Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple

Brian Sapient on Twitter

Brian Sapient

Celebrity Atheists

List of atheist sites

Ask the atheist

Antiques and Art

Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

Posted on: August 31, 2012 - 9:51am

GodsUseForAMosquito

Posts: 404

Joined: 2008-08-27

Offline

Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on: June 15, 2015 - 9:36pm #701

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

Beyond Saving wrote:You lied

Beyond Saving wrote:

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

why lie when it's out there for everyone to see?

notice I haven't found reason to necessarily degrade you for your lack of effort and maturity, yet here you go. pull the liar card again.

Posted on: June 15, 2015 - 9:47pm #702

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

Beyond Saving wrote:If homo

Beyond Saving wrote:

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

yea... reread my post and try again.. I had said it would have been the more likely direct ancestor, but the chart disagrees. Let's detract from the other obvious issue as well though. Keep trying, you'll convince someone who thinks for themselves yet.

Posted on: June 15, 2015 - 10:09pm #703

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

Vastet wrote: NO. You not

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I've called you out on many circular reasonings and yet the "evidence" behind that is allegedly insufficient..
The only one dancing in circles is you. I don't make circular arguments. I never have. You can't point at evidence to the contrary because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to argue the point that is out there for everyone to see.

next one?

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
It was a simple question. yet you deflected... I mean sure we can go in circles here, but just answer it.
Oh look you're still deflecting, while claiming I'm deflecting. A lie and a projection combined into one sentence. The rest of your post is a garbled mess that I'm not going to bother attempting to separate. Please repost it with the quotes placed properly so I know what to respond to.

I rest my case.

I mean honestly... what should I respond with here; "Oh, but see you're now deflecting while claiming that I'm deflecting by accusing you of deflecting."? Does this go anywhere? Notice the point is now lost. that was your intention though right?

Posted on: June 15, 2015 - 10:12pm #704

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

butterbattle wrote:caposkia

butterbattle wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I have given detailed reasoning and even created a logical and scientifically sound weather pattern that could possibly have channeled an excessive amount of rain to the specific locaiton in question. IT's back there somewhere...
Does anyone remember/know what post this was in?

This is in reference to a series of posts. Specifically the scientifically sound weather pattern is from post 618 and then the conversation bounces from fossil issues, dating issues, and weather sporatically. If there's something specific about that that you would like me to answer for you, let me know.

Posted on: June 16, 2015 - 3:00am #705

Beyond Saving

Posts: 5526

Joined: 2007-10-12

Offline

caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

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

I don't know. You should probably see a professional about that, because it seems to me that repeatedly doing so is a sign of mental health problems.

Quote:

notice I haven't found reason to necessarily degrade you for your lack of effort and maturity, yet here you go. pull the liar card again.

Because I have put way more effort into this conversation than is probably rational. And I "pulled the liar card" again, because you made another demonstrable lie. You claimed I didn't address your challenge to Dr. Lyon's formula. I did address it, very detailed one page earlier over several posts. On page 13, Dr. Lyons was mentioned by name 50 times. I also referred back to the original reference where I went so far as to actually calculate the precise formula that he used and deduced that he created it using retrograde analysis. I then discussed the negatives of such a technique and went on to find more detailed journals that had detailed models and considered factors more in depth than his equation ever intended to. So saying I didn't address it is a lie. At best you can say that my explanation was unsatisfactory to you, but to say I didn't address it is false. The mystery is why you lie merely one page later and say it wasn't addressed. For that, you really ought to consult a professional shrink.

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

Posted on: June 16, 2015 - 4:50am #706

Vastet

Posts: 13254

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

caposkia wrote:I don't have

caposkia wrote:

I don't have to argue the point that is out there for everyone to see.

The only points out there for all to see are those showing you getting your ass kicked.

Next!

caposkia wrote:

I rest my case.

Neverending deflection.

caposkia wrote:

I mean honestly... what should I respond with here; "Oh, but see you're now deflecting while claiming that I'm deflecting by accusing you of deflecting."? Does this go anywhere? Notice the point is now lost. that was your intention though right?

The only honest way for you to respond is to confess.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: June 17, 2015 - 2:19am #707

Jabberwocky

Posts: 411

Joined: 2012-04-21

Offline

Sorry about my absence. I

Sorry about my absence. I had bought a new computer and my password was stored on the old one. Either way, I'm back to answer this.

So I'm going to requote a small exerpt that sums up your whole issue as this is about the brow-ridge/supraorbital region.

caposkia wrote:

with the exception of the protruding browline that is consistent throughout the orbital which is strangely again absent in the human skull

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supraorbital_ridge#/media/File:Hallonflickans_kranium_English_Supraorbital_Ridge_Labeled.png

No it isn't. It is there, and visible. Subtle, but visible. You posited a change of bone structure, when it's merely a change in proportion. Similar to how pugs don't have much protrusion in their snouts while German shepherds do. That single picture shows your attempt at my challenge to be a complete failure. Also, push on your own head. I'm not sure about you, but I can feel my own supraorbital ridge. Neat eh? I almost feel like I should just drop my mic here, but it's been a while, so I figure I'd provide a full post. It's too tempting as the rest of your post is a complete disaster too.

caposkia wrote:

Basically the homo-erectus looked more like a possibility be it that the 2 species that spun off of that before humans looked further from the human skull profile than closer. The Homo-erectus also existed closer to the homo-sapien than the linked species yet there is no direct link there.

I assume by your first sentence you're implying that Homo Erectus looked (to you, as you've provided no solid justification, I'll elaborate later) more like homo-sapiens than homo heidelbergensis or homo antecessor. You then say that Homo-erectus "existed closer" to homo-sapien but there's no direct link. It shows you looked at the chart enough to see the year range they existed in, but you proved that you didn't look at the locations written next to them showing where they lived (based on fossils found). Your assertion that Homo-erectus was a more likely candidate for our most recent common ancestor (that we've found) than homo heidelbergensis is simply wrong. Then you posted 3 pictures and provided 2 labels. First, you showed a "human skull" (so homo-sapien, keep in mind that homo means human). Then you posted 2 more and labelled them homo-heidelbergensis. However, reverse google image searching the first image of those 2 led me to only a single website containing your image, and it wasn't even in English!! Luckily for me though, it was in Polish, which I happen to be fluent in as well. The site says that the fossil is of homo-antecessor from the Sierra de Atapuerca archeaeological site. Looking for the second one I found a flickr feed, that also contained the earlier image, all in a homo-heidelbergensis album, so I see how you made a mistake. It happens. Now, to help you out, each of the following 3 links contains a header that reads "Key physical features". That might help you realize just which features slowly became the way they are in modern humans.

http://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-antecessor

http://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-heidelbergensishttp://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-sapiens-modern-humans You seem to still lack an ability to grasp that some of these things happened gradually. Now, the rest of it

caposkia wrote:

beyond that, the facial structure of the human skull is quite smooth where as the latter is quite rigid in areas and has a much more pronounced cheek /frontal structure... Let's move on to homo-erectus

I think the above 3 links will do well to cover that. Now, the best part:

caposkia wrote:

Let's move on to homo-erectus ....now according to the chart, this is 3 special generations back... yet it is a more likely culprit for an ancestor to humans, with the exception of the protruding browline that is consistent throughout the orbital which is strangely again absent in the human skull yet was consistent through both other future species. If anything, it looks like homo-erectus could have possibly over much time evolved into humans except that the future generations look like they back tracked a bit from the modern day human then *poof, the brow and protruding orbital disappeared, the facial structure dramatically smoothed out and here we are.

