Science falsely so called documentary

[OldWiseGuy]

1A worldwide sedimentary layer,.

Why would there be a worldwide sedimentary layer?

2some evidence of the so called fountains of the deep.

The flood water came from the oceans i.e. the fountains of the great deep.

5 Geological Stress deformations indicative of fast moving tectonic plates .

Why 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.

This is what I mean by projecting a false flood scenario onto the story, making a huge strawman argument.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why would there be a worldwide sedimentary layer?



The flood water came from the oceans i.e. the fountains of the great deep.



Why fast moving tectonic plates?



This is what I mean by projecting a false flood scenario onto the story, making a huge strawman argument.

You claim tha myth is fact, you support it. Otherwise, its just hot air.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

The problem is that any flood that would come close to doing what the Bible says happened would have left clear evidence, and that evidence is not there. Instead we see evidence that tells us that most life was not threatened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would there be a worldwide sedimentary layer?

Floods tend to deposit the sediments that they pick up.

The flood water came from the oceans i.e. the fountains of the great deep.

So now you want to cook Noah and family.

Why fast moving tectonic plates?

It is one of the excuses made by some flood believers. Since we both know this did not happen and is not in your version we can let it go.

This is what I mean by projecting a false flood scenario onto the story, making a huge strawman argument.

No, not a strawman. That is the belief of many flood believers.

Perhaps you should tell us exactly what you believe. Then people can tell you if there is evidence that refutes your belief. If you will not give others a clear flood model then you are unjustified to complain about strawman arguments. A strawman exists when the version refuted is not the actual version. If there is no actual version being defended then there can be no strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You claim tha myth is fact, you support it. Otherwise, its just hot air.

I think all he will do is to make very vague statements, but let's give him a chance.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Floods tend to deposit the sediments that they pick up.




So now you want to cook Noah and family.



It is one of the excuses made by some flood believers. Since we both know this did not happen and is not in your version we can let it go.



No, not a strawman. That is the belief of many flood believers.

Perhaps you should tell us exactly what you believe. Then people can tell you if there is evidence that refutes your belief. If you will not give others a clear flood model then you are unjustified to complain about strawman arguments. A strawman exists when the version refuted is not the actual version. If there is no actual version being defended then there can be no strawman.

Can you describe the flood you are refuting?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Floods tend to deposit the sediments that they pick up.

Let's do a study on that, based on the velocity of the flood waters. I think you'll find very little widespread erosion or deposition would have occured, and most of that evidence would have returned to the sea with the receding waters.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You claim tha myth is fact, you support it. Otherwise, its just hot air.

Just read the story, as written, not as projected by those who have made it into a myth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think all he will do is to make very vague statements, but let's give him a chance.

The story itself reveals important details that are ignored by both believers and skeptics. For example skeptics can't seem to get past the fact that the ark wasn't a ship. By insisting (like a broken record) that it was a ship they can continuously claim that it was not 'seaworthy'. I hope you get the point. Critics have constructed a flood account that they can easily debunk; a classic straw man.

 

[Brightmoon]

The story itself reveals important details that are ignored by both believers and skeptics. For example skeptics can't seem to get past the fact that the ark wasn't a ship. By insisting (like a broken record) that it was a ship they can continuously claim that it was not 'seaworthy'. I hope you get the point. Critics have constructed a flood account that they can easily debunk; a classic straw man.

Even if it was a box or a circle shape it still wouldn’t have been seaworthy . And can you imagine the ammonia smell of stale animal urine with only one window. Then there’s the poop problem especially from large herbivores like elephants and horses. Wow . As far as erosion ,landslides happen even underwater. Currents happen even underwater. Sediment depositions happens even underwater. That global flood story isn’t even plausible. And your geological fantasies aren’t making it better

 

[VirOptimus]

Just read the story, as written, not as projected by those who have made it into a myth.

Thats not how it works.

As you cant support it, well, hot air then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you describe the flood you are refuting?

You have it backwards. Think about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's do a study on that, based on the velocity of the flood waters. I think you'll find very little widespread erosion or deposition would have occured, and most of that evidence would have returned to the sea with the receding waters.

I can show you multiple floods that would have been far smaller that are apparent. And that is erosion only. Once again you want to cook Noah, or did you forget that?

By the way, where did the receding waters go?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The story itself reveals important details that are ignored by both believers and skeptics. For example skeptics can't seem to get past the fact that the ark wasn't a ship. By insisting (like a broken record) that it was a ship they can continuously claim that it was not 'seaworthy'. I hope you get the point. Critics have constructed a flood account that they can easily debunk; a classic straw man.

Then tell us your personal version of the flood. You can't complain about strawman arguments if you do not clearly present your beliefs.

 

[Sparagmos]

It gets children to believe they are more evolved than others and have the right to shoot them in the head...... after all, they are just animals and it is survival of the fittest.....

To believe in evolution, then believe one human can not evolve into a better human than another would be contradictory, yes?

You’ve got to be kidding me.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Even if it was a box or a circle shape it still wouldn’t have been seaworthy . And can you imagine the ammonia smell of stale animal urine with only one window. Then there’s the poop problem especially from large herbivores like elephants and horses. Wow . As far as erosion ,landslides happen even underwater. Currents happen even underwater. Sediment depositions happens even underwater. That global flood story isn’t even plausible. And your geological fantasies aren’t making it better

Can you explain this further. What would have caused the ark to break up? These other questions have reasonable answers. The ark wasn't just a big wooden box, but a complex structure fully capable of dealing with those problems.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thats not how it works.

As you cant support it, well, hot air then.

List your questions, but one at a time please.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Are you talking about the millions upon millions of "creation events" in the fossil record that show NEW TYPES OF LIFE arising over time?

Don't you mean new types appearing suddenly in a short time?

Exactly which part of Genesis says that God created all life over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

The pattern of ruin/restoration is described plainly in Genesis. The geologic record confirms it. The Flood was likely such an event.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I can show you multiple floods that would have been far smaller that are apparent. And that is erosion only. Once again you want to cook Noah, or did you forget that?

That's one of my points. You will project known floods onto the Genesis flood. Not the same.

By the way, where did the receding waters go?

Back to the sea where they came from.

 

[Brightmoon]

Can you explain this further. What would have caused the ark to break up? These other questions have reasonable answers. The ark wasn't just a big wooden box, but a complex structure fully capable of dealing with those problems.

Wooden shipbuilding with large boats not even the size of the ark ,has been tried during the 19th century iirc and it failed miserably even with iron or steel bracing . Wooden boats flex and that flexing causes them to leak . The larger the boat the larger the flexing. It doesn’t matter what shape the boat is either. 19th century scientists understood shipbuilding and the failure was the material- wood.