What Would Falsify the Flood?

Loudmouth said:

What features would the Grand Canyon need to have in order to falsify the claim that it was formed by a recent global flood?

Click to expand...

Hmm, how about two of the main features that are observed:

Steep walls and incised meanders.

Seriously E.D. cannot understand why he has to answer this question.

Loudmouth said:

If we keep feeding them the falsifications they will deny they are falsifications and never explain why. What I would like to see is for them to come up with their own potential falsifications, and the reasoning behind them. Of course, I would never tell you what to post or when to post. This is just the vision I had for this thread.

Click to expand...

Okay, sounds good.

Of course if they cannot think of any falsifications do you think that they will ever realize why their views are not scientific?

Loudmouth said:

If we keep feeding them the falsifications they will deny they are falsifications and never explain why. What I would like to see is for them to come up with their own potential falsifications, and the reasoning behind them. Of course, I would never tell you what to post or when to post. This is just the vision I had for this thread.

Click to expand...

What falsifications? I have seen nothing yet but claims that it is wrong. While the creationists are showing paper after paper where scientists say it was a catastrophic even by water. The evolutionists on the other hand can not present a single paper, just links to blog sites where people can say anything. Or sites to someones theory, which contains no factual science.

Your denial of the evidence is obvious and quite old.

Justatruthseeker said:

What falsifications? I have seen nothing yet but claims that it is wrong. While the creationists are showing paper after paper where scientists say it was a catastrophic even by water. The evolutionists on the other hand can not present a single paper, just links to blog sites where people can say anything. Or sites to someones theory, which contains no factual science.

Your denial of the evidence is obvious and quite old.

Click to expand...

Then what would falsify the "Flood theory"?


Do you realize that this is an important question that someone on your side must answer?

Atheos canadensis said:

Nice try, Justa. You're still trying to avoid responding to the fact that the fossil record is not organized the way you have declared it to be based on settling dynamics. I will take this as evidence that you realize you are wrong. Unfortunately for you, this fact alone refutes the Flood model. If your model utterly fails to explain the organization of the fossil record then your model is wrong. And your model doesn't just fail to explain the pattern we see, it predicts (as you yourself have explained) a completely different pattern. This would be an example of the evidence you requested that "doesn't point to the Flood". It disproves it very firmly.

I will hold off on responding to the rest of your post until you have the courage to respond to this major point. While I derive some satisfaction from seeing you back don again and again, I would rather you directly addressed this argument instead of trying desperately to move the conversation in another direction. I'm happy to talk about transitional fossils and the amount of fossils in the fossil record, but first you need to stop backing down and respond to the point I have made. But I will point out quickly that I provided evidence in my last post (toothmarked bones) that proves that burial needn't be sudden or even rapid in order for preservation to occur.

To summarize, the Flood model not only fails to account for the organization of the fossil record but in fact predicts something completely different. You need to explain this instead of backing down and changing the subject.

Click to expand...

I already explained it several posts ago, you just didn't bother to read it cause you didn't want to hear it.

Particle Size and Settling Rate

larger animals settled slower than smaller animals because of surface density and bloating. Denser animals like shellfish settles fastest, so of course comprise the bottom layers, with smaller animals next up to the larger animals.

Learn your science.

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So for example, with two particles of the same mass and density, the one with the larger surface area (thus more friction) will settle slower. Two particles of the same size and shape, but different density, the one with the higher density (more mass) will settle faster."

[/FONT]This is why the Earth is layered in the same manner.

http://www.trinity.edu/gkroeger/geos1307/notes/earth.htm[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock

"The sedimentary rock cover of the continents of the Earth's crust is extensive, but the total contribution of sedimentary rocks is estimated to be only 8% of the total volume of the crust.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock#cite_note-1 Sedimentary rocks are only a thin veneer over a crust consisting mainly of igneous and metamorphic rocks. Sedimentary rocks are deposited in layers as strata, forming a structure called bedding. The study of sedimentary rocks and rock strata provides information about the subsurface that is useful for civil engineering, for example in the construction of roads, houses, tunnels, canals or other constructions. Sedimentary rocks are also important sources of natural resources like coal, fossil fuels, drinking water or ores."

So as the flood receded it left vast stretches of sedimentary rock and the animals buried within them.

Justatruthseeker said:

I already explained it several posts ago, you just didn't bother to read it cause you didn't want to hear it.

Particle Size and Settling Rate

larger animals settled slower than smaller animals because of surface density and bloating. Denser animals like shellfish settles fastest, so of course comprise the bottom layers, with smaller animals next up to the larger animals.

Learn your science.

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So for example, with two particles of the same mass and density, the one with the larger surface area (thus more friction) will settle slower. Two particles of the same size and shape, but different density, the one with the higher density (more mass) will settle faster."

This is why the Earth is layerd in the same manner.

Earth Structure
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

And what would falsify this claim?

Justatruthseeker said:

I already explained it several posts ago, you just didn't bother to read it cause you didn't want to hear it.

Particle Size and Settling Rate

larger animals settled slower than smaller animals because of surface density and bloating. Denser animals like shellfish settles fastest, so of course comprise the bottom layers, with smaller animals next up to the larger animals.

Learn your science.

Click to expand...

But this is NOT what we see in the geological record. Shellfish are NOT all on the lowest sedimentary layers, and small and large sized organisms are NOT separated from each other in the fossil record. For example, we find large sauropods like Apatosaurus in the same Jurassic rocks as small theropods like Ornitholestes. Likewise, large mammals like Mastodons are found with small rodents in Pliocene rocks. Pollen from specific plants are found with the plants and not separated. Hydraulic sorting does not work in explaining the fossil record. It is a gross over-simplification that has continued to be asserted to explain the fossil record by "Flood Geologists" ever sinece Henry Morris; but is never actually tested with any specific formation. That is because they know it doesn't work.

EternalDragon said:

I have a crime scene where someone broke into a house. The glass is shattered inwards, there is a stone inside the window and items of value were taken. There is also eyewitness testimony from multiple sources.

I ask you to falsify the break in. The only thing you could say is that it would have to appear differently than it does.

So no Grand Canyon, no ice age, no fossils buried in sediments all over the earth, no worldwide flood myths in nearly every culture, no mass extinctions in said fossil record, if there was still a fossil record of some sort, no coral reefs, no mid-Atlantic ridge on the ocean floor, no sea fossils all over inland continents, sediment laid down slow and not fast, no record in the Bible of such an event.....would all be clear evidence to falsify a worldwide flood.

Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)

You put your best argument last, and the only one that matters to you. I do wonder why you talk about an "ice age" when your most important argument ("no record in the bible") applies to it.

Justatruthseeker said:

I already explained it several posts ago, you just didn't bother to read it cause you didn't want to hear it.

Click to expand...

Okay, let's try this again. Read slowly this time so you get it. I did indeed read your post. Then I refuted it. Now you have reposted it as if I said nothing. It seems very much like, as you say, "you just didn't bother to read it cause you didn't want to hear it". Despite this, I'm going to assume for the moment that this is a misunderstanding rather than outright dishonesty on your part, but this time please actually respond to what I say.

I agree that settling works the way you say it does. But this presents a problem for you because the fossil record is not organized the way one would expect if all the organisms were deposited by the Flood. You explicitly state the pattern we should expect to see according to the Flood model:

[qs]arger animals settled slower than smaller animals because of surface density and bloating. Denser animals like shellfish settles fastest, so of course comprise the bottom layers, with smaller animals next up to the larger animals.[/qs]

But this is not the pattern we see. Period. The pattern you yourself say would be created by the Flood (clams -->small things-->large things) does not exist.

Dinosaurs first appear in much lower strata than tiny mammals, to name one obvious example. The reality is that large and small animals are interspersed essentially at random (with respect to body size and density) in the fossil record. And what of plants? Giant lycopod appear in lower strata than equally giant angiosperm trees. Why do angiosperms in general only start appearing in Late Cretaceous strata while gymnosperms, whether similarly-sized, bigger or smaller, appear much lower? Are you getting the picture yet? The fossil record is unequivocally not organized the way your Flood model requires it to be.

Do you understand this? Do you dispute it? Please respond to these two questions; don't just repost your last response.

Atheos canadensis said:

Okay, let's try this again. Read slowly this time so you get it. I did indeed read your post. Then I refuted it. Now you have reposted it as if I said nothing. It seems very much like, as you say, "you just didn't bother to read it cause you didn't want to hear it". Despite this, I'm going to assume for the moment that this is a misunderstanding rather than outright dishonesty on your part, but this time please actually respond to what I say.

I agree that settling works the way you say it does. But this presents a problem for you because the fossil record is not organized the way one would expect if all the organisms were deposited by the Flood. You explicitly state the pattern we should expect to see according to the Flood model:

[qs]arger animals settled slower than smaller animals because of surface density and bloating. Denser animals like shellfish settles fastest, so of course comprise the bottom layers, with smaller animals next up to the larger animals.[/qs]

But this is not the pattern we see. Period. The pattern you yourself say would be created by the Flood (clams -->small things-->large things) does not exist.

Click to expand...

It is the exact pattern we see.

Lowest to highest geological eras:

Cambrian - molluscs and anthropods (trilobites, etc)

Ordovician - molluscs and anthropods and start of jawed fishes.

Silurian - jawed and bony fish

Devonian - ray finned and lobe finned bony

Carboniferous - amphibians and anthropods

Permian - aminiotes, turtles, small mammals, reptiles, etc.

Triasic - beginning of small dinosaurs

Jurassic - dinosaurs proper

Cretaseous - more dinosaurs including types not seen in Jurassic because of density and size differences.

And so forth up to the modern period.

All merely caused by settlement and layering as the sediments themselves settled out of the water.


Of course with wind and wave fluctuations and differences in height of landmasses, we would expect a tiny divergence here and there as nothing is perfect. As the water receeded off of high land masses, some mixing would occur and smaller animals washed upwards and larger downwards. It only occurs perfectly in the laboratory. And this is exactly what we see.

Dinosaurs first appear in much lower strata than tiny mammals, to name one obvious example. The reality is that large and small animals are interspersed essentially at random (with respect to body size and density) in the fossil record. And what of plants? Giant lycopod appear in lower strata than equally giant angiosperm trees. Why do angiosperms in general only start appearing in Late Cretaceous strata while gymnosperms, whether similarly-sized, bigger or smaller, appear much lower? Are you getting the picture yet? The fossil record is unequivocally not organized the way your Flood model requires it to be.

Do you understand this? Do you dispute it? Please respond to these two questions; don't just repost your last response.

Click to expand...

No, your evolutionists just do not mention all the mammals found with dinosaurs. Are you claiming mammals magically appeared after the extinction event you claim wiped out the dinosaurs?

The First Mammals – The Mammals of the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods

"Ask the average person (or high schooler) on the street, and he’ll guess that the first mammals didn't appear on the scene until after the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago--and that the last dinosaurs evolved into the first mammals. The truth, though, is very different: in fact, the first mammals evolved from therapsids ("mammal-like reptiles") at the end of the Triassic period, and coexisted with dinosaurs throughout the Mesozoic Era. But part of this folk tale has a grain of truth: it was only after the dinosaurs went kaput that mammals were able to evolve beyond their tiny, mouselike forms into the widely specialized species that populate the world today."

Take out the evolutionary imaginations and you are left with the truth. So quite contrary to your claims mammals started well at the beginning of the Triassic, even if we accept your false theories of evolution and geological record.

And besides, dinosaur are no longer considered reptiles, you just haven't bothered to tell people that they were probably warm-blooded and could easily fit into the mammal classification system, now that we know they were not reptiles. But you won't, that might make people wonder too much. You would much prefer people to remain in ignorance so you can peddle your Fairie Dust.

What animals roamed the Earth during the Triassic period? - Curiosity

"There weren't many dinosaurs early in the Triassic period, but the Pangaea landmass was awash in reptiles and amphibians. Therapsids were mammal-like reptiles, the most powerful animal of that period."

So it appears mammals actually abounded well before dinosaurs.

Mammal-like reptiles, now that is a contradiction in and of itself. Can we say mammals that had reptile features, since dinosaurs were also not reptiles, this is the most logical conclusion. But of course evolutionists assured me for years dinosaurs were reptiles and they knew what they were talking about. Now we no longer believe that, even though you used the reptile argument for years to ignore any other theories.

It can't be that way, they are reptiles. Face it, they were mammals and warm-blooded.

So once again we find what you claim is wrong is right and what you claim is right is wrong. par for course where evolutionists are concerned.

Justatruthseeker said:

It is the exact pattern we see.

Lowest to highest geological eras:

Cambrian - molluscs and anthropods (trilobites, etc)

Ordovician - molluscs and anthropods and start of jawed fishes.

Silurian - jawed and bony fish

Devonian - ray finned and lobe finned bony

Carboniferous - amphibians and anthropods

Permian - aminiotes, turtles, small mammals, reptiles, etc.

Triasic - beginning of small dinosaurs

Jurassic - dinosaurs proper

Cretaseous - more dinosaurs including types not seen in Jurassic because of density and size differences.

And so forth up to the modern period.

All merely caused by settlement and layering as the sediments themselves settled out of the water.


Of course with wind and wave fluctuations and differences in height of landmasses, we would expect a tiny divergence here and there as nothing is perfect. As the water receeded off of high land masses, some mixing would occur and smaller animals washed upwards and larger downwards. It only occurs perfectly in the laboratory. And this is exactly what we see.


No, your evolutionists just do not mention all the mammals found with dinosaurs. Are you claiming mammals magically appeared after the extinction event you claim wiped out the dinosaurs?

Click to expand...

Wow. It's hard to know where to begin here. I guess I'll start with the most obvious. I agree with the order of appearance you just described, but it is a gross oversimplification, as I suspect you are aware. Major groups of animals show up in the order you describe, but the constituents of those groups are obviously not all of a uniform size as you imply. Molluscs as a group vary widely in size, as do arthropods. Devonian fish, too. Some were enormous, some quite small. And so on for all the groups you mention. I'm sure you're aware that enormous sauropods appear in the same strata as both medium-sized and very small dinosaurs. You have attempted to minimize this fact by characterizing the discrepancies as "minor mixing" and "tiny divergence", but this is blatantly false. You would have a stronger argument if we only occasionally found smaller animals in higher strata than larger animals, but such incidences are not occasional. The mix of body sizes I describe and which you agree exists is the norm, not the exception. By an enormous margin. All the groups you mentioned contain animals that vary widely in size, therefore the roughly accurate order of appearance you describe does not at all support your model.

I'll say it again in case you skim through that paragraph:
The mixture of sizes throughout the fossil record is unequivocally the norm. Therefore your theory of hydrodynamic sorting goes out the window and your Flood along with it.

Also, thank you for presenting the (for me) genuinely novel and bizarre argument that dinosaurs are actually mammals. It was very entertaining, but your outlandish taxonomic theory is completely irrelevant to the discussion of hydrodynamic sorting. I did not intend to convey that dinosaurs an mammals never coexisted, merely that we have examples of very small mammals appearing well after very large dinosaurs.

Justatruthseeker said:

It is the exact pattern we see.

Lowest to highest geological eras:

Cambrian - molluscs and anthropods (trilobites, etc)

Ordovician - molluscs and anthropods and start of jawed fishes.

Silurian - jawed and bony fish

Devonian - ray finned and lobe finned bony

Carboniferous - amphibians and anthropods

Permian - aminiotes, turtles, small mammals, reptiles, etc.

Triasic - beginning of small dinosaurs

Jurassic - dinosaurs proper

Cretaseous - more dinosaurs including types not seen in Jurassic because of density and size differences.

And so forth up to the modern period.

All merely caused by settlement and layering as the sediments themselves settled out of the water.

Click to expand...

This is an evolutionary sequence, especially since these are FIRST APPEARANCES. Reptiles are found in higher strata, just as fish are found in higher strata. Show us a single, specific geological formation in which all or most of the fossils are distributed by hydaulic sorting. Go ahead. That would be far more than Henry Morris ever did!

Justatruthseeker said:

Of course with wind and wave fluctuations and differences in height of landmasses, we would expect a tiny divergence here and there as nothing is perfect. As the water receeded off of high land masses, some mixing would occur and smaller animals washed upwards and larger downwards. It only occurs perfectly in the laboratory. And this is exactly what we see.

Click to expand...

We are not seeing "tiny divergence" from your model. We see massive divergence. Tell me this... what specific strata have you examined that follows your model?

Justatruthseeker said:

No, your evolutionists just do not mention all the mammals found with dinosaurs. Are you claiming mammals magically appeared after the extinction event you claim wiped out the dinosaurs?

Click to expand...

No evolutionists here claims such a thing. Mammals did not evolve from dinosaurs, in any case.