No global flood.

[philadiddle]

A new vid on youtube. Tell me what you think!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY&feature=channel_page

I can't wait for the second part!!

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell me what you think!!

I gotta admit, Phil, very seldom do I watch a YOUTUBE presentation --- especially if it's an OP.

But I watched this one --- and plan to watch it again.

What do I think about it?

I have to admit --- I'm a little disappointed --- it needs just a tad more work done on it.

He needs to make it so that the Flood was IMPOSSIBLE, not IMPROBABLE.

This is what I find disappointing with Flood arguments --- it doesn't present the data as if God was UNABLE to do what He did --- and instead, presents the data as if God would have been deceptive had He placed the layering in the order we see it now.

Stop that IMPROBABLE stuff --- and go big --- make it IMPOSSIBLE.

Then watch God shine!

The darker the night --- the brighter the light!

Let's hope Part 2 is better, eh?

Remember --- from you guys' perspective --- we serve a deceptive God --- so go BIG with your arguments!

 

[theFijian]

Remember --- from you guys' perspective --- we serve a deceptive God --- so go BIG with your arguments!

No that's your perspective AV, apparently God has deliberately made the univere look a different ago to what it actually is (aka. embedded age)

 

[Mallon]

This one's hilarious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwywMP4Sxgo&feature=channel_page

 

[AV1611VET]

No that's your perspective AV...

Not hardly.

...apparently God has deliberately made the univere look a different ago to what it actually is...

Not hardly.

...(aka. embedded age)

Not hardly --- (aka. Omphalos).

 

[juvenissun]

A new vid on youtube. Tell me what you think!!


I can't wait for the second part!!

Boring. That is what I felt.

You pick up ONE topic said in the video to debunk the Global Flood, I can definitely show you that your argument is invalid. There are more than 10 (?) such topics jammed in the video. In fact, they are ALL junk arguments.

This is the one I remembered: "one flood only makes one layer of sediments rather than many layers". Is this a stupid argument or what? Sometimes a flood made one layer sediments. Sometimes it made several layers, and some other time, it made no layer at all.

Conclusion: junkyard video only good for politicians.

 

[philadiddle]

Boring. That is what I felt.

You pick up ONE topic said in the video to debunk the Global Flood, I can definitely show you that your argument is invalid. There are more than 10 (?) such topics jammed in the video. In fact, they are ALL junk arguments.

This is the one I remembered: "one flood only makes one layer of sediments rather than many layers". Is this a stupid argument or what? Sometimes a flood made one layer sediments. Sometimes it made several layers, and some other time, it made no layer at all.

Conclusion: junkyard video only good for politicians.

I find it kinda funny what Aronra said in his latest anti creationist video, #14 part 2/2. He said that all creationist evidence is based on "Goddidit" and all creationist rebuttles are just a variation of "that doesn't prove anything."

I find it funny cause that's all I've ever seen you say in reply to geological evidence. You just say, as you did above, "that doesn't prove anything." But you never address the details. The video showed that there were layers in the first experiment, just that they blurred together. The distinctive separation of layers comes when they are laid down one at a time. We also can see what types of rocks are laid down in what ways. Of course, you never address any of that stuff. You also never seem to have any valid testable ideas that you bring forth. You just make vague assertions about broad subjects and try to make it sound like the the theory that matches the evidence is baseless. Cmon, let's have a serious discussion about this.

 

[juvenissun]

I find it kinda funny what Aronra said in his latest anti creationist video, #14 part 2/2. He said that all creationist evidence is based on "Goddidit" and all creationist rebuttles are just a variation of "that doesn't prove anything."

I find it funny cause that's all I've ever seen you say in reply to geological evidence. You just say, as you did above, "that doesn't prove anything." But you never address the details. The video showed that there were layers in the first experiment, just that they blurred together. The distinctive separation of layers comes when they are laid down one at a time. We also can see what types of rocks are laid down in what ways. Of course, you never address any of that stuff. You also never seem to have any valid testable ideas that you bring forth. You just make vague assertions about broad subjects and try to make it sound like the the theory that matches the evidence is baseless. Cmon, let's have a serious discussion about this.

To you, I may sound vague. That is because you do not understand what I said. If I elaborated what I said so you could understand, it would be at least three pages long. And I am not going to do that. So, if you like to know more, then pick up a key point and ask.

And, the logic of my argument is valid.

Someone said: Because of A, so there is no Global Flood.
I said: Even with A, there still could be a Global Flood.

I am defending the possibility of a Global Flood. My argument only shows the accusation is a lousy one. And, if I could defeat all attacks to the possibility of a Global Flood, may be I don't have to give any evidence to prove it.

 

[philadiddle]

To you, I may sound vague. That is because you do not understand what I said. If I elaborated what I said so you could understand, it would be at least three pages long. And I am not going to do that. So, if you like to know more, then pick up a key point and ask.

And, the logic of my argument is valid.

Someone said: Because of A, so there is no Global Flood.
I said: Even with A, there still could be a Global Flood.

I am defending the possibility of a Global Flood. My argument only shows the accusation is a lousy one. And, if I could defeat all attacks to the possibility of a Global Flood, may be I don't have to give any evidence to prove it.

Well then, the video explained how the distinctive separation of strata indicate they were laid down one at a time. If they were laid down together in a flood, there would be some blurring of the lines. So please explain how a flood could have given sedimentary deposits the distinctive division we see.

 

[juvenissun]

Well then, the video explained how the distinctive separation of strata indicate they were laid down one at a time. If they were laid down together in a flood, there would be some blurring of the lines. So please explain how a flood could have given sedimentary deposits the distinctive division we see.

Good question. I appreciate it.

The type of sedimentary deposit partially depends on the availability of particular source sediments. If the change of source is continuous (for example: it goes from 90% sand + 10% mud to 90% mud +10% sand), then any layered deposit would have the "burring" (transitional) contact (megascopic or microscopic, depends on the rate of change). In order to have real sharp contact, there should be either a hiatus between sequential sources, or a dramatic change of hydraulic property. In classical sedimentology, both situations are recognized.

It is not impossible that during the Global Flood, one locality would receive different nature of sediments (grain size, composition etc) brought in by very different nature of current flow (speed, quantity, turbidity, direction etc.). In particular, if you can envision that the flood water had 3D structure and currents moved in 3D space (they are both 2D in the classical models. For example: horizontal current; one source of sediments at a time; etc.). Under this very special type of hydraulic structure, any type of sedimentary deposit is possible.

So, a model to create a layer of sand above a layer of mud with a sharp contact could be: Sand-size or pebble-size mud lumps laid down at lower layer of water, and received later-arrived sediments from a concurrent layer of water above it which carried more sand than mud (from different source). If this environment existed, the two-layer deposit could be made in probably shorter than one day of time.

--------

There are more problems hidden beneath. But if you do not see it, I won't stir it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well then, the video explained how the distinctive separation of strata indicate they were laid down one at a time. If they were laid down together in a flood, there would be some blurring of the lines. So please explain how a flood could have given sedimentary deposits the distinctive division we see.

If I may,

Any good critic would read the original account instead of relying on traditional images of the flood. The story is quite detailed and reveals why the usual flood models are useless in gathering evidence for or against Noah's flood. It only takes a few minutes to read, however it takes much longer to really understand what is being described. And it is much different than the traditional understanding of the flood.

Call to mind some things that you (have come to) believe about the flood. Then carefully read the account in the KJV. If you are alert and honest you will (or should) be surprised.

You may ask, "But hasn't this story been studied to death over the years in an attempt to prove or disprove it?" Absolutely not. I am no scholar, but I can read, and there are important elements of the story that have never been considered in any critique or discussion that I have ever heard or read that are absolutely necessary to understand exactly what happened.

It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to set up and defeat the weak traditional understanding of the flood all the while knowing that the real story would be nearly impossible to debunk. This is always done with the flood story. Because scientists are so very precise in their evaluations of most things I believe they are deliberately ignoring the most important elements of the flood story in a continuing attempt to debunk it. (This is called "holding the truth (captive) in unrighteousness".) This is easily done as most floodnuts haven't seen what the scientists (whose nature is to be precise) must have seen in the story.

(Why don't I just tell you what you're missing? That would defeat the purpose of learning for yourself directly from God's word. Beside's, it's more fun this way. )

owg

 

[juvenissun]

You may ask, "But hasn't this story been studied to death over the years in an attempt to prove or disprove it?" Absolutely not. I am no scholar, but I can read, and there are important elements of the story that have never been considered in any critique or discussion that I have ever heard or read that are absolutely necessary to understand exactly what happened.

Can't agree more. Unfortunately, most scientists either do not look at these problems at all, or have no time to explore them. The reason is obvious because I was one of them until recent. It is not easy to do that when work in the mainstream secular sciences. The situation makes a loud echo to me on what Jesus said that the right road is narrow.

 

[The Barbarian]

Absolutely not. I am no scholar, but I can read, and there are important elements of the story that have never been considered in any critique or discussion that I have ever heard or read that are absolutely necessary to understand exactly what happened.

