Summations Only

quote:

---

Yeah the order of the fossil record appears to be consistent, but that's not testability

---

Sure it is. If we suddenly started finding formations drastically at odds with it we'd have to think again.

quote:

---

You need something outside the fossil record that validates your interpretation.

---

I don't think so. But it depends on what you want validating. The fact of the order in the fossil record is best validated by getting replication from different sites, for instance.

quote:

---

The Flood explanation has more testability than that, since layers do form in water

---

Testability doesn't mean jumping to conclusions based on a superficial analysis and it certainly doesn't mean looking for things that might support a hypothesis. The whole point of testing is to look for falsifications.

Are you seriously trying to maintain that some scientists looked at the geological evidence, then said "You know what, all this evidence points to something like a global flood about 4,000 or so years ago. What's that Leeroy ? Are you saying that something called...what was that...'the Bible'...said that the world was destroyed by a flood sent by God about 4,000 years ago ? You are totally shitting me Leeroy !!!""Evos" (aka people who understand the scientific method) simply follow where the evidence takes them. The only reason that global floods ever get mentioned in the context of geology is because creationists start there with their desired conclusion, and then desperately try to cherry pick and warp the evidence to fit the desired result.If you say there is evidence of a global flood, you are referencing the bible. That's what you do Faith, not us "evos".Edited by vimesey, : Better tribute to Mr Jenkins by spelling his name right.

I've brought up the Flood in terms of the evidence for it, not the source of the idea.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, you have misrepresented the evidence for a flood and when those misrepresentations have been pointed out to you you have refused to present the flood model for what you claim.There is NO evidence of the Biblical Flood and anyone today who makes such a claim is simply wrong.It really is that simple.

I think I've asked you this question twice before and you've never answered it: When you see a pile of leaves, do you take that as evidence that they all came from the same tree?

Yeah jar we can have that argument again I suppose, but all I said was that I brought up the Flood in terms of the evidence for it, which is the case whether you think there is evidence for it or not.

Except you have never, ever actually presented any such evidence.If you believe that you actually do have evidence we can certainly start a thread where you can present it.

Of course I've given evidence, the main evidence being the very fact of the layers of separate sediments themselves, which is far easier explained in terms of what water does than in terms of millions of years to lay down each separate layer. Which is absurd.

Millions of years are not as absurd as ONE year, which is what your Flood "hypothesis" says.And even less absurd when you recognise that those millions of years represent a complex history with long periods of non-deposition and erosion.

So answer the question: When you see a pile of leaves, do you assume that they all came from one tree?If not, why would you assume that all of the layers came from one flood?

Sorry but it seems that you really don't even know what evidence is.You have asserted that a flood could lay down the layers seen but that is of course simply another of your lies.Please explain how a flood could lay down a series of millions of repeating and alternating layers of fine sediment then coarser sediment.The idea of a Biblical flood has been soundly refuted for over 150 years and was refuted by believers in teh Biblical flood.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin u-->a

I don't "assume" it, I conclude it to be so because any other explanation makes no sense.

THE Flood was not "A flood," it was something that never happened before or since and it's ridiculous to try to compare it to any lesser flood. It was a rising of the OCEAN covering all the continents (or the one huge continent at that time anyway), involving ocean currents and waves and the fact that ocean water is naturally layered anyway. The ocean carries things in its layers and currents and waves and deposits them on land, this is everyday knowledge. It would have had an enormous baggage of pulverized sediments as a result of the saturation of the land. Etc. etc. etc.

When you see a pile of leaves, do you "conclude" that they all came from one tree because any other explanation makes no sense?What you've shown is evidence that floods happen. We already knew that. I've seen four myself.What you haven't shown is evidence of one giant tree or one giant flood. That is what makes no sense. And you know it makes no sense because you don't use the same logic to conclude that all leaves come from one giant tree.

worldwide strata is evidence of a worldwide flood.