Was the Real Flood in Genesis or Gilgamesh?

[he_who_is_nobody]

Greetings,

Look at 2 creationist argue which one of their fantasies is true.

I wonder if they'd be willing to have a formal debate on it?

The discussion in the popcorn gallery would be fun ...

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

No......Pa/ 235U 230Th/ 234U/ 238U Are not independent form each other, they depend on the same variables, both methods have the same parent isotope

No they don't. None of the measured isotopes in these decay chains are the same. They have different neutron counts, are therefore different isotopes and have different decay rates.

[sup]238[/sup]Uranium->[sup]234[/sup]Thorium->[sup]234[/sup]Protactinium->[sup]234[/sup]Uranium->[sup]230[/sup]Thorium

http://metadata.berkeley.edu/nuclear-forensics/Decay Chains.html

[sup]235[/sup]Uranium->[sup]231[/sup]Thorium-[sup]231[/sup]Protactinium

The elements are the same, but the isotopes, their decay chains, relative abundances and half-lives are all different.

I highly doubt dandan leroy knows what the numbers in front of each element means and what exactly an isatope actually is, to be perfectly honest.

 

[tuxbox]

lmfao

 

[leroy]

No......Pa/ 235U 230Th/ 234U/ 238U Are not independent form each other, they depend on the same variables, both methods have the same parent isotope

No they don't. None of the measured isotopes in these decay chains are the same. They have different neutron counts, are therefore different isotopes and have different decay rates.

[sup]238[/sup]Uranium->[sup]234[/sup]Thorium->[sup]234[/sup]Protactinium->[sup]234[/sup]Uranium->[sup]230[/sup]Thorium

http://metadata.berkeley.edu/nuclear-forensics/Decay Chains.html

[sup]235[/sup]Uranium->[sup]231[/sup]Thorium-[sup]231[/sup]Protactinium

The elements are the same, but the isotopes, their decay chains, relative abundances and half-lives are all different.

I already told you why are you wrong, you can ether ignore me, or admit your mistake, the goal of the article was to calibrate one method with another, the author was not even trying to date a sample with 2 independent methods.

 

[Mugnuts]

I already told you why are you wrong, you can ether ignore me, or admit your mistake, the goal of the article was to calibrate one method with another, the author was not even trying to date a sample with 2 independent methods.

I vote for ignore. Your contribution has been quite silly so far. Why does this always turn out this way?

Biblical person asks for A. A is presented.

Biblical person says, no I asked for Aa. Aa is presented.

Biblical person responds with that's not Aa. Aa, aA, AA, aa are then presented to prevent further burden shifting.

Biblical person repeats original claim and ignores everything presented, reaffirms confirmation bias showing they either don't understand what they are asking themselves or cannot understand that everything they asked for is right in front of them.

Presenters left with choice to repeat circular event, or ignore pointless discussion with unreasonable people.

Then people who don't have the knowledge to participate find their own try to lighten the mood.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

I wonder if they'd be willing to have a formal debate on it?

The discussion in the popcorn gallery would be fun ...

Kindest regards,

James

No, we'd only have to argue against one form of creationism since the other would have been defeated by another form of creationism.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

I already told you why are you wrong, you can ether ignore me, or admit your mistake, the goal of the article was to calibrate one method with another, the author was not even trying to date a sample with 2 independent methods.

I vote for ignore. Your contribution has been quite silly so far. Why does this always turn out this way?

Biblical person asks for A. A is presented.

Biblical person says, no I asked for Aa. Aa is presented.

Biblical person responds with that's not Aa. Aa, aA, AA, aa are then presented to prevent further burden shifting.

Biblical person repeats original claim and ignores everything presented, reaffirms confirmation bias showing they either don't understand what they are asking themselves or cannot understand that everything they asked for is right in front of them.

Presenters left with choice to repeat circular event, or ignore pointless discussion with unreasonable people.

Then people who don't have the knowledge to participate find their own try to lighten the mood.

I´ll it is more like this:
An atheist/evolutionists argues that hundreds of peer review articles prove that xxx is true
Creationists ask for the evidence, for 1 single article.
Atheist/evolutionist, show an article that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are supposed to prove.
Creationists make an eford in explaining why is the article irrelevant
Atheist/evolutionist ignore it


-------
*Just for the record, I am arguing that this article (http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2006aChiu.pdf) was about calibrating C14 with 230Th/234U/238U and you (plural) are arguing that the article was about dating a sample with multiple independent methods, people can always look at the article and decide who is wrong.

 

[Deleted member 619]

No, it's more like this:

Cretinist fuckwit falsely conflates atheism and acceptance of evolution, and asks for evidence for a single principle that he, being a complete fuckwit, doesn't actually understand, not least asking for provision of evidence in support of a claim that nobody made, as pointed out to you, you stupid twat, on page 5 of this very fucking thread.

Respondents provide said evidence, regardless of the fact that the question is rooted in ignorance and is thus nonsensical.

Fuckwit, being too much of a fuckwit to understand any of what's going on, despite having been repeatedly pointed to the problems with his view of things, determines by fiat that said evidence is insufficient to support the fuckwit's version of what he doesn't understand.

Get an education, moron, before you encounter something sharp and do yourself some real harm. Seriously, I demolished this shit already.

 

[Rumraket]

I already told you why are you wrong, you can ether ignore me, or admit your mistake

I'm not wrong, you're wrong.

Not because I'm flawless, I frequently make mistakes. This just isn't one of them. Please understand the difference between an isotope and an element, it really is quite elementary. Pun intended.

the goal of the article was to calibrate one method with another, the author was not even trying to date a sample with 2 independent methods.

It doesn't matter what the goal of the article was, the fact is that samples are in point of fact dated with two independent methods.

You should admit to your mistake.

Look at both the fucking axis on this graph:

The same sample, Corals, is dated with two independent methods. The methods agree. That's it, that is what you asked for. Case closed.

Be an adult, own up to it. What you asked for was provided, time to move on, you can still live a normal life you don't have to start worshipping at the altar of satan.

 

[Deleted member 619]

My most excellent friend Rumraket also demolished this shit already.

This is nothing to do with being adult, you're a simple-minded apologist who can't countenance the possibility of being wrong about anything, because all your views are biblical, and if one thing you believe is incorrect, then all of it might be, and you've been enduring a crippling crisis of the faith recently, and your pastor told you to go and challenge some of them materialist evillusionists, but now those evil atheists, who all seem so much better informed than you about almost everything, including your silly magic man and what his cheesy fanfic says about him, seem to be making complete sense, and none of the idiotic arguments your idiot pastor, a liar by profession (which is also embarrassing, because you should have seen it, right?), gave to you to counter the heathen, all of which seemed to make perfect sense at the time, are even putting a dent into the vast swathes of evidence that they bring in support of their science, and the ease with which they demolish your brilliant rhetoric.

You're living in a fantasy land, and so is your pastor.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Besides, the table that has been repeatedly posted tells you where all the numbers come from. If anyone really wants to know they can look up the source papers. However, that would require actually wanting to find answers.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I´ll it is more like this:
An atheist/evolutionists argues that hundreds of peer review articles prove that xxx is true
Creationists ask for the evidence, for 1 single article.
Atheist/evolutionist, show an article that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are supposed to prove.
Creationists make an eford in explaining why is the article irrelevant
Atheist/evolutionist ignore it

:lol:

The funniest thing about this is that you expect anyone to take you seriously. You realize that what you are typing is ending up on a forum that anyone can go back and verify what was actually said? Well, you are a creationist, thus you are already in the habit of denying reality and substituting your own, meaning the above is nothing new to you.

 

[leroy]

Look at both the fucking axis on this graph:

The same sample, Corals, is dated with two independent methods. The methods agree. That's it, that is what you asked for. Case closed.

Be an adult, own up to it. What you asked for was provided, time to move on, you can still live a normal life you don't have to start worshipping at the altar of satan.

I guess I have no other option but to apologize and admit that I was wrong, you did show an example of 2 independent methods arriving at the same result.

Just to let you know that I am not a creationist, I am simply in a point of my life where I am trying to decide with model is best.

 

[Inferno]

I... wow. I'll get a scotch and come back, I must be hallucinating.
Seriously leroy, having someone accept that they made a mistake is so damn rare on here, I'm just too shocked. Shocked in a good way, no doubt about that.

I'll save you the hassle and tell you that we can do this with probably any question you have regarding evolution: It'll take some time, but it you show as much intelligence and maturity as now, we can show you that the only viable model is evolution by natural selection (and many other mechanisms).

 

[Deleted member 619]

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

You are still making one basic mistake.

Just to let you know that I am not a creationist, I am simply in a point of my life where I am trying to decide with model is best.

There is no such dichotomy in science. There is evolutionary theory and nothing else. Creationism (in all of its myriad forms) has been disproved based on its various claims (e.g. a young earth, irreducible complexity, etc…) or the claims it makes cannot be falsified (e.g. invoking magic to help explain Noah’s flood). Sure, evolutionary theory could be wrong, but proving evolutionary theory wrong is not the same as showing another idea is correct. If tomorrow someone was able to show that evolutionary theory were incorrect, that would only mean that we do not have a coherent theory of biological life on earth. It would also mean that biologists would have to knuckle down and start working harder.

 

[leroy]

You are still making one basic mistake.

Just to let you know that I am not a creationist, I am simply in a point of my life where I am trying to decide with model is best.

There is no such dichotomy in science. There is evolutionary theory and nothing else. Creationism (in all of its myriad forms) has been disproved based on its various claims (e.g. a young earth, irreducible complexity, etc…) or the claims it makes cannot be falsified (e.g. invoking magic to help explain Noah’s flood). Sure, evolutionary theory could be wrong, but proving evolutionary theory wrong is not the same as showing another idea is correct. If tomorrow someone was able to show that evolutionary theory were incorrect, that would only mean that we do not have a coherent theory of biological life on earth. It would also mean that biologists would have to knuckle down and start working harder.

Any honest evolution has to admit that evolution is far from being a “perfect” theory there are many valid arguments the theory, obviously this doesn’t mean that evolution is wrong but it means that evolution is highly questionable.

For example the argument form irreducible complexity is a good argument; it irritates me when someone shows an image of an eye evolving and claim that it destroys de argument.

In order to disprove the argument on irreducible complexity, you have to show how can a bunch of skin evolve in a complex modern eye.
You have to show that the process is achievable in a step by step basis, each step has to be achievable in 1 generation and has to be selectively positive. The problem is that you can´t even explain a small portion of this process.

My point is that it is too arrogant to say that the argument on Irreducible complexity has been debunked just because you can draw a picture of an ancient eye evolving form a simpler organ.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

You are still making one basic mistake.

There is no such dichotomy in science. There is evolutionary theory and nothing else. Creationism (in all of its myriad forms) has been disproved based on its various claims (e.g. a young earth, irreducible complexity, etc…) or the claims it makes cannot be falsified (e.g. invoking magic to help explain Noah’s flood). Sure, evolutionary theory could be wrong, but proving evolutionary theory wrong is not the same as showing another idea is correct. If tomorrow someone was able to show that evolutionary theory were incorrect, that would only mean that we do not have a coherent theory of biological life on earth. It would also mean that biologists would have to knuckle down and start working harder.

Any honest evolution has to admit that evolution is far from being a “perfect” theory there are many valid arguments the theory, obviously this doesn’t mean that evolution is wrong but it means that evolution is highly questionable.

For example the argument form irreducible complexity is a good argument; it irritates me when someone shows an image of an eye evolving and claim that it destroys de argument.

In order to disprove the argument on irreducible complexity, you have to show how can a bunch of skin evolve in a complex modern eye.
You have to show that the process is achievable in a step by step basis, each step has to be achievable in 1 generation and has to be selectively positive. The problem is that you can´t even explain a small portion of this process.

My point is that it is too arrogant to say that the argument on Irreducible complexity has been debunked just because you can draw a picture of an ancient eye evolving form a simpler organ.

IC has already been disproved - by Prof. Kenneth Miller during the Kitzmiller trial. Remember?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Any honest evolution has to admit that evolution is far from being a “perfect” theory

What do you mean by perfect. Can you give me an example of any other theory in science that is considered perfect in the same way that you describe evolution not to be perfect.
If you mean to imply that evolution is not rock solid and that there is controversy or otherwise room for doubt that evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of life. Then sorry, there is nothing there for you. Deal with it.

