Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

Jazer · Jun 9, 2011

Insane_Duck said:
Most established and well documented things are not contested, and are the ones upheld officially by the scientific community...

Because no one can come up with anything any better. Right wrong or indifferent it is the best they have to offer. For people with Cancer the best that science has to offer may leave a lot to be desired. In fact most everyone dies, no matter how science tries to keep them alive. So in the end their best efforts can not seem to keep the grim reaper away. Although in some cases they can add years to people lives, so that is enough for most people. My wife has two very close friends of her that science says are dieing from Cancer right now. There is nothing that man can do for them. Their only hope is God and His divine healing. My grandmother lived to be 100 and she said she outlived all of her friends. They had all gone before her. So in the end, what can science do for you and what does science have to offer?

Orogeny · Jun 9, 2011

So your point is that everybody dies? Does this somehow diminish the utility of scientific understanding?

Insane_Duck · Jun 9, 2011

CTD said:
Yes, ever wonder how strong it really is? I mean as practiced, of course.

Considering the rapid advancements of science and technology as a derivative. (the computer you are currently typing on relies on a fair understanding of quantum physics, which wasn't discovered until the early 20th century) I would say the scientific method has produced amazingly strong results.

Insane_Duck · Jun 9, 2011

Jazer said:
Because no one can come up with anything any better. Right wrong or indifferent it is the best they have to offer. For people with Cancer the best that science has to offer may leave a lot to be desired. In fact most everyone dies, no matter how science tries to keep them alive. So in the end their best efforts can not seem to keep the grim reaper away. Although in some cases they can add years to people lives, so that is enough for most people. My wife has two very close friends of her that science says are dieing from Cancer right now. There is nothing that man can do for them. Their only hope is God and His divine healing. My grandmother lived to be 100 and she said she outlived all of her friends. They had all gone before her. So in the end, what can science do for you and what does science have to offer?

Studies Show Promise for Treating Melanoma | PBS NewsHour | June 6, 2011 | PBS

Give us time.

Religious methods of thinking have been failing to solve anything for 7,000 years, while the scientific method has only been going for a few hundred. (although the roots were planted in ancient Greece) Come back in 20 years.

CTD · Jun 9, 2011

Insane_Duck said:
I would say the scientific method has produced amazingly strong results.

Why pretend I was talking about ''the scientific method'' when I was talking about ''the peer review system'', plain as day? I don't think that's a very convincing paint job.

Mikecpking · Jun 10, 2011

Orogeny said:
To be fair, rapid deposition under upper flow regime conditions (which is what one might expect were the waters of the flood receding rapidly) can produce layering.

To be even more fair, coccoliths are small enough (and disk-shaped enough) to have incredibly slow settling rates, even in quite calm water.

To be exceedingly fair, obviously Goddidit.

Hi orogeny,
What AV failed to notice is that these layers are also cantaining multiple layers of flint which are silica deposits. That would take some explaining. These flints must have been on hourly standby waiting for their turn to be deposited too.

Strata | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Insane_Duck · Jun 10, 2011

CTD said:
Why pretend I was talking about ''the scientific method'' when I was talking about ''the peer review system'', plain as day? I don't think that's a very convincing paint job.

No, but you said that the peer review system (part of the established scientific method) hasn't produced strong results in practice. Do you honestly think we could make more developments by not checking each others work.

What would you propose instead? Creationism fails by the standards of both science and reason, and no peer review overhaul will make anyone respect Creationist's failed logic.

Insane_Duck · Jun 10, 2011

CTD said:
I prefer investigation. The lamestream's version of ''science''? Well, AV1611VET has made a fine suggestion they would do well to follow. Only the systematic pursuit of truth has merit.

What do you think science is doing?

Lamestream media... really? (insert Palin joke here)

CTD · Jun 10, 2011

Insane_Duck said:
No, but you said that the peer review system (part of the established scientific method) hasn't produced strong results in practice.

I asked a question: ''Yes, ever wonder how strong it really is? I mean as practiced, of course.''

The system does a fine job stifling anything the lamestream might consider challenging. It's great at that. It doesn't perform as advertised, not even close! Perhaps I should start a thread on the subject sometime?

Insane_Duck · Jun 10, 2011

CTD said:
I asked a question: ''Yes, ever wonder how strong it really is? I mean as practiced, of course.''

The system does a fine job stifling anything the lamestream might consider challenging. It's great at that. It doesn't perform as advertised, not even close! Perhaps I should start a thread on the subject sometime?

Example? The only time I ever hear of this is in relation to creationism, which is hardly something the scientific community is afraid of. (although most rational people are scared of it getting into schools)

Orogeny · Jun 10, 2011

Mikecpking said:
Hi orogeny,
What AV failed to notice is that these layers are also cantaining multiple layers of flint which are silica deposits. That would take some explaining. These flints must have been on hourly standby waiting for their turn to be deposited too.

Strata | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

To be fair, the chert (flint) layers may be of primary depositional origin (most likely due to a concentration of silicious sponge spicules [which have a similar settling rate to coccoliths]) or of diagenetic origin (replacement of existing rock with chert via dissolution and precipitation of silica from SiO2-saturated fluids). The chert layers may not have originally been deposited as such.

To be even more fair, both of those processes take a rather long time.

To be exceedingly fair, Goddidit.

FreeinChrist · Jun 10, 2011

MOD HAT

That's enough. Time for a cool down and staff review of this thread.

FreeinChrist · Jun 15, 2011

MOD HAT

Wow- quite a few posts were removed in a thread cleanup. There sure was alot of goading going on .

As a reminder, the site rules includes this:

Flaming and Harassment
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.

This thread is being reopened. Please stay on topic. Please refrain from flaming or being snarky.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jun 16, 2011

CTD said:
OEC geology from the 1800's, right? At least so far as 'flood evidence' is concerned... I think recent YEC geology's more advanced and reliable. YEC's can even SEE evidence, unlike the researchers evolutionism's been relying upon for its conclusion.

Modern YEC flood geologists can be relied upon for advanced geological comedy for sure. Here is my take on a web publication from two of their supposed best.

Absurd YEC claims about the Coconino Sandstones

Unfortunately the link to the beautiful pictures of animal and insect tracks and raindrop impressions in these claimed global flood deposits is no longer active. Still the absurdity of the YEC claims about the Coconinos is abundantly clear.

Anyone who thinks that flood geology has any validity should read Glenn Morton's story
Glenn Morton's story

I have observed that one thing YEC flood geologists can't do is identify where geological layers deposited by the flood start and where they stop. Of course the reason they can't is that no layers on earth were deposited by a global flood and any given set of strata chosen to be within the "flood deposits" will contain features such as paleosols, Eolian (desert deposits), salt deposits, trace fossils (such as animal tracks and insect nests) and bioturbation such animal burrows that could not be global flood deposits.

Perhaps you could explain how this global flood deposited 30,000 trillion tons of salt under Michigan during the Silurian in deposits that are surrounded by Silurian reefs.
Michigan Salts

In fact evaporites which are widespread in the Geologic Column are insoluble problems for flood geology.

Added in edit
Here is a link to another analysis of the Absurd YEC claims about the Coconinos by an old earth creationst.
http://www.answersincreation.org/coconino.htm

the one I used in the old thread does not work.

CTD · Jun 16, 2011

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Anyone who thinks that flood geology has any validity should read Glenn Morton's story
Glenn Morton's story

Any such one is advised to take note of Glen Morton's idea of YEC geology: ''All rock formations are the result of the flood''. For an individual who claims to have spent years studying a subject, he doesn't appear to have been learning. One can pick up such absurd misconceptions in far less time at talkdeceptions.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jun 16, 2011

CTD said:
Any such one is advised to take note of Glen Morton's idea of YEC geology: ''All rock formations are the result of the flood''. For an individual who claims to have spent years studying a subject, he doesn't appear to have been learning. One can pick up such absurd misconceptions in far less time at talkdeceptions.

OK, tell us which rock formations are the result of the flood and which aren't and how did those formations that are not the result of the flood form on an earth that is only a few thousand years old.
For your convenience here is the list of formation present in North Dakota

Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm ................4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm...................... 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm...........................6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm.........................7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm............................7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm.................7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm......................8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm.......................8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm....................8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm...................8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm.....9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm.............10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm........................11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm.......................11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm.......................11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm.................11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm.................12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp...............12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm..........................12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm....................13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite.........13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp...................14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm...............14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm.....................14445 feet

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jun 16, 2011

Here is a link to a page by Glen Kuban on fossil tracks and flood geology that has some pictures of Permian and other trace fossils as well as discussion of how these fossil falsify flood geology. The trace fossils in the Coconino Sandstones are Permian.

Fossil Tracks and Other Trace Fossils Falsify Flood Geology

Here is an image of raindrop impressions from the supposedly flood deposited Coconino Sandstones taken from Durango Bill's page on the subject but originally from a page I linked on my post on the Coconinos.

and some Coconino animal prints from
Grand_Canyon_Creation | Letters to Creationists
which analyizes some other bogus flood geology claims as well.

CTD · Jun 16, 2011

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
OK, tell us which rock formations are the result of the flood and which aren't and how did those formations that are not the result of the flood form on an earth that is only a few thousand years old.

What have your demands to to do with the topic? And how many more can you dream up? Is there any experimental evidence indicating a limit? I'm not into spam these days.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jun 16, 2011

CTD said:
What have your demands to to do with the topic? And how many more can you dream up? Is there any experimental evidence indicating a limit? I'm not into spam these days.

In other words you can't answer my questions because YEC flood geology which you called reliable is actually bogus.

CTD · Jun 16, 2011

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
In other words you can't answer my questions because YEC flood geology which you called reliable is actually bogus.

You got one part right: Those are indeed other words.

Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

Jazer

Guest

Trilobite me!

Because ducks are just awesome like that.

Because ducks are just awesome like that.

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Because ducks are just awesome like that.

Because ducks are just awesome like that.

Well-Known Member

Because ducks are just awesome like that.

Trilobite me!

CF Advisory team

CF Advisory team

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency