What Would Falsify the Flood? (2)

[dad]

What would falsify the flood? Nothing, something that never happened can never be falsified.

If it could be shown to be false, it would not be true. Science isn't about truth, so it needs checks and balances like falsification.

 

[Loudmouth]

If it could be shown to be false, it would not be true.

If it isn't falsifiable, how can you know that it is true?

If every, signle possible piece of evidence is consistent with a recent global flood, then no evidence is consistent with a recent global flood. That's how logic works. Unfalsifiable dogmas are worthless, and that is exactly what you are peddling.

 

[Loudmouth]

It may have been metal reinforced wood for all I know. No one even knows what 'gopher wood' means or is.

Since the ark had GPS they would have avoided the worst places! Remember, this was not some fluke but a carefully planned operation by God. He was the One that called the animals, and the One who closes the big ark door. He was the One who opened the portals of space and made the water come through. He was right there after the flood, making a rainbow. He gave them post op instructions. The flood was just one rung in the salvation plan for man.

I am still waiting for an answer to 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.

Therefore, the question is simple and mainly aimed at YEC's who claim that a recent global flood is supported by the evidence. What features would a geologic feature need in order to falsify a recent global flood?

 

[dad]

If it isn't falsifiable, how can you know that it is true?

If a blind man cannot see it, does that mean it doesn't exist? Science cannot show God to be false or true. They have a very limited scope and range of things they CAN falsify. God is way out of their range.

If every, signle possible piece of evidence is consistent with a recent global flood, then no evidence is consistent with a recent global flood.

You have no idea what to look for. That is like looking for a whale in a puddle on a street, and declaring there are no whales when you find none. Ridiculous.

That's how logic works. Unfalsifiable dogmas are worthless, and that is exactly what you are peddling.

Science only has the ability to falsify within a limited area, and any yapping by them about things elsewhere is worthless.

 

[dad]

Therefore, the question is simple and mainly aimed at YEC's who claim that a recent global flood is supported by the evidence. ..

You would need to know what was recent for starters. Science isn't even able to do that! The KT layer for example was recent. It is comical how wrong they are.

 

[CabVet]

You would need to know what was recent for starters. Science isn't even able to do that! The KT layer for example was recent. It is comical how wrong they are.

Yeah, very comical indeed.

 

[dad]

Yeah, very comical indeed.

The task at hand, then, is to get the so called science devotees to stop denying that the state of the past (therefore ages) is unknown. There can be no denying the evidence is clear....no one has any for a same state past!

 

[Loudmouth]

You would need to know what was recent for starters. Science isn't even able to do that!

4,000 years, or around there.

What evidence, if found, would falsify a global flood that occurred around 4,000 years ago?

The KT layer for example was recent. It is comical how wrong they are.

It is comical that you can't produce any evidence to cast the age into doubt. All you have are bare assertions.

 

[Loudmouth]

If a blind man cannot see it, does that mean it doesn't exist?

If you can't produce a potential falsification for a global flood that occurred 4,000 years ago, then it is a dogma. If any potential observation is evidence for a global flood 4,000 years ago, then nothing is evidence for this flood.

Do you understand why falsifiability is important, or not?

Science cannot show God to be false or true.

That is because theists have purposefully made God so that he is unfalsifiable, a dogma that they will not allow anyone to challenge.

They have a very limited scope and range of things they CAN falsify. God is way out of their range.

Yes, because belief in God is not based on evidence, and it is a religious dogam, just like Noah's flood.

You have no idea what to look for. That is like looking for a whale in a puddle on a street, and declaring there are no whales when you find none. Ridiculous.
Science only has the ability to falsify within a limited area, and any yapping by them about things elsewhere is worthless.

That is blabber.

What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a global flood that occurred around 4,000 years ago? Either produce the potential falsifications or admit that it is empty rhetoric and dogma.

 

[dad]

4,000 years, or around there.

What evidence, if found, would falsify a global flood that occurred around 4,000 years ago?

I think it was closer to 4500 years. The KT layer was likely laid down about that time. So you have no ability to know what happened 4500 years ago! You seem to mean.. 'within our belief based imaginary time framework about when 4500 years ago was. Hey, there was no Egypt or Sumer. You must know the nature and laws that existed to get real dates! You do not. Period.

It is comical that you can't produce any evidence to cast the age into doubt. All you have are bare assertions.

No need to cast what you think is 4500 years ago...or a billion years ago into doubt. The times existed, but not when you think. What I cast aside like garbage is the belief based imposition on evidences that science desperately and methodically seeks to impose.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think it was closer to 4500 years. The KT layer was likely laid down about that time. So you have no ability to know what happened 4500 years ago! You seem to mean.. 'within our belief based imaginary time framework about when 4500 years ago was. Hey, there was no Egypt or Sumer. You must know the nature and laws that existed to get real dates! You do not. Period.


No need to cast what you think is 4500 years ago...or a billion years ago into doubt. The times existed, but not when you think. What I cast aside like garbage is the belief based imposition on evidences that science desperately and methodically seeks to impose.

You still can't answer a simple question.

What evidence, if found, would falsify a global flood that occurred around 4,500 years ago? What should we NOT see in the geologic record if what you claim is true?

 

[dad]

If you can't produce a potential falsification for a global flood that occurred 4,000 years ago, then it is a dogma. If any potential observation is evidence for a global flood 4,000 years ago, then nothing is evidence for this flood.

That is a lame excuse to reject evidences. One cannot impose a physical only set of rules for God and His works, nor the past! To be able to falsify, one would have to be able to do that. You can't. Falsification is a pathetic little principle of physical only science, that applies to it, and it alone!

Do you understand why falsifiability is important, or not?

To things that are in the little fishbowl realm of physical only present state science..of course.

That is because theists have purposefully made God so that he is unfalsifiable, a dogma that they will not allow anyone to challenge.

Objection. Speculation. God made men, not visa verso. You have no possible way to deny that.

Yes, because belief in God is not based on evidence,

Yes it is! God gives proof to those who come to Him. The evidences abound through all recorded time also! The blindness of this world to be able to see it in no way takes away from the world of evidences God gives! The god of this world blinds the eyes of men, the bible says. Only God can open them!

What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a global flood that occurred around 4,000 years ago?

What features would we expect not to find in layers near the flood year? It simply depends on what you expect! I expect that we may see stuff that came with the flood waters from deep below the earth, and space. We do!

 

[Loudmouth]

That is a lame excuse to reject evidences.

No, it is the very best reason. Dogma should always be rejected. If you will claim that any observation, no matter what, is consistent with a recent global flood then you are impervious to evidence.

Let's use DNA fingerprinting as an analogy. A forensic scientist testifies that the DNA at a crime scene matches the suspect. Under cross, the forensic scientist admits that no matter what DNA sequence the test returned, he would consider it a match to the suspect.

Does the forensic scientist have valid evidence that the suspect is guilty?

One cannot impose a physical only set of rules for God and His works, nor the past! To be able to falsify, one would have to be able to do that. You can't. Falsification is a pathetic little principle of physical only science, that applies to it, and it alone!

So no matter what, you will claim that a recent global flood is true. Correct? It doesn't matter what evidence you are shown, you will not change your mind. Correct?

Yes it is! God gives proof to those who come to Him. The evidences abound through all recorded time also!

Sorry, but once you accept a dogma, you can no longer claim to have evidence.

 

[dad]

No, it is the very best reason. Dogma should always be rejected.

You can call obeying God any name you like, it is to be accepted.

If you will claim that any observation, no matter what, is consistent with a recent global flood then you are impervious to evidence.

I didn't claim that.


But all I see fits! Top that.

Let's use DNA fingerprinting as an analogy. A forensic scientist testifies that the DNA at a crime scene matches the suspect. Under cross, the forensic scientist admits that no matter what DNA sequence the test returned, he would consider it a match to the suspect.

Does the forensic scientist have valid evidence that the suspect is guilty?

The crime was done under our nature and laws, so the fit applies. The crime of the flood was not.

So no matter what, you will claim that a recent global flood is true. Correct?

Jesus and His Father claimed the flood. I am in no position to argue. Neither is so called science, it just doesn't know it yet!

They need to be in a position of knowing better than God about the past state. They do not even so much as know there was one that was not the same.

Evidence for the things of the past and of God only comes when He gives it to man. You cannot do an end run around Him! So called science is busted.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't claim that.

Then what geologic feature, if found, would not be consistent with a global flood 4,500 years ago?

But all I see fits!

What wouldn't fit?

Top that.

Just did. Top that.

The crime was done under our nature and laws, so the fit applies. The crime of the flood was not.



Jesus and His Father claimed the flood. I am in no position to argue. Neither is so called science, it just doesn't know it yet!

They need to be in a position of knowing better than God about the past state. They do not even so much as know there was one that was not the same.

Evidence for the things of the past and of God only comes when He gives it to man. You cannot do an end run around Him! So called science is busted.

Once again, what evidence, if found, would falsify a global flood 4,500 years ago. Be specific.

 

[dad]

Then what geologic feature, if found, would not be consistent with a global flood 4,500 years ago?

Jesus and His Father claimed the flood. I am in no position to argue. Neither is so called science, it just doesn't know it yet!

They need to be in a position of knowing better than God about the past state. They do not even so much as know there was one that was not the same.

Evidence for the things of the past and of God only comes when He gives it to man.

It isn't a matter of looking at some feature that may not seem to fit to some men. No man has any feature he can show that does not fit. Why disbelieve God?

Man does not have the power to falsify God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Jesus and His Father claimed the flood. I am in no position to argue.

Those were men that claimed it, being the authors of the Bible.

What evidence, if found, would show that the human authors of the Bible were wrong where it concerns a global flood?

They need to be in a position of knowing better than God about the past state. They do not even so much as know there was one that was not the same.

God didn't write the Bible, nor is God claiming that there was a literal global flood on forums like these. You are. You are not God. You are a human.

Apparently, I do know more than you because I can easily come up with potential falsifications for a recentl global flood. Why can't you?

Evidence for the things of the past and of God only comes when He gives it to man.

Also false. We can go out and collect that evidence, no gods involved.

It isn't a matter of looking at some feature that may not seem to fit to some men. No man has any feature he can show that does not fit.

How do you know that? What feature would we need in order for it not to fit? Why can't you answer this question?

Why disbelieve God?

It is men like yourself that I disbelieve.

Or do you think you are God?

Once again, what evidence, if found, would falsify a global flood 4,500 years ago. Be specific.

 

[dad]

Those were men that claimed it, being the authors of the Bible.

Says you. You weren't there. Men do not raise from being dead, or fulfill hundreds of Scriptures!

What evidence, if found, would show that the human authors of the Bible were wrong where it concerns a global flood?

They were right! So what evidence could possibly show they were wrong? You have none, why sweat it?

God didn't write the Bible, nor is God claiming that there was a literal global flood on forums like these.

False. Jesus disagrees. If we quote the bible or Jesus we are quoting God on this forum.

Apparently, I do know more than you because I can easily come up with potential falsifications for a recentl global flood. Why can't you?

Go ahead, hit us with two or three.

Also false. We can go out and collect that evidence, no gods involved.

No. You can't. We all can collect the same evidence, it is purely a matter of what one thinks it means.

How do you know that? What feature would we need in order for it not to fit? Why can't you answer this question?

Well, I have debated many a soul in my time. Nothing anywhere yet says there was no flood.

It is men like yourself that I disbelieve.

Or do you think you are God?

God has spoken to us in His word. We can disbelieve man, that is fine. Is my debating so good you have to ask if I am God now!!!!??? No, just a man who has access to His word.

 

[Loudmouth]

Says you. You weren't there. Men do not raise from being dead, or fulfill hundreds of Scriptures!

So says a man.

They were right! So what evidence could possibly show they were wrong?

That is what I am asking you. What evidence, if found, would falsify a global flood from 4,500 years ago? Why can't you answer this question?

False. Jesus disagrees. If we quote the bible or Jesus we are quoting God on this forum.

So says a man about a Bible written by men.

Go ahead, hit us with two or three.

You first.

No. You can't. We all can collect the same evidence, it is purely a matter of what one thinks it means.

So what evidence, if found, would make you think that there was not a global flood 4,500 years ago?

Nothing anywhere yet says there was no flood.

What characteristics or freatures would that something need to have in order to say that there was not a global flood 4,500 years ago?

God has spoken to us in His word.

So claims a man, and I don't believe you.

We can disbelieve man, that is fine. Is my debating so good you have to ask if I am God now!!!!??? No, just a man who has access to His word.

You are just a man claiming to have words written by a deity, even when it is widely known that those words were also written by men. Sorry, don't believe you. I need to see evidence, not faith based beliefs.

 

[TLK Valentine]

God made men, not visa verso. You have no possible way to deny that.

Objection. Speculation.