...WHAT? What's a special generation? You have to realize that once again, these things happened gradually! The reason biologists and archaeologists will tell you that we are more closely related to homo heidelbergensis than homo antecessor, and that homo antecesor is closer to homo ergaster or a certain group of homo erectus (as they were incredibly diverse), is because of certain features, as also very well outlined in the link above. That Australian museum site also, I'm sure, has similar pages on all of those in that chart. In fact, let's check. Oh, the entry on homo-erectus is great!

Quote:

Debate abounds as to whether the Asian fossils and those from Africa should be classified together as Homo erectus or if the African examples are different enough to be called Homo ergaster. - See more at: http://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-erectus#sthash.1TWtsWCJ.dpuf

This explains, very well, the question mark in that chart. You don't even have to google it. Just change the species (the part after homo-) in your URL to whatever you want to see next! Funny how there's a debate. It's almost as if it's difficult to draw a solid line between them, as if they were somehow slowly diverging away and shaping their unique features, or something like that! You need to move your thinking away from these hard lines if you are to ever understand what is actually going on. That chart separates them because we have found a bunch of fossils that contain both similarities to one another, and differences. We have also found them in a variety of places. We attempt to categorize them, but sometimes it gets difficult. I mean, with dogs (I keep going back to this example, but I use it because it's helpful) I used to have a dog that was half german shepherd half rott-weiler. Both parents were pure-bred. Of course it's only one generation, and it's the same species so reproductively compatible, but you could quite literally go over every feature of that dog and decide which feature resembled which breed. However, what if you had that dog but the pure breeds didn't exist? Well, you would have to categorize them without that reference point. Only once you find more specimens can you begin some categorization. Now as shown by that quote from the Australian museum website, you can see that we have quite literally found such a set of fossils, that we are having trouble deciding which category an intermediate is. In fact, reading that page further shows that they indeed have classified African homo erectus as their own species distinct from the Asian variants. This article was updated in the last 2 years, putting it at a solid 2 decades newer than that chart supplied. Current thought has Asian homo-erectus as NOT the direct ancestors of homo-sapiens whereas African homo erectus and homo ergaster are considered to be so. So we have a new classification of homo erectus from Africa because they are distinct from both Asian H-Erectus and H-Ergaster. This is what you would expect if evolution occurs. We have Homo Heidelbergensis which has BOTH homo-sapien and homo-neanderthalensis features more pronounced than any other specimens (which probably then diverged to emphasize the unique traits of each of those 2 lineages). We have a brow-ridge as I showed in that pictureI can feel my own brow-ridge in 2015. It's still there! What did you provide? You ended up coming up with your very own idea of which early hominid bears the most similarity to modern humans. That picture you posted of homo-erectus, funny enough, seems to be from an Asian specimen meaning that it almost definitely was the furthest away of all that we discussed. You essentially said "this one is more similar than the others" followed by "LOOK HOW DIFFERENT IT IS!". As usual, you have not satisfied my request. Of course I can see differences in the homo-sapien skull vs. the homo heidelbergensis. However, I find these to be minor differences. Also, even homosapiens are sub-categorized. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/ngaloba-lh-18This is LH-18, an early homo-sapien specimen. Note the supraorbital region. It is not as pronounced as H-Heidelbergensis, but more pronounced than modern homo-sapiens. Just as one would expect. See, when you simply follow the evidence to the natural conclusion, rather than attempting to re-interpret the evidence to fit a pre-conceived conclusion, when you find more evidence, it makes more sense! In a world where we didn't evolve from H-heidelbergensis (or something VERY similar), you would not be able to predict whether you would expect to ever find such a skull. However, in a world where we did evolve from them, we would expect to find it. Funny how we did, isn't it? Or did god also create early homo-sapiens that look eerily like something with certain features that are somewhat homo-sapieney and also somewhat homo-heidelbergensisey?

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

Posted on: June 23, 2015 - 11:14am #708

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

Beyond Saving wrote:Because

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because I have put way more effort into this conversation than is probably rational. And I "pulled the liar card" again, because you made another demonstrable lie. You claimed I didn't address your challenge to Dr. Lyon's formula. I did address it, very detailed one page earlier over several posts. On page 13, Dr. Lyons was mentioned by name 50 times. I also referred back to the original reference where I went so far as to actually calculate the precise formula that he used and deduced that he created it using retrograde analysis. I then discussed the negatives of such a technique and went on to find more detailed journals that had detailed models and considered factors more in depth than his equation ever intended to. So saying I didn't address it is a lie. At best you can say that my explanation was unsatisfactory to you, but to say I didn't address it is false. The mystery is why you lie merely one page later and say it wasn't addressed. For that, you really ought to consult a professional shrink.

So let's take a look back on page 13 for a moment...

took me a bit to find the spot where we started talking about Dr. Lyons... I also at that time challenged you to bring to light the flaws in my analysis... you respond with; "for starters it would produce far less than 240 ft." My analysis never mentioned a specific amount of rainfall and that 240 number was a random guess as i expressed way back before even page 13... in fact I stated it as such, but you took it and ran..... to this day. Looks like that was the limit of your critique... so in other words, you had no idea about what would work or would be flawd in my analysis... unless you want to try again.

Considering dr. Lyons formula. let's see:

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

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

First of all, we're talking about a formula, not a model and my quesiton wasn't whether models had limits, it was; "who came up with it and how was it determined?"

Let's look further down and see if you answered any of the above...

So no on anything else for the analysis... and for Dr. Lyons, I think you were trying to justify it, you did answer that it was Dr. Lyons own formula.. you eventually condede to say that it was a rule of thumb, but that those are helpful in determining information... you also mention it was consistent with other models you linked, but admitted that you originally posted it becuase Dr Lyons was considered a reliable meterorologist... BAsially you had nothing... After looking into it, you determined it was a basic rule of thumb and not a weather limit and you ultimately failed to discuss the original question as to how it was determined, which is what I really wanted to know.

So I guess you're right, it was not answered to my specifications. Kudos for trying on that page though and I'm sorry I didn't see that as an effort before.

Posted on: June 23, 2015 - 11:16am #709

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I don't have to argue the point that is out there for everyone to see.
The only points out there for all to see are those showing you getting your ass kicked. Next!
caposkia wrote:
I rest my case.
Neverending deflection.
caposkia wrote:
I mean honestly... what should I respond with here; "Oh, but see you're now deflecting while claiming that I'm deflecting by accusing you of deflecting."? Does this go anywhere? Notice the point is now lost. that was your intention though right?
The only honest way for you to respond is to confess.

When you look outside and see it raining, do you try to tell people it's snowing? Are you shocked when they don't believe you? Why?

Posted on: June 23, 2015 - 11:48am #710

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:
with the exception of the protruding browline that is consistent throughout the orbital which is strangely again absent in the human skull
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supraorbital_ridge#/media/File:Hallonflickans_kranium_English_Supraorbital_Ridge_Labeled.png
No it isn't. It is there, and visible. Subtle, but visible. You posited a change of bone structure, when it's merely a change in proportion. Similar to how pugs don't have much protrusion in their snouts while German shepherds do. That single picture shows your attempt at my challenge to be a complete failure. Also, push on your own head. I'm not sure about you, but I can feel my own supraorbital ridge. Neat eh? I almost feel like I should just drop my mic here, but it's been a while, so I figure I'd provide a full post. It's too tempting as the rest of your post is a complete disaster too.

yea, neat... most animals have them... using that justification, we'd more likely be offspring of cats considering. I mean look hard at the fossil examples... we're still talking about a ridge that was very prominate in all the alleged ancestrial lines and then, *poof* it dissappeared... or.. brhem... excuse me... drastically shrunk despite the lack of regression in all the other lines. in fact, it seems larger in our immediate ancestor than it does further back... how is that explained? What made it all of a sudden shrink down to almost nothing?

