Is Flood Geology Falsifiable?

[thaumaturgy]

I don't think you understand the meaning of a "global" unconformity.

Let me ask you: do you think we have a global unconformity today over all the continents? Obviously we do not. But why not? How could we eliminate that exception and make it become one?

Now don't get too snarky. I asked for an example of a global unconformity. You have provided one and I merely asked what it was about it that pegged it as the Noachian Flood horizon for you.

You have now implicitly confirmed for us that in your hypothesis of Biblical support, the Flood of Noah likely occured about 900 million years ago.

That's fine. Now, of course, vertebrate fossils show up about 400 to 500 million years (?) after this, so I am assuming Noah was an invertebrate eukaryote? A protist of some sort?

Who recorded this event? Surely no humans were in evidence during this time, and the time-frame doesn't seem to fit to any literal reading of the Bible, much less Ussher's calculations.

Oh and if I could bother you for a reference or two for a couple of widely spaced stratigraphic columns from around this time frame that would be very nice. I'd be very interested in learning more about this.

 

[juvenissun]

Now don't get too snarky. I asked for an example of a global unconformity. You have provided one and I merely asked what it was about it that pegged it as the Noachian Flood horizon for you.

You have now implicitly confirmed for us that in your hypothesis of Biblical support, the Flood of Noah likely occured about 900 million years ago.

That's fine. Now, of course, vertebrate fossils show up about 400 to 500 million years (?) after this, so I am assuming Noah was an invertebrate eukaryote? A protist of some sort?

Who recorded this event? Surely no humans were in evidence during this time, and the time-frame doesn't seem to fit to any literal reading of the Bible, much less Ussher's calculations.

Oh and if I could bother you for a reference or two for a couple of widely spaced stratigraphic columns from around this time frame that would be very nice. I'd be very interested in learning more about this.

Are you giving up the argument on the unconformity and trying to shift the argument to fossil record?

Before we leave this line, do you agree that a global unconformity could be a good evidence for a global flood? This is only a question of physical geology.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Are you giving up the argument on the unconformity and trying to shift the argument to fossil record?

Not at all. I am, however, having a great deal of difficulty in finding references to a global unconformity at the Stenian-Tonian boundary. It appears that the start of the Tonian (the first period in the Neoproterozoic) is defined by a "fixed age" as opposed to some notable unconformity.

(HERE)

Now, granted I've found several articles that show unconformable relations between some strata across the meso-neoproterozoic. But so far I'm coming up with little as to a noteworthy global unconformity.

Please provide more info on this.

Before we leave this line, do you agree that a global unconformity could be a good evidence for a global flood? This is only a question of physical geology.

Indeed, that is why I asked for a global unconformity as a first step. It is a necessary but not sufficient requirement of a Flood Marker.

Once you establish this marker, then you will have to address the issues around the paleontology and the dating. We still have the messy issue of Noah's flood happening nearly 1 billion years ago.

But I am curious about the meso-neoproterozoic unconformity of global extent.

 

[juvenissun]

Not at all. I am, however, having a great deal of difficulty in finding references to a global unconformity at the Stenian-Tonian boundary. It appears that the start of the Tonian (the first period in the Neoproterozoic) is defined by a "fixed age" as opposed to some notable unconformity.

If you tried to find sedimentary record of a global unconformity, you should find none. Otherwise, it is not a global one. So, the issue of global unconformity is not discussed in sedimentology or in stratigraphy, but in tectonics.

The next question which should be asked is: what caused it? We never see one in the Phanerozoic eon. What kind of process never happened again since then?

 

[Baggins]

I don't think you understand the meaning of a "global" unconformity.

Let me ask you: do you think we have a global unconformity today over all the continents? Obviously we do not. But why not? How could we eliminate that exception and make it become one?

I see you what you did there; you dodged the question, probably because you either couldn't understand it or couldn't answer it, and asked a question of your own to cover up this embarassment.

Way to go, as the Americans say

Oh, and a global unconformity is an unconformity found everywhere on the globe right?

 

[thaumaturgy]

If you tried to find sedimentary record of a global unconformity, you should find none. Otherwise, it is not a global one. So, the issue of global unconformity is not discussed in sedimentology or in stratigraphy, but in tectonics.

So you cannot provide any actual information about the global unconformity at the Stenian-Tonian contact? I am really unsure what your point is here.

I would be happy if you would simply provide a reference to this notable unconformity. Don't just throw more geological terms around.

The next question which should be asked is:

The next question which should be asked is: why won't you provide any references in support of any of your claims?

I could be totally missing the mark on this. I am willing to learn if there is something to learn.

what caused it?

What caused what? The global unconformity you will not provide any references about?

We never see one in the Phanerozoic eon. What kind of process never happened again since then?

Even if you can point to a notable global unconformity in the Stenian-Tonian contact, I believe you will be looking at a single continent. At that time Rhodinia was the supercontinent. It was in the Neoproterozoic, if I recall, that Rhodinia fractured into several continents.

So, if you point me at a "global" unconformity I will merely remind you that it might be a "single-continent" unconformity.

I won't hold my breath that you'll provide any references, I might be able to actually learn something from your point, and we all know that isn't what you are here for.

But even if I grant you a global unconformity which I am unfamiliar with, you will then have to deal with the other issues:

Did the Flood of Noah occur nearly 1 billion years ago?

Why are there no vertebrates in the fossil record at that time (that includes humans, if you noted, Noah is, according to the Bible, a human -Gen 6:9-, ergo a vertebrate.)

Again, if you actually are familiar with science and how science is done you won't mind:

1. Supporting your claims (NOTE: I am not saying you are wrong about this unconformity)

2. Dealing with the ancillary details around your hypothesis.

If you are uncomfortable about this, I suspect you didn't have to defend a thesis or a dissertation. And I would then highly doubt you "teach", since those of us who have taught know that questions come at you fast and furious from students.

 

[Baggins]

Before we leave this line, do you agree that a global unconformity could be a good evidence for a global flood? This is only a question of physical geology.

Surely a global flood would cause a global depositional event rather than a global unconformity.

A flood is a depositional event finally is it not?

At best you could suggest it produced a global erosional unconformity with a chaotic, global flood deposit above it, say a conglomerate or possibly a fining upwards cycle starting with large debris carried by this flood and grading up to silt as everything settled out of the water.


I can't think of a layer like this that is found all over the earth at a certain time, and I doubt you can.

It is interesting to learn that early geologists ( Christians almost to a man ) thought they had discovered such a layer. On the surface of much of Northern Europe is just such a chaotic layer it looked very promising for a while, but Louis Agassiz showed it was a glacial till.

That was the stage when just about every geologist on earth gave up on flood geology and started to embrace deep time and uniformitarianism.

The flood model had been their prefered idea but it it had been tested and falsified.

Being in men of intellectual worth they went with the evidence and what it showed was the truth of gods creation.

You can google "William Buckland" if you wish to know more about the death of flood geology as a scientific theory nearly 200 years ago.

Creationists are just a bit slow at keeping up with advancements in science, about 200 years slow in this case

 

[juvenissun]

So, if you point me at a "global" unconformity I will merely remind you that it might be a "single-continent" unconformity.

It does not matter it has one continent or a few continents. The cause and the result are the same. The pangaea did not give any global unconformity.

I won't hold my breath that you'll provide any references, I might be able to actually learn something from your point, and we all know that isn't what you are here for.

The idea is the most important. As to references search, a graduate student is perfectly capable to do that. If you are interested enough, you will find some references. If you are not interested, why should I waste my time? I wonder if I gave you an article title in a geological journal (such as the EPSL), are you able to get it (free)?

I gave you some of my idea. Take it or not is your call. So far, I haven't see any new idea from you yet.

Did the Flood of Noah occur nearly 1 billion years ago?

This is not a new, but is a reasonable and an important question. I don't know the answer. I have some idea about it, but they are not mature yet. So I am not going to say it. Any argument on this issue would involve A LOT issues. It ain't easy.

 

[thaumaturgy]

It does not matter it has one continent or a few continents. The cause and the result are the same. The pangaea did not give any global unconformity.

Yet still I wait. I think you would have a really hard time working as a real scientist. You'd clearly have a hard time even making it through an advanced degree in geology.

The idea is the most important.

No, my friend, in real science the idea has to have support.

As to references search, a graduate student is perfectly capable to do that.

Yet strangely you cannot.

If you are interested enough, you will find some references.

Look, I don't know what your game is, but I asked for any supporting evidence for your claim. I didn't say it was right or wrong (indeed Baggins has a great point, that a global flood will also yield a correlatable catastrophic event, not just the absence of an event, since the sediment has to go somewhere), but I was merely asking for some reference to the "global unconformity" you have pointed out as evidence for why you believe in the Flood of Noah.

Since you can't even give me a book citation, let alone a link, I'll assume you are unable to do so. If you are, please provide it.

If you are not interested, why should I waste my time?

I am very interested.

I am, however, unable to find anything in relation to YOUR HYPOTHESIS, so my interest has run up against your inability to support your own claim.

Here's a hint, in case you ever do go beyond undergrad or wish to get an advanced degree:

you will have to defend your thesis or your dissertation. At that point, when your committee members ask you to support a claim, you will not be allowed to say "any grad student can look it up, if you are interested you'll look it up too!"

You will wind up exactly where you likely are now: a scientist wanna-be.

I do NOT like doing this, but lately it has come up with a couple of other posters: I will be honest and tell you I don't think you are particularly knowledgable in this area. I think you are painting yourself as something you are not.

I wonder if I gave you an article title in a geological journal (such as the EPSL), are you able to get it (free)?

I have access to a major earth science library here (my wife works at a research facility), in addition, in my role in Chemical R&D at a Fortune 100 company, I also have access to a variety of reference sources, not all of which are strictly chemical in nature.

Let me worry about getting ahold of an article, I'll let you worry about being able to support your own claims.

Sheesh, I can't believe I'm having to spoon feed you basic research concepts. Honestly.

