Evidence of the flood

No, it's pretty much ignorance, and ineptitude, too. In your entire history here this has got to be one of your most preposterous, misguided and goofy ideas. The top of the newly forming geological column is right under your nose in every low lying area you go in the world, including on the high seas, yet you can't see it. If it weren't so pathetic it would be funny. How would you know how the geological column formed? This isn't a discussion you've eever bothered to see through to the end. You just throw this cockamamie idea out there, it gets plastered, then you pick up your marbles and go home until the next time when you just throw the same cockamamie idea there yet again, as if it hadn't already been shown false. In fact, you've had the chutzpah to claim previous discussions that you abandoned as evidence of having "already shown that."Lakebeds and seafloor and some land regions are obviously how the geological column formed, and we know this because we see in the layers of today's lakebeds and seafloor precisely the same layers we see in the geological column. We see shallow seas with deep layers of the hard remains of marine sea life that, except that they have not yet been buried to be compressed and cemented into rock, are just like limestone strata. We see sandy shoreline areas that, except that they have not yet been buried into rock, are just like sandstone strata. Further offshore we see mud and clay layers that, except that they have not yet been buried into rock, are just like shale and slate layers. They *do* deposit on the existing column. Where else would they deposit? Where else *could* they deposit. Imagine a region a mile or so off a coastline somewhere. Mud and marine remains gradually deposit on the seafloor, which is, by definition, the top of the geological column. Where else but on top of that geological column can the mud and marine remains come to be deposited? There is no where else for them to go, so there atop the geological column they will be deposited. It depends. As long as the coastal environment remains unchanged then the same types of sediments will continue to be deposited, but if the land rises or falls, or the ocean levels rise of fall, or erosion or deposition on the coastline causes the area to becomes further or closer to the shore, then the environment will change, and the types of deposits will change with it. First, as has been pointed out to you many times, some strata are fairly flat, some are not. The more closely they're examined the more clear the fallacy of flatness. Certainly they are not level, since that's physically impossible given that the thicknesses of almost all strata vary.Further, it depends upon the size of the lake or sea. Obviously many lakes and seas are huge. Lake Superior is 350 miles long and 160 miles tall. The Atlantic Ocean is 4,000 miles wide, the Pacific 12,000 miles. Quite obviously there are huge regions of fairly flat topography beneath water level, and a great deal of it above, too. Visit Kansas some time. As I said, vast regions of the world are flat and extremely extensive. Said Mother Goose. There is no such thing as a magic flood that does just whatever you need it to do. We already know floods don't do what you claim for the great flood, and there's no reason to expect the great flood to be any different than normal floods (except in scale) or to have magical powers. Besides, the world is already 3/4 covered by a global flood (the world's oceans) and none of the effects you claim are observed.--Percy

Open your eyes, that's all it takes to get what I'

Open your eyes, that's all it takes to get what I'm saying.But I get it. Character assassination is the game here, and misrepresentation, and silly straw man gambits.Oh well, I knew from the beginning this was a rigged game, guess I can't complain.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh, you can and do complain.What you can't do is explain how your flood can sort the geology as we find it in reality, sort the biological samples as we find them in reality, sort radioactive elements, how it can totally miss societies, cultures and local technologies that exist before, and after your imaginary flood, totally fail to flood Egypt or why the Bible has two mutually exclusive flood myths, how it fails to disturb tracks and casts and nests and rooted trees and downed trees or any of the things that really and truly exist outside of fantasies.

Everyone's eyes are open, and what everyone can plainly see is that you haven't any idea what you're talking about. Have you at last no decency, no integrity, no honesty? If anyone assassinated your character it was you. People are judged by the content of their character, and your character is clear to all. You have damned yourself by your own reprehensible behavior here over long and wasted years. You have accused, you have insulted, you have ignored, you have set yourself up as judge and jury, and you have made a mockery of Christian principles. Shame on you.My post was full of evidence and argument, yours had none, just like so many times before. Time for you to start doing the work you should have begun long ago.--Percy

Zowie, lots more of the same smear campaign, lies galore too. In any other context I'd sue you. I'm not worried about my character but you should be worried about yours. And my answers to your "evidence" are really quite sufficient. I've given plenty of evidence and argument even on this very thread, but that doesn't count of course because Evo Decrees it's wrong. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If that were actually true Faith you can provide links to the posts in this thread where you provided evidence.It is reality that decrees you are wrong.

Faith, you certainly are a lying hypocrite but that does not mean we can't tell the truth about you. And, under U.S. law the truth is an absolute defence. I'm sure you'd love to abuse the legal system to silence critics, but since you aren't disgustingly rich you aren't going to manage that anyway.

quote:

---

my answers to your "evidence" are really quite sufficient.

---

The order of the fossil record is an established fact that has survived 200 years of continuing investigation. Insisting that it is an illusion on the sole ground that it destroys your arguments is not anything like sufficient. Nor is the insistence that it should be ignored because you claim to have an overwhelming case. Your case is pathetically weak, and even if it was the order of the fossil record is too big to be ignored even then. Minor anomalies might be ignored but major features certainly cannot.

quote:

---

I've given plenty of evidence and argument even on this very thread, but that doesn't count of course because Evo Decrees it's wrong.