I'm sorry, honestly, it's just not adding up.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I assume by your first sentence you're implying that Homo Erectus looked (to you, as you've provided no solid justification, I'll elaborate later) more like homo-sapiens than homo heidelbergensis or homo antecessor. You then say that Homo-erectus "existed closer" to homo-sapien but there's no direct link. It shows you looked at the chart enough to see the year range they existed in, but you proved that you didn't look at the locations written next to them showing where they lived (based on fossils found). Your assertion that Homo-erectus was a more likely candidate for our most recent common ancestor (that we've found) than homo heidelbergensis is simply wrong. Then you posted 3 pictures and provided 2 labels. First, you showed a "human skull" (so homo-sapien, keep in mind that homo means human). Then you posted 2 more and labelled them homo-heidelbergensis. However, reverse google image searching the first image of those 2 led me to only a single website containing your image, and it wasn't even in English!! Luckily for me though, it was in Polish, which I happen to be fluent in as well. The site says that the fossil is of homo-antecessor from the Sierra de Atapuerca archeaeological site. Looking for the second one I found a flickr feed, that also contained the earlier image, all in a homo-heidelbergensis album, so I see how you made a mistake. It happens. Now, to help you out, each of the following 3 links contains a header that reads "Key physical features". That might help you realize just which features slowly became the way they are in modern humans.
http://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-antecessor
http://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-heidelbergensishttp://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-sapiens-modern-humans You seem to still lack an ability to grasp that some of these things happened gradually. Now, the rest of it

I would expect it to happen gradually. The examples I saw did not show this. To your links, do you have some comparable pics I can look at? I need a visual... the 2nd link; homo-heidelbergensis for some reason was a bad link... can you repost it? I did do a quick google search and... all the ones I posted at least had a subtext in English, which is how I was sure what i was posting was that lineage. I guess i didnt check the original link itself to see if it all was in English... I had assumed a lineage was a lineage. iF there are different forms in different locations, that does put a whole new twist on the idea of ancestry within a species. please post some links with pics so I can see what you're talking about.

Quote:

Debate abounds as to whether the Asian fossils and those from Africa should be classified together as Homo erectus or if the African examples are different enough to be called Homo ergaster. - See more at: http://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-erectus#sthash.1TWtsWCJ.dpuf

Jabberwocky wrote:

This explains, very well, the question mark in that chart. You don't even have to google it. Just change the species (the part after homo-) in your URL to whatever you want to see next! Funny how there's a debate. It's almost as if it's difficult to draw a solid line between them, as if they were somehow slowly diverging away and shaping their unique features, or something like that! You need to move your thinking away from these hard lines if you are to ever understand what is actually going on. That chart separates them because we have found a bunch of fossils that contain both similarities to one another, and differences. We have also found them in a variety of places. We attempt to categorize them, but sometimes it gets difficult. I mean, with dogs (I keep going back to this example, but I use it because it's helpful) I used to have a dog that was half german shepherd half rott-weiler. Both parents were pure-bred. Of course it's only one generation, and it's the same species so reproductively compatible, but you could quite literally go over every feature of that dog and decide which feature resembled which breed. However, what if you had that dog but the pure breeds didn't exist? Well, you would have to categorize them without that reference point. Only once you find more specimens can you begin some categorization. Now as shown by that quote from the Australian museum website, you can see that we have quite literally found such a set of fossils, that we are having trouble deciding which category an intermediate is. In fact, reading that page further shows that they indeed have classified African homo erectus as their own species distinct from the Asian variants. This article was updated in the last 2 years, putting it at a solid 2 decades newer than that chart supplied. Current thought has Asian homo-erectus as NOT the direct ancestors of homo-sapiens whereas African homo erectus and homo ergaster are considered to be so. So we have a new classification of homo erectus from Africa because they are distinct from both Asian H-Erectus and H-Ergaster. This is what you would expect if evolution occurs. We have Homo Heidelbergensis which has BOTH homo-sapien and homo-neanderthalensis features more pronounced than any other specimens (which probably then diverged to emphasize the unique traits of each of those 2 lineages). We have a brow-ridge as I showed in that pictureI can feel my own brow-ridge in 2015. It's still there! What did you provide? You ended up coming up with your very own idea of which early hominid bears the most similarity to modern humans. That picture you posted of homo-erectus, funny enough, seems to be from an Asian specimen meaning that it almost definitely was the furthest away of all that we discussed. You essentially said "this one is more similar than the others" followed by "LOOK HOW DIFFERENT IT IS!". As usual, you have not satisfied my request. Of course I can see differences in the homo-sapien skull vs. the homo heidelbergensis. However, I find these to be minor differences. Also, even homosapiens are sub-categorized. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/ngaloba-lh-18This is LH-18, an early homo-sapien specimen. Note the supraorbital region. It is not as pronounced as H-Heidelbergensis, but more pronounced than modern homo-sapiens. Just as one would expect. See, when you simply follow the evidence to the natural conclusion, rather than attempting to re-interpret the evidence to fit a pre-conceived conclusion, when you find more evidence, it makes more sense! In a world where we didn't evolve from H-heidelbergensis (or something VERY similar), you would not be able to predict whether you would expect to ever find such a skull. However, in a world where we did evolve from them, we would expect to find it. Funny how we did, isn't it? Or did god also create early homo-sapiens that look eerily like something with certain features that are somewhat homo-sapieney and also somewhat homo-heidelbergensisey?

As I said, I'm not an expert in this field and I have only responded with what has been presented to me or what I have found. What you say makes a lot more sense... so what I found isn't in fact the right ancestor and that makes more sense now. HOwever, what you sarcastically say at the end here also seems to make sense. that being, did God creat early homo-sapiens that look eerily like something with certain features that are somewhat homo-sapieney and also somewhat homo-heidelbergensisey? well considering the differences in modern day humans within the last 1000 years or so; As see here why would that be such a hard concept to grasp?

It is funny how we did find the connections.. wait, no it's not.. it makes sense, the skull structures were different in the jaw line in one and brow line in the other. all of that is congruent with homo-sapien skulls from different races... I'm starting to see how you're easily convinced of a darwinistic evolution though.

ok, so how far back do we go to see the connection to primates? Which fossil record/s is/are they... and to get back to the op, would we have to look back futher than 2 million years, to the alleged rationalresponders.com estimation of the flood story?

Posted on: June 23, 2015 - 4:30pm #711

Beyond Saving

Posts: 5526

Joined: 2007-10-12

Offline

caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Because I have put way more effort into this conversation than is probably rational. And I "pulled the liar card" again, because you made another demonstrable lie. You claimed I didn't address your challenge to Dr. Lyon's formula. I did address it, very detailed one page earlier over several posts. On page 13, Dr. Lyons was mentioned by name 50 times. I also referred back to the original reference where I went so far as to actually calculate the precise formula that he used and deduced that he created it using retrograde analysis. I then discussed the negatives of such a technique and went on to find more detailed journals that had detailed models and considered factors more in depth than his equation ever intended to. So saying I didn't address it is a lie. At best you can say that my explanation was unsatisfactory to you, but to say I didn't address it is false. The mystery is why you lie merely one page later and say it wasn't addressed. For that, you really ought to consult a professional shrink.
So let's take a look back on page 13 for a moment...

