What Would Falsify the Flood?

46AND2 · Dec 18, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
I know it has never been shown to exist. I know there is a force going on you cant explain because you ignore 99% of the universe, Plasma, and so must make up Fairie Dust to explain the 99% of the universe you do ignore.

Just as you ignore 99% of the evidence that fossilization is an extremely rare event, unlikely unless animals are immediately buried. So rare you claim that is your lack of transitory species, yet 60,000 fossils found in one deposit. So once again, if it is so rare that this is the reason you lack transitory species, then how do you explain 60,000 fossils? So if one in a million are fossilized in the best of circumstances, then what, 60 million animals were washed up and buried? We don't see that kind of populations in any area today, yet you claim animal population today is greater than what was found in the fossil record to explain lack of transitory species. Double-talk.

Why is this one in a million thing so difficult for you to understand? That was subduction zone's figure for the AVERAGE rate of fossilization over time. Of course there will be events which fossilize nearly all the organisms that it entraps. Nobody is suggesting that 60 billion organisms need to be buried to obtain 60,000 fossils in a particular spot.

Justatruthseeker · Dec 18, 2013

46AND2 said:
Why is this one in a million thing so difficult for you to understand? That was subduction zone's figure for the AVERAGE rate of fossilization over time. Of course there will be events which fossilize nearly all the organisms that it entraps. Nobody is suggesting that 60 billion organisms need to be buried to obtain 60,000 fossils in a particular spot.

And your own evolutionists admit it was likely a catastrophic event that transported then there and buried them in sediment. Can we say flood. And no local flood is going to transport 60,000 creatures, as even 60,000 creatures have never been observed to live in one area. So let us pretend (against what is claimed) that every animal that died was fossilized. No population of 60,000 species has ever been observed occupying an area that would encompass a local flood.

Now all of a sudden you want to back off the rarity of fossilization in an excuse to explain large mass burials of animals. But when we talk about transitory species, suddenly it is rare. And not one of those 60,000 is a transitory species.

It is quite interesting that an imperfect geological record and rarity of fossils only affects transitory species, while we have fully formed creatures in the billions in museums around the world. It is quite intereting how this imperfect geoligical record never seems to affect the well defined species, only your transitory species. This even made Darwin question, but like you he was willing to ignore the evidence that this explanation would also mean that the well defined species should be affected as well and they should be even rarer, since transitory species had to be innumerable by Darwin's theory, and should by his own words vastly outnumber the well defines species.

Your explanation holds no water and is illogical.

Justatruthseeker · Dec 18, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
Wrong. No one is ignoring plasma. No one has give any evidence that it can be the cause of the "too fast" spinning of the galaxies. Dark Matter explains that very well. They have observed an invisible mass split off from galaxies by gravitational lensing when two galaxies collide. Is that Dark Matter? We are not sure. But it seems likel.

LOL. I was the one that told you that fossilization is an extremely rare event.

Now please try to ask sensible questions.

And please, don't say anything about what I claim. You cannot understand the papers you read. You cannot understand people when they post a response to you. You claim that we say things that we did not say.

There are so many gaps in your learning it is hard to know which to help you with first.

Again, let's bring up subjects one at a time.

Dark matter explains nothing except that you treat plasma like a hot gas, which it certainly is not and behaves nothing like.

Orbit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just like a charged particle.

Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field

it is the only experimental force you have ever observed. The only force that can explain galactic rotation curves without Fairie Dust.

Homopolar motor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand quite well plasma does not behave like the gas you treat it as in the math.

Plasma (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. Plasma, therefore, has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids, or gases and is considered a distinct state of matter. Like gas, plasma does not have a definite shape or a definite volume unless enclosed in a container; unlike gas, under the influence of a magnetic field, it may form structures such as filaments, beams and double layers."

But once again, you think of it as nothing more than a gas.

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

"Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to find evidence our Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in an enormous halo of hot gas that extends for hundreds of thousands of light years. The estimated mass of the halo is comparable to the mass of all the stars in the galaxy."

But it isn't a gas, it is plasma, that behaves quite unlike gas, so unlike in fact it is considered a distinct state of matter. So start treating it like such and you won't need Fairie Dust.

Justatruthseeker · Dec 18, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
No, that is wrong. I have presented evidence when requested. Usually my points are so obvious that no evidence is needed. You never request the evidence when you disagree with my claims. Please do so in the future.

Your so-called points consist of saying someone is wrong, without giving any justification at all. That's easy to do.

You are wrong. See how easy that was.

Justatruthseeker · Dec 18, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
Here you go, it is a direct, unaltered quote from you:

That was in response to a claim of mine that less that one in a million animals were ever fossilized.

I don't have to lie. The truth is on my side.

You better reread that.

"One out of a million huh? This is why bones are all jumbled together in mass graveyards. I have no doubts that of the thousands of fossils found in these graveyards that they represent a mere fraction of what was originally there. Therefore if 10,000 are found in one spot, I expect 100,000 animals were originally piled up in this same spot. But your innumerable transitional forms are all missing, instead we find innumerable forms of well defined species. Your deceit ill becomes the name of science."

So I agree that fossilization is a rare event and that it represents a mere fraction of what was originally there. I think you read what you want to read and interpret it like you want to interpret it, as this is the only way you can make any kind of claim.

So I am still waiting for that post that says I said fossilization was NOT rare. You owe me an apology for claiming I said things I never have.

Justatruthseeker · Dec 18, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
And Justa, the offer still stands. I will be more than happy to help you understand any article that you bring up here. Please remember whenever you say "Geologists say..." you are probably wrong. Just as a Muslim would probably be wrong if he said "Christians say ...".

So then when geologists say the strata is millions of years old we can conclude that they are probably wrong? I'll agree with your interpretation, since evolutionists rely on the claims of geologists about the age of the earth.

Do you even know what a geologist is?

And yet every time I say "geologists say" I ALWAYS include link to scientific papers, so I guess those papers by geologists are wrong too?

Justatruthseeker · Dec 18, 2013

mzungu said:
Funny how the calculations scientists use to send probes to Mars, build aeroplanes, cars computers etc. are in books! Really now do you even know what reality is? This is probably the saddest attempt you have done so far to discredit science.

Funny how religions are found in Books (Bible, Qur'aan, Torah, etc) but not in reality? hehe works both ways! talk about shooting yourself in the foot

Books based upon experimental evidence, while not one thing about dark matter has ever been reproduced in the lab, shown to exist beyond mere speculation. That is why it is still a mystery to them.

Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized in astronomy and cosmology to account for a large part of the mass that appears to be missing from the universe...

Although the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community, there is no generally agreed direct detection of it."

What is it? Why no one knows.

What is Dark Matter?

But as long as you treat this huge plasma cloud as mere gas, you will always be needing Fairie Dust to fudge your math.

Colossal Gas Cloud Discovered Around Milky Way | Space.com

Coalition for Plasma Science - What is a plasma?

"Plasma is often called the "Fourth State of Matter," the other three being solid, liquid and gas. A plasma is a distinct state of matter containing a significant number of electrically charged particles, a number sufficient to affect its electrical properties and behavior. In addition to being important in many aspects of our daily lives, plasmas are estimated to constitute more than 99 percent of the visible universe."

Learn what the universe is before you try to describe it. Astronomers do not take a single plasma physics course, which is ridiculous since the universe is made up of 99% plasma.

Even NASA knows this.

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

"Our day-to-day lives exist in what physicists would call an electrically neutral environment. Desks, books, chairs and bodies don't generally carry electricity and they don't stick to magnets. But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma"

So why again do you treat it as a gas and call it a gas, when it is plasma? It is the only way you can continue to support your Fairie Dust theories.

It's about time we actually studied plasma in space, since it makes up 99% of the universe. I look forward to the results.

46AND2 · Dec 18, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
And your own evolutionists admit it was likely a catastrophic event that transported then there and buried them in sediment. Can we say flood. And no local flood is going to transport 60,000 creatures, as even 60,000 creatures have never been observed to live in one area. So let us pretend (against what is claimed) that every animal that died was fossilized. No population of 60,000 species has ever been observed occupying an area that would encompass a local flood.

Now all of a sudden you want to back off the rarity of fossilization in an excuse to explain large mass burials of animals. But when we talk about transitory species, suddenly it is rare. And not one of those 60,000 is a transitory species.

It is quite interesting that an imperfect geological record and rarity of fossils only affects transitory species, while we have fully formed creatures in the billions in museums around the world. It is quite intereting how this imperfect geoligical record never seems to affect the well defined species, only your transitory species. This even made Darwin question, but like you he was willing to ignore the evidence that this explanation would also mean that the well defined species should be affected as well and they should be even rarer, since transitory species had to be innumerable by Darwin's theory, and should by his own words vastly outnumber the well defines species.

Your explanation holds no water and is illogical.

When did I "back off the rarity" of fossilization? Fossilization is rare because the events that cause the necessary conditions are rare. And yes, localized floods are one of those events. But not even all floods will do it; it has to create an anoxic condition to stifle decay. But that doesn't mean a lot of animals can't get trapped in the same event.

And, once again you claim that no "transitory" fossils have been found, without providing us with a description of what such a fossil would look like. You do this so that you can summarily dismiss ANY fossil that we show as an example, without even explaining why it doesn't meet the criteria. What's wrong? Afraid we will show you fossils which meet your criteria? It's a very simple request. Why do you and heissonear avoid it so?

46AND2 · Dec 18, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
And your own evolutionists admit it was likely a catastrophic event that transported then there and buried them in sediment. Can we say flood. And no local flood is going to transport 60,000 creatures, as even 60,000 creatures have never been observed to live in one area. So let us pretend (against what is claimed) that every animal that died was fossilized. No population of 60,000 species has ever been observed occupying an area that would encompass a local flood.

Now all of a sudden you want to back off the rarity of fossilization in an excuse to explain large mass burials of animals. But when we talk about transitory species, suddenly it is rare. And not one of those 60,000 is a transitory species.

It is quite interesting that an imperfect geological record and rarity of fossils only affects transitory species, while we have fully formed creatures in the billions in museums around the world. It is quite intereting how this imperfect geoligical record never seems to affect the well defined species, only your transitory species. This even made Darwin question, but like you he was willing to ignore the evidence that this explanation would also mean that the well defined species should be affected as well and they should be even rarer, since transitory species had to be innumerable by Darwin's theory, and should by his own words vastly outnumber the well defines species.

Your explanation holds no water and is illogical.

Also, you do know that those 60,000 specimens were all primitive marine life, right? Why are there no turtles mixed in there? Eels? Fish? Sharks? Whales? Lobsters? Squid? ...or pretty much ANY other animal besides very primitive marine life? And why do none of those 172 species exist today? Surely some must have survived the flood? Plenty of other marine animals did, after all.

USincognito · Dec 18, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
So then when geologists say the strata is millions of years old we can conclude that they are probably wrong?

So's Law!

Whenever a response begins with "So..." the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%.

Subduction Zone · Dec 18, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
Dark matter explains nothing except that you treat plasma like a hot gas, which it certainly is not and behaves nothing like.

Orbit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just like a charged particle.

Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field

it is the only experimental force you have ever observed. The only force that can explain galactic rotation curves without Fairie Dust.

Homopolar motor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand quite well plasma does not behave like the gas you treat it as in the math.

Plasma (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. Plasma, therefore, has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids, or gases and is considered a distinct state of matter. Like gas, plasma does not have a definite shape or a definite volume unless enclosed in a container; unlike gas, under the influence of a magnetic field, it may form structures such as filaments, beams and double layers."

But once again, you think of it as nothing more than a gas.

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

"Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to find evidence our Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in an enormous halo of hot gas that extends for hundreds of thousands of light years. The estimated mass of the halo is comparable to the mass of all the stars in the galaxy."

But it isn't a gas, it is plasma, that behaves quite unlike gas, so unlike in fact it is considered a distinct state of matter. So start treating it like such and you won't need Fairie Dust.

Wrong, we treat hot gases as hot gases. Remember, you are the one who does not understand very basic physics. The amount of "plasma" needed for mass purpose would have to be 5 times the mass of regular matter, and that regular matter includes the "plasma" that make up stars. Dark matter is different from regular matter and is not plasma nor hot gas.

Again, too much garbage to discuss in one post. Let's bring things up point by point.

Subduction Zone · Dec 18, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
Your so-called points consist of saying someone is wrong, without giving any justification at all. That's easy to do.

You are wrong. See how easy that was.

No, once again, when I make claims I am always happy to back them up with fact. Most of the ways you have been shown to be wrong in the past are so basic scientifically that it is the equivalent of saying a rock will fall at 9.9 m/sec^2 when dropped at sea level on the Earth. If you need backup for claims like that just tell me. I don't want to insult you by assuming that you are even less educated than you seem to be.

I am willing to help you understand any of the points that you clearly do not understand. For example I have offered to help you to understand the very basic nature of scientific evidence, a concept that you clearly do not understand several times. You always run away from offered help.

Why are you so afraid of assistance?

Subduction Zone · Dec 18, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
You better reread that.

"One out of a million huh? This is why bones are all jumbled together in mass graveyards. I have no doubts that of the thousands of fossils found in these graveyards that they represent a mere fraction of what was originally there. Therefore if 10,000 are found in one spot, I expect 100,000 animals were originally piled up in this same spot. But your innumerable transitional forms are all missing, instead we find innumerable forms of well defined species. Your deceit ill becomes the name of science."

So I agree that fossilization is a rare event and that it represents a mere fraction of what was originally there. I think you read what you want to read and interpret it like you want to interpret it, as this is the only way you can make any kind of claim.

So I am still waiting for that post that says I said fossilization was NOT rare. You owe me an apology for claiming I said things I never have.

Plese, never assume you know what someone else is thinking. It seems that you get it wrong each and every time.

And watch the accusations of lying. That is against the rules here.

Subduction Zone · Dec 18, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
So then when geologists say the strata is millions of years old we can conclude that they are probably wrong? I'll agree with your interpretation, since evolutionists rely on the claims of geologists about the age of the earth.

Do you even know what a geologist is?

And yet every time I say "geologists say" I ALWAYS include link to scientific papers, so I guess those papers by geologists are wrong too?

Yes, because we can show it is millions of years old by various means.

Do you remember your terrible failure with the coral reefs?

Do you understand your terrible failure with the coral reefs?

Aman777 · Dec 18, 2013

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?

Dear Readers, The flood didn't destroy our world but it did leave something very strange, in Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat. Here is a link. Strange Spiral under Lake Van, Turkey 7.2 EQ - YouTube Can anyone explain?

In Love,
Aman

Atheos canadensis · Dec 18, 2013

Originally Posted by Justatruthseeker
And yet you observe no fossils being formed in the present.....[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Can't help but notice you're avoiding responding to the points I made, Justa. I have pointed out that the size and density-dependent organization you imagine in the fossil record doesn't exist. Therefore your assertion that all fossils were preserved by the flood is clearly false. I'm guessing that your obvious desire to ignore this and other points I made indicates that you have no response. So will you display some intellectual honesty and concede defeat now or would you like to contest these points?

Viren · Dec 18, 2013

If all the ice on earth was melted would it raise sea levels by 90 to 180ft. In order for the ocean levels to rise to Mt Ararat, the place where Noah's ark landed it, would need to rise thousands of feet. Mt. Ararat now stands at over 16,500 ft.

Subduction Zone · Dec 18, 2013

Viren said:
If all the ice on earth was melted would it raise sea levels by 90 to 180ft. In order for the ocean levels to rise to Mt Ararat, the place where Noah's ark landed it, would need to rise thousands of feet. Mt. Ararat now stands at over 16,500 ft.

Thanks for reminding me why we know there was no global flood.

Ice floats.

It is so simple that I forgot all about it.

AV1611VET · Dec 18, 2013

Viren said:
If all the ice on earth was melted would it raise sea levels by 90 to 180ft.

If all the ice on earth were to melt, it would decrease the sea level, wound't it?

Subduction Zone · Dec 18, 2013

AV1611VET said:
If all the ice on earth were to melt, it would decrease the sea level, wound't it?

No.

What Would Falsify the Flood?

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

a post by Alan Smithee

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Christian

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency