What Would Falsify the Flood?

[Aman777]

Your evidence does not support your claims.

And you forgot a very significant part of scientific evidence, it supports or counters a scientific hypothesis or theory. So you need a clearly stated hypothesis before you claim that that evidence supports you. And don't forget, all hypotheses are refutable. What scientific evidence would refute your hypothesis.

If you don't have the whole package you do not have scientific evidence.

Dear SZ, Thanks for your unsupported opinion. I notice you have your own technical definition of what is evidence and that you don't accept God's Truth as evidence. Right? If so, then remain in the darkness which is caused by your view that God's Truth is not to be trusted. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dear SZ, Thanks for your unsupported opinion. I notice you have your own technical definition of what is evidence and that you don't accept God's Truth as evidence. Right? If so, then remain in the darkness which is caused by your view that God's Truth is not to be trusted. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Do you want support? I can give you support. It is not my definition of what evidence is, it is that of the scientific community:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a reason that definition is so useful. If you read a lot of posts here you will see that creationists are very very quick to deny the evidence of the other side without a valid reason. Scientists can act in the same way at times. By carefully defining scientific evidence it makes it very hard to deny evidence. If an actual hypothesis or theory is formed, and a theory is not a theory until after a hypothesis is tested, usually quite a few times, and passes peer review, until then it is just a hypothesis, and there is empirical evidence that supports it, or even opposes it, that evidence fits the definition of "scientific evidence".

 

[Atheos canadensis]

BTW, There has NEVER been a Global Flood on our Planet. The Global Flood which totally destroyed Adam's world, destroyed a much smaller world than our present Cosmos...BUT...it did happen EXACTLY as God told us it did, some 10k years ago, and Noah came to our world which was NOT destroyed in the Flood.

That is HOW prehistoric people inherited the Human intelligence of Adam. Like Cain, on Adam's world, Noah's grandsons had NO other Humans to marry, so they married and produced children with the DNA of the common ancestor of Apes, and with the Human intelligence of Adam, who never stepped foot on our Earth. We, the 7 Billion living Humans on Earth today, are those children.

In Love,
Aman

I'm new here and therefore unfamiliar with your views, Aman, so perhaps you could clarify. The following questions may sound snarky, but that's not the intent.

Is it your position that Adam, Eve etc were extraterrestrial humans? and all the pre-Flood parts of the Bible took place on another, smaller planet (let's call it Eden)? And the Ark was a space-faring vessel that traveled from the destroyed Eden to Earth? And when they arrived the extraterrestrial humans, having no other option, interbred with the chimp-like ancestors of modern chimps? Were these chimp ancestors already on Earth or were they from the old planet as well? And if Eden is the planet created in the opening chapters of Genesis, is Earth then a separate creation event not documented in the Bible? Was it created at the same time as Eden or only after God deemed it necessary to destroy Eden? This is all fascinating because I have not encountered this interpretation of the Bible before.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The Earth is not young, it is a mistaken belief from a misinterpretation of genesis.

You're still displaying the lack of intellectual integrity I have pointed out several times now. You believe in the truth of Genesis and yet you are unable to defend it when it comes to the Flood. I and others have pointed out that the fossil record does not conform to the pattern predicted by your model. You have rather dishonestly tried to pretend that such a pattern exists by listing the appearance of general groups of organism while ignoring the fact that these groups contain a variety of different sizes. This means that their order of appearance does not support your Flood model. The fossil record is unarguably not organized by body size. You know you can't refute this and so have opted to ignore the evidence that proves you wrong, something you accused me of. Hypocrisy much?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Maybe because I'm getting fed up with having "scientific method" shoved down my throat by people who do everything but.

They don't proofread their posts, they don't read something that looks odd a second time, they post with broken quote tags, they mistype and misspell words, and on and et cetera.

All the while, telling us how our country is in 26th place in the academic world.

Whatever.

Please post a link to a definition of the scientific method that includes spell-checking. Are you trying to say that your rejection of science is based on spelling mistakes and sometimes poorly-considered posts on an internet forum? Are you sure it's not the fact that it produces results that don't agree with your beliefs?

 

[biggles53]

Please post a link to a definition of the scientific method that includes spell-checking. Are you trying to say that your rejection of science is based on spelling mistakes and sometimes poorly-considered posts on an internet forum? Are you sure it's not the fact that it produces results that don't agree with your beliefs?

Aah.....you've met AV then......

 

[AV1611VET]

Please post a link to a definition of the scientific method that includes spell-checking.

No can do.

