remember correctly, I told you I'm not an expert on the ancestry thing and so I asked you to tell me the lineage of smooth transition... instead you kept defering it back to me.  Therefore I looked it up, found out that there are several human lineage possibilities including the more likely ancestrial relation to a species mostly like human dating back to around 8 million years ago.  

I think that's where... to put it in your words; "you finally couldn't evade naming actual examples, you went to something completely out of left field, as if you feared the actual answer."

Jabberwocky wrote:

Show me problems regarding how biologists show the web of life, and how DNA factors in (including how DNA testing close relationships you WOULD accept shows further relationships that you currently don't accept)

Your ridiculous assertion of how we discern truth (which is basically you attacking the scientific method, even though you would never claim that you are)

uh... no I wouldn't claim to attack the scientific method be it that i use it for may evidences....

I like how you ignored the first part of the post. Again...

alright, what problems did I bring up with that?  i don't remember and don't have time to go back and look.  unless you're referring to again, the gaps.

Jabberwocky wrote:

As I said. You would never claim that you're attacking the scientific method, but you are. You are proposing a situation where all knowledge is binary, and the only levels of certainty that you can attach to any proposition is 0%, or 100%. This is not the case in science, as there are varying levels of certainty about many concepts in science. You seem to be unable to grasp this concept entirely. 

the problem with your reasoning is we're talking about history... history is not scientifically provable... we can use science to date items and confirm that items existed at a rough dating period, but regarding events, lineages, etc. as you've pointed out, it cannot work... you cannot prove scientifically that an event actually took place as described, only that it likely happened based on X (writing) Y, (artifacts), Z (geography, bloodline, excavation, etc. depending on the event in question)

Jabberwocky wrote:

In the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate, Bill Nye compared those who deny that evolution happened to those who believe that the Earth is flat. Ken Ham, proving how little he knows about the scientific method, provided satellite photography of the Earth from space (sped up so you could see it spin around in a few seconds). However, he didn't even make a single bit of reference to the fact that in various parts of the world, people over 2000 years ago proved that the Earth is round, and even predicted its circumference with somewhat flawed, but clever methods for the time. Eratosthenes proved it in 194BCE. It was proven in various parts of the world independantly. Is it possible that they were wrong? Sure. But the implications of them being wrong would require a large pile of ridiculous assumptions. Similarly, those who still believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe, but are unable to throw away modern physics, must believe that the earth is actually stationary, and everything simply moves around relative to that. Of course, that's at LEAST as ridiculous as those jokes about Chuck Norris that say when he punches something, the object actually doesn't fly back, but the strength of his punch (for some reason) causes the universe to simply move around the person instead.

Strange, you seem to think Ken Ham didn't read the Bible... even the Bible states the Earth to be round... though I also watched that debate and did not come to the same conclusion you did... seems the whole thing was quite subjective then... or at least perceptions of what was presented is.

Jabberwocky wrote:

If creationists (at least creationist enough to not believe that humans and other apes had common ancestors) have to believe that everything seems to be related when considering homology in physical features and DNA, and would have to believe that while evolution is POSSIBLE given a 4.54 billion year old earth, it didn't actually happen that way (unless creationists can offer some sort of genetic mechanism that would prevent that from being true, which they have never even tried!) Furthermore, they would have to concede that at least one pair of gorillas, one pair of chimps (an ancestor of bonobos and common chimps), and one pair of Orangutans (as well as a whole assortment of other primates) would have to have been on the ark, as chimpanzees share more genes with us than any of the other aforementioned, unless you allow for a situation where there was one common ancestor for all of those apes, but then they split into all of these kinds, but not homo-sapiens. You must see that such a proposition is ridiculous, right?

especially coming from you be it that we've already discussed and assumably resolved that issue depending on the "when" factor.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Because you then have another unique specimen that was fossilized 5+ million years ago, at which point no hominids existed yet, and since you seemed to acknowledge that hominids are what qualifies as human (which is actually correct, just not "modern humans&quotEye-wink, then Orrorin Tugenensis was fossilized before your flood. I mean, sure, you might not agree with a timeline for the earth, or dating methods, but you have provided no consistent criteria on which to decide these things. Until you do, then I can assume anything I want. You have provided me with no literature (even creationist literature) that describes your beliefs regarding when the flood occurred, the age of the earth, and how old humans are. 

have you forgotten why.... again????  Keep up man. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Still funny. You somehow manage to think you address things without actually addressing anything. Thanks for bringing up how slim the evidence is for David though. 

I'm just going by your playbook... would you like to make the conversation a little more substantial again?  Bring up a congruent lineage of humanity from just prior to the transition point to modern day homo-sapiens... go!


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is nothing but speculation- speculation that isn't supported by any facts anywhere. You claimed that a flood has been recorded that could wipe out an entire population. Exactly which flood is that? Since it has been recorded, we must know the specifics of where and when. If you can't produce it, then your specific claim is false. I know you don't like dealing with specifics, because your argument always fails when it encounters anything that isn't protected by the murky waters of vagueness and unknown variables. 

I love dealing with specifics... I thought you had a problem with that... regardless

the percentage of a population wiped out due to a flood is based on many factors;

1.  density factor

2.  prior warning

3.  knowledge of the escape route/terrain

and so on.  Again, you need to see that perfect death toll... despite the history of several populations disappearing without a trace and/or being totally obliterated by one means or another, there are few records in the last 200 years that can compare, but if something even moderately close to a wipeout occured in the last 200 years, than it is logical to assume such an event could wipe out entire populations several times over in the last few million years.

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/10-most-fatal-natural-disasters-of-all-time/?view=all

look at 5 and 6... 5 happens to be a hurricane that wiped out 300,000 people... I figured when I posted this you still might be disappointed becuase even though 300,000 died, it still didn't wipe out an entire population... but consider in ancient times if a storm capable of wiping out 300,000 people in the last 200 years, what could it do to a smaller population further back before quicker means of escape?

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

What percentage? I have no clue. I'm not the one who made a claim to that effect. I provided a link that listed all the major floods we have evidence for, if you want to know exactly how many including small floods, that would take a long time because there are tens of thousands of them if not hundreds of thousands. Since it doesn't help my case whatsoever, I'm not going to worry about evidence of the Nile having yet another average sized flood 10,000 years ago. You are free to do that research if you are interested. 

It IS safe to say that the larger the flood is, the greater amount of physical evidence is left over. So it is much easier to imagine us missing a river flooding 20 feet than an ice dam breaking causing a 200 foot wall of water to rampage through a valley. 

exactly, you took a statement that started with the phrase "my guess" and turned it into a factual claim on my part... I really am not interested, but you seemed so interested, I figured I'd throw it in your court and see how you handled the answer... guess my explanation works then, that my 10% guess is exactly that, a guess.  

it is easier to miss the smaller things, but the further in history you go back, the harder it is to find even the bigger things... the bigger problem still is if you're looking for a buried car in a 1 million mile radius, you may never find it... we're looking for a major flood that could have happened over any span of a million years. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

You haven't provided any factual information, you have provided guesses with no factual basis. See above- we have found that the evidence left behind by large floods is consistently greater in quantity than evidence left by small floods. That is an undisputable fact as it relates to every flood we have found evidence for. Then, I extrapolate from that evidence that it is unlikely that we missed a flood hundreds of times larger than any of the floods we have found evidence for because a flood that large would have left even larger amounts of evidence behind. That is an extrapolation based on the available evidence. 

I could say the same about you, but then again, you don't believe it... why would you?  Most of what you've posted is skepticism about what I've said... when provided a reason or even a link, excuses come out.  Would you like to show me the evidence you have that confirms we couldn't possibly have missed it? 

again, a needle in a haystack until we know the place and the date.  iT's that car buried in a million mile radius.... oh, and you can't use techology to seek it out, you can only dig... you know, the way we would have to to find the evidence for a flood... yea, I figured you'd try to come back with how this analogy doesn't work becuase technology would allow us to find buried objects etc...


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

caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Davidian artifacts I found (The Tel Dan Stele and the Mesha Stele) seem to suggest his existence, although only because they refer to a "house of David". Considering that the Jewish people saw themselves as the sons of David, it's not too surprising. However, they both require either interpretation (in the case of the former) or full-on interpolation (in the case of the latter) to even get to that point. Even if this was good evidence for the existence of a historical King David, it does not make the lineages in the bible regarding this person true in any sense.  So you said there are davidian artifcats found (true) plus many (emphasis on many) artifacts referencing to the davidian lineage. Where? Where are these artifcats referencing to that lineage?  
 Artifacts are usually the key point in finding factual history.  YOu claimed; "even if this was good evidence for the existence of a historical King David, it doesn't make the lineages in the bible regarding this person true in any sense."  I say how so?  If King David were real, it was almost a necessessity for a king to have a child to carry on the name and rule the kingdom, what evidence do you have suggesting this possible King David didn't have any kids?  IF there were a King David, and the Bible happens to have a written lineage of said king, if anything, that would make the lineages in the Bible at least a bit more plausible pending further evidence... you decide to bypass logic and go with no reasoning despite the evidence.   
 It would make it perhaps the slighest bit more likely if that artifact proved that David was a real person (which it doesn't).  The lineages in the bible regarding King David might be made more plausible if the bible had demonstrated itself to be a reliable document. It indeed isn't demonstrably reliable in that way. The bible reads like you would expect tribal mythology to read, rather than how you would expect history to read. If it was known the entire time that David was a real historical person, the lineages in the bible would still merely be assertions. I have, on more than one occasion, mentioned that I believe that there are some real people and places written about in the bible, in order to place other mythological characters into the real world that we actually do inhabit. In this case, either David was real, or he wasn't. Regardless, there is no good reason to believe that it was Solomon, unless better evidence arises. The bible can't even get its lineages consistent with one another. Why, knowing that, shouldwe accept them as true? 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 No you didn't. I asked for something very specific. I asked you to look at the lineage of homo sapien ancestors as understood by biologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc, and to find within that lineage big gaps that could not possibly be explained by gradual change. We were getting closer and closer to the answer, then you randomly threw out elephants and ostriches or something like that. I don't remember precisely, but I do remember that one of the things you said (in one of your two comparisons, which were erroneous for reasons I will say in a bit), one was a family, and the other an entire order.  The reason your comparison was awful was because you were asking where the transition was between two currently existing species which biologists don't even acknowledge a close relation between the two (when compared to the relationship between either of those two and their closer cousins). We were on the topics of hominids and australopiths the entire time, and when you finally couldn't evade naming actual examples, you went to something completely out of left field, as if you feared the actual answer. The reason that those gaps probably wouldn't matter is because we can clearly see very large variations within species of animals that aren't far less pronounced (and in some cases, probably even more pronounced) than the differences between modern humans and our ancestors like Homo Erectus, or Australopithecus Afarensis further back. So in this situation you are stuck having to admit that all of the changes that young earth creationists state aren't possible, are indeed possible after all. So once again. Go research the understood progression through Australopiths, and Hominids leading to us, and locate me with some gaps that are just so massive that to believe that it transitioned over would be a new form of ridiculous. Until then, you are the one who is being dishonest, by evading a direct question over many pages, and many months of posting, even though I have asked you to provide me this same thing on multiple occasions.  
 So, either I was evading the necessity to name actual examples out of fear for the answer, or there are gaps... which is it?  YOu initially say I evade out of fear, then you add the gaps probably wouldn't matter... either I was evading out of fear or the gaps exist and they don't matter... pick one.   Hint:  If I'm directly addressing your accusation that I evade out of fear, its' likely the latter answer be it that it wouldn't be beneficial to my arguement to bring that assertion up again... rather I should just... fearfully evade again right? If I remember correctly, I told you I'm not an expert on the ancestry thing and so I asked you to tell me the lineage of smooth transition... instead you kept defering it back to me.  Therefore I looked it up, found out that there are several human lineage possibilities including the more likely ancestrial relation to a species mostly like human dating back to around 8 million years ago.   I think that's where... to put it in your words; "you finally couldn't evade naming actual examples, you went to something completely out of left field, as if you feared the actual answer." 
 I am challenging you to find 2 species which biologists have located that are said to be our ancestors, and have no as of yet found species in between them in that lineage. I challenged you to find an example of that, where the differences between one and the other were so massive, as to constitute a gap. You're the one claiming that these gaps exist. So name the two. I will help you out with that shortly. 
caposkia wrote:
 
jabberwocky wrote:
 I like how you ignored the first part of the post. Again... 
 alright, what problems did I bring up with that?  i don't remember and don't have time to go back and look.  unless you're referring to again, the gaps. 
 The gaps is correct. Name it! Say "According to biologists, in the progression of the ancestry of humans, homo antecessor gave way to homo heidelbergensis. The differences between the two, however, are too great to be accounted for by evolution, and the fossils of any intermediary should have been found if it actually existed. Here is why!" (or replaced H. Antecessor and/or H. Heidelbergensis with any other appropriate pair of examples). This is what I've been asking you for for months now. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 As I said. You would never claim that you're attacking the scientific method, but you are. You are proposing a situation where all knowledge is binary, and the only levels of certainty that you can attach to any proposition is 0%, or 100%. This is not the case in science, as there are varying levels of certainty about many concepts in science. You seem to be unable to grasp this concept entirely.  
 the problem with your reasoning is we're talking about history... history is not scientifically provable... we can use science to date items and confirm that items existed at a rough dating period, but regarding events, lineages, etc. as you've pointed out, it cannot work... you cannot prove scientifically that an event actually took place as described, only that it likely happened based on X (writing) Y, (artifacts), Z (geography, bloodline, excavation, etc. depending on the event in question) 
 You can evaluate likelihood, yes. When several lines of evidence agree on something, it increases the probability that it actually happened. Guess what the bible's track record is for matching what history and archaeology find? Hint: Not very good. The statement that "history is not scientifically provable" is an erroneous one as well. It is a historical statement to say that I didn't encounter aliens yesterday. Do you think that it is scientifically provable? Not in the same way that I can prove that hats exist. However, could you demonstrate that the probability of that is so low in order for such an event to be deemed disproven for every useful purpose? Yes. You can establish that. If I disagree, the burden of proof is on me to prove otherwise.   
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 In the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate, Bill Nye compared those who deny that evolution happened to those who believe that the Earth is flat. Ken Ham, proving how little he knows about the scientific method, provided satellite photography of the Earth from space (sped up so you could see it spin around in a few seconds). However, he didn't even make a single bit of reference to the fact that in various parts of the world, people over 2000 years ago proved that the Earth is round, and even predicted its circumference with somewhat flawed, but clever methods for the time. Eratosthenes proved it in 194BCE. It was proven in various parts of the world independantly. Is it possible that they were wrong? Sure. But the implications of them being wrong would require a large pile of ridiculous assumptions. Similarly, those who still believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe, but are unable to throw away modern physics, must believe that the earth is actually stationary, and everything simply moves around relative to that. Of course, that's at LEAST as ridiculous as those jokes about Chuck Norris that say when he punches something, the object actually doesn't fly back, but the strength of his punch (for some reason) causes the universe to simply move around the person instead. 
 Strange, you seem to think Ken Ham didn't read the Bible... even the Bible states the Earth to be round... though I also watched that debate and did not come to the same conclusion you did... seems the whole thing was quite subjective then... or at least perceptions of what was presented is. 
 The bible does not state the earth to be round, at least not in a spherical sense. It only states it to be round, as in circular. The only verse that suggests that the earth is round in anyway is Isaiah 40:22. However, it also includes talk of stretching a tent over it. Now unless you can find me a tent that is designed to go over something spherical (because while the Earth is round, the area over which we spread tents tends to be, for all useful purposes, flat) then I will be willing to discuss my interpretation of this verse. The verse clearly implies a flat disc. Also, we have discussed, briefly, bible verses which talk of Satan showing Jesus all of the world's kingdoms by...going up onto a tall mountain. This shows that the writers of the gospels assumed that the Earth was flat as well. Nowhere does the bible state the earth to be anything close to its actual shape, and parts of it specifically suggest something far different.  As far as the rest of your post, I'm confused as to what you mean. What conclusions did you come to relevant to what I said are different from the ones I've arrived at? What whole thing was subjective and when? Perceptions of what was presented? I'm completely lost as to what you mean. 
caposkia wrote:
  
Jabberwocky wrote:
 If creationists (at least creationist enough to not believe that humans and other apes had common ancestors) have to believe that everything seems to be related when considering homology in physical features and DNA, and would have to believe that while evolution is POSSIBLE given a 4.54 billion year old earth, it didn't actually happen that way (unless creationists can offer some sort of genetic mechanism that would prevent that from being true, which they have never even tried!) Furthermore, they would have to concede that at least one pair of gorillas, one pair of chimps (an ancestor of bonobos and common chimps), and one pair of Orangutans (as well as a whole assortment of other primates) would have to have been on the ark, as chimpanzees share more genes with us than any of the other aforementioned, unless you allow for a situation where there was one common ancestor for all of those apes, but then they split into all of these kinds, but not homo-sapiens. You must see that such a proposition is ridiculous, right? 
 especially coming from you be it that we've already discussed and assumably resolved that issue depending on the "when" factor. 
Resolved what issue? Also, what "when" factor? The issue is that you do not belief that humans had a common ancestor with any non-human apes which exist today. If you insist on that, then one of 2 things must be true. Either 1. Any two animals that have at least as much difference in them as humans and chimpanzees must have been on the ark, or2. Less animals could have been on the ark, and have evolved and changed more than a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees would have had to to yield humans and chimpanzees.  1 leaves you with a very crowded ark, and 2 leaves you with a special exception made in the case of humans.  Now let's try to see where you fall. You like to avoid specifics, but I'm willing to try again.  Do you think that it is possible genetically for humans and chimpanzees to have descended from a common ancestor?
caposkia wrote:
   
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Because you then have another unique specimen that was fossilized 5+ million years ago, at which point no hominids existed yet, and since you seemed to acknowledge that hominids are what qualifies as human (which is actually correct, just not "modern humans&quotEye-wink, then Orrorin Tugenensis was fossilized before your flood. I mean, sure, you might not agree with a timeline for the earth, or dating methods, but you have provided no consistent criteria on which to decide these things. Until you do, then I can assume anything I want. You have provided me with no literature (even creationist literature) that describes your beliefs regarding when the flood occurred, the age of the earth, and how old humans are.  
 have you forgotten why.... again????  Keep up man.  
I haven't forgotten why. The reason is that you must necessarily keep your assertions as vague as humanly possible to reduce the possible number of targets which you can be called on. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Still funny. You somehow manage to think you address things without actually addressing anything. Thanks for bringing up how slim the evidence is for David though.  
 I'm just going by your playbook... would you like to make the conversation a little more substantial again?  Bring up a congruent lineage of humanity from just prior to the transition point to modern day homo-sapiens... go! 
 From just prior to the transition point to modern day homo-sapiens? What transition point? Your challenge is ill-formed, but I'll answer it anyhow. Beyond Saving posted a useful link http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html So as per this link:  Ardipithecus Ramidus, Australopithecus Anamensis,Australopithecus Afarensis,Australopithecus Africanus,Homo Ergaster/Erectus (grouped due to uncertainty as whether they count as disctinct species),Homo Antecessor,Homo Heidelbergensis,Homo Sapiens,  Can you look up any 2 of those species that occur one after the other in this list, and provide me with some difference between them that could not possibly explained by evolution by natural selection? Here is a list. Look them up, and find me a gap.  Oh, and BONUS!!!!

Would you like an example of physical flood evidence? Here! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Alberta_floods

This happened where I live. I was not directly affected, but I helped empty a basement, helped clean up another house, and lived across the street from a community centre that acted as a temporary shelter for several days. Where is that evidence, scaled up to a flood of biblical proportions, or anything close to it?? 

Also, if you know anything about the Red River flood of 1997, I lived in Winnipeg Manitoba at that time too. I'm well aware of the physical effects that floods have on landscape. Are you? 

 EDIT - fixed link and added link

 

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:

That is nothing but speculation- speculation that isn't supported by any facts anywhere. You claimed that a flood has been recorded that could wipe out an entire population. Exactly which flood is that? Since it has been recorded, we must know the specifics of where and when. If you can't produce it, then your specific claim is false. I know you don't like dealing with specifics, because your argument always fails when it encounters anything that isn't protected by the murky waters of vagueness and unknown variables. 

I love dealing with specifics... I thought you had a problem with that... regardless

the percentage of a population wiped out due to a flood is based on many factors;

1.  density factor

2.  prior warning

3.  knowledge of the escape route/terrain

and so on.  Again, you need to see that perfect death toll... despite the history of several populations disappearing without a trace and/or being totally obliterated by one means or another, there are few records in the last 200 years that can compare, but if something even moderately close to a wipeout occured in the last 200 years, than it is logical to assume such an event could wipe out entire populations several times over in the last few million years.

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/10-most-fatal-natural-disasters-of-all-time/?view=all

look at 5 and 6... 5 happens to be a hurricane that wiped out 300,000 people... I figured when I posted this you still might be disappointed becuase even though 300,000 died, it still didn't wipe out an entire population... but consider in ancient times if a storm capable of wiping out 300,000 people in the last 200 years, what could it do to a smaller population further back before quicker means of escape?

Considering that people survived all of those disasters without evacuating, it just proves my point. Terrible disasters, with really high deaths (most from the famine fallout) and still nowhere near half of the population died. You claimed that there have been recorded disasters where entire populations died, name one.

 

Quote:

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

What percentage? I have no clue. I'm not the one who made a claim to that effect. I provided a link that listed all the major floods we have evidence for, if you want to know exactly how many including small floods, that would take a long time because there are tens of thousands of them if not hundreds of thousands. Since it doesn't help my case whatsoever, I'm not going to worry about evidence of the Nile having yet another average sized flood 10,000 years ago. You are free to do that research if you are interested. 

It IS safe to say that the larger the flood is, the greater amount of physical evidence is left over. So it is much easier to imagine us missing a river flooding 20 feet than an ice dam breaking causing a 200 foot wall of water to rampage through a valley. 

exactly, you took a statement that started with the phrase "my guess" and turned it into a factual claim on my part... I really am not interested, but you seemed so interested, I figured I'd throw it in your court and see how you handled the answer... guess my explanation works then, that my 10% guess is exactly that, a guess.  

it is easier to miss the smaller things, but the further in history you go back, the harder it is to find even the bigger things... the bigger problem still is if you're looking for a buried car in a 1 million mile radius, you may never find it... we're looking for a major flood that could have happened over any span of a million years. 

Call it whatever you want, you made up a number with  no basis. Whether you said 10% or 99.99999% you have exactly the same evidence to support it.

And while you are making up numbers, name two places on Earth that are a million miles apart. We are looking for a flood larger than any known flood, larger than floods that rearranged entire mountains. A flood that large literally leaves evidence we can see from Google Earth. So yeah, since we have satellites that have taken pictures of every square inch of our planet, the odds of us missing such a huge flood are zero, short of God using magic to erase the evidence.

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

You haven't provided any factual information, you have provided guesses with no factual basis. See above- we have found that the evidence left behind by large floods is consistently greater in quantity than evidence left by small floods. That is an undisputable fact as it relates to every flood we have found evidence for. Then, I extrapolate from that evidence that it is unlikely that we missed a flood hundreds of times larger than any of the floods we have found evidence for because a flood that large would have left even larger amounts of evidence behind. That is an extrapolation based on the available evidence. 

I could say the same about you, but then again, you don't believe it... why would you?  Most of what you've posted is skepticism about what I've said... when provided a reason or even a link, excuses come out.  Would you like to show me the evidence you have that confirms we couldn't possibly have missed it? 

again, a needle in a haystack until we know the place and the date.  iT's that car buried in a million mile radius.... oh, and you can't use techology to seek it out, you can only dig... you know, the way we would have to to find the evidence for a flood... yea, I figured you'd try to come back with how this analogy doesn't work becuase technology would allow us to find buried objects etc...

What link have you provided that supports your case without an extreme amount of projection?

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:It would

Jabberwocky wrote:

It would make it perhaps the slighest bit more likely if that artifact proved that David was a real person (which it doesn't).  The lineages in the bible regarding King David might be made more plausible if the bible had demonstrated itself to be a reliable document. It indeed isn't demonstrably reliable in that way. The bible reads like you would expect tribal mythology to read, rather than how you would expect history to read. If it was known the entire time that David was a real historical person, the lineages in the bible would still merely be assertions. I have, on more than one occasion, mentioned that I believe that there are some real people and places written about in the bible, in order to place other mythological characters into the real world that we actually do inhabit. In this case, either David was real, or he wasn't. Regardless, there is no good reason to believe that it was Solomon, unless better evidence arises. The bible can't even get its lineages consistent with one another. Why, knowing that, shouldwe accept them as true?
actually the Bible has been proven over and over again to be a reliable source of historical happenenings in general by archaeological finds from both believing and non-believing scientists.  Most non-believers I've come across at least admit that.   
Jabberwocky wrote:
 I am challenging you to find 2 species which biologists have located that are said to be our ancestors, and have no as of yet found species in between them in that lineage. I challenged you to find an example of that, where the differences between one and the other were so massive, as to constitute a gap. You're the one claiming that these gaps exist. So name the two. I will help you out with that shortly. 
actually I think the link BS posted shows it quite clearly.  IF you're confused by that, look at the chart and see where the "tentative" connections are made without any concrete assurance that they are in fact connected... the quoted part coming directly from the link as well.  
jabberwocky wrote:
  The gaps is correct. Name it! Say "According to biologists, in the progression of the ancestry of humans, homo antecessor gave way to homo heidelbergensis. The differences between the two, however, are too great to be accounted for by evolution, and the fossils of any intermediary should have been found if it actually existed. Here is why!" (or replaced H. Antecessor and/or H. Heidelbergensis with any other appropriate pair of examples). This is what I've been asking you for for months now. 
Can't think for yourself i see....Alright, coming directly to you from the link provided earlier in this thread (dramatic echo implied) brhem....  According to biologists, in the progression of the ancestry of humans, homo antecessor gave way to homo heidelbergensis with almost a 200,000 year gap according to the chart.  The difference between the two were close enough to consider the possibility, but the gap in time leads to other possibilities. They questionably link homo ergaster to homo-antecessor with a 300,000 year gap where a more likely link would be to homo erectus be it that all the above coexisted for a period of time. I'd be interested in seeing the migration patterns associated with the chart. Going back even further before homo erectus, the alleged link to earlier ancestors would be the homo species with what looks to be about a 200,000 year gap again.  Same time distance for homo ergaster.   it is homo species that allegedly spawn 4 particular branches according to this chart, where one was most successful and the other a slight possibility of ancestry to modern day humans. The most important link it seems to ancestry would be the homo Australopithecus be it that everything from there forward spawned from that line.  it's where the lineage of human ancestry seems to first fork off into separate species and also where the first gap is found according to this chart.  This one maybe closer to about 100,000 years, which is being generous on my part... could be slightly bigger, but didn't measure it.  So all in all the total amount of unknown time where gaps exist is close to 1 million years within the last 5 million. Considering that, it makes sense that even this site wouldn't confirm the connections made in the chart as fact, but still "tentative pending further findings" ... ... OOK so I strayed a bit from your concise script, but I couldn't help myself... Whereto from here.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 You can evaluate likelihood, yes. When several lines of evidence agree on something, it increases the probability that it actually happened. Guess what the bible's track record is for matching what history and archaeology find? Hint: Not very good. The statement that "history is not scientifically provable" is an erroneous one as well. It is a historical statement to say that I didn't encounter aliens yesterday. Do you think that it is scientifically provable? Not in the same way that I can prove that hats exist. However, could you demonstrate that the probability of that is so low in order for such an event to be deemed disproven for every useful purpose? Yes. You can establish that. If I disagree, the burden of proof is on me to prove otherwise. 
actually, it's quite good... but I'd like to see your sources.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 The bible does not state the earth to be round, at least not in a spherical sense. It only states it to be round, as in circular. The only verse that suggests that the earth is round in anyway is Isaiah 40:22. However, it also includes talk of stretching a tent over it. Now unless you can find me a tent that is designed to go over something spherical (because while the Earth is round, the area over which we spread tents tends to be, for all useful purposes, flat) then I will be willing to discuss my interpretation of this verse. The verse clearly implies a flat disc. Also, we have discussed, briefly, bible verses which talk of Satan showing Jesus all of the world's kingdoms by...going up onto a tall mountain. This shows that the writers of the gospels assumed that the Earth was flat as well. Nowhere does the bible state the earth to be anything close to its actual shape, and parts of it specifically suggest something far different.  As far as the rest of your post, I'm confused as to what you mean. What conclusions did you come to relevant to what I said are different from the ones I've arrived at? What whole thing was subjective and when? Perceptions of what was presented? I'm completely lost as to what you mean.
at least you admit the "circle" part.  They also admit that the Earth floated in space (Job 26:7)... but that means nothing, they were ignorant right?I was speaking in general about the whole debate.  I said it seems that your conclusions.. that you presented here are different than the conclusions that I came up with in general on the whole debate.  There are several verses talking about the circular shape of the Earth, not that it mattered to the story really.  That has little to do with anything and would mean almost nothing if their perception was a flat circle.  My statement about subjectivity was the debate, both debaters apparently presented subjective information if you could come up with such drastically diferent conclusions than I did.  If you want to discuss the debate, Im' game.  I'll have to sit down and watch it again to get the specifics. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Resolved what issue? Also, what "when" factor? The issue is that you do not belief that humans had a common ancestor with any non-human apes which exist today. If you insist on that, then one of 2 things must be true. Either 1. Any two animals that have at least as much difference in them as humans and chimpanzees must have been on the ark, or2. Less animals could have been on the ark, and have evolved and changed more than a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees would have had to to yield humans and chimpanzees.  1 leaves you with a very crowded ark, and 2 leaves you with a special exception made in the case of humans.  Now let's try to see where you fall. You like to avoid specifics, but I'm willing to try again.  Do you think that it is possible genetically for humans and chimpanzees to have descended from a common ancestor?
likely not for your bottom questiongoing back to the top, the "when" factor is exactly when did the flood happen.  you've repeatedly failed at pinpointing or even agreeing on when it could have taken place.   Way way back the furthest this thread had gotten is a possible 2 million years ago.  In the chart in the link ironically there is a smooth transition in that rough timeframe where from one homo species, 4 branches emerged almost at the exact same time.  2 very close to the end of the homo species fossil record and the two whom are linked to modern day humans much further down the road. As far as animals on the ark.  been there done that already on this thread.  There are many many possibilities.  it is likely that there are much fewer than we thought, but what connections would you be making to which animals?  e.g. wolves and dogs around the world look pretty close to identical.. no different than different races of humans look today.  cats the same with exception of size.  Granted we could go through the whole animal kingdom.   What examples are you thinking of as far as animals evolving into other animals? 
Jabberwocky wrote:
I haven't forgotten why. The reason is that you must necessarily keep your assertions as vague as humanly possible to reduce the possible number of targets which you can be called on. 
ah... good point... I got too specific back there didnt I... I'll keep it more vague for you next time.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 From just prior to the transition point to modern day homo-sapiens? What transition point? Your challenge is ill-formed, but I'll answer it anyhow. Beyond Saving posted a useful link http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html So as per this link:  Ardipithecus Ramidus, Australopithecus Anamensis,Australopithecus Afarensis,Australopithecus Africanus,Homo Ergaster/Erectus (grouped due to uncertainty as whether they count as disctinct species),Homo Antecessor,Homo Heidelbergensis,Homo Sapiens,  Can you look up any 2 of those species that occur one after the other in this list, and provide me with some difference between them that could not possibly explained by evolution by natural selection? Here is a list. Look them up, and find me a gap.  Oh, and BONUS!!!!

Would you like an example of physical flood evidence? Here! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Alberta_floods

This happened where I live. I was not directly affected, but I helped empty a basement, helped clean up another house, and lived across the street from a community centre that acted as a temporary shelter for several days. Where is that evidence, scaled up to a flood of biblical proportions, or anything close to it?? 

Also, if you know anything about the Red River flood of 1997, I lived in Winnipeg Manitoba at that time too. I'm well aware of the physical effects that floods have on landscape. Are you? 

 EDIT - fixed link and added link

 

well aware.... you do know it's different depending on the terrain, locaiton, intensity, water table, etc right?

those questions really don't bring any progression to this conversation.

 

*edit*

forgot to comment on your posting, but I figured I had addressed that link specifically earlier so we'll go on your thoughts from what I posted be it that the post to what you posted here would be very similar.


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

Considering that people survived all of those disasters without evacuating, it just proves my point. Terrible disasters, with really high deaths (most from the famine fallout) and still nowhere near half of the population died. You claimed that there have been recorded disasters where entire populations died, name one.

300,000 people died in a single storm and because there were survivers that didn't evacuate it proves your point? 

K, guess you win.  no recorded storm in history that I can find wipes out every single living soul in a particular settlement within the last 150 years.  or few thousand that had been documented. 

how does this help your case against the flood that supposedly surpassed the intensity and volume of all other floods past present and future?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

What link have you provided that supports your case without an extreme amount of projection?

um... all of them... but if you'd like to point out something specific that I "projected" from my links, please do so.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Responses to be brief.

Responses to be brief. Explanation to be given after the last point. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

It would make it perhaps the slighest bit more likely if that artifact proved that David was a real person (which it doesn't).  The lineages in the bible regarding King David might be made more plausible if the bible had demonstrated itself to be a reliable document. It indeed isn't demonstrably reliable in that way. The bible reads like you would expect tribal mythology to read, rather than how you would expect history to read. If it was known the entire time that David was a real historical person, the lineages in the bible would still merely be assertions. I have, on more than one occasion, mentioned that I believe that there are some real people and places written about in the bible, in order to place other mythological characters into the real world that we actually do inhabit. In this case, either David was real, or he wasn't. Regardless, there is no good reason to believe that it was Solomon, unless better evidence arises. The bible can't even get its lineages consistent with one another. Why, knowing that, shouldwe accept them as true?
actually the Bible has been proven over and over again to be a reliable source of historical happenenings in general by archaeological finds from both believing and non-believing scientists.  Most non-believers I've come across at least admit that.   
No it hasn't. Jewish archaeologists setting out to prove the Exodus (religious Jews) disproved it instead.  Non-believers disagree with you too. Bart Ehrman might say that a historical Jesus was present. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he may be right. It doesn't mean that he rose from the dead, or resurrected anyone, or turned water into wine, or a giant rash of other things that no non-believer would ever call an accurate account. Stop being ridiculous. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 I am challenging you to find 2 species which biologists have located that are said to be our ancestors, and have no as of yet found species in between them in that lineage. I challenged you to find an example of that, where the differences between one and the other were so massive, as to constitute a gap. You're the one claiming that these gaps exist. So name the two. I will help you out with that shortly. 
actually I think the link BS posted shows it quite clearly.  IF you're confused by that, look at the chart and see where the "tentative" connections are made without any concrete assurance that they are in fact connected... the quoted part coming directly from the link as well.  
See below. I realize tentative connections are made. Do you know why? Examine photos of found fossils of the species in that link, and point out the differences for yourself. Once again, see the final response in this post for more. 
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
  The gaps is correct. Name it! Say "According to biologists, in the progression of the ancestry of humans, homo antecessor gave way to homo heidelbergensis. The differences between the two, however, are too great to be accounted for by evolution, and the fossils of any intermediary should have been found if it actually existed. Here is why!" (or replaced H. Antecessor and/or H. Heidelbergensis with any other appropriate pair of examples). This is what I've been asking you for for months now. 
Can't think for yourself i see....Alright, coming directly to you from the link provided earlier in this thread (dramatic echo implied) brhem....  According to biologists, in the progression of the ancestry of humans, homo antecessor gave way to homo heidelbergensis with almost a 200,000 year gap according to the chart.  The difference between the two were close enough to consider the possibility, but the gap in time leads to other possibilities. They questionably link homo ergaster to homo-antecessor with a 300,000 year gap where a more likely link would be to homo erectus be it that all the above coexisted for a period of time. I'd be interested in seeing the migration patterns associated with the chart. Going back even further before homo erectus, the alleged link to earlier ancestors would be the homo species with what looks to be about a 200,000 year gap again.  Same time distance for homo ergaster.   it is homo species that allegedly spawn 4 particular branches according to this chart, where one was most successful and the other a slight possibility of ancestry to modern day humans. The most important link it seems to ancestry would be the homo Australopithecus be it that everything from there forward spawned from that line.  it's where the lineage of human ancestry seems to first fork off into separate species and also where the first gap is found according to this chart.  This one maybe closer to about 100,000 years, which is being generous on my part... could be slightly bigger, but didn't measure it.  So all in all the total amount of unknown time where gaps exist is close to 1 million years within the last 5 million. Considering that, it makes sense that even this site wouldn't confirm the connections made in the chart as fact, but still "tentative pending further findings" ... ... OOK so I strayed a bit from your concise script, but I couldn't help myself... Whereto from here.
Notice all the bolded parts. They have to do with gaps relating to time. I have asked you to describe what the disconnect is in features. Your failure to do this is to decline my challenge. Also, the unceertainty of whether we came from Homo Ergaster or Homo Erectus could mean that they were actually different subspecies of the same species, and can also mean that they're not, but are so fricking similar, that it's hard to distinguish which one of them we inherited our features from. You clearly don't understand evolution at all.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 You can evaluate likelihood, yes. When several lines of evidence agree on something, it increases the probability that it actually happened. Guess what the bible's track record is for matching what history and archaeology find? Hint: Not very good. The statement that "history is not scientifically provable" is an erroneous one as well. It is a historical statement to say that I didn't encounter aliens yesterday. Do you think that it is scientifically provable? Not in the same way that I can prove that hats exist. However, could you demonstrate that the probability of that is so low in order for such an event to be deemed disproven for every useful purpose? Yes. You can establish that. If I disagree, the burden of proof is on me to prove otherwise. 
actually, it's quite good... but I'd like to see your sources.
The events in the new testament generally are about Jesus. He apparently did the most amazing shit ever, but without being noticed by a single living historian at the time. The old testament, you reached for Davidian artifcacts that said there was a "house of David" which may or may not point to a historical David. As far as other historical citations for old testament characters, there are none. 0. Jewish archaeologists attempting to prove the Exodus disproved it instead, because they were intellectually honest.  Any more detail required? (pending acceptance of challenge below, of course)
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 The bible does not state the earth to be round, at least not in a spherical sense. It only states it to be round, as in circular. The only verse that suggests that the earth is round in anyway is Isaiah 40:22. However, it also includes talk of stretching a tent over it. Now unless you can find me a tent that is designed to go over something spherical (because while the Earth is round, the area over which we spread tents tends to be, for all useful purposes, flat) then I will be willing to discuss my interpretation of this verse. The verse clearly implies a flat disc. Also, we have discussed, briefly, bible verses which talk of Satan showing Jesus all of the world's kingdoms by...going up onto a tall mountain. This shows that the writers of the gospels assumed that the Earth was flat as well. Nowhere does the bible state the earth to be anything close to its actual shape, and parts of it specifically suggest something far different.  As far as the rest of your post, I'm confused as to what you mean. What conclusions did you come to relevant to what I said are different from the ones I've arrived at? What whole thing was subjective and when? Perceptions of what was presented? I'm completely lost as to what you mean.
at least you admit the "circle" part.  They also admit that the Earth floated in space (Job 26:7)... but that means nothing, they were ignorant right?I was speaking in general about the whole debate.  I said it seems that your conclusions.. that you presented here are different than the conclusions that I came up with in general on the whole debate.  There are several verses talking about the circular shape of the Earth, not that it mattered to the story really.  That has little to do with anything and would mean almost nothing if their perception was a flat circle.  My statement about subjectivity was the debate, both debaters apparently presented subjective information if you could come up with such drastically diferent conclusions than I did.  If you want to discuss the debate, Im' game.  I'll have to sit down and watch it again to get the specifics. 
Don't change the subject. We were discussing the shape. You have now claimed that there were several verses talking about the circular shape. Which ones? I know only of the one. Do any of them actually imply sphericity, as you ignored my entire point about the tent which is part of that verse. So which verses claim roundness, and specifically sphericity, and why is my tent point not valid?  They did not present "subjective information" as you state. Bill Nye said that there is no distinction between "historical science" and "observational science" (terms that Nye rejected outright, and were presented by Ken Ham). Ham then, during the debate, negated his own argument that there is a distinction, when presenting that all dogs have a common ancestor. This means that he, himself, accepts that one can observe something in the present (like DNA, which is what made the comparison more accurate than in the pre-DNA examination days) and deduce, with a high level of certainty, something that happened in the past. Ken Ham either believes that A. "Historical science" (Ham term) CAN be deduced with a high level of certainty on its own without requiring a god telling you what hpappened, or B. That "observational science" (Ham term) can tell you what happened in the past.  There is no way around this fact, unless you say that his slide on the evolution of dogs was a subjective one that is contingent on your "starting point" and is not actually decidable on facts, meaning that his entire argument is moot anyhow. If you watched a debate where Ken Ham was consistent and not full of shit, you either watched a heavily edited version, or watched what I did and censored it in your head.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Resolved what issue? Also, what "when" factor? The issue is that you do not belief that humans had a common ancestor with any non-human apes which exist today. If you insist on that, then one of 2 things must be true. Either 1. Any two animals that have at least as much difference in them as humans and chimpanzees must have been on the ark, or2. Less animals could have been on the ark, and have evolved and changed more than a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees would have had to to yield humans and chimpanzees.  1 leaves you with a very crowded ark, and 2 leaves you with a special exception made in the case of humans.  Now let's try to see where you fall. You like to avoid specifics, but I'm willing to try again.  Do you think that it is possible genetically for humans and chimpanzees to have descended from a common ancestor?
likely not for your bottom questiongoing back to the top, the "when" factor is exactly when did the flood happen.  you've repeatedly failed at pinpointing or even agreeing on when it could have taken place.   Way way back the furthest this thread had gotten is a possible 2 million years ago.  In the chart in the link ironically there is a smooth transition in that rough timeframe where from one homo species, 4 branches emerged almost at the exact same time.  2 very close to the end of the homo species fossil record and the two whom are linked to modern day humans much further down the road. As far as animals on the ark.  been there done that already on this thread.  There are many many possibilities.  it is likely that there are much fewer than we thought, but what connections would you be making to which animals?  e.g. wolves and dogs around the world look pretty close to identical.. no different than different races of humans look today.  cats the same with exception of size.  Granted we could go through the whole animal kingdom.   What examples are you thinking of as far as animals evolving into other animals? 
Answer my challenge, and we'll discuss it further. I have asked you for months to get into specifics and you haven't. So I will fore-go this until you address what I have asked you to address.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
I haven't forgotten why. The reason is that you must necessarily keep your assertions as vague as humanly possible to reduce the possible number of targets which you can be called on. 
ah... good point... I got too specific back there didnt I... I'll keep it more vague for you next time.
No you didn't. You were still pretty vague. "likely that there are much fewer than we thought"....I've given you the math on how many species there are, and how quickly they would have to have evolved. There is always a problem with the flood/ark story. Either there are too many animals to fit, or they have room, but have to evolve at a rate that is unprecedented, like your argument with other posts regarding possibilities in meteorology, you have to posit something so out of whack compared to what is understood to be possible that the burden of proof is on you to prove how something can be so out of scale. It would be like me claiming that I am (At least) 200 feet tall. You don't believe that, nor should you. So, either justify your claims, or drop them. This is how intellectual honesty works. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 From just prior to the transition point to modern day homo-sapiens? What transition point? Your challenge is ill-formed, but I'll answer it anyhow. Beyond Saving posted a useful link http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html So as per this link:  Ardipithecus Ramidus, Australopithecus Anamensis,Australopithecus Afarensis,Australopithecus Africanus,Homo Ergaster/Erectus (grouped due to uncertainty as whether they count as disctinct species),Homo Antecessor,Homo Heidelbergensis,Homo Sapiens,  Can you look up any 2 of those species that occur one after the other in this list, and provide me with some difference between them that could not possibly explained by evolution by natural selection? Here is a list. Look them up, and find me a gap.  Oh, and BONUS!!!!

Would you like an example of physical flood evidence? Here! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Alberta_floods

This happened where I live. I was not directly affected, but I helped empty a basement, helped clean up another house, and lived across the street from a community centre that acted as a temporary shelter for several days. Where is that evidence, scaled up to a flood of biblical proportions, or anything close to it?? 

Also, if you know anything about the Red River flood of 1997, I lived in Winnipeg Manitoba at that time too. I'm well aware of the physical effects that floods have on landscape. Are you? 

 EDIT - fixed link and added link

 

well aware.... you do know it's different depending on the terrain, locaiton, intensity, water table, etc right?

those questions really don't bring any progression to this conversation.

 

*edit*

forgot to comment on your posting, but I figured I had addressed that link specifically earlier so we'll go on your thoughts from what I posted be it that the post to what you posted here would be very similar.

Ok. I will not do a very detailed point by point of your post anymore. I just won't. I have to be brief. That is because there is one issue which we have been discussing for months (as I have mentioned) now. I have now given you a list of species, and a list of directions. Take that list in the last point, and tell me between which two species in that lineage do you see the biggest problem in explaining the transition from one to the other using evolution by natural selection. Find me pictures of the fossils understood to be the most recent accurate examples, and the particular traits which you believe have changed too much in order to not possibly be explained by evolution by natural selection. You failing to undertake this challenge is an admission that evolution by natural selection can account for the changes I have posited. If you want to proceed further, address this. Show me the traits that show these insurmountable gaps you have repeatedly asserted. Show me pictures. If you successfully show me something where say, one pelvis, or one joint, or one feature between the two is so different that it can not be explained by evolution as we understand it, and you have yourself admitted (such as the ability for all domestic dogs to have a common ancestor as you have admitted, or for all felines to have a common ancestor if you admit that much, as I'm not sure you've actually admitted that specifically but I will check...), then I will discuss the rest of this post in detail where justified. However, I have quite literally been asking for this for months, and my last 2 responses to you were in two seperate threads on the same topic, and in the other one, I have directed you here to address a specific challenge. I hope I'm clear in this post what I am asking of you. If you are unable to provide this, then you accept that evolution by natural selection explains what biologists say it explains, and you drop creationism aside from a form that at most causes abiogenesis, and leaves the rest alone. 

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
Jabberwocky wrote:No it

Jabberwocky wrote:

No it hasn't. Jewish archaeologists setting out to prove the Exodus (religious Jews) disproved it instead.  Non-believers disagree with you too. Bart Ehrman might say that a historical Jesus was present. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he may be right. It doesn't mean that he rose from the dead, or resurrected anyone, or turned water into wine, or a giant rash of other things that no non-believer would ever call an accurate account. Stop being ridiculous. 
You repeatedly reference to this group of Jewish archaeologists that have disproved the Exodus.  Can you please link me to this expedition?  I'd like to look into it further.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 See below. I realize tentative connections are made. Do you know why? Examine photos of found fossils of the species in that link, and point out the differences for yourself. Once again, see the final response in this post for more. 
yup.   Do you know why they're not concrete?  It's not just because of the time gap. 
jabberwocky wrote:
 Notice all the bolded parts. They have to do with gaps relating to time. I have asked you to describe what the disconnect is in features. Your failure to do this is to decline my challenge. Also, the unceertainty of whether we came from Homo Ergaster or Homo Erectus could mean that they were actually different subspecies of the same species, and can also mean that they're not, but are so fricking similar, that it's hard to distinguish which one of them we inherited our features from. You clearly don't understand evolution at all.
got it.  I don't understand evolution.. therefore the history of the Bible is contingent upon my understanding and thus proves it's false.  Too bad you failed to address what was posted... do you understand any of this?  I'm starting to wonder, especially if you're questioning my understanding of evolution be it that I've already made it clear to you my understanding.  Your failure to explain where I'm missing something logically is just your mindset, but I can take your perspective on it and say it's your declination to disprove your own absurdity.(watch, now he's going to go on a tangent about my final statement completely ignoring the first part which is my true opinion of his response) 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 You can evaluate likelihood, yes. When several lines of evidence agree on something, it increases the probability that it actually happened. Guess what the bible's track record is for matching what history and archaeology find? Hint: Not very good. The statement that "history is not scientifically provable" is an erroneous one as well. It is a historical statement to say that I didn't encounter aliens yesterday. Do you think that it is scientifically provable? Not in the same way that I can prove that hats exist. However, could you demonstrate that the probability of that is so low in order for such an event to be deemed disproven for every useful purpose? Yes. You can establish that. If I disagree, the burden of proof is on me to prove otherwise. 
actually, it's quite good... but I'd like to see your sources.
The events in the new testament generally are about Jesus. He apparently did the most amazing shit ever, but without being noticed by a single living historian at the time. The old testament, you reached for Davidian artifcacts that said there was a "house of David" which may or may not point to a historical David. As far as other historical citations for old testament characters, there are none. 0. Jewish archaeologists attempting to prove the Exodus disproved it instead, because they were intellectually honest.  Any more detail required? (pending acceptance of challenge below, of course)
yes, I would still like to see your sources.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Don't change the subject. We were discussing the shape. You have now claimed that there were several verses talking about the circular shape. Which ones? I know only of the one. Do any of them actually imply sphericity, as you ignored my entire point about the tent which is part of that verse. So which verses claim roundness, and specifically sphericity, and why is my tent point not valid?  They did not present "subjective information" as you state. Bill Nye said that there is no distinction between "historical science" and "observational science" (terms that Nye rejected outright, and were presented by Ken Ham). Ham then, during the debate, negated his own argument that there is a distinction, when presenting that all dogs have a common ancestor. This means that he, himself, accepts that one can observe something in the present (like DNA, which is what made the comparison more accurate than in the pre-DNA examination days) and deduce, with a high level of certainty, something that happened in the past. Ken Ham either believes that A. "Historical science" (Ham term) CAN be deduced with a high level of certainty on its own without requiring a god telling you what hpappened, or B. That "observational science" (Ham term) can tell you what happened in the past.  There is no way around this fact, unless you say that his slide on the evolution of dogs was a subjective one that is contingent on your "starting point" and is not actually decidable on facts, meaning that his entire argument is moot anyhow. If you watched a debate where Ken Ham was consistent and not full of shit, you either watched a heavily edited version, or watched what I did and censored it in your head.
just as you did here, I didn't change the subject, I responded to the later part of your post and the beginning part... but to avoid that accusation again, I'll completely ignore the 2nd part for now (we can visit that later) and focus on shape.As for verses claiming round/spherical Earth:JOb 22:14proverbs 8:27Isaiah 40:22Job 26:10Now.  The Hebrew word used to describe the shape is used in both Job passages even though it seems they are translated quite differently... likely it's contextual clues that have caused the translators to do so.  I have not investigated this difference and the reasons behind it. Proverbs and Isaiah uses the same Hebrew word.Though it is translated "circle" in most areas, this is what wiki has to say about it; It appears to carry the concept of an encompassing circuit or sphere, especially as seen from http://creationwiki.org/skins/monobook/external.png) 100% 50% no-repeat rgb(255, 255, 255);">Job 26:10(KJV) and http://creationwiki.org/skins/monobook/external.png) 100% 50% no-repeat rgb(255, 255, 255);">Job 22:14 (KJV), but the rare usage makes it tough to tell. Nevertheless, there appears little justification for assuming it has to mean 'circle' rather than 'sphere', and 17th century King James English may not have even made that much of a distinction between the words 'circle' and 'sphere' when deciding which word to use. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Resolved what issue? Also, what "when" factor? The issue is that you do not belief that humans had a common ancestor with any non-human apes which exist today. If you insist on that, then one of 2 things must be true. Either
whether the flood happened and when it happened... I think that's what we were talking about.
Jabberwocky wrote:
Answer my challenge, and we'll discuss it further. I have asked you for months to get into specifics and you haven't. So I will fore-go this until you address what I have asked you to address.
I did answer your question... the one about the ancestry likelihood?  or was it something else? sometimes it's hard to follow your posts with all the fluff you throw in between.. want to remind me what I"m ignoring so I can't ignore it anymore?do that, I'll answer, then I expect you to come back here and answer that after I apease your need.  
Jabberwocky wrote:
No you didn't. You were still pretty vague. "likely that there are much fewer than we thought"....I've given you the math on how many species there are, and how quickly they would have to have evolved. There is always a problem with the flood/ark story. Either there are too many animals to fit, or they have room, but have to evolve at a rate that is unprecedented, like your argument with other posts regarding possibilities in meteorology, you have to posit something so out of whack compared to what is understood to be possible that the burden of proof is on you to prove how something can be so out of scale. It would be like me claiming that I am (At least) 200 feet tall. You don't believe that, nor should you. So, either justify your claims, or drop them. This is how intellectual honesty works.  
well, did you forget that I've already told you we don't know anything really about it?  I mean it's hard to be specific about something we don't know.  I'm flattered though that you think I'm more capable than the history of humanity in giving you specifics about this topic though... Honestly, I'm honored you see me in that way.   
Jabberwocky wrote:
 

Ok. I will not do a very detailed point by point of your post anymore. I just won't. I have to be brief. That is because there is one issue which we have been discussing for months (as I have mentioned) now. I have now given you a list of species, and a list of directions. Take that list in the last point, and tell me between which two species in that lineage do you see the biggest problem in explaining the transition from one to the other using evolution by natural selection. Find me pictures of the fossils understood to be the most recent accurate examples, and the particular traits which you believe have changed too much in order to not possibly be explained by evolution by natural selection. You failing to undertake this challenge is an admission that evolution by natural selection can account for the changes I have posited. If you want to proceed further, address this. Show me the traits that show these insurmountable gaps you have repeatedly asserted. Show me pictures. If you successfully show me something where say, one pelvis, or one joint, or one feature between the two is so different that it can not be explained by evolution as we understand it, and you have yourself admitted (such as the ability for all domestic dogs to have a common ancestor as you have admitted, or for all felines to have a common ancestor if you admit that much, as I'm not sure you've actually admitted that specifically but I will check...), then I will discuss the rest of this post in detail where justified. However, I have quite literally been asking for this for months, and my last 2 responses to you were in two seperate threads on the same topic, and in the other one, I have directed you here to address a specific challenge. I hope I'm clear in this post what I am asking of you. If you are unable to provide this, then you accept that evolution by natural selection explains what biologists say it explains, and you drop creationism aside from a form that at most causes abiogenesis, and leaves the rest alone. 

that's' fine.

so... considering you've been quite evasive on my end with the challenges I've proposed to you... you're failure to answer so far has been excused by you claiming I'm ignoring this or that, or failing to meet your challenges etc... and you're waiting for me... Would it be fair then for me to conclude that after I answer your challenge here of specific problems with the links transitions and you still fail to answer mine that you by default accept creationism by a metaphysical God as explained by Chrsitians and you drop darwinism aside and leave the rest alone?  

I need a strait answer from you first.  Why?  every time I've made an effort, I get nothing substantial back from you.  I'm waiting to see if you're leaving the field level or if you're trying to impose my conclusions on my based on your own ideals.  In the meantime, I will do some homework.  


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
I'll respond to the rest

I'll respond to the rest once you address my challenge at the end. I'll give a bonus point because it's so easy that it will take me hardly no time at all.

caposkia wrote:

 

Jabberwocky wrote:
No you didn't. You were still pretty vague. "likely that there are much fewer than we thought"....I've given you the math on how many species there are, and how quickly they would have to have evolved. There is always a problem with the flood/ark story. Either there are too many animals to fit, or they have room, but have to evolve at a rate that is unprecedented, like your argument with other posts regarding possibilities in meteorology, you have to posit something so out of whack compared to what is understood to be possible that the burden of proof is on you to prove how something can be so out of scale. It would be like me claiming that I am (At least) 200 feet tall. You don't believe that, nor should you. So, either justify your claims, or drop them. This is how intellectual honesty works.  
well, did you forget that I've already told you we don't know anything really about it?  I mean it's hard to be specific about something we don't know.  I'm flattered though that you think I'm more capable than the history of humanity in giving you specifics about this topic though... Honestly, I'm honored you see me in that way.  
You're not saying that you don't know anything reall about it though. You're saying that you know that it happened. You're ignoring that it seems physically impossible for a giant variety of reasons. For you, that is not a disproof. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 

Ok. I will not do a very detailed point by point of your post anymore. I just won't. I have to be brief. That is because there is one issue which we have been discussing for months (as I have mentioned) now. I have now given you a list of species, and a list of directions. Take that list in the last point, and tell me between which two species in that lineage do you see the biggest problem in explaining the transition from one to the other using evolution by natural selection. Find me pictures of the fossils understood to be the most recent accurate examples, and the particular traits which you believe have changed too much in order to not possibly be explained by evolution by natural selection. You failing to undertake this challenge is an admission that evolution by natural selection can account for the changes I have posited. If you want to proceed further, address this. Show me the traits that show these insurmountable gaps you have repeatedly asserted. Show me pictures. If you successfully show me something where say, one pelvis, or one joint, or one feature between the two is so different that it can not be explained by evolution as we understand it, and you have yourself admitted (such as the ability for all domestic dogs to have a common ancestor as you have admitted, or for all felines to have a common ancestor if you admit that much, as I'm not sure you've actually admitted that specifically but I will check...), then I will discuss the rest of this post in detail where justified. However, I have quite literally been asking for this for months, and my last 2 responses to you were in two seperate threads on the same topic, and in the other one, I have directed you here to address a specific challenge. I hope I'm clear in this post what I am asking of you. If you are unable to provide this, then you accept that evolution by natural selection explains what biologists say it explains, and you drop creationism aside from a form that at most causes abiogenesis, and leaves the rest alone. 

that's' fine.

so... considering you've been quite evasive on my end with the challenges I've proposed to you... you're failure to answer so far has been excused by you claiming I'm ignoring this or that, or failing to meet your challenges etc... and you're waiting for me... Would it be fair then for me to conclude that after I answer your challenge here of specific problems with the links transitions and you still fail to answer mine that you by default accept creationism by a metaphysical God as explained by Chrsitians and you drop darwinism aside and leave the rest alone?  

No. Once again, trying to level my own challenge against me, even though it doesn't apply!!! Here is why it doesn't apply. 

A. You haven't actually shown evidence for a metaphysical god, you especially haven't demonstrated that the Christian god is real, or at least considerably more likely than any other god people still profess today.

B. Answer what? Which challenge of yours am I being evasive regarding? 

C. Even if you were to successfully show that there are differences too great, and of a certain type, that evolution could not possibly explain it, then all that would mean is that evolution is false. Creationism has never put forth anything reasonable to suggest that it indeed did happen. Just because religion pre-dated modern biology, does not mean that it gets to be right-by-default until disproven. 

caposkia wrote:

I need a strait answer from you first.  Why?  every time I've made an effort, I get nothing substantial back from you.  I'm waiting to see if you're leaving the field level or if you're trying to impose my conclusions on my based on your own ideals.  In the meantime, I will do some homework.  

I have no idea what you're saying here. Every time you've made an effort to what? As I've asked, what is it that I have not sufficiently answered? The rest of your post is utter gibberish. Let me re-state your question in more or less your own words. 

Am I leaving the field level, or am I trying to impose your conclusions on you based on my own ideals? What does that even mean??

Anyway, yes. Do the homework. I'm leaving your posts alone until you present the species from that list, with pictures, that can not possibly be explained by biological processes we've been discussing. 

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:

Considering that people survived all of those disasters without evacuating, it just proves my point. Terrible disasters, with really high deaths (most from the famine fallout) and still nowhere near half of the population died. You claimed that there have been recorded disasters where entire populations died, name one.

300,000 people died in a single storm and because there were survivers that didn't evacuate it proves your point? 

K, guess you win.  no recorded storm in history that I can find wipes out every single living soul in a particular settlement within the last 150 years.  or few thousand that had been documented. 

how does this help your case against the flood that supposedly surpassed the intensity and volume of all other floods past present and future?

It wasn't meant to, in case you haven't noticed I have made several points against the large flood. It was specifically addressed to one of your claims that floods we know of did wipe out entire human populations. Yet another of your absurd claims joins the growing heap of failed arguments you have made. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

What link have you provided that supports your case without an extreme amount of projection?

um... all of them... but if you'd like to point out something specific that I "projected" from my links, please do so.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Turkish_flash_floods

reliefweb.int/report/ethiopia/ethiopia-preventing-flooding-and-hunger

Two links that you threw at me as evidence that a physically possible flood could wipe out the entire human population. Since neither flood killed anywhere near that much, you are projecting a flood thousands of times larger. 

 

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

This was when I was asking you for proof that 200 feet of rain over 40 days was possible. Somehow, in your fucked up mind, you combined the prediction that it could rain for 40 days straight with world record rainfall strength over a few minutes and expanded it over 40 days. That is a shit ton of projection. 

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

This one is one of my favorites. It completely eviscerates your position and claims that the flood myth is likely based on a large but perfectly normal flood that came nowhere near killing every human on the planet. 

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
One day it might be

One day it might be interesting to tally up just how many times caposkia got owned. We must be in the thousands by now, at least.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'll respond to the rest once you address my challenge at the end. I'll give a bonus point because it's so easy that it will take me hardly no time at all.

Jerry Coyne states that' "the reason why nobody has ever seen it is becasue it's never happened"  when talking about macro-evolutoin or one species evolving into a completely new species.  He goes on to state that Genetic informaiton doesn't just magically appear. 

One thing I have found in the history is the protruding brow line.  If our ancestry is as assumed by those discussing on here, then we should either see a progression from the browline or still have one... neither is the case.  When looking at artists renditions of Lucy (Australopithecus) we see that the browline 3.2 million years ago did not exist. www.bing.com/images/search This by many Ive researched seems like the more likely ancestor for humans.   If anything, sometimes the orbitals were bigger, but that is seen today, just on a smaller scale.  

the general bone structure is also more common, but the thing to focus on is, the similarities are expected to be great, or there is no link, yet science tries to link through many different avenues. 

So as to not waste too much time if you're not accepting this, shall I go on?

Jabberwocky wrote:

You're not saying that you don't know anything reall about it though. You're saying that you know that it happened. You're ignoring that it seems physically impossible for a giant variety of reasons. For you, that is not a disproof. 
 Biblical context that has been proven in history would lead a reasonable doubt to the idea that related stories hold truth.  The physical impossibility you seem to hold has not been presented here yet.  You... or BS.. I can't remember, once posted a forumula for weather limitations.. when I challenged that forumula, no one could answer that challenge.  NO one knew how the formula came to be, only that a "meteorological professional" came up with it.  I further went to explain why he presented that particular formula (being familiar with him myself) and suddenly we lost focus on it.  despite your discredit to many other professionals in thier own field, this person seems to know better because... well... it supports your perspectiveThis is why it's not disproof... you can't back yourself up. 
Jabberwocky wrote:

No. Once again, trying to level my own challenge against me, even though it doesn't apply!!! Here is why it doesn't apply. 

this is where I have fun... I"ll take this point by point.. you can respond as a whole on it if you'd prefer.

 
Jabberwocky wrote:

A. You haven't actually shown evidence for a metaphysical god, you especially haven't demonstrated that the Christian god is real, or at least considerably more likely than any other god people still profess today.

This thread isn't about evidence for God, it's about the flood.  Though in past conversations, it seems you're looking for physical evidence of a metaphysical being... which is not logical. 

I also didni't know you were looking for me ot demonstrate how the Christian God is real, I thought you were looking for evidence of the flood, but that is a good start.  if you want, we can go onto a new thread about that.

 
Jabberwocky wrote:

B. Answer what? Which challenge of yours am I being evasive regarding? 

better question, what challenge of mine have you directly answered without the runaround?  Let's start with the formula for weather limitations, where did it come from and how is it defined?... if that one wasn't yours (becuase I can't remember if you or BS presented it) then this one

When is it considered that the flood must have occured?  In order to be difinitive on whether such an occurance has happened based on the evidences you use; geology, archaeology, sediment layers weather history, we must have a timeframe.

 
Jabberwocky wrote:

C. Even if you were to successfully show that there are differences too great, and of a certain type, that evolution could not possibly explain it, then all that would mean is that evolution is false. Creationism has never put forth anything reasonable to suggest that it indeed did happen. Just because religion pre-dated modern biology, does not mean that it gets to be right-by-default until disproven. 

The problem with that statement is it doesn't allow an overlap.  I agree things evolve, interkind evolution is what's in question.  We also haven't been able to define Kind.  Creationism by default without any consideration for overlap also assumes a 6000 year old Earth... which is not Biblical or factual. 

And just because anything predated, or was discovered by humans etc. doesn't mean it gets to be right by default until disproven... just like i"m doing with you, everything must be questioned.  When it cannot get answered, it becomes questioned further.  When people get angry or start bantering, it leads me to believe it is less likely to be true.

 
Jabberwocky wrote:

I need a strait answer from you first.  Why?  every time I've made an effort, I get nothing substantial back from you.  I'm waiting to see if you're leaving the field level or if you're trying to impose my conclusions on my based on your own ideals.  In the meantime, I will do some homework.  

I have no idea what you're saying here. Every time you've made an effort to what? As I've asked, what is it that I have not sufficiently answered? The rest of your post is utter gibberish. Let me re-state your question in more or less your own words. 

Am I leaving the field level, or am I trying to impose your conclusions on you based on my own ideals? What does that even mean??

Anyway, yes. Do the homework. I'm leaving your posts alone until you present the species from that list, with pictures, that can not possibly be explained by biological processes we've been discussing. 

I've answered that question above as well as went in detail above about the homework i've done. 


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

It wasn't meant to, in case you haven't noticed I have made several points against the large flood. It was specifically addressed to one of your claims that floods we know of did wipe out entire human populations. Yet another of your absurd claims joins the growing heap of failed arguments you have made. 

yet they each showed a magnitude capable of wiping out an entire population.  i love how you need to see eveyrone die for it to be proof though.  potential is just as much as actual in weather considering that we today don't have as severe of weather that has occured in distant history, we also have better ways of transportation, warning systems, etc. since the weather presented didn't kill eveyrone, I guess the magnitude doesn't matter and the fact that a metaphysical God would have been likely to be able to surpass all of those examples as the Bible describes the flood should...

yet my arguements still fail. 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

What link have you provided that supports your case without an extreme amount of projection?

um... all of them... but if you'd like to point out something specific that I "projected" from my links, please do so.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Turkish_flash_floods

reliefweb.int/report/ethiopia/ethiopia-preventing-flooding-and-hunger

Two links that you threw at me as evidence that a physically possible flood could wipe out the entire human population. Since neither flood killed anywhere near that much, you are projecting a flood thousands of times larger. 

did you just look at the death toll or did you look at the magnitude as well... what? just death toll?  oh, I see how you came to that conclusion then.

Beyond Saving wrote:

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

This was when I was asking you for proof that 200 feet of rain over 40 days was possible. Somehow, in your fucked up mind, you combined the prediction that it could rain for 40 days straight with world record rainfall strength over a few minutes and expanded it over 40 days. That is a shit ton of projection. 

or did you actually read the link and what I posted about it?  no?  ok.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

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

This one is one of my favorites. It completely eviscerates your position and claims that the flood myth is likely based on a large but perfectly normal flood that came nowhere near killing every human on the planet. 

have you been following this thread???  Do you think before you post?  Read the links next time.  If this link did just that, then I guess I"m wrong... but I'd love to hear your explanation using this link on how it "completely eviscerates" my position...

I'm waiting...


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:One day it

Vastet wrote:
One day it might be interesting to tally up just how many times caposkia got owned. We must be in the thousands by now, at least.

Wait for it Vastet... BS is good at making it sound like he owns the conversation, but He's yet to back himself up with any of it... He has tried, I'll give him that much, when I challenge him further though, nothing comes of it...

Do you have anything substantial to add to this thread, or is your statement just anohter hopeful claim.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:One day it

Vastet wrote:
One day it might be interesting to tally up just how many times caposkia got owned. We must be in the thousands by now, at least.

Wait for it Vastet... BS is good at making it sound like he owns the conversation, but He's yet to back himself up with any of it... He has tried, I'll give him that much, when I challenge him further though, nothing comes of it...

Do you have anything substantial to add to this thread, or is your statement just anohter hopeful claim.


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

caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:
One day it might be interesting to tally up just how many times caposkia got owned. We must be in the thousands by now, at least.

Wait for it Vastet... BS is good at making it sound like he owns the conversation, but He's yet to back himself up with any of it...

Quite the contrary. Every single thing that Beyond asserted was couched in evidence. The only one failing to back things up is you. We could have a second tally on all the claims you've made and have failed to provide evidence for. The numbers would be very close I think, seeing as how much of your being owned is directly tied to claims you've never backed up.

caposkia wrote:
He has tried, I'll give him that much, when I challenge him further though, nothing comes of it...

I'm sure you keep telling yourself that. Unfortunately for you, the evidence shows otherwise.

caposkia wrote:
Do you have anything substantial to add to this thread, or is your statement just anohter hopeful claim.

Technically speaking I'm still waiting for your response to the last time I owned you. Until I get one I'll occasionally make observations. I don't much care what your opinion on those observations might be, and they are not directed at you. Feel free to ignore them like you ignore everything that proves you wrong. It won't stop me making them.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

caposkia wrote:

yet they each showed a magnitude capable of wiping out an entire population.  i love how you need to see eveyrone die for it to be proof though. 

Everyone dying is the definition of wiping out an entire population. If the vast majority of the population survives, then obviously the flood was not capable of wiping out the population evidenced by the fact that it didn't even make a significant dent in third world countries and the people didn't even evacuate.  

 

Quote:

yet my arguements still fail.

Well, at least you have one true sentence in this post.

 

Quote:

did you just look at the death toll or did you look at the magnitude as well... what? just death toll?  oh, I see how you came to that conclusion then.

Is magnitude your word of the day? The magnitude was obviously thousands of times too small to wipe out populations. 

 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

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

This one is one of my favorites. It completely eviscerates your position and claims that the flood myth is likely based on a large but perfectly normal flood that came nowhere near killing every human on the planet. 

have you been following this thread???  Do you think before you post?  Read the links next time.  If this link did just that, then I guess I"m wrong... but I'd love to hear your explanation using this link on how it "completely eviscerates" my position...

I'm waiting...

Are you a troll or a pathological liar? Did you read your own damn link? It starts our with a section titled "Scientific Evidence Against a Whole-Earth Flood". It then goes on to discuss regional floods in mesopatamia. It suggests a specific flood that occurred around 2900 BC was the origin of the story as it flooded approximately 160-320 kilometers. We know for a fact people lived in that area during that time, and we know for a fact that there were way more than one family of survivors. 

Your own damn link wrote:

If the 3.4-meter–thick layer of flood deposits in southeastern Mesopotamia (MacDonald 1988) represents a huge flood of ancient times, and if it is the remnants of the one described in the early Babylonian epics, then the authors of these epics were likely survivors who lived in a village on natural levees on the lower parts of either the Euphrates or Tigris Rivers where the flood waters covered their village, natural levees, and adjacent flood plains for distances of 160 to 320 kilometers so that no land could be seen, and their "whole world" would have been under water.

The link is an explanation for how the story was inspired. It provides zero evidence of a flood that literally matches the description of the bible. It was a large (but not even close to the largest flood that humans have survived and that we have evidence of) but local flood that didn't even kill everyone in the local area, let alone every human and animal in the world. All your link does is emphasize that evidence of historic floods does exist, and if a flood that was actually large enough to kill all humans happened, it would have left lots of evidence. 

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:Jerry Coyne

caposkia wrote:

Jerry Coyne states that' "the reason why nobody has ever seen it is becasue it's never happened"  when talking about macro-evolutoin or one species evolving into a completely new species.  He goes on to state that Genetic informaiton doesn't just magically appear. 

Jerry Coyne said that? When? Where? If so, give me the entire quote in context. If he said those things, I 100% guarantee you that he did not mean what you have presented it to mean. If you got those quotes from some creationist source, then fine. If you read it in context and lifted such quotes (or made them up wholesale) yourself, in order to make it look like Jerry Coyne agrees with you on this, you are dishonest. You are talking about a guy who wrote a book titled "Why evolution is true".

Creationinsts of all sorts love to quote mine like this when preaching to the choir. They do this in order to perpetuate their own lie, that the world's scientists are either engaged in a massive conspiracy, or are simply promoting evolution to deny god, and on some level they, themselves, know it's not true. It's ridiculous. It takes absolutely no compartmentalizing, or repeating to yourself "evolution is true, evolution is true" or praying about it to make it sound believable. It just does, because it's most likely true. Now:

caposkia wrote:

One thing I have found in the history is the protruding brow line.  If our ancestry is as assumed by those discussing on here, then we should either see a progression from the browline or still have one... neither is the case.  When looking at artists renditions of Lucy (Australopithecus) we see that the browline 3.2 million years ago did not exist. www.bing.com/images/search This by many Ive researched seems like the more likely ancestor for humans.   If anything, sometimes the orbitals were bigger, but that is seen today, just on a smaller scale.  

the general bone structure is also more common, but the thing to focus on is, the similarities are expected to be great, or there is no link, yet science tries to link through many different avenues. 

So as to not waste too much time if you're not accepting this, shall I go on?

Wow. Where to begin. 

1. I gave you specific instructions, to go to a link we both looked at, find 2 species where one is currently thought to have evolved into the other (on the path to Homo sapiens) and show me precisely between which two of those species is there a change so great in a feature, as to render the thought that one evolved into the other impossible, or at least difficult, and to provide pictures. You provided just a link to bing images (without even typing in parameters, or perhaps linking me to the actual images you looked at, so that you could tell me "SEE??". You also didn't go to two species that are said to have evolved from one another (or most probably) but you went to compare us to A. Afarensis. 

I will say though, bonus points for at least stating the genus of Lucy, even though you did bring up her name. Creationists like to act like there is one sample for A. Afarensis. There are hundreds. Although the font size does change at "(Australopithecus)" leading me to believe that you may have copy and pasted the word. See? This is how we used evidence to infer how your post was written. 

2. You're being vague as shit again! "The similarities are expected to be great, or there is no link, yet scienece tries to link through many different avenues."....that last part is hilarious. You're talking about science as if it's some monolithic organization trying to tell people what's true, in a way that draws them away from the bible. You haven't really implied that, but creationists use the word "science" like that a lot when they do mean exactly that. They'll say "The bible says" and "Science says" or "Christianity says" and "Science says". Hilarious and pathetic. 

So please ACTUALLY address my challenge. Take 2 species that are currently thought to have evolved from eachother (or probably did) in that link ( http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html so you don't have to dig for it), and "see wiki" ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils  Go to actually 2 species where one is said to have evolved from the other, and use that handy link to find pictures of skulls that present a problem with using evolution to explain your problem in the evolution of brow ridges. 

Realize that evolution with which you DO agree (that all dogs have a common ancestor) the variation in skulls by just taking 6 breeds will yield the following: http://www.skullsite.co.uk/dog/dog.htm 

So I repeat, answer my challenge. For real. I basically did most of the work for you, except the part where you pick the 2 insurmountable gaps, and show me why you're right. 

caposkia wrote:

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

You're not saying that you don't know anything reall about it though. You're saying that you know that it happened. You're ignoring that it seems physically impossible for a giant variety of reasons. For you, that is not a disproof. 
 Biblical context that has been proven in history would lead a reasonable doubt to the idea that related stories hold truth. The physical impossibility you seem to hold has not been presented here yet.  You... or BS.. I can't remember, once posted a forumula for weather limitations.. when I challenged that forumula, no one could answer that challenge.  NO one knew how the formula came to be, only that a "meteorological professional" came up with it.  I further went to explain why he presented that particular formula (being familiar with him myself) and suddenly we lost focus on it.  despite your discredit to many other professionals in thier own field, this person seems to know better because... well... it supports your perspectiveThis is why it's not disproof... you can't back yourself up.
Yes, that was Beyond Saving. I haven't discussed meteorology in any depth with you. However, I doubt that people just said a "meteorological professional came up with it". Arguments from authority seem to be more your game (as evidenced at the beginning of your reponse citing Jerry Coyne in what is undoubtedly a lie, or an out of context quote mine, and a hideous misrepresentation of what Coyne meant (if he did say those words) which you should apologize for.  Also, I disagree. Your challenges regarding meteorology have been addressed. You took data of the hardest rainstorms, then extrapolating that to continuous rain at that severity for 40 days or something would yield what you need for your flood. Your extrapolations are ridiculous, and would involve rain to a degree of which nothing close has ever been recorded. On the other hand, when we speak of evolution, we are taking a biological process, that we both know works, and extrapolating it back in time. It just happens, of course, that there is no evidence of a young earth, and much evidence of an old earth, meaning that the time was almost definitely available. So we have the process, and the time. What's missing? I felt I should bring this up to make sure you don't make some false dichotomy regarding your extrapolations vs. ours.  
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:

No. Once again, trying to level my own challenge against me, even though it doesn't apply!!! Here is why it doesn't apply. 

caposkia wrote:

this is where I have fun... I"ll take this point by point.. you can respond as a whole on it if you'd prefer.

 
Jabberwocky wrote:

A. You haven't actually shown evidence for a metaphysical god, you especially haven't demonstrated that the Christian god is real, or at least considerably more likely than any other god people still profess today.

This thread isn't about evidence for God, it's about the flood.  Though in past conversations, it seems you're looking for physical evidence of a metaphysical being... which is not logical. 

I also didni't know you were looking for me ot demonstrate how the Christian God is real, I thought you were looking for evidence of the flood, but that is a good start.  if you want, we can go onto a new thread about that.

 
Did you read my response in context with your own question here? You said 
caposkia wrote:
Would it be fair then for me to conclude that after I answer your challenge here of specific problems with the links transitions and you still fail to answer mine that you by default accept creationism by a metaphysical God as explained by Chrsitians and you drop darwinism aside and leave the rest alone? 
You're the one bringing in metaphysical god as explained by Christians. Also, get this through your fucking head. There are Christians who accept the theory of evolution by natural selection in its entirety. Calling it darwinism is ridiculous creationist babble. Darwin was the first to propose the process, and provided a lot of evidence for the time. We have much, MUCH more evidence now that shows that he was correct in a broad sense, and in some specifics, but as I understand it, not all. Also, the theory is far developed beyond what Darwin started. Calling it Darwinism is a (probably) deliberate Creationist tactic, making it look like accepting it is an argument from authority, because of a book. This is a pathetic tactic by creationists, and should be dropped. All discussions on these topics should be decided by one thing: the evidence. So don't accuse me of trying to muddle the topic or change the subject. It was YOU who brought that in. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:

B. Answer what? Which challenge of yours am I being evasive regarding? 

better question, what challenge of mine have you directly answered without the runaround?  Let's start with the formula for weather limitations, where did it come from and how is it defined?... if that one wasn't yours (becuase I can't remember if you or BS presented it) then this one

When is it considered that the flood must have occured?  In order to be difinitive on whether such an occurance has happened based on the evidences you use; geology, archaeology, sediment layers weather history, we must have a timeframe.

Wasn't me. Also, it's not my job to say when I think it occurred. I don't think it did! I require an agreement with you in every place, because you're the one who states that it DID happen. The only thing I got you to concede was1. It didn't have to be world-wide2. It DID have to wipe out all humans minus a specific selected few who built a boat that saved all of the animals as well (in that region, so any place where humans were not present, we can assume that the flood didn't have to affect it, and thereby the local flora and fauna survived just fine). This means it had to cover all lands where humans were.  We didn't establish 100% what you believe was human, but I think you accepted that homo erectus were. Is it your thought that homonids were human, but not australopiths? If so, then the flood had to have occurred in the last 2.4 million years or so. That's a pretty big window. However, if it had to wipe out all regions that have humans (which you have accepted) then it would mean that the later it occurred, the more ground it had to cover. This also means that physical evidence for the flood would cover a bigger region the later you go. So, are we talking a smaller flood 2.4 million years ago, or a fucking massive one 1.5 million years ago (where at least 3 different distinct hominid species were around)?  You see, you are doing your best to not even LOOK at these questions. I'm not sure why it is. Could you tell me why?
caposkia wrote:
  
Jabberwocky wrote:

C. Even if you were to successfully show that there are differences too great, and of a certain type, that evolution could not possibly explain it, then all that would mean is that evolution is false. Creationism has never put forth anything reasonable to suggest that it indeed did happen. Just because religion pre-dated modern biology, does not mean that it gets to be right-by-default until disproven. 

The problem with that statement is it doesn't allow an overlap.  I agree things evolve, interkind evolution is what's in question.  We also haven't been able to define Kind.  Creationism by default without any consideration for overlap also assumes a 6000 year old Earth... which is not Biblical or factual. 

And just because anything predated, or was discovered by humans etc. doesn't mean it gets to be right by default until disproven... just like i"m doing with you, everything must be questioned.  When it cannot get answered, it becomes questioned further.  When people get angry or start bantering, it leads me to believe it is less likely to be true.

 
Fucking hell. You can't fucking define kind, because it's fucking absurd! I can define it right now. "A word describing a category of living beings". Unfortunately, that definition can apply to species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom and domain (not to mention infraorder, subspecies, and any other necessary classification derived as required to explain levels of similarities and differences that don't elegantly fall into classical linnean categories). Creationists don't WANT to define kind, because they want to keep it vague. Just like you and your arguments. You're basically saying "I agree things evolve, but only to a point". When you're asked to what point, you say "interkind evolution, but we haven't been able to define kind"....so you're basically saying "at some arbitrary point never to be defined, I will say EVOLUTION CAN NOT OCCUR PAST THIS POINT!!!". That is your entire argument here. Fucking pathetic.  Yes, I'm getting angry. Why? Because we've gone through this already. Kind is a bullshit word when it comes to biological classification because the definition is deliberately murky as fuck. There is some ambiguity in genus, order, etc., but it's out of necessity. Linnean taxonomy with domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species literally only allows for 7 broad "levels of variation" to exist between categories. Here is the kicker:Common chimpanzees and bonobos are considered separate species in the genus "pan"Humans, both chimpanzees, and gorillas belong to the subfamily of homininae. Gorillas belong to the tribe "gorillini". It is necessary to make this distinction because humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than gorillas are to either. Even if you disagree that the relation is there, the similarity is there, provable by genetics. There is a distinct difference in gorillas. Orangutans belong to the subfamily ponginae (with 2 extant species). They are more distinct, still, from all of those belonging to "hominini" because they have a different subfamily.  You see, this classification works. Your classification, consisting of a single word, "kind" (which you keep capitalizing as if it's holy) is derived because it was used in an early English translation of a 2600 (or so) Hebrew book. That is why you can't pinpoint it. It is based in superstition rather than in scientific rigour in attempting to create a functional classification of animals.  Excuse the angry rant, but it's justified because you have already been told this about the word "kind". You should know. Smarten the fuck up.
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
caposkia wrote:

I need a strait answer from you first.  Why?  every time I've made an effort, I get nothing substantial back from you.  I'm waiting to see if you're leaving the field level or if you're trying to impose my conclusions on my based on your own ideals.  In the meantime, I will do some homework.  

I have no idea what you're saying here. Every time you've made an effort to what? As I've asked, what is it that I have not sufficiently answered? The rest of your post is utter gibberish. Let me re-state your question in more or less your own words. 

Am I leaving the field level, or am I trying to impose your conclusions on you based on my own ideals? What does that even mean??

Anyway, yes. Do the homework. I'm leaving your posts alone until you present the species from that list, with pictures, that can not possibly be explained by biological processes we've been discussing. 

I've answered that question above as well as went in detail above about the homework i've done. 

No you haven't. Try again. I even did some of the work for you. Your "homework" was posting bing.com/images. Awesome. 

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:Biblical

caposkia wrote:

Biblical context that has been proven in history would lead a reasonable doubt to the idea that related stories hold truth. 

The physical impossibility you seem to hold has not been presented here yet.  You... or BS.. I can't remember, once posted a forumula for weather limitations.. when I challenged that forumula, no one could answer that challenge.  NO one knew how the formula came to be, only that a "meteorological professional" came up with it.  I further went to explain why he presented that particular formula (being familiar with him myself) and suddenly we lost focus on it.  despite your discredit to many other professionals in thier own field, this person seems to know better because... well... it supports your perspectiveThis is why it's not disproof... you can't back yourself up.
 You are such a piece of shit liar. Dr. Lyons was addressed in depth, in no less than half a dozen posts on the previous page. As I pointed out NUMEROUS times (and he did in the very same article), his estimates were a "rule of thumb" written for a popular news artical, not a scientific journal. The formula he used was based solely on regression analysis. It didn't go in depth and wasn't meant to. I did post 3 very detailed scientific journal articles which created models attempting to predict the maximum possible rainfall in specific geographical areas. All of which fall within Dr. Lyons estimates (actually much lower) and had very detailed footnoting. You haven't addressed those at all, so I assume you took one look and realized they were way the fuck over your head. At no point, did I ever use Dr. Lyons' article as my sole evidence. Initially, it was just the first google thing I found when I searched for "maximum potential rain " after you casually suggested 240 feet with zero support then and zero support since. And I said IN THAT POST, that I didn't know where Dr. Lyons got his data or arrived at his conclusion, but I found it suspicious that his number was so radically different than yours. Since you claimed expertise in the field (which I now know you lied about, but at that point I thought it was true) I provided it solely for the purpose of having you explain why there was such a large gap between what you thought was possible and what he said.  At least my initial question that got me involved in this thread has been answered. It turns out that my base assumptions were 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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Quite the

Vastet wrote:
Quite the contrary. Every single thing that Beyond asserted was couched in evidence. The only one failing to back things up is you. We could have a second tally on all the claims you've made and have failed to provide evidence for. The numbers would be very close I think, seeing as how much of your being owned is directly tied to claims you've never backed up.

close huh... that's more than I would have given you credit for, so thanks. 

seems "evidence" is subjective on this thread.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
He has tried, I'll give him that much, when I challenge him further though, nothing comes of it...
I'm sure you keep telling yourself that. Unfortunately for you, the evidence shows otherwise.

why do you deflect like that?  "I'm sure you keep telling yourself that."  as if I'm really ignoring everything in this thread dispite my challenges not only to bring everything back up, but directly responding to everything that I"m aware of... unless you want to mention something I forgot to directly respond to.  Go for it.

Vastet wrote:

Technically speaking I'm still waiting for your response to the last time I owned you. Until I get one I'll occasionally make observations. I don't much care what your opinion on those observations might be, and they are not directed at you. Feel free to ignore them like you ignore everything that proves you wrong. It won't stop me making them.

alright, what was this last own you have?  I mean to bring it up again would only further put me in a hole right?


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jerry Coyne states that' "the reason why nobody has ever seen it is becasue it's never happened"  when talking about macro-evolutoin or one species evolving into a completely new species.  He goes on to state that Genetic informaiton doesn't just magically appear. 

Jerry Coyne said that? When? Where? If so, give me the entire quote in context. If he said those things, I 100% guarantee you that he did not mean what you have presented it to mean. If you got those quotes from some creationist source, then fine. If you read it in context and lifted such quotes (or made them up wholesale) yourself, in order to make it look like Jerry Coyne agrees with you on this, you are dishonest. You are talking about a guy who wrote a book titled "Why evolution is true".

Creationinsts of all sorts love to quote mine like this when preaching to the choir. They do this in order to perpetuate their own lie, that the world's scientists are either engaged in a massive conspiracy, or are simply promoting evolution to deny god, and on some level they, themselves, know it's not true. It's ridiculous. It takes absolutely no compartmentalizing, or repeating to yourself "evolution is true, evolution is true" or praying about it to make it sound believable. It just does, because it's most likely true. Now:

caposkia wrote:

One thing I have found in the history is the protruding brow line.  If our ancestry is as assumed by those discussing on here, then we should either see a progression from the browline or still have one... neither is the case.  When looking at artists renditions of Lucy (Australopithecus) we see that the browline 3.2 million years ago did not exist. www.bing.com/images/search This by many Ive researched seems like the more likely ancestor for humans.   If anything, sometimes the orbitals were bigger, but that is seen today, just on a smaller scale.  

the general bone structure is also more common, but the thing to focus on is, the similarities are expected to be great, or there is no link, yet science tries to link through many different avenues. 

So as to not waste too much time if you're not accepting this, shall I go on?

Wow. Where to begin. 

1. I gave you specific instructions, to go to a link we both looked at, find 2 species where one is currently thought to have evolved into the other (on the path to Homo sapiens) and show me precisely between which two of those species is there a change so great in a feature, as to render the thought that one evolved into the other impossible, or at least difficult, and to provide pictures. You provided just a link to bing images (without even typing in parameters, or perhaps linking me to the actual images you looked at, so that you could tell me "SEE??". You also didn't go to two species that are said to have evolved from one another (or most probably) but you went to compare us to A. Afarensis. 

I will say though, bonus points for at least stating the genus of Lucy, even though you did bring up her name. Creationists like to act like there is one sample for A. Afarensis. There are hundreds. Although the font size does change at "(Australopithecus)" leading me to believe that you may have copy and pasted the word. See? This is how we used evidence to infer how your post was written. 

2. You're being vague as shit again! "The similarities are expected to be great, or there is no link, yet scienece tries to link through many different avenues."....that last part is hilarious. You're talking about science as if it's some monolithic organization trying to tell people what's true, in a way that draws them away from the bible. You haven't really implied that, but creationists use the word "science" like that a lot when they do mean exactly that. They'll say "The bible says" and "Science says" or "Christianity says" and "Science says". Hilarious and pathetic. 

So please ACTUALLY address my challenge. Take 2 species that are currently thought to have evolved from eachother (or probably did) in that link ( http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html so you don't have to dig for it), and "see wiki" ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils  Go to actually 2 species where one is said to have evolved from the other, and use that handy link to find pictures of skulls that present a problem with using evolution to explain your problem in the evolution of brow ridges. 

Realize that evolution with which you DO agree (that all dogs have a common ancestor) the variation in skulls by just taking 6 breeds will yield the following: http://www.skullsite.co.uk/dog/dog.htm 

So I repeat, answer my challenge. For real. I basically did most of the work for you, except the part where you pick the 2 insurmountable gaps, and show me why you're right. 

So here's the deal.  I had worked for an hour on this post and lost it all... I will give you a summary and see if it's worth making the effort again.

I first do appologize if I misquoted Jerry Coyne, I looked back and am not sure of the site i found the quote on.  if it is misquoting him, sorry.  I did find that he quotes from his book that no one has seen macro-evolution.  He is also said to use many pages to talk about the missing links in the fossil records.

I use google or bing images becuase the answer is really that simple... I went on to explain using homo-sapian skulls, homo erectus skulls, homo antecessor skull, and homo heidelbergensis skull.  a profile is best... just looking at the images I went on to explain how the human skull is flush and smooth where all the others are not.. so either they all of a sudden *poof* changed, or they really don't fit... also I focused on homo erectus be it that it is the closest one to exist near modern day humans despite the fact that the chart links them much further back and claims a change of 2 forms before getting to humans... the homo erectus also would be the most similar... but maybe you be the judge... just do an image search on your favorite search engine of all 4 of those and notice the major facial differences and how they must have drastically and quickly changed... all of a sudden... despite millions and millions of years of the same look and form...even between themselves.

i had a much more detailed explanation, but don't feel like taking the effort unless you actually would consider what I"m saying further.. so let's just see where it goes from here.


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

 You are such a piece of shit liar. 
the truth hurts sometimes.. and if I am, then don't talk to me.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:close huh...

caposkia wrote:
close huh... that's more than I would have given you credit for, so thanks. 

You give credit to a lot of bullshit and deny credit to a lot of proven facts, so I'm not going to lose sleep over your ignorant opinions. Smiling

caposkia wrote:
seems "evidence" is subjective on this thread.

Nope. You just don't know what evidence is.

caposkia wrote:
why do you deflect like that?

You're the one deflecting. As evidenced by the fact you have to accuse me of deflecting instead of pointing to a post where you didn't deflect and actually provided evidence.

caposkia wrote:
"I'm sure you keep telling yourself that."  as if I'm really ignoring everything in this thread dispite my challenges not only to bring everything back up, but directly responding to everything that I"m aware of...

You are replying to everything, but responding to nothing. You haven't backed up any claims that I've seen. To your credit, you have belatedly surrendered a few points when pushed for 3 or 4 pages, but you still have dozens more in the air that have absolutely no supporting evidence at all. You're so desperate to prove a flood can be disastrous that you pointed to a hurricane, which is quite ridiculous. There's no mention of a hurricane in the bible, and there's no way a boat would survive a hurricane when an entire population did not. You would have done better by pointing to the xmas season tsunami a number of years ago. It wouldn't really help your argument anyway, but at least everyone who died there was actually killed by water and not a massive storm.

caposkia wrote:
unless you want to mention something I forgot to directly respond to.  Go for it.

That would be about 99% of everything I said and everything Beyond said. Remember, a reply is not a response. A response requires counter points and evidence, not a shifting of goal posts and fabricated claims without supporting evidence.

caposkia wrote:
alright, what was this last own you have?  I mean to bring it up again would only further put me in a hole right?

You can find it as easily as I. Yes, it probably would put you further in the hole, because you refuse to directly respond to points. The irony here is that you aren't even arguing against experts in the fields being discussed, and you still can't get anywhere. No wonder actual scientists refuse to even acknowledge creationists. If you can't even overcome the arguments of laymen, you'll never get anywhere with someone who really can comprehend a subject so well that they can describe it mathematically.

I suggest you'd do better against moslems. Your goal is to convert people, yes? Well you have no chance of doing that here. You need at least a passing familiarity with a subject and some actual evidence in order to make any headway against scientifically literate atheists.

With moslems all you need is knowledge of your own religion. Might do well to give the q'uran a once over just to better prepare you for their arguments, but that's pretty easy. It's just one book.

In order to familiarise yourself sufficiently with science to argue points here you need to read THOUSANDS of books worth of material. Because we already have. And if something crosses our plate that we have yet to look into, we will look into it. You've already made Beyond Saving study meteorology more than you have.

I haven't bothered to because the Earth simply cannot support the storms you're talking about, and never could. It is neither big enough nor is there enough water. No matter how you move the goalposts, any flood big enough to wipe out everyone in any area of significant size would leave strikingly obvious geological evidence. Any flood that could even come close to flooding the entire Earth would first require every single drop of water on and under the planet to be evaporated, which would instantly kill all life anyway. And even then it wouldn't be sufficient to cover the surface in water. There simply isn't that much water here.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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:

 You are such a piece of shit liar. 
the truth hurts sometimes.. and if I am, then don't talk to me.

Yes, the truth does hurt sometimes. One way to make it hurt less would be to be more honest.

As for the second piece of advice, I will continue to respond and point out every falsehood you make, both the ones made out of ignorance and the ones that are lies. Maybe other forums let you get away with completely mischaracterizing a discussion, that isn't going to happen around here. Maybe other forums let you throw out assertions and accept them without demanding evidence, that isn't going to happen around here. 

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: So here's

caposkia wrote:

 

So here's the deal.  I had worked for an hour on this post and lost it all... I will give you a summary and see if it's worth making the effort again.

I first do appologize if I misquoted Jerry Coyne, I looked back and am not sure of the site i found the quote on.  if it is misquoting him, sorry.  I did find that he quotes from his book that no one has seen macro-evolution.  He is also said to use many pages to talk about the missing links in the fossil records.

I use google or bing images becuase the answer is really that simple... I went on to explain using homo-sapian skulls, homo erectus skulls, homo antecessor skull, and homo heidelbergensis skull.  a profile is best... just looking at the images I went on to explain how the human skull is flush and smooth where all the others are not.. so either they all of a sudden *poof* changed, or they really don't fit... also I focused on homo erectus be it that it is the closest one to exist near modern day humans despite the fact that the chart links them much further back and claims a change of 2 forms before getting to humans... the homo erectus also would be the most similar... but maybe you be the judge... just do an image search on your favorite search engine of all 4 of those and notice the major facial differences and how they must have drastically and quickly changed... all of a sudden... despite millions and millions of years of the same look and form...even between themselves.

i had a much more detailed explanation, but don't feel like taking the effort unless you actually would consider what I"m saying further.. so let's just see where it goes from here.

An hour? This should be remarkably simple! 

Step 1: Post picture (or preferably a few pictures) of fossil bones from species 1.

Step 2: Post picture (or, once again, a few pictures) of fossil bones from species 2. Ensure that species 1 and 2 appear connected by a single line with no species in between on this chart: http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html (with homo erectus and homo ergaster both being valid connections to homo antecessor, the rest being very obvious).

Step 3: Explain what is so different between features of  #1 and #2 that could not possibly be accounted for by evolution caused by random mutation and natural selection. 

 

It might take a few hours to go through a bunch of specimens here, but there is no way it would take an hour to type a post on that. That is all I need. 

 

My comment on you using google/bing is that you didn't even post a link to your search terms. You just posted a link to bing images without even saying what you searched. Just post the pictures in the manner I asked for, and describe why I'm wrong. That's all you need to do. 

