Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

[Gishin]

Which is consistent with shortening of lifespans...



So you assert.

Giving up on the experiment?

Did you stop beating your wife?

 

[CTD]

Now before the denial-of-evidence mantras get out of hand, why not wait and see if just maybe someone did an experiment? Wouldn't you feel silly if it turns out one has been done?

Not really.

Well well well - most remarkable, your confidence. One might expect a little less confidence that no such experiement's been done.

Now, if you think experiment is the only way to find truth, then tell me what successful experiments have you performed to validate anything else in the bible as fact?

I believe the past is always properly investigated as follows: Discover, Verify, Reconcile. This is what everyone does when they want to know what happened. The procedure is universal and applies to 820 years ago just as it applies to yesterday afternoon. Anyone employing anything else is disingenuous, for everyone knows the proper method. They may not realize they know it, but it's what everyone does. ...When they want the truth, that is.

 

[CTD]

As you've been told, there is no experiment done because you don't need to do one.

Well that depends. Do we take your word, or do we wait a spell and see if maybe someone'll show up who know something we don't? Can't we give it a day or two? How can you be so certain no experiment's been done? If I had claimed no experiment had been done, I'm confident someone would've challenged me to prove it.

 

[Orogeny]

There has not, to my knowledge, been a singular 'experiment' done that discounts the possibility of a global flood. What discounts a global flood is that there is (to my knowledge) no observed evidence that is consistent with a global flood, and a significant amount of evidence that is impossible to explain using standard flood models.

If you know of an 'experiment' that discounts the global flood as described in the bible, please share it. If you have empirical evidence that indicates the occurance of the global flood as described in the bible, please share it.

 

[CTD]

Water's water. Grasping at straws trying to convince anyone it somehow isn't or ''doesn't count''. There's a pile of ice on Antarctica also, and CW's link is far from the only water that's been discovered underground. I suppose I should google, huh?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody's ever told me, so I thought I'd ask. One would think the experiment which proved all the stories from around the world to be untrue might've received a little notice. Anyhow, I'd like to know the logic involved, the dates, and the individuals who performed this should-be-famous experiment.

-- Me too!

 

[CTD]

The curious might also investigate terms 'Mars' and 'diluvian'. There is no water on the surface of Mars now, but the lamestream claims it was all totally flooded. ''Where'd the water go?'' has never even been an issue. When people want to, they actually can figure things out in very little time.

 

[Split Rock]

Nobody's ever told me, so I thought I'd ask. One would think the experiment which proved all the stories from around the world to be untrue might've received a little notice. Anyhow, I'd like to know the logic involved, the dates, and the individuals who performed this should-be-famous experiment.

The Deluge theory was really a pre-modern science idea. It was accepted by Western geologists (who were afterall Christians) in the absence of any other theory when they first started to examine the geological column. Indeed, most expected to find and identify the sediments layed down by the Deluge. They found none that could be attributed to a global flood. This is why geologists abandoned the idea back in teh early to mid 19th century. You can find a very nice summary here: History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

If you think there is some experiment that can be used to test the outdated idea of a global flood, please propose it.

 

[Nabobalis]

Just done the experiment in my backyard, yeah sorry not possible.

 

[Orogeny]

Water's water. Grasping at straws trying to convince anyone it somehow isn't or ''doesn't count''. There's a pile of ice on Antarctica also, and CW's link is far from the only water that's been discovered underground. I suppose I should google, huh?

Water is water, in a chemical sense. But there is a significant difference between free water, which is not bound chemically by anything else, and structural water, which is bound within the crystal lattice of a mineral. The water in question is structural water, so unless you want to invoke simultaneous and miraculous mineralic dehydration (feel free to invoke this), then you're out of luck when it comes to mantle H2O.

 

[Split Rock]

The curious might also investigate terms 'Mars' and 'diluvian'. There is no water on the surface of Mars now, but the lamestream claims it was all totally flooded. ''Where'd the water go?'' has never even been an issue. When people want to, they actually can figure things out in very little time.

Incorrect. No one claims that Mars was "totally flooded." There is evidence, however, that water flowed on the surface of Mars in the past. Where is the water now? Mostly in the polar ice caps. The only "lame" one seems to be you now... doesn't it?

 

[sfs]

Why try so hard to change the topic?

Because you're being a bad Christian witness, and I have some hope of getting you to stop it. I think that's worth a little digression.

And you're welcome to think you can out-whatever me here. I'll not be easily GOADED into breaking the rules. And I'm not goading you into changing your behavior; I'm pleading with you.

Huh? I want you to stop being snarky and start being civil. How would that be breaking the rules?

I don't think that.

Then why did you say there should be one?

I know people are told everything in scofferdom's been ''proven by the scientific method''.

So? Do you think the scientific method requires an experiment or not?

Oh yes, oh yes, the hostility paintbrush. You accuse me of a strawman fallacy, and play whatever silliness you can to divert the discussion, and I'm hostile.

I said you were hostile because you so obviously are. Did you think no one would notice all of the sarcasm and the insults? I accused you of a strawman fallacy because you committed one, at the very beginning and as the basis of this thread. A strawman is a logical fallacy; it's not a moral failing, and accusing someone of committing a logical fallacy is not an insult, nor is it hostile. If you think you didn't commit one, provide some evidence that it's true.

That's workin'. I'm sure every scoffer who stumbles along will buy it hook line & sinker. I'm equally sure nobody else will. See that first word in that clause, the one that's spelled I-F? In English, the word 'if' alters the context and meaning of the entire sentence, rendering what follows conditional.

Exactly -- that's what a premise is. *If* knowledge only comes from experiment, then there must be an experiment that explains why we know there was no worldwide flood. You've claimed that lots of people claim the premise is true, which justifies asking for that experiment. But if the premise isn't true, and no one thinks it is, why ask for the experiment?

You obviously thought that there was a reason for asking, and you claim that it's common knowledge that many people hold that premise. And yet you don't produce any evidence to support that premise.

Time for a new game yet? 'Cause we all know you ain't goin' back to the topic.

The topic being you asking for an experiment that no one ever claimed should exist? Your question as originally asked made no sense: where is "the experiment" that disproved the flood. It's like asking for the blood test that showed that the earth orbits the sun. Either you were basing your question on a premise (many scoffers claim that only experiments justify knowledge), or your question was simply nuts. Which is it? And if it wasn't nuts, justify your premise.

 

[CTD]

There has not, to my knowledge, been a singular 'experiment' done that discounts the possibility of a global flood.

See, people? It's not so hard to admit.

What discounts a global flood is that there is (to my knowledge) no observed evidence that is consistent with a global flood, and a significant amount of evidence that is impossible to explain using standard flood models.

One wonders what's meant by ''standard flood models''. There are tons of straw ''models'' in scofferdom, claiming to prove ''it can't rain that much'' or ''where'd all the water go''. These are but superficial jests. Of course it should't surprise us if they've go to the trouble to ''peer review'' an example, but I don't recall seeing one.

Creation scientists do submit their models for scrutiny by their peers. Of course ''that doesn't count'' because they're not atheistic enough or whatever...

If you know of an 'experiment' that discounts the global flood as described in the bible, please share it. If you have empirical evidence that indicates the occurance of the global flood as described in the bible, please share it.

Yes, I believe there is more than one thread fairly close at hand where evidence consistent with the flood is appropriate, and has been submitted. I don't think we should expect too much in the way of acknowledgment, if experience is a reliable guide, from those hostile to recorded history.

 

[Delphiki]

Just done the experiment in my backyard, yeah sorry not possible.

For some reason I don't feel silly. Am I supposed to?

 

[Split Rock]

Creation scientists do submit their models for scrutiny by their peers. Of course ''that doesn't count'' because they're not atheistic enough or whatever...

There is little "scrutiny" among creation scientist peers. They propose all kinds of models, etc. based on speculation centered around their own interpretations of scripture, but that's about it. Rarely do they propose any means of testing their hypotheses or models.

Yes, I believe there is more than one thread fairly close at hand where evidence consistent with the flood is appropriate, and has been submitted. I don't think we should expect too much in the way of acknowledgment, if experience is a reliable guide, from those hostile to recorded history.

Cite some of these threads.

 

[Delphiki]

Yes, I believe there is more than one thread fairly close at hand where evidence consistent with the flood is appropriate, and has been submitted. I don't think we should expect too much in the way of acknowledgment, if experience is a reliable guide, from those hostile to recorded history.

There wouldn't happen to be any extra-biblical recordings of this history you mention that would support the fantastic claims of the bible, would there?

 

[Nabobalis]

For some reason I don't feel silly. Am I supposed to?

If you want to

 

[Orogeny]

One wonders what's meant by ''standard flood models''. There are tons of straw ''models'' in scofferdom, claiming to prove ''it can't rain that much'' or ''where'd all the water go''. These are but superficial jests. Of course it should't surprise us if they've go to the trouble to ''peer review'' an example, but I don't recall seeing one.

Yes, those would be valid criticism during the peer-review processes, and you likely don't see any flood models in peer-reviewed journals because assuming the influence of a deity is inherently unscientific, and thus has no place in a scientific journal.

What I mean by 'standard flood models' is the models that posters here and the folks at establishments such as AiG propose. Usually they discuss fountains of the deep, lots of water, catastrophic or accelerated plate tectonics, and somehow end up depositing the majority (if not the entirety) of the sedimentary record.

If this is not describe a model to which you adheer, please describe your favorite variant.

Creation scientists do submit their models for scrutiny by their peers. Of course ''that doesn't count'' because they're not atheistic enough or whatever...

'Or whatever' is correct.

I think what you mean to say is 'Of course, that doesn't count because they're not scientific enough. If the model is not scientific, as I described above, peer review will weed that model out.

Yes, I believe there is more than one thread fairly close at hand where evidence consistent with the flood is appropriate, and has been submitted.

There are a few threads where this may be the case. As those threads consist of over a thousand total posts, and you appear to have specific evidences in mind, would you care to provide links to that evidence here?

I don't think we should expect too much in the way of acknowledgment, if experience is a reliable guide, from those hostile to recorded history.

There are few people here who I would lable as 'hostile to recorded history'. There is a greater population who are hostile to strawmen, red herrings and the like, and are positively allergic to intentional deception and the many forms of ignorance. Regardless, if there is empirical, verifiable evidence for the global flood as described in the bible, please post it here.

 

[AV1611VET]

The curious might also investigate terms 'Mars' and 'diluvian'. There is no water on the surface of Mars now, but the lamestream claims it was all totally flooded. ''Where'd the water go?'' has never even been an issue. When people want to, they actually can figure things out in very little time.

Not to mention the seas they used to think was on the moon.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Deluge theory was really a pre-modern science idea.

Ya -- it was pre-Internet too -- big deal.

Yet scientists discovered the earth was round, didn't they?