What Would Falsify the Flood?

[Black Akuma]

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

Are those the only two options? Flood or Man?

 

[EternalDragon]

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.

I think you are unwilling to accept any refuting. All evidence shows the Grand Canyon was not formed over a long period of time. Scientists are so hooked on long ages that it is all they see or want to see.

 

[Damian79]

Are those the only two options? Flood or Man?

Of course not.

 

[Black Akuma]

I think you are unwilling to accept any refuting. All evidence shows the Grand Canyon was not formed over a long period of time. Scientists are so hooked on long ages that it is all they see or want to see.

No reasoning to support your statements, not a single shred of empirical evidence to back it up; just a bald-faced, naked assertion.

'I'm right! I just am!'

Weak.

No, ED, all the evidence does show that the Grand Canyon was formed over large periods of time. It has a meandering pattern that is not consistent with anything that's ever been formed by a flood. It has deposits that ONLY form in dry environments. You can kick and scream all you like, but simply saying the evidence is on your side doesn't make it so. There's a reason you have to look so hard to find a creationist geologist, and it's not because scientists have some sort of inexplicable fondness for calling things old.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I think you are unwilling to accept any refuting. All evidence shows the Grand Canyon was not formed over a long period of time. Scientists are so hooked on long ages that it is all they see or want to see.

A fairly classic evasion. Implying that you have an excellent answer but don't want to share it. Fairly transparent; if you really could explain the meanders you would have been eager to do so.

I would certainly accept a valid refutation of my argument. Such a refutation would consist of some evidence that high-volume, high-energy flows can create meandering channels. That's all you have to provide and I will consider my argument soundly refuted. Remember that simply asserting that they can is not evidence and is in fact contradicted by the evidence.

 

[Black Akuma]

One more thing before I go to bed.

I know you don't accept radiometric dating, ED, but there's this little coincidence I'd like you to ponder.

Scientists have the extinction event that killed the dinosaurs - and a lot of other things - dated to about 65 million years ago.

In the Gulf of Mexico, there's this massive - 100+ miles - crater, that just so happens to date to 65 million years.

And there's this thin layer of clay all over the planet with iridium, an element found relatively little on Earth...except from meteors. And this layer also dates 65 million years.

Funny how that all works out.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you are unwilling to accept any refuting. All evidence shows the Grand Canyon was not formed over a long period of time. Scientists are so hooked on long ages that it is all they see or want to see.

Indeed.

Another word that confuses them is "formed."

They go to school and learn that everything was "formed," and it sets up a mental block they can't get around.

I wonder if they think angels were formed?

 

[EternalDragon]

A fairly classic evasion. Implying that you have an excellent answer but don't want to share it. Fairly transparent; if you really could explain the meanders you would have been eager to do so.

I would certainly accept a valid refutation of my argument. Such a refutation would consist of some evidence that high-volume, high-energy flows can create meandering channels. That's all you have to provide and I will consider my argument soundly refuted. Remember that simply asserting that they can is not evidence and is in fact contradicted by the evidence.

You have heard of "uplift" right?

Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood - Answers in Genesis

The Grand Canyon: Evidence in Support of Biblical Catastrophe

The Grand Canyon and the Age of the Earth - A Christian Scientist's View - Probe Ministries

 

[TLK Valentine]

Indeed.

Another word that confuses them is "formed."

They go to school and learn that everything was "formed," and it sets up a mental block they can't get around.

I wonder if they think angels were formed?

They weren't. Next red herring, AV?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You have heard of "uplift" right?

Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood - Answers in Genesis

The Grand Canyon: Evidence in Support of Biblical Catastrophe

The Grand Canyon and the Age of the Earth - A Christian Scientist's View - Probe Ministries

Nice try, but this evasion is no less transparent than the last. I challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever that the meandering shape op the Grande Canyon could be the result of a catastrophic deluge and you link me to three pages that don't even mention the meanders. Plus uplift has nothing to do with creating meandering channels.

Try again, but this time actually addressing the point I made. Unless you're conceding the point that the meanders couldn't have been the product of a catastrophic flow which is what your continued evasions imply.

 

[Strathos]

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.

I see.

 

[EternalDragon]

Nice try, but this evasion is no less transparent than the last. I challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever that the meandering shape op the Grande Canyon could be the result of a catastrophic deluge and you link me to three pages that don't even mention the meanders. Plus uplift has nothing to do with creating meandering channels.

Try again, but this time actually addressing the point I made. Unless you're conceding the point that the meanders couldn't have been the product of a catastrophic flow which is what your continued evasions imply.

The layers of the Grand Canyon were deposited by the flood and the river in the Grand Canyon was created by left over waters from the flood, over thousands of years, not millions. That is what the evidence is implying.

 

[Black Akuma]

The layers of the Grand Canyon were deposited by the flood and the river in the Grand Canyon was created by left over waters from the flood, over thousands of years, not millions. That is what the evidence is implying.

What features would we need to look for in order to falsify this?

 

[Kylie]

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?

Yeah, this doesn't work.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the fossil record to have been laid down during a single flood, and the proof is very simple.

We have features in particular layers that can only have been produced if those features were open to the air. We have the tubes built by worms. We have wave marks. We have raindrop impacts.

Worms build their tubes so they can come to the surface to get air. Why would they do this in the midst of sediment being buried under floodwaters?

Wave ripples in rock indicate that the layer was at the surface and had shallow water lapping over it, which then receded, the mud dried out and formed stone before then being covered with another layer of silt.

And raindrop impacts in stone indicate that the layer they appear in was soft mud, then it rained. The mud then dried and turned to stone before being covered by a new layer of sediment

NONE of these things can happen unless the layers were formed at two different times, and yet you insist that they were formed at once.

How can you have air breathing worms building tubes buried deep in sediment? How can you have shallow water waves washing over sediment that is buried under more sediment? And how can you have raindrop impacts underwater? You can't.

 

[EternalDragon]

Yeah, this doesn't work.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the fossil record to have been laid down during a single flood, and the proof is very simple.

We have features in particular layers that can only have been produced if those features were open to the air. We have the tubes built by worms. We have wave marks. We have raindrop impacts.

Worms build their tubes so they can come to the surface to get air. Why would they do this in the midst of sediment being buried under floodwaters?

Wave ripples in rock indicate that the layer was at the surface and had shallow water lapping over it, which then receded, the mud dried out and formed stone before then being covered with another layer of silt.

And raindrop impacts in stone indicate that the layer they appear in was soft mud, then it rained. The mud then dried and turned to stone before being covered by a new layer of sediment

NONE of these things can happen unless the layers were formed at two different times, and yet you insist that they were formed at once.

How can you have air breathing worms building tubes buried deep in sediment? How can you have shallow water waves washing over sediment that is buried under more sediment? And how can you have raindrop impacts underwater? You can't.

I've seen worms come up from the ground in a rain storm only to then drown. What's to stop them trying to get to the surface during a flood?

What layers are you talking about? Upper layers that have formed in the thousands of years since the flood gradually receded or deeper layers formed while the flood was happening?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've seen worms come up from the ground in a rain storm only to then drown. What's to stop them trying to get to the surface during a flood?

What layers are you talking about? Upper layers that have formed in the thousands of years since the flood gradually receded or deeper layers formed while the flood was happening?

The deeper layers will have the same traits as shallow layers.

 

[Black Akuma]

What's to stop them trying to get to the surface during a flood?

Water pressure, I'd imagine.

 

[EternalDragon]

The deeper layers will have the same traits as shallow layers.

What layers exactly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What layers exactly?

Any layers.

If you can name a "deep layer" and its traits that mean it was supposedly deposited early I can find a much younger one that will have the same traits.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I think you are unwilling to accept any refuting. All evidence shows the Grand Canyon was not formed over a long period of time. Scientists are so hooked on long ages that it is all they see or want to see.

Just a test post to see if I can resolve my inability to get to the next page. But I will take this opportunity to suggest you find support for the notion that meanders can form as the result of high-velocity flows if you haven't already.