What Would Falsify the Flood?

[AV1611VET]

A global flood would leave global evidence.

And a local flood would have local evidence ... like a local retaining wall.

 

[verysincere]

And more evidence. If we see evidence of smaller floods that happened before Noah's flood supposedly happened and no sign of Noah's flood that is more evidence that it never happened. A global flood would leave global evidence.

And such a RECENT global flood as described by young earth creationists would leave so much evidence that we would be tripping over it everywhere.

Of course, that is why AV and some others claim that God intentionally "cleaned up" all of the evidence ---- apparently in an effort to keep the global flood a big secret. Errrr......on the other hand, they claim God announced a global flood in the Bible. Hmmm. I wonder why the contradiction?

What a mystery.

 

[AV1611VET]

And such a RECENT global flood as described by young earth creationists would leave so much evidence that we would be tripping over it everywhere.

Like tripping over a local retaining wall, if the flood was local?

Don't ask us for global evidence of the Flood, if you can't provide local.

Of course, that is why AV and some others claim that God intentionally "cleaned up" all of the evidence ----

That's right ... God intentionally cleaned up. Wouldn't you have?

---- apparently in an effort to keep the global flood a big secret.

And why do you say that? are you making up a reason, then using that reason in a sentence associated with me, so they'll think I think that?

As I have asked you before, if the Flood was intended to be a 'big secret,' then why did God write it down and preserve it?

Errrr......on the other hand, they claim God announced a global flood in the Bible. Hmmm. I wonder why the contradiction?

Because it's yours, not ours?

What a mystery.

You're only confusing yourself, VS.

Some people try so hard to discredit us, they end up confusing themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nephilim families.

Really? Maybe. Since Nephilim never existed it would make an interesting debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And a local flood would have local evidence ... like a local retaining wall.

No, local retaining walls would be evidence of attempting to prevent local floods. It is not evidence of local floods themselves. If these walls were broken by flowing water that would be evidence of a local flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like tripping over a local retaining wall, if the flood was local?

Don't ask us for global evidence of the Flood, if you can't provide local.

I can provide evidence of local floods. You should know that. All you have to do is to ask.

That's right ... God intentionally cleaned up. Wouldn't you have?

No. And if your god did it he would have made sure it was in his book. He has shown his vanity many time before.

As I have asked you before, if the Flood was intended to be a 'big secret,' then why did God write it down and preserve it?

Wrong question. If he wrote it down in his book, and of course he didn't, why would he cover up his work? And why only clean up his flood and not all other floods? Your claim, as usual, makes no sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, local retaining walls would be evidence of attempting to prevent local floods.

LOL ... solid aurum.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can provide evidence of local floods.

Big deal ... my niece can do that.

I'm talking about THE "local" flood.

Where's this retaining wall that supposedly kept Noah in the Ark, floating around Mesopotamia above the highest mountains, for a year?

You should know that. All you have to do is to ask.

Then I'm asking.

No.

You wouldn't have cleaned up the mess? you would have just let Noah and the animals leave the Ark and step out into one big muddy wasteland?

And if your god did it he would have made sure it was in his book.

Really now!? whose Book is it, yours or His?

He has shown his vanity many time before.

Says you.

Wrong question.

Why? because you can't answer it?

If he wrote it down in his book, and of course he didn't, why would he cover up his work?

How about for sanitary and safety reasons ... for starters?

And why only clean up his flood and not all other floods?

Because all other floods can clean themselves up.

Your claim, as usual, makes no sense.

It does to me ... but then, I don't try hard not to understand either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually AVET your problem is that you try very very hard not to understand.

You believe in a lie and keep forgetting that old saying "The truth shall set you free."

 

[Loudmouth]

There was global flooding and mass extinction 12,000 years ago. (holocene extinction) But not 6,000 years ago. Noah was a historical person that lived 6,000 years ago.

