Is Flood Geology Falsifiable?

[thaumaturgy]

And what do you reply?

I think the key is that we have all, each and every one of us, been in that most uncomfortable situation. We've all been called on the carpet and found left wanting.

I think this is the start of all "humility". It's a hard thing to follow through on, and I know I'm certainly no icon of virtue in this department. But I remember one of my committee members saying to me something to the effect of: "you got that one part wrong, but you said it so convincingly..."

Defenses are intended to be humiliating. They are intended to be the firey furnace.

But it extends into any debate of ideas. An hypothesis never gets implicit acceptance, it has to be actively proven. And that is the job of the hypothesizer, not the listener.

You do know that defending your "thesis" is needed for this debate, right? thaumaturgy's is not mocking you. He is simply telling you what is required of you if this "debate" is to continue.

Indeed. I really honestly wanted Juvenissun to flesh out some of his ideas. The fact that he has wandered into the deep end of the geology pool is actually quite pleasant for me and my accursed geologic kind. I had been hoping for a Flood Advocate or YEC to provide some geologic meat.

But Juvenissun is also wearing on my nerves. And to that extent I am getting a bit more snarky myself. I am prone to fits of sarcasm. But in the case of Juvenissun I started out really wanting more information and discussion.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Normal models in sedimentology (as taught in schools, include graduate school), most likely, would not work in the event of global flood. So it is useless to use features such as turbidity deposits or graded beds as arguments in an event of global flood.

Actually that is not necessarily so. Normal models are appropriately applied. Remember, graded bedding and turbidites etc are a function of the physics not the scale. Global or not, if the sediments went somewhere they will still have to follow (simply speaking) things like the hjulstrom diagram. Gravity and hydraulics don't change based on the size of the flood.

Stop being sarcastic.

Don't play the "injured card" here, my friend. If you are honest you'll note I started off rather pleasant on this path. I asked for explanations in all honesty. You have been the one to jump right into the bile and nastiness. I believe you have accused us geologists of not being scientists or not knowing how to learn.

I rather expect the kind of bile you belch forth because I've run into quite a few "nominal Christians" in the YEC debates and you guys seem to be as quick to get nasty as even the most hardened atheists I can think of.

In point of fact, folks like Molal, who are also Christians do a much more admirable job of presenting the Christian Faith, so I know it's not the "Christian" part that is at fault here. Maybe it's the "Literalist" part. I don't know.

This is a warning. Or I will stop responding to you and leave you in your geological darkness. I don't have to teach you geology in this forum.

You have yet to substantively "respond" to anything on here. Don't try to paint your posts as somehow shedding light on anything.

What you have done is belch forth a steaming putrid sea of equivocation, dodge-and-weave, denial-of-proof, with a few chunks of condescension and ad hominem for color.

Don't "warn" anyone until you clean up your own house.

[bible]Matthew 7:3[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

.[reposted].​

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed. I really honestly wanted Juvenissun to flesh out some of his ideas. The fact that he has wandered into the deep end of the geology pool is actually quite pleasant for me and my accursed geologic kind. I had been hoping for a Flood Advocate or YEC to provide some geologic meat.

You know, Thaumaturgy, you've been going on and on about this for awhile now. Why don't you do yourself a favor and look in the mirror?

How do you think I felt when you first told me you'd read the Bible n-times, then started making one rookie mistake after another?

Not to mention your answer about the Hebrews 6 passage.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know, Thaumaturgy, you've been going on and on about this for awhile now. Why don't you do yourself a favor and look in the mirror?

How do you think I felt when you first told me you'd read the Bible n-times, then started making one rookie mistake after another?

Not to mention your answer about the Hebrews 6 passage.

This is about flood geology, not the Bible. If, as flood geologists claim, one can determine that there was a global flood by looking at the evidence alone then there need not be a reference to the Bible. We all know that you have a different opinion on the matter so this thread was not aimed at you.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is about flood geology, not the Bible. If, as flood geologists claim, one can determine that there was a global flood by looking at the evidence alone then there need not be a reference to the Bible. We all know that you have a different opinion on the matter so this thread was not aimed at you.

Thaumaturgy knows what I'm talking about; and if this is about "flood geology," where did the idea of a global flood come from in the first place?

If it wasn't for the Bible, you guys wouldn't know what to look for.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thaumaturgy knows what I'm talking about; and if this is about "flood geology," where did the idea of a global flood come from in the first place?

As Walt Brown (a flood geologist) has said many times, it doesn't matter. The idea for the structure of benzene came from a dream. The PCR method came from an LSD trip. There are rumors that the structure of DNA was conceived in a similar fashion.

 

[AV1611VET]

As Walt Brown (a flood geologist) has said many times, it doesn't matter. The idea for the structure of benzene came from a dream. The PCR method came from an LSD trip. There are rumors that the structure of DNA was conceived in a similar fashion.

You mean this Walt Brown?

 

[thaumaturgy]

You know, Thaumaturgy, you've been going on and on about this for awhile now. Why don't you do yourself a favor and look in the mirror?

I have. Do you think Juvenissun has?

What I find ironic in all these debates is that I always attempt to provide a caveat that I might be wrong on a point. Yet I seldom see a "Christian" acquiesce that maybe they are mistaken.

Instead we get the non-stop litany of nastiness that is usually the hallmark of a good "YEC" argument.

Please, cut me a bit of slack. If you can find a post in which I claimed some superior knowledge on a topic you can find about 10 others in which I allowed that I am not the ultimate expert.

I don't cleave to some sense of honesty because I think God is watching me. But I do have a very serious sense that I must be as honest as I can be because I realize I'm talking to other people.

That's why you'll note I am always going on about my limitations. While I am quite proud of my abilities and achievements I am always mindful of the times that I spoke and was wrong.

Do you see that in any of Juvenissun's posts on this thread?

How do you think I felt when you first told me you'd read the Bible n-times, then started making one rookie mistake after another?

LIST MY ROOKIE MISTAKES.

I'll grant, as I did at the time, that I have made mistakes in the biblical readings (most notably I hadn't noticed that the one "eschatology"-Matthew 16:28 may not have been an eschatology but could reasonably be read to be related to Matthew 17:3. ) But I don't recall that I made some huge list of "rookie mistake after rookie mistake".

Oh, and do be careful in your list in support of your ACCUSATION that you differentiate "rookie mistakes" from mere differences in interpretations.

Not to mention your answer about the Hebrews 6 passage.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Maybe in the interest of honesty you should refresh my memory of this "error" I committed.

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean this Walt Brown?

Yep, that Walt Brown.

He refused to debate Joe Meert because Meert wanted to discuss the source of Brown's theory.

"Creationist Walt Brown claims that in over 15 years no evolutionist is willing to enter into a debate with him. Just how true is this claim? Nearly 4 years ago, I began a dialogue with Walt Brown to discuss the possibility of debating him. Walt is afraid of discussing the Biblical basis for his 'flood model', yet it is clear that without the Noachian flood story, there would be no hydroplate theory. In fact, his book is titled "In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the flood". You may be surprised that someone who claims he is not able to discuss theology discusses theology in relation to his hydroplate hypothesis. "
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's do the time warp again . . .

Post 140.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's do the time warp again . . .

Post 140.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have. Do you think Juvenissun has?
What I find ironic in all these debates is that I always attempt to provide a caveat that I might be wrong on a point. Yet I seldom see a "Christian" acquiesce that maybe they are mistaken.

I don't care how "humble" anyone is. When they say the Flood didn't happen, they've lost any "humility" they have claimed - (in my eyes, anyway).

Instead we get the non-stop litany of nastiness that is usually the hallmark of a good "YEC" argument.

You've made some pretty good contributions yourself.

Please, cut me a bit of slack. If you can find a post in which I claimed some superior knowledge on a topic you can find about 10 others in which I allowed that I am not the ultimate expert.

Well, like I say, I don't care if you can recite electromagnetic wave propagation tables backwards. If you claim the Bible is wrong, you're putting yourself above God - (in our eyes) - and coming across like some super know-it-all.

I don't cleave to some sense of honesty because I think God is watching me. But I do have a very serious sense that I must be as honest as I can be because I realize I'm talking to other people.

I'm not accusing you of being dishonest. You were just a big disappointment to me when you claimed you had read the Bible n-times, then did such things as:

1. Blame the Crusades on Christianity.
2. Tried to hold us accountable to what Martin Luther said or did.

I can't remember everything.

That's why you'll note I am always going on about my limitations.

Ya --- well try and remember your limitations when it comes to a discussion on a global flood.

While I am quite proud of my abilities and achievements I am always mindful of the times that I spoke and was wrong.

I'll admit that you're one of the more honest [secular] scientists here. That's why I always enjoyed conversing with you; until you started bringing up the Crusades, and Martin Luther, etc. --- overlooking the fact that I was an independent Baptist. And when I brought that to your attention, your ridicule just made me lose a lot of respect for you.

Do you see that in any of Juvenissun's posts on this thread?

I see Juvenissun as a brother-in-Christ; that's all I care about. Same for JohnR7, Carico, Supersport, and even you.

Anyone who claims to have been born-again at one point is, in my opinion, still born again; as I believe in the doctrine of Eternal Security.

Either that, or they weren't truly saved in the first place --- but I usually always give them the benefit of a doubt.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, that Walt Brown.

He refused to debate Joe Meert because Meert wanted to discuss the source of Brown's theory.

"Creationist Walt Brown claims that in over 15 years no evolutionist is willing to enter into a debate with him. Just how true is this claim? Nearly 4 years ago, I began a dialogue with Walt Brown to discuss the possibility of debating him. Walt is afraid of discussing the Biblical basis for his 'flood model', yet it is clear that without the Noachian flood story, there would be no hydroplate theory. In fact, his book is titled "In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the flood". You may be surprised that someone who claims he is not able to discuss theology discusses theology in relation to his hydroplate hypothesis. "
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

Oh well [shrugs shoulders] --- he doesn't go to our church anyway, so I couldn't care less about it. If I ever meet him this side of Heaven, I'll have to show him how to properly defend the Flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's do the time warp again . . .

Post 140.

Yep, that Walt Brown.

He refused to debate Joe Meert because Meert wanted to discuss the source of Brown's theory.

"Creationist Walt Brown claims that in over 15 years no evolutionist is willing to enter into a debate with him. Just how true is this claim? Nearly 4 years ago, I began a dialogue with Walt Brown to discuss the possibility of debating him. Walt is afraid of discussing the Biblical basis for his 'flood model', yet it is clear that without the Noachian flood story, there would be no hydroplate theory. In fact, his book is titled "In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the flood". You may be surprised that someone who claims he is not able to discuss theology discusses theology in relation to his hydroplate hypothesis. "
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

Oh well [shrugs shoulders] --- he doesn't go to our church anyway, so I couldn't care less about it. If I ever meet him this side of Heaven, I'll have to show him how to properly defend the Flood.

 

[Athrond]

No.

I have to applaude your honesty

 

[juvenissun]

Actually that is not necessarily so. Normal models are appropriately applied. Remember, graded bedding and turbidites etc are a function of the physics not the scale. Global or not, if the sediments went somewhere they will still have to follow (simply speaking) things like the hjulstrom diagram. Gravity and hydraulics don't change based on the size of the flood.


You have yet to substantively "respond" to anything on here. Don't try to paint your posts as somehow shedding light on anything.

It is VERY EASY to explain that what you said above does not apply to the situation of a global flood. But I am NOT going to tell you why this time. Why should I educate you if you do not appreciate anything I have said? I have posted many idea along this thread. However, to you, it seemed I have said nothing. If so, why should I continue?

Go and enjoy yourself as a geology expert.

 

[Paulos23]

time stamp error.....

 

[Paulos23]

It is VERY EASY to explain that what you said above does not apply to the situation of a global flood. But I am NOT going to tell you why this time. Why should I educate you if you do not appreciate anything I have said? I have posted many idea along this thread. However, to you, it seemed I have said nothing. If so, why should I continue?

Go and enjoy yourself as a geology expert.

This is just juvenile.

Your acting like any disagreement is an attack, and if we don't agree with you that you will pick up your ball and go home. I'm sorry, but this is a discussion and debate forum. People are going to disagree with you, request sources, and pick apart your logic. They are not doing it maliciously, but to engage you to figure out if your claims have any truth. I have seen people here go to great lengths to engage you while you just ignore them or just hand wave them away. You are being rude.

If it is very easy then tell us. Otherwise, I and others will assume you are just blowing smoke to save face.

 

[thaumaturgy]

It is VERY EASY to explain that what you said above does not apply to the situation of a global flood. But I am NOT going to tell you why this time.

"This time"???


Oh, sorry, now I need to get a new keyboard.

Why should I educate you if you do not appreciate anything I have said?

Actually I have been quite willing to listen to what you say until you started "dodging and weaving", shifiting topics like a race-car driver, and refusing to give supporting evidence. Oh yeah and telling scientists they aren't scientists but simultaneously showing virtually no understanding of how science topics are discussed, yourself. Strange that.

I have posted many idea along this thread. However, to you, it seemed I have said nothing.

I was more than willing to listen if just once you would have supported some claim. But you couldn't be bothered to.

Are you playing some sort of "game" here? Are you a Poe? What gives?

If so, why should I continue?

Because presumably you believe your own hypotheses. Certainly enough to come on here and express them.

But if you refuse to defend them I think we know what that says about how much you "believe" them.

Go and enjoy yourself as a geology expert.

I will thank you very much.

But rest assured, that my job as an Old-Earth geologist is made so easy as long as Bible-believing Literalists and Flood Advocates present their point of view the way YOU do!

Is that what you want?

Bravo!

Oh, before you run off to the safety of people who don't bother to question your "knowledge" of geology, please do tell us what your bona fides were in geology?