Science falsely so called documentary

[OldWiseGuy]

Funny - if this much speculation, unsupported assertion/guesswork, and 'just so story-telling' was presented for evolution, these people would be justified in their skepticism...

Please. The ToE is riddled with such.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Cool - is this building half under water and made of wood to float for a year?

Likely three quarters or more under water. You do know that it's when wood is dry that it shrinks and leaks (of course you knew that).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If the air mass you were in was going 20 mph, makes sense.

Then the rest should make sense.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I see, it was hot air all along. Just as I predicted.

Hard to argue someone who covers their ears, closes their eyes, and shouts, "It's a ship it's a ship it's a ship it's a ship it's a ship........"

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

But "new types" have never shown up suddenly in short time. At least not on a creationist level. The Cambrian "explosion" for example has a minimum time span of 20 million years. Hardly what I would call "suddenly".

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

No, the pattern does not match what a flood would do. The evidence in the geological record tells us that there was no flood. Early geologists were looking for evidence of the flood and they realized that when the investigated the strata that it told us that it was quite the opposite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If we can't get past the absurd "ship" argument there's no use in continuing.

Why do you think that it is absurd? Ships are even more stable in than floating barges. If the Ark was just a box it would have been far less seaworthy than a ship of the same size.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But "new types" have never shown up suddenly in short time. At least not on a creationist level. The Cambrian "explosion" for example has a minimum time span of 20 million years. Hardly what I would call "suddenly".



No, the pattern does not match what a flood would do. The evidence in the geological record tells us that there was no flood. Early geologists were looking for evidence of the flood and they realized that when the investigated the strata that it told us that it was quite the opposite.

As I said it would be virtually impossible for any evidence of the Flood to remain today. There was likely very little to begin with, all things considered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Please, you need to be more serious. If you are just going to post utter nonsense and denial then we will get nowhere.

Back to the sea where they came from.

I don't think that you know how water works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said it would be virtually impossible for any evidence of the Flood to remain today. There was likely very little to begin with, all things considered.

But that is clearly wrong since we have evidence of older and smaller floods that we can still see today. If we can see evidence of those floods we should be easily be able to see evidence of a flood millions of times as large.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Please, you need to be more serious. If you are just going to post utter nonsense and denial then we will get nowhere.




I don't think that you know how water works.

I can guarantee you that your idea of the flood and the actual flood are far different.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But that is clearly wrong since we have evidence of older and smaller floods that we can still see today. If we can see evidence of those floods we should be easily be able to see evidence of a flood millions of times as large.

That all depends on the nature of those floods. Regardless of volume, slow moving water encroaching equally from all sides will leave little evidence. On the other hand small violent flash floods flowing in one direction can leave lots of evidence. Also much of the flood evidence you refer to might actually be remnants of Noah's flood, as that's the kind of evidence that flood would leave; a little here and there.

 

[VirOptimus]

Hard to argue someone who covers their ears, closes their eyes, and shouts, "It's a ship it's a ship it's a ship it's a ship it's a ship........"

I have said nothing. Its you who should clearly state;

1. What happened.
2. Facts and evidence in support of 1.

Otherwise, hot air (as it is).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I have said nothing. Its you who should clearly state;

1. What happened.
2. Facts and evidence in support of 1.

Otherwise, hot air (as it is).

Such evidence doesn't exist. I take the story as truth, and muse concerning how it might well have unfolded, using reasonable criteria. Regarding evidence; it's difficult to reassemble an egg after it has been scrambled, cooked, eaten, digested, and pooped out. Examining the remains using the myopic eye of science won't help either.

 

[VirOptimus]

Such evidence doesn't exist. I take the story as truth, and muse concerning how it might well have unfolded, using reasonable criteria. Regarding evidence; it's difficult to reassemble an egg after it has been scrambled, cooked, eaten, digested, and pooped out. Examining the remains using the myopic eye of science won't help either.

So; hot air. I was right all along.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can guarantee you that your idea of the flood and the actual flood are far different.

There was no "actual flood". We know that from quite a few sources.

What is your version of the "flood"? Claims of strawman arguments are not valid without one.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So; hot air. I was right all along.

As you wish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That all depends on the nature of those floods. Regardless of volume, slow moving water encroaching equally from all sides will leave little evidence. On the other hand small violent flash floods flowing in one direction can leave lots of evidence. Also much of the flood evidence you refer to might actually be remnants of Noah's flood, as that's the kind of evidence that flood would leave; a little here and there.

And the Bible predicts a violent, violent flood. But then I can't get into specifics unless you do.

It also appears that you know that any version you can think of will easily be refuted. But that is just the geological evidence. One needs to realize that biology refutes the flood as well.

 

[VirOptimus]

As you wish.

No, not as I wish. Its you who has failed to support your assertion, its all on you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There was no "actual flood". We know that from quite a few sources.

What is your version of the "flood"? Claims of strawman arguments are not valid without one.

Sea beds rose slowly over several months spilling water over the entire earth to a depth great enough to drown all air breathing critters. It then receded at about the same rate, leaving only local evidence.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And the Bible predicts a violent, violent flood. But then I can't get into specifics unless you do.

It also appears that you know that any version you can think of will easily be refuted. But that is just the geological evidence. One needs to realize that biology refutes the flood as well.

The bible describes a great, slow moving flood. It was 'violent' in the sense of the deaths it caused. You really have to look at that aspect scientifically.