I asked specifically about Noah's flood which had the whole Earth covered in water for about 3 months. Obviously, you are talking about something else.

Also, you need to back up your claims with evidence. Still not seeing that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Rabbits in the Precambrian?

Can you please explain how this would falsify a recent global flood?

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't ask us for global evidence of the Flood, if you can't provide local.

I am not asking for positive evidence for a global flood. It would appear to me that people will claim that anything is evidence for that supposed flood, no matter what it is. IOW, a global flood is not a conclusion drawn from evidence, but a dogmatic belief that ignores the evidence.

To that end, I am asking for potential falsifications. I am askin what evidence, if found, would falsify a recent global flood in the eyes of flood supporters. If they are unable to provide falsifications then I can only assume that it is a dogmatic belief that is immune to evidence.

That's right ... God intentionally cleaned up. Wouldn't you have?

What evidence, if found, would be inconsistent with this clean up job? Would God replace these flood deposits with fake histories of ice accumulation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I asked specifically about Noah's flood which had the whole Earth covered in water for about 3 months. Obviously, you are talking about something else.

Also, you need to back up your claims with evidence. Still not seeing that.

In this case Jamin may have misinterpreted something that he read. At the end of the last ice age sea level rose significantly around the globe. He may have thought that rise, which was of course limited to the shore and near shore areas, could have been thought of as a global flood. On average sea level rose roughly one meter per century. There may have been villages that had to move every few years, but that is not what I would call a flood. People who lived inland, say along a river, would not even notice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And of course if you believe in what amounts to Last Tuesdayism, like AVET does, practically nothing can "debunk" your beliefs. All he ever has to say is that a lying dishonest god wanted the Earth to look like it was 4.55 billion years old and that all life evolved from one source, but it didn't. I suppose he could even have his god magic extra DNA into humans and all other animals so that it did not look like they had what would have been a deadly genetic bottle neck for many of them.

 

[Davian]

I don't know about geologic features, but I certainly can tell you what biological features would: Nephilim families.*

* Fallen angels = fathers; humans = mothers; giants = children.

In your own words, tell us what falsifiability means.

 

[SkyWriting]

If someone is going to claim that the evidence supports a recent global flood then they must also be prepared to show how a recent global flood is falsifiable. IOW, if any possible observation supports the flood, then no observation supports the flood. The flood needs to be falsifiable in order for people to claim that they have evidence that supports it.

Therefore, the question is simple and mainly aimed at YEC's who claim that a recent global flood is supported by the evidence. What features would a geologic feature need in order to falsify a recent global flood?

You can't scientifically falsify historical events.

 

[Tomk80]

You can't scientifically falsify historical events.

Yes you can. If you find evidence that should not be there if a certain historical event is true, you falsified the historical event.

Also, the scientific process is based on observation, not purely on falsification.

 

[RickG]

Yes you can. If you find evidence that should not be there if a certain historical event is true, you falsified the historical event.

Also, the scientific process is based on observation, not purely on falsification.

Exactly.

A couple of examples: (1) The physical evidence for a global flood not only does not exist, the evidence there reveals other events. (2) There is no physical evidence of any Hebrews being in Egypt during the time of Moses, no evidence of any of the plagues, nor the Exodus.

In the former (historical) event, the evidence against it is conclusive. In the latter, no evidence currently exists but could still be uncovered, i.e. archeological evidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes you can. If you find evidence that should not be there if a certain historical event is true, you falsified the historical event.
Also, the scientific process is based on observation, not purely on falsification.

No you didn't. You simply have ruled out one possibility that you imagined. Your observations have no effect on reality at all. So what you imagined may have happened, has not been supported. There are still an infinite number of alternate explanations for the evidence you have found. You can't do direct scientific examination of historical events.

 

[SkyWriting]

In the former (historical) event, the evidence against it is conclusive.

That's not possible. You don't have enough information on the original event to even look for your imagined event. And there are too few details provided to begin looking.