What Would Falsify the Flood?

Atheos canadensis · Dec 22, 2013

I've posted this in reply to a couple people at this point and several times in other corners of the internet, but no one has ever even attempted a response. So I'll ask again as a general reply and see if anyone can deal with this straightforward refutation of the Flood.

The Grand Canyon meanders. Meanders are produced by rivers flowing over flat plains, not by catastrophic torrents of water. Catastrophic torrents of water create straight channels, not meandering ones. This proves that the GC was not created rapidly by a high-volume, high-energy flow as the Flood model requires.

Anyone care to dispute this obvious refutation of the Flood model?

Atheos canadensis · Dec 22, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
The sad part is not that you make claims off the top of your head without bothering to do research, but that you find it necessary to attempt to make claims about other people not showing facts in an attempt to cover up your ignorance.

Are you really trying to claim the high ground here? You made the claim "off the top of your head" that a certain pattern exists in the fossil record. You have as yet provided no evidence that this pattern exists at all. Can you say hypocrite?

Justatruthseeker · Dec 22, 2013

Atheos canadensis said:
You're doing it again, Justa. Posting several times and yet failing to address the point I made. This is getting very familiar. Next comes the part where I point out your lack of integrity, then you respond with yet another evasive post that tries to force the discussion away from the point you know proves you wrong. You like to boast about how you always back up your claims with scientific citations (though apparently you think Ask.com qualifies?), and yet you have failed over and over to provide any support whatsoever for the existence of the pattern your model predicts. You claim that your model would produce a specific pattern and that pattern doesn't exist. That means you model is wrong. How about you quit with the cowardly and hypocritical evasion and show me that this nonexistent pattern actually exists. Don't worry, I'm happy to keep pointing out your lack of integrity until you do respond directly.

Go back and find my post, not going to re-post it because like SZ you like to make the same kind of false claims. you know as well as I do the geological strata show smaller life first, leading up to larger life. You forget, this is evolutionists claim for simple life evolving into complex life. Are you saying this is not true? That there is no pattern in the geological record? That your claims for evolution are false?

It is not the pattern in the record that is in question, but the interpretation of it. Sediment only makes up 8% of the Earth's crust, yet you claim it goes back 500 some million years. Despite soft tissue found in fossils and radio carbon 14 dating of fossils showing ages of 25,000 to 40,000 years in agreement with soft tissue being found.

So you might want to rethink your claim that no pattern exists in the geological record, because that would wipe your theory of evolution into extinction.

Sedimentary rock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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.[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."

And almost all fossils are found in that thin veneer, or in metamorphic rock that was once sedimentary rock or the very rare find in igneous rock.

And layered from smallest and heaviest to largest, just like we observe with particle fallout in sediments. As are the fossils found within. You claim plate tetonics is the reason some older strata is on top of younger strata, so it is not consistent. But neither is sediment deposition in turbulent flows of water as when a flood receded from high prominences. So we would also expect some mixture in the fossil record, which we do occasionally observe.

So don't believe there is a pattern, that is fine with me, just be sure to throw out your evolutionary theory since it relies on the misconception of the cause of this pattern.

Subduction Zone · Dec 22, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
In other words you have nothing.

But that's ok, I already looked it up for you.

The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"but at least two continental fossil reef complexes have been discovered to be about 3,000 ft (1,000 m) thick."

So 80 feet per 100 years / 3000 * 100 = 3750 years to grow a 3000 ft coral bed.

Although coral beds thru drilling have been discovered to be 4750 ft thick recently. So we will give you the benefit of the doubt and say 6000 ft.

That only comes to 7,500 years, far short or your millions of years.

You know that is not true, you know I posted a link, but here let me repost so you can't claim that for the benefit of others.

Roth, A. A. --- Coral Reef Growth

"This species has been reported to grow as fast as 260 mm/year"

That is 10 inches per year, 1000 inches per 100 years / 12 = 83 ft which I rounded down to 80 feet.

The sad part is not that you make claims off the top of your head without bothering to do research, but that you find it necessary to attempt to make claims about other people not showing facts in an attempt to cover up your ignorance.

Ignorance can be fixed by learning and studying. Morals to blatantly deceive can never be fixed. Is your evidence so shallow you must deceive in an attempt to prove your case? Nor can those that practice such things be trusted in anything they say. So by doing so you make it that even if you do state a fact, no one is going to trust you.

The same error again.

You still have not given a rate of coral reef growth. You failed one more time.

And you missed where I posted a link that gave the rate of growth of an actual coral reef.

Subduction Zone · Dec 22, 2013

Justa, your ignorance knows no bounds. You keep making the same basic errors about reef growth.

Maybe I should put it in bold for you:

The rate of growth of individual corals is not the same as the rate of the reef.

You are making the same mistake as assuming the rate of growth of the soil in a forest is the same as the rate of growth of trees.

Wouldn't you laugh at someone making a claim like that?

Atheos canadensis · Dec 22, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
Go back and find my post, not going to re-post it because like SZ you like to make the same kind of false claims. you know as well as I do the geological strata show smaller life first, leading up to larger life. You forget, this is evolutionists claim for simple life evolving into complex life. Are you saying this is not true? That there is no pattern in the geological record? That your claims for evolution are false?

It is not the pattern in the record that is in question, but the interpretation of it.

So you might want to rethink your claim that no pattern exists in the geological record, because that would wipe your theory of evolution into extinction.

So don't believe there is a pattern, that is fine with me, just be sure to throw out your evolutionary theory since it relies on the misconception of the cause of this pattern.

Aaaand the second part of your evasive tactics, right on schedule. You've just repeated your claim, not supported it. You didn't post any evidence that the pattern you pretend exists actually exists. You posted the order of appearance of various groups as if the members of each group were of a uniform size. That fact remains that the small to large pattern you pretend exists is imaginary. I guarantee you cannot post a single source the shows this pattern. You can keep insisting that this pattern exists, but until you actually show me that small organisms are consistently lower in section than large ones, you're just making stuff up. Also known as lying.

If we take the Mesozoic as a representative sample, we see that extremely large animals appear in the same level as quite small animals. Over and over and over. And over. The pattern your Flood model predicts doesn't exist. Try to post some evidence that this is wrong instead of just claiming you have.

And just to be clear (although I'm fairly certain you know this) I'm not saying the fossil record exhibits no pattern, I'm saying it doesn't exhibit the small to large pattern you pretend it does.

Kylie · Dec 22, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
Go back and find my post, not going to re-post it because like SZ you like to make the same kind of false claims. you know as well as I do the geological strata show smaller life first, leading up to larger life. You forget, this is evolutionists claim for simple life evolving into complex life. Are you saying this is not true? That there is no pattern in the geological record? That your claims for evolution are false?

It is not the pattern in the record that is in question, but the interpretation of it. Sediment only makes up 8% of the Earth's crust, yet you claim it goes back 500 some million years. Despite soft tissue found in fossils and radio carbon 14 dating of fossils showing ages of 25,000 to 40,000 years in agreement with soft tissue being found.

Yeah, this is wrong. After the extinction of the dinosaurs, there was practically nothing that was larger than a dog or so. And yet before the extinction of dinosaurs, we had big creatures like T rex and triceratops.

How do you explain this case of large life coming before small life forms?

Atheos canadensis · Dec 22, 2013

KTS said:
Yeah, this is wrong. After the extinction of the dinosaurs, there was practically nothing that was larger than a dog or so. And yet before the extinction of dinosaurs, we had big creatures like T rex and triceratops.

How do you explain this case of large life coming before small life forms?

He doesn't need to explain it. Asserting that the pattern exists seems to be sufficient proof for him. Hence the accusations of hypocrisy.

Kylie · Dec 22, 2013

Atheos canadensis said:
He doesn't need to explain it. Asserting that the pattern exists seems to be sufficient proof for him. Hence the accusations of hypocrisy.

But the pattern DOESN'T exist.

Atheos canadensis · Dec 22, 2013

KTS said:
But the pattern DOESN'T exist.

Well obviously. But that doesn't seem to be a problem for him. All he has to do is say it does and he thinks his work is done.

46AND2 · Dec 22, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
In other words you have nothing.

But that's ok, I already looked it up for you.

The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"but at least two continental fossil reef complexes have been discovered to be about 3,000 ft (1,000 m) thick."

So 80 feet per 100 years / 3000 * 100 = 3750 years to grow a 3000 ft coral bed.

Although coral beds thru drilling have been discovered to be 4750 ft thick recently. So we will give you the benefit of the doubt and say 6000 ft.

That only comes to 7,500 years, far short or your millions of years.

You know that is not true, you know I posted a link, but here let me repost so you can't claim that for the benefit of others.

Roth, A. A. --- Coral Reef Growth

"This species has been reported to grow as fast as 260 mm/year"

That is 10 inches per year, 1000 inches per 100 years / 12 = 83 ft which I rounded down to 80 feet.

The sad part is not that you make claims off the top of your head without bothering to do research, but that you find it necessary to attempt to make claims about other people not showing facts in an attempt to cover up your ignorance.

Ignorance can be fixed by learning and studying. Morals to blatantly deceive can never be fixed. Is your evidence so shallow you must deceive in an attempt to prove your case? Nor can those that practice such things be trusted in anything they say. So by doing so you make it that even if you do state a fact, no one is going to trust you.

Lol. So you take the growth rate of a fast growing coral and apply it the thickness of another species.

Justatruthseeker · Dec 22, 2013

46AND2 said:
Lol. So you take the growth rate of a fast growing coral and apply it the thickness of another species.

That is totally sad, since apparently you can't do math. Take half of that if you want, 40 ft per year, that's only 11,700 years, right about the last cataclysmic event. Take 1 ft per year, that's only 470,500 years, so just where in the world do you get a justification for claiming millions of years except in your fantasies?

Justatruthseeker · Dec 22, 2013

KTS said:
Yeah, this is wrong. After the extinction of the dinosaurs, there was practically nothing that was larger than a dog or so. And yet before the extinction of dinosaurs, we had big creatures like T rex and triceratops.

How do you explain this case of large life coming before small life forms?

Really are you sure? mammals existed right alongside the dinosaurs, but like you say, fossilization is rare and small animals tend to decay faster than large ones.

Lets see, shall we discuss small dinosaurs?

There goes that claim of no small animals.

Your evolutionists claim mammals existed at this time, are you saying they are lying?

Early Primate Evolution:[bless and do not curse] The First Primates

Cretaceousâ€“Paleogene extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"However, the extinction also hit other terrestrial organisms, including mammals, pterosaurs, birds,[8] lizards,[9] insects,[10][11] and plants."

You are rapidly running out of excuses for ignoring the evidence.

And here is your 65 million year old dog fossil.

http://m.harunyahya.com/tr/works/81...pter/5120/Some-specimens-of-fossil-skulls--11

Excuse me, 80 million year old wolf skull. Older than some of your dino fossils. The Asian wild dog was 65 million years.

Subduction Zone · Dec 22, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
That is totally sad, since apparently you can't do math. Take half of that if you want, 40 ft per year, that's only 11,700 years, right about the last cataclysmic event. Take 1 ft per year, that's only 470,500 years, so just where in the world do you get a justification for claiming millions of years except in your fantasies?

How many times do you have to be told that you have mistaken the growth rates of individual corals for the growth rate of reefs.

To date I am the only one that has posted a link on coral reef growth rate.

Subduction Zone · Dec 22, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
Really are you sure? mammals existed right alongside the dinosaurs, but like you say, fossilization is rare and small animals tend to decay faster than large ones.

Lets see, shall we discuss small dinosaurs?

There goes that claim of no small animals.

Your evolutionists claim mammals existed at this time, are you saying they are lying?

Early Primate Evolution:[bless and do not curse] The First Primates

CretaceousâPaleogene extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"However, the extinction also hit other terrestrial organisms, including mammals, pterosaurs, birds,[8] lizards,[9] insects,[10][11] and plants."

You are rapidly running out of excuses for ignoring the evidence.

And here is your 65 million year old dog fossil.

Harun Yahya

Excuse me, 80 million year old wolf skull. Older than some of your dino fossils. The Asian wild dog was 65 million years.

Poor reading comprehension strikes again.

Yes, there were mammals long before the asteroid strike that ended the Cretaceous. What you don't seem to realize is that only small species survived that strike. And a few reptile species that lived mainly in the water. That means small mammals, birds and reptiles survived. Crocodiles and turtles survived too, but as I said, they had refuge in the water.

Subduction Zone · Dec 22, 2013

And Justa, why do you use sites that are known to be dishonest. If your claims about those Cretaceous fossils was true you could find peer reviewed articles that support you.

Your evidence as given is all but worthless.

46AND2 · Dec 22, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
That is totally sad, since apparently you can't do math. Take half of that if you want, 40 ft per year, that's only 11,700 years, right about the last cataclysmic event. Take 1 ft per year, that's only 470,500 years, so just where in the world do you get a justification for claiming millions of years except in your fantasies?

I can do math just fine. But I prefer to use the actual pertinent numbers. Not the sloppy amalgamation of data you throw together. I don't "want" to take any of your arbitrary numbers because they are completely irrelevant.

Particularly since I never claimed millions of years of coral growth.

46AND2 · Dec 22, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
Really are you sure? mammals existed right alongside the dinosaurs, but like you say, fossilization is rare and small animals tend to decay faster than large ones.

Lets see, shall we discuss small dinosaurs?

There goes that claim of no small animals.

Your evolutionists claim mammals existed at this time, are you saying they are lying?

Early Primate Evolution:[bless and do not curse] The First Primates

Cretaceousâ€“Paleogene extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"However, the extinction also hit other terrestrial organisms, including mammals, pterosaurs, birds,[8] lizards,[9] insects,[10][11] and plants."

You are rapidly running out of excuses for ignoring the evidence.

And here is your 65 million year old dog fossil.

Harun Yahya

Excuse me, 80 million year old wolf skull. Older than some of your dino fossils. The Asian wild dog was 65 million years.

She never claimed there were no small animals before the KT event.

But what is funny is that you are now arguing for small animals mixed with large ones, which ruins your hydrological sorting argument.

Kylie · Dec 22, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
Really are you sure? mammals existed right alongside the dinosaurs, but like you say, fossilization is rare and small animals tend to decay faster than large ones.

Lets see, shall we discuss small dinosaurs?

There goes that claim of no small animals.

Your evolutionists claim mammals existed at this time, are you saying they are lying?

Early Primate Evolution:[bless and do not curse] The First Primates

CretaceousâPaleogene extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"However, the extinction also hit other terrestrial organisms, including mammals, pterosaurs, birds,[8] lizards,[9] insects,[10][11] and plants."

You are rapidly running out of excuses for ignoring the evidence.

And here is your 65 million year old dog fossil.

Harun Yahya

Excuse me, 80 million year old wolf skull. Older than some of your dino fossils. The Asian wild dog was 65 million years.

Oh really?

But I was responding to your claim that animals started out small and got bigger! You said that the "geological strata show smaller life first, leading up to larger life."

And NOW you are changing your tune! Now you are saying that SMALLER animals lived alongside LARGER animals!

The simple fact is that you claimed we should see than any animal had smaller animals EARLIER than it and larger animals LATER than it. But this is not what we see in the fossil record, and your own arguments have shown this. So your original claim was WRONG and you have admitted it.

*Does happy dance and declares victory*

Atheos canadensis · Dec 22, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
Really are you sure? mammals existed right alongside the dinosaurs, but like you say, fossilization is rare and small animals tend to decay faster than large ones.

Lets see, shall we discuss small dinosaurs?

There goes that claim of no small animals.

Ha! You seem to have become confused in your eagerness to prove the existence of your imaginary pattern and have instead stated that small and large animals appear at the same level. You keep making these weird strawmen instead of providing support for your model. No one here argued that there are no small animals, merely that there is no pattern of small to large like you claim. And now, far from providing evidence of such a pattern, you have agreed that no such pattern exists. Your Flood model requires this pattern to exist, so the fact that it doesn't obviously refutes that model. Too funny.

What Would Falsify the Flood?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

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

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

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

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

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency