What Would Falsify the Flood? (2)

[dad]

The point of having something that can falsify a hypothesis is to test that hypothesis.

You are too small to test an unknown past.

So it should involve something whose certainty has not yet been established. Saying that X would be falsified if the the sky were green is not a valid test if we have already determined that the sky is blue. In that case, looking for a green sky would, indeed, be inventing silly questions.

Ideally, the falsification test is one that has been assumed by the old theory, to have one answer, and the new hypothesis presents a totally different answer.

The flood is not a theory. The flood was an event that was recorded.

Even better if that answer can be demonstrated in different ways by different tests. General Relativity posited that gravity can affect light waves, in contradiction to Newtonian physics that said it can't. The tests included searching for (and finding) gravity lenses --a strong gravity source, a large planet or a sun, can bend light, and thus act much like an optic lens -- and predicting and explaining some odd conditions in Mercury's orbit around the sun.

So far so good.

Those explanations led to another aspect of the GR hypothesis, and a new prediction (Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared). So the building and firing of the A-Bomb, and the building and testing of the H-Bomb are "proofs" of GR.

On earth...yes.

So what differences do any of the accepted scientific theories that Creationists conflate into the term "Evolution" present from the predictions of the so-called "literalist" or "Biblical" account, that can be tested for and that have not yet been tested and answered in favor of the scientific theories?

That sentence seems to do mental gymnastics. Try clarity.

 

[Loudmouth]

The flood is not a theory. The flood was an event that was recorded.

The map is not the territory.

All you have shown is that there is no evidence would change your mind. Is that correct?

 

[dad]

The map is not the territory.

The map and the territory should be clear before talking about them.

All you have shown is that there is no evidence would change your mind. Is that correct?

Only the first part " there is no evidence". You need some.

 

[Loudmouth]

The map and the territory should be clear before talking about them.

Not for you. You just close your eyes to what is found in the territory, and keep pointing to the map.

Only the first part " there is no evidence". You need some.

What would that evidence be? What evidence would falsify a recent global flood?

 

[dad]

Not for you. You just close your eyes to what is found in the territory, and keep pointing to the map.

I do not know about any territory or map actually.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not know about any territory or map actually. You on drugs?

Can you act like an honest person?

 

[dad]

Can you act like an honest person?

Stop babbling about vague maps and silly unspecific territories.

 

[Loudmouth]

Stop babbling about vague maps and silly unspecific territories.

I am trying to relate a simple concept for you.

Map–territory relation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the map and the territory do not match up, which one is wrong?

We are also waiting for an answer to a simple question. What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a recent global flood?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can you act like an honest person?

Not convincingly, I suspect.

 

[dad]

I am trying to relate a simple concept for you.

Map–territory relation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the map and the territory do not match up, which one is wrong?

You have no map of the universe or past or future.

We are also waiting for an answer to a simple question. What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a recent global flood?

Let's see, what could a flood produce? I guess if you had a layer that was composed of stuff that never touched water, or would not fit with being submerged, etc etc we could say that this layer did not appear to be the layer of the great flood.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have no map of the universe or past or future.

You still can't grasp simple concepts, I see.

You are the one claiming to have a map. You claim the map is infallible. We show that there are massive contradictions between your map and the real world. Your map is wrong.

Let's see, what could a flood produce? I guess if you had a layer that was composed of stuff that never touched water, or would not fit with being submerged, etc etc we could say that this layer did not appear to be the layer of the great flood.

What features would a sediment need in order to demonstrate that it "never touched water, or would not fit with being submerged, etc etc we could say that this layer did not appear to be the layer of the great flood"?

 

[dad]

You still can't grasp simple concepts, I see.

You are the one claiming to have a map.

I never mentioned map, you did.

You claim the map is infallible.

Now you are making it up.

We show that there are massive contradictions between your map and the real world. Your map is wrong.

There is no map, I claimed no map, you are wrong.

What features would a sediment need in order to demonstrate that it "never touched water, or would not fit with being submerged, etc etc we could say that this layer did not appear to be the layer of the great flood"?

I find it to be immature to pretend that there is no God and that man ought to be able to disprove everything. There is no evidence against the flood. It cannot be disproven, and your little pious standard of falsifiability is a fishbowl concept, inapplicable to things higher.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no map, I claimed no map, you are wrong.

The Bible is your map, and you claim it is infallible. Therefore, when we find evidence that contradicts your map, you claim that the territory is wrong.

There is no evidence against the flood. It cannot be disproven, and your little pious standard of falsifiability is a fishbowl concept, inapplicable to things higher.

If it can not be disproven, then you don't have any evidence. From the opening post:

"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."--Me

 

[dad]

The Bible is your map, and you claim it is infallible. Therefore, when we find evidence that contradicts your map, you claim that the territory is wrong.

You found nothing of the sort. We can all relax.

If it can not be disproven, then you don't have any evidence.

The Easter Bunny is safe I guess in your world.

"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.

No. Your puny concept of falsifiability cannot apply beyond the ability of science to be able to prove stuff true or false.

IOW, if any possible observation supports the flood, then no observation supports the flood.

That depends who observes! Noah told Abraham all about the flood if we look at Jewish traditions passed down. Jesus also observed the flood. He confirmed it in the gospels. The things that godless science observes cannot support a claim of no flood! Any way we shake it, God wins.

 

[CrazyChimera]

Jesus, unless you view him as god's form on earth, wouldn't have been around for the flood.
He wasn't born yet.

 

[Loudmouth]

You found nothing of the sort.

Didn't find what? Describe the evidence we didn't find.

No. Your puny concept of falsifiability cannot apply beyond the ability of science to be able to prove stuff true or false.

It is a concept of logic and reason, both of which your argument lacks.

That depends who observes! Noah told Abraham all about the flood if we look at Jewish traditions passed down.

That is a claim, not an observation.

Jesus also observed the flood.

Also a claim, and not an observation.

The things that godless science observes cannot support a claim of no flood!

Then you have no evidence for a flood.

 

[dad]

Jesus, unless you view him as god's form on earth, wouldn't have been around for the flood.
He wasn't born yet.

Yes, Jesus was always around, walking with Adam and Eve, creating the world, and before...etc. In the old testament He is called, many believe, the Angel of the Lord.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the old testament He is called, many believe, the Angel of the Lord.

Yup.

 

[TheBear]

Yes, Jesus was always around, walking with Adam and Eve, ...

Why wasn't Jesus there to run off that pesky snake, and warn Eve not to listen to it? He just wanders off to who knows where, and at such bad timing. Its as if he didn't know the snake was there....or did he?

 

[dad]

Why wasn't Jesus there to run off that pesky snake, and warn Eve not to listen to it?

He does run it when His children cry out to him. This universe and earth will have a no trespassing sign for him and his angels forevermore one day.

Meanwhile, man has chosen the long way home, and all the filthy deadly hurtful, sick results of listening to the ol boy are part of our learning experience. Maybe a bit like a serious hangover, that teaches some to not drink so much if at all. Better to willingly be moderate, than to simply have God take wine off the shelves I suspect.