What Would Falsify the Flood?

[Loudmouth]

Still waiting for a creationist to address 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]

Still waiting for a creationist to address 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?

They would have both features because both activities took place and we see those features. What you are asking is idiotic.

 

[HitchSlap]

They would have both features because both activities took place and we see those features. What you are asking is idiotic.

Will you answer my T. roseae question? Did Shubin effectively use ToE to predict and discover an unknown tetrapod, or was he just lucky?

 

[EternalDragon]

Will you answer my T. roseae question? Did Shubin effectively use ToE to predict and discover an unknown tetrapod, or was he just lucky?

I would say he was just lucky. He accidentally saw the skull sticking out a cliff. Not where they were digging. Maybe he just made up the rest so it sounded good to the press. You were not there, I was not there.

Besides, similarities proves nothing other than....similarities.

 

[Split Rock]

They would have both features because both activities took place and we see those features. What you are asking is idiotic.

What "both features" are you referring to ?

 

[Split Rock]

I would say he was just lucky. He accidentally saw the skull sticking out a cliff. Not where they were digging. Maybe he just made up the rest so it sounded good to the press. You were not there, I was not there.

Besides, similarities proves nothing other than....similarities.

So because you were not there, he is a liar. Aren't you the one who tells everyone else not to call people liars because they disagree with you?

He also looked in a particular place in the column and found it where it was expected. It isn't just "similarities."

 

[Loudmouth]

They would have both features because both activities took place and we see those features. What you are asking is idiotic.

What you answered was idiotic. I am asking for potential falsifications. Please read for comprehension.

What features would a geologic feature need in order to falsify a recent global flood?

IOW, what features would a recent global flood not produce?

 

[Loudmouth]

I would say he was just lucky. He accidentally saw the skull sticking out a cliff. Not where they were digging. Maybe he just made up the rest so it sounded good to the press. You were not there, I was not there.

Besides, similarities proves nothing other than....similarities.

So when the evidence stacks up against you, just claim that the evidence is lies. So much for using the same evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

I would say he was just lucky. He accidentally saw the skull sticking out a cliff. Not where they were digging. Maybe he just made up the rest so it sounded good to the press. You were not there, I was not there.

Besides, similarities proves nothing other than....similarities.

Wrong.... again.

Your ignorance, coupled with a massive dose of theocentric arrogance is second to none. Kudos.

Dr. Shubin's discovery is a rock solid example of using the predictive quality of a robust theory to determine where we should find a 375myo transitional tetrapod, and he did! This is how science works, and there are thousands of similar examples of this. To be a creationist is to deliberately ignore the facts and choosing to be "dumb on purpose."

 

[EternalDragon]

Wrong.... again.

Your ignorance, coupled with a massive dose of theocentric arrogance is second to none. Kudos.

Dr. Shubin's discovery is a rock solid example of using the predictive quality of a robust theory to determine where we should find a 375myo transitional tetrapod, and he did! This is how science works, and there are thousands of similar examples of this. To be a creationist is to deliberately ignore the facts and choosing to be "dumb on purpose."

He didn't use the theory. He used the fact that fossils of a certain kind are found certain places. Then they found it in a cliff wall, not where they were digging. Further it is not a transitional species. It is a created kind with similar features of all the rest of the created kind by one designer using the same blueprints of what works best for organic life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And E.D. is stuck in denial again.

 

[lasthero]

He used the fact that fossils of a certain kind are found certain places.

A prediction of evolution.

Further it is not a transitional species.

How is it not? What would be a transitional species, by your definition?

 

[lasthero]

It is a created kind with similar features of all the rest of the created kind by one designer

And why 'one designer'? Why do you always assume that only one designer is involved? Why can't it be two? Or three? Or ten? How do you come to the conclusion that only one being had a hand in this?

 

[Loudmouth]

He didn't use the theory.

Yeah, he did. He knew that the transitional between Panderichthys and Acanthostega had to be in sediment that had an age between those two species. That is exactly the type of sediment that he found the transitional in. He used the theory to find sediment of the right age.

Then they found it in a cliff wall, not where they were digging.

It was the same layer of sediment.

Further it is not a transitional species.

Based on what criteria? What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional?

 

[Split Rock]

He didn't use the theory. He used the fact that fossils of a certain kind are found certain places. Then they found it in a cliff wall, not where they were digging. Further it is not a transitional species. It is a created kind with similar features of all the rest of the created kind by one designer using the same blueprints of what works best for organic life.

He found a fishapod... where there are never any amphibians, frogs, lizards, reptiles, mammals. Just where it was expected. Now, if you want to explain why there are fishapods in that strata, and not amphibians, frogs, lizards, reptiles, or mammals, using creationism/I.D., then please do so.

 

[lasthero]

Tiktaalik had a neck, for crying out loud.

A neck!

 

[Split Rock]

Tiktaalik had a neck, for crying out loud.

A neck!

That's because God made it that way... and that neck is fully formed!! (don't ask me what that means, because I have no clue)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have just noticed your post count, what's the story behind that?

We all have our faults. AV is a bit OCD. Here is a link to some of his "posts":


http://www.christianforums.com/t7770300/

 

[AV1611VET]

I have just noticed your post count, what's the story behind that?

... It keeps going up!

 

[HitchSlap]

... It keeps going up!

Just in case you're right, and you have to kneel before your god, and give an account, he'll be amazed to know you had over 1,000,00,00,00,00,000,000,000,000,00 posts. Then he'll say, well done good and faithful interwebz poster, come into my palace and eat fresh donuts with me.