And they’re the worst kind of zombie: they have no brains, so shooting them in the head doesn’t work! AAAAAAAAH! What good are horror movie rules if they don’t apply to real life?
At least something is explained: recall that I mentioned I’d received a small flurry of creationist emails about Hovind? It seems Eric Hovind has been coordinating something: this afternoon, a small collection of new goons all speaking the same phrases has invaded this thread. They aren’t really discussing anything, they’re just throwing out smug one-liners and bible quotes that they seem to think will be persuasive.
They’re not. They look like mindless idiots.
Their primary approach is to assert that because logic exists, god exists, and therefore any attempt to apply reason to a problem is evidence for god. They are unable to justify their premise, however, so it’s a silly game they’re playing — there is no reason to assume an anthropic being was necessary to conjure logic into existence or even that any kind of intelligence was required, any more than we could argue that intelligence is required to start an avalanche. Small fluctuations can lead to large scale changes in that example, so there’s no logical barrier to the idea that unintelligent processes seed universes that expand with internally consistent rules (and universes seeded with illogical rules, if that were possible, wouldn’t exist and definitely wouldn’t be populated with intelligent beings contemplating the laws of their universe).
So how do they know a god created the laws of the universe. They’ve obligingly answered that.
He told us.
See? Utterly brainless.
I was amused by this question.
If you knew that God exists, would you worship Him?
If your god were shown to exist, I would fall into despair, because it means we’re living in a universe dominated by an insane cosmic tyrant. I would not worship such a horrible creature. I don’t know whether I’d collapse in futility, or whether I’d be able to fight him somehow — that omniscience and omnipotence thing is rather daunting.
But no, I’d never worship that thing. I find it disgusting that the Hovindites would so hate humanity that they’d throw themselves into servitude to an alien monster.
David, no evidence in the scientific literature for your imaginary flood caused by your imaginary deity and recorded in your “holy” book of mythology/fiction. No evidence for your deity, no evidence that your book is inerrant. All you have is presuppostions. lies, and bullshit. IRC is a religious website. It can’t refute science, as they don’t do science. What a delusional fool you are if you think otherwise.
To recap: you presuppose with out evidence:
an imaginary deity
an inerrant holy book
religion refutes science
To bad all those presups are lies…
@David:
The flood is a massive ignorance of epic proportions. It is completely ignorant of geology, geography, biology, botany, paleontology, history, archeology, anthropology, physics, boat-design, animal husbandry, zookeeping, air flow, water flow, plate tectonics, and so forth.
No evidence for a global flood. No evidence for Yahweh.
Oh dear, David, such a silly silly boy it is … all those perfectly nice neurones utterly gone to waste :(
In re the Precambrian rabbit, I simply had to post so that my avatar would show up on the thread. The original artwork (by Glendon Mellow, the Flying Trilobite artist) shows much more clearly that it is indeed a Precambrian rabbit – clearly labelled “NOT FOUND”.
Why do creationists hate truth?
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
― Marcus Aurelius
David, do you think so little of atheists that you think that posing that question is persuasive?
Here is one hint, how can one hate what one does not think exists?
Why do creationists hate reality?
Why do creationists hate everyone who isn’t brainwashed into being a creationist?
Why do creationists hate everyone so much that they love the idea of genocide and eternal torture?
Citation needed. I was trying to locate the original Latin, but all I kept coming up with were internet discussions about how Marcus Aurelius never said that…
Ummm… I got it from
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/17212.Marcus_Aurelius
But I’d heard it from a number of sources. If he didn’t say it, well… I still agree with it. Although I’d prefer to quote the originator, rather than who they attributed it to.
This is not a possibility because we know there has never been such an event. This was established in the early 19th century by geologists who were all Christians, and none of whom, AFAIK, believed in evolution – certainly not in Darwinain natural selection, because that idea still lay in the future. The creationist pseudo-science of “flood geology” was conclusively disproved by Christians nearly two centuries ago. That fools and liars continue to promulgate it tells us a lot about them, but nothing about the earth’s history.
KG says: “That fools and liars continue to promulgate it tells us a lot about them, but nothing about the earth’s history.”
So Dr. John Baumgardner, the world’s pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection, is a fool and and liar? That’s absurd.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/970616/archive_007221.htm
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/970616/archive_007221_2.htm
*
http://www.icr.org/article/catastrophic-plate-tectonics-flood/
http://www.icr.org/article/tectonics-flood-model/
http://www.icr.org/article/carbon-14-evidence-for-recent-global/
http://www.icr.org/article/neo-darwinian-theory-numerical-simulation/
KG says: “That fools and liars continue to promulgate it tells us a lot about them, but nothing about the earth’s history.”
So Dr. John Baumgardner, the world’s pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection, is a fool and and liar? That’s absurd.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/970616/archive_007221.htm
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/970616/archive_007221_2.htm
*
http://www.icr.org/article/catastrophic-plate-tectonics-flood/
http://www.icr.org/article/tectonics-flood-model/
*
http://www.icr.org/article/carbon-14-evidence-for-recent-global/
*
http://www.icr.org/article/neo-darwinian-theory-numerical-simulation/
@David
If he’s proposing a world wide flood, YES. Laws of thermodynamics.
Fuck the physics of atmospheric pressure gronk the whole batch of coleslaw!
The inventor of PCR believes he is friends with an alien that possesses a glowing raccoon to talk to him.
Also key word might be COMPUTER models
As the old comp saying goes “Garbage in garbage out”
I wonder how the computer models handle all of that previously nonexistent water popping out of nowhere.
And the creationists say it’s everyone else who makes the big assumptions. Hmph.
@Myeck
And then disappearing.
Not in the least – even if your characterisation of him is correct. History records far more eminent scientists who made fools of themselves by riding a hobby-horse they mounted for non-scientific reasons (I’ll just mention Linus Pauling’s conviction that vitamin C would allow him to live to 120). Baumgardner’s expertise, such as it is, is in space science and geophysics modelling, neither of which has any relevance to the utter impossibility of a global flood, or the vast confluence of evidence from multiple disciplines which shows that no such thing has ever happened.
This man revolutionized biochemistry. He’s also not just an idiot, but a dogmatically anti-scientific idiot.
I only call him an idiot because a) fucking alien raccoon and b) his own admission is that PCR was due to luck and LSD.
A fluorescent alien raccoon? How is this guy not the resident science expert on the Science Channel?
A global flood doesn’t explain anything. Well, maybe it explains why a lot of cultures have flood myths, but so does the fact that floods happen a lot of places (and for mass destruction, flood is only matched by fire (and a lot of cultures have fire myths)). And, a lot of cultures have histories that go back far before the alleged flood, so those flood myths are contradicted right there. And, the fact that the myths don’t include the right date, boat and family really weakens their value–it’s like creationists claiming the Big Bang is the same as Genesis 1.
The Flood story raises far more problems. Things like food, transport, seaworthiness, lack of evidence, yap, yap and yap.
Seriously, the Flood and the Ark make no sense. A flood as described is physically impossible–it would have had to be a miracle–and there is no evidence it happened, and strong evidence it didn’t. Surviving such a flood in an ark would have been another miracle, and getting all the animals in and out and home again would have been a lot more miracles. The impossibilities add up so fast and so far that there has to be some other explanation.
Theologically, God could have just parted the waters, like Charlton Heston–I mean Moses–and kept Noah safe, and done the same for selected animals. Or He could have just stricken all the bad people dead. Or He could have just told the Bible writers to include the story.
Or, God could have just left the Flood out of the Bible altogether. It really isn’t important to the plot. There is no theological reason for creationists to be fixated on it–it isn’t a requirement for Christianity (Jesus never said you had to accept it), nor is it like baptism, or even symbolic of baptism–it’s just a Bible story, like a parable, that can be let go with a smile and a shrug.
Since it is Bible story about drowning millions of people, a good Christian would let it go.
When the loathesome Alan Clarke was asked why he was so obsessed with the damn flud, he smugly blathered on about Jesus having more credibility than anyone today, and ended with barfing out Matthew 24:37-39.
Matthew 24:37-39? I missed that one. Going to look….
Okay, I don’t see it as a requirement, but it is a mention of the Flood by the big J. It’s rather hateful and threatening, too, I say.
I like the part about the bad people “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage”.
http://www.icr.org/article/who-jesus-christ-challenge-christians/
[snip]
Jesus also spoke the truth, because He is the truth: “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6). If He told us a lie He couldn’t be the truth, and therefore the way. In Mark 13:19, Jesus said “the creation which God created.” In Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6 He said: “From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” At the beginning of creation, not billions of years later, God created them. So Jesus was a young-universe, six-day creationist! Jesus spoke of the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37 and Luke 17:26-27), recognizing Noah as a literal man who lived. He spoke of Noah and his family entering the Ark and the Flood coming and taking them all away. So Jesus recognized the Flood, the Ark, and Genesis 7 describing those events as real history.
*
This is the one that I know: He didn’t die for nothing:
Jars Of Clay – Liquid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAFEsINZ0Ck
*
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%209&version=NIV
Hebrews 9:27-28 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
David:
Yep. That is some seriously sound logic right there.
Sound logic indeed.
You can’t hate something that doesn’t exist. Atheists don’t hate the God of the Bible anymore than we hate Zeus or Odin or fairies.
However, many of us can and do hate how particular ideas and notions about God affect the world we live in, of which your many, many idiotic posts are a testament to the very real negative effects God belief has on our lives. Your ignorance about how science works and what constitutes “evidence” and “logic” are astounding, not to mention alarming.
By the by, what is it with Christians like you who seem obsessed with the idea that we must “serve” something, nevermind your erroneous assertion that there are only two choices: serve your god, or serve Satan. We are not servants and we do not need masters. (Esteleth’s post about the servile mentality in which everyone *must* have an established place and stick to it was eloquently put.) If we are to serve anything, it should be each other, caring for each others’ needs and well-being, as well as caring for the world we live on, because as far as we can tell, this is it. Our lives should not be dictated by the whims of an invisible being who is supposed to be all-powerful but apparently lacks the ability to make its presence known unless using human mouthpieces whose existences are suspect and whose words have been passed down in what amounts to a millenia-long game of telephone, translated across multiple languages.
David:
Yeah, so, about that. How does that work, exactly? Christ (an aspect of God) allowed himself to be sacrificed to himself. Only, since he’s immortal, being all an aspect of God and all, it really wasn’t a sacrifice. But, he sacrificed himself to pay a debt that he gave humanity, knowing full well they couldn’t pay it. Correct?
Then the whole narrative gets confusing.
Which version of the resurrection should we believe? Also, what kind of God would insist on eternal brown-nosing? I don’t like that behavior in a person. Why should I like it any better in a God?
Also, are you seriously telling me I should believe the Bible because the Bible says I should believe the Bible? By that logic, why shouldn’t I also believe the Koran?
Well he couldn’t have said it if it wasn’t true, right?
David:
Which God? There are literally thousands. And none of them exist.
Why do I hate the Christian god? Because all of his followers seem to be smarmy gits with a poor grasp of logic, who think they should believe in myths because the myths swear they are true.
