Potential Evidence for a Global Flood

Far more important is what you would not expect to find.Your hypothesis (that all land and water were concentrated in a Pangaea supercontinent and then divided up into the land masses we see today) predicts that we should see multiple continents. We see that today - your hypothesis is accurate at least in that regard.But what does your model predict that we should not find? Your hypothesis states that the division of land mass took place "at some time" between 100 to 329 years after a global flood. That means that, at most, the division of land mass took 229 years. What should we expect to not find given the predictions of your hypothesis, ICANT, and why? Remember, if your hypothesis equally explains any and all possible observations, it's worthless and conveys zero knowledge. We have to know what your hypothesis cannot explain in order to test its accuracy.

Yes you do: That's your hypothesis. You assert that the Bible claims that all land mass was conjoined into a single supercontinent like the Pangaea picture in your foum avatar, and that the supercontinent broke up into the separate land masses we observe today over a 229-year time period several thousand years ago. You further assert that the Bible's claim is an accurate description of events which happened in the real world, and are neither allegory nor pure fiction.Is that not the case?We can find observations which support that hypothesis. We can observe for instance that the continents appear to have all been conjoined at some point in the past, and that they have since broken up into separate land masses.But the strength of any hypothesis is not what is can explain, but rather what it cannot. Asking Coyote what he would expect to find is not the best question to test the accuracy of your hypothesis. Yes, you do need observations that support your hypothesis. The problem is that by only looking for confirmational evidence, you can gain significant support for almost any hypothesis - I could prove that I have the ability to predict cards drawn from a deck, for instance, if the only observations we consider are my successful results.The best question to test the accuracy of a hypothesis is "what observation would not be explained by my hypothesis?" It doesn't have to be an outright falsification, it can simply be an observation that wouldn't quite fit (a hypothesis is almost never "right" or "wrong" - it's usually a degree of accuracy, and evidence slightly against a hypothesis simply means it's a little less accurate than before).So again, ICANT - given your hypothesis: what would your hypothesis not be able to explain? What observation could we potentially make that would reduce support for that hypothesis? Just as importantly, why would that observation reduce support for your hypothesis?

Yet the Bible is not a person and cannot participate in this thread. Since you are a person participating in this thread, and since you are the one who proposed the above hypothesis in this thread (even if you were simply repeating a claim in the Bible), it's your hypothesis for all practical purposes. The original source (the Bible, God, you, your friend Steve) is irrelevant. All that matters is the hypothesis and whether the evidence proves it to be more or less accurate than competing hypotheses. Curiously, your anticipation that no evidence supporting for a global flood should be found is identical to no flood having ever occurred. Why is that, do you think?But more to the point - your prediction (that no global-flood evidence should be found) is equally supported by both modern geological models and your hypothesis. It really doesn't help us distinguish which is more accurate - from the standpoint of being able to predict that no flood-evidence should be found, they are both equally accurate.What else would not be explained by your hypothesis? Personal credulity is irrelevant, and that goes for both of us. Cosmology is also irrelevant in this thread, as it is in most threads where you bring it up lately - a rather obvious attempt at a red herring and a tu quoque fallacy. Let's stick to discussing the topic - which in this case means talking about your hypothesis. I'm aware of that. My point is that we can better test the accuracy of your hypothesis by asking what it would not explain than by looking for validated predictions. Note that I said "better," not "only." Well, he's not the one proposing your hypothesis - you are. I;d rather expect you to have a better handle on what is and is not explained by the hypothesis you yourself believe to havea high probability of accuracy, else you wouldn't think it so likely to be accurate.That;s why I'm asking you, not myself or Coyote, what would not be explained by your hypothesis. If all landmasses were once collected into one conjoined supercontinent that then broke apart over some period of no more than 229 years, what observations would you not expect to find?Even better, what observations would not be explained by your hypothesis, but would be explained by competing hypotheses? We need something to differentiate your hypothesis from others so that we can see which is the most accurate according to observed reality.