What Would Falsify the Flood?

[EternalDragon]

Instead of trying to pass your creationist claims onto us; I have only this question to ask:

What evidence do we need to find in order to falsify the flood?

All you have to do is answer this simple question and we will take it from there. OK?

We would need to find a different set of circumstances than we find on Earth.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by mzungu

Instead of trying to pass your creationist claims onto us; I have only this question to ask:

What evidence do we need to find in order to falsify the flood?

All you have to do is answer this simple question and we will take it from there. OK?
​

Dear mzungu, The only people who TRY to falsify the Flood are Evolutionists. It's important to them because that allows them to THINK they know more than God. They also claim there was no Flood because it destroys the object of their worship, the False Theory of Evolution, by showing that it's evidence is greatly incomplete.

Unable to explain How and When humans magically evolved from Apes, these wild specuators claim it was the unseen force of Evolution, working over millions of years, and with many positive mutations, which magically changed Apes into Humans.

What craziness! No wonder they start teaching this Lie to little children. It's the only way to sell their Big Lie, since brain washing is easier on innocent children. Can you explain this dark unseen force of magical evolution which hides in the background and changes Apes into Humans?

If not, then Evols should quit teaching those Lies to our children. Right? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman
​

 

[mzungu]

We would need to find a different set of circumstances than we find on Earth.

That is not evidence. Unless you do not know what evidence means I am willing to bet that you are purposely avoiding answering the question.

 

[Split Rock]

You can not explain how the incomplete fossil record only affects transitory species, but not well defined species. Darwin insisted transitory species must be innumerable and outnumber the well defined. But why does this incomplete fossil record not seem to affect the well defined species? If your theory of an incomplete fossil record were true, then the number of well defined species we find should be even less than the transitory species. Yet 60,000+ fossils all in one area, and not a single transitory.

What differentiates a "transitory" species from a "well defined species?" If you cannot answer that, then you have no case. For example, lets look at the horse series. Which species are "well defined" and which are "transitory?" Are the three-toed horses "transitory?" Why or why not?
Horse Evolution
Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years
Horse

Your arguments are conflicting and do not fit the observations. Your obvious desire to deny flood theory has led you to ignore the amassed data. Almost all fossils are found in sedimentary rock. Mass graves are common throughout the world, where species are all jumbled together or flattened from being buried by tons of sediment quickly before fossilization. Not a single bone has been observed in the process of fossilization, evolutionists just like to claim it is happening all the time yet can provide no evidence. They can provide no evidence because unless animals are buried in-mass to prevent decay by bacteria and scavengers, the process never begins. Mass burial is required to explain the numbers of fossils found, since undoubtedly not all that were buried were fossilized, unless one admits to miraculous conditions. Not once, but many times worldwide.

Mass graves are found throughout the world, but hardly account for most sights where fossils are found. Why do you ignore the others? Fossils are found in sedimentary rock, because they cannot be found in igneous rock, and those in metamorphic rock are usually destroyed in the metamorphorsizing process. There are also other conditions than floods that allow for fossilization, including peat bogs and anoxic lower levels of lakes, etc.

The real question is what evidence do you have that doesn't point to flood theory?

Simple. There are no sedimentary layers in the geological column that can be attributed to a world-wide flood. This was determined back in the 1800s by Christian geologists who looked for such layers. See: History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

 

[Split Rock]

We would need to find a different set of circumstances than we find on Earth.

And those conditions would be.....?

 

[EternalDragon]

That is not evidence. Unless you do not know what evidence means I am willing to bet that you are purposely avoiding answering the question.

I have a crime scene where someone broke into a house. The glass is shattered inwards, there is a stone inside the window and items of value were taken. There is also eyewitness testimony from multiple sources.

I ask you to falsify the break in. The only thing you could say is that it would have to appear differently than it does.

So no Grand Canyon, no ice age, no fossils buried in sediments all over the earth, no worldwide flood myths in nearly every culture, no mass extinctions in said fossil record, if there was still a fossil record of some sort, no coral reefs, no mid-Atlantic ridge on the ocean floor, no sea fossils all over inland continents, sediment laid down slow and not fast, no record in the Bible of such an event.....would all be clear evidence to falsify a worldwide flood.

 

[mzungu]

I have a crime scene where someone broke into a house. The glass is shattered inwards, there is a stone inside the window and items of value were taken. There is also eyewitness testimony from multiple sources.

No that is what seems to have happened. With closer examination a detective may conclude that this was a staged scene. More evidence would be required like if the owner of the house had insured the valuables and when. If the owner of the house was in debt. All manner of evidences will be required before a conclusion of what exactly happened was met.

I ask you to falsify the break in. The only thing you could say is that it would have to appear differently than it does.

Indeed and I would have to justify that claim with EVIDENCE.

So no Grand Canyon, no ice age, no fossils buried in sediments all over the earth, no worldwide flood myths in nearly every culture, no mass extinctions in said fossil record, if there was still a fossil record of some sort, no coral reefs, no mid-Atlantic ridge on the ocean floor, no sea fossils all over inland continents, sediment laid down slow and not fast, no record in the Bible of such an event.....would all be clear evidence to falsify a worldwide flood.

First of all the Grand Canyon could not have formed by a world wide flood. see Age of the Grand Canyon | How Old is the Grand Canyon

As for world wide flood myths? To people who did not even know there were other continents on Earth; a local massive flood would seem to them as the whole world being inundated. We have massive floods today that cover hundreds of square kilometres. Also there is not enough water on the planet to cover all the land masses and you have to give a pretty convincing argument where this water came from.

Let me give you a hint: If we found fossils of modern animals mixed with fossils of all previous prehistoric animals ie: human with Trex etc. then that would be an indication but not evidence enough since you will have to account for where the water came from and went.

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet you can not show me more than a half a dozen fossils that have ever been found in rocks not formed by water causes.

It is funny how you first say that no fossils are forming in sediment not caused by water, and now you are saying it doesn't matter.

Once again, flood geology is shown to be unfalsifiable. It doesn't matter what evidence we show you, it won't change your mind. Flood geology is not science. It is religious dogma.

 

[Loudmouth]

We would need to find a different set of circumstances than we find on Earth.

You are just restating the question.

What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a recent global flood? Please describe specific features.

This question has been unanswered since the first post.

 

[Black Akuma]

no ice age

There were multiple Ice Ages, and they lasted for thousands and thousands of years. You can't just pick around and take part of something, ignore major facts about it, then assume it supports something you want it to support. The Ice Ages either happened how scientists say it happened, or it didn't happen. If you feel it was much shorter than just about every single relevant scientist claims it was, please, explain why.

no fossils buried in sediments all over the earth

It is not the least bit surprising that, on a planet that's mostly covered with water, where it constantly rains and floods, after millions and millions of years a lot of animals wind up buried in sediments. It would be surprising if that wasn't the case. And the order we find these fossils in does not suggest that they lived at the same time and all died in the same event.

no worldwide flood myths in nearly every culture

Humans tend to settle around areas that have abundant sources of water, such areas are typically prone to flooding. Wooooooooooo.

no mass extinctions in said fossil record

'This supports the flood because I say it does!'

no coral reefs

How does the existence of coral reefs serve as evidence for a worldwide flood?

no mid-Atlantic ridge on the ocean floor

How does the mid-Atlantic ridge serve as evidence for a worldwide flood?

no sea fossils all over inland continents

'All over' is a bit of an exaggeration on your part. Regardless, the Earth has changed a lot over billions of years. Places that were one covered in water aren't anymore. This is not a mystery.

sediment laid down slow and not fast

Most sediment is laid down 'slow, and not fast'.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

With so many hikes you must wear out a lot of hiking boots!

Mzungu, I'm unsure why you're even bothering to talk to someone who summarizes their stance as "Evidence can take a hike". What's the point?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

And yet you can not show me more than a half a dozen fossils that have ever been found in rocks not formed by water causes. You can't explain to me how 60,000 fossils with more being dug up in one spot caused by as the scientists admit a catastrophe and transported to the spot happened except by denying your own scientists.

We all agree fossilization is a rare occurrence, so we agree that many more than have been found in these mass graves all over the world must have been there originally and simply decayed.

You can not explain how the incomplete fossil record only affects transitory species, but not well defined species. Darwin insisted transitory species must be innumerable and outnumber the well defined. But why does this incomplete fossil record not seem to affect the well defined species? If your theory of an incomplete fossil record were true, then the number of well defined species we find should be even less than the transitory species. Yet 60,000+ fossils all in one area, and not a single transitory.

Your arguments are conflicting and do not fit the observations. Your obvious desire to deny flood theory has led you to ignore the amassed data. Almost all fossils are found in sedimentary rock. Mass graves are common throughout the world, where species are all jumbled together or flattened from being buried by tons of sediment quickly before fossilization. Not a single bone has been observed in the process of fossilization, evolutionists just like to claim it is happening all the time yet can provide no evidence. They can provide no evidence because unless animals are buried in-mass to prevent decay by bacteria and scavengers, the process never begins. Mass burial is required to explain the numbers of fossils found, since undoubtedly not all that were buried were fossilized, unless one admits to miraculous conditions. Not once, but many times worldwide.