If I’m gonna follow a god, it’s gonna be one with a higher quality of follower.
I do hate Nyarlathotep though, because seriously, fuck that guy.
…for a weekend. I’m not clear on why that is supposed to be such a big deal. If I were told that after being “dead” for a few days I would wake up an omnipotent god, I’d take that deal in a heartbeat.
And it’s not like Jesus was stuck with terminal cancer for years, or had to endure Huntington’s disease and slowly lose control of both his body and mind. Yes, he endured some nasty torture for a few days, but it’s probably nothing much worse than the US has secretly inflicted on suspected terrorist prisoners.
David,
How come the Sumerians, the Chinese and the Egyptians never mentioned the flood in their records going back long before the flood is supposed to have happened?
Tulse:
… at Bernie’s.
An oldy-but-goodie from The Onion: Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World.
myeck waters #531
May you be eaten last.
You…you gumbied me?
…
Where’s the fainting couch?
He’s a religious fanatic. That means he actually tries to fool himself, and lies about fooling himself.
As soon as he stopped caring about the simple fact that the evidence of the real world is not consistent with the religious dogma he clings to in his mind, he compounded his folly.
And as soon as he decided to cherry-pick science, and ignore scientific facts that were inconvenient to his religious dogma, and promote this cherry-picking as though it was not cherry-picking, he compounded his lies.
No, dimwit! Because the Koran doesn’t tell you to believe the Bible, it tells you to believe the Koran, and we know that’s wrong, because the Bible doesn’t tell you to believe the Koran, it tells you to believe the Bible!
Mind you, I really think we ought to ask the opinion of the Houyhnhnms on this matter. Lemuel Gulliver, who was well acquainted with them, assures us that they are far wiser than any human being.
David, to date you have failed to provide:
Conclusive physical evidence your imaginary deity exists
Conclusive physical eviedence your babble is inerrant
Conclusive scientific evidence for a one-time-world-wide flood that killed all the wildlife and peoples.
In fact, the evidence points to all those presuppositions of yours being wrong. Ever consider that David? That you might be wrong?
Jesus also spoke the truth, because He is the truth: “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6). If He told us a lie He couldn’t be the truth, and therefore the way. – David
Well David, I’m around now, you don’t have to rely on accounts written decades after my death, and I assure you that in fact I am the way, the truth and the life. If I told you a lie, I couldn’t be the truth, and therefore the way.
KG:
Damn! I’m never gonna get a handle on this logic thing.
Sage advice.
I’ll see if I can track down Mr. Ed and drag him out of retirement.
Yes of course he was, idiot, if he existed at all. He had the excuse, not available to you and your fellow creobots, of living before the advent of scientific geology.
Why do creationists hate truth so much that they think that some guy in a story saying that he is truth means anything at all, rather than being painfully obvious bullshit?
Jesus says he’s the truth. How do we know Jesus wasn’t lying about being the truth?
David: I’m not sure why you keep posting links to ICR. No person here takes them seriously. You need to post links to relevant peer-reviewed journal articles to gain our attention to your arguments. But then again, you are a mindless creobot follower of Hovind and/or Ham.
So in other words, Jesus was an idiot.
Erulóra Maikalambe: Or that bit was written in by Paul when he invented Christianity. Or the council of Trent.
Well it’s not very nice of Paul to make Jesus look like an idiot.
Erulóra Maikalambe: Yeah. :) Paul probably wanted to validate the links between Christianity and old Judaism though.
Won’t somebody think of the neurones!?!!11?!?!! (sobs)
Seriously, is it actually humanly possible to think this makes sense outside its tiny, tiny circular
argumentbaseless affirmation? Humanly possible to be that stupid and still function?How ’bout some more song lyrics?
Don’t tell nobody but I kissed Magdalene
don’t tell nobody but I kissed Magdalene
don’t tell nobody but I kissed Magdalene
right on the mouth
I said Mary it’s okay I’m the way
(spoken: this is the pitiful part)
Every son of God gets a little hard luck sometimes
Every son of God gets a little hard luck sometimes
Every son of God gets a little hard luck sometimes
specially when he goes around saying he’s the way
L. Wainwright III
I Am The Way
I’m not sure what this has to do with anything.
Let me translate that for you:
Translation: Bible says YEC, I believe YEC, that settles YEC.
Ok so Jesus was wrong. Probably means he was wrong about that heaven stuff to. You’re not doing well, David
OK, Darwiniacs, what would trap 346 whales (not 1 or 2) in one 80 metre band of sedimentary rock, along with other sea animals AND land animals–such as ground sloths?
Something BIG did this.
Does this happen today? This is evidence for a worldwide flood. Probably two massive waves laden with mineral sediments came together. Down came the layers.
*
Geology, February 2004 pp.165-168
Fossil whale preservation implies high diatom accumulation rate in the Miocene–Pliocene Pisco Formation of Peru
Leonard R. Brand* Department of Natural Sciences, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 92350, USA
Rau ́l Esperante Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda, California 92350, USA
Arthur V. Chadwick Biology Department, Southwestern Adventist University, Keene, Texas 76059, USA
Orlando Poma Porras, Merling Alom ́ıa, Universidad Peruana Unio ́n, Carretera Central, km. 19,
N ̃an ̃a, Lima, Peru
ABSTRACT
Diatomaceous deposits in the Miocene–Pliocene Pisco Formation contain abundant whales preserved in pristine condition (bones articulated or at least closely associated), in some cases in- cluding preserved baleen. The well-preserved whales indicate rapid burial. The 346 whales within ~1.5 km2 of surveyed surface were not buried as an event, but were distributed uninterrupted through an 80-m-thick sedimentary section. The diatomaceous sediment lacks repeating primary laminations, but instead is mostly massive, with irregular laminations and speckles. There is no
evidence for bioturbation by invertebrates in the whale-bearing sediment. Current depositional models do not account for the volume of diatomaceous sediments or the taphonomic features of the whales. These taphonomic and sedimentary features suggest that rapid burial due to high diatom accumulation, in part by lateral advection into protected, shallow embayments, is
responsible for the superb preservation of these whales, leading to a higher upper limit on phytoplankton accumulation rates than previously documented.
[snip]
Vertebrate fossils in the Pisco Formation include sharks, fish, turtles, seals, porpoises, ground sloths, penguins, and whales (De Muizon and DeVries, 1985). In our study area, the only common fossils are shark teeth and whales, mostly baleen whales, cf. Balaenoptera (Balaenopteridae), 5–13 m long. The whales occur in large numbers, 30– 300 individuals per square kilometer of surface exposure (N = 180) (Fig. 2), and are fully articulated (Fig. 3) to disarticulated but with skeletal
elements still closely associated. In all cases the whale bones are well preserved; they show no evidence of corrosion, boring by invertebrates, or other postmortem damage. The most complete whale (WCBa 20) was fully articulated; the microscopic detail of its baleen was preserved (Figs. 3A, 3C–3E), and there is black, heavy-mineral replacement of the spinal cord and some intervertebral disks. There were no similar minerals in the surrounding sediment. These nonbony tissues were still present when the whale was completely buried. We also found baleen fossilized with three other whales in the study area reported here, and with 16 additional whales at other Pisco Formation localities.
[snip]
Why would whales need to be on the ark?
David, why do you make your deity look so stupid? Why do theists hate god?
David, here’s a simple question you haven’t yet answered:
Why didn’t the Sumerians or the Chinese civilizations get interrupted by the flood? Why didn’t they even make note of it? Seems like a noteworthy event.
It’s a simple question, David.
Sorry fuckwit, not a world wide flood. All continent, including Antarctica, and all at the same time as an extinction event. Local flooding is irrelevant, and you know it. Another failed try.
Where is that solid and conclusive evidence for your imaginary deity David, you know, the equivalent of the eternally burning bush?
Where is the solid and conclusive physical evidence your babble is inerrant. Examples you need to show is that the exodus actually occurred and the flud really happened. You suck at evidence for the latter, refuting yourself every time you think you have something. but then, only wishful and delusional thinking ties together local flood millions of years apart and pretends they are recent.
And what if you are WRONG about your deity and babble David. Even Homer Simpson recognized Pascals wager could put him in the wrong denomination…
Dead whales therefore god?
nigelTheBold says: “Why didn’t the Sumerians or the Chinese civilizations get interrupted by the flood? Why didn’t they even make note of it? Seems like a noteworthy event.”
The Sumerians and the Chinese are post-Flood peoples.
http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume1/index.html
http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/sons-of-noah.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n3/china
*
http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/
All of Chinese history in 6000 years?
They were very busy
Wait – he’s actually citing AIG? Really??
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Oh, this is the *best* entertainment. I’ve got more popcorn, who wants some?
David Buckna, you are such a goddamned lying moron. Do you even understand that paper? The evidence says there were many rapid burial events; that it was a site where carcasses often drifted and then buried under a rapid fall of sediment. This is NOT compatible with a cataclysmic flood. Read this:
Do the math, guy. And go away.
Oh, he’s been regularly citing AIG. It’s like having a big sheaf of testimonials from Bill the Liar, Dishonest Abe and Jerry Falwell.
A few paragraphs later, in the abstract quoted:
Oh, man, I hope the information in the [snip] wasn’t important! It’s too bad that we’ll never know, since we don’t have access to a global network of interconnected computers that might have stored that information!
Oh, right, we do. Here’s an interesting excerpt from the [snip]:
So there you go. If I’m reading this right (and I’m not scientist!) the whales didn’t die there, they died elsewhere and were deposited together by tidal forces and storm currents in a bay where large amounts of sedimentary runoff created an ideal situation for fossilization. Large algae growths (evidenced in the sediment) likely contributed to both the heavy sediment accumulation and/or the whale deaths. And the ‘sedimentary runoff’ contained, among other things, sloth corpses – creatures that are notoriously poor swimmers. (They never sign up for swimming lessons, you see, because they are extremely lazy.)
See what happens when you actually READ these articles, instead of cherry picking from them for sentences that SEEM to support what you want them to say? You actually learn something! I know I did!
But feel free to believe it was actually a flood. I’m no fluid dynamics expert, but it seems to me that there couldn’t be enough sand and minerals in a wave to immediately sink a bunch of whales to the bottom of the ocean. After all, if they were heavy enough to immediately sink to the bottom with the added bouyancy of a whale corpse, how did the sediment get into the wave in the first place?
Not only that, but there would be considerable damage to the whales if they were pummeled to death by waves and sand, when the article specifically states that the corpses were found in excellent condition with no postmortem damage. (Unless you are suggesting that they drowned.)
In short, this article clearly doesn’t say what you want it to say, and even a casual reading by a layman such as myself reveals this.
Which means either you didn’t even read it, or you read it and decided that lying was fun. Which is it?
Aw, man, scooped by a REAL scientist!
David doesn’t understand AIG and ICR are RELIGIOUS sites. They aren’t scientific, and do no science. But they pretend (and only pretend) to be sciency. Religion can’t refute science, which requires mores science. But science is making one religious delusional fool look very foolish, as the evidence keeps coming back to bite him in the ass, like with the whales above. Which he would know if he actually read the papers for understanding, not just for keywords.
Darren Aronofsky’s Graphic Novel “NOAH”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYm8boMxry0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Aronofsky
A graphic novel? A solid step up from AIG and ICR, but still not a serious source.
Not the peer reviewed scientific literature, therefore meaningless opinion and drivel. Just like all of your posts.
Where is your eternally burning bush to prove your imaginary deity actually exists? Oops, that’s right, doesn’t exist. Same for your babble, where is the conclusive evidence, not testament, to show your flud and the exodus actually occurred. Oops, no evidence for either of those either. So what do you have besides delusional thinking and idiocy? Nothing I guess…
You have to admit though – the idea that whales would be killed by rising water is pretty damn hilarious.
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/2011/10/21/darren_aronofskys_noah_might_look_like_this_new_pictures_from_the_graphic_n/
Buckna, if all you’re going to do is linkdumps, I will ban you.
Everyone else: David Buckna is a world-class moron. I’ve encountered him personally — he’s basically nothing but a quote-miner who pores over scientific literature that he’s incapable of understanding (he really is not very bright), plucking out phrases around key words he searches for, and compiles them into long, meaningless lists. And then he waves those lists around and trumpets them as proof of his cockamamie beliefs.
I’ve written about him here and here and here.
This is shocking news, and I no longer wish to receive his newsletter.
From the indiewire blog entry:
Sounds like a list of Noah’s World of Warcraft characters. Fess up, is Noah really a guy playing video games? Is ‘The Flood’ really the final raid for the Genesis expansion pack?
It’s not “rock”.
It’s diatomaceous earth.
For pity’s sake, are you really so stupid that you cannot read what you just copied and pasted?
Land animals can fall into the ocean, or their bodies can be carried there by rivers flooding.
But I’m sure that taphonomy is a closed and silent book to you, eh?
Yes, a large quantity of diatoms.
If it did, would you shut up? Of course not. You’re a religious fanatic. Nothing would shut you up, because you’re too fanatical, and you hate truth and you love lies.
No, it isn’t. Because there was no worldwide flood ever.
For fuck’s sake, are you really so stupid as to think that scientists would ignore the evidence for a worldwide flood, if there had been one? There wasn’t one. The authors of the paper don’t conclude there was one.
Why are you such a moronic fanatic that you have to blather “worldwide flood” with regard to anything that has to do with water?
No. Absolutely not.
Your genocidal fantasizing notwithstanding, the paper has nothing that implies “two massive waves laden with mineral sediments” coming together, and you’re lying by even suggesting that it does, you truth-hating liar.
It’s talking about diatom accumulation, and has nothing to do with a primitive myth written by ancient people who had no idea of what diatoms are.
Pity that you prefer the ignorance of the ancients instead of the knowledge of modern science. But there you are: Religious fanatics like you love ignorance and hate reality.
If Noah is a WoW character, Buckna is Leroy Jenkins.
Buckna, if you are going to try to prove creationism, do it right.
Step 1, quit trying to trash evolution, you must show you are right, not that the theory of evolution is wrong (and it isn’t).
Step 2. Provide conclusive physical evidence for your diety. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. This is critical to do, as without your deity, the rest of your theory is worthless.
Step 3. Provide conclusive physical evidence, similar to that require for you deity, that your holy book is inerrant. Even one chink in your holy book brings the whole theory down. After all, your theory is utterly dependent on an inerrant holy book.
Step 4. Lay out your complete theory in articles to the peer reviewed scientific literature, using the methods of science, not religion.
Here’s what I bet. You can’t stop trying (and miserably failing) to trash evolution. You will never provide the positive evidence required in steps two and three which is needed to prove creationism even potentially able to challenge ToE. So, get started on steps two and three…
Please feel free.
He isn’t even funny. He’s boring, insipid and repetitive. He godbots frequently and without interest in defending his godbotting (unsurprisingly, since he’s dependent on the godbotting of others). He is amazingly stupid, useless, and ignorant, and lacks any redeeming qualities whatsoever. As a zombie, he is one of the slowest and stupidest ones around.
Two thumbs down.
I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!
The RAPIDLY BURIED fossil whales (and other creatures) contradicts uniformitarianism. According to this view, the 346 whales would have been buried over a period of two million years about 10 million years ago. But the fact that 80 metres of sediment buried the whales within months or weeks (less?) creates a problem for those who believe in the standard interpretation of the geologic column with its millions/billions of years. Where do you put the time? There’s no where for it in the rocks.
No it doesn’t. A local, not global phenomena. What an idjit if you think otherwise. Nothing in uniformism says local deposits can’t occur quickly like in floods. In fact, that is well documented in the scientific literature. And is expected from patterns of deposition and erosion occurring at the moment. Uniformism simply says such patterns are repeated in the past, and you, with your whale paper, proved they are. Such deep water burials can come from earthquakes like hit Japan this year. Repeated several times, many layers of fast deposit interlaced with layers of slower deposits. Learn real science. That way, you won’t make an utter and total fool of your self like you have on this thead.
A graphic novel ?
You think a graphic novel is somehow evidence or data?
I think you’re waaaayyyy out of your depth here. In fact, I wonder how you manage to tie your shoelaces while breathing.
If a graphic novel is all it takes for you to accept anything, here’s one you’ll like:
https://www.amazon.ca/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_8?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=watchmen&sprefix=watchmen
At least it’s better than the boring recycled Epic of Gilgamesh that is noah’s story.
Buckna has a very Alan Clarke thing going on.
Stupid, impervious to logic or evidence, and a persistence like a boston terrier looking for a leg to hump.
David can’t do this. He doesn’t know enough about creationism to support it.
I know, but I’m working on teaching the lurkers, not him. He can’t listen.
Ironically, the more you know about creationism, the less you can support it.
David. The flood has inherent problems with PHYSICS nevermind biology and geology.
Since geology does not say that relatively rapid burial cannot occur, the alleged contradiction does not exist.
It does no such thing, since the paper itself agrees with the standard interpretation of the geologic column with its millions/billions of years.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, so the above question and assertion are meaningless nonsense.
More evidence for a worldwide flood? What about California’s Sharktooth Hill bonebed?
“New research by paleontologist Nick Pyenson, a post-doctoral fellow in the department of Zoology, and his team has now laid to rest the catastrophic event hypotheses.”
Another example of land and sea creatures mixed together in one layer.
From a lecture I attended:
50 cm of sediment
———————
700,000 years (they say)
= 0.00007 cm of sediment per year
In 10,000 years, you’d have 0.7 cm of sediment.
Question: How long do bones last in water? In the literature it states 10 to 50% of all bones decompose in 3 weeks. So could this rate of sedimentation bury the bones? (Only 0.7 cm of sediment in 10,000 years.)
Conclusion: 50 cm of sediment in this bonebed does not represent 700,000 years.
Question: Do dead creatures normally get buried in sedimentary layers? The literature says falling fish carcasses did not tend to be buried in sediments after deposition. Why not? They just decompose.
You would need special circumstances to trap creatures to make a fossil. It must have been
RAPID BURIAL to keep the air out, and it wouldn’t have happened in a slow way.
And if you do the math, there were about 20,000,000,000 fossils in this one deposit of land (eg. horses) _and_ sea creatures (eg. sharks). So what event would have rapidly buried 20,000,000,000 land and sea creatures in a 10 to 50 cm deposit over a 100 square kilometers??? All in one layer. This is just more evidence for a worldwide flood.
http://www.alumni.ubc.ca/files/pdf/trekmagazine/trek24-summer2009.pdf
Graveyard Shift
The origins of a massive bonebed in Southern California have been causing scientists
to scratch their heads ever since its discovery more than 150 years ago. The Sharktooth Hill bonebed stretches over 100 square kilometers and contains approximately 200 fossils per square metre embedded in a 10-50 centimetre layer of sediment, some of it exposed. It contains a high
concentration of marine vertebrates including extinct species of whale, sea turtle, seal and shark.
Some hypotheses point to a sudden, one-off event as the cause of the bonebed’s formation, such as a volcanic eruption, a toxic algal bloom or even the predatory activities of a huge ancestor of the Great White Shark. Other explanations are less dramatic, suggesting the bonebed formed over a long period of time. New research by paleontologist Nick Pyenson, a post-doctoral fellow in the department of Zoology, and his team has now laid to rest the catastrophic event hypotheses.
“Our evidence suggests that the bonebed formed over a 700,000 year time-span approximately 15 million years ago,” he says. An examination of the bonebed, the fossils and contextual geology allowed them to eliminate some longstanding theoretical explanations. There was no evidence of ash to support the volcanic eruption theory; the fossil bones betrayed little evidence of shark bites; and the presence of land mammals as well as marine vertebrates lent credence to the idea of the bonebed being formed over time.
“The bonebed formed during the Middle Miocene, which coincides with a prolonged period of exceptionally warm global temperatures,” says Pyenson. “The associated changes in sea levels played an important role in forming the Sharktooth Hill bonebed, which explains its marvelous richness and expanse. More importantly, we now have a better handle on the kinds of factors, both geologic and biologic, that bias our interpretation of this snapshot of the ocean life from the Middle Miocene.”
Team members include Randall Irmis and Jere Lipps (graduate students at the University of California at Berkeley at the time of the research) and paleontologists from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The research findings were published in the June issue of the journal Geology.
See also:
http://www.livescience.com/3656-vast-bed-ancient-bones-shark-teeth-explained.html
Yet you still haven’t told us what they where breathing on the ark due to the lack of photosynthetic activity meaning no oxygen all the while floating on a soup of rotting vegetation and animals while at the same time these where dropping in an ordered way to form fossils that would indicate evolution. Also forming layers with metamorphic rock in between to indicate mulitple extinction events rather than one big one. Nor how any plants that do not exhibit dormancy survived. Nor have you explained how serotinous plants survived nor have you shown that rotting plant material in water can reproduced vegetatively.
I see no attempt to explain plant diversity on genetic grounds if they had a bottleneck event in the last 10,000 years.
Did you read that article? 15.2 -15.9 million years ago doesn’t really fit your model now does it?
Waiter this copy n pasta is stale I want a fresh plate please
Kieran says: “Yet you still haven’t told us what they where breathing on the ark due to the lack of photosynthetic activity ….. etc.”
Get yourself a copy of John Woodmorappe’s “Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study”.
Kieran says: “Did you read that article? 15.2 -15.9 million years ago doesn’t really fit your model now does it?”
All radioisotope dating methods assume a) no decay product was present initially or that initial quantities can be accurately estimated b) the decay system was closed to outside influences through the years and c) the decay rate was constant over time.
And get yourself a copy of John Woodmorappe’s “Mythology of Modern Dating Methods”.
I’ve had the unfortunate experience of reading John Woodmorappe’s “Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study”. It doesn’t explain the problems I’ve posted because he doesn’t understand botany, now I’ve a vague understanding of plants because that’s what I am, a botanist. Specifically one who deal with plant physiology in relation to environmental conditions, drought, flooding and climate change.
