Science falsely so called documentary

OldWiseGuy · Dec 17, 2018

Subduction Zone said:
You really do not have a clue.

Try not to spout unsupported nonsense. You should be trying to learn why we know that there was no flood, not making excuses for it.

And you are still cooking Noah and family to a crisp. We are not talking about a slight first degree burn, we are talking live steam heated almost to the dissociation point.

Have I said anything that is unsound scientifically?

I enjoy musing about the details (I'm a detail man). Thanks to science, and my own experience, I have come up with some pretty good ideas, immho.

There are millions of people that were absent the day everyone else was told "it can't be done", so they went ahead and did it.

VirOptimus · Dec 17, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
Have I said anything that is unsound scientifically?

I enjoy musing about the details (I'm a detail man). Thanks to science, and my own experience, I have come up with some pretty good ideas, immho.

There are millions of people that were absent the day everyone else was told "it can't be done", so they went ahead and did it.

You are talking magic, not science. And no, there are no good ideas in your nonsense.

Subduction Zone · Dec 17, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
Mmmmm, a super strong watertight structure sinking like a rock in calm water...curious.

Not "super strong" you are forgetting the square cube law.

Subduction Zone · Dec 17, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
Why tell an unbelievable story as an object lesson? That's like equating God with Santa Claus.

Ooh, don't go there.

The story did not happen, but it still could teach a lesson conceivably about faith.

Subduction Zone · Dec 17, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
Have I said anything that is unsound scientifically?

I enjoy musing about the details (I'm a detail man). Thanks to science, and my own experience, I have come up with some pretty good ideas, immho.

There are millions of people that were absent the day everyone else was told "it can't be done", so they went ahead and did it.

Yes, pretty much everything you have said is unsound scientifically.

And no, your ideas are far from good.

Let's forget about the fact that the Ark would sink rather quickly. You are ignoring some major facts. You are ignoring that you propose cooking Noah. You are ignoring that such a flood would leave a mark. Water of that order will not drain calmly. And you are of course forgetting kidney transplants.

Tell me, when did the magic stop?

Brightmoon · Dec 18, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
As the flood receded it would break down into many local floods, as is seen in the geologic record. The evidence of these local floods would then be changed or degraded over time by the various weathering events into individual flood events that show widely varying characteristics and ages . Thus there would be no uniform flood evidence, even in the mountaintops.

. That’s silly , For a real flood you’d see the edges taper off. A global flood would be one layer of sediment even if it had holes or thin layers in it due to local landforms

Brightmoon · Dec 18, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
Changes at the molecular level required for the type of changes evolution proposes, along with the mechanism of those changes. I have demonstrated this before with this 'equation'.

Code- 'dots' equal small changes needed to accomplish large changes. Evolution presents only large changes, thus.

Original organism.........................large change...................large change.........................large change...................................large change.....................................etc.

(Small changes are abbreviated due to limited space.)

. Small gradual changes leading to a different organism. Lots of micro causing macro. Gradualism leading to speciation . We observe it and so what? Are you trying to imply that micro evolution isn’t evolution . If you use creationist newspeak while describing scientific phenomena, you’re just gonna confuse yourself.

Brightmoon · Dec 18, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
What waves? God stopped the waves by causing it to rain for 40 days (this would stop the wind, which causes waves). This protected the ark.

You’re made of sugar obviously and have never been out in a rainstorm. Good to know.

OldWiseGuy said:
Mmmmm, a super strong watertight structure sinking like a rock in calm water...curious.

watertight and super strong are not adjectives you use with an enormous flexing wooden structure.... yeah real curious that you did

OldWiseGuy · Dec 18, 2018

Subduction Zone said:
Not "super strong" you are forgetting the square cube law.

Let's look at that.

Square-Cube Law - TV Tropes

"Buoyancy in general, whether it be in the air or in the water, is an easy way to minimize the limitations of the square-cube law when increasing size, because buoyancy is dependent on density, not mass. Good news for the whales (and arks), then." Parenthesis mine.

In the case of the ark less buoyancy is desirable. The lower in the water the better.

OldWiseGuy · Dec 18, 2018

Brightmoon said:
. Small gradual changes leading to a different organism. Lots of micro causing macro. Gradualism leading to speciation . We observe it and so what? Are you trying to imply that micro evolution isn’t evolution . If you use creationist newspeak while describing scientific phenomena, you’re just gonna confuse yourself.

