Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

[AV1611VET]

And it is correct to keep in mind that "God never did anything" is one whoppin' big presupposition!

AMEN to that!

 

[USincognito]

I'm not entirely sure what kind of experiment would suffice here. Flood a control earth?

I have Slartibartfast's e-mail if anyone is interested in doing so.

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.

It's even worse than that for AV. The cocolithophores descend in calm water, not the turbid water one would expect in a flood. They descend very slowly meaning accumluation takes a long time. They are microscopic meaning accumulation takes an even longer time. They also are made from calcium absorbed from ocean water and if all the calcium that formed the White Cliffs was in that water at once, it would have the consistency of a milkshake.

 

[quatona]

And it is correct to keep in mind that "God never did anything" is one whoppin' big presupposition!

It´s a logical conclusion from a presupposition made by Christian theology itself: Namely, that God is eternal, beyond time and space, unchanging.

 

[Mikecpking]

It's even worse than that for AV. The cocolithophores descend in calm water, not the turbid water one would expect in a flood. They descend very slowly meaning accumluation takes a long time. They are microscopic meaning accumulation takes an even longer time. They also are made from calcium absorbed from ocean water and if all the calcium that formed the White Cliffs was in that water at once, it would have the consistency of a milkshake.

Quite. Even worse for him further, the chalk in the Dorset/Hampshire basin is overlain by gravels, sandstone beds and there is no satifactory creationist argument to explain this. I would love to take any of these guys to a trip to the Jurrasic coast walk in Dorset and get them to try and wriggle out of the evidence on display.

Lulworth Cove - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AV1611VET]

The cocolithophores descend in calm water, not the turbid water one would expect in a flood.

Who says they were in the water at the time?

The flood waters are gone, the land is dry, and God "sweeps" them up and stockpiles them in [what is now] Dover.

 

[Mikecpking]

Who says they were in the water at the time?

The flood waters are gone, the land is dry, and God "sweeps" them up and stockpiles them in [what is now] Dover.

Because marine creatures like sharks have been fossilized in the chalk. This is proof that the deposit was marine.

The reason why the chalk is above sea level today is because of uplift due tot he fact that Africa is slowly colliding with Europe and as a consequence, the crust has buckled upwards.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because marine creatures like sharks have been fossilized in the chalk. This is proof that the deposit was marine.

WOW -- you can't see the forest for the trees, can you?

Please set your college books aside and try and formulate a mental picture of what I'm saying here.

The Flood waters are GONE -- sharks, whales, people, seaweed, coccoliths, etc. and so forth are stretched from one end of Pangaea (China?) to the other (New Jersey?) and everywhere in-between.

Lying in [what is now] China, the Sahara Desert, Nebraska, Mt. Ararat, Mexico, etc. -- not to mention in the oceans, themselves.

Walk 10 feet and there's a T. Rex carcass, walk another 10 feet and there's a shark, walk another 10 feet and there's a man...

Now, God comes along and "sweeps" up the coccoliths from one end of this supercontinent to the other and stockpiles them in Dover.

 

[Mikecpking]

WOW -- you can't see the forest for the trees, can you?

Please set your college books aside and try and formulate a mental picture of what I'm saying here.

The Flood waters are GONE -- sharks, whales, people, seaweed, coccoliths, etc. and so forth are stretched from one end of Pangaea (China?) to the other (New Jersey?) and everywhere in-between.

Lying in [what is now] China, the Sahara Desert, Nebraska, Mt. Ararat, Mexico, etc. -- not to mention in the oceans, themselves.

Walk 10 feet and there's a T. Rex carcass, walk another 10 feet and there's a shark, walk another 10 feet and there's a man...

Now, God comes along and "sweeps" up the coccoliths from one end of this supercontinent to the other and stockpiles them in Dover.

AV, you have not shown anything here, bcause you have made a lot of unsupported claims. If all features in geology can be explained by a single, universal flood, then we should find complete randomness in the rocks laid down. EG Sharks in Cambrian rocks together with many land dwelling creatures there and one would hope to find fossilised skeletons of humans...the fact is you don't Neither will you find a shark's tooth on a TX trex site nor a fossilized human..

My take on the flood is a very provable one; during the last ice age, sea levels were 120m (400 feet) lower than they are today, because the sheer volume of water locked into ice. The ice melted, sea levels rose and in the case of the Black Sea which then was a landlocked, fresh water lake, the sea broke through the mountain chain which is the present day Istanbul water channel in Turkey and one can find evidence of settlements deep under water. Because of Isostacy, Isostasy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the lands which were under the ice has risen up and no more flood today.

