What Would Falsify the Flood?

[Atheos canadensis]

That's what happens when you play "make believe".

It is tricky to keep things straight when you're moving the goal posts that quickly. Next thing we know he'll be saying that we shouldn't expect to detect the pattern at all, but it's totally there. I assume he's tried and failed to find (or at least realized he won't find) any support for his position and is backpedaling wildly so that he can convince himself that he is right but that he doesn't need to prove the pattern exists. He is in a bit of a pickle here. He can't admit that the pattern doesn't exist because that will prove the Flood never happened. But he can't find any proof beyond mere assertion that the pattern exists. And he has too much pride to allow us to think we've bested him so he's forced to go around in circles, first ignoring and then trying to change the subject. Does it make me a bad person if I enjoy watching him squirm?

 

[Black Akuma]

Does it make me a bad person if I enjoy watching him squirm?

Yes.

Yes, it does.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Yes.

Yes, it does.

Rats.

 

[46AND2]

It is tricky to keep things straight when you're moving the goal posts that quickly. Next thing we know he'll be saying that we shouldn't expect to detect the pattern at all, but it's totally there. I assume he's tried and failed to find (or at least realized he won't find) any support for his position and is backpedaling wildly so that he can convince himself that he is right but that he doesn't need to prove the pattern exists. He is in a bit of a pickle here. He can't admit that the pattern doesn't exist because that will prove the Flood never happened. But he can't find any proof beyond mere assertion that the pattern exists. And he has too much pride to allow us to think we've bested him so he's forced to go around in circles, first ignoring and then trying to change the subject. Does it make me a bad person if I enjoy watching him squirm?

What's funny is that we haven't even touched upon the layers of igneous rock between the sediment layers which somehow show sequentially older radiometric ages the deeper you go.

 

[EternalDragon]

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?

Obviously you are mistaken about dinosaurs. Something about them caused them not to survive as well. Remember mammals were better suited for the current climate and had to eat something.

Komodo dragon young do not need their parents after they hatch out and are able to climb trees to get away from predators.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I'm tempted not to post this, because I just know they won't bother to watch it, but it's a good video and quite educational.

The Coconino Sandstone and the Creationists The Coconino Sandstone and the Creationists - YouTube

I enjoyed that. And I have to mention: that's quite some accent she has!

 

[Black Akuma]

Something about them caused them not to survive as well.

Dinosaurs weren't even the only animals to go extinct around that time. Mammals, insects, even certain types of birds went out, too. Your lack of knowledge on this subject is simply astounding.

Remember mammals were better suited for the current climate and had to eat something.

Most mammals we find around the time of the dinosaurs were quite small. If you're seriously suggesting that mammals ATE dinosaurs to extinction - especially when, at the time, dinosaurs were rather dominant on this planet - you're living in a complete fantasy land.

Komodo dragon young do not need their parents after they hatch out and are able to climb trees to get away from predators.

Really? Hm.

You are aware that pterosaurs went extinct around this time, correct? You know - large, flying reptiles. So komodo dragon young could escape the predators...but not the massive, winged reptiles that were perhaps even capable of soaring across oceans? Also, you assume that no species of dinosaur were capable of doing that? And what about all the species of reptiles, living today, that aren't capable of such evasion?

Right.

 

[Black Akuma]

I enjoyed that. And I have to mention: that's quite some accent she has!

Funnily enough, she actually lives relatively close to me. I often take for granted how she sounds to other people.

 

[Black Akuma]

Komodo dragon young do not need their parents after they hatch out and are able to climb trees to get away from predators.

Also, ED, you're making some assumptions about dinosaur parental habits if you think the above fact - if that's even true - is relevant.

Dinosaur Reproduction and Parenting

http://www.geotimes.org/nov04/NN_Psittacosaurus.html

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.1999.10011174#.UrhvnfRDso4

There's abundant evidence that many dinosaur species protected their young and would've kept them safe from predation, in a manner similar to modern birds.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Hmm, it looks like this thread has become stagnant. I'll just bump it with yet another request for Justa to provide even a single source that gives evidence of the pattern he claims exists. Although I'm pretty certain that if he does respond it will fail to provide this evidence and will instead be yet another transparent evasion.

 

[Strathos]

Hmm, it looks like this thread has become stagnant. I'll just bump it with yet another request for Justa to provide even a single source that gives evidence of the pattern he claims exists. Although I'm pretty certain that if he does respond it will fail to provide this evidence and will instead be yet another transparent evasion.

Which pattern would that be?

 

[EternalDragon]

Dinosaurs weren't even the only animals to go extinct around that time. Mammals, insects, even certain types of birds went out, too. Your lack of knowledge on this subject is simply astounding.



Most mammals we find around the time of the dinosaurs were quite small. If you're seriously suggesting that mammals ATE dinosaurs to extinction - especially when, at the time, dinosaurs were rather dominant on this planet - you're living in a complete fantasy land.



Really? Hm.

You are aware that pterosaurs went extinct around this time, correct? You know - large, flying reptiles. So komodo dragon young could escape the predators...but not the massive, winged reptiles that were perhaps even capable of soaring across oceans? Also, you assume that no species of dinosaur were capable of doing that? And what about all the species of reptiles, living today, that aren't capable of such evasion?

Right.

You are totally glossing over the fact that not many creatures came off the Ark into a vastly different climate and world. That the flood is responsible for those mass extinctions.

 

[Black Akuma]

You are totally glossing over the fact that not many creatures came off the Ark into a vastly different climate and world.

You have a very loose definition of the word 'fact'.

Anyway, you've yet to demonstrate how this 'vastly different' climate and world led to the pattern of extinction we observe. In fact, you haven't even specified what these differences are, you just keep saying they exist and that they're responsible.

That the flood is responsible for those mass extinctions.

So let me get this straight.

God floods the world.

Puts a bunch of animals on the Ark to save them from the Flood.

After the Flood, most of the animals die out, anyway...because of the Flood.

Does that really make sense to you?

 

[EternalDragon]

You have a very loose definition of the word 'fact'.

Anyway, you've yet to demonstrate how this 'vastly different' climate and world led to the pattern of extinction we observe. In fact, you haven't even specified what these differences are, you just keep saying they exist and that they're responsible.



So let me get this straight.

God floods the world.

Puts a bunch of animals on the Ark to save them from the Flood.

After the Flood, most of the animals die out, anyway...because of the Flood.

Does that really make sense to you?

Some died out, not most, while others adapted and produced the variety of species we see today.

Yes, it makes sense and the evidence for it is in the earth.

 

[Black Akuma]

Some died out, not most

It was most.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Yes, it makes sense

What was the point of saving all the animals from a flood that was just going to kill them,
anyway?

and the evidence for it is in the earth.

When you find it, let the rest of us know. Because, so far, all we've found is a bunch of evidence that seems to suggest there was no Flood.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Which pattern would that be?

Justa believes that the fossil record, when you look at it from bottom to top, shows a pattern consisting of dense animals like clams, followed by small organisms followed by large organisms. So far he has not provided a single piece of support for this. Which is not surprising; it's very difficult to prove the existence of an imaginary pattern.

According to his own logic, which requires that the Flood produce this pattern, the lack of this pattern disproves the Flood.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Some died out, not most, while others adapted and produced the variety of species we see today.

Yes, it makes sense and the evidence for it is in the earth.

Perhaps you could explain specifically what we see "in the earth" to support the idea of the Flood. So far Justa has attempted to convince us that the Flood is proven by a pattern in the fossils that doesn't actually exist. What have you got?

And again, the shape of the Grand Canyon is sufficient to disprove the Flood. You seem unwilling to address this point, let alone refute it.

 

[Damian79]

You have to also consider that where a lot of human beings are... large animals seem to die. Even so there have been numerous sightings of pterodactyls in papua new guinea for example. Even though i am not either way about this i think it would be interesting to see and breed live dinosaurs!

 

[Black Akuma]

even so there have been numerous sightings of pterodactyls in papua new guinea for example.

And this is relevant because...

 

[Damian79]

I was saying that the flood didnt kill them even if there was a flood man killed them?