What Would Falsify the Flood?

Loudmouth said:

I am asking what WOULD falsify a recent global flood.

Click to expand...

Finding the Garden of Eden.

And for the record, those who believe in the Water Canopy theory should answer: No polar climatology.

Living under the tutelage of Nephilim would certainly quality; but you were smart enough to change the goal posts to wanting geological formations, to make your question harder to answer.

AV1611VET said:

No they wouldn't.

When God created the earth, He populated it end to end with trees in less than 24 hours.

We know that when Noah sent out a dove, it came back with an olive leaf.

This tells me God handled the flora.

In my opinion, the earth looked better when Noah got off, than when He got on.

Click to expand...

So if God handled the flora, why didn't he handle the fauna as well?

Loudmouth said:

How would finding the Garden of Eden demonstrate that a global flood did not occur about 4,000 years ago?

Click to expand...

Split Rock or Wiccan Child, would either of you be so kind as to explain this to him?

Thank you.

Loudmouth said:

If we found geologic evidence of polar climatology 5,000 years ago would this falsify a recent global flood.

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily subscribe to the Water Canopy theory.

But if I did, I would say NO.

After all, if you guys found King David, I would surmise you would assume him to be either a Neanderthal or a Cro-magnon.

In addition, you have "evidence" that the civilizations of Babylon, Egypt and China predate the Flood.

So I'm sure anything anyone produces will be shot down with that amazing Bible-denying evidence you have stored away in your halls of higher aceldama.

KTS said:

So if God handled the flora, why didn't he handle the fauna as well?

Click to expand...

Because in Genesis 1, He gave that task to both man and animal.

Genesis 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

AV1611VET said:

Because in Genesis 1, He gave that task to both man and animal.

Genesis 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Click to expand...

That says "living thing" not "Animal" so, since plants are living things, whatever applies to animals must also apply to plants.

Want to try again?

KTS said:

That says "living thing" not "Animal" so, since plants are living things, whatever applies to animals must also apply to plants.

Want to try again?

Click to expand...

I'll pass ... thanks.

Well atleast the ark been proven to be seaworthy by science.

AV1611VET said:

I'll pass ... thanks.

Click to expand...

Figures.

Damian79 said:

Well atleast the ark been proven to be seaworthy by science.

Click to expand...

Source?

Noah's Ark was the focus of a 1993 study headed by Dr. Seon Hong at the ship research center KRISO, based
in Daejeon, South Korea. Dr. Hong's team compared 12 hulls of different proportions to discover which design
was most practical. No hull shape was found to significantly outperform the 4,300-year-old biblical design. In
fact, the Ark's careful balance is easily lost if the proportions are modified, rendering the vessel either unstable,
prone to fracture, or dangerously uncomfortable.

Click to expand...

There was a video of them testing it but i cannot find it. :/

Loudmouth said:

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?

Click to expand...

Well let's see. Almost every fossil is found in sedimentary rock.

Sedimentary rock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Sedimentary rocks are types of rock that are formed by the deposition of material at the Earth's surface and within bodies of water. Sedimentation is the collective name for processes that cause mineral and/or organic particles (detritus) to settle and accumulate or minerals to precipitate from a solution. Particles that form a sedimentary rock by accumulating are called sediment. Before being deposited, sediment was formed by weathering and erosion in a source area, and then transported to the place of deposition by water, wind, ice, mass movement or glaciers which are called agents of denudation"

We can rule out mass movement of ice or glaciers, which would of crushed any fossils. We can rule out wind, slowly covering them up, as fossils have been found in the process of giving birth and with prey still in their stomach. Besides, I think we can agree that fossilization mainly occurs during rapid burial. So we are left with water as the logical agent of transportation.

Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See processes: all require rapid burial to prevent decay of the organism by bacteria or predators.

And we agree to its rarity.

see limitations: "Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered. This is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record is less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived. Because of the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a small percentage of life-forms can be expected to be represented in discoveries, and each discovery represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, which will never demonstrate an exact half-way point."

Although lack of fossils without that excuse would fit evolution better, since diversity of species is supposed to be one of the hallmarks of evolution. So shouldn't less creatures in the past be the norm? So why claim less fossils and an incomplete record is the reason for lack of transitory species? Don't think you thought that one through very well.

http://www.livescience.com/8340-world-largest-dinosaur-graveyard-linked-mass-death.html

So for thousands of fossils to be found all in one spot, there must have been many thousands more to begin with, as undoubtedly not all were fossilized, being the rarity of the event in the best of circumstances, due to decay.

World's Largest Dinosaur Grave Unearthed in China

7,600 remains have been found in one site in China, and more are being found continuously. So if indeed fossilization is as rare as is claimed, then one must ask: How many died in that one spot to begin with?

The answer is undoubtedly many times more.

Then we have to consider that these mass graves exist everywhere, on all parts of the globe.

What evidence do you have that it wasn't caused by water?

And yes, a bald statement that it wasn't without any deductive reasoning or facts will be ignored.

Justatruthseeker said:

Well let's see. Almost every fossil is found in sedimentary rock.

Click to expand...

Snicker. Almost?

What evidence do you have that it wasn't caused by water?

And yes, a bald statement that it wasn't without any deductive reasoning or facts will be ignored.

Click to expand...

The fossils themselves. A correction on your nonsense that I snipped. The fact that most sedimentary rocks are water deposited does not mean that all sedimentary rocks are water deposited. So, yes, there are aeolian deposits. And guess what, they tend not to have fossils in them. Not all sedimentary rocks have fossils.

But all of the fossils support the lack of a flood and there is no scientific evidence at all that supports a global flood. If you understood the scientific process you would know why that is demonstrably true.

Now why do we know that there was no flood. The coral deposits around the world that became limestone demonstrate that. Coral reefs grow extremely slowly. Millimeters per thousand years. Creationists constantly conflate the possible growth rate of corals, which is still to slow to make thousands of feet of limestone in a year, with the growth rate of the reef that they live on.

There are many more, but limestone alone blows the Flood story out of the water, pun intended.

Damian79 said:

There was a video of them testing it but i cannot find it. :/

Click to expand...

Without iron supports the wooden ark mentioned in the bible would break it's back, the writers of course did not know this, the creation museum is ripping people off as we write collecting money to build an ark, which will never see water other than rain that falls on it. [at present it's on hold because of lack of funds]

Since I wrote the above I have found out that the creation "museum" is in trouble the reason seems to be,

The problem seems to be creationism itself, since the main exhibit has literally not changed in 5 years. Most museums exhibits change as new discoveries are made, as artifacs travel from other museums to visit, or as adjustments in scientific thinking are made, it’s failing because it’s not a museum and once people have seen it what's the point of going to see it again? because unlike real museums nothing will have changed.

Golan said:

Without iron supports the wooden ark mentioned in the bible would break it's back, the writers of course did not know this.

Click to expand...

No scientist in his right mind would have gotten aboard the Ark, would he?

AV1611VET said:

No scientist in his right mind would have gotten aboard the Ark, would he?

Click to expand...

Right, because it would not have stayed afloat long enough to allow them to get on board and without a rudder to steer it any large wave hitting side on would capsize it, it would need a miracle to stop it from sinking. [plenty of those about]
God would have needed to be like a child holding his boat upright to stop it sinking, however a child has an excuse.

Why does everything we read seem to go out of it's way to crush creationism?

AV1611VET said:

No scientist in his right mind would have gotten aboard the Ark, would he?

Click to expand...

You mean onto an imaginary boat like children dream up?

Of course not. If a grandchild of yours dreamed up an imaginary airplane would you really get on it? You might humor him or her, but we know that you would not do so in reality.

Subduction Zone said:

Snicker. Almost?

Click to expand...

Ok, you are right, just 98% of them. The rest in amber and a few that got covered in volcanic eruptions, so 2% out of several billion fossils. Snicker.

Why Are Fossils Only Found in Sedimentary Rocks? - Ask.com

Some are found in metamorphic rock, which is just sedimentary rock subjected to high temperature after the fossil has already formed.

You need to study up on your geology bub. Your ignorance is showing.

The fossils themselves. A correction on your nonsense that I snipped. The fact that most sedimentary rocks are water deposited does not mean that all sedimentary rocks are water deposited. So, yes, there are aeolian deposits. And guess what, they tend not to have fossils in them. Not all sedimentary rocks have fossils.

Click to expand...

Exactly, because they were not formed by the flood which deposited the fossils, and this is why they lack any fossils. You just proved flood theory and didn't even know it in your zeal to disprove it.

But all of the fossils support the lack of a flood and there is no scientific evidence at all that supports a global flood. If you understood the scientific process you would know why that is demonstrably true.

Click to expand...

If you understood what you just said above, you would know flood theory is the only theory that fits. Sedimentary rock formed by processes other than water deposit, as you rightly pointed out, tend not to have fossils in them. But that corrolation has never crossed your mind because you like to ignore evidence that does not fit your fantasies. You just pointed out the best claim for flood theory, the fact that sedimentary rock formed by processes other than water deposit rarely have fossils in them.

Now why do we know that there was no flood. The coral deposits around the world that became limestone demonstrate that. Coral reefs grow extremely slowly. Millimeters per thousand years. Creationists constantly conflate the possible growth rate of corals, which is still to slow to make thousands of feet of limestone in a year, with the growth rate of the reef that they live on.

There are many more, but limestone alone blows the Flood story out of the water, pun intended.

Click to expand...

Seems your scientists are saying you know nothing about what you speak

http://www.icrs2012.com/proceedings/manuscripts/ICRS2012_4C_1.pdf

"Linear extension, measured as change in length for individually tagged branches (or columns), was quantified for 394 branches, on 138 colonies from 6 genera. Of the 394 branches that were tagged in December 2010, 93.7% (369/394) were alive and growing in March 2011. Estimates of linear extension obtained using direct tagging were consistent between sites for all genera except Acropora where the linear extension at Horseshoe Reef was 14.76 ± 1.45 mm (mean ± SE) and North Bay was 18.53 ± 2.47 mm. The linear extension varied significantly within and among coral genera (Table 2). Acropora had the greatest mean linear extension (16.62 ± 1.43 mm) (Fig. 2). The slowest growing coral was Pocillopora with a branch mean linear extension of 2.15 ± 0.27 mm."

So in 3 months they grew anywhere from 1/2 inch or more. In 20 years? Add it up. Acropora cervicornis grows over 10 inches per year. That's 16 feet in 20 years. 83 feet every 100. How thick are your coral beds? Snicker, snicker.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/06088.htm

Golan said:

Right, because it would not have stayed afloat long enough to allow them to get on board and without a rudder to steer it any large wave hitting side on would capsize it, it would need a miracle to stop it from sinking. [plenty of those about]
God would have needed to be like a child holding his boat upright to stop it sinking, however a child has an excuse.

Why does everything we read seem to go out of it's way to crush creationism?

Click to expand...

Here's the math, since you all claim to understand math, there you go, ain't been proved wrong yet.

Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway - Answers in Genesis

Full size dutch ark


Safer than the Titanic, and it was designed by engineers, and look what happened to it. All the ark had to do was survive for several months, Titanic made of steel couldn't survive one day, yet was declared the safest ship on the seas by engineers. Yah, we know how that went. But I am sure you would of jumped right on board, being built by engineers and all.