Can't agree more. Unfortunately, most scientists either do not look at these problems at all, or have no time to explore them. The reason is obvious because I was one of them until recent. It is not easy to do that when work in the mainstream secular sciences. The situation makes a loud echo to me on what Jesus said that the right road is narrow.

Tell us about these things that have never been considered. Sounds intriguing.

Why don't I just tell you what you're missing? That would defeat the purpose of learning for yourself directly from God's word. Beside's, it's more fun this way.

I can think of another possible reason. Let's see what you've got.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Absolutely not. I am no scholar, but I can read, and there are important elements of the story that have never been considered in any critique or discussion that I have ever heard or read that are absolutely necessary to understand exactly what happened.

Tell us about these things that have never been considered. Sounds intriguing.



I can think of another possible reason. Let's see what you've got.

Like I said, it's more fun if you discover for yourself (if you're interested that is).

owg

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Absolutely not. I am no scholar, but I can read, and there are important elements of the story that have never been considered in any critique or discussion that I have ever heard or read that are absolutely necessary to understand exactly what happened.

Tell us about these things that have never been considered. Sounds intriguing.



I can think of another possible reason. Let's see what you've got.

Like I said, it means more if you discover for yourself by carefully studying the story.

Many think that 'study' means going to a bible study or hearing a sermon about a subject, or a cursory reading of the story. Real study is complete immersion in the subject using all means and energy available to come to an understanding. If I told you what I have discovered it would be much less real and meaningful than if you 'discovered' it for yourself through real study. (Going fishing is a lot more fun than just eating fish.)

owg

 

[philadiddle]

Like I said, it means more if you discover for yourself by carefully studying the story.

Many think that 'study' means going to a bible study or hearing a sermon about a subject, or a cursory reading of the story. Real study is complete immersion in the subject using all means and energy available to come to an understanding. If I told you what I have discovered it would be much less real and meaningful than if you 'discovered' it for yourself through real study. (Going fishing is a lot more fun than just eating fish.)

owg

At the same time I believe you are being genuine I also think this is a cop out.

 

[juvenissun]

Tell us about these things that have never been considered. Sounds intriguing.

This is part of what I put on #10. And it is an example.

It is not impossible that during the Global Flood, one locality would receive different nature of sediments (grain size, composition etc) brought in by very different nature of current flow (speed, quantity, turbidity, direction etc.). In particular, if you can envision that the flood water had 3D structure and currents moved in 3D space (they are both 2D in the classical models. For example: horizontal current; one source of sediments at a time; etc.). Under this very special type of hydraulic structure, any type of sedimentary deposit is possible.

People never consider this factor because it does not happen today. If you need further explanation, please let me know where should I elaborate.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is not impossible that during the Global Flood, one locality would receive different nature of sediments (grain size, composition etc) brought in by very different nature of current flow (speed, quantity, turbidity, direction etc.).

That happens now. But it doesn't explain where those forests and deserts came from in the middle of the "global flood." How on earth could those things appear and then be covered as dozens of feet of sediment were being added every hour?

In particular, if you can envision that the flood water had 3D structure and currents moved in 3D space (they are both 2D in the classical models.

Hydrology and sedimentology use 3-D models. But that still doesn't explain the problems with a sudden global flood.

For example: horizontal current; one source of sediments at a time; etc.). Under this very special type of hydraulic structure, any type of sedimentary deposit is possible.

Show me. I'd like to see those details.


​

People never consider this factor because it does not happen today.

I'd like to see some evidence that it happened at all.

If you need further explanation, please let me know where should I elaborate.

All of that. Start with the 3d model, and then show how deserts and forests could have formed in the middle of flood sediments. Show me how the flood waters could have made special structures not seen today.

 

[The Barbarian]

At the same time I believe you are being genuine I also think this is a cop out.

It seems so. "I know what it is, but I won't tell you" does raise suspicions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hydrology and sedimentology use 3-D models. But that still doesn't explain the problems with a sudden global flood.
​

This is what I'm talking about. You have in your mind that the flood was a "sudden global flood", and build your scientific models around that assumption (thus your statement about rate of deposition for example).

The actual bible story, if anyone had taken the time to read it (being sarcastic here) reveals that the flood took nearly six months to even crest, then another five or so months to recede and fully dry out.

Where, in the name of all that is reasonable did you come up with the notion of "sudden global flood"? Your very first assumption is wrong, and therefore everything that is built upon that assumption is faulty.

Science builds a model not described in the bible account then uses this false model to debunk the actual flood account.

Do you see where I'm coming from here?

owg