Biblical Flood? Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru

[DOC]

Not only do you believe that all the mountains in the world came into existence during the last 4,000 years..

No I don't.

 

[Akhenaten]

He also said Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. This implies things had changed and people could handle his new laws whereas they didn't have the ability before. Even Christ told the apostles there are some things you can't bear at this time.

Such as not being able to make much of a living as fisherman in the Sea of Galilee since, according to DOC's Theory of Galloping Continents™, the Jordan Rift in which it lies wouldn't have yet formed.


Speaking of the Sea of Galilee . . .

I'll just leave this here:

Mysterious rock pile structure found beneath Sea of Galilee off Israeli coast​

 

[Akhenaten]

Not only do you believe that all the mountains in the world came into existence during the last 4,000 years..

No I don't.

Then I'll ask you again: what is the point you were hoping to make with this thread?


ETA:


Oh, I see. I gather that you're simply taking issue with my use of 4,000 years when in fact your claim is that it was 6,000 years.

Are you saying that Pangea was still one land mass 6000 years ago? And everything moved to where it is since then?

It's a possibility since it would seem the entire earth being under water 150 days and "fountains of the deep" (mentioned in Genesis) shooting out water, could have loosened things up quite a bit for a subsequent sudden shift of land masses.

Yeah, those extra 2,000 years change everything.

Not.

 

[GeneMachine]

For English "whale" Google translate gives in Greek both "φάλαινα" which looks to me as if it has been borrowed from French, and also "κήτος". So now you're arguing with Jesus AND Google!

As far as I interpret the dictionary entries, it simply means anything big living in the sea. So it would include whales, of course.

 

[Akhenaten]

Conservapedia....
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Ad hom fallacy. This ad hom fallacy occurs every time I mention this site and the fallacy will probably continue in the future.

Ooh looky! A two-for-one fail!

Not only do you once again demonstrate your inability to recognise that Conservapedia is not a valid source, but you reaffirm your total ignorance of the logic you claim to have studied by completely failing to grasp the meaning of so basic a fallacy as ad hominem.

 

[DOC]

failing to grasp the meaning of so basic a fallacy as ad hominem.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9175441#post9175441

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, I will laugh everytime you use it as a source. Because it is a terrible source.

Then you would prefer not to know that the originator of Pangaea partly got his idea from the bible or a Jesuit priest (Georges Lemaître) was the first to come up with the idea of the big bang.

Are you claiming that Conservapedia is the primary source of these pieces of information, or the only source?

Just how wrong do you need to be, DOC?

 

[Akhenaten]

failing to grasp the meaning of so basic a fallacy as ad hominem.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9175441#post9175441

Why have you posted a link to yet another example of your failure to understand the meaning of ad hominem?

I was already well aware of such failure, obviously.


Should I post a list o' links to all the posts where people have explained your error to you?

 

[Akhenaten]

In related news, Jonah lived in a whale for three days.

A land whale, at that, since the Mediterranean Sea didn't yet exist.

 

[Akhenaten]

Are you saying that Pangea was still one land mass 6000 years ago? And everything moved to where it is since then?

You wouldn't believe the bow wave that Africa raised as it zoomed South towards Antarctica India Atlantis.

 

[Craig B]

As far as I interpret the dictionary entries, it simply means anything big living in the sea. So it would include whales, of course.

Yes of course you're right. However, modern English uses "cetacean" now in reference only to whales.

 

[pakeha]

Then you don't believe the world was one continent at one time and broke up into several continents as many scientists believe.

From the article: Pangea

"The idea of a single continent breaking up into the ones we have today was first proposed in 1859 by creationist Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, partly on the basis of the description in Genesis 1:9-10 .[1] However, the idea was not accepted by others at the time. Even after Wegener resurrected the idea, it took another half century before it came to be widely accepted.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Pangea

And there is no rule that God couldn't have created new species after the flood.

Are you saying that Pangea was still one land mass 6000 years ago? And everything moved to where it is since then? ...

