Is Flood Geology Falsifiable?

[Loudmouth]

Dear Flood Geologists,

What geologic formation, if found, would be inconsistent with a recent global flood? What features would such a formation have? What fossils would such a feature contain?

P.S. This thread is mainly for creationists, but this is an open forum. If non-creationists want to propose potential falsifications please try to make it constructive.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Not a falsification but certainly a positive proof of a "Flood Layer":

MARKER BED. Not necessarily present in all places, but should be present in sufficiently different areas and be correlatable to a single time-horizon.

LITHOLOGY: Possibly similar to a Bouma Sequence for turbidites (?)

Or some other catastrophic, high flow regime sorting.

IF the goal is to prove the Noachian Flood as calculated from the Bible it would be relatively recent and would show up with significant thanatocoenoses made up of a mixture of modern and ancient life forms.

EXTINCTIONS: Across this horizon should show up significant extinctions. Life forms that show up only before the marker bed but not above (after).

ANALOGOUS EXAMPLE: The K-T boundary. While not a "turbidite" type lithology, it does carry a "marker" (Ir anomaly) that is correlatable nearly world-wide to a time-horizon that marks the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Below which dinosaurs were dominant, above which dinosaurs are extinct.
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/claeys00/node5.html

The K-T boundary is not a good candidate for the "Noachian Flood" layer since there are terrestrial deposits which span the K-T boundary. Some evidence of "soot" at the K-T boundary indicates stuff was able to burn (ie dry).

But if the K-T boundary were presented as a potential Noachian Flood marker, the subsequent geology after the Flood would have to take into account significant deep time. eg: Varve deposits in the Cenozoic Green River Formation.

(Resource on K-T Boundary References here)

 

[Split Rock]

Dear Flood Geologists,

What geologic formation, if found, would be inconsistent with a recent global flood? What features would such a formation have? What fossils would such a feature contain?

P.S. This thread is mainly for creationists, but this is an open forum. If non-creationists want to propose potential falsifications please try to make it constructive.

(creationist hat on)
The Flood was a global event of unprecedented scale. There were huge tides and currents and earthquakes, volcanic activity and possibly meteor impacts. Therefore, we do not know what it could not do, and thus it is unfalsifiable.
(creationist hat off)

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

ANALOGOUS EXAMPLE: The K-T boundary. While not a "turbidite" type lithology, it does carry a "marker" (Ir anomaly) that is correlatable nearly world-wide to a time-horizon that marks the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Below which dinosaurs were dominant, above which dinosaurs are extinct.
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/claeys00/node5.html

The K-T boundary is not a good candidate for the "Noachian Flood" layer since there are terrestrial deposits which span the K-T boundary. Some evidence of "soot" at the K-T boundary indicates stuff was able to burn (ie dry).

But if the K-T boundary were presented as a potential Noachian Flood marker, the subsequent geology after the Flood would have to take into account significant deep time. eg: Varve deposits in the Cenozoic Green River Formation.

(Resource on K-T Boundary References here)

Yes!!! Thank you. a global catastrophe is not without precident in the fossil record, K-T is a perfect example and one that i have used before. The absence of such a global layer with flood characteristics means there was no flood. In this case absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Such a flood could not have occurred and not left specific evidence. Flood Geology isnt unfalsifiable, it's falsified.

Does it annoy anybody else that the term "Flood Geology" is used to describe something other than the geology of floods?

 

[Loudmouth]

Still waiting for input from creationists. Anyone want to take a shot?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Still waiting for input from creationists. Anyone want to take a shot?

Would this be a case of Byte's Law?

The quality of a question is inversely proportional to the number of creationists attempting to answer it.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

The question in the OP wasn't whether Flood Geology is right or wrong.

The question in the OP is what sort of evidence would be required to disprove Flood Geology once and for all.

If Flood Geology is a science, then all the Flood Geologists should be able to say:

"Look of somebody were to demonstrate A, B, and C, the game would be up. We'd be proven wrong."

What kind of evidence would make Flood Geologists say that their theory is wrong?

 

[RichardT]

Is Flood Geology Falsifiable?

No. It's taken as historical fact.

 

[Adivi]

No. It's taken as historical fact.

By who? Certainly not the majority of geologians.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

No. It's taken as historical fact.

Even in history and "historical facts" there is a notion of falsifiability.

Any good historian should be able to say something like "Okay, I'm pretty sure George Washington lived, but if you could show me A, B, and C, I'd have to say he never lived."

 

[Loudmouth]

No. It's taken as historical fact.

It's accepted as a fact because (they claim) all of the evidence points to a recent global flood. This would mean that someone has read the Noachian flood story and derived ideas of what one should and should not see if the flood happened. They then went and looked at the geologic record and found that things they should see are there AND things they should not see are not there. That is how one assesses whether something is true or not. In most threads we hear a lot about how the geologic record has flood deposits but I have yet to see a flood geologist say what should NOT be there if there was a recent global flood.

The null hypothesis is just as important, if not more important, than the hypothesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

Bumpity-bump.

Does RoberByers want to take a stab at the OP? Littlenip?

 

[Baggins]

By who? Certainly not the majority of geologians.

You've invented a new word.

And I like it!!!!!!!!

I now discard the tag geologist and wish to be called a geologian, it sounds more up market

 

[Dale]

Some Creationists claim that there were vast caverns of water under the surface of the earth that welled up and gave us the Flood, or contributed to it. In one version the water escaped in enormous steam vents after Noah's family was shut up in the Ark.

I guess the water is supposed to have gone back into these caverns after the Flood was over. It would obviously take several times the total amount of water on earth today to give us a Biblical Flood.

Either these underground caverns with vast amounts of water exist or they don't. Perhaps the Creationists can tell us where to look.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps the Creationists can tell us where to look.

Up.

 

[Paulos23]

Up.

How far up? There is not enough water in the air to flood the whole earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

How far up? There is not enough water in the air to flood the whole earth.

My guess is that God cleaned up the mess.

 

[flatworm]

My guess is that God cleaned up the mess.

Whew! For a minute there, I thought you were going to invoke Dad's "it flew to Mars" argument.

 

[Paulos23]

My guess is that God cleaned up the mess.

OK, so your falling back on no evidence = God did it.

 

[gamespotter10]

Dear Flood Geologists,

What geologic formation, if found, would be inconsistent with a recent global flood? What features would such a formation have? What fossils would such a feature contain?

P.S. This thread is mainly for creationists, but this is an open forum. If non-creationists want to propose potential falsifications please try to make it constructive.

it is falsifiable and has been falsified many times