What Would Falsify the Flood?

[Lethe]

Otherwise they would see ID in all the holes in evolution theory.

If you keep fetishizing pockets of ignorance, you're going to be awful sorry when they disappear.

 

[EternalDragon]

But there are concrete ways to date the strata... you just don't like them. But if you want to play that game, lets do it. Go ahead and explain how the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon were formed by the flood. In detail.

I was not there and no one else was so it's anyone's guess. Next?

 

[HitchSlap]

You are forgetting that others saw him, heard him and recorded his words.
.

Name one.

 

[HitchSlap]

I was not there and no one else was so it's anyone's guess. Next?

Wrong. We're able to study the natural world and draw reasonable conclusions from the data. There hundreds of thousands of people around the world who study these things so you don't have to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You may think that is the way it is but it isn't. Why would one scientist draw inferences and another already have a conclusion? If science is only about natural laws and allows no religion or whatever in, then their conclusion is that things happen through natural causes. They then draw inferences based on that first conclusion.

Otherwise they would see ID in all the holes in evolution theory.

By the way, how can you come to an inference without a conclusion first? Or rather without a presupposition first? For instance, you develope a good microscope and find a flagellum to be a tiny nanomachine that no human to date could construct that has the exact same characteristics of a machine that humans would and do build. Also one that without such a biological machine the main virus would cease to function. What would be the only conclusion? Or do you make up a way for it to fit your presumption?

What "holes" there are no holes in the theory of evolution.

And are you going back to the flagellum? We have that all but figured out, how it works, how it evolves.

Why do you keep going back to arguments that you lost?

Do you need to see the simplified video again?

Do you need to see the more complicated paper that has links to the many papers that helped to solve this problem?

Why do we have to keep reteaching you that 2 + 2 = 4 even though your interpretation of your holy book says that it is 5?


And look how different the explanations are on your side. AV is slightly different, he thinks 2 + 2 = 3 and Aman thinks 2 + 2 = 1,000, he is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was not there and no one else was so it's anyone's guess. Next?

The evidence is still there.

The evidence says that you are wrong.

Remember you cannot try to explain only a small part of the picture. Your explanation has to work as a whole. Creationists can't do that because their explanations are wrong.

 

[EternalDragon]

And are you going back to the flagellum? We have that all but figured out, how it works, how it evolves.

Well, how did the Helicobacter pylori survive the stomach acid of an organism while evolution was talking quite a long time to build up each part of it's flagellum? Does your video explain that?

 

[Loudmouth]

So any chance that Noah's family had longer telomeres because of less oxidative stress?

Any chance you will comment on the topic of the thread?

 

[Loudmouth]

O.k. Sure, but there is no concrete way to date the strata. Neither you nor I saw it build up or be deposited. So lets just forget about dates.

What's next?

So what evidence would you need to see in order to concede that a deposit is old?

 

[Loudmouth]

You may think that is the way it is but it isn't. Why would one scientist draw inferences and another already have a conclusion? If science is only about natural laws and allows no religion or whatever in, then their conclusion is that things happen through natural causes. They then draw inferences based on that first conclusion.

Otherwise they would see ID in all the holes in evolution theory.

By the way, how can you come to an inference without a conclusion first? Or rather without a presupposition first? For instance, you develope a good microscope and find a flagellum to be a tiny nanomachine that no human to date could construct that has the exact same characteristics of a machine that humans would and do build. Also one that without such a biological machine the main virus would cease to function. What would be the only conclusion? Or do you make up a way for it to fit your presumption?

Please read the topic of this thread.

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?

 

[lasthero]

I was not there and no one else was so it's anyone's guess. Next?

You really need to understand what a 'guess' is.

 

[Split Rock]

You may think that is the way it is but it isn't. Why would one scientist draw inferences and another already have a conclusion? If science is only about natural laws and allows no religion or whatever in, then their conclusion is that things happen through natural causes. They then draw inferences based on that first conclusion.

Yes, the one assumption we make is that natural phenomena can be explaned via natural laws and mechanisms. You are correct there. It is a reasonable assumption and one that has never failed. However, your assertions have been that common descent and an old earth are also assumptions, and this is wrong. We infer these conclusions by examining the evidence. They did not have to be... but they are.

Otherwise they would see ID in all the holes in evolution theory.

This is exactly how you guys do things, but not the way science works. You assert that I.D. is the default position, and any issues with evolution support I.D. by default. I call that "stacking the deck." Come up with evidence for I.D. and I will reconsider it.

By the way, how can you come to an inference without a conclusion first? Or rather without a presupposition first? For instance, you develope a good microscope and find a flagellum to be a tiny nanomachine that no human to date could construct that has the exact same characteristics of a machine that humans would and do build. Also one that without such a biological machine the main virus would cease to function. What would be the only conclusion? Or do you make up a way for it to fit your presumption?

What should the conclusion be? By itself, all you could conclude is that no human created it. Why do you leap to the conclusion that a nameless all-powerful entity created it and put it one earth to infect other organisms? (oh and btw, viruses don't have flagellum... you could use bacterium instead ).

 

[mzungu]

You are forgetting that others saw him, heard him and recorded his words.

What you are doing is using false logic since you switched the premise around. No one saw the sediments forming. Someone saw Jesus and his disciples and recorded it.

And who recorded God's creation of the universe or the creation of Adam? Since no one was there to record it then suffice it to say that according to your reasoning let us forget about God altogether right?

 

[HitchSlap]

Well, how did the Helicobacter pylori survive the stomach acid of an organism while evolution was talking quite a long time to build up each part of it's flagellum? Does your video explain that?

Reminds me of O'Really's folly: "The tides go in, the tides go out. You can't explain that!"

 

[EternalDragon]

And who recorded God's creation of the universe or the creation of Adam? Since no one was there to record it then suffice it to say that according to your reasoning let us forget about God altogether right?

Perhaps you are ignorant as to where Moses got the information for the books he wrote.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps you are ignorant as to where Moses got the information for the books he wrote.

Perhaps you are.

 

[EternalDragon]

What should the conclusion be? By itself, all you could conclude is that no human created it. Why do you leap to the conclusion that a nameless all-powerful entity created it and put it one earth to infect other organisms? (oh and btw, viruses don't have flagellum... you could use bacterium instead ).

Sorry and thanks for the correction. Bacteria.

So how do you propose the Helicobacter pylori avoided the stomach acid without a flagellum and having it develop over a long period of time?

 

[CabVet]

Sorry and thanks for the correction. Bacteria.

So how do you propose the Helicobacter pylori avoided the stomach acid without a flagellum and having it develop over a long period of time?

Simple, there are many free-living bacteria with flagella, so flagellum came first, stomach parasitism later. Regardless, the latest evidence suggests that the flagellum is not even that important for their survival in the stomach anyways:

H. pylori alters its environment to move through the stomach | Ars Technica

Now that this, along with all other "ID" arguments that you posted here were debunked, feel free to ignore our responses and move on to the next.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry and thanks for the correction. Bacteria.

So how do you propose the Helicobacter pylori avoided the stomach acid without a flagellum and having it develop over a long period of time?

It avoided the stomach acid by living outside of the stomach. You will find that there are millions of bacterial species with flagellum that live outside of the stomach.

Once it evolved a flagellum, it used this feature to adapt to the environment in the stomach.

So, back to the topic.

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?

 

[EternalDragon]

Perhaps you are.

Maybe. So tell me where an old desert Nomad sheep herder with a stutter got to be such a prolific writer as to write the entire history of Israel? Down to the genealogy, precise creation details, numerous laws, etc.? He must have been one awesome dude.