Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

[keith99]

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.

Of course it is imposible to prove a worldwide flood did not happen.

BUT most flood believers believe far more, that the earth is only 6000 years old and that the flood is responsible for much of the worlds Geology.

For that second version I have proposed an experiment that along with a close look at any of many formations laid down in a shallow seas disproves flood Geology.

Take a mix of clay and silt, add water and shake in a jar, see how long it takes for the fine pieces to settle.

This is an ideal situation for settling, no disturbances. It would always take longer in any open environment.

It will take far too long for many of the repeating layers found in extensive formations to be explained in a 6000 year time frame.

 

[CTD]

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.

Riiiiight. According to ...talkdeception? Oh, let me guess again: wikipedia CITING talkdecetions!

Cite some of these threads.

We'll see. I've already a request to step & fetch some pretty easy-to-obtain, hard-to-avoid common knowledge in case you didn't notice. Requests to just eat up my time with stuff people don't give a hoot about are a pretty low low low low priority.

 

[Delphiki]

Riiiiight. According to ...talkdeception? Oh, let me guess again: wikipedia CITING talkdecetions!

Then, by all means, tell us what your hypothesis is and how do we test it?

 

[Split Rock]

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

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

Yes. A spherical earth is a pre-modern science concept, and it is correct. That doesn't mean they all were,or even that most were. Does it?

 

[Split Rock]

Riiiiight. According to ...talkdeception? Oh, let me guess again: wikipedia CITING talkdecetions!

Show us otherwise. Show us a "creation scientist" that tests his own or other's creationist models (Riiiight. According to... Lies in Genesis? Oh let me guess: Conservapedia CITING Lies in Genesis!). Put up or shut up.

We'll see. I've already a request to step & fetch some pretty easy-to-obtain, hard-to-avoid common knowledge in case you didn't notice. Requests to just eat up my time with stuff people don't give a hoot about are a pretty low low low low priority.

We'll wait. I suspect that truth is a pretty low low low low priority with you too. Put up or shut up.

 

[Insane_Duck]

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.

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one organizes experiments to disprove un-backed claims.

 

[Orogeny]

Of course it is imposible to prove a worldwide flood did not happen.

Of course.

BUT most flood believers believe far more, that the earth is only 6000 years old and that the flood is responsible for much of the worlds Geology

For that second version I have proposed an experiment that along with a close look at any of many formations laid down in a shallow seas disproves flood Geology.

Take a mix of clay and silt, add water and shake in a jar, see how long it takes for the fine pieces to settle.

This is an ideal situation for settling, no disturbances. It would always take longer in any open environment.

It will take far too long for many of the repeating layers found in extensive formations to be explained in a 6000 year time frame.

That's a good experiment, and could work against the type of flood geology you described. However, a water column heavily laden with clay will allow for more rapid settling than a water column with just a bit of clay floating in it.

 

[Davian]

Of course it is imposible to prove a worldwide flood did not happen.

BUT most flood believers believe far more, that the earth is only 6000 years old and that the flood is responsible for much of the worlds Geology.

For that second version I have proposed an experiment that along with a close look at any of many formations laid down in a shallow seas disproves flood Geology.

Take a mix of clay and silt, add water and shake in a jar, see how long it takes for the fine pieces to settle.

This is an ideal situation for settling, no disturbances. It would always take longer in any open environment.

It will take far too long for many of the repeating layers found in extensive formations to be explained in a 6000 year time frame.

Kent Hovind actually proposed this experiment, claiming that the resultant "hydrologic sorting" would support his flood claims. Strangely, he never posted his own results from this experiment.

www kent-hovind com / theory.htm

Is that what you were looking for, CTD?

 

[CTD]

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?

Oh yes, that's how to convince me. I'm lame because you say so - wow!


Global Flood on Mars but Not Earth? | Learn The Bible

Answers in Genesis Illustrations

As for Earth?
Dissident Congress
says
"The vast majority of water on earth is not contained in the oceans or the polar icecaps but is contained deep within the earth. The exact amount of water trapped inside the earth is unknown but could be over 90% of all water on earth. The old high school crust mantle core model of the earth is a gross simplification and completely unrepresentative of what the earth is really like inside. It is known that vast amounts of water are contained inside porous rocks and as hydrate minerals, but some geologists reckon there are vast cavities of (superheated?) liquid water deep within the earth. "

 

[Nabobalis]

Any real link saying there was a flood on Mars?

 

[visa]

Any real link saying there was a flood on Mars?

Please give them a chance, they are trying to make an argument when they have nothing to argue with so if they need to bring in Mars it can only serve to make their argument worth reading.

They are creationists so that alone will tell you their mental state.

 

[CTD]

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.

Figures... You don't have to tell me about your little ''peer review system''. Science is the systematic search for truth - not the systematic denial of anything that might be compatible with scripture.

 

[CTD]

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?

That would seem to be off-topic here. The only fantastic claim I am aware of in the Bible is that God loved sinners so much that He sent His Son to die for us. You shouldn't have to go too far to find some threads where that question's on-topic.

 

[CTD]

Ha - all caught up. 8 pages in and I still remember the topic.

 

[Orogeny]

The vast majority of water on earth is not contained in the oceans or the polar icecaps but is contained deep within the earth. The exact amount of water trapped inside the earth is unknown but could be over 90% of all water on earth.

Translation: We don't know how much water is in the crust, but we'll say it's 90%!'
Is there a source for this 90% estimation, or is this just a number of convenience?

The old high school crust mantle core model of the earth is a gross simplification and completely unrepresentative of what the earth is really like inside.

It's a simplification, but it's not incorrect.

It is known that vast amounts of water are contained inside porous rocks and as hydrate minerals, but some geologists reckon there are vast cavities of (superheated?) liquid water deep within the earth.

Vast cavities? That's ridiculous. Deep crustal seismic imaging does not lend evidence to this, nor does mantle tomography. Those 'some geologists' are not basing their opinion on the available evidence, none of which indicates that there are 'vast cavities' in the mantle.

 

[Orogeny]

Figures... You don't have to tell me about your little ''peer review system''. Science is the systematic search for truth - not the systematic denial of anything that might be compatible with scripture.

Science is a systematic endeavor to understand natural processes and how they shape the world around us. The supernatural is not and cannot be a part of science.

 

[Orogeny]

Ha - all caught up. 8 pages in and I still remember the topic.

lol 8 pages what a n00b.

 

[CTD]

I think your common knowledge is wrong. I don't think these people exist -- that's why I want to know where got this idea. If these people are so common, you should have no trouble pointing me to some of them. Who are these people who claim that only experiment (not observation, just experiment) can yield knowledge?

Thanks, but I get out quite a bit. I've certainly never run into a scientist with this belief, and they're the ones whose findings you're questioning.

Seein's how we'll probably be waiting indefinitely for any experiment proving there was no flood, why don't I conduct an experiment in the mean time?

It's generally against my policy to prove universal observations, but there's something about the challenge of searching up common phrases, weeding out the unwanted results and all...

Hypothesis1: sfs does not care the least little bit that such people very commonly exist as he maintains he's never seen. Neither will sfs apologize for accusing me of constructing a straw man.

Hypothesis 2: we will see blatant, stupid lies about the history of the thread and / or the content at the links - from other trolling parties, not necessarily sfs.

Age of Reason , Science is the only way of knowing - everything...

Is Science the ‘Best Way of Knowing’? (again) « Wide as the Waters

The Barefoot Bum: Science is the only way of knowing

Sandwalk: The Nature of Science: Is Science the only Way of Knowing?

Are there ways of learning besides science? - Ask the atheists

 

[CTD]

lol 8 pages what a n00b.

Noob? What do you call the crew whose primary tactic is to just deny things like scientism and the deluvian Mars belief of the lamestream? Oh yes, and "me cannot nebber see no ebbidense ob no floods - me can shut eyes and flings muds." Totally 1337!

 

[Belk]

Subscribing for the lulz.