What Would Falsify the Flood?

[Subduction Zone]

Diversity is a known factor in genetic analysis. It as also stated that environmental pressure increases the rate of species diversification. So the higher the population pressure, the faster the rate of diversification.

Species diversification is different from diversification within a species. And to have diversity you first need a population. If the population started as only two individuals, say 4,000 years ago there would be a noted lack of diversity. The sort of needed diversity is not caused by population pressures, new diversity comes from mutations. Again, some basic reading:


Population bottleneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The observed diversity in most species is proof positive that there was no flood 4,000 years ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

So all we really have in this thread is creationists making excuses for why flood geology is not falsifiable. Quite pitiful, if you ask me.

What it comes down to is that creationists don't care what the evidence is. Flood geology is not based on the evidence, but is instead a dogmatic religious belief. Creationists have been given ample chances and time to put forward the most simple falsifications, but they refuse to do so. There is no evidence that could ever change their mind.

 

[mzungu]

So all we really have in this thread is creationists making excuses for why flood geology is not falsifiable. Quite pitiful, if you ask me.

What it comes down to is that creationists don't care what the evidence is. Flood geology is not based on the evidence, but is instead a dogmatic religious belief. Creationists have been given ample chances and time to put forward the most simple falsifications, but they refuse to do so. There is no evidence that could ever change their mind.

By Jove I think you've got it!

 

[Loudmouth]

Bump for similar material in other threads.

 

[EternalDragon]

Species diversification is different from diversification within a species. And to have diversity you first need a population. If the population started as only two individuals, say 4,000 years ago there would be a noted lack of diversity. The sort of needed diversity is not caused by population pressures, new diversity comes from mutations. Again, some basic reading:


Population bottleneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The observed diversity in most species is proof positive that there was no flood 4,000 years ago.

So any chance that Noah's family had longer telomeres because of less oxidative stress?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So any chance that Noah's family had longer telomeres because of less oxidative stress?

No, Or rather if you want to claim that, it is you that needs to find strong evidence for it. Otherwise you are clutching at straws again.

And once again, you cannot claim that sedimentary rocks were from the flood. There is too much life in them. The life would have been hundreds of feet deep. That is a physical impossibility.

 

[EternalDragon]

No, Or rather if you want to claim that, it is you that needs to find strong evidence for it. Otherwise you are clutching at straws again.

And once again, you cannot claim that sedimentary rocks were from the flood. There is too much life in them. The life would have been hundreds of feet deep. That is a physical impossibility.

Well, you yourself are claiming that two original individuals would not have the variety for populating the world. Where do you get evidence that they did not? Uniformitarian conclusions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, you yourself are claiming that two original individuals would not have the variety for populating the world. Where do you get evidence that they did not? Uniformitarian conclusions?

What else would you conclude? Unless you have evidence of a difference in rates there is no reason to assume a difference in rates.

In other words you don't get to change reality because it debunks your mythology.

If you want to claim different rates you have to find evidence for it.

Creationists don't like the evidence rule because they can't find any evidence that supports them. Yet most do know that if they were right that they could find evidence that supports them. It is very frustrating for your side.

 

[EternalDragon]

What else would you conclude? Unless you have evidence of a difference in rates there is no reason to assume a difference in rates.

In other words you don't get to change reality because it debunks your mythology.

If you want to claim different rates you have to find evidence for it.

Creationists don't like the evidence rule because they can't find any evidence that supports them. Yet most do know that if they were right that they could find evidence that supports them. It is very frustrating for your side.

You keep saying evidence. You mean inferences to the evidence. Creationists have the same evidence and that evidence does support creation......and it supports evolution. It just depends on what inferences one draws from the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep saying evidence. You mean inferences to the evidence. Creationists have the same evidence and that evidence does support creation......and it supports evolution. It just depends on what inferences one draws from the evidence.

No, it doesn't. And that is because it is scientific evidence.

That is a very important term. Scientific evidence is evidence that supports or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. Scientific theories and hypotheses must be testable. There must be a way to falsify them. Your side is so afraid of being wrong that they cannot develop a proper hypothesis to test.

So by definition the evidence does not support your ideas. Why do you think that I keep pointing out that you cannon come up with a idea that is not self contradicting. When you can come up with a proper, testable hypothesis then you might have an argument about evidence. Right now you have none. And you have no evidence either.

 

[EternalDragon]

No, it doesn't. And that is because it is scientific evidence.

That is a very important term. Scientific evidence is evidence that supports or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. Scientific theories and hypotheses must be testable. There must be a way to falsify them. Your side is so afraid of being wrong that they cannot develop a proper hypothesis to test.

So by definition the evidence does not support your ideas. Why do you think that I keep pointing out that you cannon come up with a idea that is not self contradicting. When you can come up with a proper, testable hypothesis then you might have an argument about evidence. Right now you have none. And you have no evidence either.

We seem to keep going around in circles here. I've made several objections, back up by citations and you have ignored them. Evolution theory cherry picking from the evidence and ignoring glaring problems is far from developing a solid theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We seem to keep going around in circles here. I've made several objections, back up by citations and you have ignored them. Evolution theory cherry picking from the evidence and ignoring glaring problems is far from developing a solid theory.

That is because your objections are always nonsense. I have explained whey they were nonsense and you ignored the explanation.

There is a reason that Flud "scientist" are a laughing stock. They all eventually shoot themselves in the foot when the look at the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For example you tried to point to 440 million year old limestone as evidence for a flood 4,500 years ago. Wouldn't you have laughed if you saw someone make that big of a mistake?

Perhaps we have to walk you through why there was no flood. Let's first work on the ages for sedimentary strata.

 

[mzungu]

You keep saying evidence. You mean inferences to the evidence. Creationists have the same evidence and that evidence does support creation......and it supports evolution. It just depends on what inferences one draws from the evidence.

First of all creationists do not have evidence and a theory to back those evidences and make predictions. The only thing Creationists have are some Bible thumping preachers whose main aim is monetary profit and who make up ridiculous things just to keep creationism alive.

Bring forth the evidences creationism claims to have else relegate yourself to the spiritual side and leave the physical side to science.

 

[EternalDragon]

For example you tried to point to 440 million year old limestone as evidence for a flood 4,500 years ago. Wouldn't you have laughed if you saw someone make that big of a mistake?

Perhaps we have to walk you through why there was no flood. Let's first work on the ages for sedimentary strata.

O.k. Sure, but there is no concrete way to date the strata. Neither you nor I saw it build up or be deposited. So lets just forget about dates.

What's next?

 

[pgp_protector]

O.k. Sure, but there is no concrete way to date the strata. Neither you nor I saw it build up or be deposited. So lets just forget about dates.

What's next?

Can I use that logic. Neither me or you saw Jesus or his disciples so we should just forget about them.

 

[EternalDragon]

Can I use that logic. Neither me or you saw Jesus or his disciples so we should just forget about them.

You are forgetting that others saw him, heard him and recorded his words.

What you are doing is using false logic since you switched the premise around. No one saw the sediments forming. Someone saw Jesus and his disciples and recorded it.

 

[Split Rock]

You keep saying evidence. You mean inferences to the evidence. Creationists have the same evidence and that evidence does support creation......and it supports evolution. It just depends on what inferences one draws from the evidence.

The difference is that we draw inferences from the evidence. You already have a conclusion, and then try and fit the evidence to the presumption while ignoring any evidence that contradicts the presumption. Then you claim "we both use the same evidence, but draw different conclsuions from it."

 

[Split Rock]

O.k. Sure, but there is no concrete way to date the strata. Neither you nor I saw it build up or be deposited. So lets just forget about dates.

What's next?

But there are concrete ways to date the strata... you just don't like them. But if you want to play that game, lets do it. Go ahead and explain how the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon were formed by the flood. In detail.

 

[EternalDragon]

The difference is that we draw inferences from the evidence. You already have a conclusion, and then try and fit the evidence to the presumption while ignoring any evidence that contradicts the presumption. Then you claim "we both use the same evidence, but draw different conclsuions from it."

You may think that is the way it is but it isn't. Why would one scientist draw inferences and another already have a conclusion? If science is only about natural laws and allows no religion or whatever in, then their conclusion is that things happen through natural causes. They then draw inferences based on that first conclusion.

Otherwise they would see ID in all the holes in evolution theory.

By the way, how can you come to an inference without a conclusion first? Or rather without a presupposition first? For instance, you develope a good microscope and find a flagellum to be a tiny nanomachine that no human to date could construct that has the exact same characteristics of a machine that humans would and do build. Also one that without such a biological machine the main virus would cease to function. What would be the only conclusion? Or do you make up a way for it to fit your presumption?