Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)

Could you show me how these to statements can me made to fit together, given the fairly well-known tendencies of plants and animals to die at temperatures over boiling? Even gopher wood would tend to weaken after a 40-day boil, don't you imagine?You aren't operating rationally.You're Making Stuff Up.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

The entire planet would be under water not at the bottom of the ocean. Any material that is suspended in the water would have the potential to fall, any further movement would require other forces.

Ice tends to melt above 0⁰C. The 1000⁰C or so that would superheat the water would be localized.If you put your hand in front of a steaming kettle, you will burn your hand; if you move it away just a little, its not hot at all. What is wrong with my rationale?I'm making up a scenario to use as a model, what's wrong with that?

I was speaking metaphorically - "the entire globe would lie beneath an 'ocean' of water". The water has to cover all the Earth's mountain ranges, does it not?In any case you're just splitting hairs - "under water" was, of course, what I meant to convey. "Falling", as you put it, is perfectly capable of laying deposits. We see no global flood deposits, end of story.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

It's not the end of the story. Demonstrate why there should be a
single homogeneous layer of sediment or concede that a flood was possible.

Just get yourself a Geology textbook - it's all in there.A large body of water will hold vast amounts of material in suspension and/or solution. When gravity overcomes any other forces acting on the material it sinks to the bed of the body of water. Sedimentary rocks like Sandstone begin their formation in this way.Try it yourself, put a small portion of fine sand into a glass of water and stir. Leave it to settle and see what happens - it isn't rocket science. Er, no.

Why would I want to get myself a geology text book? So I can learn to conform, and not have to think for myself? Ok, now take your glass of water add a mixture of all minerals, ores, rocks, bones and tip it out down your driveway. Do we end up with a homogeneous layer of silt? No.Just give me some convincing evidence that disqualifies a global flood.

Wow. You'd rather be a non-comforming ignoramus than an edjucated "conformist"!?To me, that is just crazy. The lack of a genetic bottleneck.

OK, that's easy.I am an archaeologist, and in the areas I work there is no erosional discontinuity, nor are there flood sediments or other evidences of a flood, at the appointed time of 4,350 years ago.On the other hand, there is continuity across that time period. There is continuity of fauna and flora, sedimentation, human cultures, and mitochondrial DNA. None of these would be possible if there was a global flood 4,350 years ago.The same kind of evidence is found by archaeologists working in other parts of the world.Conclusion -- no global flood 4,350 years ago no matter what you believe. (See tagline.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Who appointed the time?
Have you found any erosional discontinuities within the last 10 thousand years?

So it's more important to conform and fill your head with garbage, than it is to think for yourself.What happened to the real scientists? Genetics will shed light on human ancestral history.Edited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given.

Is there ANY evidence from c. 4400 years ago to support the Genesis Flood narrative?

Who appointed the time? Biblical scholars. Here are some references for the date of the global flood:

layevangelism.com
​
2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years)
​
2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
​
2370 BC --TalkOrigins.com
​
2500 BC -- http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html
​
2522 BC --Dr. Gerhard Hasel
​
2978-3128 BC -- http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199605/0162.html
​
3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)

For erosional discontinuities google "channeled scablands" and do some reading.These are features that are two to three times older than the date ascribed to the global flood, and they are pretty well understood for area of flood coverage and time period. And, a global flood would have wiped away this evidence.Summary: no global flood at the appointed time, 4,350 years ago.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Garbage? No.But what about the lack of a genetic bottleneck discounting the flood?I see you avoided that...

If you read a geology book, you would, at least, know what you were arguing against. You can bet that the real scientists have read most or all of the books in their field, especially the ones they disagree with. They conduct studies in the field and lab and every one of them is trying to discover something new.

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley