Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

To cover that quarter would still have to cover 100% of the earth to over 29000 feet according to your mythological book of genesis.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

You really think he can understand the difference between area and volume?Good luck, pal.

No, I don't think he can. His point is pointless in either area or volume.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Two points:

1. Scientific theories about the origin of water in today's oceans do not include rain "for thousands of years over the entire Earth," nor do they include a global flood (this is not to say that rain and floods did not occur on the ancient Earth). You're making things up again.
   ​
2. The Biblical flood is relevant to your evolutionary position, primarily because it marks an extreme genetic bottleneck as well as a beginning point for any evolutionary change you're willing to include. Scientific theories concerning the origin of water in today's oceans billions of years ago would not seem to have much to do with your claims about mutational meltdowns and genetic inbreeding, but if you are convinced they are relevant then please at least cite scientific theories that exist instead of making them up.

--Percy

Well to put it in prespective.The earth has a surface of 510 072 000 kmTo cover Mount everest the wathers would need to be 9 kilometers highSo we would need 4 590 648 000 Km3 of water to cover the whole Earth from the sea level to the top of mount everest. How did that wather get heare and how did it go away aggain well simple god did it.

Hi blues, That would depend on whether you are reading the text as recorded or as it is presented by many at EvC.According to Genesis 1:2 there was no land mass above the water. In other words the entire world was covered with water. According to Genesis 1:9 the water was gathered into one place and dry land appeared. Thus all the water was in one place and all the dry land was in one place. There is no size given for this dry land nor was there any sea level given for this dry land.The land could have been 1 foot above sea level as it had been covered with water moments before it became dry land. The highest point on that dry land could have been 10 feet above sea level. The text does not say.There is no change put forth in the text between this appearance of dry land and the flood of Noah.Genesis 7:19, 20 tells us how much water covered the high hills in verse 20 and the same Hebrew word is then mistranslated mountains in verse 20. Suppose the ark was built on the highest dry land available.
The flood then rose 22 feet above the dry land the ark was sitting on.
The water would not even reach the 1st floor of the ark as it had lower second and third floors, and it never would have lifted off the ground.If most of the water that was used to cover this land mass came from the sea what would be the problem of it going back into the sea?The same water had covered the land mass in Genesis 1:2.So don't confuse what the text says with what you assume it to say.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

So the Rockies, Alps, Andes, Appalachians, Himalayas, Atlas and all other mountain ranges rose after Noah and his Ark?Wouldn't this have been as destructive as your so called vapor canopy? Why isn't this dramatic rising of the land and the splitting of the continents mentioned anywhere? When do you propose all of this happened?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

And it still has nothing to do with the topic; just another attractive rabbit hole.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Similarly, if I suddenly grow a luxury hotel and casino out of my ass what would be the problem of it going back into my ass?I admit that if you can solve the problem of how I grew the hotel out of my ass in the first place, then the problem of why there is no longer a hotel growing out of my ass can be well explained by a reversal of the original process.On the other hand, I would suggest that there is a more parsimonious explanation of why there is not at present a hotel growing out of my ass, namely that there never was.

So what you are basicly saying is that a worldwide cunami struck all the continents and washed everything away except fo noas ark that was held together by gods own 2 hands so the huge horizont covering cunami did not brake it apart like twigs.If someone told that kind of story in my country the usualy response would be: (trtanslated to my best abileties) "and then you wake up whit your D%&$ in your hand and your tumb up your A$$"Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Then pray tell, how did the Ark land on the mountains of Ararat if no mountains existed?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This thread is only about the flood to the extent that AOK or someone else can tie it into a potential falsification of the theory of evolution.--Percy

You can be damn sure that I wasn't probing for real (major) falsifications when I started this topic. I know that such possibilities are very slim at best, and even then, it isn't going to be the creation side that comes up with such.Perhaps the term "hypothetical falsifications" would have been better. As in, "they don't really exist, but hypothetically, what would do the job". Some good examples of such came very early in this topic.I find it totally absurd to ask the creation side for real (not hypothetical) falsifications. Why continuously badger someone for something you know doesn't exist?Moose

Well to be fair, creationists do keep insisting that they do exist, and simply leaving that sort of claim unchallenged can give it at least a spurious credence.TTFN,WK

Perhaps extrasolar planets would be a good analogy.We haven't "directly" observed an extrasolar planet to date. What we have observed are stars that wobble quite a bit with no apparent binary star to cause the wobble. We also observe that some stars dim from time to time. Extrasolar planets explain all of these observations really, really well. I think most of us would be absolutely floored if all of these observations were actually caused by something other than extrasolar planets.Such is the case with evolution. We see all of the evidence we should see if evolution is true, right down to the order of bases in DNA. Evolution explains all of these observations really, really well.