For example the argument form irreducible complexity is a good argument;

No it's not. Its a asinine objection in the face of overwhelming evidence. Its an invalid attempt at putting an artificial firewall to the limits of what we already know the process of evolution can produce.
For the argument to have any validity you must demonstrate, not such assert, that irreducible complexity is actually a thing. Otherwise there is no reason to assume that such a firewall actually exists. And so far every example ever put forward as been relegated to the ignorance of the person making the statement.
Arguments like "I can't do X therefore X can not be done" is not a valid argument, because there is nothing that says that a smarter person couldn't have come along and do it instead. And history is filled with such examples.

it irritates me when someone shows an image of an eye evolving and claim that it destroys de argument.

It does.

In order to disprove the argument on irreducible complexity, you have to show how can a bunch of skin evolve in a complex modern eye.

But that is precisely what is done when they show you those illustrations.
When you claim "The eye is irreducibly complex, because it is so complex and there is no advantage or evolution pathway that could even produce something close to a reduced version of an eye", showing you a step by step process on how this could have been achieved (it doesn't need to be the actual process, an alternative process to the actual thing is good enough), completely invalidates your argument.
You say there is no way how this can be done, and they show you a way in which it can be done, your argument has been refuted.

You have to show that the process is achievable in a step by step basis,

That is what the illustration shows.

each step has to be achievable in 1 generation

Why? Why does it have to be achievable in 1 generation? Why not 2? Or 3?

and has to be selectively positive.

Do you deny that each one of those steps illustrated has an advantage to it's predecessor?

The problem is that you can´t even explain a small portion of this process.

It just did.

My point is that it is too arrogant to say that the argument on Irreducible complexity has been debunked

It's not arrogance. it's a fact.
Some one claims that there is such a thing as irreducible complexity. Why does that some one makes that claim? What is it that he/she knows about that led him/her to that conclusion?
If he/she says that it is because of A, and we analyse it and find out that A is no good, guess what? The argument has been debunked. This is not to say that it has been disproved forever. It just means that you have no justified reason to claim what you claim, and I'm not going to operate under the assumption that your claim is true when for all you know it might just as well not be.
If you later come along with another reason B as to why your think your claim is good, then fine I will take a look, maybe it could have been true all along and now you have a good reason to justify it. But util you come up with that good reason, there is literally nothing for me to look at, and you would just be wasting my time.
Come up with proof that irreducible complexity is actually a thing and then maybe we can discuss it, until then you are wasting my time and I don't care what you have to say.
it is as simple as that.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Any honest evolution has to admit that evolution is far from being a “perfect” theory...

No one is saying it is perfect. However, I was simply pointing out that you are making a mistake in believing that there is a dichotomy between evolutionary theory and an opposing idea in science. There is no such dichotomy, there is simply evolutionary theory and nothing else.

In order to disprove the argument on irreducible complexity, you have to show how can a bunch of skin evolve in a complex modern eye.

That is not what irreducible complexity is, thus you are incorrect in claiming that in order to disprove it one needs to show anything evolving. Please learn what a term means before pontificating about it.

CreationWiki[/url]"]It is asserted that if a system cannot be reduced to fewer components and retain functionality, then it could not have evolved by the gradual assemblage of components over successive generations.

Above is the actual definition of irreducible complexity used by intelligent design creationists (and not whatever straw man you created in your head) from a source you should trust. Thus, in order to disprove it, one has to simply show that any organ claimed to be irreducibly complex (i.e. the eye) can be broken down into simpler stages and still work (which you already provided with your image). However, I can do you one better. All those drawings you posted, we have examples of them in nature right now. Thus, the assertion that the eye is irreducibly complex is patently falsified.

You have to show that the process is achievable in a step by step basis, each step has to be achievable in 1 generation and has to be selectively positive. The problem is that you can´t even explain a small portion of this process.

:docpalm:

Dandan, we went over this last year. You were wrong then, and you are still wrong now. However, I am glad to see that the doublethink finally turned into cognitive dissonance for you.

My point is that it is too arrogant to say that the argument on Irreducible complexity has been debunked just because you can draw a picture of an ancient eye evolving form a simpler organ.

Irreducible complexity has not been debunked simply because of drawings; it was debunked based on its premise being falsified. I will just post a video of Ken Miller explaining that the bacterial flagellum (the textbook example of irreducible complexity) can also be broken down into smaller functional parts.