Lets.

caposkia wrote:

took me a bit to find the spot where we started talking about Dr. Lyons... I also at that time challenged you to bring to light the flaws in my analysis... you respond with; "for starters it would produce far less than 240 ft." My analysis never mentioned a specific amount of rainfall and that 240 number was a random guess as i expressed way back before even page 13... in fact I stated it as such, but you took it and ran..... to this day. Looks like that was the limit of your critique... so in other words, you had no idea about what would work or would be flawd in my analysis... unless you want to try again.

You didn't portray your 240 feet number as "a random guess". You declared that you were informed on the subject of meteorology and in response to my questioning how much rain over 40 days was physically possible, you threw out that number and even provided "evidence" (using the term loosely) to support it in the form of the heaviest recorded rainfall in 24 hours and asserted that such intense rainfall could theoretically happen every single day for 40 days. So yes, it was a random bullshit number that you made up with no basis whatsoever, but you didn't portray it as such. You only stopped defending it when I provided copious amounts of evidence that it was impossible. The context in which you stated the 240ft came from page 8

Quote:

Caposkia wrote:
meanwhile i do have the experience in meteorology and therefore the evidences I have presented confirm the possibility.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well, then why don't you fix some of my ignorance? I haven't seen you present any evidence that such a flood is meteorologically possible, although those questions were brought up in the OP. Why don't we go that direction, because quite frankly I am sick to death of beating the dead horse with the problems regarding the dating and it is obvious you either don't have or won't share any evidence supporting your hypothesis that it occurred 2mya.
So let's talk meteorology, but you are going to have to do the heavy lifting here, because as I stated I am quite ignorant of the subject.
1. For starters, how much rain would it take to flood the entire world?
2. Where did all that water come from, and how did clouds that dense form?
3. Is there any meteorlogical evidence that suggests such a thing is possible?
I propose that we start with the assumption that the story was slightly exaggerated. After all, it wouldn't actually require covering all the mountains to kill virtually everything. Maybe we should assume that the Earth was covered by water 1 mile above sea level? Unless you have reason to select a better number. So that would be 196.9 cubic miles of water that would need to form clouds and rain in 40 days, right?

So you stated knowledge about meteorology, and I suggested we approach a subject you know about and asked specific questions. You responded with your scenario of all the ice melting, and 240 feet of rain in 40 days. I asked you if it was meteorlogically possible, and you- having asserted knowledge about the field- assured me it was theoretically possible. That is what caused me to google "maximum possible rain in 40 days" which led me to Dr. Lyons. I provided the link and I asked you- since you claimed to have knowledge about meteorology and at that point I still gave you credit and hadn't come to the conclusion that you had lied yet-

me page 10 wrote:

I tried to look up the maximum theoretical 24 hour rainfall. The only source I found was Dr. Lyons. I have no idea how credible he is or if any of these claims were peer reviewed. It appears credible to me. He claims the maximum physically possible amount of rain for a single location is 378 inches over 30 days. 31 feet. Even if you assumed it continued to average a foot a day, which it certainly wouldn't, you are only at 40 feet. A far cry from the 240 feet of rainfall you said was needed.
http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_12893.html

So is Dr. Lyon a fraud? Is he wrong? Is there another meteorologist woth a competing theory? Or am I supposed to take the word of you over him?

You see, at this point, I had done very little research and didn't see the point of doing it when I had access to someone who claimed expertise. After all, someone with expertise should know exactly what sources I should go to in order to learn and save time from digging through google. I expected you to explain to me why it wasn't applicable, and direct me towards a knowledge source that backed up your claim. Or explain to me why the numbers you were throwing around were so absurdly different from what Dr. Lyon said in his blog.

On page 11, I asked you 3 times to explain to me if Dr. Lyons was wrong and provide a source. You responded by referring me to the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" claiming that they used a realworld model to base the movie on. I googled it and could not find any such model, so I asked you to provide a link. You declared that you majored in meteorology, but failed to provide a single link. I got pissed off and stopped talking to you for awhile.

It was at that point that I went through the effort to break down Dr. Lyons numbers and figured out the formula he used. On page 11 posts 547 & 548, I found all the world record rainfall information I could find and did a statistical analysis. I then figured out the exact equation that Dr. Lyons used. I created my own little model that was heavily biased upwards, I put in your linear assumptions and I made a little graph comparing them showing how utterly absurd your assertions were graphically. Every single fucking post I asked you to provide links to experts on the maximum possible rainfall. You haven't provided one. I started with Dr. Lyons, because it was easiest to find and when you failed to provide me with sources, I have linked you to half a dozen academic papers on the subject that created entire models attempting to predict the maximum possible rain in their locality, which unsurprisingly was quite close to the range Dr. Lyons suggested.

Caposkia wrote:

Considering dr. Lyons formula. let's see:
I wrote: (I have yet to see an example of a limit to weather such as this and I'm curious as to who came up with it and how it was determined.)
You wrote: (Really?!? Every weather model I've seen has limits and they aren't all new. Read the abive links, most of the limiting factors were borrowed from previous research and can be found in the sources footnoted at the bottom.)
First of all, we're talking about a formula, not a model and my quesiton wasn't whether models had limits, it was; "who came up with it and how was it determined?"

A formula used to estimate, predict or otherwise mathematically reflect real world events is a model by definition. Dr. Lyons' model was very basic, designed to provide a ballpark estimation. On page 11, I recreated it and figured out exactly how he came up with the formula. The limits exist because of physics, the formula is exponential, because that is the form that maximum rainfall takes at least over a short period of time. In the more complex models, designed to be far more accurate than Dr. Lyons since they were designed for a scientific consumption, the limitations come in the form of the laws of physics.

Quote:

Let's look further down and see if you answered any of the above...
So no on anything else for the analysis... and for Dr. Lyons, I think you were trying to justify it, you did answer that it was Dr. Lyons own formula.. you eventually condede to say that it was a rule of thumb, but that those are helpful in determining information... you also mention it was consistent with other models you linked, but admitted that you originally posted it becuase Dr Lyons was considered a reliable meterorologist... BAsially you had nothing... After looking into it, you determined it was a basic rule of thumb and not a weather limit and you ultimately failed to discuss the original question as to how it was determined, which is what I really wanted to know.

Basically, I was hoping that you would point me towards resources I could learn from, since your claimed numbers were so radically far off from the easiest apparently reputable source I could find, I figured you would provide me with information. You are either unwilling to share your knowledge, or you don't have the knowledge you claimed. To this day, you have not pointed me towards a relevant academic source I could learn from. Which is disappointing to me. I managed to learn a lot about meteorology, but if I was talking to someone with some expertise and willing to point me in the right direction I could have learned more and been more efficient with my time.

