Science falsely so called documentary

[tas8831]

So disbelief (for whatever reason) is a 'fallacy'? How far do you want to take that?

So now you among the 'faithful' that feel required to resort to misrepresentation in order to score rhetorical points?
Whats that noise - that your colon sending motor impulses to your larynx again?

"Yes, I said that argument from awe and the argument from incredulity are fallacious. That is why people like you rely on them so much - all you can muster are fallacies."

Re-read what I wrote and actually trey to apply that fake 105 IQ or whatever you pretend to have and see if you can figure out where you misrepresented me. Because, golly, I am not sure how "argument from awe" = belief.

 

[tas8831]

It is science that has constructed a 'fake' flood in order to debunk it. Very clever of you guys.

Wow, super clever. Really putting that 96 IQ to work today.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The video was about the Mt Saint Helen's eruption which formed perfectly flat sedimentary layers in a matter of minutes, and hardened to rock in a matter of weeks....

That was what we were discussing was it not, how layers could form in separate distinct layers while the tree fossilized at a uniform rate not affected by the layering?

Tell us, how did volcanoes form "perfectly flat sedimentary" (rather than igneous) layers, and trees get buried in "separate distinct layers" in the turbulence of a single, year-long flood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence for the Flood is so widespread you have to keep ignoring 75% of the earth's surface is sedimentary rock.......

Instant fail. This only tells us that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Sedimentary rock refutes the flood story since it is not the sort of deposits that a flood would make.

So you keep claiming, yet here they were willing to abandon every known scientific experiment ever performed on the longevity of bio matter as long as they didn't have to question their age.

No, they weren't. If you had a clue this would be a lie on your part.

She discovered nothing except how to fool those that want to hold on to their cherished beliefs. She had to centrifuge the blood to get enough iron separated for the blood to even make it a feasible prospect. Just pouring blood upon the bio matter was not enough to cause any preservation. last I checked dinosaur did not have access to centrifuges...... Also she only showed even under perfect laboratory conditions (and centrifuging the blood to separate the iron) such would only retard the decay by a small amount..... Your claims of millions of years do not hold up under scrutiny in the least, nor does her shoddy lab work in which she found it impossible to use methods that would occur in nature, but instead had to centrifuge the blood to separate the iron just to get any reaction. Shame on you for failing to mention her devious tactics to save your belief in age.....

This again would be a lie if you had a clue. Why not try to learn instead of repeating false claims. All you have is a strawman of the actual research.

And that wasn't even part of the post responded too. Such a diversionary tactic on your part. The video was about the Mt Saint Helen's eruption which formed perfectly flat sedimentary layers in a matter of minutes, and hardened to rock in a matter of weeks....

But it didn't form anything most sedimentary deposits. This is just a red herring on your part. You can't deal with the actual evidence. Pyroclastic deposits are often not even considered to be sedimentary. They are treated as a form of igneous rock. Let's try to compare apples to apples.

That was what we were discussing was it not, how layers could form in separate distinct layers while the tree fossilized at a uniform rate not affected by the layering?

You do not understand what a stratum is. A "layer"does not qualify as a stratum. Also rates of deposition are different in different depositional environments. Think of it as rain. There are areas on the surface of the Earth that get less than 1 inch of rain a year. There are areas that get more than one hundred inches of rain year. That is over a hundred times variation in rate of deposition of water. One can have an even greater variation in the rate of deposition in sediments. So called "polystrate trees" are in environments were they were buried over a period of many years. Probably hundreds of years.

What, didn't want to discuss the layering you were so eager to discuss in the post I responded to, now that we know it DOESN'T take millions of years or even hundreds of years to form sedimentary rock????? Thought you would just ignore that and try to offtrack the thread, right?????

You are wrong as usual. You are cherry picking a very poor example. Worse yet it does not matter how long it takes to change a deposition into rock. What you can't explain are the deposits that take millions upon millions of years.

Or did you just reach the part where you thought you had a "gotcha" and stop? Not realizing all of us are not ignorant of how her shoddy lab work was done and that she had to use methods not occurring in nature to produce any result at all????

All of the claims of flood "geologists" have been refuted a thousand times over. Why waste one's time?

If you are willing to learn I will gladly help you to understand why we know that there was no flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is science that has constructed a 'fake' flood in order to debunk it. Very clever of you guys.

Flood advocates are too afraid to give specifics. Specifics make their story too easy to refute. It is why I always ask believers for details about their beliefs. To date they have been too afraid to give any.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Flood advocates are too afraid to give specifics. Specifics make their story too easy to refute. It is why I always ask believers for details about their beliefs. To date they have been too afraid to give any.

Then you are only responding to the 'details' that are clearly wrong. I have been giving correct details here for many years. No one, not even flood believers, cares.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you are only responding to the 'details' that are clearly wrong. I have been giving correct details here for many years. No one, not even flood believers, cares.

No, that is not the way that it works.

But thanks for playing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, that is not the way that it works.

But thanks for playing.

You are exempt from my criticisms of others who insist on constructing, examining, then debunking a false flood scenario.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are exempt from my criticisms of others who insist on constructing, examining, then debunking a false flood scenario.

Thanks, I do try to get flood believers to give a scenario. When they can't I point out that it would take over five miles of water to cover the Earth, and there is no evidence of that. If one wants to try to claim the mountains are younger they need to show evidence for that, and we know there is no scientific evidence for a young Himalayas. If they start shrinking the flood it the Ark itself becomes superfluous eventually. It is better to look as the flood story as a morality tale. That would make it still meet the standards of 2 Timothy 3:16:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thanks, I do try to get flood believers to give a scenario. When they can't I point out that it would take over five miles of water to cover the Earth, and there is no evidence of that.

That's one of my points. There wouldn't be such evidence. And there was no need for 30,000 feet of water. The flood story was written as actual history, but it does contain some hyperbole. Most errors lie in the translation and interpretation of the story. The biggest problem is that recent flood models are projected onto the flood of Noah. Many arguments for and against are just silly.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Tell us, how did volcanoes form "perfectly flat sedimentary" (rather than igneous) layers, and trees get buried in "separate distinct layers" in the turbulence of a single, year-long flood?

Because you refuse to understand...... As Mt Saint Hellens showed, and as has experiments, sediments can be layed down quickly and in flat layers in water. You just keep denying the reality....

Psalms 104:8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them.

Until you finally accept that the flood encompassed worldwide geological upheaval, you will forever wonder about those volcanoes and all the sediment stirred up, to the point that 73% of the Earth's surface is sedimentary layers.....

But it doesn't surprise me you can't conceive of how volcanoes and geological upheaval go hand in hand with the flood, being deprived of the truth for so long.....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So now you among the 'faithful' that feel required to resort to misrepresentation in order to score rhetorical points?
Whats that noise - that your colon sending motor impulses to your larynx again?

"Yes, I said that argument from awe and the argument from incredulity are fallacious. That is why people like you rely on them so much - all you can muster are fallacies."

Re-read what I wrote and actually trey to apply that fake 105 IQ or whatever you pretend to have and see if you can figure out where you misrepresented me. Because, golly, I am not sure how "argument from awe" = belief.

If you don't understand that's on you, not me.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As Mt Saint Hellens showed........... sediments can be layed down quickly and in flat layers in water.

Citation?

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's one of my points. There wouldn't be such evidence. And there was no need for 30,000 feet of water. The flood story was written as actual history, but it does contain some hyperbole. Most errors lie in the translation and interpretation of the story. The biggest problem is that recent flood models are projected onto the flood of Noah. Many arguments for and against are just silly.

The problem is that if one scales down the flood to a local one then the Ark is superfluous. And it would take over 30,000 feet of water to top the tallest of mountains. As a Christian it is better to look at it as an allegory, not as an actual event.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The problem is that if one scales down the flood to a local one then the Ark is superfluous. And it would take over 30,000 feet of water to top the tallest of mountains. As a Christian it is better to look at it as an allegory, not as an actual event.

As I said it wasn't necessary to cover Mt. Everest; there was nothing up there to drown. Traditional interpretations, including historical artists depictions of the story are very misleading.

 

[Brightmoon]

As I said it wasn't necessary to cover Mt. Everest; there was nothing up there to drown. Traditional interpretations, including historical artists depictions of the story are very misleading.

Even covering the Alps would be a problem. And people did live there. Now that bolide that wiped out most of the nonavian dinosaurs , that we’ve got worldwide evidence for :The iridium layer , worldwide fossil charcoal from burnt forests , fossil layering ,and geological evidence of the resulting tsunami. That happened 65 million years ago. But there’s no geological , geophysical biological or geochemical evidence for a global flood 10,000 or fewer years ago

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Even covering the Alps would be a problem. And people did live there. Now that bolide that wiped out most of the nonavian dinosaurs , that we’ve got worldwide evidence for :The iridium layer , worldwide fossil charcoal from burnt forests , fossil layering ,and geological evidence of the resulting tsunami. That happened 65 million years ago. But there’s no geological , geophysical biological or geochemical evidence for a global flood 10,000 or fewer years ago

What specific evidence is required, based on the story?

 

[Brightmoon]

What specific evidence is required, based on the story?

1A worldwide sedimentary layer,.
2some evidence of the so called fountains of the deep.
3Genetic bottlenecks that date back to the time of the flood in most species .
4 evidence of genetic front loading for those who believe in “kinds”.
5 Geological Stress deformations indicative of fast moving tectonic plates .

( sarcasm) Oh minor stuff like that! (/sarcasm) But if you have this information where is it ? Publish in reputable journals so the scientific community can see it. If you have evidence of they would have to publish it.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Well, still no appearance by the OP.