Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

[Orogeny]

Other than volcanic rock, most all geology is formed from water deposition, world wide.
That pretty much explains it.

That is one of the most plainly fallacious statements I've seen in quite a while.

Sedimentary rocks are less than 10 percent of Earth's crust by volume, and far less than 1% of Earth's total volume.

 

[Orogeny]

Because it's not a reproducible experiment, the question is limited to science-fiction explanations.
Plus, the date of the Flood is not given.

Since when is identification requisite on reproducibility? We've got full knowledge of which sedimentary structures form in which depositional regimes, we know what sedimentary deposits look like when water levels are rising or falling, and we know what water-saturated soils look like, even ancient ones in the rock record. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to identify the deposits and effects of a global flood if they existed.

 

[SignOfGod]

So let me get this straight, before the flood there was a WW fire, then came the WW flood, does that mean the 'Ark' went up in flames [along with all the people] before it could even get off the ground? did God cause the flood to put the fire out?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Logically both are referring to the same event.

Or the same myth that arose from some large local flood.

 

[Geode]

By not being a creationist. All you have to do, then, is post something. No matter what your post will say, they'll call it equivocating (they just like using that word... a lot), and ban you.

True story.

Virtually anybody that is not a creationist gets banned there. They make up one excuse or another to ban those of us who more carefully followed the rules than the mods but are not "ome of them." The reason given is usually an accusation of "equivocation" or "wasting people's time"....the sad irony is that the fact that if equivocation is present there it is most usually coming from mods who are posting about "empirical evidence." They offer knee-jerk posts parroting the claim that there is no empirical evidence in favor of evolution or an old earth, but claim that experimentation or observation by "creation scientists" is valid empirical evidence whether or not it is valid or relevant to to the topic.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Virtually anybody that is not a creationist gets banned there. They make up one excuse or another to ban those of us who more carefully followed the rules than the mods but are not "ome of them." The reason given is usually an accusation of "equivocation" or "wasting people's time"....the sad irony is that the fact that if equivocation is present there it is most usually coming from mods who are posting about "empirical evidence." They offer knee-jerk posts parroting the claim that there is no empirical evidence in favor of evolution or an old earth, but claim that experimentation or observation by "creation scientists" is valid empirical evidence whether or not it is valid or relevant to to the topic.

I think we could all name half a dozen creationists here who do nothing but waste everyone's time on complete and utter foolishness and stupidity, but are apparently 'protected'.

 

[Geode]

I think we could all name half a dozen creationists here who do nothing but waste everyone's time on complete and utter foolishness and stupidity, but are apparently 'protected'.

They would be candidates for best poster of the year over at evolutionfairytale.com.....then again maybe they already are.

 

[Somchai]

Since when is identification requisite on reproducibility? We've got full knowledge of which sedimentary structures form in which depositional regimes, we know what sedimentary deposits look like when water levels are rising or falling, and we know what water-saturated soils look like, even ancient ones in the rock record. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to identify the deposits and effects of a global flood if they existed.

Transgressions and regressions?

 

[RickG]

I'm not interested in claims to know all there is to know about evidence; I'm interested in finding out about the experiment. If knowledge can only be obtained via experiment, surely someone had to have done one. Why not wait and see what your comrades come up with?

There is no experiment, just the fact that any such evidence for a global flood does not exist. As a matter of fact, the basic field of geology was given rise by people in the 17th century, many of whom were clergy, looking for evidence of Noah's flood. What they found was evidence that no such flood had ever occurred.

 

[CabVet]

 

[Jazer]

One would think the experiment which proved all the stories from around the world to be untrue might've received a little notice.

The evidence against a world wide flood was presented by Charles Lyell in his book Principles of Geology where he promotes uniformitarianism.

 

[Jazer]

So let me get this straight, before the flood there was a WW fire

The fire has not come yet. The flood is like water baptism and the water cleansed the Earth. At the end of this age the earth will be cleansed with fire.

 

[Jazer]

The global fire would precede the tsunami that followed.

According to NASA the probability of an April 13, 2036 impact of 99942 Apophis is considered to be 1 in 250,000. If Apophis were to hit in the ocean that could cause a Tsunami. Although Tsunami's are usually caused by earthquakes. They will not know for sure until after April 13, 2029 what the chance of impact is.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is no experiment, just the fact that any such evidence for a global flood does not exist. As a matter of fact, the basic field of geology was given rise by people in the 17th century, many of whom were clergy, looking for evidence of Noah's flood. What they found was evidence that no such flood had ever occurred.

They didn't have a date or know the conditions. Nobody does.

 

[RickG]

They didn't have a date or know the conditions. Nobody does.

Having a date has no bearing on what they did or did not find. The fact is that all floods leave unmistakable flood debris. A flood as described in the Bible would be even more prolific. A flood of such magnitude would leave flood debris in a single layer of strata all of the same age and in the same layer of strata globally. No such layer of debris exists anywhere in the geologic column.

 

[Flatland]

Nobody's ever told me, so I thought I'd ask. One would think the experiment which proved all the stories from around the world to be untrue might've received a little notice. Anyhow, I'd like to know the logic involved, the dates, and the individuals who performed this should-be-famous experiment.

How about you show us the experiments that proved there was a global flood first? Let's start with that.

 

[SkyWriting]

Having a date has no bearing on what they did or did not find. The fact is that all floods leave unmistakable flood debris. A flood as described in the Bible would be even more prolific. A flood of such magnitude would leave flood debris in a single layer of strata all of the same age and in the same layer of strata globally. No such layer of debris exists anywhere in the geologic column.

There are no layers found in all geologic columns globally. Each column is unique.

Nor can I find any support for "all floods leave unmistakable flood debris."
If I flood my city block, your telling me that it will lay down a layer of
debris that will stand up to one week of exposure to the elements?
If I flood my state it would? If I flood the US the debris will be there next year? In 1000 years? 4000 years?

 

[SkyWriting]

How about you show us the experiments that proved there was a global flood first? Let's start with that.

Science requires a reproducible event.
We don't know the date or the severity.
Only the extent and time frame.

We don't know how much water came
from above, how much below, how
turbulent it was, or the conditions
of the earths crust before or during.

 

[FredVB]

The evidence against a world wide flood was presented by Charles Lyell in his book Principles of Geology where he promotes uniformitarianism.

Uniformitarianism is still an approach, though. There is argument for it, but tha is pretty much it. There is argument for the Bible account to. The geological layers that apparently have no evidence of a major flood may indeed have been laid down in a greater catastrophe than is is thought of.

 

[Tiberius]

Science requires a reproducible event.

No it doesn't. It requires evidence. It requires things that can be measured and verified. There is absolutely zero evidence for a world wide flood.