Thought experiment: *IF* there were a global flood, what would we expect to see?

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh wait, you're a gapper, right, how could I forget? *blur* Haven't seen you in a while 'aight. But wouldn't you agree that since the most recent flood has been a global, at-most-year-long, all-life-exterminating flood, we should expect its effects to be the most prominent on the geological record? It hardly makes sense to say "many floods over millions of years" should obscure evidence for a massive global flood when they happened before it, not after.

The most recent flood can unearth ancient fossil flood evidence, which may now be much lighter in weight, and redeposit it in layers on top of more recent heavier life forms. The great flood could also not only have left no evidence of its passing in many areas, but stripped away hundreds of feet of more recent depositions down to the very oldest fossils, which now appear at or very near the surface, as we find in many desert areas. These desert areas have clearly undergone massive erosion by past flooding.

 

[Mallon]

The most recent flood can unearth ancient fossil flood evidence, which may now be much lighter in weight, and redeposit it in layers on top of more recent heavier life forms.

Bones get heavier when they fossilize; not lighter.

The great flood could also not only have left no evidence of its passing in many areas, but stripped away hundreds of feet of more recent depositions down to the very oldest fossils, which now appear at or very near the surface, as we find in many desert areas. These desert areas have clearly undergone massive erosion by past flooding.

Examples?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Bones get heavier when they fossilize; not lighter.

Does that mean that old bones are always at the bottom of flood sediments?

Examples?

A tsunami washing away most or all evidence of some coastal villages.

 

[Mallon]

Does that mean that old bones are always at the bottom of flood sediments?

No, just that your assertion that fossils are lighter than their living counterparts is wrong.

A tsunami washing away most or all evidence of some coastal villages.

Sorry, I meant real-life examples to support your assertion about the oldest fossils being exposed on the desert surface after severe flooding.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, just that your assertion that fossils are lighter than their living counterparts is wrong

Did I say 'counterparts'?

Sorry, I meant real-life examples to support your assertion about the oldest fossils being exposed on the desert surface after severe flooding.

Sorry back. All I have is theories. That puts me in some pretty high powered company, don't it?

 

[Mallon]

Did I say 'counterparts'?

No, you didn't. So please explain exactly what you meant by "The most recent flood can unearth ancient fossil flood evidence, which may now be much lighter in weight". At this point, you seem to be backpedaling.

Sorry back. All I have is theories. That puts me in some pretty high powered company, don't it?

Your proposals are hypotheses, as they are untested and unbacked by any sort of evidence. Evolution is a theory which has stood up to scrutiny for the last 150+ years. The fact that it, and not the Gap hypothesis, is being taught in the science classrooms all around the world is testimony to its usefulness.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, you didn't. So please explain exactly what you meant by "The most recent flood can unearth ancient fossil flood evidence, which may now be much lighter in weight". At this point, you seem to be backpedaling.

Your proposals are hypotheses, as they are untested and unbacked by any sort of evidence. Evolution is a theory which has stood up to scrutiny for the last 150+ years. The fact that it, and not the Gap hypothesis, is being taught in the science classrooms all around the world is testimony to its usefulness.

I'll bet that my hypothesis can become a legitimate theory before your theory becomes fact. In fact, isn't 150 years a long time for a theory to languish?

 

[Mallon]

I'll bet that my hypothesis can become a legitimate theory before your theory becomes fact.

That statement proves you have no idea how science works. Theories don't turn into facts.

In fact, isn't 150 years a long time for a theory to languish?

Not nearly as long as the theory of gravity. Does that make it wrong, too, oldwiseguy?

How about answering my question above instead of trying to change the subject?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That statement proves you have no idea how science works. Theories don't turn into facts.

Not nearly as long as the theory of gravity. Does that make it wrong, too, oldwiseguy?

How about answering my question above instead of trying to change the subject?

Gravity is a practical fact. Only in your world is it still a theory. Evolution is still a theory, not any kind of fact.

To answer your question; I believe there was a global flood as described in the bible. I cannot prove it happened, and you cannot prove that it didn't.

 

[Mallon]

Gravity is a practical fact. Only in your world is it still a theory. Evolution is still a theory, not any kind of fact.

I disagree. Gravity is still a theory. We informally accept it as fact because it is so well supported, but that doesn't make it a "practical fact" (whatever that is). Theories do not become facts. That's a fact of science. That's part of how it is defined. And like gravity, evolution is a theory that is well supported by the facts. This is why we could predict we would find Tiktaalik in the Devonian-aged of Ellesmere Island, and the Gap hypothesis couldn't.

To answer your question; I believe there was a global flood as described in the bible. I cannot prove it happened, and you cannot prove that it didn't.

You're right. I can't prove that it didn't. I can only show beyond reasonable doubt that it didn't, which is all science needs.
In any case, you answered the wrong question again. My question was this:

So please explain exactly what you meant by "The most recent flood can unearth ancient fossil flood evidence, which may now be much lighter in weight".

 

[Deamiter]

Sorry to jump in so late and answer the OP, but there are a couple of simple things I would expect -- one of which has already been mentioned.

First, I would expect pollen and spores to be totally randomly intermixed in all the layers. Of course we all know this doesn't happen -- flowering plant pollen isn't found in the older layers (before flowering plants evolved) and there are other, more subtle gradients which are often used to roughly date sediments. It would be much harder to predict sorting of bones, but there should be NO sorting of pollen -- not to the absolute exclusion of pollen in lower layers and slow evolution and increase in number of types (as well as some notable extinctions) in upper layers.

I would expect (as has been previously mentioned) to see NO tracks or raindrop pits in a large range of sedimentary rock. Depositions (like salt crystals) created by repeated dry spells should also be absent. I have looked into at least a dozen major areas around the globe and have never found a set of sediments that fulfills this. I'll readily admit that this isn't my specialty though, and I would welcome any information on sediments that fit this criteria.

 

[random_guy]

Gravity is a practical fact. Only in your world is it still a theory. Evolution is still a theory, not any kind of fact.

To answer your question; I believe there was a global flood as described in the bible. I cannot prove it happened, and you cannot prove that it didn't.

I'm agreeing with Mallon that you have no idea how science works. Gravity and evolution are both facts. We can observe a force of attraction between masses (gravity) and we observe that allele frequencies in a gene pool change over time (evolution). We also have a Law of Gravity (math formula describing a force) which is incorrect in certain cases (key point, Law != 100% correct), and a theory of gravity (gravity is caused by gravitons or bending of space-time), neither of which is observable. The theory of gravity is actually on worst footing the the theory of evolution. Long story short, facts != unproven theory.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I disagree. Gravity is still a theory. We informally accept it as fact because it is so well supported, but that doesn't make it a "practical fact" (whatever that is). Theories do not become facts. That's a fact of science. That's part of how it is defined. And like gravity, evolution is a theory that is well supported by the facts. This is why we could predict we would find Tiktaalik in the Devonian-aged of Ellesmere Island, and the Gap hypothesis couldn't.

You're right. I can't prove that it didn't. I can only show beyond reasonable doubt that it didn't, which is all science needs.
In any case, you answered the wrong question again. My question was this:

Mallon, I considered gravity a practical fact (my term) because it can be positively measured. We know how it works. The same with electricity. That cannot be said about evolution AS IT IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD OUTSIDE OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

Regards fossils becoming lighter, I am probably wrong there.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We can observe a force of attraction between masses (gravity) and we observe that allele frequencies in a gene pool change over time (evolution). We also have a Law of Gravity (math formula describing a force) which is incorrect in certain cases (key point, Law != 100% correct), and a theory of gravity (gravity is caused by gravitons or bending of space-time), neither of which is observable. The theory of gravity is actually on worst footing the the theory of evolution. Long story short, facts != unproven theory.

I'm agreeing with Mallon that you have no idea how science works. Gravity and evolution are both facts.

Well, now that you have clarified it for me I'm more confused than ever.

 

[Mallon]

Mallon, I considered gravity a practical fact (my term) because it can be positively measured. We know how it works. The same with electricity. That cannot be said about evolution AS IT IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD OUTSIDE OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

But that doesn't make it wrong. The general public has a hard time wrapping their heads around calculus, too, but that doesn't make it any less of a "practical fact". Having said that, the processes and tempos of evolution can be positively measured, too. Hundreds of books have been written on those very subjects.

Regards fossils becoming lighter, I am probably wrong there.

Thank you.

 

[random_guy]

Well, now that you have clarified it for me I'm more confused than ever.

Think of it this way (simplified version). Facts are things that we observed. A ball falls to Earth can be observe so that's a fact. We can see allele frequencies change over generations (for example, number of people stricken with sickle cell anemia drops as more malarial drugs are given). These are facts. The first we call gravity, the second we call evolution. Theories explain facts. The theory of gravity tries to explain how the ball falls to the Earth, while the theory of evolution tries to explain how the allele frequencies change. That's how evolution is both a fact and a theory. Does this make more sense? If not, I can try to re-explain it somehow if you let me know what part is unclear.

 

[shernren]

Mallon, I considered gravity a practical fact (my term) because it can be positively measured. We know how it works. The same with electricity. That cannot be said about evolution AS IT IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD OUTSIDE OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

Evolution as it is generally understood outside of the scientific community isn't evolution at all. Cats-to-dogs, information increase, etc. really isn't something that evolution has to predict or explain.

Actually, scientists still don't know how gravity works. Surprise.

And we didn't know how electricity worked until recently either, with the Maxwell equations in 1864 only providing a partial theory; the complete theory of electromagnetism is quantum electrodynamics developed in the 1940's by Feynman and others.

Compare that to evolution. I think the only real revolution in evolution was the discovery of DNA and genes as the units of heredity which evolution affects. Besides that, the basic mechanism has remained unchanged since Darwin postulated it (with the exception of punctuated equilibrium). Quite impressive I'd say.

And if you're wondering, scientists have been measuring all three for a long time, but just because we measure something doesn't mean we have a scientific description for it. It is common to measure something we can't describe or explain, but it would be very unscientific to describe or explain something we can't measure, wouldn't it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution as it is generally understood outside of the scientific community isn't evolution at all. Cats-to-dogs, information increase, etc. really isn't something that evolution has to predict or explain.

Actually, scientists still don't know how gravity works. Surprise.

And we didn't know how electricity worked until recently either, with the Maxwell equations in 1864 only providing a partial theory; the complete theory of electromagnetism is quantum electrodynamics developed in the 1940's by Feynman and others.

Compare that to evolution. I think the only real revolution in evolution was the discovery of DNA and genes as the units of heredity which evolution affects. Besides that, the basic mechanism has remained unchanged since Darwin postulated it (with the exception of punctuated equilibrium). Quite impressive I'd say.

And if you're wondering, scientists have been measuring all three for a long time, but just because we measure something doesn't mean we have a scientific description for it. It is common to measure something we can't describe or explain, but it would be very unscientific to describe or explain something we can't measure, wouldn't it?

I'll try to be more clear as well. What I meant was that we know that gravity and electricity work, and how to make them work for us. I'll concede that this is the consumer's view from the cheap seats.

 

[shernren]

Well, evolution works for us too. Just ask the people who figured out that you shouldn't overdose on antibiotics.