What Would Falsify the Flood?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟132,504.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
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.


And yet your geological record is not consistent, there are older layers on top of younger layers. So this is acceptable if one agrees with evolution, but the same thing is not acceptable if one does not?

Double-talk and hypocrisy is what I hear.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
And yet your geological record is not consistent, there are older layers on top of younger layers. So this is acceptable if one agrees with evolution, but the same thing is not acceptable if one does not?

Double-talk and hypocrisy is what I hear.


Wrong. The geologic record is consistent. If you don't understand thrust faults and folding you have no place in this debate.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟132,504.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
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*:clap::clap::clap:


So then older layers on top of younger layers in the geological record disproves evolution.

*Does happy dance and declares victory*:clap::clap::clap:


See how easy that is to just declare things.

So you accept that geological formations are not consistent and that uplifting can occur, as long as we do not apply that same reasoning to creation, right? As I said in the above post, double-talk and hypocrisy is what I hear.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
So then older layers on top of younger layers in the geological record disproves evolution.

*Does happy dance and declares victory*:clap::clap::clap:


See how easy that is to just declare things.

So you accept that geological formations are not consistent and that uplifting can occur, as long as we do not apply that same reasoning to creation, right? As I said in the above post, double-talk and hypocrisy is what I hear.


We can explain, in fact show how strata were thrust over others. You still have no clue.

Thrust fault - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the way, did you figure out what you did wrong in your coral reef growth claims yet?
 
Upvote 0

EternalDragon

Counselor
Jul 31, 2013
5,757
26
✟13,767.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
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?

Different climate, different conditions existed in the past. Then the flood caused the ice age and the earth changed. Those large creatures could no longer survive well and some that came off the Ark eventually died off. Hence the mass extinctions.
 
Upvote 0

Black Akuma

Shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die...
Dec 8, 2013
1,109
15
✟16,344.00
Faith
Seeker
Different climate, different conditions existed in the past. Then the flood caused the ice age and the earth changed. Those large creatures could no longer survive well and some that came off the Ark eventually died off. Hence the mass extinctions.

Wrong for a number of reasons.

Not all dinosaurs are big. Many were quite small. Far smaller than many animals alive today. Why is a compsognathus - about as big as a chicken - to big to survive, but a Komodo Dragon isn't? And never mind the large mammals, like mastadons. Many, many small species have gone extinct.

Why would this climate kill off dinosaurs, but not the other reptiles? Never mind that dinosaurs lived on all the continents, and an ice age wouldn't have put them all in inhospitable climates . Many reptiles survived the ice age. In fact, since dinosaurs were warm-blooded and some even had feathers, they would be better equipped than most.

And we're still in an ice age, so you're not even remotely accurate on that - your knowledge of it seems to come from bad cartoon movies. Can you provide any mechanism that would make the ice age shrink to a hundred or so years, as opposed to the millions of years just about every scientist accepts in the field?

And, little question, if God knew the environment would kill them off shortly anyway, what was the point of saving them? Wasn't the whole reason for the Ark to preserve the animals?
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟132,504.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
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?


Do you know anything about floods? High floods allow sediment to settle, but as the water recedes it lifts up sedimentary layers and the things buried in them and deposits them elsewhere, in orders different than they were originally deposited. it is called turbulence. The last Tsunami televised on national TV a prime example. Thinges were swept inwards, buried in sediment, and then as the water receded, a lot of sediment and the material buried were unburied and dragged out to sea.

But of course since we are not talking about evolution, we of course according to you can't use actual science, only evolutionists can do that right? So only by ignoring everything we know about sediment deposition and how floods behave, can you dismiss the evidence. I understand though, I understand the actual science threatens your beliefs, so you feel you need to dismiss it.

Only by ignoring how flood waters behave can you keep the ideas you currently have. There is nothing mystical about it, except in your own mind. it is a natural geological occurrence that happens with every single flood ever observed. After the water comes in, it must go out. The difference is this flood covered the mountains for 1 year 10 days, so most of the sedimentary layers were set during calm waters. But as the flood began to recede, animals that had settled on higher ground in sediment were disturbed and redistributed again. This is the cause of the stable strata and the mixing you observe.

Quite elementary and based upon scientific facts. This is also why fossils are found in mass graves all jumbled together and quite a lot are flattened. No known source can do this but vast flood waters burying them almost instantly in sediment. We agree fossilization is rare, so if 60,000 fossils were found in one site, then many, many more must have originally been buried there.

And you still have not given an evolutionary explanation on how 60,000 animals ended up all buried together since fossilization is so rare? So was there just 60,000 animals or many hundreds of thousands deposited all in one place and only 60,000 is what was left after decay?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Do you know anything about floods? High floods allow sediment to settle, but as the water recedes it lifts up sedimentary layers and the things buried in them and deposits them elsewhere, in orders different than they were originally deposited. it is called turbulence. The last Tsunami televised on national TV a prime example. Thinges were swept inwards, buried in sediment, and then as the water receded, a lot of sediment and the material buried were unburied and dragged out to sea.

But of course since we are not talking about evolution, we of course according to you can't use actual science, only evolutionists can do that right? So only by ignoring everything we know about sediment deposition and how floods behave, can you dismiss the evidence. I understand though, I understand the actual science threatens your beliefs, so you feel you need to dismiss it.

Only by ignoring how flood waters behave can you keep the ideas you currently have. There is nothing mystical about it, except in your own mind. it is a natural geological occurrence that happens with every single flood ever observed. After the water comes in, it must go out. The difference is this flood covered the mountains for 1 year 10 days, so most of the sedimentary layers were set during calm waters. But as the flood began to recede, animals that had settled on higher ground in sediment were disturbed and redistributed again. This is the cause of the stable strata and the mixing you observe.

Quite elementary and based upon scientific facts. This is also why fossils are found in mass graves all jumbled together and quite a lot are flattened. No known source can do this but vast flood waters burying them almost instantly in sediment. We agree fossilization is rare, so if 60,000 fossils were found in one site, then many, many more must have originally been buried there.

And you still have not given an evolutionary explanation on how 60,000 animals ended up all buried together since fossilization is so rare? So was there just 60,000 animals or many hundreds of thousands deposited all in one place and only 60,000 is what was left after decay?

That doesn't explain why there are large and small animals in the SAME strat layers if your hydrological sorting idea is true. Besides, its not even accurate. Yes, mixing of layers can happen in turbulent floods, but reversal of layers, keeping the layers intact, does not happen. Go ahead and test it in an aquarium in your backyard. Make sure to videotape your experiment.

Or you can do the wise thing and abandon you hydrological sorting claim.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Do you know anything about floods? High floods allow sediment to settle, but as the water recedes it lifts up sedimentary layers and the things buried in them and deposits them elsewhere, in orders different than they were originally deposited. it is called turbulence. The last Tsunami televised on national TV a prime example. Thinges were swept inwards, buried in sediment, and then as the water receded, a lot of sediment and the material buried were unburied and dragged out to sea.

But of course since we are not talking about evolution, we of course according to you can't use actual science, only evolutionists can do that right? So only by ignoring everything we know about sediment deposition and how floods behave, can you dismiss the evidence. I understand though, I understand the actual science threatens your beliefs, so you feel you need to dismiss it.

Only by ignoring how flood waters behave can you keep the ideas you currently have. There is nothing mystical about it, except in your own mind. it is a natural geological occurrence that happens with every single flood ever observed. After the water comes in, it must go out. The difference is this flood covered the mountains for 1 year 10 days, so most of the sedimentary layers were set during calm waters. But as the flood began to recede, animals that had settled on higher ground in sediment were disturbed and redistributed again. This is the cause of the stable strata and the mixing you observe.

Quite elementary and based upon scientific facts. This is also why fossils are found in mass graves all jumbled together and quite a lot are flattened. No known source can do this but vast flood waters burying them almost instantly in sediment. We agree fossilization is rare, so if 60,000 fossils were found in one site, then many, many more must have originally been buried there.

And you still have not given an evolutionary explanation on how 60,000 animals ended up all buried together since fossilization is so rare? So was there just 60,000 animals or many hundreds of thousands deposited all in one place and only 60,000 is what was left after decay?


Tallk about having nothing and wild speculation.

I would suggest that you study real flood sediments. One of the first things you will find is that they are poorly sorted. At the most two coarsely sorted layers are formed:

Sediment sorting and transport by flash floods

If you ever study sedimentology you would find that shale can only be deposited over long periods of time in calm water. The same goes for chalk and diatomaceous earths. Limestone is deposited mostly in reef type environments. You remember those. Those are the ones you were terribly mistaken about their rates of growth.
 
Upvote 0

Black Akuma

Shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die...
Dec 8, 2013
1,109
15
✟16,344.00
Faith
Seeker
Also, this.

Coconino Sandstone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

seligman-tracks.jpg


Because footprints and alluvial deposits often form well in turbulent, quickly rising flood waters.

Oh.

Wait.

They don't.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Atheos canadensis

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2013
1,383
132
✟14,901.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
And yet your geological record is not consistent, there are older layers on top of younger layers. So this is acceptable if one agrees with evolution, but the same thing is not acceptable if one does not?

Double-talk and hypocrisy is what I hear.

And the cycle starts again! How predictable you are. You've once again ignored my posts then finally respond at my prompting with an attempt to talk about something else. How desperate are you? Now this is where I challenge you once again to provide evidence for the existence of your alleged pattern or admit that no such pattern exists and therefore neither did the Flood. But of course you lack the evidence to do the former and the intellectual courage to do the latter. So instead you will ignore my posts again before finally responding with another evasion? Where is your pride? Over and over you chastise people for not being able to support their claims and yet over and over and now over again you have failed to do so.

Come one, Justa. Less cowardice, more honesty. Cite one source that offers proof that your pattern exists. If you fail to do this then it is proof that you know there is no such source and no such pattern.
 
Upvote 0

Atheos canadensis

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2013
1,383
132
✟14,901.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Do you know anything about floods? High floods allow sediment to settle, but as the water recedes it lifts up sedimentary layers and the things buried in them and deposits them elsewhere, in orders different than they were originally deposited. it is called turbulence. The last Tsunami televised on national TV a prime example. Thinges were swept inwards, buried in sediment, and then as the water receded, a lot of sediment and the material buried were unburied and dragged out to sea.

I understand the actual science threatens your beliefs, so you feel you need to dismiss it.

Only by ignoring how flood waters behave can you keep the ideas you currently have. There is nothing mystical about it, except in your own mind. it is a natural geological occurrence that happens with every single flood ever observed. After the water comes in, it must go out. The difference is this flood covered the mountains for 1 year 10 days, so most of the sedimentary layers were set during calm waters. But as the flood began to recede, animals that had settled on higher ground in sediment were disturbed and redistributed again. This is the cause of the stable strata and the mixing you observe.

So I know you've long since abandoned the indefensible position that the pattern you describe exists unspoiled. Then you claimed that the pattern was messed up in some rare instances because of the chaotic nature of the Flood. Now you seem to be implying that we should actually expect the pattern to be all but obliterated by redeposition of sediments. That's quite the backpedaling you're doing. Unfortunately you haven't backpedaled enough. You still have to cite even a single source that provides evidence that this pattern exists. How's that working out for you? Still no sources? That's what I thought.
 
Upvote 0

Atheos canadensis

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2013
1,383
132
✟14,901.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Different climate, different conditions existed in the past. Then the flood caused the ice age and the earth changed. Those large creatures could no longer survive well and some that came off the Ark eventually died off. Hence the mass extinctions.

So are you disagreeing with Justa that a pattern of dense to small to large organisms should be seen in the fossil record? In all fairness, Justa seems now to be disagreeing with himself on that point.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So are you disagreeing with Justa that a pattern of dense to small to large organisms should be seen in the fossil record? In all fairness, Justa seems now to be disagreeing with himself on that point.
That's what happens when you play "make believe".
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.