What Would Falsify the Flood?

[Split Rock]

Just this one ...

Don't need a link.

The Ark was made of what the Bible calls 'gopher wood' -- which, of course, is nothing more than copper, mixed with trace elements, called "pitch" -- (probably carbon for hardness).

Keep in mind that Noah's predecessors were top-notch metallurgists.

Thus the Ark was a giant state-of-the Ark submarine, complete with periscope

Now you wait one moment... the ark was a Containment Vessel, not a ship (I learned that from you). You are just goofing with this "Nautilus" talk.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now you wait one moment... the ark was a Containment Vessel, not a ship (I learned that from you). You are just goofing with this "Nautilus" talk.

... That was actually a Poe.

You must have a photographic memory or something!

Yes, I call the Ark a containment vessel because there are actually three arks mentioned in the Scriptures (Noah's Ark, Moses' Ark, and the Ark of the Covenant), and all three have one thing in common: they were built to contain something specific.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean you did. I don't agree with that. I believe the term you're referring to is called retrospective falsification; and I don't subscribe to it, as far as the Bible is concerned.

I don't care what you call it, I can show that it has happened.

Yes.
Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Notice the giants in the land, well after the Flood?

Good, then by your claim about Nephilim families the Ark myth is busted.


In regards to my claim that Goliath was not what we would call a giant:

If that's what you believe, I won't dispute it. Perhaps Goliath was still just a "small boy" at the time.

Again, not believe. Biblical evidence. Do you want to be wrong twice, well you usually are anyway, in one post?

 

[Orogeny]

Are we to assume here that the flood is responsible for the sedimentary column?

?

 

[46AND2]

?

Like you'll get a straight answer for that.

They'll say yes, until you can show a layer that doesn't work, and then they'll claim that THAT one was done after or before the flood. Then you'll go through the whole geologic column in North Dakota and show that virtually NONE of the layers could have been laid down by a global flood due to burrows, evaporites, shale, paleosols, pyroclastic rock and a couple other things and they'll come up with more silly excuses, if they haven't started ignoring you altogether.



...and so the flood myth lives on.

 

[Orogeny]

That question was directed toward the OP or someone who has been a participant in the discussion initiated by the OP. It was not directed to flood opponents or proponents, simply to whoever can give me a reasonable answer.

Can you?

 

[46AND2]

That question was directed toward the OP or someone who has been a participant in the discussion initiated by the OP. It was not directed to flood opponents or proponents, simply to whoever can give me a reasonable answer.

Can you?

Well, that is part of the problem. It varies depending on who you ask. I'm sure that ambiguity is part of the reason for the OP's question. I don't think it can be assumed that all sedimentary layers are attributed to the flood, because not all proponents of the flood believe that to be true. But when you try to pin down a definition of what would or would not falsify the flood, there is a constant movement of goal posts. They never define what we SHOULD see, had a global flood actually occurred. So, ultimately you have to attempt to falsify the flood on an individual basis, depending on what the proponent claims about it.

So, I don't think there even exists a reasonable answer to your question, unless you are specifically asking the OP, individually, I suppose. And in that case, only he would be able to answer it. But you appeared to be asking a general question, not one specifically to the OP.

At the very least, though, I think there should be some layer/s indicative of a global flood, even if not all of them.

 

[46AND2]

That question was directed toward the OP or someone who has been a participant in the discussion initiated by the OP. It was not directed to flood opponents or proponents, simply to whoever can give me a reasonable answer.

Can you?

However, if I were agnostic about whether a global flood happened, I would NOT assume that all sedimentary layers were laid down by the same flood. Perhaps that answers your question better.

Therefore, discounting individual layers that could not have been attributed to the flood, would not falsify the flood account.

 

[Orogeny]

Ok, let's run with that. There must be some strata not attributable to a global flood. We probably won't be able to determine which strata are (ostensibly) from a global flood in this forum, so let's assume that we cannot use the characteristics of any lithified strata to verify or refute a global flood. Can we still do it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually there are layers that creationists cannot explain with a flood model. How do they explain evaporite layers mixed in with regular sedimentary deposits. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term evaporites are deposits of salt and gypsum that are the result of drying sea water.

The problem with "Flood deposits" is that studies in sedimentology shows that the vast majority of sediments cannot be deposited in a world wide flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually there are layers that creationists cannot explain with a flood model.

The key here is "flood model," isn't it?

If creationists cannot explain it with a flood model, then it must be some other model ... right?

And what is that other model?

GOD DID IT

Isaiah 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

 

[Davian]

The key here is "flood model," isn't it?

If creationists cannot explain it with a flood model, then it must be some other model ... right?

And what is that other model?

GOD DID IT

---
I think he was referring to a 'scientific model'; it's like a scientific theory... falsifiable, and all that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since I've been pestered recently to say GOD DID IT, over making suppositions; I'm planning on doing just that, so the lurkers can see how you guys respond to it.

The fact is, you don't like suppositions, and you don't like "GOD DID IT" ... it's a catch-22.

But I want to see if my hypothesis ... that you guys will mock us either way ... holds true.

 

[46AND2]

Since I've been pestered recently to say GOD DID IT, over making suppositions; I'm planning on doing just that, so the lurkers can see how you guys respond to it.

The fact is, you don't like suppositions, and you don't like "GOD DID IT" ... it's a catch-22.

But I want to see if my hypothesis ... that you guys will mock us either way ... holds true.

Of course..."I don't know" is still an option, too...

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that you have to put "god did it" into the answer thousands and thousands of times. You still don't realize what an enormous problem the lack of genetic bottlenecks is for the Ark. They show that life has not been interrupted like that for over 100,000 years. To account for that your god would have had to add diversity to the genome thousands of times since the flood for millions of animals. That would be billions of miracles.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually there are layers that creationists cannot explain with a flood model.

It is said that the waters burst forth from below the earth. But we have no further details. So the violence of the entire event is open to any interpretation, from mild and gentle rain to catastrophic destruction.

Also Jesus walked on water, so the actual properties of the water were likely under God's control. Re-imagining the original events are not a good option for those scientifically minded.

 

[SkyWriting]

The problem is that you have to put "god did it" into the answer thousands and thousands of times. You still don't realize what an enormous problem the lack of genetic bottlenecks is for the Ark. They show that life has not been interrupted like that for over 100,000 years. To account for that your god would have had to add diversity to the genome thousands of times since the flood for millions of animals. That would be billions of miracles.

Diversity is a known factor in genetic analysis. It as also stated that environmental pressure increases the rate of species diversification. So the higher the population pressure, the faster the rate of diversification.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Diversity is a known factor in genetic analysis. It as also stated that environmental pressure increases the rate of species diversification. So the higher the population pressure, the faster the rate of diversification.

And we know how much diversification increases in generation to generation. That is a measurable observable amount. Almost all species, except for those that have had a very recent bottleneck event, show that they have not had a genetic bottleneck in the last 50,000 plus years. A global bottleneck of only 2 representatives for most species would stick out like a sore thumb and actually end up in extinction for most of those species.

The writers of the Ark Myth knew nothing of genetics.

 

[Davian]

Since I've been pestered recently to say GOD DID IT, over making suppositions; I'm planning on doing just that, so the lurkers can see how you guys respond to it.

You are a crowd pleaser, AV. I used to be one of those lurkers.

The fact is, you don't like suppositions, and you don't like "GOD DID IT" ... it's a catch-22.

It's not that I don't like it, it's that is it gibberish. It explains nothing.

But I want to see if my hypothesis ... that you guys will mock us either way ... holds true.

For whom do you speak when you say "us"?

Do you know what is meant by "falsifiable"?

 

[Orogeny]

Actually there are layers that creationists cannot explain with a flood model. How do they explain evaporite layers mixed in with regular sedimentary deposits. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term evaporites are deposits of salt and gypsum that are the result of drying sea water.

This isn't entirely true. While we often think of evaporites as forming in a sabkha-like environment that undergoes wet-dry cyclicity, many evaporite accumulations are thought to have formed in isolated basins with long lasting, stratified water columns. In these instances, periodic inundation of saline water accompanied by arid to hyperarid conditions results in the development of hypersalinity at the top of the water column (isolation of the basin by some topographic high during relative sea level lowstands prevents circulation, which sets up water column stratificaiton). This leads to precipitation of evaporite crystals in the top of the water column, which then sink to the basin floor. This process accounts for the widespread uniformity present in some evaporitic formations, and could conceivably be operative during a global flood similar to that proposed by some christians.

This process is called 'evaporative drawdown', and is thought to be responsible for deposition of the Zechstein Fm. in Germany and the Castile Fm. of the Permian basin, west Texas.

The problem with "Flood deposits" is that studies in sedimentology shows that the vast majority of sediments cannot be deposited in a world wide flood.

Verily. But my question hasn't been addressed. I may not have asked it as clearly as I meant to. Let me try again: If we remove the rock record from consideration, are there other physical features of the Earth that refute the biblical flood hypothesis? Can we use the characteristics of, say, unlithified sediments to address the hypothesis? What about geomorphology? Or the location and characteristics of modern depositional environments?