The real question is what evidence do you have that doesn't point to flood theory?

Nice try, Justa. You're still trying to avoid responding to the fact that the fossil record is not organized the way you have declared it to be based on settling dynamics. I will take this as evidence that you realize you are wrong. Unfortunately for you, this fact alone refutes the Flood model. If your model utterly fails to explain the organization of the fossil record then your model is wrong. And your model doesn't just fail to explain the pattern we see, it predicts (as you yourself have explained) a completely different pattern. This would be an example of the evidence you requested that "doesn't point to the Flood". It disproves it very firmly.

I will hold off on responding to the rest of your post until you have the courage to respond to this major point. While I derive some satisfaction from seeing you back don again and again, I would rather you directly addressed this argument instead of trying desperately to move the conversation in another direction. I'm happy to talk about transitional fossils and the amount of fossils in the fossil record, but first you need to stop backing down and respond to the point I have made. But I will point out quickly that I provided evidence in my last post (toothmarked bones) that proves that burial needn't be sudden or even rapid in order for preservation to occur.

To summarize, the Flood model not only fails to account for the organization of the fossil record but in fact predicts something completely different. You need to explain this instead of backing down and changing the subject.

 

[mzungu]

Mzungu, I'm unsure why you're even bothering to talk to someone who summarizes their stance as "Evidence can take a hike". What's the point?

Clearing my mind with trivia!

 

[Atheos canadensis]

So no Grand Canyon...

Implying that the GC supports the notion of a global flood, which it doesn't. I assume you believe the GC to have been carved by vast cascades of Floodwater, yes? And you are aware that the GC follows a meandering course across the landscape, yes? How do you reconcile the former with the latter? We know from modern observations that catastrophic deluges of water produce straight channels and there is no reason for this to be any different in the context of a global Flood. If the GC was carved by the Flood, why does it meander (as you would expect if it were carved by a normal river) instead of running straight across the landscape?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Clearing my mind with trivia!

Heh, I see. You seek entertainment in this instance, not a real discussion. Well it looks like you've found the perfect interlocutor then!

 

[EternalDragon]

Implying that the GC supports the notion of a global flood, which it doesn't. I assume you believe the GC to have been carved by vast cascades of Floodwater, yes? And you are aware that the GC follows a meandering course across the landscape, yes? How do you reconcile the former with the latter? We know from modern observations that catastrophic deluges of water produce straight channels and there is no reason for this to be any different in the context of a global Flood. If the GC was carved by the Flood, why does it meander (as you would expect if it were carved by a normal river) instead of running straight across the landscape?

Receding flood waters. I never stated that the GC was carved by the flood waters themselves.

The lower parts are hardened and cracked, the upper layers bent and not cracked meaning they are younger and deposited during the flood. After the flood a dam wall broke and carved the canyon out rapidly.

Grand Canyon - Answers in Genesis

 

[Split Rock]

Receding flood waters. I never stated that the GC was carved by the flood waters themselves.

The lower parts are hardened and cracked, the upper layers bent and not cracked meaning they are younger and deposited during the flood. After the flood a dam wall broke and carved the canyon out rapidly.

Grand Canyon - Answers in Genesis

Flood waters cannot carve out a canyon through solid rock within one year, and solid rock cannot form rapidly during a flood. If the receding waters carved through soft sediments (whcih hardened later), it would not have left such steep sides behind.

 

[Black Akuma]

Receding flood waters. I never stated that the GC was carved by the flood waters themselves.

The lower parts are hardened and cracked, the upper layers bent and not cracked meaning they are younger and deposited during the flood. After the flood a dam wall broke and carved the canyon out rapidly.

Grand Canyon - Answers in Genesis

And all the other canyons and rivers that show the same features formed the same way?

 

[Loudmouth]

Receding flood waters. I never stated that the GC was carved by the flood waters themselves.

The lower parts are hardened and cracked, the upper layers bent and not cracked meaning they are younger and deposited during the flood. After the flood a dam wall broke and carved the canyon out rapidly.

Grand Canyon - Answers in Genesis

What features would the Grand Canyon need to have in order to falsify the claim that it was formed by a recent global flood?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Receding flood waters. I never stated that the GC was carved by the flood waters themselves.

The lower parts are hardened and cracked, the upper layers bent and not cracked meaning they are younger and deposited during the flood. After the flood a dam wall broke and carved the canyon out rapidly.

Okay, you don't think Flood itself carved the canyon, but you do think the canyon was carved rapidly by a catastrophic deluge. This doesn't resolve the issue I pointed out. You believe the GC was carved by a large, sudden, high-energy flow of water. You still have to reconcile this belief with the fact that the GC meanders, a feature not consistent with the process you have just described.