All Flood Questions Answered?
Posted 26 February 2009 - 04:54 AM
1) The flood.
2) How the water made the layers that science calls the geologic column.
3) How the conditions of the flood made oil quickly.
So here is the set of videos that answers just about every question about the flood. If you find a question not answered, just post it and I'll do my best to answer it.
The video below shows how the flood made the geologic column. It's an actual test conducted that simulates water flow, and sediment settlement. What I found most interesting is that how the layers were laid. It's not like the sediments where just suspended in water and settled the way we now see. But actual water flow played a huge role in making those layers. Here you get to actually see their demonstration how this happens.
In the next video we will see how nature makes oil everyday. Showing that it does not take millions of years to do this.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VdcHIeH0KsM&hl=en&fs=1%22></param><param type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
The next video shows how the conditions of the flood were just right to make quick oil.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GYVFs9-nv4c&hl=en&fs=1%22></param><param type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
The next video shows how wear in the Grand Canyon supports the flood cutting through it.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gsVeh1Ft1TY&hl=en&fs=1%22></param><param type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Added with the Q and A about the flood on this page: http://www.yecheadqu...noah_flood.html
Was there any questions that was not answered?
Also I find it very important that I point out that not one video used animation to show how the idea worked without also showing the actual process. And that the ideas of how the flood made the column was tested. And not animated as what you see in this thread to promote evolution: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1987
So which is better?
1) Animation of claimed processes that cannot be observed?
2) Or animation and the actual process that can be observed?
3) The claim that a river cut the Grand Cayon over over millions possibly billions of years, yet no process to observe?
4) The claim that the flood did it with a process to observe?
5) The claim that each layer in the column was laid over millios of years?
6) The cliam and actual process that layering does not take as long as claimed. Plus evidence (polystrate fossils), and a demonstration of the observed process?
So which has more evidence?
Which is more scientific, animation or an actual process demonstration?
And is it better to have animation over physical evidence?
Posted 27 February 2009 - 08:01 AM
Without a demonstration of the actual process, it is only an idea that is made to look feasible because the animation makes it look feasible
Taking the actual particles of evidence (sediments), putting them into a "real world" test and demonstration. Is better than using "virtual world" demonstrations that basically prove nothing.
So "real world" test show what can actually happen.
And "virtual world" demonstration only the possibility of what "could" have happened.
So which do you think is more convincing evidence?
1) My animation of what probably happened?
2) The video that uses "real world" tests showing how it happened?
And when you answer that. Apply it to all of the animation now used to promote every aspect of evolution and ask yourself this question:
If evolution is such a true fact like gravity and electricity. Why is that so called real evidence is all animated, and not backed up by "real world" evidence and demonstrations?
Is there such a thing as empirical animated evidence?
Then realizing that the animations are only ideas made to look real in a virtual world. Remove them and have evolution stand only one it's real world evidence and tell us how much more provable it is than creation. In fact, removing the animated ideas makes it revert back to only being a normal theory of ideas and not a scientific one.
Side note: I work with animation, I know why it is used and how it is used. It is supposed to be used make someone better understand your ideas. It is not supposed to be used as actual evidence of an idea because animation is not empirical evidence unless it can be backed up by "real world" evidence.
So my animation would be to only convey my idea of how the canyons were formed by the flood. Not actual evidence of the flood and canyon formation. But being backed up by real world evidence, now confirms that my animated idea was right. And because of that it becomes a demonstration of how something actually happened, and not an idea of how it could have happened.
Without actual evidence, does this animation prove that the flood happened?
An animated ark on the ocean with lightening proves nothing unless there is actual "real world" tested demonstration or evidence to prove it.
So you see, animating how evolution could have happened with no "real world" demonstrations of the actual process only makes the idea more understandable. But without the "real world" tests, the animation is only animating the idea, not the actual event of that idea.
Posted 27 February 2009 - 08:38 AM
When you look at the animation below:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.c...></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.c...hS4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Ask yourself these questions.
1) Do they have an actual "real world" demonstration to back up what is being animated?
2) Is the animation proving something that upon accepted it I would be accepting actual evidence?
3) Is the animation an animated idea, or animated observable process?
4) Is the animation selling an idea, or selling an observable process that can be demonstrated?
So if the animation is only selling an unobservable idea. And you believe it. You have bought what they had to sell because the idea is not observable. So your reasoning on believing what is animated is that animation is real evidence for what cannot be shown. Which makes my animated idea of an ark on an ocean during a flood idea with no demonstrable evidence just as feasible as the animated evolution idea above. Neither one can be demonstrated, but why is only one accepted?
It is because in a buying and selling market, you buy what you want and reject what you don't want. Like when you buy a car, what makes you purchase a certain car over another when there are so many to choose from?
1) It's the type that you want or need.
2) It's in your price range.
3) And if you don't know what to want, it all boils down to how the salesman sells you on the car that you eventually decide to buy.
So between the creation vs evolution debate, who has been the better salesman? With all of the scientific talent on-board, it's not hard to figure that out. But does the better selling of an idea determine whether that idea is true?
If this were how it works, then scams would not be scams because once people bought into them, they would become legit. So you see the logic of salesmanship of an idea does not determine whether the idea is true or not. For if anyone can sell an idea, then in the minds of those who bought it. It becomes true whether in reality it is true or not.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users