My point is that the 'dots' represent changes that science hasn't described. They just jump from one big change to the next. It's like starting with a tree and then jumping to a dinner table with no intermediate steps...like cutting down the tree, hauling it to the mill, milling it, sending the milled lumber to the furniture factory, etc. There are many steps between forest and finished product, most unaccounted for in the theory.

OldWiseGuy · Dec 18, 2018

Brightmoon said:
You’re made of sugar obviously and have never been out in a rainstorm. Good to know.
watertight and super strong are not adjectives you use with an enormous flexing wooden structure.... yeah real curious that you did

The ark reach the point in size and mass that any forces acting against it would not have been a significant threat. It's lack of buoyancy. which would have caused it to ride low in the water. also would have contributed to it's strength against such forces.

Brightmoon · Dec 18, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
My point is that the 'dots' represent changes that science hasn't described. They just jump from one big change to the next. It's like starting with a tree and then jumping to a dinner table with no intermediate steps...like cutting down the tree, hauling it to the mill, milling it, sending the milled lumber to the furniture factory, etc. There are many steps between forest and finished product, most unaccounted for in the theory.

it’s called microevolution . Most of those involved changes to biochemistry or gene expression that might or might not show up as morphological changes. For example Whales losing their hind limbs was a change in gene expression . The genes shut off and as seen in the fossil record that happened earlier and earlier in the animals development . This meant that the limbs became shorter and smaller and vestigial before disappearing entirely .that took millions of years to go from an animal with very strong hind limbs like Amblocetus to modern whales with either no limbs showing outside of the skin or having none at all.

OldWiseGuy · Dec 18, 2018

VirOptimus said:
You are talking magic, not science. And no, there are no good ideas in your nonsense.

So you don't think widespread rain for a extended period of time would cause atmospheric pressure diffusion and equalization resulting in diminished wind?

OldWiseGuy · Dec 18, 2018

Brightmoon said:
it’s called microevolution . Most of those involved changes to biochemistry or gene expression that might or might not show up as morphological changes. For example Whales losing their hind limbs was a change in gene expression . The genes shut off and as seen in the fossil record that happened earlier and earlier in the animals development . This meant that the limbs became shorter and smaller and vestigial before disappearing entirely .that took millions of years to go from an animal with very strong hind limbs like Amblocetus to modern whales with either no limbs showing outside of the skin or having none at all.

The ToE assumes these changes. There is no real evidence.

OldWiseGuy · Dec 18, 2018

Brightmoon said:
. That’s silly , For a real flood you’d see the edges taper off. A global flood would be one layer of sediment even if it had holes or thin layers in it due to local landforms

Such sediments would have a local origin, therefore they would be unique to that locality. How could they be attributed to a global flood?

VirOptimus · Dec 18, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
So you don't think widespread rain for a extended period of time would cause atmospheric pressure diffusion and equalization resulting in diminished wind?

I dont think, I know that you are speking nonsense and that you have no supporting data or evidence.

Show us the math, the experiments, the findings.

OldWiseGuy · Dec 18, 2018

VirOptimus said:
I dont think, I know that you are speking nonsense and that you have no supporting data or evidence.

Show us the math, the experiments, the findings.

The 'math' is in what causes of wind. Remove the cause... temperature differences...and voila, no wind. This would have been accomplished by the extended period of rain, and the encroaching sea water.

Brightmoon · Dec 18, 2018

Brightmoon · Dec 18, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
The 'math' is in what causes of wind. Remove the cause... temperature differences...and voila, no wind. This would have been accomplished by the extended period of rain, and the encroaching sea water.

yep I was right you’ve never in out in a rainstorm.

the change in moisture and temperature from having raindrops form would cause air movement aka wind . Water vapor gives off heat to form liquid water drops . That’s an awful lot of heat energy added to the air .add your superheated steam from the so called fountains of the deep which are under the surface and you’ve got hot air to add to that. Water vapor gives off heat to form liquid water drops . That’s an awful lot of heat energy added to the air . Or course this would cause windy weather conditions. I’d say hurricanes and tornadoes along with this being hellishly hot

Steve Petersen · Dec 18, 2018

Brightmoon said:
yep I was right you’ve never in out in a rainstorm.

the change in moisture and temperature from having raindrops form would cause air movement aka wind . Adding in your superheated steam from the so called fountains of the deep which are under the surface and you’ve got hot air to add to that

Another problem is that the atmosphere couldn't hold enough water to cause a flood covering the mountains.

Science falsely so called documentary

Wake me when it's soup.

A nihilist who cares.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

A nihilist who cares.

Wake me when it's soup.

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency