Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

[AV1611VET]

we don't need to check because we already know the flood is nothing but a pile of creationist poo.

And what data put that knowledge in your head?

 

[Mikecpking]

A single correlated layer of water damage around the earth.

I'm actually out to lunch on this, though; as I believe God cleaned up the mess, yet left "easter eggs" behind in the form of:

1. Grand Canyon
2. White Cliffs of Dover
3. seashells in mountains and deserts

How does the Grand Canyon show a single, one event flood?

How does the white cliifs of Dover show a single one event flood? Do you know what rocks lie underneath those white cliffs? Greensand which shows a complete different environment and underneath that, Jurrassic limestone...sorry, but that is not evidence.

Seasheels in mountains and desrts show that those rocks were laid down on the sea bed and show uplift. Uplift happens when continental plates move (during earth quakes) and rise or fall as what happened recently when Japan woved 4m eastwards during their last big earthquake. Some of the land went down, some went up and where one has convergence of plates, you get mountain building and all those sea shells fossilised in the rock are on top of mountains.

If I was looking for flood evidence , I would expect to find uniformity in all rocks everywhere with grading of grainsizes from the largest to the smallest. The fact is we don't.

 

[CTD]

At the moment your fruits are coming across as quite bitter.

That's to be expected, if your senses are so thoroughly warped and distorted as the rest of your post indicates.

The O.P. is still there if anyone has forgotten the simple, straightforward question here. Anyone can review - there need be no mystery, and those hoping to create one? Not recommended if they value their credibility. ...If.

 

[Mikecpking]

What about those who claim they have seen evidence of no global flood?

I think that's what this thread is all about.

That's why this thread has gone so long -- no one is stepping up to the plate to answer the OP.

Look at post 218 from me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or even a NON-onion coat model and a lack of old-earth presuppositions. That way, only the naked eye is required. Works every time!

What's an 'onion coat', bro?

Even contemporaries of the OEC's were able to discover quite a bit of evidence, but they get retroactively classified as ''unscientific''. Oooh - isn't that impressive!

I have to agree with you on this one.

 

[Mikecpking]

AV,CTD,
Talk amongst yourselves, but you haven't answered any questions and I did answer the OP with the washing up bowl and ungraded sand experiment.

 

[CTD]

What's an 'onion coat', bro?

It's an old idea that the earth started smaller and grows layer-by-layer. A coat gets added, and vast amounts of time pass, and then another coat. Coats are usually added by worldwide floods, sometimes volcanic activity. The world gets wiped clean and life springs up again on the new coat. There are variations, of course. Earlier compromisers claimed the uppermost coat would represent Noah's flood.

Evolutionist ''geology'' to this day is a modified version of onion coat, and still easily recognizable as such. They imagine one way or another the same ''layers'' existed worldwide, being added at the same time, for example. They have all manner of flips and twists and ad hocs to explain away what's actually seen.

Evolutionism never had any problem with the flood(s) until spontaneous generation was debunked. Then they had to redo everything with no floods, insisting instead that sedimentary rock be the result of dry accumulation. ...And people believed they believed it!

That's probably more summary than you bargained for.

 

[AV1611VET]

How does the Grand Canyon show a single, one event flood?

It doesn't, it would only serve as a single piece of evidence.

How does the white cliifs of Dover show a single one event flood?

It doesn't, I believe the White Cliffs of Dover were formed when God cleaned up the mess and stockpiled coccoliths (or coccospores, or whatever they are) where they are today.

Do you know what rocks lie underneath those white cliffs?

No, and I don't really care, either; since God put them there; they could have been placed anywhere.

Greensand which shows a complete different environment and underneath that, Jurrassic limestone...

I'll take your word for it -- you're the expert.

... sorry, but that is not evidence.

Says you.

Seasheels in mountains and desrts show that those rocks were laid down on the sea bed and show uplift.

Do they now?

They could also show that they were placed there by an omnipotent deity as corroborating evidence of said deity's documentation.

Uplift happens when continental plates move (during earth quakes) and rise or fall as what happened recently when Japan woved 4m eastwards during their last big earthquake.

It also would occur if an omnipotent deity took a single continent and broke it into pieces, then moved them around to their current locations.

Some of the land went down, some went up and where one has convergence of plates, you get mountain building and all those sea shells fossilised in the rock are on top of mountains.

Nice explanation, but what you don't have, and in no way can prove, is: time.

As Thaumaturgy pointed out to me about the mountains of Nepal -- (I think it was) -- that India "torpedoed" into the Asian subcontinent -- (if I remember the explanation correctly) and forced the mountains upward.

That assumes two things:

1. India was out in the ocean, on a collision course with Asia.
2. Eons of time just happened to be at the universe's disposal.

If I was looking for flood evidence , I would expect to find uniformity in all rocks everywhere with grading of grainsizes from the largest to the smallest.

Unless Someone cleaned it up.

The fact is we don't.

Keep looking, and this time, do it w/i the confines of a universe that has only been in operation for 6015 years tops.

 

[Jade Margery]

I doubt your level of appreciation corresponds with what a gentleman would consider commensurate.

"Archaeological proof" - what am I supposed to do? Link to 15 dictionaries, and then what? There is no proof to even discuss in the first place. I waste time when I choose to waste time - not when you make ridiculous claims and nag. Not even when you enlist help. My time is not rightfully yours. That I can prove! I shall be doing so by example - just watch.

Dictionaries? Not needed. We're not debating the meaning of a word here. Don't be silly.

Either you can show where I'm wrong, but you won't (and are thus being immature, like a child who throws a fit and takes the ball home) or you can't and you're covering it up with a layer of smugness and condescension. Now what you do with your time is no business of mine, but on this thread you made a claim--that my reasoning was faulty--and called me a liar besides, and when I asked that you support your statement, you refused. It is not enough to simply say someone is wrong. If you can't or won't provide evidence to back it up, then you concede defeat by omission. (A child who has a tantrum and takes his ball home early cannot rightfully say he won the game.)

What about those who claim they have seen evidence of no global flood?

I think that's what this thread is all about.

That's why this thread has gone so long -- no one is stepping up to the plate to answer the OP.

Several of us have. The fact that you have ignored all answers doesn't mean they weren't given.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why don't you carry on the search or are you just all mouth and no action.

I'm not called to be a scientist, like some here are.

Just like you have men in the pulpit that don't belong there, and men in the [wrong] mission field that don't belong there (like that video someone posted yesterday), you have men in the laboratory that don't belong there.

I would be one such man.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's probably more summary than you bargained for.

Okay -- thank you, sir!

 

[Delphiki]

They're far too busy with other projects. At least one claims there can be no experiment. Others claim there isn't one without ruling it out. Still others claim one's been done, and there's a couple trying to propose an altogether new one. Evolutionism's not exactly got a straight story to offer on this question.

...And I'm xyz for asking.

Is there anything you don't whine about? There is no "There Wasn't a Great Flood Theory". Do you realize how huge of a waste of time it would be to develop theories for every imaginary thing that doesn't exist?

I think you got very straightforward answers. You just choose not to accept them. And even if the answers weren't satisfactory, this in no way would help to validate the idea that there was a flood.

And now your saying geological science was developed to accommodate the Theory or Evolution? How can you not expect us to call you "XYZ".

 

[Mikecpking]

I'm not called to be a scientist, like some here are.

Just like you have men in the pulpit that don't belong there, and men in the [wrong] mission field that don't belong there (like that video someone posted yesterday), you have men in the laboratory that don't belong there.

I would be one such man.

And therefore, you should not be debating here is you are not called to be a scientist.

 

[Jade Margery]

Here is one of my textbooks: Amazon.com: World Prehistory: A Brief Introduction (8th Edition) (MyAnthroKit Series) (9780205017911): Brian M. Fagan: Books

While you may well balk at the price, Brian Fagan is a well known and respected archaeologist/anthropologist and his books are widely used--therefore I'm certain you can find a copy either at your local library (if you live in or near a bit city) or a nearby university library.

I would also recommend "Archaeology Essentials, Theories Methods and Practice" by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, which would shed light on common dating methods such as stratigraphy, the full concept of which you seem unable to grasp, CTD.

My other classes used copied chapters from a variety of books; I'm still snooping about to see if I have any of them left. I remember topics but not titles. But if you have a sincere interest in educating yourself, those two will keep you busy for awhile.

 

[Phileas]

That's to be expected, if your senses are so thoroughly warped and distorted as the rest of your post indicates.

The O.P. is still there if anyone has forgotten the simple, straightforward question here. Anyone can review - there need be no mystery, and those hoping to create one? Not recommended if they value their credibility. ...If.

Oh joy, another dodging of the question followed by snarky retort.

They're far too busy with other projects. At least one claims there can be no experiment. Others claim there isn't one without ruling it out. Still others claim one's been done, and there's a couple trying to propose an altogether new one. Evolutionism's not exactly got a straight story to offer on this question.

...And I'm xyz for asking.

Which posts claimed a conclusive experiment has been done? As far as I can see all the reponses have clearly stated that no single experiment has ever been performed, but then qualified that controlled experimentation is not the only method of gaining knowledge. Also the posts proposing an experiment, i.e. Mikecpking and Jade Margery, were just trying to follow your narrow terms of engagement by providing way in which a single global flood can be falsified.

It's an old idea that the earth started smaller and grows layer-by-layer. A coat gets added, and vast amounts of time pass, and then another coat. Coats are usually added by worldwide floods, sometimes volcanic activity. The world gets wiped clean and life springs up again on the new coat. There are variations, of course. Earlier compromisers claimed the uppermost coat would represent Noah's flood.

Evolutionist ''geology'' to this day is a modified version of onion coat, and still easily recognizable as such. They imagine one way or another the same ''layers'' existed worldwide, being added at the same time, for example. They have all manner of flips and twists and ad hocs to explain away what's actually seen.

Evolutionism never had any problem with the flood(s) until spontaneous generation was debunked. Then they had to redo everything with no floods, insisting instead that sedimentary rock be the result of dry accumulation. ...And people believed they believed it!

That's probably more summary than you bargained for.

I can't seem to find the term "onion-coat model" anywhere except on creationist sites. Could you be perhaps refering to neptunism and plutonism as proposed by Werner and Hutton? Also the rock strata of the same age do not conform worldwide unless the same conditions prevailed globally, flood sediments are often found locally (see alluvial fans) and sedimentary deposits can be formed from "dry accumulation". It is known as aeolian stratification, the most common form of which is sand dunes creating cross-bedding. Examples of such sediments include strata within the Old Red Sandstone of Britain, which are known to be aerially deposited due to grain shape, size and presence of haematite (Fe2O3) as a result of association with an oxydizing environment.

 

[AV1611VET]

And therefore, you should not be debating here is you are not called to be a scientist.

Oh, my.

How many of us should leave, then?

 

[CTD]

The fact that you have ignored all answers doesn't mean they weren't given.

The fact that I won't stoop to insulting everyone's intelligence is, I suspect, the only think keeping folks around. The thread's here. If you're confident you've provided the type of experiment I asked to see, you shouldn't work on expanding it indefinitely, making your ''contribution'' more and more unlikely to be discovered.

A smart group would post the killer experiment, and shut up. That would be the conclusion of the thread. Painting and flaming could continue elsewhere, could it not?

(A few years ago, I was reluctant to give much advice. Bad advice would be morally questionable; good advice might be followed. I have learned more of the ways of evolutionism, so I am no longer concerned about giving advice.)

 

[Mikecpking]

Oh, my.

How many of us should leave, then?

It was tonhue in cheek, AV, but we should all investigate the natural world, even God tells us too!

 

[CTD]

And therefore, you should not be debating here is you are not called to be a scientist.

Oh, my.

How many of us should leave, then?

Smells fishy. The immoral have no problem claiming to be scientists (or anything else), so they can all stay, no matter how bad their acting. All that shall remain will be the moral scientists and the deceitful.

Now why would a body propose a rule like that?

 

[Gishin]

Is your wife still showing bruises? It's a simple question.