Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

[Insane_Duck]

To be clear, my position is: "I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to support the existence of the supernatural."

Just because you don't understand how something could happen, doesn't justify your jump to a supernatural explanation. That being said, biologists have a fairly good picture of how evolution works. Your use of the word "chance" shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. At the very least read an article on Wikipedia to understand what you are arguing against.

Regarding the "scientific community": Scientists (a vast majority of scientists) disagree of very few established facts. It would almost be easier to disprove gravity than to find evidence contrary to the mountains of it that evolution possess. But regardless of what scientists think, the evidence speaks for itself.

There was no "new evidence." There were only future [software, bacterial, falling tree] causes. Since windows software excluded both bacterial infections and God as a cause, I see no reason why the casual nature of bacterial infections should be held up in certain domains. The discovery that software was the cause (and not bacterial infections) clearly showed that phenomena being attributed to bacterial infections today are only gaps in our "scientific" knowledge. However, there seems to be no antagonism towards bacteria.

Windows (7?) and bacteria? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Please re-phrase it.

 

[CTD]

All investigation has shown us two things regarding the flood:

Not accurate, not impressive. All investigation performed by people presupposing there was no flood as reported in scripture and other historical accounts ...nope - not even that works, if you mean absolutely all. We cannot rule out those who held the presupposition loosely rather than clenching it as tightly as possible.

Very arrogant, speaking about all investigators without even considering. I suppose I could ask for a ''source'' but it wouldn't surprise me if talkdeceptions and their sockpuppet wikipedia say the same thing.

 

[SignOfGod]

I think you will find that devout Christians in the 19th century went out to prove that a WW flood happened, after looking long and hard they decided that there was no proof to be found so eventually had to admit that the flood could not be shown to have happened, even devote Christians today with all the technology available to them still fail to find evidence for a WW flood, so unless you would like to go out and look for yourself may I suggest that you take the word of those devout Christians who have looked but failed to find, but as always it's up to you.

 

[Mikecpking]

I think you will find that devout Christians in the 19th century went out to prove that a WW flood happened, after looking long and hard they decided that there was no proof to be found so eventually had to admit that the flood could not be shown to have happened, even devote Christians today with all the technology available to them still fail to find evidence for a WW flood, so unless you would like to go out and look for yourself may I suggest that you take the word of those devout Christians who have looked but failed to find, but as always it's up to you.

That would be a challenge to CTD to prove the existence of the flood.

How does he account for 2 layers of bone in this formation?

http://www.thegcr.org.uk/GIA/24/Figures/JPEGsLoRes/GCRv24c04f002.jpg

 

[Greg1234]

I think you will find that devout Christians in the 19th century went out to prove that a WW flood happened, after looking long and hard they decided that there was no proof to be found so eventually had to admit that the flood could not be shown to have happened, even devote Christians today with all the technology available to them still fail to find evidence for a WW flood, so unless you would like to go out and look for yourself may I suggest that you take the word of those devout Christians who have looked but failed to find, but as always it's up to you.

Do you understand what is meant by a global fire in these?

'Giant asteroid that wiped out dinosaurs from Earth fell in India' - Brahmand.com

The tremendous impact would have ignited global fires, initiated tsunamis, destroyed coastal habitats, produced acid rains, turned seawater acidic, dissolved carbonate-shelled animals and devastated the biosphere. Millions of organisms would have died instantly from the tremendous tremor and the global fire generated from the impact.

​

NEW EVIDENCE INDICATES GLOBAL FIRESTORM KILLED OFF DINOSAURS | Deseret News

Scientists Wednesday published new evidence to bolster a controversial theory that dinosaurs went extinct because of a global firestorm sparked by the impact of a giant meteorite.


​

More Confusion At The K-T Boundary
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]
Evidence of a global fire. Soot appears at the K-T boundary at many sites, but where did it come from? Chemical analyses of these soots show an enhanced concentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons over soots above and below the boundary. This is strong evidence of pyrolytic action at the K-T boundary; i.e., widespread fires. (Venkatesan, M.I., and Dahl, J.; "Organic Geochemical Evidence for Global Fires at the Cretaceous/Tertiary Boun dary," Nature, March 2, 1989.) Fire could have been initiated by either volcanism or impacts.[/FONT]

 

[CTD]

<font size=&quot;3&quot;>I think you will find that devout Christians in the 19th century went out ...

I think I already explained that I was aware of the OEC failure to reconcile their onion coat theory with the evidence. Under onion coat, there's not even any reason to expect the top layer to endure forever. It's polywrong.

YEC investigators didn't espouse onion coat, and hence they are retroactively designated ''non-scientists''. Big whup. Am I supposed to be impressed? Oh, that's right - I'm not supposed to know any history.

 

[SignOfGod]

Do you understand what is meant by a global fire in these?

Flood? Fire? they both begin with 'F' but that's it, is it me that's cazy?

 

[SignOfGod]

I think I already explained that I was aware of the OEC failure to reconcile their onion coat theory with the evidence. Under onion coat, there's not even any reason to expect the top layer to endure forever. It's polywrong.

YEC investigators didn't espouse onion coat, and hence they are retroactively designated ''non-scientists''. Big whup. Am I supposed to be impressed? Oh, that's right - I'm not supposed to know any history.

Please don't worry about anyone else, you just do whatever you need to do to get it all right in your head,
you can always come back later and have another go so just take it easy, we know it's hard for you.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

I have only read the first couple of posts and the lasty few so I apologise if I am repeating somebody else's points.

The statement that the world flood did not happen is absolutely definate correct because it would have left huge amounts of evidence behind everywhere.

If you watch CSI on the TV you will see the basic ideas of phorensics. The lack of evidence for the world flood means it never happened.

 

[SkyWriting]

Verboten! You may not have seen the posts, but basically in the 1800's ''Creationists'' believing in cockeyed onion coat ideas, and an ''old earth'' failed to find the remains they expected of the last flood, and even had to abandon onion coat. So that proves there's no need to ever actually investigate any more. The question's settled forever!

There are two areas of study that are never settled forever; those regarding Science, which demands further investigation forever, and those regarding historical events, which can never even be experimentally recreated.

Anything further assurance only comes from religion...which you seem to have.

 

[SkyWriting]

Flood? Fire? they both begin with 'F' but that's it, is it me that's cazy?

The global fire would precede the tsunami that followed. I imagine the "waters of the deep" would also be broken up. I wonder if "the waters of the deep" are a human description of deep water that would wash over the land. I can see it would be possible that a tsunami wave could be a global event but the flood could be described locally as covering all the mountains.

 

[SignOfGod]

The global fire would precede the tsunami that followed. I imagine the "waters of the deep" would also be broken up. I wonder if "the waters of the deep" are a human description of deep water that would wash over the land. I can see it would be possible that a tsunami wave could be a global event but the flood could be described locally as covering all the mountains.

In other words anything that will allow you to believe what you need to believe, why do you need to believe that the flood happened? everything is against it with absolutly nothing for it so why is it so important that you believe a 2000yo story? or is it a 3000yo story?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

In other words anything that will allow you to believe what you need to believe, why do you need to believe that the flood happened? everything is against it with absolutly nothing for it so why is it so important that you believe a 2000yo story? or is it a 3000yo story?

The original story in the epic of Gilgamesh is probably more like 5,000 years old. The Hebrews apparently borrowed it about 3000 years ago for their version, the flood of Noah.

 

[Orogeny]

The global fire would precede the tsunami that followed. I imagine the "waters of the deep" would also be broken up. I wonder if "the waters of the deep" are a human description of deep water that would wash over the land. I can see it would be possible that a tsunami wave could be a global event but the flood could be described locally as covering all the mountains.

• Show me where the Bible mentions a global fire preceeding the Flood.
• Show me the tsunami deposits that overlie the K-T boundary globally.
• Show me the transgressive lag that overlies the tsunami deposits globally.
• Show me the death assemblage that overlies the transgressive lag globally.

All of these things must be demonstrated in order for your 'fire and tsunami' theory to be considered valid. Also explain why the tsunami took 40 days to cover the earth, and then 200 days to withdraw. Explain why the Bible says rain caused the flood, but doesn't mention a tsunami.

 

[Mikecpking]

The global fire would precede the tsunami that followed. I imagine the "waters of the deep" would also be broken up. I wonder if "the waters of the deep" are a human description of deep water that would wash over the land. I can see it would be possible that a tsunami wave could be a global event but the flood could be described locally as covering all the mountains.

But, you can't explain why there so many fossils underneath this KT boundary, can you?

 

[Greg1234]

Flood? Fire? they both begin with 'F' but that's it, is it me that's cazy?

Do you understad what is meant (i.e the usage, context) by "global fire" in the aforementioned?

 

[SkyWriting]

But, you can't explain why there so many fossils underneath this KT boundary, can you?

Other than volcanic rock, most all geology is formed from water deposition, world wide.
That pretty much explains it.

 

[SkyWriting]

<snip>
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.<snip>

Because it's not a reproducible experiment, the question is limited to science-fiction explanations.
Plus, the date of the Flood is not given.

 

[SkyWriting]

The original story in the epic of Gilgamesh is probably more like 5,000 years old. The Hebrews apparently borrowed it about 3000 years ago for their version, the flood of Noah.

Logically both are referring to the same event.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Logically both are referring to the same event.

A local flood in Ur. Not a global flood.