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.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
LOL @ the typical

LOL @ the typical creationist assumption that all anatomy was identical throughout a species for millions of years. Such has never been the case. Evolution from one species into another doesn't happen overnight.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:LOL @ the

Vastet wrote:
LOL @ the typical creationist assumption that all anatomy was identical throughout a species for millions of years. Such has never been the case. Evolution from one species into another doesn't happen overnight.

 

It's because creationists will claim that humans are NOT classified as apes, and don't know the difference because there isn't one! 

https://youtu.be/B_CzP7ACXEk?t=1011

From the above video time-stamped at the following quote:

"What this guy is holding, I've seen the arguments, for the creationists arguing that this is not for the species that it was originally identified to be, you know, that it was a regular human and everything, and that it came from some other species entirely. But then that exact skull-cap was identified by different creationists as being 100% ape and 100% human. And then more amusingly than that, not only could they not agree, could different creationists agree with eachother whether that was 100% human or 100% ape, the same guy , Duane Gish (who was cited in an article from AiG that Cap posted) identified the SAME FOSSIL at one point as being 100% human and then when he was shown the same fossil, years later, he identified it as being 100% ape."

If these changes are as abrupt as creationists say they are, then why are they unable to show us these abrupt changes that are so pronounced that natural selection can't possibly explain them? 

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
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
seems "evidence" is subjective on this thread.
Nope. You just don't know what evidence is.

hence why I called it subjective on this thread... YOu claim I don't know what it is.  I've called you out on many circular reasonings and yet the "evidence" behind that is allegedly insufficient.. unless of course I use the same approach... then it's obvious that I'm being circular... do you see the subjectivity yet?

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
why do you deflect like that?
You're the one deflecting. As evidenced by the fact you have to accuse me of deflecting instead of pointing to a post where you didn't deflect and actually provided evidence.

It was a simple question.  yet you deflected... I mean sure we can go in circles here, but just answer it.

Vastet wrote:

 You are replying to everything, but responding to nothing. You haven't backed up any claims that I've seen. To your credit, you have belatedly surrendered a few points when pushed for 3 or 4 pages, but you still have dozens more in the air that have absolutely no supporting evidence at all. You're so desperate to prove a flood can be disastrous that you pointed to a hurricane, which is quite ridiculous. There's no mention of a hurricane in the bible, and there's no way a boat would survive a hurricane when an entire population did not. You would have done better by pointing to the xmas season tsunami a number of years ago. It wouldn't really help your argument anyway, but at least everyone who died there was actually killed by water and not a massive storm.

I don't think it was a hurricane.  You're grabbing everywhere you can for reasonable doubt.  Suffice it to say that the flood itself is not doubted... it originated from older Mesopotamian scripts.  IT is generally located in an area known thorughout history to flood.  

I'm despirate to find someone on here who actually knows the topic they're discussing instead of reachiing for random excuses for not having an educated response.  If I'm so desperate, dishonest, and ignorant, and you're so sure you're right, then this whole thing could be over with a simple statement and a link to back it up... yet here we are, still going at it.  You deflecting, me challenging you to keep bringing up those very things you accuse me of trying to avoid. 

Vastet wrote:

 You can find it as easily as I. Yes, it probably would put you further in the hole, because you refuse to directly respond to points. The irony here is that you aren't even arguing against experts in the fields being discussed, and you still can't get anywhere. No wonder actual scientists refuse to even acknowledge creationists. If you can't even overcome the arguments of laymen, you'll never get anywhere with someone who really can comprehend a subject so well that they can describe it mathematically.

I suggest you'd do better against moslems. Your goal is to convert people, yes? Well you have no chance of doing that here. You need at least a passing familiarity with a subject and some actual evidence in order to make any headway against scientifically literate atheists.

With moslems all you need is knowledge of your own religion. Might do well to give the q'uran a once over just to better prepare you for their arguments, but that's pretty easy. It's just one book.

In order to familiarise yourself sufficiently with science to argue points here you need to read THOUSANDS of books worth of material. Because we already have. And if something crosses our plate that we have yet to look into, we will look into it. You've already made Beyond Saving study meteorology more than you have.

I haven't bothered to because the Earth simply cannot support the storms you're talking about, and never could. It is neither big enough nor is there enough water. No matter how you move the goalposts, any flood big enough to wipe out everyone in any area of significant size would leave strikingly obvious geological evidence. Any flood that could even come close to flooding the entire Earth would first require every single drop of water on and under the planet to be evaporated, which would instantly kill all life anyway. And even then it wouldn't be sufficient to cover the surface in water. There simply isn't that much water here.

The flood leaves strikingly obvious evidence... if you know where to look... everyone's so sure the flood that happened in an area that has a long history of severe floods and geological evidence of such could not have possibly happened despite the fact that no one here can give me a specific location (tigeris/euphrates area) or a specific time that this occured... Sure, let's dig to a geological timeframe in some random location of some random year and decide that because nothing happened in this random time frame, this event never happened in the history of the world.... logical (sarcasm)...

The problem with the "laymen" I'm talking to is no one is understanding the subject matter... no matter how much you try to make it sound like I'm the one misunderstanding, I have given detailed reasoning and even created a logical and scientifically sound weather pattern that could possibly have channeled an excessive amount of rain to the specific locaiton in question.  IT's back there somewhere... the response?  The intelligent layman called it "gibberish".  of course it is if you don't understand it... Give me a detailed data analysis of a culture sample from a lab and I"ll call it gibberish too... why?  because it's beyond my comprehension.  I dont' know that chemistry.. it's not my expertise.  But rather than call it gibberish, I would assume the person who works in that lab and claims to be the technition writing up the data analysis knows what they're talking about because it's what they do.  For some reason here, that logic is circumvented and automatically all opposing "experts" are ignorant, and the layman is the expert becuase what they dont understand must be illigitemate.  Seeing is believing right doubting Thomas?

My goal on here?  I've said it many times on many different threads, to learn more about what I think I know.  And some on here like Bobspence, PJTS among a select few others have taught me a lot... Threads like this? are really just entertainment until another intelligent and logical brain comes along.  

Honestly, I continue waiting for an intelligent response so that maybe I can do some research and find something new... Learn something from someone who might actually know more than I do about a particular subject.  You are not one of them.  If someone in the process is converted, fantastic... Do I expect that to happen here?  I'm sure it has... but not by those who are so vocal in the threads typically.  The watchers are the ones who change the most... the ones involved usually become too stubborn due to pride to change... at least during the conversation.  They have a facad to protect of course.

Mod edit: Code. Formatting.


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, the truth does hurt sometimes. One way to make it hurt less would be to be more honest.

As for the second piece of advice, I will continue to respond and point out every falsehood you make, both the ones made out of ignorance and the ones that are lies. Maybe other forums let you get away with completely mischaracterizing a discussion, that isn't going to happen around here. Maybe other forums let you throw out assertions and accept them without demanding evidence, that isn't going to happen around here. 

I don't mind if you keep responding, but honesty is integrity.  IT doesn't look good for you to keep accusing me of lying when I'm not. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Quote:An

Jabberwocky wrote:

An hour? This should be remarkably simple! 

Step 1: Post picture (or preferably a few pictures) of fossil bones from species 1.

Step 2: Post picture (or, once again, a few pictures) of fossil bones from species 2. Ensure that species 1 and 2 appear connected by a single line with no species in between on this chart: http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html (with homo erectus and homo ergaster both being valid connections to homo antecessor, the rest being very obvious).

Step 3: Explain what is so different between features of  #1 and #2 that could not possibly be accounted for by evolution caused by random mutation and natural selection. 

 

It might take a few hours to go through a bunch of specimens here, but there is no way it would take an hour to type a post on that. That is all I need. 

 

My comment on you using google/bing is that you didn't even post a link to your search terms. You just posted a link to bing images without even saying what you searched. Just post the pictures in the manner I asked for, and describe why I'm wrong. That's all you need to do. 

I type as i research. 

I made it quite clear what to do.  Go on Google and look up the profile of each species listed above.  Basically the homo-erectus looked more like a possibility be it that the 2 species that spun off of that before humans looked further from the human skull profile than closer.  The Homo-erectus also existed closer to the homo-sapien than the linked species yet there is no direct link there.  Even if there was, Compare the skulls just by looking at them.  (human skull) (homo-heidelbergensis) [the alleged direct link to humans] yet noticed the dramatically pronounded browline in the bone structure that miraculously disappeared when humans allegedly evolved from it... beyond that, the facial structure of the human skull is quite smooth where as the latter is quite rigid in areas and has a much more pronounced cheek /frontal structure...  Let's move on to homo-erectus ..  now according to the chart, this is 3 special generations back... yet it is a more likely culprit for an ancestor to humans, with the exception of the protruding browline that is consistent throughout the orbital which is strangely again absent in the human skull yet was consistent through both other future species.  If anything, it looks like homo-erectus could have possibly over much time evolved into humans except that the future generations look like they back tracked a bit from the modern day human then *poof, the brow and protruding orbital disappeared, the facial structure dramatically smoothed out and here we are. 

is that better?

Edit: Formatting


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:LOL @ the

Vastet wrote:
LOL @ the typical creationist assumption that all anatomy was identical throughout a species for millions of years. Such has never been the case. Evolution from one species into another doesn't happen overnight.

exactly... it's helpful to look up the different skull structures of different races as well.  That makes it very obvious how evolution changes humans over time.


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, the truth does hurt sometimes. One way to make it hurt less would be to be more honest.

As for the second piece of advice, I will continue to respond and point out every falsehood you make, both the ones made out of ignorance and the ones that are lies. Maybe other forums let you get away with completely mischaracterizing a discussion, that isn't going to happen around here. Maybe other forums let you throw out assertions and accept them without demanding evidence, that isn't going to happen around here. 

I don't mind if you keep responding, but honesty is integrity.  IT doesn't look good for you to keep accusing me of lying when I'm not. 

You lied demonstrably. You claimed that no one addressed your "challenge" of Dr. Lyons' formula. I did so in depth and repeatedly on page 13. There are 50 references to him on that page. To say that it was ignored or dropped is a complete fucking lie. Anyone willing to go back a single page can see that (and that wasn't the first time we discussed it) You have absolutely no integrity, which is why I stopped being polite to you a few months ago. It is bad enough that you obviously lied about your expertise in meteorology that is impossible to confirm, but when you are lying about things that happened in this very thread that can be confirmed by any asshole who bothers to go back a page, you are borderline pathological.

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


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

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Quote:

An hour? This should be remarkably simple! 

Step 1: Post picture (or preferably a few pictures) of fossil bones from species 1.

Step 2: Post picture (or, once again, a few pictures) of fossil bones from species 2. Ensure that species 1 and 2 appear connected by a single line with no species in between on this chart: http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html (with homo erectus and homo ergaster both being valid connections to homo antecessor, the rest being very obvious).

Step 3: Explain what is so different between features of  #1 and #2 that could not possibly be accounted for by evolution caused by random mutation and natural selection. 

 

It might take a few hours to go through a bunch of specimens here, but there is no way it would take an hour to type a post on that. That is all I need. 

 

My comment on you using google/bing is that you didn't even post a link to your search terms. You just posted a link to bing images without even saying what you searched. Just post the pictures in the manner I asked for, and describe why I'm wrong. That's all you need to do. 

I type as i research. 

I made it quite clear what to do.  Go on Google and look up the profile of each species listed above.  Basically the homo-erectus looked more like a possibility be it that the 2 species that spun off of that before humans looked further from the human skull profile than closer.  The Homo-erectus also existed closer to the homo-sapien than the linked species yet there is no direct link there.  Even if there was, Compare the skulls just by looking at them.  (human skull) (homo-heidelbergensis) [the alleged direct link to humans] yet noticed the dramatically pronounded browline in the bone structure that miraculously disappeared when humans allegedly evolved from it... beyond that, the facial structure of the human skull is quite smooth where as the latter is quite rigid in areas and has a much more pronounced cheek /frontal structure...  Let's move on to homo-erectus ..  now according to the chart, this is 3 special generations back... yet it is a more likely culprit for an ancestor to humans, with the exception of the protruding browline that is consistent throughout the orbital which is strangely again absent in the human skull yet was consistent through both other future species.  If anything, it looks like homo-erectus could have possibly over much time evolved into humans except that the future generations look like they back tracked a bit from the modern day human then *poof, the brow and protruding orbital disappeared, the facial structure dramatically smoothed out and here we are. 

is that better?

If homo erectus so obviously couldn't evolve into homo sapiens, how the fuck is it that a million or two million years ago, Noah was growing grapes and making wine, but over all that time not a single fucking homo sapien skeleton was fossilized? Your absurd arguments aren't even internally consistent. 

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
caposkia wrote:hence why I

caposkia wrote:
hence why I called it subjective on this thread...

NO. You not knowing what evidence is, by definition, does not make evidence subjective. It makes you ignorant. That's it.

caposkia wrote:
I've called you out on many circular reasonings and yet the "evidence" behind that is allegedly insufficient..

The only one dancing in circles is you. I don't make circular arguments. I never have. You can't point at evidence to the contrary because it doesn't exist.

caposkia wrote:
It was a simple question.  yet you deflected... I mean sure we can go in circles here, but just answer it.

Oh look you're still deflecting, while claiming I'm deflecting. A lie and a projection combined into one sentence.

The rest of your post is a garbled mess that I'm not going to bother attempting to separate. Please repost it with the quotes placed properly so I know what to respond to.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I have given

caposkia wrote:
I have given detailed reasoning and even created a logical and scientifically sound weather pattern that could possibly have channeled an excessive amount of rain to the specific locaiton in question. IT's back there somewhere...

Does anyone remember/know what post this was in?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


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

butterbattle wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I have given detailed reasoning and even created a logical and scientifically sound weather pattern that could possibly have channeled an excessive amount of rain to the specific locaiton in question. IT's back there somewhere...

Does anyone remember/know what post this was in?

I believe Cap is referencing post 618 on page 13. 

caposkia wrote:

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.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Mhmm, thanks.

Mhmm, thanks.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare