What Would Falsify the Flood?

[AV1611VET]

No.

Why?

 

[Paulos23]

If all the ice on earth were to melt, it would decrease the sea level, wound't it?

I didn't think you grasp on science was that bad AV. The ice in the water that melts wouldn't rase the sea level, just like ice cubes floating in a glass of water wouldn't rase the level of the water as they melt. It would stay the same.

Now all the ice on land...that would rase the sea levels if it melted.

 

[AV1611VET]

just like ice cubes floating in a glass of water wouldn't rase the level of the water as they melt. It would stay the same.

No, it wouldn't.

The water level in the glass would actually decrease.

That's because more ice is under the water than above it.

Also, water is more dense than ice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why?

Because most ice is not floating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it wouldn't.

The water level in the glass would actually decrease.

That's because more ice is under the water than above it.

Also, water is more dense than ice.

First part wrong.

If the water remains at 0 C the water level will stay the same as floating ice melts.

 

[mzungu]

Books based upon experimental evidence, while not one thing about dark matter has ever been reproduced in the lab, shown to exist beyond mere speculation. That is why it is still a mystery to them.

Show me where a creationist claim has been reproduced in a lab?

It's about time we actually studied plasma in space, since it makes up 99% of the universe. I look forward to the results.

Oh dear! Sock puppet much?

 

[AV1611VET]

First part wrong.

If the water remains at 0 C the water level will stay the same as floating ice melts.

Oh, so I'm wrong at 0 C, but at any other temperature I'm right?

 

[mzungu]

No, it wouldn't.

The water level in the glass would actually decrease.

That's because more ice is under the water than above it.

Also, water is more dense than ice.

Whatever the argument regarding water displacement by floating ice; there simply is not enough water on the planet to cover the landmasses let alone the mountains too.

I know that you will attribute such a deluge to the actions of God but this in no way proves there was a global flood. You will need to tell us what evidence will falsify a global flood. If such evidence cannot be found then the Global flood claim is essentially debunked.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever the argument regarding water displacement by floating ice; there simply is not enough water on the planet to cover the landmasses let alone the mountains too.

No kidding.

I was actually responding to this:

If all the ice on earth was melted would it raise sea levels by 90 to 180ft.

I'm familiar with the scare tactic that yaks about global warming wiping us out due to the ocean levels rising.

It's just another Y2K scare.

I know that you will attribute such a deluge to the actions of God but this in no way proves there was a global flood.

Whoever wants proof of a global is going to get what they deserve:

Nothing.

Remember that word?

NOTHING is one of the most-misunderstood words in the science vocabulary ... in my opinion.

It ranks right up there with "morals."

You will need to tell us what evidence will falsify a global flood.

A race of Nephilim on the earth, with an unmolested ancestral line going clear back to Genesis 6.

If such evidence cannot be found then the Global flood claim is essentially debunked.

Au contraire.

The fact that it can't be found establishes the Flood being global.

 

[mzungu]

No kidding.

I was actually responding to this:

I'm familiar with the scare tactic that yaks about global warming wiping us out due to the ocean levels rising.

It's just another Y2K scare.

Whoever wants proof of a global is going to get what they deserve:

Nothing.

Remember that word?

NOTHING is one of the most-misunderstood words in the science vocabulary ... in my opinion.

It ranks right up there with "morals."

A race of Nephilim on the earth, with an unmolested ancestral line going clear back to Genesis 6.

Au contraire.

The fact that it can't be found establishes the Flood being global.

Whatever makes you happy AV!

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof - Christopher Hitchens

 

[AV1611VET]

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof - Christopher Hitchens

Proof? - Internet Scientists

 

[mzungu]

Proof? - Internet Scientists

What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence - Mzungu

 

[AV1611VET]

What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence - Mzungu

Evidence can take a hike - AV1611VET

 

[USincognito]

356, 357, 358, 359 - Any guesses?

 

[mzungu]

Evidence can take a hike - AV1611VET

With so many hikes you must wear out a lot of hiking boots!

 

[AV1611VET]

356, 357, 358, 359 - Any guesses?

360?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can't help but notice you're avoiding responding to the points I made, Justa. I have pointed out that the size and density-dependent organization you imagine in the fossil record doesn't exist. Therefore your assertion that all fossils were preserved by the flood is clearly false. I'm guessing that your obvious desire to ignore this and other points I made indicates that you have no response. So will you display some intellectual honesty and concede defeat now or would you like to contest these points?

And yet you can not show me more than a half a dozen fossils that have ever been found in rocks not formed by water causes. You can't explain to me how 60,000 fossils with more being dug up in one spot caused by as the scientists admit a catastrophe and transported to the spot happened except by denying your own scientists.

We all agree fossilization is a rare occurrence, so we agree that many more than have been found in these mass graves all over the world must have been there originally and simply decayed.

You can not explain how the incomplete fossil record only affects transitory species, but not well defined species. Darwin insisted transitory species must be innumerable and outnumber the well defined. But why does this incomplete fossil record not seem to affect the well defined species? If your theory of an incomplete fossil record were true, then the number of well defined species we find should be even less than the transitory species. Yet 60,000+ fossils all in one area, and not a single transitory.

Your arguments are conflicting and do not fit the observations. Your obvious desire to deny flood theory has led you to ignore the amassed data. Almost all fossils are found in sedimentary rock. Mass graves are common throughout the world, where species are all jumbled together or flattened from being buried by tons of sediment quickly before fossilization. Not a single bone has been observed in the process of fossilization, evolutionists just like to claim it is happening all the time yet can provide no evidence. They can provide no evidence because unless animals are buried in-mass to prevent decay by bacteria and scavengers, the process never begins. Mass burial is required to explain the numbers of fossils found, since undoubtedly not all that were buried were fossilized, unless one admits to miraculous conditions. Not once, but many times worldwide.

The real question is what evidence do you have that doesn't point to flood theory?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Whatever makes you happy AV!

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof - Christopher Hitchens

Agreed, and since evolutionists only "assert" flood theory is wrong without any evidence, then it can be dismissed, since all the evidence points to a catastrophic mass burial in sediments.

 

[mzungu]

And yet you can not show me more than a half a dozen fossils that have ever been found in rocks not formed by water causes. You can't explain to me how 60,000 fossils with more being dug up in one spot caused by as the scientists admit a catastrophe and transported to the spot happened except by denying your own scientists.

We all agree fossilization is a rare occurrence, so we agree that many more than have been found in these mass graves all over the world must have been there originally and simply decayed.

You can not explain how the incomplete fossil record only affects transitory species, but not well defined species. Darwin insisted transitory species must be innumerable and outnumber the well defined. But why does this incomplete fossil record not seem to affect the well defined species? If your theory of an incomplete fossil record were true, then the number of well defined species we find should be even less than the transitory species. Yet 60,000+ fossils all in one area, and not a single transitory.

Your arguments are conflicting and do not fit the observations. Your obvious desire to deny flood theory has led you to ignore the amassed data. Almost all fossils are found in sedimentary rock. Mass graves are common throughout the world, where species are all jumbled together or flattened from being buried by tons of sediment quickly before fossilization. Not a single bone has been observed in the process of fossilization, evolutionists just like to claim it is happening all the time yet can provide no evidence. They can provide no evidence because unless animals are buried in-mass to prevent decay by bacteria and scavengers, the process never begins. Mass burial is required to explain the numbers of fossils found, since undoubtedly not all that were buried were fossilized, unless one admits to miraculous conditions. Not once, but many times worldwide.

The real question is what evidence do you have that doesn't point to flood theory?

Instead of trying to pass your creationist claims onto us; I have only this question to ask:

What evidence do we need to find in order to falsify the flood?

All you have to do is answer this simple question and we will take it from there. OK?

 

[Kylie]

Instead of trying to pass your creationist claims onto us; I have only this question to ask:

What evidence do we need to find in order to falsify the flood?

All you have to do is answer this simple question and we will take it from there. OK?

Oh, that's easy.

If the Flood Hypothesis predicts we should see something and we don't see it, then that is evidence that the flood is false.

OR

If the Flood Hypothesis predicts we should NOT see something, and we DO see it, that is also evidence that the flood is false.