---

You are the one who tries to to argue by decree. You are the one ignoring or rejecting most of the evidence.All it seems to boil down to is that you believe that the geological record should prove the Flood. It doesn't, you can't admit that, and you'd rather drag yourself down to Hell than accept that you were wrong. In the unlikely event that Christianity is true I hope you think it's worth it when you're actually burning in the fiery pit.

I know it proves the Flood. I've made the case multiple times, better on other threads but even this one says it in bare bones fashion. It's a matter of honest seeing, as I said But that isn't going to happen is it?

quote:

---

I know it proves the Flood.

---

You mean that you - somehow - really, really believe it despite the fact that it is obviously false.

quote:

---

I've made the case multiple times, better on other threads but even this one says it in bare bones fashion.

---

You've made low-quality arguments - without anything like the level of analysis or evidence that have gone into mainstream geology. And you've rejected large quantities of evidence to the contrary.Consider the example of fossil abundance. You made the claim that it was evidence for the Flood - which only really makes sense of the only alternatives would predict lower quantities which is not true. When it is pointed out - again - that the abundance is greater than we should expect if fossils were due to the Flood you just make the ad hoc assumption that the pre-Flood world would support that much life.That is not a good argument by any stretch of the imagination. It's just repeating an assertion which has already been rebutted on other threads, and without any answer to the rebuttal.

quote:

---

It's a matter of honest seeing, as I said But that isn't going to happen is it?

---

If you refuse to honestly see what is going on that is your problem.Give me one good reason to think that the order in the fossil record is an illusion. A genuinely good reason based directly on the fossil record itself. If you are seeing honestly you have one. If you don't you're just making up excuses.

Except where it didn't.Over 50 thousand alternating layers of diatoms and clay in Lake Suigetsu (fresh water)
Over 70 thousand alternating layers of forams and silt in Cariaco Basin (salt water)
Millions of alternating layers of fine and coarse sediments in the Green River formation One flood event cannot make these formations, because natural water and natural materials do not naturally behave that way ... unless it is supernatural and invoking a magic flying carpet flood is just a metaphor for saying god-did-it.Curiously you have also argued that it can gently pick up fragile marine formations, lift them to mountain tops and set them down unbroken with a complete record of thousands of years of mature marine growth.You can't have it both ways except by being wrong about both ways (which, btw, you are).Enjoy

You are only reinforcing what everyone already knows about you: you are dishonest and lack all integrity, your position is so empty you can muster no evidence for it, and you lie about that, too. And now you're threatening people. Good show! I do worry about my character, all the time. As I said before, it's one of the ironies of human nature that the most despicable among us are also the most content with who they are. It would seem that if you're typing you're lying. You've given no answers. Your response to my Message 331 was, "Open your eyes, that's all it takes to get what I'm saying." No, Faith, this is another lie. I don't know what is wrong with you that you think, "If I type it it must be true." You've given no evidence that supports the Flood, and you haven't responded to the rebuttals to your ideas, again, most recently in Message 331.The situation now in this thread is that you're in full evasion mode, carried out by behaving as badly as possible to draw attention away from the actual topic. If you had answers then you'd be providing answers, but you don't, so you instead delay, distract, and ultimately disappear while blaming everyone else.--Percy

If you did actually know anything then you'd know there is no evidence supporting the Biblical Flood, but you instead exert a great deal of effort keeping yourself ignorant. Every time you've attempted to make your case the glaring errors have been pointed out to you, and your response has always been to insult, to ignore, to obfuscate, and ultimately to run away. Not by you, apparently. You're not even honest enough to discuss evidence of the flood in a thread titled Evidence of the flood.--Percy

I've been watching this exchange of words, emotions, and an imaginary ping pong match on what evidence actually is.In defense of Faith, I feel that she strongly believes that if secular folks were honest within themselves, they would believe that a global flood (Hint: Bible=Truth=Jesus) is a potential reality.In other words, Faiths internalized method of evangelizing is to preach creationism. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Faith) That's the only answer that I've come up with regarding her insistence that there is evidence.I, on the other hand, have never had a problem with belief in a living Christ uncoupled with a literal belief in a word for word Genesis. Mind you, many of my biblical literalist friends, Pastors, and church acquaintances would disagree with my assessment.They might be right in the final analysis (and trumpet) and I might be wrong. Which would, of course, mean that all of us were wrong. I respect the discipline of science because I respect a lot of you and what you do and what you have learned. Similarly, I respect many of my conservative Biblical Literalist friends and Pastors because of what they do.As for my own personal beliefs? They are full of more questions than answers...but I trust that Jesus loves all of us and wants the best for us.Add by edit: Tell them specifically what it is that you want them to see, Faith.Edited by Phat, : added point

For the record, let's define precisely what evidence is and is not. Can everyone list their interpretation of the definition?Edited by Phat, : sub title