What Would Falsify the Flood?

[Subduction Zone]

You are the only one I have ever heard saying the flood was five miles deep and that water came from space. I suppose you are saying that to add dramatic flare?

I have seen creationists claim that water came from space. Remember Kent (I am a tax cheat) Hovind and his "canopy theory"? And how tall is Mt. Everest?

Why do you keep forgetting past points that have been made? We already covered why all sediments, mountains, etc. had to be almost identical 4,500 years ago.

Subduction raised the ocean floor a bit and the rest came from rain water and some from underground water. (We still have water underground by the way.)

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And yes, I know about ground water. It is extremely well understood.

Some sea life did die. That is why we find it in sediment layers. I suppose a fish fossilized eating another fish is your idea of slow formation?

I said that there are rare cases of rapid deposition. One case does not debunk the millions of cases of slow deposition.

And on the topic of fossils, for the ones in solid rock to from like that it takes quick permineralization or authigenic mineralisation. Unless you want to debate with the experts that those do not exist, then drop your "no evidence of a flood" claim.

Let's see the links to the appropriate articles then. Don't use lying creationist sources. If this is true you can find real science that backs you up.

 

[lasthero]

You are the only one I have ever heard saying the flood was five miles deep and that water came from space

The Fountains of Noah's Flood and the Windows of Heaven

The Great Flood

And it took me no longer than two minutes to find them. And my computer has viruses out the wazoo, today.

I suppose a fish fossilized eating another fish is your idea of slow formation?

A fish died while it was in the process of eating another fish. They were both fossilized. How is that evidence for anything, let alone a global flood?

for the ones in solid rock to from like that it takes quick permineralization or authigenic mineralisation.

How is that evidence for a global flood? You don't think such things could happen without it?

 

[OllieFranz]

I guess everyone here needs to "repent of our false teachings," since you are the only one here (evolutionist or creationist) who believes in this alternative world-was-destroyed idea. You are in a Church of One along with dad. You must be very special, indeed...

I have physical evidence that supports my claim. If your claims are correct you should be able to find support in the physical world too. So far no creationist has found any supporting evidence.

Aman's theory that the Garden in Eden was on another planet (another Earth), one which may have been destroyed in the flood, while unique among the current posters in this forum, is not entirely unheard of. There are some LDS (Mormon) doctrines I read once, many years ago, that, IIRC, posit that God began as human as we are (but on another Earth) and when He achieved His Godhood, He was given our Earth to rule. And whenever a Mormon patriarch acheives godhood, he too will be given his own Earth to rule over. I'm can't remember if this part agrees with the LDS story I once read, but apparently Aman believes that the Earth Adam was created/born on was destroyed, and God brought the survivors (most likely Noah's family on the Ark) to a new home on our Earth.

Accordingly, there will be no evidence on this Earth of events that occured on the other planet. Anan has a ready answer for most of the objections that trip up other Creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And back to the fish eating the fish, as others have pointed out fish die. They can die for all sorts of reasons. It is possible that this fish even ate a fish that was too large for it. If the prey got stuck going down couldn't that have killed the other fish? What sort of sediment was it buried in? How fast can that sediment be deposited at? We know from studying floods how well they sort sediments (not too well it turns out). We know by observing deposition today how fast certain strata would build up (and not too fast it turns out).

We have gone over and over why the topography would be the same. The best you can do is to come up with pipe dreams. In science pipe dreams don't fly. You need a testable idea, a hypothesis. Otherwise you have nothing. I could propose all sorts of nonsense about how Jesus was just an ordinary person, without any evidence you would not accept it. Well face it, even with evidence you would not accept it, but without evidence you would simply laugh and perhaps call it blasphemy. And for once you would be right, except for the blasphemy part.

Claims must be supported by evidence, science is based upon testable hypotheses. Without those all you have is mere speculation and that is worthless.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are the only one I have ever heard saying the flood was five miles deep and that water came from space. I suppose you are saying that to add dramatic flare?

Subduction raised the ocean floor a bit and the rest came from rain water and some from underground water. (We still have water underground by the way.)

Some sea life did die. That is why we find it in sediment layers. I suppose a fish fossilized eating another fish is your idea of slow formation?

And on the topic of fossils, for the ones in solid rock to from like that it takes quick permineralization or authigenic mineralisation. Unless you want to debate with the experts that those do not exist, then drop your "no evidence of a flood" claim.

Still waiting for you to address the topic of the thread.

What features would a geologic formation need in order for it to falsify a recent global flood?

If you can not answer this question then it is a tacit admission that no matter what features a geologic formation has you will claim that a flood produced it. IOW, you have already concluded that a flood produced the geology we see before even looking at the geology. You start with the conclusion, and ignore any evidence that contradicts that conclusion.

 

[EternalDragon]

I suppose so.



The question was meant for Eddy, the person I was responding to initially, who postulated that the Flood would have killed sea animals and sea plants first. I apologize for the confusion.

Some of them, yes.

If you look at the drawings of the neat fossil layers evolutionist put in books, you will see small to large sorting. Larger dead bodies not already water creatures will tend to float longer and be buried later.

I suspect though that fossil layers are not all neat and orderly as they show in artists renderings. Fossils are found out of sequence all the time and explained away just as quickly.

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

Fossil Sorting During the Biblical Flood

 

[Loudmouth]

Some of them, yes.

If you look at the drawings of the neat fossil layers evolutionist put in books, you will see small to large sorting. Larger dead bodies not already water creatures will tend to float longer and be buried later.

I suspect though that fossil layers are not all neat and orderly as they show in artists renderings. Fossils are found out of sequence all the time and explained away just as quickly.

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

Fossil Sorting During the Biblical Flood

Does it even matter if there are neat fossil layers and if all the fossils are in sequence? You will just claim that they were produced by the flood anyway, won't you? Is there any evidence that you would ever accept as being inconsistent with a recent global flood?

 

[EternalDragon]

Still waiting for you to address the topic of the thread.

What features would a geologic formation need in order for it to falsify a recent global flood?

Features we do not see on the earth today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some of them, yes.

If you look at the drawings of the neat fossil layers evolutionist put in books, you will see small to large sorting. Larger dead bodies not already water creatures will tend to float longer and be buried later.

I suspect though that fossil layers are not all neat and orderly as they show in artists renderings. Fossils are found out of sequence all the time and explained away just as quickly.

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

Fossil Sorting During the Biblical Flood

No, there are fossils of all sizes through most of the fossil record.

Worse yet you cannot explain the sorting of microscopic index fossils:


Index fossils - Paleontology and Geology Glossary

Nanofossils are microscopic fossils (the remains of calcareous nannoplankton, coccolithophores) from various eras. Nanofossils are very abundant, widely distributed geographically, and time-specific, because of their high evolutionary rates. There are enormous numbers of useful nanofossils, including radiolarians and foraminifera. Nanofossils are the primary method of dating marine sediments.

No creationist yet has come up with a suitable explanation of why these different forams etc. are found only in very specific layers world wide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Features we do not see on the earth today.

Wrong answer.

You know that the features we see on the Earth today deny a flood.

 

[lasthero]

Larger dead bodies not already water creatures will tend to float longer and be buried later.

In my experience, dead things all sink. But what you're proposing actually sounds testable, so I'd like to see some tests on it, some experimentation. Why do - as you claim, anyway - animals like whales and dolphins tend to float longer than fish? And how come sea-going reptiles, like pleisiosaurs, aren't found alongside the whales and dolphins, if this is true?

I suspect though that fossil layers are not all neat and orderly as they show in artists renderings.

They're not. And an atom doesn't look like this, either.

In a world where earth is constantly shifting around and moving things are never going to be that neat all over. The diagrams you see in textbooks are meant to give you the general idea.

 

[Split Rock]

Features we do not see on the earth today.

So... by default, any feature we find in the geolgical column is support for the flood... correct? As I said before, if any and everything is evidence for the flood, then nothing is evidence for the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some of them, yes.

If you look at the drawings of the neat fossil layers evolutionist put in books, you will see small to large sorting. Larger dead bodies not already water creatures will tend to float longer and be buried later.

I suspect though that fossil layers are not all neat and orderly as they show in artists renderings. Fossils are found out of sequence all the time and explained away just as quickly.

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

Fossil Sorting During the Biblical Flood

Your first article is about the possibility that there may have been a predecessor to tiktaalik. And that is not a problem for evolution. Land based fossils are extremely rare and finding the very few first land species could take quite a while. Perhaps you should ask what certain articles mean.

Your second source is laughable. The science is horrendously bad and still ignores the problem of microscopic index fossils.

 

[EternalDragon]

Does it even matter if there are neat fossil layers and if all the fossils are in sequence? You will just claim that they were produced by the flood anyway, won't you? Is there any evidence that you would ever accept as being inconsistent with a recent global flood?

It really does not matter what anyone could come up with. Evolution will just explain it away. "Well, this branched off of that and evolved but the main species just kept reproducing and that is why we find both in strata farther up". Or "Evolution does trial and error so that is why they are out of place".

That is the magical thing about the evolution theory. It can make up any illusion it wants to to fill in the gaps of the actual evidence. Creationism doesn't need to fill in the gaps. The evidence shows exactly what would be predicted. No need to jump over hurdles and duck under the gaps.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In my experience, dead things all sink. But what you're proposing actually sounds testable, so I'd like to see some tests on it, some experimentation. Why do - as you claim, anyway - animals like whales and dolphins tend to float longer than fish? And how come sea-going reptiles, like pleisiosaurs, aren't found alongside the whales and dolphins, if this is true?



They're not. And an atom doesn't look like this, either.

In a world where earth is constantly shifting around and moving things are never going to be that neat all over. The diagrams you see in textbooks are meant to give you the general idea.

What!! Are you saying that physicists lie by making things simpler?

Creationists have a tendency to take things too literally.

 

[CabVet]

It really does not matter what anyone could come up with. Evolution will just explain it away. "Well, this branched off of that and evolved but the main species just kept reproducing and that is why we find both in strata farther up". Or "Evolution does trial and error so that is why they are out of place".

That is the magical thing about the evolution theory. It can make up any illusion it wants to to fill in the gaps of the actual evidence. Creationism doesn't need to fill in the gaps. The evidence shows exactly what would be predicted. No need to jump over hurdles and duck under the gaps.

Amazing. You demonstrate over and over again how you know nothing about evolution or the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It really does not matter what anyone could come up with. Evolution will just explain it away. "Well, this branched off of that and evolved but the main species just kept reproducing and that is why we find both in strata farther up". Or "Evolution does trial and error so that is why they are out of place".

That is the magical thing about the evolution theory. It can make up any illusion it wants to to fill in the gaps of the actual evidence. Creationism doesn't need to fill in the gaps. The evidence shows exactly what would be predicted. No need to jump over hurdles and duck under the gaps.

The reason that evolution can explain things away is because.... wait for it ...

Because it is correct. If evolution were false you could come up with some things that it had no explanation for. Just as Fludists cannot explain the fossil record. They can try to twist bits and pieces to follow their myth, but sooner or later reality shows them to be wrong in their claims.

And you have yet to find an "out of place" fossil. That is a gross untruth to even imply right now. An out of place fossil could take the whole theory down.

 

[Split Rock]

It really does not matter what anyone could come up with. Evolution will just explain it away. "Well, this branched off of that and evolved but the main species just kept reproducing and that is why we find both in strata farther up". Or "Evolution does trial and error so that is why they are out of place".

That is the magical thing about the evolution theory. It can make up any illusion it wants to to fill in the gaps of the actual evidence. Creationism doesn't need to fill in the gaps. The evidence shows exactly what would be predicted. No need to jump over hurdles and duck under the gaps.

What predictions does creationism make again??

 

[lasthero]

Creationism doesn't need to fill in the gaps

Also, I'm confused - when did we start talking about creationism? I ask because I could have sworn you - or at least many ID proponents - insisted creationism wasn't intelligent design, and yet...

 

[Loudmouth]

Features we do not see on the earth today.

Such as?