Posted on: June 23, 2015 - 11:01pm #712

Jabberwocky

Posts: 411

Joined: 2012-04-21

Offline

caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
caposkia wrote:
with the exception of the protruding browline that is consistent throughout the orbital which is strangely again absent in the human skull
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supraorbital_ridge#/media/File:Hallonflickans_kranium_English_Supraorbital_Ridge_Labeled.png
No it isn't. It is there, and visible. Subtle, but visible. You posited a change of bone structure, when it's merely a change in proportion. Similar to how pugs don't have much protrusion in their snouts while German shepherds do. That single picture shows your attempt at my challenge to be a complete failure. Also, push on your own head. I'm not sure about you, but I can feel my own supraorbital ridge. Neat eh? I almost feel like I should just drop my mic here, but it's been a while, so I figure I'd provide a full post. It's too tempting as the rest of your post is a complete disaster too.
yea, neat... most animals have them... using that justification, we'd more likely be offspring of cats considering.   I mean look hard at the fossil examples... we're still talking about a ridge that was very prominate in all the alleged ancestrial lines and then, *poof* it dissappeared... or.. brhem... excuse me... drastically shrunk despite the lack of regression in all the other lines. in fact, it seems larger in our immediate ancestor than it does further back... how is that explained? What made it all of a sudden shrink down to almost nothing?
I'm sorry, honestly, it's just not adding up.
Jabberwocky wrote:
I assume by your first sentence you're implying that Homo Erectus looked (to you, as you've provided no solid justification, I'll elaborate later) more like homo-sapiens than homo heidelbergensis or homo antecessor. You then say that Homo-erectus "existed closer" to homo-sapien but there's no direct link. It shows you looked at the chart enough to see the year range they existed in, but you proved that you didn't look at the locations written next to them showing where they lived (based on fossils found). Your assertion that Homo-erectus was a more likely candidate for our most recent common ancestor (that we've found) than homo heidelbergensis is simply wrong. Then you posted 3 pictures and provided 2 labels. First, you showed a "human skull" (so homo-sapien, keep in mind that homo means human). Then you posted 2 more and labelled them homo-heidelbergensis. However, reverse google image searching the first image of those 2 led me to only a single website containing your image, and it wasn't even in English!! Luckily for me though, it was in Polish, which I happen to be fluent in as well. The site says that the fossil is of homo-antecessor from the Sierra de Atapuerca archeaeological site. Looking for the second one I found a flickr feed, that also contained the earlier image, all in a homo-heidelbergensis album, so I see how you made a mistake. It happens. Now, to help you out, each of the following 3 links contains a header that reads "Key physical features". That might help you realize just which features slowly became the way they are in modern humans.
http://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-antecessor
http://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-heidelbergensishttp://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-sapiens-modern-humans You seem to still lack an ability to grasp that some of these things happened gradually. Now, the rest of it
I would expect it to happen gradually. The examples I saw did not show this.   To your links, do you have some comparable pics I can look at? I need a visual... the 2nd link; homo-heidelbergensis for some reason was a bad link... can you repost it? I did do a quick google search and... all the ones I posted at least had a subtext in English, which is how I was sure what i was posting was that lineage. I guess i didnt check the original link itself to see if it all was in English... I had assumed a lineage was a lineage. iF there are different forms in different locations, that does put a whole new twist on the idea of ancestry within a species. please post some links with pics so I can see what you're talking about.

...WHAT? What's a special generation? You have to realize that once again, these things happened gradually! The reason biologists and archaeologists will tell you that we are more closely related to homo heidelbergensis than homo antecessor, and that homo antecesor is closer to homo ergaster or a certain group of homo erectus (as they were incredibly diverse), is because of certain features, as also very well outlined in the link above. That Australian museum site also, I'm sure, has similar pages on all of those in that chart. In fact, let's check. Oh, the entry on homo-erectus is great!
Quote:
Debate abounds as to whether the Asian fossils and those from Africa should be classified together as Homo erectus or if the African examples are different enough to be called Homo ergaster. - See more at: http://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-erectus#sthash.1TWtsWCJ.dpuf
Jabberwocky wrote:
This explains, very well, the question mark in that chart. You don't even have to google it. Just change the species (the part after homo-) in your URL to whatever you want to see next! Funny how there's a debate. It's almost as if it's difficult to draw a solid line between them, as if they were somehow slowly diverging away and shaping their unique features, or something like that!  You need to move your thinking away from these hard lines if you are to ever understand what is actually going on. That chart separates them because we have found a bunch of fossils that contain both similarities to one another, and differences. We have also found them in a variety of places. We attempt to categorize them, but sometimes it gets difficult. I mean, with dogs (I keep going back to this example, but I use it because it's helpful) I used to have a dog that was half german shepherd half rott-weiler. Both parents were pure-bred. Of course it's only one generation, and it's the same species so reproductively compatible, but you could quite literally go over every feature of that dog and decide which feature resembled which breed. However, what if you had that dog but the pure breeds didn't exist? Well, you would have to categorize them without that reference point. Only once you find more specimens can you begin some categorization. Now as shown by that quote from the Australian museum website, you can see that we have quite literally found such a set of fossils, that we are having trouble deciding which category an intermediate is. In fact, reading that page further shows that they indeed have classified African homo erectus as their own species distinct from the Asian variants. This article was updated in the last 2 years, putting it at a solid 2 decades newer than that chart supplied. Current thought has Asian homo-erectus as NOT the direct ancestors of homo-sapiens whereas African homo erectus and homo ergaster are considered to be so.  So we have a new classification of homo erectus from Africa because they are distinct from both Asian H-Erectus and H-Ergaster. This is what you would expect if evolution occurs. We have Homo Heidelbergensis which has BOTH homo-sapien and homo-neanderthalensis features more pronounced than any other specimens (which probably then diverged to emphasize the unique traits of each of those 2 lineages). We have a brow-ridge as I showed in that pictureI can feel my own brow-ridge in 2015. It's still there!  What did you provide? You ended up coming up with your very own idea of which early hominid bears the most similarity to modern humans. That picture you posted of homo-erectus, funny enough, seems to be from an Asian specimen meaning that it almost definitely was the furthest away of all that we discussed. You essentially said "this one is more similar than the others" followed by "LOOK HOW DIFFERENT IT IS!". As usual, you have not satisfied my request. Of course I can see differences in the homo-sapien skull vs. the homo heidelbergensis. However, I find these to be minor differences. Also, even homosapiens are sub-categorized. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/ngaloba-lh-18This is LH-18, an early homo-sapien specimen. Note the supraorbital region. It is not as pronounced as H-Heidelbergensis, but more pronounced than modern homo-sapiens. Just as one would expect. See, when you simply follow the evidence to the natural conclusion, rather than attempting to re-interpret the evidence to fit a pre-conceived conclusion, when you find more evidence, it makes more sense! In a world where we didn't evolve from H-heidelbergensis (or something VERY similar), you would not be able to predict whether you would expect to ever find such a skull. However, in a world where we did evolve from them, we would expect to find it. Funny how we did, isn't it? Or did god also create early homo-sapiens that look eerily like something with certain features that are somewhat homo-sapieney and also somewhat homo-heidelbergensisey?

As I said, I'm not an expert in this field and I have only responded with what has been presented to me or what I have found. What you say makes a lot more sense... so what I found isn't in fact the right ancestor and that makes more sense now. HOwever, what you sarcastically say at the end here also seems to make sense. that being, did God creat early homo-sapiens that look eerily like something with certain features that are somewhat homo-sapieney and also somewhat homo-heidelbergensisey? well considering the differences in modern day humans within the last 1000 years or so; As see here why would that be such a hard concept to grasp?
It is funny how we did find the connections.. wait, no it's not.. it makes sense, the skull structures were different in the jaw line in one and brow line in the other. all of that is congruent with homo-sapien skulls from different races... I'm starting to see how you're easily convinced of a darwinistic evolution though.
ok, so how far back do we go to see the connection to primates? Which fossil record/s is/are they... and to get back to the op, would we have to look back futher than 2 million years, to the alleged rationalresponders.com estimation of the flood story?

In that link you posted with the text "As see here", take a look at the brow area of those 6. I think that answers your question and destroys your point re: the brow ridge. There is a visible variation in that feature just in those 6 examples. I have no idea how that helps your point. You have varying ridge expression in homosapiens. The further you go back, the bigger on average the ridge was in general most likely. Now remember, once you hit a few hundred thousand years back, we're still at homo-sapiens. For example, Florisbad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florisbad_Skull

Where they're not sure whether to count it as archaic H. Sapiens or H. Heidelbergensis. Why? The features are a combination of the features that we have considered as classification criteria that make them distinct. This is what you would expect if we had evolved. Also, this specimen is ~260 000 years old. Any earlier than that, and your friends on the ark would have ALL had about that much brow-ridge, as specimens from around that time and back all have it. If the flood had occurred, it would mean that either our ancestors had that much brow-ridge expression, or the flood occurred more recently than 260 000 years ago. Why? Because we have found precisely 0 specimens older than that with no such ridge.

Now what's wrong with being convinced of "Darwinistic evolution" AKA the natural conclusion? When Darwin wrote his book, we didn't have a single fossil that would suggest the transition to humans. After he wrote his book, we have found many. This is one reason that acceptance of evolution has increased over-time, rather than decreased. Other reasons include geographic distribution (both of living species and fossils) and DNA. Some very hard questions of evolution have produced fossil records that help us tell the story. The brow-ridge problem you have, as I've just said, is disproven by the very link you posted, showing that it can vary. Therefore, there is no reason that the feature can't get less common and/or pronounced over a number of generations. Many other difficult questions have been answered in the fossil record and embryology as well. It was once thought that animals went through all stages of their evolution, and sketches were done by Ernst Haeckel. It turns out many were embellished, and the hypothesis was disproved. However, some "stages" are similar (and we can now photograph these things so we don't have to rely on sketches). We don't have gills, but we do have gill slits during gestation. How did the whale blowhole get up there if it had a common ancestor with land mammals?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

How did aquatic animals even get on land to be the ancestors of us all in the first place?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evograms_04

A great part about tiktaalik is they even knew where to look. The more pieces to the puzzle you have, the more likely you are to find more still. They didn't just say "one day we'll find this thing". They said "we will find this in Nunavut Territory Canada in a certain layer. They looked there, and found it.

You can, with a bit of effort, find the lineages of (probably) most modern animals. Some have better fossil records than others, because we don't expect to find every single thing, and it is understood that evolution rates will vary. If change is occuring quicker, then less of these notable transitions of features got fossilized. You seem to be unwilling to put in the effort, and willing to simply deny very obvious things. You also occasionally post a link that hurts your case. Seriously, look at that link in the Australian museum for homo sapiens again, and google each one from the "important specimens" section. Some don't have good, or any, pictures. However, most do. You will find a variety of features. Also, you will see that evolution doesn't have a future goal in mind, as you find several combinations of modern human traits vs. traits resembling earlier forms (like homo heidelbergensis and homo antecessor).

Also, quit saying that rationalresponders.com has estimated the flood story to be 2 million years old? The bulk of us here estimate that it DIDN'T HAPPEN! You posited a bunch of different dates. I believe you backed it to 2 million because everything else you tried even YOU had to admit wasn't plausible. We have added some more clarity here though. You seem to have a giant problem with the brow-ridge here. Have you changed your mind? Did Noah have a pronounced brow-ridge? If not, then it couldn't have really occurred more than 260 000 years ago. Of course, earlier in the thread (far earlier) you, yourself, backed into 2 million years because we highlighted giant problems with it having occurred more recently. So, what would you provide for a reasonable narrative? Noah had that brow and we evolved from him meaning that the brow-ridge could have evolved? Or did it occur more recently than 260 000 years ago or so? If it did, we had homo-sapiens in:

South China, France, Ethiopia, Israel, Tanzania, South Africa. Pretty fucking big flood. Were only SOME homo-sapiens god's special people? Or were they all? In a flood that big with all the animals necessary on the ark, how do you explain geographic distribution? You refuse to posit almost anything of substance in this thread, except for really shitty and invalid attempts at refuting the theory of evolution, usually from YEC sources, despite you, yourself, stating that the earth is older than 6-10k years old. Yet, you insist that this flood happened with no evidence. It's baffling how you continue posting despite it being obvious that you are wrong about almost everything you have posted in this thread!

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

Posted on: June 24, 2015 - 12:21am #713

Vastet

Posts: 13254

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

caposkia wrote:Vastet

caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
I don't have to argue the point that is out there for everyone to see.
The only points out there for all to see are those showing you getting your ass kicked. Next!
caposkia wrote:
I rest my case.
Neverending deflection.
caposkia wrote:
I mean honestly... what should I respond with here; "Oh, but see you're now deflecting while claiming that I'm deflecting by accusing you of deflecting."? Does this go anywhere? Notice the point is now lost. that was your intention though right?
The only honest way for you to respond is to confess.
When you look outside and see it raining, do you try to tell people it's snowing? Are you shocked when they don't believe you? Why?

A question you should ask yourself until you have an answer.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: June 24, 2015 - 4:51am #714

butterbattle

Posts: 3945

Joined: 2008-09-12

Offline

Out of curiosity, does

Out of curiosity, does Caposkia have a degree in meteorology or have a job in the field or....has he not given any specifics?

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

Posted on: June 24, 2015 - 10:26am #715

Vastet

Posts: 13254

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

If he has a degree, he got

If he has a degree, he got it from one of those places that hand them out like they were candy. I'm quite confident that Beyond knows more about meteorology than Caposkia does.

He has given some specifics here and there, but they were all faulty in one way or another.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: June 24, 2015 - 2:05pm #716

Beyond Saving

Posts: 5526

Joined: 2007-10-12

Offline

butterbattle wrote:Out of

butterbattle wrote:

Out of curiosity, does Caposkia have a degree in meteorology or have a job in the field or....has he not given any specifics?

Initially he claimed

Quote:

meanwhile i do have the experience in meteorology and therefore the evidences I have presented confirm the possibility.

In response to me saying I wasn't talking about meteorology because I was ignorant and didn't want to spend the time to study it. Later, he claimed to have majored in it, I don't think he ever said if he actually got his degree or not.I do remember him trying to argue from authority a few times based on my admitted ignorances, but failed to back it up with any sources outside a Hollywood movie.

I think he is a liar. He certainly made a liar out of me since it turns out I was interested in getting a crash course in meteorology.

Posted on: June 24, 2015 - 6:51pm #717

Vastet

Posts: 13254

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

Meh I don't think changing

Meh I don't think changing your mind makes you a liar.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: June 25, 2015 - 1:15am #718

Jabberwocky

Posts: 411

Joined: 2012-04-21

Offline

Vastet wrote:Meh I don't

Vastet wrote:

Meh I don't think changing your mind makes you a liar.

It more-so makes you someone who changes their mind when presented with compelling evidence to do so.

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

Posted on: June 25, 2015 - 7:08am #719

butterbattle

Posts: 3945

Joined: 2008-09-12

Offline

Beyond Saving wrote:In

Beyond Saving wrote:

In response to me saying I wasn't talking about meteorology because I was ignorant and didn't want to spend the time to study it. Later, he claimed to have majored in it, I don't think he ever said if he actually got his degree or not.I do remember him trying to argue from authority a few times based on my admitted ignorances, but failed to back it up with any sources outside a Hollywood movie.

Okay, I'll say a couple of things.

First, if anyone read my monologue with Burnedout, you might have caught that I actually work in this field. Although, I do my best to refrain from bringing it up in a debate. Obviously, partly because it's an appeal to authority, but also because I don't have a degree, and I feel that my knowledge really isn't that substantial and either isn't relevant or necessary (and I don't like participating in these debates anymore). The main reason I brought it up before was because Burnedout made it sound like anyone even remotely affiliated with this community is probably part of a global conspiracy, with was a bit....vexing as someone who's sort of part of the community in question.

Anyways, I think most of these online debates concern general concepts that any relatively intelligent, open-minded individual should be able to digest with a bit of research. You don't need a Phd in biology to grasp natural selection. You don't need a Master's in meteorology to figure out that Noah's Ark doesn't make sense. True, people are often wrong due to ignorance, but I feel that in this kind of forum, people are wrong primarily because they are closed-minded. Yes, the two often go hand-in-hand, but I like to think of closed-mindedness as the root problem while ignorance is a byproduct. I suppose my point here is that an open-minded, ignorant person would not be arguing about the subject; they would be trying to learn.

Now, concerning the post that Beyond quoted here, in Caposkia's defense, I believe he does have some knowledge of meteorology. I don't think he pasted that from somewhere else, and based on what knowledge I have, I don't see anything that's obviously bullshit in it. Nor'easters do occur mainly due to a combination air coming down from Canada to meet the unstable waves moving up the long wave trough in the Gulf Steam. His idea that it would cross the ocean to hit the Mediterranean seems rather questionable; normally, they're forced to die out in the far north Atlantic. But, obviously this is supposed to be a very rare event, and I can't say that it's "impossible" that the long wave pattern would be so zonal that the storm would simply fly across etc. etc. Sure, it's possible, maybe, depending on the circumstances, and what exactly he is asserting. I'm not sure if it matters. The original argument must have been over the validity of Genesis. Presenting the Biblical flood as inspired by a regional flood that is more or less sufficient to wipe out the indigenous human population and is feasible in our current climate is so far removed from the story presented in Genesis and/or requires such a wishy-washy moderate interpretation that I really don't give a shit.

Posted on: June 25, 2015 - 7:33am #720

Beyond Saving

Posts: 5526

Joined: 2007-10-12

Offline

Jabberwocky wrote:Vastet

Jabberwocky wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Meh I don't think changing your mind makes you a liar.
It more-so makes you someone who changes their mind when presented with compelling evidence to do so.

Well I guess we could chalk that up as the first time Cap provided compelling evidence for anything.

Posted on: August 1, 2015 - 10:46pm #721

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Meh I don't think changing your mind makes you a liar.
It more-so makes you someone who changes their mind when presented with compelling evidence to do so.
Well I guess we could chalk that up as the first time Cap provided compelling evidence for anything.

LOL, that only took you how many pages to finally admit? I'll chalk that up to a self-justification bias on your part. Work on your bias blind spot a bit more and you might be surprised at what you might see.

The worst part is, I can throw Dr. Level names at you, professors, experts, etc. and tell you I'm an expert in the field; and yet it takes a post from a fellow blogger to actually consider it evidence. Do you not see a problem with that?

I've told you many times I'm here to learn. How do I learn from ignorant liar accusations when I know it's from ignorance and not rational thought? take some advice and try to learn from time to time. You might be surprised at your potential. I saw something in you early on... then it faded out when your belief system was challenged in a way you could not defend. Bring back that person. IT will lead to much more interesting conversation. Until then; dont' forget to think for yourself.

Posted on: August 1, 2015 - 11:22pm #722

Vastet

Posts: 13254

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

caposkia wrote:LOL, that

caposkia wrote:

LOL, that only took you how many pages to finally admit?

The point flew right over your head. Talk about blind spots. rofl

caposkia wrote:

The worst part is, I can throw Dr. Level names at you, professors, experts, etc. and tell you I'm an expert in the field; and yet it takes a post from a fellow blogger to actually consider it evidence. Do you not see a problem with that?

You can't do shit, as evidenced by thre fact you couldn't do shit while getting your ass handed to you page after page.

caposkia wrote:

I've told you many times I'm here to learn.

Lies. You're here to try and convince us of your bullshit pseudoscience, but we're not buying it.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: August 1, 2015 - 11:58pm #723

Jabberwocky

Posts: 411

Joined: 2012-04-21

Offline

I love how he comes back to

I love how he comes back to claim a victory someone willingly handed to him, but hasn't been around in many weeks to address specific pointed questions that should be simple for anyone who is actually right.

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

Posted on: August 2, 2015 - 6:00am #724

Beyond Saving

Posts: 5526

Joined: 2007-10-12

Offline

caposkia wrote:LOL, that

caposkia wrote:

LOL, that only took you how many pages to finally admit? I'll chalk that up to a self-justification bias on your part. Work on your bias blind spot a bit more and you might be surprised at what you might see.

Yes, I tend to give people a much larger benefit of the doubt than they deserve. Just look at all the threads I have replying to brian37 with well thought out replies supported by evidence.

Quote:

The worst part is, I can throw Dr. Level names at you, professors, experts, etc. and tell you I'm an expert in the field; and yet it takes a post from a fellow blogger to actually consider it evidence. Do you not see a problem with that?

If you can, then why haven't you? I have been asking you to for almost a year now. The evidence IS that you have failed to provide a single academic or other equally solid source.

Quote:

I've told you many times I'm here to learn. How do I learn from ignorant liar accusations when I know it's from ignorance and not rational thought? take some advice and try to learn from time to time. You might be surprised at your potential.

Yet you have failed to learn. Meanwhile, I have a demonstrably improved education on the subject of meteorology. No thanks to you, the supposed expert, but through my own research to respond to your bullshit.

Quote:

I saw something in you early on... then it faded out when your belief system was challenged in a way you could not defend. Bring back that person. IT will lead to much more interesting conversation. Until then; dont' forget to think for yourself.

If you have ANY shred of evidence at all, please provide it. So far the ONLY evidence you have presented is that you are a fucking troll. What is the difference in me? When I started, I took you as an honest and serious person looking to have a two way conversation, and treated you as such. Recently, I gave up because it is clear that you are either not honest or serious. My opinion of you has dropped significantly, that is the change that I referred to when I responded that the evidence you provided changed my mind.

Prove me wrong. Respond with actual evidence that refutes my various points.

Posted on: September 6, 2015 - 12:19pm #725

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

Beyond Saving wrote:Yes, I

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, I tend to give people a much larger benefit of the doubt than they deserve. Just look at all the threads I have replying to brian37 with well thought out replies supported by evidence.

I'll give you that. I've had conversations with him.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Caposkia wrote:
The worst part is, I can throw Dr. Level names at you, professors, experts, etc. and tell you I'm an expert in the field; and yet it takes a post from a fellow blogger to actually consider it evidence. Do you not see a problem with that?
If you can, then why haven't you? I have been asking you to for almost a year now. The evidence IS that you have failed to provide a single academic or other equally solid source.

I have... reread and then answer the question. the point was that I can... and have several times... why did I stop? You didn't accept it, yet the statement of a fellow blogger held more weight than all of that.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet you have failed to learn. Meanwhile, I have a demonstrably improved education on the subject of meteorology. No thanks to you, the supposed expert, but through my own research to respond to your bullshit.

I have not seen anything substantial to learn from.

you have demonstrated improved education, but still insufficient.

your own research was still insufficient and you have failed to show anything about how what I've claimed meteorologically could not have happened... e.g. the formula, how it came to be, why it came to be as it did and how it is the true limit of weather...

I had to find out for everyone that the formula was a dumbed down for the layman to understand a logical generality of weather limits and that it did not example the true extreme possiblities of weather.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If you have ANY shred of evidence at all, please provide it. So far the ONLY evidence you have presented is that you are a fucking troll. What is the difference in me? When I started, I took you as an honest and serious person looking to have a two way conversation, and treated you as such. Recently, I gave up because it is clear that you are either not honest or serious. My opinion of you has dropped significantly, that is the change that I referred to when I responded that the evidence you provided changed my mind.
Prove me wrong. Respond with actual evidence that refutes my various points.

I have provided evidences... you claim you have too.. I claim the same to you, to provide me with a shred... maybe we need to think about what evidence is, vs. what we want it to be.

it sounds to me as if we have the same views of each other... somewhere in the middle, both of us have proven to each other that we are idiots... I could have said the same thing to you and believed it about you just as much as you do about me. Congradulations. We have proven that evidence means nothing if you don't believe in it and that arguing the point only makes us look dumber... Good place to stop Smiling

Posted on: September 6, 2015 - 12:48pm #726

Vastet

Posts: 13254

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

caposkia wrote:I have...

caposkia wrote:

I have... reread and then answer the question.

No, you haven't.

caposkia wrote:

the point was that I can... and have several times...

You can't, and you haven't.

caposkia wrote:

You didn't accept it, yet the statement of a fellow blogger held more weight than all of that.

All you provided was unsupported opinions from unqualified sources, and in the process you attempted to move the goal posts a number of times. Beyond even went with your shifting and still disproved your arguments conclusively. You are completely defeated.

Funny how you say a blogger holds more weight than actual scientific studies by qualified experts in the field. It just goes to show you have nothing to stand on.

caposkia wrote:

I have not seen anything substantial to learn from.

Correction: You refuse to accept substantial evidence to maintain your belief in impossible mythology.

caposkia wrote:

you have demonstrated improved education, but still insufficient.

Sufficient to qualify him as a better expert than yourself and all your sources.

caposkia wrote:

your own research was still insufficient and you have failed to show anything about how what I've claimed meteorologically could not have happened... e.g. the formula, how it came to be, why it came to be as it did and how it is the true limit of weather...

Blatant lies.

caposkia wrote:

I have provided evidences...

Blatant lie.

caposkia wrote:

you claim you have too..

Difference being he actually has.

caposkia wrote:

I claim the same to you, to provide me with a shred...

Reread his posts.

caposkia wrote:

maybe we need to think about what evidence is, vs. what we want it to be.

Correction: You need to learn what evidence is, instead of relying on what you wish it was.

caposkia wrote:

it sounds to me as if we have the same views of each other... somewhere in the middle, both of us have proven to each other that we are idiots... I could have said the same thing to you and believed it about you just as much as you do about me.

Difference being that you have proved yourself an idiot to everyone here, while he has done so only to you. Since you aren't qualified to make such a judgement, you win the top idiot award. Congratulations.

caposkia wrote:

We have proven that evidence means nothing if you don't believe in it and that arguing the point only makes us look dumber... Good place to stop

All that has been proved is that you refuse to acknowledge evidence when it proves your mythology is impossible. Well, that and the absolute impossibility of the flood.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: September 7, 2015 - 11:55am #727

Beyond Saving

Posts: 5526

Joined: 2007-10-12

Offline

Caposkia wrote:The worst

Caposkia wrote:

The worst part is, I can throw Dr. Level names at you, professors, experts, etc. and tell you I'm an expert in the field; and yet it takes a post from a fellow blogger to actually consider it evidence. Do you not see a problem with that?

If you can, then why haven't you? I have been asking you to for almost a year now. The evidence IS that you have failed to provide a single academic or other equally solid source.

Liar.

No, you haven't. Can you at least be honest about what has occurred in this thread? You have not linked to a single peer reviewed journal, a single meteorologist or other expert supporting your claims. II, on the other hand, have linked to half a dozen peer reviewed journal articles that at least partially addressed the maximum potential rainfall. Instead of even addressing those, you focused on Dr. Lyon's article, and have even failed to debunk that outside of critisizing it for not being a scientific paper which it wasn't meant to be abd was never portrayed as.

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yet you have failed to learn. Meanwhile, I have a demonstrably improved education on the subject of meteorology. No thanks to you, the supposed expert, but through my own research to respond to your bullshit.

I have not seen anything substantial to learn from.
you have demonstrated improved education, but still insufficient.

You are the one who has claimed experience in the field. If you can't find a place to learn on the internet, that is your fault. I have linked to numerous articles I found informative. As the person with the self proclaimed expertise, you should be the one providing informative links, since you shoukd better know where to look for the answer to the question "What is the maximum potential rainfall?"

Quote:

I have provided evidences... you claim you have too.. I claim the same to you, to provide me with a shred... maybe we need to think about what evidence is, vs. what we want it to be.

Liar. Where have you provided evidence? What expert names have you thrown out? The only one I remember is Ted Fujita, but since he was an expert on tornados, I am not sure if he has anything relevant to add. You have not even provided links to any articles he may have written. I looked through his bibliography just now (he is dead and hasn't resesarched for 20+ years) and none of it seemed relevant to the question of maximum possible rainfall based on the abstracts.

We have spent pages discussing the evidence I presented, and there was more you essentially ignored. Probably because they were complex. I am on vacation and only have my tablet, but when I get home I will post all the links I have provided thus far, just in case there are lurkers who don't feel like reading the whole thread.

Posted on: September 12, 2015 - 10:46am #728

Beyond Saving

Posts: 5526

Joined: 2007-10-12

Offline

Quote:I have provided

Quote:

I have provided evidences... you claim you have too.. I claim the same to you, to provide me with a shred... maybe we need to think about what evidence is, vs. what we want it to be.

myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/PDF/Research/JaggerElsner2006.pdf

www.agci.org/docs/2068.pdf

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

www.met.psu.edu/weather/other-resources/meteorological-measurements-units-and-conversions-1

pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1254/pdf/circ1254.pdf

weatherhistorian.blogspot.com/

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1955.tb01138.x/pdf

www.scn.org/~bm733/infaq.html

rams.atmos.colostate.edu/at540/fall03/fall03Pt7.pdf

www.met.rdg.ac.uk/phdtheses/The%20predictability%20of%20atmospheric%20blocking.pdf

www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gcwmb/mdls.php

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

Emanuel, K. A., K. Speer, R. Rotunno, R. Srivastava, and M. Molina (1995), Hypercanes: A possible link in global extinction scenarios, J. Geophys. Res., 100(D7), 13755–13765

There's mine, fortunately I have a habit of storing everything in my bookmarks in perpetuity. All of these were presented as evidence to counter the ridiculous assertions you have made throughout this tangent. From your ridiculous claims that meteorologists don't make models, that they don't model things that have never happened, that weather historians don't exist, that we wouldn't know about a flood that occurred a million years ago, that you have never seen a limit in a model, that it is impossible to predict what the maximum possible rainfall could be in an area etc. There is certainly far more than a "shred" here.

Exactly what evidence have you submitted thus far? Oh yeah, a movie script, a pretty picture, news articles about bad floods (that most people survived) a YEC "geologist" and a real geologist who speculated that the foundation of the Noah myth was a flood of the Black Sea a few thousand years ago that wiped out a few villages (but nowhere near the entire human population). Am I missing anything?