Are you trying to say that your rejection of science is based on spelling mistakes and sometimes poorly-considered posts on an internet forum?

I don't reject science.

Are you sure it's not the fact that it produces results that don't agree with your beliefs?

No.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're still displaying the lack of intellectual integrity I have pointed out several times now. You believe in the truth of Genesis and yet you are unable to defend it when it comes to the Flood. I and others have pointed out that the fossil record does not conform to the pattern predicted by your model. You have rather dishonestly tried to pretend that such a pattern exists by listing the appearance of general groups of organism while ignoring the fact that these groups contain a variety of different sizes. This means that their order of appearance does not support your Flood model. The fossil record is unarguably not organized by body size. You know you can't refute this and so have opted to ignore the evidence that proves you wrong, something you accused me of. Hypocrisy much?

And yet you can not point to any fossil finds not found in sediments except for the very "RARE" occurrence, showing it is you that ignores the evidence.

Those that are found, geologists agree that the rock was once sedimentary, before becoming metamorphic and igneous. In other words sedimentary rock was heated, after it already contained fossils.

Fossils of the Blue Ridge & Piedmont

These sedimentary layers overspread wide areas, long stretches of land, not compatible with lake or river theory. Unless you claim a lake existed from Maine all the way down to close to Tennessee? Much to wide for any river basin.

Your justifications are ad-hoc and do not fit with what is observed. All the evidence points to rapid burial, not slow sedimentary drift as would be from lakes.

Juvenile Dinosaur Fossils in a Nest: Testimony to Rapid Burial but Not by a Flood – Naturalis Historia

DISCOVERING FOSSILS | What is a fossil? How do fossils form?

"It frequently includes the following conditions: rapid and permanent burial/entombment - protecting the specimen from environmental or biological disturbance; oxygen deprivation - limiting the extent of decay and also biological activity/scavenging; continued sediment accumulation as opposed to an eroding surface - ensuring the organism remains buried in the long-term; and the absence of excessive heating or compression which might otherwise destroy it."

Yet you want me to believe that thousands of fossils found in one place just sat on the lake bed and underwent no decay for the hundreds of years it would take for sediment to cover them. Who is living in fantasy land?


Fossils of the Burgess Shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"collected over 60,000 specimens in a series of field trips up from 1909 to 1924. After a period of neglect from the 1930s to the early 1960s, new excavations and re-examinations of Walcott's collection continue to discover new species, and statistical analysis suggests discoveries will continue for the foreseeable future."

These fossils have been preserved in a distinctive style known as Burgess shale type preservation, which preserves fairly tough tissues such as cuticle as thin films, and soft tissues as solid shapes, quickly enough that decay has not destroyed them...

While there is little doubt that the animals were buried under catastrophic flows of sediment, it is uncertain whether they were transported by the flows from other locations, or lived in the area where they were buried, or were a mixture of local and transported specimens."

So there is little doubt they were buried quickly under catastrophic flows of sediment. Can we day flood children.

Ignore the evidence all you like for the fantasy land you prefer to live in.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It takes millions of years for fossils to form so I guess you think the flood happened millions of years ago?

So says you, but surprisingly we observe no fossils forming today, despite the claims it is happening. So what evidence do you base this claim on?

Considering we have evidence contrary to your claims of millions of years.

Mastodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Mastodons (Greek: μαστός "breast" and ὀδούς, "tooth") are an extinct group of mammal species related to elephants, that inhabited North and Central America during the late Miocene or late Pliocene up to their extinction at the end of the Pleistocene 10,000 to 11,000 years ago."

The Cohoes Mastodon

"Mastodon fossils have been found throughout New York. One site especially rich in mastodon fossils is the Hiscock Site in Genesee County, New York. So far, more than twenty mastodon individuals have been recovered from this one site"


How many years for skeleton bone to turn into fossil.

"It can take anywhere from a few years, to a few thousand years"


Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology. Such a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if it is older than some minimum age, most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years."

So you have just chosen an arbitrary date of 10,000 years to call a fossilized bone a fossil.

arbitrary - definition of arbitrary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

" Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle"

 

[Subduction Zone]

So says you, but surprisingly we observe no fossils forming today, despite the claims it is happening. So what evidence do you base this claim on?

Considering we have evidence contrary to your claims of millions of years.

Mastodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Mastodons (Greek: μαστός "breast" and ὀδούς, "tooth") are an extinct group of mammal species related to elephants, that inhabited North and Central America during the late Miocene or late Pliocene up to their extinction at the end of the Pleistocene 10,000 to 11,000 years ago."

The Cohoes Mastodon

"Mastodon fossils have been found throughout New York. One site especially rich in mastodon fossils is the Hiscock Site in Genesee County, New York. So far, more than twenty mastodon individuals have been recovered from this one site"


How many years for skeleton bone to turn into fossil.

"It can take anywhere from a few years, to a few thousand years"


Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology. Such a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if it is older than some minimum age, most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years."

So you have just chosen an arbitrary date of 10,000 years to call a fossilized bone a fossil.

arbitrary - definition of arbitrary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

" Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle"

Who says we can't observe fossils forming today?

We don't have the same widespread depositional environments as there were in the past largely due to the fact that we are in an ice age right now, but that does not mean that fossil formation is not going on today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh!! It is to laugh!!

Justa conflated mastodon fossils with fossilized bones of the dinosaur type.

Justa, when any old bones are found they are called "fossils" whether they have undergone fossilization or not. Frozen mastodon bodies are even called fossils at times.

The article you quoted even tried to make it clear that the process of fossilization is not needed for a bone to be considered a fossil.

I don't need to link anything, your own links sinks you

 

[46AND2]

So says you, but surprisingly we observe no fossils forming today, despite the claims it is happening. So what evidence do you base this claim on?

Considering we have evidence contrary to your claims of millions of years.

Mastodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Mastodons (Greek: μαστός "breast" and ὀδούς, "tooth") are an extinct group of mammal species related to elephants, that inhabited North and Central America during the late Miocene or late Pliocene up to their extinction at the end of the Pleistocene 10,000 to 11,000 years ago."

The Cohoes Mastodon

"Mastodon fossils have been found throughout New York. One site especially rich in mastodon fossils is the Hiscock Site in Genesee County, New York. So far, more than twenty mastodon individuals have been recovered from this one site"


How many years for skeleton bone to turn into fossil.

"It can take anywhere from a few years, to a few thousand years"


Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology. Such a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if it is older than some minimum age, most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years."

So you have just chosen an arbitrary date of 10,000 years to call a fossilized bone a fossil.

arbitrary - definition of arbitrary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

" Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle"

Mastodon fossils have not completed the fossilization process. They are the very things you say don't exist: bones in the process of fossilization...

 

[46AND2]

Mastodon fossils have not completed the fossilization process. They are the very things you say don't exist: bones in the process of fossilization...

In fact, mastodons are actually "subfossils."

Subfossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Atheos canadensis]

No can do.

Obviously. Thus your complaint to which I was responding is an empty one.

I don't reject science.

And yet prominently displayed beneath your name it says "science can take a hike". What are you trying to convey if not a repudiation of science? And why repudiate science unless its findings displease you?

 

[46AND2]

. How many years for skeleton bone to turn into fossil.

"It can take anywhere from a few years, to a few thousand years"

Funny that you use a site where ANYBODY can respond, regardless of whether or not they know what they are talking about, as a source...

 

[Atheos canadensis]

And yet you can not point to any fossil finds not found in sediments except for the very "RARE" occurrence, showing it is you that ignores the evidence.

Ignore the evidence all you like for the fantasy land you prefer to live in.

Umm, trying to avoid the points I made yet again is not a good way to combat the impression of extreme intellectual dishonesty/cowardice you're conveying. As I have said several times now, I am happy to discuss these other points just as soon as you either prove that the fossil record is organized from dense to small to large organisms or admit that no such pattern exists. You have not even come close to doing so and have taken almost every opportunity to back down and change the subject. What's wrong, Justa? Having trouble finding evidence for a pattern that doesn't exist? That's what I thought.

So as always I will be awaiting your response to this troublesome point, though I expect you will stick to your pattern of ignoring my posts until finally responding with an obvious evasion. Though I will point out that the fact that there are fossils buried in terrestrially-deposited sediment is yet more proof that the Flood did not produce the rock record.


Summary: You aren't fooling anyone with these repeated attempts to change the subject. You need to prove the existence of the pattern your model predicts or admit it doesn't exist (it doesn't) instead of proving your lack of intellectual honesty over and over.

 

[Aman777]

I'm new here and therefore unfamiliar with your views, Aman, so perhaps you could clarify. The following questions may sound snarky, but that's not the intent.

Is it your position that Adam, Eve etc were extraterrestrial humans?

Dear Atheos, No, the first world was floating in Lake Van, Turkey, but was completely enclosed by the firmament which protected it from water. Since the Lake is but 75 miles wide, the first world was much smaller than the present Cosmos.

and all the pre-Flood parts of the Bible took place on another, smaller planet (let's call it Eden)?

The first firmament was the boundary of Adam's world (Kosmos), which was in the water and out of the water. ll Peter 3:5

And the Ark was a space-faring vessel that traveled from the destroyed Eden to Earth?

The Ark was NOT sealed from the vacuum of Space, but was inside the Biosphere of the first Universe until the Flood allowed it to escape that firmament.

And when they arrived the extraterrestrial humans, having no other option, interbred with the chimp-like ancestors of modern chimps?

When Noah arrived in our world, his grandsons had no other humans to marry. They married the descendants of the sons of God (Prehistoric people) on this Planet who have been created from the water on the 5th Day. Gen. 1:21 Adam was made the 3rd Day Gen 2:4-7 and the sons of God were created the 5th Day Gen 1:21 but could produce offspring with Adam's ancestors. Gen 6:4

Were these chimp ancestors already on Earth or were they from the old planet as well?

The sons of God were created from the water on Adam's Earth AND our Earth. This began some 3.7 Billion years ago on our Earth in man's time. We will find the sons of God throughout the Universe where ever we find liquid water.

And if Eden is the planet created in the opening chapters of Genesis, is Earth then a separate creation event not documented in the Bible?

Adam's world was made the 2nd Day. Gen 1:6-8 and the other HeavenS (Plural), the 2nd and 3rd Heavens were made the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4

Was it created at the same time as Eden or only after God deemed it necessary to destroy Eden?

No. Our world and the 3rd Heaven were made on the 3rd Day. God KNEW that that the first heaven would have to be destroyed before He made it, for He knew it was the ONLY way to have His perfect 3rd Heaven filled with perfect Human kind. If He had not destroyed the first Earth, Humankind (Adam's descendants) would have gone extinct.

This is all fascinating because I have not encountered this interpretation of the Bible before.

[/quote]

It's what is actually written in Genesis. Ancient man could not understand what the Supreme intelligence of Creation was telling us in Genesis. This is obvious when you try to get ancient theology to agree with what is actually written, since it does NOT agree scripturally, scientifically, nor historically. God's Truth, as written in Genesis, agrees in every way with every other discovered Truth of mankind. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Do you want support? I can give you support. It is not my definition of what evidence is, it is that of the scientific community:

Dear SZ, I see. You put more faith in the changable theories of man that you do in God's Holy Word. Even though the False ToE is nothing more than an incomplete False Assumption of men, you believe in it more than you do the Creator's account. Jesus tells us of people who put man's Science above His Truth.

Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who says we can't observe fossils forming today?

We don't have the same widespread depositional environments as there were in the past largely due to the fact that we are in an ice age right now, but that does not mean that fossil formation is not going on today.

Just show me one scientific paper that shows the processes of fossils forming. They are not forming because there have been no catastrophic events to rapidly cover thousands of animals to keep them from decaying and so that the majority that do decay some will still be left.

We are in an ice age? That's news to me, since it ended about 12,000 years ago, which should mean ice melting, which we see, more water rising, which we see, and therefore more sediment, yet not a fossil forming on the bottom of rivers, or lakes.

Last glacial period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We don't have no depositional deposits today because we don't have a global flood that deposited all the layers to begin with. We know none are forming because we have dredged rivers and lakes, yet found no bones in the process of fossil formation, because slow sediment drift is not rapid enough to prevent decay.

Lack of sediments is not the problem, it is quantity of sediments deposited quickly. Archeologists are constantly digging up ruins from a mere few thousand years ago, buried beneath the earth, so we know that in just a few thousand years entire cities can be buried if not kept up. It is lack of sediments quickly burying creatures under huge amounts of sediments that allow fossilization to proceed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh!! It is to laugh!!

Justa conflated mastodon fossils with fossilized bones of the dinosaur type.

Justa, when any old bones are found they are called "fossils" whether they have undergone fossilization or not. Frozen mastodon bodies are even called fossils at times.

The article you quoted even tried to make it clear that the process of fossilization is not needed for a bone to be considered a fossil.

I don't need to link anything, your own links sinks you

You should know better by now. You should know that when I say fossilized matadon bones it is because we have found actualk fossilized bone. You know I always present scientific evidence when I make a claim, did you expect not to call you out on your foolishness?

MASTODON BONES MASTADON BONE

Mastodon Fossils Found In Snowmass Village Excavation Site

And yes, not all bones of mastodon are completely fossilized, it all depends on the conditions when they were buried, or if they were frozen in ice.

I mean shame on you, you know I always have scientific evidence to back up my claims, unlike you.