The TRVE history of the Flood...

Forty days and nights of rain all over the earth would turn most of the land mass to mud, creating mudslides everywhere. A mudslide created by a local flood can do a lot of damage all by itself. I posted pictures of that a long time ago. Multiply that by millions. Much of the land would be scoured nearly flat.The oceans would rise up onto the land, heavy with sediment from their own sources as well as the mudslides. People and animals would be dying in each phase; others would try to get to higher ground.the oceans would deposit sand, mud, silt, and calcareous ooze in layers as it rose. At its height more sediments would precipitate out of the standing water. There would be nothing anywhere but water. Everything would die that couldn't live in the water, and even marine life would die because of all the sediment in the water.There's a start.

No the problem is that you don't know anything about this debate.Forget saying anything is impossible that the Bible says happened. You don't get to say what is impossible and argue with God. Sorry. The Bible is where we start, we don't argue it. the Flood began with forty days and nights of rain.I didn't say ALL marine life died. Obviously it didn't for crying out loud. Talking to someone who knows absolutely nothing is a lost cause.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nooooo, we assume the Flood and try to prove it from the observed facts. We are not here to argue for the Bible's veracity.

I certainly can speak for God, any Bible believer can.

By the way, trying to prove the Flood is only part of the project. The bigger part is showing the utter nonsensicalness of the Geological Time Scale. Seems to me that knowing it's based on a stack of horizontally laid wet sediments in which are encased billions of dead things, should be reason enough to regard it as delusional, without any other information, and that the stack of lithified sediments is good evidence for a worldwide Flood. In a way I don't see the need for any more argument, it's open and shut.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Explanations based on the Bible aren't "ad hoc" and the explanation for the enormous amount of rain is the "waters above the firmament" that existed from the Creation:Gen 1:7: I know a geologist thinks only in terms of what is observable in the world now -- according to the uniformitarian principle that says things have always been the way they are now -- but Bible believers accept what the Bible says about how things were very different before the Flood. However strange it sounds and however hard it is to comprehend, the original Creation had "waters above the firmament" that were released from the "windows of heaven" at the start of the Flood. According to inferences from this, it had never rained on earth before that. I don't know if there were rock formations, but even if there were there would have been a lot of mud. I also never said there were no hills; the usual idea is that there were no mountains as high as those today, but how high some might have been is unknown. When I see those illustrations of the extent of the sedimentary depositions across the continent that I linked from HBD's post on that subject a while back, I wonder where there could have been any mountains at all. Surely any hills would have been turned to mud, and some parts of mountains as well. And if everything was covered over by sedimentary deposits where would we find evidence of previous mudslides? I just mean that if you look at Walther's Law it shows limestones that would have come from the ocean. Why WOULDN'T rising sea water carry all that sediment that had come off the land, AND that came from the ocean itself? The "fountains of the deep" would no doubt have stirred up the oceans as they became a major source of the water that flooded the land. abe; the water was rising onto the land, why would any special "force" be needed for it to carry all kinds of sedimentary particles with it? /abe The "early" layers are marine, right? People would have been buried higher up. or just drowned in the sea. Since the uppermost strata would have been washed away in the receding Flood water it probably took the people and their artifacts with it out to sea. I'm basing this on Walther's Law which shows that rising sea level does deposit limestone. How many local floods involve rising sea level? Whatever was carried in the water. Should have been a lot of stuff after mudslides and fountains of the deep opening up. I was describing how it would look from the surface at the height of the Flood: nothing but water everywhere. That says nothing about what was IN the water. Why wouldn't rising sea level create shorelines? Or receding sea level for that matter? Dunno. I can't know everything. Not according to Walther's Law Why would he need to? Lots of marine life died, as evidenced in the fossil record, but far from all marine life.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just a semantic glitch as so often happens: I shouldn't have but I was using "mud" to describe ALL wet sediments that buried things and became rock. That includes sandstone and limestone. My mistake, I should know by now that I'm dealing with people who don't like generic terms. I doubt I'll remember it but oh well

I haven't seen anything but the most half-hearted insufficient attempts based on utterly inadequate teeny tiny local floods.

Me too. There wouldn't be. Where are you getting that idea? Moose just said there should have been plenty of clear water in the oceans. The only place there would be layers of sediment is on the land and why would whales be swimming there? Well there are places with no geological column, but you do seem to be forgetting the oceans, where there is also no geological column.

If it's in the Bible it's the explanation it's not made up. Want? I don't know, but these aren't issues we're debating. What I claim mostly is that the strata are THE evidence for a worldwide Flood and absolutely NOT evidence for the Geological Time Scale. This has been my claim in post after post from different angles for years. But again, I think it's indisputable just on the face of it. Sin was the cause of the Flood. Beyond that, again you are raising questions that are not part of the debate. I try to stick to the evidence that it happened, not how it happened. All a way to avoid the indisputable fact that sediments full of dead things stacked miles deep suggest an enormous water catastrophe and not hundreds of millions of years of time periods. What it applies to is rising sea level and that's what we have here. The calcium carbonate they are made up of was already created, it was merely transported and deposited as layers that became limestone. What do you mean "overwhelm?" I would assume they deposit as layers the same way they always do with rising sea level. And there's no reason to suppose that the water was ever that deep as it was rising. Just deep enough to deposit whatever depth of sediments that got deposited. I thought I was answering the question how ocean sediments would have been carried on to the land. Some stirring of the water would seem to help with that. A few passages in the Bible refer to them. Since it concerns you that my arguments are "unbiblical" perhaps such passages would change your mind? You weren't there, I wasn't there, I see the evidence of the Flood in the deposited sediments, all I know is that the only way they could get there is if the ocean did it. It's easy to dream up objections to anything I come up with but it's all just your imagination same as all I can do is imagine what happened. So again I'll point to the evidence: strata, strata, strata, lousy evidence for anything but a worldwide flood. Who said there was no sea and no waves? I guess the insistence on comparing this to little floods is irresistible because you can demand that a worldwide Flood should have had the same effects, but of course that is ridiculous. I would guess that some things dug up by archaeologists may be pre-Flood myself, but if not it was all drowned in the depths of the sea. If mammals weren't why would people have been?: And what would YOU make up for the early stages of a Flood that started with forty days and nights of rain?Really, you are just slinging wildly hoping something will stick aren't you? =I don't think you do. They may be there. Most of them probably decayed away. I guess it soothes you to think it was all "mudflows" for some reason, but I don't see where you are getting any warrant for that idea. What Walther's Law addresses is sediments deposited by rising sea level. I'm not "claiming' anything, I'm doing my best to imagine what might have happened during a worldwide Flood. I can't claim my guesses are what DID happen, we can't know that, it's all an exercise in coming up with as reasonable a scenario as I can. I don't find much in your objections to take seriously, they seem mostly "shot from the hip" as it were, or a shotgun, not really thought out. I WOULD like to see you try imagining the Flood using the same information I'm using. Surely the Flood implies a land mass, you know, where all the strata are deposited. Rising and falling levels of water do tend to leave shorelines. Sure. Point me to a flood involving rising sea level. By which you mean the attempts to imagine what happened. But you know, that's all you have for your scenarios too, just your imagination. And it's pretty florid imagination too, all those time periods with weird looking animals romping around amid weird looking plants, that all end up as a stack of slabs of rock which is even weirder. Seems to me I've answered an awful lot of questions that get thrown at me, some of them rather wacko. YEC is only a failure in your mind and according to standard geology because you refuse to acknowledge all the hits it's made. It's so easy to deny theories in the historical sciences where nothing can be actually proved and where you hold all the establishment certifications. You don't have to take any of it seriously; all you have to do is say it's wrong and therefore it is wrong.

What we were talking about was the "waters above the firmament." Please don't change the subject.And about mudslides, if you can figure out how it could rain for forty days and nights without producing prodigious mudslides, please enlighten.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK fine but ringo was talking about whales swimming over the land as if he'd forgotten there was an ocean.

Forty days and nights of constant rain all over the entire earth would cause mudslides whether or not there were also rocks.

It's just wonderful how good you are at ignoring the obvious fact that a stack of sedimentary rocks is the highly unlikely outcome of time periods in which creatures supposedly lived. Do you really expect our own "time period," with all its mountains and valleys and so on, to ultimately reduce down to a few flat 0layers of sediment spread over hundreds or thousands of square miles, just like all the others supposedly did? I don't know why this isn't screamingly obvious to you or anybody else. Perhaps it is but you can't give up the status quo? All that intellectual stimulation and so on? So much for scientific objectivity.And the idea that the sediments would mix together, natural and commonsensical though the idea would seem to be, is contradicted by all kinds of experiments: even water at high velocity sorts out sediments into layers, as Berthault's flume experiments show, plus his observation of a high stack of layers produced by a flooding river; and when water is simply standing sediments also precipitate out into layers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is really hilarious the way this obvious denial of reality is clung to by everybody here. The strata full of dead things are IN-YOUR-FACE EVIDENCE both for a worldwide Flood and against the preposterous idea that they represent time periods that then all collapsed down into stratified rock.I know it would cost all the sophisticated evos here enormously to just pry open one eye to a slit and take a squint at this obvious fact because it could threaten your whole worldview, your livelihood, and especially your egos to consider it for half a second.I sympathize, I really do because it happened to me when I became a Christian, and later a creationist as well, that I lost most of my friends, all really in the end, have to tolerate from nonChristian family and even some Christian friends a pretty total void in acknowledgement of all the things that matter most to me, all for the sake of continuing to have any kind of relationship at all, and then of course I also have to put up with being treated like the village idiot at EvC and so on. Who wants it?But the strata/fossils is such obvious evidence for the Flood and against the Geo Time Scale I have to imagine some such reason for refusing to recognize it. Paradigmosis will do up to a point but I think we're beyond that point.