Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

[TheBear]

Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

None.


I have a follow-up question.

What oil companies use the flood model for oil exploration?

 

[Cabal]

I'm not entirely sure what kind of experiment would suffice here. Flood a control earth?

With this insistence that only experimental evidence is valid, I wonder if CTD thinks criminals convicted on forensic evidence should be released as we haven't done an experiment where someone repeats the crime, and nuts to the perfectly reasonable inference from forensics.

 

[Gishin]

Why am I reminded of Conservapedia?

 

[CTD]

See? I'm not the only one

Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

None.

I'm not entirely sure what kind of experiment would suffice here. Flood a control earth?

Here are two quite hostile witnesses who aren't satisfied that the flood's been disproven by experiment.

Evolutionism's house appears divided.

 

[Cabal]

See? I'm not the only one

Don't lump me in with you, thanks. The point of our posts was that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Evolutionism's house appears divided.

Holy crap, two people with vaguely different answers?! That's almost... three people!

 

[Delphiki]

See? I'm not the only one



Here are two quite hostile witnesses who aren't satisfied that the flood's been disproven by experiment.

So now your saying the flood didn't happen and it was proven by experiment? Do you even know what argument you're trying to make?

Evolutionism's house appears divided.

Then you're seeing things - both of them agree. There was no experiment, and there really can't be an experiment, especially one that would satisfy you, because you would likely demand the conditions that Cabal suggested before you'd be satisfied.

 

[TheBear]

Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

None.

Here, I give a a direct answer to the OP question.

I have a follow-up question.

What oil companies use the flood model for oil exploration?

Here, I merely ask a follow-up question.

In neither case was I being rude or hostile towards anyone.

See? I'm not the only one



Here are two quite hostile witnesses who aren't satisfied that the flood's been disproven by experiment.

Evolutionism's house appears divided.

For the life of me, I have no idea where you're coming from or how you could even remotely construe my remarks as hostile.

I'll leave it at that and bow out at this point.

 

[Orogeny]

CTD, you've been told in a multitude of different ways by a bevy of posters that there is no experiment disproving the past occurance of a global flood as described in the bible. In fact, the third reply stated this quite plainly, and came a mere 30 minutes after the thread was posted. With your question answered, that should have been the end of things, shouldn't it? Why are you trash-talking your way through this thread when a direct, succinct answer to your question was given to you right off the bat?

 

[Delphiki]

... because that's what they do at evolutionfairytale.com.

 

[Cabal]

... because that's what they do at evolutionfairytale.com.

How do you manage to get yourself banned from there?

I think this may be an instance of the David Icke Effect in action.

 

[Jazer]

What oil companies use the flood model for oil exploration?

Easy, off shore coral reef oil because they are drilling for oil on what use to be dry land.

 

[Delphiki]

How do you manage to get yourself banned from there?

By not being a creationist. All you have to do, then, is post something. No matter what your post will say, they'll call it equivocating (they just like using that word... a lot), and ban you.

True story.

 

[Tomatoman]

By not being a creationist. All you have to do, then, is post something. No matter what your post will say, they'll call it equivocating (they just like using that word... a lot), and ban you.

True story.

Conspiracy theorist forums do the same thing. Probably for the same reasons.

 

[Cabal]

By not being a creationist. All you have to do, then, is post something. No matter what your post will say, they'll call it equivocating (they just like using that word... a lot), and ban you.

True story.

But CTD is a creationist, no?

 

[pgp_protector]

But CTD is a creationist, no?

I think one of the tags has a better description.

 

[Thobewill]

Really, there is nothing we could give you that would satisfy you. Even if there had been a groundbreaking, conclusive experiment which totally disproved the flood, you would reject it outright. Experiments, as I apparently must state again, are not the only path to scientific truth. We can't create a big bang, we can't set up a protoplanetary disk, we can't recreate star formation in a lab. Yet, via observation, we can show that our current theories hold up, at least until some better, more comprehensive theory comes along, if it does. That's the beauty of science. It can be done in many ways, all equally valid, whether by experimentation, which only works in some cases, or by direct observation of the world around us.

 

[CTD]

CTD, you've been told in a multitude of different ways by a bevy of posters that there is no experiment disproving the past occurance of a global flood as described in the bible.

Aww - nobody's falling for the ''experiment'' I'm supposed to check out? Everyone's agreeing there's no experiment? Aren't you stripping the paint off me as fast as your partners can slop it on?

I know - ''It's the thought that counts: evolove for CTD''

 

[CTD]

Really, there is nothing we could give you that would satisfy you.

On the contrary, your explanation of the futility of experimenting to investigate the past was very satisfactory. That was what? Your first or second post?

Your attempts to agree with me while disagreeing are satisfactorily amusing also. Or are you disagreeing while agreeing? I can never tell which is which.

 

[Mikecpking]

On the contrary, your explanation of the futility of experimenting to investigate the past was very satisfactory. That was what? Your first or second post?

Your attempts to agree with me while disagreeing are satisfactorily amusing also. Or are you disagreeing while agreeing? I can never tell which is which.

Its upto you to substantiate your claims and not rubbish everyone else's remarks.

 

[CTD]

I did answer him in this thread with a simple experiment

We've got 3 consecutive pages of hostile witness testimony saying ''there is no experiment''. House is divided as ever, and too stubborn even to admit that most obvious of facts.