What Would Falsify the Flood?

[Loudmouth]

During the flood, they could.

What couldn't the flood do? What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a recent global flood?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And your incredibly poor reading comprehension strikes again. The topic was sedimentary rocks in that sentence, not fossils. Try again.


Ooh, an extremely minor point for you.

Sadly you are wrong in everything else.




And an incredible non sequitur. Wrong again. So incredibly wrong.



There is no "flood theory". You cannot find a link for one.



Snicker indeed.

After I warned you about conflating the rate of growth of individual corals with the rate of growth of the reef what did you do


What you just did was the same as conflating the rate of growth of trees in a forest with the rate of growth of the soil on the forest floor.

Care to try again?

You lost.

You did exactly what I warned you not to do. I was trying to keep you from looking like a fool and you ignored the warning.

You understand nothing Subduction and your comprehension of science is pathetic. You even admit that sedimentary processes other than water rarely hold fossils, then refuse to admit the logical conclussion, that almost everu single fossil bed found has been found in sedimentary rock created by water. Yes, a tiny fraction, less that 2% has been found in other rock types in extremely small quantities.

I don't need a link to your pseudoscientists for a flood theory, your lack of fossils in any other type of rock but sediments formed by water backs up flood theory whether they admit it or not. Fossils are indeed a rare event, except when there is a flood to cover up vast quantities of them, so that after some decay, thousands are still left.

A fact you can not overcome and even admit. You admit fossils are rarely found in processes that form sedimentary rock other than by water, then come to the incorrect conclussion water was not involved. man, I just love your double-talk and refusal to accept the evidence.

All you can do is make a broad claim of incorrectness, while at the same time admitting fossils are rarely found in rock formed by processes other than water. What is it like to live in that fantasy world of yours?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't need a link to your pseudoscientists for a flood theory, your lack of fossils in any other type of rock but sediments formed by water backs up flood theory whether they admit it or not.

What features would a fossil bearing strata need to have in order for you to accept it as being a non-aquatic deposition of fossils?

What would falsify a recent global flood? Or will you have an ad hoc rationalization no matter what the evidence is?

 

[Black Akuma]

I don't need a link to your pseudoscientists for a flood theory, your lack of fossils in any other type of rock but sediments formed by water backs up flood theory whether they admit it or not. Fossils are indeed a rare event, except when there is a flood to cover up vast quantities of them, so that after some decay, thousands are still left.

On a planet with lots of water, floods happen often. Occasionally they bury and fossilize things. So what?

 

[Black Akuma]

During the flood, they could.

Nope.

 

[Split Rock]

You understand nothing Subduction and your comprehension of science is pathetic. You even admit that sedimentary processes other than water rarely hold fossils, then refuse to admit the logical conclussion, that almost everu single fossil bed found has been found in sedimentary rock created by water. Yes, a tiny fraction, less that 2% has been found in other rock types in extremely small quantities.

I don't need a link to your pseudoscientists for a flood theory, your lack of fossils in any other type of rock but sediments formed by water backs up flood theory whether they admit it or not. Fossils are indeed a rare event, except when there is a flood to cover up vast quantities of them, so that after some decay, thousands are still left.

A fact you can not overcome and even admit. You admit fossils are rarely found in processes that form sedimentary rock other than by water, then come to the incorrect conclussion water was not involved. man, I just love your double-talk and refusal to accept the evidence.

All you can do is make a broad claim of incorrectness, while at the same time admitting fossils are rarely found in rock formed by processes other than water. What is it like to live in that fantasy world of yours?

In your fantasy world is it your contention that if water is involved in sedimentary rock formation that it:
A. Must be from a global flood, even though local floods occur all the time?
B. Must be from a global flood even if the rock is formed by quiescent waters over long period of time, like shale?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

During the flood, they could.

Just curious, upon what is this assertion based? It's obviously not based on the Bible, which mentions nothing about orogenic rates. It's even more obviously not based on any modern (i.e. the last many centuries) observations. So from what source do your draw support for the assertion that during the Flood orogeny occurred rapidly?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You understand nothing Subduction and your comprehension of science is pathetic. You even admit that sedimentary processes other than water rarely hold fossils, then refuse to admit the logical conclussion, that almost everu single fossil bed found has been found in sedimentary rock created by water. Yes, a tiny fraction, less that 2% has been found in other rock types in extremely small quantities.

I don't need a link to your pseudoscientists for a flood theory, your lack of fossils in any other type of rock but sediments formed by water backs up flood theory whether they admit it or not. Fossils are indeed a rare event, except when there is a flood to cover up vast quantities of them, so that after some decay, thousands are still left.

It is true that the majority of fossils are preserved in aqueously-deposited sediment. From this we can draw the conclusion that in the geologic past, auqueous depositional regimes were dominant. This is also what we see in the present. Thus it is by no means necessary to invoke a global flood to explain the dominance of aqueously-deposited sediments. You will agree that there has been no global flood in the last several thousand years and yet aqueous deposition is still dominant, so clearly the dominance of aqueously-deposited sediment does not imply a global Flood as you imagine.

This next point is made with the assumption that you, like most YECs, believe the entire rock record to be the product of the Flood, so please correct me if that assumption is erroneous.
Anyway, you admit that there are fossils preserved in terrestrially-deposited sediments. A good example is the dinosaur preserved in situ on its nest in aeolian deposits (Norell et al, 1995 - A nesting dinosaur). How can the Flood be responsible for the rock record if that record contains a terrestrial animal sitting undisturbed on its nest in terrestrially-deposited sediments?

And speaking of the fossil record, if it were entirely the result of the Flood as you believe, why is it organized the way it is? Why do we see certain organisms at certain levels but not at others? Why no dinosaurs in Precambrian strata? Why no pelycosaurs in Cretaceous strata? Why no flowers until the Late Cretaceous? If the fossil record were the result of a great, global Flood then surely all organisms would have been jumbled together so that essentially any fossil should be found in any layer? I have yet to see a YEC answer this question without invoking something laughably absurd like "They ran away from the flood at different speeds and so some only appear in higher strata". I assume you will not advocate such nonsense, but I will be pleased to address it should you do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

During the flood, they could.

Since all of the evidence supports mountain building goes on over a geologic time period it is up to you to provide evidence that this could happen over an extremely short period of time.

No creationist has done so without causing real scientists to roll on the floor laughing inappropriate body parts off.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is true that the majority of fossils are preserved in aqueously-deposited sediment. From this we can draw the conclusion that in the geologic past, auqueous depositional regimes were dominant. This is also what we see in the present. Thus it is by no means necessary to invoke a global flood to explain the dominance of aqueously-deposited sediments. You will agree that there has been no global flood in the last several thousand years and yet aqueous deposition is still dominant, so clearly the dominance of aqueously-deposited sediment does not imply a global Flood as you imagine.

This next point is made with the assumption that you, like most YECs, believe the entire rock record to be the product of the Flood, so please correct me if that assumption is erroneous.
Anyway, you admit that there are fossils preserved in terrestrially-deposited sediments. A good example is the dinosaur preserved in situ on its nest in aeolian deposits (Norell et al, 1995 - A nesting dinosaur). How can the Flood be responsible for the rock record if that record contains a terrestrial animal sitting undisturbed on its nest in terrestrially-deposited sediments?

And speaking of the fossil record, if it were entirely the result of the Flood as you believe, why is it organized the way it is? Why do we see certain organisms at certain levels but not at others? Why no dinosaurs in Precambrian strata? Why no pelycosaurs in Cretaceous strata? Why no flowers until the Late Cretaceous? If the fossil record were the result of a great, global Flood then surely all organisms would have been jumbled together so that essentially any fossil should be found in any layer? I have yet to see a YEC answer this question without invoking something laughably absurd like "They ran away from the flood at different speeds and so some only appear in higher strata". I assume you will not advocate such nonsense, but I will be pleased to address it should you do so.

And yet you observe no fossils being formed in the present in any of these lakes, rivers, or oceans. Please link to any study showing such, and you might have a case. And claims that it is ocurring today without actual evidence does not a case make.

HDER Chapter 9

"Present earth conditions are not producing fossils such as are found in abundance in fossil bearing rocks.Fossils like those found in the rocks are not today observed being formed anywhere on the earth by the gradual processes just described. When plants and animals die they are immediately attacked by scavengers, fungi, and bacteria, which destroy them before they can be buried by sediments and fossilized. Any appreciable formation of fossils apparently requires sudden entrapment and rapid burial, a catastrophic process."

So you don't observe it happening anywhere on earth by slow and gradual processes, but then expect me to accept that it happened this way in the far far past where we can't verify it. It requires sudden entrapment and rapid burial, a catastrophic process.

Your hypothesis holds no, ummm water.

And in case you need an evolutionist viewpoint.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord/fossilization/fossilization.htm

"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The remains of an organism that survive natural biological and physical processes must then become quickly buried by sediments."

http://australianmuseum.net.au/How-are-fossils-formed/

So a million to one odds, yet we find thousands all buried together all around the world. Only quick burial could explain this.

As for your layering, don't get too hung up on it, it's a theory presented as fact when we often find the exact opposite.

http://www.rae.org/pdf/revev2.pdf

[/FONT]
Streams and rivers act on a small fraction of the available sediments and deposit them along a narrow line, but strata are not linear features. Liquefaction during the flood acted on all sediments and sorted them over large areas in a matter of weeks or months. Shellfish being heavier settled first, then smaller animals as bloating affcets larger massed animals to a greater extent. If you drop a dead horse and a chicken into water, the chicken will settle first.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env99374.htm

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So for example, with two particles of the same mass and density, the one with the larger surface area (thus more friction) will settle slower. Two particles of the same size and shape, but different density, the one with the higher density (more mass) will settle faster."

[/FONT]Common scientific knowledge.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[Loudmouth]

A miracle is an exception to reality, not a rejection of it.

Funny how the miracles you point to are found in books and not in reality, and you use those stories to reject reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet you observe no fossils being formed in the present in any of these lakes, rivers, or oceans.

If we were able to cite modern examples of fossilization in progress in lakes, rivers, and oceans would this falsify a recent global flood?

 

[Loudmouth]

Since all of the evidence supports mountain building goes on over a geologic time period it is up to you to provide evidence that this could happen over an extremely short period of time.

No creationist has done so without causing real scientists to roll on the floor laughing inappropriate body parts off.

To more closely fit with the topic, a better question is what features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify the claim that mountain building occurred over the time periods flood proponents are proposing. What should we not see if mountains were built through rapid tectonic activity due to a recent global flood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

To more closely fit with the topic, a better question is what features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify the claim that mountain building occurred over the time periods flood proponents are proposing. What should we not see if mountains were built through rapid tectonic activity due to a recent global flood?

We would see huge areas of very recent igneous rock due to all of the heat released in this sort of activity. That is a start.

We can observe mountain building today by activities going on right now. We do not see anything that indicates a change in velocity of the plates, in fact we have a continual record of their position since the breakup of Pangaea 200 million years ago.

The problem with flood "geologists" is that they cannot explain how anything happened.

 

[Loudmouth]

We would see huge areas of very recent igneous rock due to all of the heat released in this sort of activity. That is a start.

We can observe mountain building today by activities going on right now. We do not see anything that indicates a change in velocity of the plates, in fact we have a continual record of their position since the breakup of Pangaea 200 million years ago.

The problem with flood "geologists" is that they cannot explain how anything happened.

I completely agree, but do flood geologists? I would ask flood geologists that if these are not proper falsifications, then what would be?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I completely agree, but do flood geologists? I would ask flood geologists that if these are not proper falsifications, then what would be?

The first thing that flood geologists have to do is to create a model.

None of them will. You will hear claims of "flood theory" but none of them can refer anyone to even a flood hypothesis, much less a flood theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny how the miracles you point to are found in books and not in reality,

Not just books ... THE books.

Revelation 12:20b and the books were opened:

... and you use those stories to reject reality.

Don't you mean I use those stories that reject reality?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not just books ... THE books.

Revelation 12:20b and the books were opened:

Don't you mean I use those stories that reject reality?

The map is not the territory.

 

[AV1611VET]

The map is not the territory.

Then you're on the wrong road.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Funny how the miracles you point to are found in books and not in reality, and you use those stories to reject reality.

Funny how the dark matter astronomers use are found in books, but not in reality, and you use these stories to reject reality.