I gave you some of my idea. Take it or not is your call. So far, I haven't see any new idea from you yet.

Actually I was merely asking you about your claims. I have presented my questions, which inherently indicate that I disagree with your claims as I know them so far.

This is not a new, but is a reasonable and an important question. I don't know the answer.

Of course you don't. It requires you understand the details incumbent upon your own hypotheses.

I have some idea about it, but they are not mature yet. So I am not going to say it. Any argument on this issue would involve A LOT issues. It ain't easy.

I'll be brutally honest on this one: I don't believe you are up to the task.

So stop with the fancy dodge-and-weave and back up a claim or two. Flesh out the details.

You're up against a couple of real geologists and real scientists now. You can't just toss it off to some imaginary grad student to do the thinking for you. YOU have to do it.

This skill will come in handy for you if you ever do go to graduate school.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

As to references search, a graduate student is perfectly capable to do that. If you are interested enough, you will find some references.

Yeah, that's how science works. Spout unbacked ideas and theories, and then tell others to do the legwork of verification and sourcing.

Try again, sport. If you can't source your material when you post it originally, and you can't source it when sources are requested, then you probably don't have a source at all.

The burden of proof is on you, not us. So get to work.

 

[flatworm]

The idea is the most important.

Grand ideas with little or no detail are very often mere verbage. Details matter.

As to references search, a graduate student is perfectly capable to do that. If you are interested enough, you will find some references. If you are not interested, why should I waste my time?

You may have noticed that when geologists (or any scientist, or indeed any professional), writes a paper, they provide the references themselves. When you were in high school, was "look it up yourself" considered an acceptable substitute for references?

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Nothing. The global flood and everything about it, where the water went and where the water came from, requires magic. It requires the belief that against physical impossibility, God made it happen somehow. And if that is your belief, no amount of physical evidence means anything.

 

[juvenissun]

you will have to defend your thesis or your dissertation. At that point, when your committee members ask you to support a claim, you will not be allowed to say "any grad student can look it up, if you are interested you'll look it up too!"

Based on your attitude, I am NOT going to give you any reference. You are no member of any committee concerned to me. Read or respond to my post or not, do as you wish. Just like I said to Molal, I am not writing this post only for you.

 

[thaumaturgy]

...

 

[thaumaturgy]

Based on your attitude, I am NOT going to give you any reference. You are no member of any committee concerned to me. Read or respond to my post or not, do as you wish. Just like I said to Molal, I am not writing this post only for you.

As far as I am concerned you look less on the "up-and-up" about this debate with every passing post.

You can't handle the questions and that's fine. You can't support even the fundamentals of your own claims, and that, too, is fine.

Just don't expect anyone to simply "take your word for it." And you won't be disappointed.

You are correct, I am not on any committee you have to worry about.

If you ever want to join the world of real science you will need to worry about how you construct and defend your hypotheses. Until that time you are free to bandy about whatever hypotheses you can generate from your brain. But do be prepared that not everyone is going to swallow it unquestioningly.

I am sad that you toss around geologic terms but can't back them up with much except for more terms.

You are like a game of "Whack-a-mole". You bring up a term, you are questioned about it's application, you run away and bring up another. Unconformity lead to tectonics. Mantle mineral phases lead to Venus. Promises of low-temp geochem topics lead to clay diagenesis which just disappeared.

Next time, stick to your buddies over in Creationist-only threads. Maybe they'll be impressed with your "Terminology Bingo" and won't hold you to the details.

(And please, note, when I asked for references about the Global Unconformity, I was honestly looking for something new to learn. But, as I said, I think you and I both know you aren't here to actually present anything like that. )

Let me again post my favorite quote from Celsus:

"the following are the rules laid down by them. Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence.

(as recorded by Origen)(SOURCE)

 

[flatworm]

Based on your attitude, I am NOT going to give you any reference. You are no member of any committee concerned to me. Read or respond to my post or not, do as you wish. Just like I said to Molal, I am not writing this post only for you.

How about for him and myself?

 

[juvenissun]

How about for him and myself?

What is your problem with what I said?

 

[juvenissun]

How about for him and myself?

What is your problem with what I said?

 

[FishFace]

As to references search, a graduate student is perfectly capable to do that. If you are interested enough, you will find some references. If you are not interested, why should I waste my time?

So, let me get this straight... We have to find the evidence for your claims? I guess this would make it a lot easier to write up bibliographies for my assignments - I could just put a footnote, "If you are interested enough, you will find some references."
However, if I do that, I think I will probably be somewhat limited in my prospects as far as marks go. At the moment, I'm giving you a 30 - fail, but can be promoted to 40, a passing mark, if you have completed sufficient assigned work, at the discretion of an examiner.

 

[juvenissun]

I am sad that you toss around geologic terms but can't back them up with much except for more terms.

If they were only geologic terms, what kind of evidence you want? Could you just look them up on yourself? If the terms are strange to you, I can give you their definitions. But you still have to use your own brain to understand them.

If you don't understand the word, how could you read an article?