What Would Falsify the Flood?

[keith99]

And I repeat, you claim is that the Amelekites - proud desert warriors, was your phrase, cleaned 80 millions man years of dung, garbage, bones, cemeteries, middens, tracks, campfire scars, not to mention the environmental damage caused to the fragile desert ecosystems.

Their ENEMIES' garbage?

And where did it all go? Where are the garbage heaps, the compact heaps, the incinerators?

The traces don't exist. If the Hebrews squirreled around in the Sinai for 40 years, they left no traces. Not even secondary clean-up traces.

Either god did it, or it didn't happen. If you claim god did it, you're adding to the bible. which you claim you're not doing.

Guess what's left?

Manna from heaven evaporates leaving no trace after 24 hours.

Same for any dung.

And eating it keeps one warm, so no fires needed.

Since they had no way to make new stuff it was important to leave nothing behind.

Save of course footprints, btu the wind took care of those lang ago.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Manna from heaven evaporates leaving no trace after 24 hours.

Same for any dung.

And eating it keeps one warm, so no fires needed.

Since they had no way to make new stuff it was important to leave nothing behind.

Save of course footprints, btu the wind took care of those lang ago.

No. Manna only evaporates if don't get it before the sun melts it, I believe. And you can keep it - it just goes bad.

And dung does NOT evaporate without trace after 24 hours. And did the flicks and herds eat manna? What about their dung?

And no, manna doesn't keep you warm without fires.

And Now you're just adding things to the bible that aren't there. Of course they made new things. Read Numbers.

80 million man years of occupancy leave traces. And wandering tribes don't carry broken crap around with them.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Manna only evaporates if don't get it before the sun melts it, I believe. And you can keep it - it just goes bad.

And dung does NOT evaporate without trace after 24 hours. And did the flicks and herds eat manna? What about their dung?

And no, manna doesn't keep you warm without fires.

And Now you're just adding things to the bible that aren't there. Of course they made new things. Read Numbers.

80 million man years of occupancy leave traces. And wandering tribes don't carry broken crap around with them.

May I suggest, if you're so hung up on finding feces in the desert, that you go look yourself?

I assume you think there's a difference between Hebrew feces and Amalekite feces?

Deuteronomy 23:13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:
14 For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

May I suggest, if you're so hung up on finding feces in the desert, that you go look yourself?

I assume you think there's a difference between Hebrew feces and Amalekite feces?

Deuteronomy 23:13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:
14 For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.

Your remark contributes nothing to the discussion.

If the Hebrews had spent 40 years in the Sinai, there would be evidence. There isn't. You're the one that wants the proud Amelekites to become janitors, not me. You're the one claiming things not mentioned in the bible, not me.

The intelligent conclusion would be that there were no Hebrews in the desert for 40 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your remark contributes nothing to the discussion.

So what?

I contribute nothing to discussions on creationism too, and they won't believe me.

If the Hebrews had spent 40 years in the Sinai, there would be evidence.

Then find it, or else quit belly-aching about my beliefs.

There isn't.

How do you know? were you there?

You're the one that wants the proud Amelekites to become janitors, not me.

I'm sure if a big dog did #2 in your yard, you would either clean it up yourself, or have someone else do it, eh?

You're the one claiming things not mentioned in the bible, not me.

I do that from time-to-time. It tends to keep Internet scientists from ranting about God-of-the-Gaps.

And if macroevolution can be supported by missing links, please don't whine that we support our believes with suppositions and expect me to take it with anything other than a grain of salt.

In short, don't call what you believe "science;" but then, call what we believe "religion."

The intelligent conclusion would be that there were no Hebrews in the desert for 40 years.

Intelligence is a matter or quotient, isn't it?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

So what?

I contribute nothing to discussions on creationism too, and they won't believe me.

Then find it, or else quit belly-aching about my beliefs.

How do you know? were you there?

I'm sure if a big dog did #2 in your yard, you would either clean it up yourself, or have someone else do it, eh?

I do that from time-to-time. It tends to keep Internet scientists from ranting about God-of-the-Gaps.

And if macroevolution can be supported by missing links, please don't whine that we support our believes with suppositions and expect me to take it with anything other than a grain of salt.

In short, don't call what you believe "science;" but then, call what we believe "religion."

Intelligence is a matter or quotient, isn't it?

I had forgotten your inability to contribute any meaningful content to these discussions.

I will leave you to your faith.

If anyone else wishes to discuss science and its relationship to religion, feel free.

 

[AV1611VET]

I had forgotten your inability to contribute any meaningful content to these discussions.

... That's quite alright.

I will leave you to your faith.

And I shall do likewise.

If anyone else wishes to discuss science and its relationship to religion, feel free.

Unfortunately today, science is to religion what tares are to wheat.

 

[Split Rock]

Your remark contributes nothing to the discussion.

If the Hebrews had spent 40 years in the Sinai, there would be evidence. There isn't. You're the one that wants the proud Amelekites to become janitors, not me. You're the one claiming things not mentioned in the bible, not me.

The intelligent conclusion would be that there were no Hebrews in the desert for 40 years.

I'm not at all convinced that we would find such evidence. 40 years isn't very long and we have no real idea where to look for such evidence. The Sinai desert is a big place.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I had forgotten your inability to contribute any meaningful content to these discussions.

I will leave you to your faith.

If anyone else wishes to discuss science and its relationship to religion, feel free.

It is an interesting problem. The desert preserves unexpected traces; I think I read a paper doing the math a while ago - ill look it up.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it's hardly fair to call them lies unless the Priest himself doesn't believe them.

I already tried that line here: 176

But since a Nonchristian said it now, perhaps it'll carry weight?

 

[juvenissun]

If someone is going to claim that the evidence supports a recent global flood then they must also be prepared to show how a recent global flood is falsifiable. IOW, if any possible observation supports the flood, then no observation supports the flood. The flood needs to be falsifiable in order for people to claim that they have evidence that supports it.

Therefore, the question is simple and mainly aimed at YEC's who claim that a recent global flood is supported by the evidence. What features would a geologic feature need in order to falsify a recent global flood?

If the earth had no ocean.

 

[Strathos]

If the earth had no ocean.

If the claim is that there was enough water to cover the highest mountains, but then it somehow receded, you would need to say God made it disappear. If He was willing and able to do that, He could also make the rest of the oceans disappear, or make oceans appear. So that wouldn't falsify it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the claim is that there was enough water to cover the highest mountains, but then it somehow receded, you would need to say God made it disappear. If He was willing and able to do that, He could also make the rest of the oceans disappear, or make oceans appear. So that wouldn't falsify it.

One theory I once put forward ... (but I don't care for it, myself) ... is that God could have gently squeezed the sides of the earth until the water rose above the highest mountains.

 

[Strathos]

That... doesn't make much sense

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

It's falsifiable if there is no evidence of living things that would not normally be together buried by drowning in diff. parts of the world, if there is no indication of large graveyards of drowned organisms in diff. parts of the Earth, if formations like The Grand Canyon cannot form rapidly, if there are no corroborating flood stories from various post-Flood civilizations & if there is no evidence of Noah & his descendants leaving their mark on humanity. Not every possible observation will support the flood, that's nonsense. Rather, certain things are consistent with the flood, without "proving it" per se. I'm not very skilled in geology. My areas are more biology, chemistry & environmental science. So I would not know of any particular geologic features that would falsify it but I have heard of certain features put up as a rebuttal, that have been dealt with by YEC geologists.

 

[AV1611VET]

That... doesn't make much sense

Miracles usually don't.

Another theory I put forward, is that God could have just pushed His hand down into the sea and made the water rise.

Again though, it doesn't jive with the Documentation.

 

[rikerjoe]

Miracles usually don't.

Another theory I put forward, is that God could have just pushed His hand down into the sea and made the water rise.

Hypothesis at best...

Again though, it doesn't jive with the Documentation.

and according to your own "boolean standard", if it doesn't jive with the Documentation, it can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hypothesis at best...

Yes ... hypothesis ... thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Up till the synod of Nicaea the proto Christians did not believe Jesus was God but a messiah (liberator).

I don't believe that.

Mark 2:7b who can forgive sins but God only?

 

[Tomk80]

No you didn't. You simply have ruled out one possibility that you imagined. Your observations have no effect on reality at all. So what you imagined may have happened, has not been supported. There are still an infinite number of alternate explanations for the evidence you have found. You can't do direct scientific examination of historical events.

Yes, you did. If you have ruled out a possibility that you hypothesized, you have falsified it. That's the whole point. Yes, there may be other hypotheses, but the one hypothesis that you had, has been discarded, falsified.

And you do not have to have an effect on reality to make observations on what happens to it. There are whole fields of science doing this, both on current and historical event. To say this is to portray a complete ignorance of science.

Also, a whole bunch of science uses indirect observations. This is perfectly valid. Many fields use proxies for the observation of an event or measurement of an exposure or quantity that cannot be measured directly. Again, to say that indirect observations cannot be used in science, portrays a profound ignorance of the scientific process.