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.
Remarkable how the evos bring the Bible into this discussion when all I've brought into it is scientific considerations.
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.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand 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.
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.
I don't "assume" it, I conclude it to be so because any other explanation makes no sense.
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.