It's a possibility since it would seem the entire earth being under water 150 days and "fountains of the deep" (mentioned in Genesis) shooting out water, could have loosened things up quite a bit for a subsequent sudden shift of land masses.

A sudden shift?
Are you aware of the distances you're talking about in that 'sudden shift'?

I'm virtually certain that you won't know this but there are civilizations whose history pre-dates that. There was no global flood 6000 years ago.

What is your evidence those civilizations survived the flood?

Here's a listing of cities that are older than this flood date
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_time_of_continuous_habitation
No signs of flooding here.

So what do you call the fallacy where your judgement of information is not based on the accuracy of the information presented but strictly on your opinion of the source where the information came from?

Not opinion, DOC.
Consideration of facts.

 

[tsig]

It's a possibility since it would seem the entire earth being under water 150 days and "fountains of the deep" (mentioned in Genesis) shooting out water, could have loosened things up quite a bit for a subsequent sudden shift of land masses.

The Earth got an attack of the "runs"?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So what do you call the fallacy where your judgement of information is not based on the accuracy of the information presented but strictly on your opinion of the source where the information came from?

"Ad hom" attacks are attacks against a person. I know that site isn't a person. And I'm beginning to suspect some posters here aren't either.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Earth got an attack of the "runs"?

The tectonic plates were like the crust on slightly chocolate pudding. God forgot to put some plastic wrap over Earth when he put us in the fridge. I don't know how many times I've told him about that, but he never remembers.

 

[Slowvehicle]

So what do you call the fallacy where your judgement of information is not based on the accuracy of the information presented but strictly on your opinion of the source where the information came from?

There is no fallacy involved in pointing out that a source that claims, evidently seriously, that "...E-MC² is liberal claptrap..." is, at best, an untrustworthy source.

The demonstrated loony bias of Conservipedia makes it a suspect source for any information. Credibility (as has been pointed out to you) is not a boomerang.

Consider reading X's post #304, in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9175138&postcount=304

How many times should the boy be allowed to cry, "Wolf!" ?

 

[Correa Neto]

The level of intellectual dishonesty ehxibited by YEC while debating their beliefs never ceases to amazes me. It has to be dishonesty, for no person with basic understanding of science and its history (something needed for this type of discussion) would repeatedly make such an enourmous ammount of basic errors. Blind belief is not enough. It can explain the errors commited by the naïve, ignorant, quite often indoctrinated and manipulated followers of fundamentalist leaders. Such things, when presented at places like Conservapedia, Answers in Genesis and the Creationsm Museum, are not just mere errors or divergent interpretations - they become scams.

Take the case of Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, for example. The context of his hypothesis was completely ignored by the scammer who presented them to back YEC and somehow make it compatible with plate tectonics. Just to mention a few, the scammer ommited the facts that science has evolved a lot since the mid XIX century, that no absolute geochronologic dates were available back then, only relative ages were known and also all the social context of those times. YEC defenders like those are distorting science and its history; if they happen to have a degree on science, they are prostituting it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

And in related news some scientists believe Jonah's and the whale's earliest ancestor was the same one celled creature, who ultimately caused Jonah and the whale by unintelligent forces.

See? That's a Conservipedia-quality self-serving distortion. Please to provide a source to the scientist who "believes" this.

Or, you could look up the concept of a "straw man".

I eagerly await your identification of this scientist.

 

[Correa Neto]

A land whale, at that, since the Mediterranean Sea didn't yet exist.

Simple, Brother!
Jonah was eaten by a pakicetid.
It was either a giant pakicetid or Jonah was a very small man.
Praise the Lord, Brother, praise the Lord!

Pakicetids: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetid

 

[Slowvehicle]

No I don't.

Your intimation that Pangea was one continent as recently as 6K years ago seems to indicate otherwise.

Suppose you lay out a chronology:

In your opinion, when did 'god' create the world?

In your opinion, when was Pangea last a single continent?

In your opinion, when did the "global flood" happen?

In your opinion, when did the orogeny of the Himalayas happen?

Please to put those 4 events in the order you want to be able to claim that they happened, with the dates you want to wish for them.