Oral tradition would have played a large part of the deluge (climate change) fountains of the deep (water break through) etc and were written down to the Noah's ark story we have in the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, you have not shown anything here, bcause you have made a lot of unsupported claims.

And I said right upfront that these are miracles -- not time-consuming natural occurrences.

And now I see you're going to start bringing up a lot more stuff, and I'm not going to debate this with you.

We started out with I explaining the White Cliffs of Dover, to which you added a shark fossil in there, so I explained that, and now you want to open the dike and flood me with all this other stuff.

Let's stick to the White Cliffs of Dover, eh?

 

[Delphiki]

Take Pluto -- there are some who lived in error for 76 years thinking Pluto was our 9th planet.

You don't have to be such an obvious troll. Pluto has also been explained to you countless times. The only thing that changed about Pluto was how we classified it. It's still the same Pluto.

In case you forgot a mere handful of posts ago, it was you who called the falsified hypothesis "Truth (capital T)", not me. You basically admitted that "Truth" is the opposite of "truth". I guess you can't find a way to backpedal out of that one.

It's the idea of a god, in general, that isn't falsifiable. The god of the Christian bible certainly is falsifiable on account of not only the lack of evidence to support his existence, but the positive evidence against him. There are passages in the bible that indicate ways to test god's existence (though it strongly suggests against it) -- and the tests never come back positive.

In fact, that's the bible's biggest flaw -- that it illustrates the God you believe in in such great detail, making it much easier to falsify.

 

[Mikecpking]

And I said right upfront that these are miracles -- not time-consuming natural occurrences.

And now I see you're going to start bringing up a lot more stuff, and I'm not going to debate this with you.

We started out with I explaining the White Cliffs of Dover, to which you added a shark fossil in there, so I explained that, and now you want to open the dike and flood me with all this other stuff.

Let's stick to the White Cliffs of Dover, eh?

The same chalk that appears in the USA and Canada?

Heartland Serves Up Big Slice of American Pie | Article from Markee Film and Video Magazine

Chalk dioes not only occur in the white cliffs of Dover (I doubt you have ever been there) and debunks your theory that God shunted all those marine creatures in one place!

Chalk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mikecpking]

Now, God comes along and "sweeps" up the coccoliths from one end of this supercontinent to the other and stockpiles them in Dover.

This has to be a classic!

 

[CTD]

AV, you have not shown anything here, bcause you have made a lot of unsupported claims. If all features in geology can be explained by a single, universal flood, then we should find complete randomness in the rocks laid down. EG Sharks in Cambrian rocks together with many land dwelling creatures there and one would hope to find fossilised skeletons of humans...the fact is you don't Neither will you find a shark's tooth on a TX trex site nor a fossilized human..

It's funny how evolutionists claim to have the monopoly on knowing what a flood should do without ever investigating creation science - yet none of their stories agree. One says we should have a jumble; another says we should have a single, perfectly uniform layer; another says we should have sorted layers by granule size; another... There must be at least a dozen different expectations from these alleged experts.

House Divided

 

[CTD]

CTD, you are being dishonest. You still have not answered the question I posed to you. You are confusing the terms 'jumble' and 'single' as both apply to your rationale. The fossils within the layer would be jumbled up within a thick single layer if you believe all geolody is caused by a single universal flood. My proposed experiment and what one sees in the field would have very different results.

Ah yes, you strategically chose a word which can be equivocated, so I am dishonest for reading it. I never knew one could retroactively become dishonest before. What a marvelous pioneer you are in the field of sin research!

You let on like a single equivocation reconciles you with all the different assertions of your fellows as well. You know it's easy to produce a new contention, don't you? Show an evolutionist a place with a single, uniform ''layer'' and claim it's flood evidence. Immediately you'll get a claim that something else would be the result of a flood. Simple trick - anyone can do it. Whatever's there, they'll claim the flood couldn't possibly produce such a result, and it doesn't matter what it is. It takes no time for no thought is involved - only evoreflex.

No research has ever demonstrated that a flood must leave a single layer. That's leftover myth from onion coat. It could, of course be combined with equivocation over the term ''layer''. Big deal!

Here's the risk: Anyone who's ever seen what a flood leaves behind in the real world will know. They'll see how casually the assertion is floated out, and maintained to be the indisputable verdict of ''all scientists''.

 

[Phileas]

Hey Mikecpking, it seems your proposed experiment has already been done.

YouTube - ‪Noah's Flood debunked - 1 (reposted from Potholer54debunks)‬‏

You let on like a single equivocation reconciles you with all the different assertions of your fellows as well. You know it's easy to produce a new contention, don't you? Show an evolutionist a place with a single, uniform ''layer'' and claim it's flood evidence. Immediately you'll get a claim that something else would be the result of a flood. Simple trick - anyone can do it. Whatever's there, they'll claim the flood couldn't possibly produce such a result, and it doesn't matter what it is. It takes no time for no thought is involved - only evoreflex.

So...did the flood result in only one single depositional layer and not the entire geological record (I know, I know, I'm putting words into your mouth, but it's so hard to do otherwise when you dodge every question)? Could you perhaps provide some link to a picture or stratigraphic table of this global depositional event?

 

[Mikecpking]

Ah yes, you strategically chose a word which can be equivocated, so I am dishonest for reading it. I never knew one could retroactively become dishonest before. What a marvelous pioneer you are in the field of sin research!

Sin research? What right have you, as a christian to judge another christian? Scince is a gift from God! Your dishonesty was trying to make a point when there was none, by misquoting me and others here.

You let on like a single equivocation reconciles you with all the different assertions of your fellows as well. You know it's easy to produce a new contention, don't you? Show an evolutionist a place with a single, uniform ''layer'' and claim it's flood evidence. Immediately you'll get a claim that something else would be the result of a flood. Simple trick - anyone can do it. Whatever's there, they'll claim the flood couldn't possibly produce such a result, and it doesn't matter what it is. It takes no time for no thought is involved - only evoreflex.

The fact there are multiple layers, different rock types, volcanism, pillow lavas, prove that so much has happened in the geologiccal past, that in cannot be attributed to a 40 day flood. IT DOES NOT WORK!

No research has ever demonstrated that a flood must leave a single layer. That's leftover myth from onion coat. It could, of course be combined with equivocation over the term ''layer''. Big deal!

The deal is it would leave a single layer without unconformities, folding/faulting and uplift. Erosion would have had so little time to alter anything (4,000 years BC) that we should see the topography more or less the same from the time of the flood, but we don't. Here in England, we have Stonehenge which dates back more than 1,600 years before the Romans and the landscape has not changed much since then, because the ditches are still apparent. Yet we have valleys all around it which have hardly changed since it was built.

Here's the risk: Anyone who's ever seen what a flood leaves behind in the real world will know. They'll see how casually the assertion is floated out, and maintained to be the indisputable verdict of ''all scientists''.

You still have not answered my question, please demonstrate HOW science has got it wrong.

 

[Mikecpking]

Hey Mikecpking, it seems your proposed experiment has already been done.

YouTube - ‪Noah's Flood debunked - 1 (reposted from Potholer54debunks)‬‏



So...the flood did result in only one single depositional layer and not the entire geological record (I know, I know, I'm putting words into your mouth, but it's so hard to do otherwise when you dodge every question). Could you perhaps provide some link to a picture or stratigraphic table of this global depositional event?

Well found! Now, how does Greensand underlie chalk? Why do bagshot sands lie on top of chalk? Why is there evidence of erosion between these layers which proves they were on the surface before being submerged again?

geological map dorset - Google Search

 

[Belk]

Ah yes, you strategically chose a word which can be equivocated, so I am dishonest for reading it. I never knew one could retroactively become dishonest before. What a marvelous pioneer you are in the field of sin research!

You let on like a single equivocation reconciles you with all the different assertions of your fellows as well. You know it's easy to produce a new contention, don't you? Show an evolutionist a place with a single, uniform ''layer'' and claim it's flood evidence. Immediately you'll get a claim that something else would be the result of a flood. Simple trick - anyone can do it. Whatever's there, they'll claim the flood couldn't possibly produce such a result, and it doesn't matter what it is. It takes no time for no thought is involved - only evoreflex.

No research has ever demonstrated that a flood must leave a single layer. That's leftover myth from onion coat. It could, of course be combined with equivocation over the term ''layer''. Big deal!

Here's the risk: Anyone who's ever seen what a flood leaves behind in the real world will know. They'll see how casually the assertion is floated out, and maintained to be the indisputable verdict of ''all scientists''.

Evolution is biology. Flood layers would be geology. Just FYI.

 

[CTD]

Evolution is biology. Flood layers would be geology. Just FYI.

OEC geology from the 1800's, right? At least so far as 'flood evidence' is concerned... I think recent YEC geology's more advanced and reliable. YEC's can even SEE evidence, unlike the researchers evolutionism's been relying upon for its conclusion.

 

[Gishin]

OEC geology from the 1800's, right? At least so far as 'flood evidence' is concerned... I think recent YEC geology's more advanced and reliable. YEC's can even SEE evidence, unlike the researchers evolutionism's been relying upon for its conclusion.

Where's a YEC geologist's evidence?