Falsifications of the Worldwide flood

Originally Posted by AlHailThePowerOfJesusName

I have never understood this Ad Hoc thing, in science one reconstructs history based on data, so this "ad hoc" thing is just a pathetic excuse to dismiss the arguments presented, or dismiss the fact that creationists are constructing their theory based on the evidence.

Ad hoc hypotheses are hypotheses formed to save a major theory from falsification.

The classic example concerns the orbit of Uranus and Newtonian mechanics. The orbit of Uranus doesn't fit what Newtonian mechanics says it should be. But Newtonian gravity/mechanics was so successful that people thought it was correct. So the ad hoc hypothesis was that there was another planet beyond Uranus that was acting on the orbit. IOW, Newtonian gravity was right. Now, the key here was that the hypothesis could be tested independently of Newtonian gravity: you used optics to see the planet.

What we have in Flood Geology are falsifications of Flood Geology, such as the Yellowstone Forests. Flood Geologists invoke the ad hoc hypothesis that there was a violent Flood surging back and forth to bring forests in from the surrounding areas to dump successive forests there. BUT, they also invoke the ad hoc hypothesis of a gentle Flood 200 miles away to explain the intact Maiasaura nests in that location. Because the ad hoc hypotheses are devised to answer specific falsifications, they actually contradict each other and are, therefore, no good.

oh yeah, like ecological zoning is the only mechanism at work. Its not like there was a flood or anything. The problem is you don't seem to let people interpret how the flood happened based on the evidence. You evolutionists seem to think you have a monopoly on science. Ecological zoning is the explanation for some things, it is not good as a mechanism it is a factor in a variety of events which lead to the fossil record we have today.

We've been waiting for over 200 years for Flood geologists to give us a comprehensive explanation of the geological and fossil record. Simply handwaving and saying "ecological zoning" doesn't help. How exactly does ecological zoning explain the data we see? Are there exceptions? If so, how and why are there exceptions. Do the exceptions outnumber the cases that conform? If so, why have ecological zoning as a mechanism at all?

It is vaguely suggested that the central Creationist idea could be used to solve some problems. But the details are never given, the links to nature never forged. Oddly, "scientific" Creationism fails to be a science not because of what it says (or, in its "public school" editions, very carefully omits) about a Divine Creator, but because of what it does not say about the natural world. The theory has no infrastructure, no ways of articulating its vague central idea, so that specific features of living forms can receive detailed explanations. Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126

We're waiting for those detailed explanations. In the meantime, we keep finding more geological features that can't be explained by a Flood.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

????? Yourself. Take for example Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhi. This is the organism (bacteria) that causes the disease typhoid-- it only infects humans and is only transmitted by humans. It has a mortallity rate of 12%, if untreated with antibiotics, over the four to eight week course of the disease.

Either, this would have had to be living in one of the eight people on the continually over the course of a year (high fever, extreme diarrhea, bacteriemia, etc) or it would have had to evolve within the human population after the flood. But this leaves us with some questions:

#1. In order to persist in the eight people on the ark, we'd need a minimum of seven infection cycles during which time the person would have been pretty much incapacitated with high fever and explosive diarrhea and had a 12% chance of dying. This only is one disease, there are several hundred other human specific diseases that would have had to have been carried by these eight people. It doesn't work.

#2. If this particular disease causing organism came about after the flood then you have an extremely high rate of evolution coupled with the introduction of new pathogenic genes specificly adapted to disease causing in humans that didn't exist before. Where did the genes come from? YEC says there can be no new genetic information.

__________________
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

I told you he would say that it was not evolution. But would you guys listen? noooooooooooooo.

In his handwaving attempt to dismiss that fact that the massive volcanic activity that YEC need to place during the flood would have sterilized the earth Allhail wrote something that is typical of his failed efforts to refute the multiple falsifications of the global flood myth.

Here is link to a thread which discusses both the volcanoes and the impacts that YECs are placing during the flood.

http://www.christianforums.com/t50702

Here is Allhail's latest effort at a "refutation"

Of course we are not talking about the underwater volcanoes that erupt almost all the time. We are talking about massive flood basalt that flowed out over widely separted geological times. You can find them listed here

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/acid.htm

There are the Ontong Java/Nauru, basalts, the Kerguelen Plateau/ Broken Ridge Basalts, the North Atlantic basalts, the Deccan Traps, the Siberian Traps, the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province(CAMP), Columbia River flood basalts, the Ethiopian Traps, the Snake River Flood Basalts, the Karoo Basalts and the Parana Plateau in Brazil.

The total amount of the lava amounts to about 100,000,000 cubic kilometers. The eruption of this much lava would release about 200,000,000,000,000 tons of sulfuric acid and 350,000,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/co2.htm

If released in the air the CO2 and SO2 will be toxic to most forms of plant and animal life. For instance the CO2 will reach 60,000 ppm and most plants can't stand above about 2,000 ppm.

http://www.simplyhydro.com/using_co2.htm

The toxic limit for humans in around 50,000 ppm and of course we are woried about greenhouse effects if CO2 reach 600 ppm.
If the CO2 and SO2 were absorbed by the flood waters the oceans would have become too acidic to support any fish life and all or nearly all marine life would have died.

So the point is not refuted at all and is in fact irrefutable. While Allhail says that it is not true that detailed falsifications of the global flood myth have been presented that he hasn't even begun to refute this is seen to be the case with point after point. Several of my posts including 197 and several posts by Lucas, JB and MM show how total Allhails failures have been. The global flood has been falsified by geology, paleontology, biogeography, biodiversity, archeology and other branches of science with data accumulated over more than 150 years and all Allhails handwaving can't change that fact.

the frumious Bandersnatch

Quoted for truth.

I am bumping this to keep it close since it is harder to find with the search engine these days and flood discussions are going on continuously it seems.

the frumious Bandersnatch

I was thinking we need a little geocities archive of what I would say are the significan threads like this one, so that we can find them when needed.

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

Because all geocities website are the pinacle of the INTERNET.

bump