Your problem is that you don’t understand the science, as is obvious by your appeals to authority rather presenting evidence. You’ve gone from ad hominem, argumentum ignoratiam and gish galloping are you just trying to hit all the squares on creationist bingo?
Simple question what did they breath on your ark considering all photosynthetic life was wiped out?
David Buckna, you are a christian, aren’t you ?
Then sit down and read this article on the truth of radiometric dating written by a non-lying christian geologist. Then take a walk around the block and sit down and read it again. You might have to repeat that process a few times until the truth sinks in. It’s many pages; take your time. Make sure you stick with it until you understand how it shows that people like Woodmorappe have been lying to you – when they don’t even have to , because long ages are not a problem for your god !
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html
Fuckwit, uniformism means the processes that are occurring now, occurred in the past. We do see cases of rapid burial and deposition of sediments now. Rivers flood and deposit a large amount of local sediment. Mudslids occur, bring down a volume of sediment. Earthquakes occur, and underwater mudslides occur, some large enough to cause tsunamis. Rapid burial is a layer of sediment is seen and documented. All these processes are local. You have nothing but bullshit, if you believe that local flood/deposition means world-wide-one-time deposition. You are full of shit if you believe uniformism means all sediment is gradually built up.
It is up to you to cite the peer reviewed scientific (not the religious literature from AIG and ICR), that scientists aren’t taking the above into account. And it is up to you to show that the week force is not a constant, and is variable, which is the only way your c) would be right. No evidence to date the weak force isn’t a constant. Learn some science. You are showing yourself to be a fuckwitted unscientific idjit, with drool coming out of their rabid religious spewing mouth.
Woodmorappe? The guy who notoriously calculated the necessary volume of the ark by by taking the number of species he thought were aboard, and multiplied it by his estimated median animal size? That was brilliant. I would have recommended that Noah bring aboard a test tube full of bacteria, which would have immediately reduced the median to something on the order of ten microns, and then he could have brought the whole animal kingdom on board a dinghy, in his pocket.
I thought everyone knew Noah simply had multiple sets of stem cells from every species, along with several Artificial Uterus Gestation Habitats (AUGH) to quickly restore animal life as if nothing had happened.
Of course, the artificial uterus technology has since been suppressed by liberals so they can force women to have lots of abortions.
Look, moron, these assumptions are not pulled out of anyone’s arse, unlike Baumgardner’s bullshit about continent-sized whirlpools. The assumption of constant decay rates is a consequence of quantum mechanics: a theory which has passed the most extraordinarily stringent experimental tests. Materials used for radioactive dating are selected so that the other assumptions can be expected to be true, and the justifications for this are of course criticised in doubtful cases. If these assumptions were not in general true, we would expect radioactive dating to routinely give completely inconsistent answers. It does not.
Now you’re just trying to blind David with science! Surely you can’t really think he knows what a “median” is?
Median? That’s the show with Patricia Arquette, right?
David:
So, how long ago did the flood occur?
Oh, and David, still no evidence for your imaginary deity. I guess that means it is only a delusion in your mind. Typical godbot behavior, pretend they don’t have to prove that their deity really exists.
So. Let’s see if I have this straight.
We get our deep history from evidence gained through the practical application of physics, geology, paleontology, archaeology, and so on. We find a collection of whale bones (nice paper, David), and interpret it as a long-term continuous sedimentary deposition in an ideal location for preserving whale carcasses. We see the continuous written history over six thousand years deep, and have a tremendous amount of evidence agrarian civilization extends back tens of thousands of years prior to that. Our dating methods have been verified and calibrated using other techniques, and have proven to be dependable, especially when various dating methods are used in conjunction with each other.
Our history comes from the reality of the world in which we live.
David, on the other hand, gets his history from a book. A book written by people. A book which is nothing more than a collection of bronze-age mythology, folklore, distorted tribal history, and conflicting origin stories. A book which David believes is true because it says it’s true. A book which borrowed the flood myth from earlier cultures, making the myth boring in the process. A book which is demonstrably non-historical.
Hm. I wonder which method is more reliable.
Damn uppity liberals, viewing women as more than walking axtol tanks for continuous breeding and realizing that having the option of safe, legal abortion =/= everybody haz abortions. Shocking, that women should be allowed to do more than just birth babies, isn’t it? *clutches pearls*
Sorry, you need to be more careful with dates. The earliest specific historical event on the record is the (forcible) unification of Egypt by Menes, originally ruler of Upper Egypt, and first Pharoah of the first dynasty. That was approximately 3100 BCE, possibly a century or two later. Either he or his father, whose name was possibly “Ka”, meaning scorpion, is the earliest named individual we know of. Sumerian records don’t start until (IIRC) the 28th century BCE; Chinese records not until the early second millennium. Agriculture goes back maybe 13,000 years, not tens of thousands.
Yeah, there’s so much air at the bottom of the ocean. Ha!
nigelTheBold says: “David, on the other hand, gets his history from a book. A book written by people. A book which is nothing more than a collection of bronze-age mythology, folklore, distorted tribal history, and conflicting origin stories. A book which David believes is true because it says it’s true. A book which borrowed the flood myth from earlier cultures, making the myth boring in the process. A book which is demonstrably non-historical.”
Google: “The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh” by Frank Lorey.
He writes: “A popular theory, proposed by liberal “scholars,” said that the Hebrews “borrowed” from the Babylonians, but no conclusive proof has ever been offered. The differences, including religious, ethical, and sheer quantity of details, make it unlikely that the Biblical account was dependent on any extant source from the Sumerian traditions….The Book of Genesis is viewed for the most part as an historical work, even by many liberal scholars, while the Epic of Gilgamesh is viewed as mythological. The One-source Theory must, therefore, lead back to the historical event of the Flood and Noah’s Ark. To those who believe in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, it should not be a surprise that God would preserve the true account of the Flood in the traditions of His people. The Genesis account was kept pure and accurate throughout the centuries by the providence of God until it was finally compiled, edited, and written down by Moses. The Epic of Gilgamesh, then, contains the corrupted account as preserved and embellished by peoples who did not follow the God of the Hebrews.”
Crick and Watson are the co-discoverers of the thread-like DNA molecule. Crick described himself as agnostic, with a “strong inclination towards atheism”. In 2003, Watson spoke at Youngstown State University and was asked by one student, “So you don’t believe in God?” The scientist answered, “Oh no, absolutely not. The biggest advantage to believing in God is you don’t have to understand anything, no physics, no biology. I wanted to understand.”
Yet thousands of years ago the psalmist wrote: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb…your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” (Psalm 139: 13;16).
The phrase “you knit me together” anticipates that we are literally knitted or woven together at the molecular level.
Note how Lorey contradicts himself. Obviously, if liberal scholars think that the story of Noah is borrowed from the Babylonian, and the Babylonian story is mythological, then those liberal scholars obviously think that the Noah story is mythological too!
And of course, since the Noah story is contradicted by the evidence of geology and other sciences, it is obvious that it is indeed mythological, so the liberal scholars must be correct.
QED.
Or it just could be whoever wrote that particular Psalm had a flair for imagery and poetic metaphor. Seriously, the phrase “you knit me together” means that the Bible is talking about the formation of DNA? SERIOUSLY??
*facepalm*
I have a question about the highlighted bit. Does that mean that they were deposited at different times (i.e. not during a single, world-wide flood)? 80m of sediment is an awfully thick layer. How many centuries would it take to produce, even at accelerated deposition rates?
Also, a question for David Buckna: how long did the biblical flood last? I mean, if the bible is telling the truth, and there really was a world-wide flood, ark, Noah, etc. in all its details, then surely the bible will say exactly how long it lasted, yes? After all, it is God’s Word, yes? So, if the bible contradicts itself about something as simple as how long the flood lasted, how can it be trusted to be telling the truth about whether it happened at all?
Genesis 7:17
A few verses later:
Genesis 7:24
That’s a big difference. =ô.ô=
OK, so there were only eight witnesses, and I suppose that if the bible were written by people, there might have been more than a little stress and confusion amongst them when they reported the event for later; but even so, to get the magnitude of the duration that wrong (40/150) casts doubt on the magnitude of the inundation too. The whole world? Or just a portion of it?
Then again, David and his ilk insist that the bible was written/dictated by God himself. Which means God is an idiot and can’t count. A world-wide flood? With physics, biology, chemistry, geology, paleontology, history, geography, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all denying, with evidence, that any such event ever had or could take place, why are people still scouring the scientific papers for evidence to support it? They make themselves look stupid.
Last year, it was reading such threads as this and the one that spawned it that pulled the wool from my eyes. Whereas bible studies had quite deliberately glossed over or ignored blatant contradictions and impossibilities, the Pharyngula Horde drags them into the light for all to see, and thus learn. With vast swathes of the bible thus exposed as myth and imaginary, it becomes illogical to regard any of it to be in any way true. Then, when the Christian proselytisers consistently failed (and still fail) to provide any evidence for anything they believe, despite being given ample opportunity to do so, and I realised that I was equally unable to support my own religious beliefs, I came to the conclusion that atheism was the only tenable position.
Responding to the IDiots does help the lurkers to think, and gives us evidence, even if the IDiot in question continues to blithely plough on in ignorance.
Moron. Complete godzombie moron.
The phrase “you knit me together” reflects the knowledge, available to anyone — even a primitive living thousands of years ago — who has ever seen an animal butchered, or a human torn up by battle or some other attack, that muscle is made of groups of fibers.
Primitives had no idea that molecules even existed.
Me:
Should, of course, be:
WRONG. You haven’t proven your deity isn’t imaginary, or that your babble is inerrant. Both claims are presuppositions, which are WRONG.
Irrelevant. Your book of mythology fiction is meaningless until you prove it is right. You haven’t done that, so it has no authority. You may as well ignore it in trying to convince us, since we require peer reviewed science, not religion.
What sort of idiot are you? No, don’t answer that, I know. We are most certainly not “literally knitted or woven together at the molecular level”. No knitting needles, no loom. Electrical forces and chemical bonds are not knitting or weaving, nor anything like them.
The flood waters rose to their maximum level by Day 40, and remained at that level until Day 150.
On Day 150 the Ark grounded and the floodwaters began to subside, attaining the present sea level by Day 371, when the earth was dry and the Ark abandoned. So Noah, his 3 sons, and their respective wives, and all the animals had lived in the Ark for just over a year.
Owlmirror says: “Primitives had no idea that molecules even existed.”
I didn’t say they did.
Citation from a non-mythical (which your uninerrant babble is) source needed. Like the peer reviewed scientific literature, showing a one-time-whole-world-flood-with-massive-extinctions…Put up, or shut the fuck up as a liar and bullshitter should.
nigelTheBold says: “David, on the other hand, gets his history from a book. A book written by people. A book which is nothing more than a collection of bronze-age mythology, folklore, distorted tribal history, and conflicting origin stories.”
In matters related to science, google “Bible and scientific foreknowledge”.
There is no science in the book of mythology/fiction called the bible. You know that. Nothing but idiocy and religion, which isn’t science and can’t refute science. Only a delusional fool would think it means anything…
Still wonder how a creationist can explain how the stated flood levels can be explained if you take the height of Mt. Everest into account and exactly zero evidence of a catastrophic geological event that would be needed in very short about to time to raise it above 8000m after the flood.
Classic creationist bullshit. You can find and twist any vague phrase, and that is a vague phrase don’t fool yourself, to fit into any modern knowledge.
It’s such transparent nonsense. But it’s expected from someone like you.
You know what I find the most debunking about the flood story? Not the fact that it’s obviously immoral to murder babies with a flood (which of course denies the concept of a loving god). Not the absurdities of the logistics of all those animals somehow magically transporting themselves to the ark before the flood from all over the world, and then magically transporting themselves back to their habitats all over the world, without leaving any traces and without food or drinkable water. Not the question of ‘what did the predators eat after they left the boat, if there was only two of every critter how did anything survive?’ though that also, of course, disproves the whole mess.
It’s koalas and pandas. You have two animal that eat exclusively eucalyptus and bamboo, respectively, and live many thousands of miles away from where these plants grow. How, exactly, do you propose that these animals journeyed across desert, mountain, and ocean to get back to their natural habitat? What did they eat on the journey?
Mt. Everest was formed after or during the Flood because its higher parts contain fossils of sea creatures and seashells, showing that it is made of rock that was once under water.
Before the Flood, the mountains were not as high as today, and the ocean valleys were not as deep. Mount Everest and other high mountains were pushed up by the enormous underwater volcanic activity of the Flood (“the fountains of the great deep” — Genesis 7:11) and carved out by the rapid draining away of the waters into the ocean valleys. So the water didn’t have to cover Mt. Everest and the other high mountains we see today, because they didn’t exist before the Flood. There were hills in the pre-Flood world (Genesis 7:19), and it was these that the Bible speaks of when it says the mountains were covered to a depth of 15 cubits (6.75 meters) during the Flood.
“Literally?” No.
The way biological molecules are assembled in organisms is really nothing at all like the process of interleaving continuous fibers that is what knitting and weaving “literally” are.
Even metaphorically it’s only a so-so match.
(For example, “gluing” and “locking” are much, much better metaphorical descriptions.)
Typical stupid handwaving Creationist answer.
How do you explain the fact that exactly zero geological evidence exists for a catastrophic event that would be needed to raise Mt. Everest (not to mention all other mountains) to its current level from the supposed pre-flood levels?
David Buckna,
I’m disappointed in you. I thought you were a good christian. I thought you would want to honor your god’s creative powers as you are supposed to.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html
Are we sure this isn’t Allen Clarke?
So Mount Everest was simultaneously a small hill underwater during the flood AND pushed up to it’s current height by the volcanic activity that caused the flood?
You can’t even be consistent with yourself in the same post.
David: The Bible explicitly contradicts established science in multiple instances, notwithstanding the age of the Earth and evolution. The Bible endorses Hebrew cosmology (look it up, it’s all wrong), not a round Earth, it makes absurd claims of fact (the worldwide flood that never happened). The Bible is a bizarre work of fantasy historical fiction at best, and at some parts, just slasher porn (in the Old Testament, your “merciful” God killed or ordered the deaths of at least 25 million people, which places him far above any recorded genocide in history)
Rev. BigDumbChimp: Yeah, we are dealing with a known creobot here (he is a secondary educator as well)
Yes I know, my point was the stunning similarity.
Stevarious says: “It’s koalas and pandas. You have two animal that eat exclusively eucalyptus and bamboo, respectively, and live many thousands of miles away from where these plants grow. How, exactly, do you propose that these animals journeyed across desert, mountain, and ocean to get back to their natural habitat? What did they eat on the journey?”
For a discussion of koalas and pandas, google the pdf: “How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?”.
The article speculates that the ancestors of today’s koalas and pandas, when they came off the Ark, were not as specialized eg. ancestors may have been able to survive on a much greater range of vegetation.
Sorry bud. Your bonebed isn’t big enough.
A global flood should have produced a continuous single layer of fossil deposits spanning THE WHOLE WORLD. And a mere 4000 years of subsequent elapsed time is not enough to substantially disrupt such a massive globe-spanning layer.
But we don’t see that at all. Fossils are only found in various discrete locations, in a variety of discontiguous levels, interspersed with vast expanses of rocks bearing no fossils at all.
David: But why did all of the marsupials (save one genus) end up in Australia and South America (mostly fossils there, only one living genus since Australia and S. America were connected at one point as Gondwanaland) Why are there no marsupials (not even fossils) in Eurasia or Africa?
Panda-with-less-specialized-diet = BEAR.
Nice to see you admit that evolution and speciation both occur.
And why is there not a single fossil for a single marsupial found anywhere along the route between Ararat (or wherever the Ark was laid down) and Australia?
PZ’s familiar with this guy. And his ignorance and stubborness. But it’s not AC.
Sorry fuckwit, hiding your links to religious groups like AIG and IRC by saying find this pdf won’t work. That is admitting to us and to all the lurkers you are trying to impress that you have no scientific links. Nothing but religion, which can’t refute the science that says you are full of shit.
And still no evidence for your imaginary deity, or the inerrance of your book of mythology/fiction. What a stupid and stubborn abject loser you are. You need to show us the eternally burning bush or equivalent, and let us examine it up close and scientifically…
Your answer is evolution!?
Seriously?
“I’m a creationist and evolution is obviously false, except when I need it to plug a whole in my crazy theology, when it’s of course the only obvious answer.”
Also, the article ‘speculates’, you might notice. It doesn’t, say, ‘offer evidence’, which would be the kind of thing you’d need to do to prove something like that.
A. R says: “David: The Bible explicitly contradicts established science in multiple instances, notwithstanding the age of the Earth and evolution. The Bible endorses Hebrew cosmology (look it up, it’s all wrong), not a round Earth, it makes absurd claims of fact (the worldwide flood that never happened).”
The Bible mentions “the circle of the earth”, (Isaiah) implying a sphere, which “hangs on nothing” (suspended in space) (Job). And that it turns, as clay to the seal. See: Job 38:14. The image is of a clay vessel being turned or rotated upon the potter’s wheel–an accurate analogy of the earth’s rotation.
Bible skeptics think it teaches a “flat earth” or “4 cornered earth” because the Bible mentions the “fours corners of the earth”. But if you look up the meaning of the word “corner” in the Hebrew (OT) or Koine Greek (NT), the word “corner” means “directions” or “quadrants”. So when the Bible says “the four corners of the earth”, it literally means the 4 main directions (N,S, W, E). In popular usage, if you said something like: “I’ve travelled to the 4 corners of the earth”, it means you’ve travelled to many places all over the earth/globe. Get the book, “The Biblical Basis of Modern Science” by Henry M. Morris.
See, Stevarious, this sciency stuff is easy when you can just make shit up. I don’t know why all you so-called “real” scientists haven’t figured that out yet.
David: No serious (secular) scholar of the Bible believes that the Bible describes a round Earth, for a more accurate account of Biblical cosmology, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology
That article cites multiple accurate translations (as opposed to the deeply flawed KJV) that clearly imply a flat but circular Earth under a “dome of the firmament” to which the Sun, stars, and planets are attached. Read your own Holy Book in a better translation before trying to use it to prove foreknowledge.
Where did the water go?
So you concede that the primitives who wrote the bible did not intend anything about molecules in their writings?
The bible has no scientific foreknowledge. It’s painfully obvious that the bible sometimes did not even have scientific contemporary knowledge. Hence, four-legged insects.
Plate tectonics does a better job of explaining how Everest and the rest of the Himalayas were once under water and are now thousands of meters above sea level. Of course you reject plate tectonics because it’s part of reality, which you reject in favor of 2,500 year old myths stolen from the Babylonians.
Not only does David admit that pandas evolved, he thinks they evolved from bears in only a few thousand years.
I wonder if that involves the panda’s “thumb”. You know, that specialized digit that pandas need because they are specialists in eating bamboo leaves.
So you are saying that it is OK to interpret what the bible says, and not take it literally? Like interpreting ‘fountains’ (which are water spouts, and clearly such in Genesis) as ‘volcanos’? Making India crash into Asia at a ridiculous rate of knots, far faster than the theory of plate tectonics would suggest, so that Everest goes from smaller than Ararat to most of its present height in months?
So, if interpretation and changing the meaning of words is OK to make some things seem plausible to you (although not to anyone with functioning synapses) why take the ‘whole world’ bit of the flood literally, when to do so means that it could not have happened at all?
Thanks for the giggles! =^_^=
Olwmirror, I’m going to guess that insects originally had four legs, but became more specialized after the flood.
*eye roll*
Imagine the earthquakes if the subcontinent crashed into Asia like that! There would certainly be a historical or geological record of that.
You have to quit pretending that the babble means anything, until you show inerrancy from outside sources, like the peer reviewed scientific literature. Otherwise, citing a book of mythology/fiction is tacitly acknowledging that science is right, and you are WRONG.
Still no evidence for your imaginary deity…
There was no global flood ever.
Plate tectonics and orogeny explain this. And we know the science is right and there was no flood because there would be evidence of water rapidly moving over the slopes of the mountain as it rose, and a rapid rise would have left signs of the energy necessary to cause it to rise so quickly.
Instead, we see evidence of a mountain that rose slowly over millions of years.
======
A circle does not necessarily imply a sphere.
A circle implies a damn flat circle.
Only a ball or sphere implies a sphere.
Moron. A seal is pressed onto wet clay. You don’t turn the clay under the seal. “Turns”, in the KJV, is not synonymous with “rotates”. It means changes, as in changing shape.
Now you’re just lying about what the bible says, since the whole point is that clay under a seal is not on a potter’s wheel.
Oh, golly.
“The circle of the earth” means that it is like a pancake–flat and circular. Which is different from being flat and square like a sheet of paper.
The earth isn’t “hung” on nothing. Again, the idea of the time is that it was a dish hung on three chains–a common household item and an obvious comparison for a flat earth.
Job 38:14 refers to a glob of clay taking the impression of a seal–which is to say God shaped it so it turned according to his plan. Again, a glob of clay that has been stamped is a flat circle like a pancake or a dish. Getting from there to a clay vessel on a wheel that rotates is just nutso.
Those verses all say the earth is flat and circular. They don’t foresee squat.
Why is science right when the Bible can be twisted to foreknow it (uselessly, obscurely and long after the fact), but science is goddamn wrong when it offends some goober’s over-literal view of the Bible?
I liked the foreknowledge site that claimed that a frozen man from years ago was proof of the flood. They trusted the science as to dating, fudged the date of the flood to match, and thought that a man frozen in ice was proof that the mountain he was on had been submerged by a flood.
David, you base your thinking on the idea that the Bible is literally true, and you are going bonkers trying to keep yourself convinced of that. You believe crazy stuff, and crazy people. Give it up, man, and get a grip on reality.
‘Tis Himself, OM says: “Of course you reject plate tectonics because it’s part of reality, which you reject in favor of 2,500 year old myths stolen from the Babylonians.”
I don’t reject plate tectonics. I don’t any biblical creationists who do.
You must not have read what I referenced earlier:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/970616/archive_007221.htm
The Geophysics of God
A scientist embraces plate tectonics–and Noah’s flood
I don’t reject plate tectonics. I don’t know any biblical creationists who do.
@David
Wait wait wait wait wait.
You believe the flood with the magic water that appears and then disappears is literal…but you don’t accept the biblical view of the earth being a plate suspended over an abyss under a firmament?
Shorter David
“I believe in Santa Clause 100%, but no serious Clausian believes reindeer can fly.
David: Quite a few do reject tectonics. But your interpretation is nonsensical.
Everyone of them, including you, as they deny the facts of science in favor of a book of mythology/fiction, and lies and bullshit contained therein.
Who gives a shit what one delusional scientist thinks. I have to live down Linus Pauling and vitamin C, and cold fusion in my field. Failed argument from false authority, typical of godbots without any third party evidence. And invariably false. The only authority is the peer reviewed scientific literature, which refutes your sorry book of fiction/mythology, and indicates your imaginary deity doesn’t exist.
Ing,
David’s apparent beliefs make even less sense when one takes into account that, to the writers of the flood myth, it would not have been ‘magical’ at all for all that water to invade a world such as you describe and they believed in. The story even describes how the water invaded: the windows in the dome over the (flat) earth – the ‘firmament’ – were opened and the fountains of the deep allowed water to burst upwards from the abyss. Afterwards, the water could just drain away whence it came.
The reality, a global Earth and no firmament, has no source of water and nowhere for such vast quantities to drain to.
David, you know you pick and choose which parts of the bible to take literally and which to ignore (as do all so-called literalists), so why is the ‘truth’ of the flood myth such a deal-breaker to you? What do you have hanging on it? It has been debunked that many times over the centuries that there is no possible way in which it could be true. Of what are you afraid? That if that particular story is shown to be myth then the whole bible is necessarily untrue? And if the bible is untrue, then you are unsaved?
But David, if there is no Heaven then there is certainly no hell, either. The eons after your death will mean exactly the same to you as all the eons before your first memory: nothing at all! Because there will be no ‘you’ to experience it.
(It most emphatically doesn’t mean that there will be a ‘you’ having to experience the boredom of nothingness for eternity, which is what used to terrify me!)
Menyambal says:”Job 38:14 refers to a glob of clay taking the impression of a seal–which is to say God shaped it so it turned according to his plan. Again, a glob of clay that has been stamped is a flat circle like a pancake or a dish. Getting from there to a clay vessel on a wheel that rotates is just nutso.”
Here’s the verse:
Job 38:14
It is _turned_ as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
turned. [the Hebrew word for turn is no. 2015 in Strong’s Lexicon Hebrew]
This figurative expression refers to God’s initiation of the earth’s rotation and the day-night cycle. Each night, like a rotating clay cylinder exposing the impressions of the seal, the earth turns to the sun (or “dayspring”), exposing the wicked and their works of the night.
*
Read the Bible. It’ll change your mind.
Nerd: Have you noticed that he won’t argue with us directly? He seems to jump away from his positions to new ones as soon as we beat the [expletive] out of his old ones. Typical creobot.
David: That interpretation is rather difficult to believe. Prove it with an academic, peer-reviewed article. And I have read the Bible, that’s why I’m an Atheist.
Done that twice, made me a confirmed atheist due the massive lies and bullshit, which you are trying futilely to defend, contained therein. What a loser you are, if you don’t realize that reading the babble is a leading cause of atheism. The lies and bullshit are transparent there, to any rational mind. Which leave you, a delusional fool, out.
Amen brother/sister.
@Tigger:
Alas, you will get no response to this critical question, as David performs the same fatuous cherry-picking upon the questions directed to him.
@David
This is the only true thing you’ve said today. I did, and it did. In fact, so many atheists became atheists because (like me) they read the bible, that it’s become quite clear that the best way to make an atheist out of a christian is for them to read the bible. It’s an insane collection of bronze age ramblings, and unless you very carefully ignore vast swathes of it, you can’t get from one end to the other without losing your faith.
David,
Why isn’t this “scientific foreknowledge” ever acknowledged BEFORE a discovery is made? It’s always AFTER. Why are we spending millions of dollars on labs and research to do science and not buying Bibles and reading looking for scientific discoveries there? What does the Bible have to say about the existence of the Higgs boson? Come on, if you can use the Bible to predict the mass of the Higgs boson that would surely convince millions of people of its power. Do it.
Nope, the Earth cannot move according to your Bible:
Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. – 1 Chronicles 16:30
The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty and armed with strength;
indeed, the world is established, firm and secure. – Psalm 93:1
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved – Psalms 104:5
I did and it did. That’s how I became an atheist.
Arrrrrgh!
Stupid, stupid godzombie! Why are you so fucking stupid as to not check your own fucking references before vomiting up your pathetic stupidity for everyone to see????
“הָפַך” does not mean “rotate on an axis”. It does not mean “revolve”. It means “changed”!!!
Holy whirling Jesus on a spinning stick, what is wrong with this moron?
It refers to no such thing, you blithering moron! It refers to soft clay taking shape from the hard impression of a seal.
They clay isn’t hardened yet, moron! It’s soft clay! The hard seal shapes the soft clay.
You blithering dipshit moron, the ancient Israelites, like fucking everyone else at that time, were fucking geocentrists! Why the fuck does it say that the sun stood still, rather than the earth standing still? Because they thought that the earth didn’t move, and the sun did!
Only if you’re not a delugional religious fanatic who hates truth so much that he is willing to LIE about what the bible says.
Stevarious, you are correct, of course. I do not expect a response. But, just as such unanswered questions from the Horde got me thinking for myself, I hope that another lurker will ask that question of themselves and be freed of their fear and superstition. Feeding trolls until they burst is a fine Pharynguloid tradition of which I heartily approve, and would like in my own small way to assist. =^_^=
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And all the people responding “I did and it did. That’s how I became an atheist.” made me realise why the RCC spent such a lot of effort throughout history discouraging the unsupervised reading of the bible by ordinary people.
As Owlmirror says in 655, in the archaic English of KJV ‘turned’ here means ‘changed’. Here are how some other Bibles translate the verse:
-New International Version (©1984)
“The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.”
-New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“It is changed like clay under the seal; And they stand forth like a garment.
-Bible in Basic English [probably the one you should be reading]
It is changed like wet earth under a stamp, and is coloured like a robe
Here’s the verse in Hebrew with English translation for every word. Notice the “is changed” and the lack of any “turning” or “rotation”.
It always makes me laugh when atheists have to correct Christians on their own fuckin’ holy book.
Change it to what? A babbling, quivering mush? I’d keep the frak away from that like incendiary LSD, thanks.
But I have read the Bible, I grew up with it. And science grew up with it too, so to speak. 300 years and more ago, most of what would now be called scientists believed in a literal Bible. As I did as a child. But the real world is not as described in the Bible. Looking and thinking show that.
And, thanks to people like you, David, insisting that I must choose the Bible or the world, I chose reality. As Science has done, and has accomplished wonders thereby.
You have chosen the Bible, and lost your mind. You offer us as support of your claims a case of a man of science who claims that Noah’s flood could actually have been a giant tsunami. And you believe that makes sense–your forty-day flood was a tidal wave.
By the way, I’ve worked in a tsunami’s aftermath, and I’ve seen Christians try to claim it as a victory for their religion. You like Baumgardner’s tidal wave, and you like people dying in the Flood. I’d like to take you, you genocidal sadistic psychopath, to walk across the moonscape that once was a city.
You are a believer, not a thinker. You follow the crazy wherever it goes, even into fighting for mass death.
I read Job 38:14 in the KJV, and I disagree with what you say it means. How is that even possible? Which of us is wrong? How can we decide? Is one of us deluded? What is truth?
Science is a method of exploring reality. Science says you are wrong.
You believe you are right. I believe you are wrong.
You attempt to make your case using scientific methods. But you won’t follow the science where it goes.
Speaking of thinking, I offer you my thought on a real Noah’s flood. At the time of the flood, humans had only spread from the Garden of Eden to the surrounding area in the Middle East. When God sent the flood, he only had to flood the few hundreds of miles there. Which could be done with a spring tide and a cyclonic monsoon. See? With a local–but big–flood, all Noah’s problems go away. The Ark is manageable, the local animals have a short walk, the world’s geology is unchanged, and all the people still drown horribly–which should make Christians happy.
See, I thought that up. I didn’t copy it from some money-grubbing creationist website. I did some thinking and I made sense.
Try thinking, David. It’ll change your mind.
I compared the Flood to the tsunami that I worked after. Now I am shaking.
How can David be such a sick ….
I am going to have to take a walk.
PZ has said that prayers are not allowed. No prayers. So I am not allowed to pray for the bannination of David Buckna.
OK. This is not a prayer.
It’s a psalm.
A psalm, for the moderator.
How long, O PZ, how long?
How long must we suffer from wrongness?
Great is the pain on my face, for I have palmed it strongly.
And large is ache of my head, for I have desked it with vigor.
The stupid is strong in this one,
And it burns like bullet ants made of thermite and pure capsaicin,
And the oxide is noxious.
He does gallop like a Gish, and blathers like a Ham,
And is as full of lies as any Hovind.
He is like a toothless zombie that will not fall down, and will not stop,
And he gums our skulls as though to suck our brains out our ears.
Give us hope, O please, give us hope!
May the wrongness pass on.
May the zombie undergo a dimensional topological inversion.
May the Internet be cleansed of some stupidity.
At least until the next one.
Owlmirror: Applause!
@ Owlmirror 6777
R’amen!
*slips Owlmirror a tankard of grog*
I’m so sorry, Meyambal. I’m thankful you – and people like you – have been there in the aftermath to aid survivors and to study what, if anything, we can do to give people more warning and better chances of escape next time.
I’m furious that christians will cheerfully continue to worship their death-dealing monstrosity of a god. There may have been some excuse for the desert Jews imagining the world flood – they had seen floods, yes, in river valleys where most escaped slowly-rising waters and few peoples’ bodies were left to traumatize the survivors as the waters receded. So maybe the world flood didn’t seem quite as heinous to those old Jews. No excuse nowadays when we know what it would look like, what it does look like in our real world, when tens of thousands in every few miles are washed into the wreckage, little childrens’ shoes, smashed boats, cows’ bodies, human bodies of all shapes and sizes mixed into the mud … all in silent witness to what the christians claim their god once did in a snit.
How the hell can anyone worship a god who (supposedly) did that ? Worse than that ? Smashed the whole world, every single breathing animal and plant and person ? Anyone who worships such a god is truly not a full human being but is lacking some essential – I don’t know – some piece of good nature that you have.
I hate those people. I’m sorry that David’s presence and discussion of the Flood have reminded you of sad memories. I’m doubly sorry if what I’ve added has made it worse for you. Forgive me, please.
The psalm was nice, but were marrow bones wrapped in sweet fat and burnt upon an altar to honor me?
I’m not yet demanding hecatombs for such a minor favor, but those would be nice on my yearly feast days.
Owlmirror says:”PZ has said that prayers are not allowed. No prayers. So I am not allowed to pray for the bannination of David Buckna.
OK. This is not a prayer.
It’s a psalm.”
*
And the following is not a prayer either, but a statement of belief:
We believe in Darwin, the father all-sovereign, explainer of all things visible and invisible, and in one Thomas Henry Huxley, the bulldog of Darwin, begotten from the substance of Darwin.
We believe in his son, Julian Huxley, of one substance with his Father. We believe in Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Dawkins, who proceed from the spirit of Darwin and Huxley, and through whom all things were understood, things on heaven and things on earth: who for our enlightenment were made flesh and became men, who suffered grievously at the hands of petty academics, were denied tenure and publication at State schools, but rose to preeminence at superior universities and ascended into endowed chairs and chancellorships without end.
By their convictions and firmly held beliefs may we and all our works be judged. Amen.
For we are the chimps of his lab and the apes of his zoo …
You know, I was going to bring up the whole Joshua 10 thing, the business about the sun standing still in the sky, and how utterly ridiculous that is on so many levels, but after reading Meyambal’s post, fuck that. Fuck you, David, and all your fucking morbid death-worshipping friends. May you live a miserable life and come to realize that there’s nothing but silence at the end. Or better yet, may you come to realize that all that you’ve been spouting is a pack of lies and do what you can with the rest of your life to atone for it by actually helping real people with real problems in this life, instead of repeating your atrocious lies about the fantasies of ancient goat herders and the lure of your soporific vision of the afterlife.
Just go away.
Shorter David: FUH FUH FUH FUH FUUUUH!
Still no evidence for your imginary deity David. What’s the matter, you know you don’t have any, but if you actually shut the fuck up, you tacitly acknowledge to the world you lose? Meanwhile, you show the lurkers that those who can’t put up the right information, but can’t shut the fuck up either, are nothing but liars and bullshitters. You are classic case for their edification…
**Burning marrow bones wrapped in sweet fat and bacon**
May this offering please you O Great Tentacled One, that you may in your infinite power over Pharyngula ban the sinner against thee, David Buckna. R’amen
I thought you preferred calimari and similar seafood. What’s this sudden craving for icky vertebrates?
Are you maybe pregnant?
Owlmirror: Yeah, he’s going to give birth to a tentacled Messiah.
Your plagiarism is noted. Not only do you lie repeatedly, but you also steal.
You don’t believe in anything at all except in lying, and stealing the lies of those smarter than you.
Menyambal, I am so sorry that you have had bad memories triggered by this discussion. I’d like to add my thanks to hotshoe’s for the work that you have done.
Owlmirror, applause! =^_^=
David, you plonker, it has been explained over and over that science is a process of discovering reality and that reputations of individual scientists are not what is important. People win Nobel prizes for more accurately describing reality, regardless of what that does to the reputations of those who went before. When doing science, scientists aren’t worshippers and don’t expect worship. You are so immersed in the ‘worship’ mindset that you cannot imagine a mind free of that. Sad.
Hotshoe and Tigger and others, thank you.
One of my bad memories of the 2004 tsunami is here — http://www.snopes.com/religion/tsunami.asp –. Snopes discusses the Christian claims that some Christians were spared because they were being persecuted and went out to celebrate Christmas on a high hill. I was in that town four months, and was able to confirm that the Christian story was false for several different reasons. Christians weren’t persecuted, folks there don’t stay out overnight, and there are no hills in that area–plus nobody in town had heard the story.
There were good memories, too, but they don’t involve Christians.
David, that pseudo-psalm might approach being witty it if actually came close to being truthful.
Menyambal,
why I agree that the story as cited is bogus, it is true that Christians in Aceh are persecuted, especially in post-peace agreement Aceh, i.e. after 2005. (I’ve also heard this from people who had been working as aid workers on Simeuleu after the tsunami for a couple of years)
Post-peace agreement Aceh is the only province in Indonesia where sharia law is in effect province-wide. For instance in order to run for public office, you have to pass a test if you know the Qur’an well enough etc.
David
10 Please stop now. I’m bored.
20 GOTO 10
Experiment 1
Aim: To see the effect of long term flooding on seed dormancy and reproductiive success.
Seeds will be submerged in water for 370 days. During this time cohorts of seeds will be planted in sterilised soil to see which species grow and if they reach full maturity and what their fecundity value is.
Pick five plant species, collect seed
Experimental design
There will five salinity levels in each treatment. 1000 seeds split into ten cohorts for each species. These would then be submerged in the five salinity treatments and cover to remove light. At predetermined points one cohort will be removed and planted in sterile soil the inital planting will be watered with the same corresponding salinity as they where stored in.
Control will be 100 seeds for each species split into ten cohorts but stored in a dry controled environement to prevent germination till planted.
Compare germination rates, compare growth rates and compare fecundity rates of all samples.
Simple experiment to do to show that species can survive long term inundation.
Experiment 2
Long term survivabilty of grown plant under saline conditions
Using one species of plant, imerse for 150 days in saline water.
Aim to see how long the photosynthetic apparatus reamins intake in a long term flooded plants.
Use ten plants place in saline watercover the cointainers to simulate deep water, pressure would involve the building of pressure vessels or use of a barometric chamber. Measure plants photosynthetic potential using a licor 6400. Measure all plants every day throughout experimental period. After this time measure for another 150 days for any sign of recovery.
Two simple experiments that could be done to show if plants or or seeds could survive long term inundation. You could cheat by using swamp plants but even these would not survive the flooding.
Waiter this copy npasta is stale send me some fresh stuff.
David, taking this into consideration along with a previous comment of yours, may I suggest that you try this experiment:
On a mountaintop greater than 5000 meters, prepare a garden bed. Saturate that bed with salt water for 150 days. Complete continuous submersion. Now, get an Olive to germinate and produce leaves within 221 days.
Ready?
Set.
Go!
See you next summer.
A worldwide flood capable of laying down most of the world’s sedimentary rock layers would have uprooted and transported all trees, if not smashed them into fragments. In many tree species (including olives) broken pieces buried in soil or mud close to the surface could have sprouted another tree, the likely source of the olive leaf in Genesis 8:11
Genesis 8:11 “When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.” (NIV)
“And see the bird with a leaf in her mouth/After the flood all the colours came out/It was a beautiful day”–U2, “Beautiful Day”
Henry M. Morris writes in the Defender’s Bible Notes:
“The olive tree is extremely hardy and can grow and thrive on almost barren rocky slopes. The fresh olive leaf plucked by the dove proved the land was beginning to produce a vegetal cover and so would soon be ready to support its human and animal residents again. Both seeds and cuttings from pre-Flood plants were abundant in the sediments of the Flood and could grow again as soon as adequate sunlight and dry land were available. Experiments have shown that seeds of a wide variety of plants will sprout even after many months of submergence in salt water. Actually the waters of the earth changed only gradually and slightly in salinity during the Flood, certainly not so much as to prevent the survival and multiplication of all kinds of plants and marine animals after the Flood.”
*
Studies have shown salt-tolerant plants differ from salt-sensitive ones in having a low rate of salt transport to leaves, and the ability to compartmentalize these ions in vacuoles, to prevent their build-up in cytoplasm or cell walls and thus avoid salt toxicity.
Salinity and olive: Growth, salt tolerance, photosynthesis and yield
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377405002295
SALT TOLERANCE OF VARIOUS OLIVE VARIETIES
http://www.actahort.org/books/356/356_46.htm
Enough. David Buckna, you ignorant twit, lying asshole, intellectual coward and thief…meet the banhammer.
Job 38:14
It is _turned_ as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
turned. [the Hebrew word for turn is no. 2015 in Strong’s Lexicon Hebrew]
This figurative expression refers to God’s initiation of the earth’s rotation and the day-night cycle. Each night, like a rotating clay cylinder exposing the impressions of the seal, the earth turns to the sun (or “dayspring”), exposing the wicked and their works of the night.
*
Regardless of the language, a word can have multiple meanings, so that’s why one CANNOT look at that word in isolation. You also have to consider whether a particular word is being used as a noun, verb, etc. in the verse/statement.
As Dr. Walter Martin (Christian Research Institute) was fond of saying, “A text without a context is a pretext.”
http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/2015.html
1) to turn, overthrow, overturn
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to overturn, overthrow
1a2) to turn, turn about, turn over, turn around
1a3) to change, transform
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to turn oneself, turn, turn back
1b2) to change oneself
1b3) to be perverse
1b4) to be turned, be turned over, be changed, be turned against
1b5) to be reversed
1b6) to be overturned, be overthrown
1b7) to be upturned
1c) (Hithpael)
1c1) to transform oneself
1c2) to turn this way and that, turn every way
1d) (Hophal) to turn on someone
David, you have presented none of the following to date, and I suspect you just can’t, because what is needed doesn’t exist:
Solid and conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. You keep presupposing it exists. You need an eternally burning bush or equivalent.
Solid and conclusive scientific evidence your babble is inerrant. Until you can do so, it is nothing but a book of mythology/fiction. No evidence for your flood, the exodus, or even jebus.
So, at banhamner time, the rational conclusion is that you are an evidenceless delusional fool, full of sound and fury, but at the end of the day nothing but noise without substance.
You lose. Get a live.
And the way that the word is being used in Job 38:14 is to describe SOFT CLAY CHANGING SHAPE AS A RESULT OF BEING IMPRESSED WITH A SEAL.
No rotation or revolution of the clay is being implied.
And the context has nothing that implies rotation or revolution of the clay on an axis.
I see that the text you plagiarized about Job came from the ICR. They’re as dishonest and incompetent in Hebrew scholarship as they are in science.
This applies very much to you and every other creationist.
Experimetnal evidence not Henry Moris making stuff up. The paper mentions a word you need to understand Cultivar. In otherwords some don’t exhibit salt tolerance some do and all are man made varities.
None of what you’ve provided supports your claim as you’ve not provided actual evidence.
Nice paper on salt tolerance but it doesn’t cover the time period you want it to. Salt tolerance is an evolutionary adaptation to environment over generations which you wouldn’t have had pre flood/post flood in your little fairy tale.
I haven’t done the math (nor am I sure I’m capable), but I have a strong feeling that the amount of energy needed to push that many tons of rock to that elevation in that amount of time would have had a good chance of vaporizing the mountain instead.
@Erulora
Don’t look at the math for the rainfall of the flood itself. Let’s just say, even if it wasn’t so insanely designed that the movement of the waves would tear it apart, the Ark would be smashed to Lincoln logs by the sheer force of the deluge.
To to mention the big question of how Noah and kin were able to survive at all, when you have enough water to flood the earth in the atmosphere and then suddenly remove it. There are problems going up or down in elevation with atmospheric pressure…imagine all that pressure being removed within 30 days?
I did the math once a while ago and for the moisture to be in the atmosphere to begin with would increase the pressure to deadly levels…but even given that Noah and kin were acclimated to such high pressures, wouldn’t they basically die horribly from the barometric change?
DB, stupid sockpuppet for David Buckna Another lying christian, surprise, surprise !
Of course this doesn’t establish the historicity of Jesus, you ass. It doesn’t even establish the historicity of Christians as a supposedly existent group. Look, dummy, we have people who write that the 9/11 tower destruction wasn’t caused by Bushco, and blame it on aliens from space with death rays. Does this establish the reality of aliens from space ? Of course not. Nero could just as well have blamed Martians, Romans might have believed Nero, and if it made it into Tacitus’ chronicle, then idiots like you would believe that proved Martians existed.
I happen to believe there was a rebellious preacher – Yeshua, or whatever his name was – who was the source of most of the gospel retellings and the inspiration for the cult of christianity. I think that’s more probable than the alternatives, which would be that the cult sprang up as a general social movement and within a generation or two adopted a completely fictional backstory, or that the cult was deliberately invented by one con man (cf. Scientology). But we don’t have EVIDENCE; we just have probability based on known sociology.
But of course, you’re a YECtard, so by definition, you’re too dumb to understand EVIDENCE.
Oh look, David Buckna is morphing. And still vapid.
What part of “you are banned” did you not understand, Buckna?
That’s a good paraphrase of Cicero’s speech denouncing Lucius Sergius Catilina’s plot to overthrow the Roman government.
“That quote alone would establish the historicity of Jesus. ”
On what planet? All that establishes is that there were some cultists who who called their idol “the anointed one”.
By the same standard of evidence you are agreeing that Set, Isis, Osiris, Thor, Odin, Krishna, Shiva, Zeus, Hermes, and a metric fuckton of other gods were real historical figures.
Good going, moron, you just proved that all pagan religions are true.
Both later additions. NO EVIDENCE FOR JEBUS. YOU HAVEN’T SHOWN ANY YET….
Josephus mentions people who believe in Jesus.
Not the same.
No one denies the existence of Christians, after all.
So the existence of Rome and Romans establishes the historicity of Romulus?
And the documented references to Trekkies establishes the historicity of Tiberius Kirk?
Good to know.
I regret that I didn’t stress this the first time, but Paul, “Christ” was not Jesus’ name. It’s a title. Any Greek speakers who wanted to call their leader The Anointed One would be calling him/her/it “Christ”. Or “ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ” or something.
Pardon my Greek.
To some degree this is actually true. Christian faith as it is practiced today is based on the writings of Paul and Peter, and the various early popes, all factual, historical people. (I think.)
Modern christianity, in all its forms, as practiced today, has almost nothing at all to do with any of the theology actually attribute to Jesus. Most of it is in direct contravention of Jesus’ purported teachings.
Hehe, Who the hell is Paul G. Humber ?
You know, he copypasted the exact same piece of shit that DB (David Buckna) did, which has since been removed by our tentacled overlord, with just a snippet left in quotes in my reply. Can it possibly be coincidence, or is it possible that *gasp* Paul G. Humber is another lying sockpuppet for christ with David Buckna’s fist up his ass. Or, other way around, DB was Humber’s sock all along ? Hehe. Christian scum are so cute when they think we’re as dumb as they are.
Hey, dummy, the real problem is christians like you who insist on drooling out “facts” that just ain’t so, like the global Flood, and YECtardism, and everything else you christian jerks expect us to believe just because you’re dumb enough to.
If you weren’t such bad christians and so stupid with your so-called facts, rational people might be a little more willing to go along with your beliefs.
But if you stuck to real facts, you would have so little to say that you’d have to shut up and go home and be faithful in private. Like your god commanded you to.
“Read the Bible. It’ll change your mind.”
– Lying deluded slave of a defunct desert god
“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
-Isaac Asimov, a chap who knew fiction when he saw it
There’s good reasons to think that the passage in Antiquities of the Jews that mentions Jesus was a forgery written by a Christian apologist to provide historical evidence of Jesus’ existence. Parallel sections of Josephus’ Jewish War do not mention Jesus. Also some Christian writers as late as the Third Century, who quoted from Antiquities, do not mention the passage.
David. Still no evienence for:
Your imaginary deity
Your allegedly inerrant holy book
You not being a delusional fool who doesn’t know what evidence is. Hint, if it says you are wrong, it is right. If you think it says you are right, it is wrong….
What I’d like to know is what it is that drives fundamentalists to:
– stay where they’re obviously not welcome, often until they’re banned for repeated transgressions (eg David with the endless pasting of other peoples’ “evidence”)
– keep spouting Bible verses as if they’re some kind of magic bullet, or exhorting people to read the Bible, when it’s obvious that the people they’re talking to HAVE read the sodding thing and that’s usually WHY they don’t believe it
– keep using the Bible as supporting evidence of the Bible’s claims (come on, even a 2nd-grader knows you can’t use Lord of The Rings to prove elves exist – and every Christian *knows* you can’t use the Koran to prove Mohammed had a flying horse)
– keep pasting links to or excerpts from sources such as ICR or AIG (or anything obviously Christian creationist), two venues guaranteed to not be impartial regarding evidence and both guaranteed to make audiences such as Pharyngula’s laugh at them
– continue to try to use the tiny bits of science that appear to agree with their faith as “gotchas” to undermine the rest of the body of science that obviously disagrees with or flatly contradicts their faith
There are loads of other things that creationists do that baffle me, but the theme here is: why sodding well bother? Why constantly show up in the comment threads of science blogs and/or atheist blogs and paste linkdumps or screeds from obviously partisan creationists, even when such links and screeds are thrown back in their faces as lies, distortions or fabrications?
My other, possibly most important blathering is this: fundamentalist antics like this have (anecdotally, at least) been shown to do more harm than good with regard to winning converts. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve seen or heard a former fundie or creationist say “It wasn’t until I saw Scientist A or Atheist B or Moderate Believer C comprehensively dismantle all the common creationist arguments I was raised to believe that I started questioning my faith, which ultimately led to my abandonment of it”.
Fundies are driving people away from their brand, yet they continue trying to employ the very marketing tactics that do the driving. There seems to be a very clear disconnect between how they think they’re doing and how they’re actually doing. It’s almost like their thought process is “Our aggressive advertising campaign is clearly turning people away from the product – TIME TO GET MORE AGGRESSIVE!”
One pithy definition of insanity is “performing the same action and expecting different results”. Are these people insane? Or just too stupid to realise the damage they’re doing?
For anyone who isn’t a delugional religious fanatic, there is almost nothing whatsoever that supports the existence of Jesus outside of the Gospels, and that includes the writings of Paul, who barely mentions anything about Jesus, the living person, and seems to focus exclusively on Jesus, the mythic figure. And of course, the Gospels all contradict each other, and in some cases, reality, and so cannot be considered reliable.
Nothing by Tacitus, Suetonius, or Pliny Jr, actually describes Jesus, but rather describes the existence of Christians, who believed, at that time, that there had been a person around whom their cult beliefs centered. Thinking that this is evidence of Jesus himself is as stupid as thinking that because Scientologists exist, therefore Xenu must have exist.
We know that the Testimonium Flavianum can be rejected almost entirely as a pious fraud, because Origen, who was a devout apologist, specifically referred to another reference in Josephus’ writings to Jesus, in writing an apologetic to defend against the attack on Jesus’ character written by Celsus, omitted any mention whatsoever of anything in the Testimonium Flavianum. Since the Testimonium Flavianum contains unabashed praise of the character of Jesus, Origen would have had every reason to include it in his response to Celsus, if it had existed in his copy of the work. Since Origen did not reference it, there is good reason to suspect it of being entirely a later forgery, perhaps written by Eusebius.
The reference that Origen makes to Jesus is Josephus’ description of “the brother of Jesus, called Christ, named James”, which is a sufficiently odd way of describing someone that it too may be either a deliberate or accidental pious fraud. This is especially since Josephus would have been very unlikely to provide support of being the anointed one to someone he would have had every reason to think was a pretender; a fake.
David Buckna, and other creationists, are perfect examples of pious frauds who have no qualms whatsoever about misrepresenting, distorting, and frequently flat-out lying in order to promote their dogmatic religious fanaticism. So if someone like Buckna thought that Josephus, in referring to someone else named Jesus, “should have been” referring to Jesus Christ, well, it’s but the work of a moment to add “called Christ” to the description, either while copying the text himself, or as an additional gloss to by included by later copyists.
Even as it stands, it’s a very thin reed indeed on which to support an actual person named Jesus. And yet, that’s the best there is.
“For anyone who isn’t a delugional religious fanatic…”
Floodian slip there?
:)
On the other hand, the historicity of Mohammed is beyond dispute, with real eyewitness accounts, all multiply corroborated, and plenty of supporting historical evidence.
Buckna and company, if they are really consistent with their historicity schtick, should be converting en masse.
It’s not like they’ll have to change their attitudes, behaviors, or practices to any significant degree.
Because they believe their preachers when the preachers say that everyone secretly believes in jesus deep down in their hearts, and that it’s just our pesky sin-sodden brains that get in the way. Because they believe it when they are told that we are just rejecting jesus because we want to live immoral lives. Because they believe that we, like them, should be content to accept an excuse to claim that we have a legitimate intellectual reason to believe. They believe that we already believe in our hearts that it’s all true.
They don’t understand that the primary reason they believe is that they were conditioned as children to accept the christian mythology as true and to interpret all their life experiences through the filter of their belief. And because they don’t understand why they believe, they do not understand why atheists, who either never had this childhood conditioning or have broken free of it, don’t believe.
When we say that we don’t believe in jesus because there isn’t any evidence, they assume that we are lying and arguing in bad faith. That’s why you can’t get them to stop lying and arguing in bad faith.
Thanks Stevarious
That more or less lines up with my personal hunch that without children to prey on – sorry, “teach” – religious fundamentalists (and, to a large extent, the moderates that validate and enable them) would shut the fuck up and fuck the fuck off.
Without childhood indoctrination, we’d have single digit percentages of theists in 2 generations.
I always assume their aim is the same as mine, you’re not going to convince the creationist that they are wrong but you might make silent watchers go out and change theirs. I have actually managed to change the mind of one or two creationists in the past but purely by the fact they where willing to read about the subject not just take my word for it but go out and read the information that’s there and make up their own mind about it.
I love the use of papers that showed salt tolerance, clearly only read the abstract not the paper. It doesn’t explain how a plant could survive in total darknees for 150 days underwater and then plants would regrow on salty soil. The soil which has been used to form the entire geologic column. As Charlie brown would say, “good grief!”
Thanks Kieran, that’d make sense too.
But while it’s easy to see how a fence-sitter or secretly doubting believer might be spurred into doing some reading by a scientific/atheistic argument and come to a healthy conclusion, I really fail to see how these rodeo-clowns for Jesus are going to convince anyone who isn’t already a lunatic. I think you more or less have to have your brain warped from early childhood for any of this crap to stick.
Uh…PZ. Please? PLEASE?
Super cool! Thanks for the read.
You’re truly a excellent webmaster. The web site loading velocity is incredible. It sort of feels that you are doing any distinctive trick. Moreover, The contents are masterpiece. you’ve performed a fantastic job in this topic!