Summations Only

Liar liar liar liar liar. Can EvCers ever muster an actual argument without such stupid ad hominem accusations?And I've answered your inane mantra about not having a model many times.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ages ago even Percy said I'd presented enough reasons for the Flood to be fairly called a model. If I can find it I will post it. I've many times assembled many reasons in favor of the Flood and against the standard interpretation.Calling people liars is really really bad form.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You have NO idea what number of fossils is "too great" for the Flood, and you certainly aren't taking into account the Biblical context which allows for many times what lives today, because the entire land mass was livable then as it now is not, and immensely more fertile.Here's a qjote you'll find on this Google page answering the question 'What percentage of the earth's land is habitable?" No ice caps either as I understand it, suggesting more livable space for marine life as well.Oh it is a MUCH better explanation than the standard Rube Goldberg idiocies that imagine whole living scenarios within what is now nothing but a sedimentary rock, one on top of another yet for hundreds of millions of years. Physically it's impossible.Evaporites precipitate out of the layers, what's the big deal? You can tell all the layers were deposited at the same time too, because they are all parallel to each other even when they've sagged to a great depth because of the salts that are pushing up through them.The fossil order is just a made-up concept. There was never any evolution, there was never an "earlier" life from which "later" forms of life evolved, there is no earlier or later, all living things were formed as themselves, each after its own Kind, at the Creation, and all the changes that have occurred since have accorred within each Kind, which is what microevolution is. Fossil order is a clever idea but it's not true, it's just the work of the fallen human mind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Fossils are geological phenomena as well as biological and since Dr A uses them to prove evolution it's proper to answer him that if the Flood deposited them they don't prove evolution.You can't prove or disprove Flood versus Evolution with one or two observations. Put your radiometric evidence in the evolution column but you can't pretend it cancels out all the other observations that are evidence for the Flood. Radiometric dating is just as open to falsification as any other claim.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The biblical evidence is inferential, the way it is for the Trinity. It is based on references to such things as the land being watered by a mist before the Fall, and to the Flood's beginning with the heavens opening for the rain to fall, which had never happened before, implying an entirely different climate, and by the curse given as a result of the Fall that food would be grown by the sweat of the brow in land where thorns now grow that didn't grow before. The Fall made the planet a difficult place to live, which it hadn't been before, and after the Flood things had to be even harder. People who have studied these passages more than I have postulate far more drastic changes affecting the whole cosmos. Certainly the ice age would have been the result of the Flood.The Bible is evidence of course.Physical evidence of the Flood has been collected on many threads.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A written record authored by the Creator is indeed evidence.

Oh honestly, the point is clear: the enormously greater habitable land -- and ocean for that matter - along with the enormously greater fertility of the land and the absence of difficulties in the production of food both domestic and natural would have made for a teeming abundance of living things not possible in today's fallen world.I'm just as tired of arguing this as you are. I wish I had the energy to muster all the points I've made on the subject over all those years you mention, but unless my new plant based diet does the miracle improvement in health so many claim for it I'm not up to it, but it's all there. No reason to think so since the volume of water before the Flood is unknown and the volume added by the Flood also unknown.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry you are so spiritually obtuse that you would deny what every true Christian knows. Nothing I can do to remedy that condition.

You are repeating what has already been answered by me, don't pretend you won the debate just because you made some silly rejoinder to my argument. This debate has been argued over and over and over because you refuse to acknowledge my claims, and I certainly refuse to acknowledge your silly stuff.There was at least 43% more habitable land mass before the Flood, according to the estimate I gave a few posts back, because there were no deserts or high enough mountains to be uninhabitable (by anything but bacteria anyway), and it wasn't just habitable space but lushly fertile land which would support a lot more life = an addition of more than 2/5 of what is living today == and I have no idea how to calculate how much more but perhaps it doubles or triples what the planet can sustain now plus doubling or tripling that additional 2/5 as well. The rough sketch of the differences should be enough to make the point.Certainly abundance enough to account for the fossils.What you are saying about crinoids is so nonsensical I have nothing to say about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The 43% more habitable land mass pre-Flood is based on the estimate of 57% UNinhabitable land mass estimated for today's planet due to our deserts and high mountains, an estimate given in Message 662. I didn't make it up, it's apparently a reasonable sound estimate so you have to question that, not me. Then I added the fertility factor to that additional 43% of habitable space and conclude that there was more than enough abundance of life to account for all the fossils. Really all the calculations aren't necessary, the sketch of the differences alone should be enough to make the point.Since you have no idea what number of fossils can be supported by what amount of fertile land mass, or even what number of fossils actually exist anyway, you had no right to even suggest that the current count couldn't have been produced by the Flood in the first place. There is plenty of reason to think that whatever number you imagine should exist can be multiplied many times over for the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I said, the lack of uninhabitable deserts and mountains is an inference from a few biblical descriptions that imply a milder fertile more life-enhancing planet at the Creation and a hostile environment afterward. It's a very reasonable assumption.But I realized while about to go to sleep that I got the 43% wrong, it would be the current 57% of the land mass that is uninhabitable that would have been habitable and much more fertile in the pre-Flood world. That increases the abundance of living things quite a bit which would account for an even greater abundance of fossils left by the Flood.You made the rash claim that the Flood couldn't account for the great abundance of fossils, and you made it without a clue to how many fossils you are talking about. I simply answered that you are underestimating the differences between today's fallen world and the pre-Flood world as inferred from biblical passages that suggest an enormously greater habitable land mass (as well as oceans for that matter) with enormously greater fertility before the Flood.Assumption isn't the same thing as reasonable inference from biblical clues.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A few animals adapted to hostile spaces hardly compares to the huge numbers that could live easily in the fertile spaces of the original Created world. It doesn't help your argument to split hairs and ignore the salient point of the argument.

Yup. I'm sure even you could guess at all that based on my creationist principles. Hippo simply hasn't been discovered. You haven't dug into every fossil bed yet, right? Trees got buried higher up, probably something to do with hydrodynamics. Perhaps blue whales didn't make it up onto the land and all perished in the sea -- or maybe even a lot of them survived. They wouldn't have fit on the ark you know. There are plenty examples of layers created by running water, and as ought to be obvious, and indeed has been emphasized enough times to make you aware of it in any case, a worldwide Flood that covered every bit of the planet, remaining at its peak for a couple of months, wouldn't be anything like "A flood" on the usual scale and certainly would not leave the same kind of evidence. Oh I may be wrong about this or that, but you certainly must be too, because although I'm sure you do honest geology you are unfortunately doing it without regard to the God who made it all. My guesses may miss some of the physical evidence of what God did, but at least I know He did it. Geology would be a very different enterprise if you acknowledged the Creator God. You know, examine all the evidence with the knowledge that it supports the biblical accounts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Calling historical evangelical/Protestant biblical Christianity a "cult" is one of the most stupid and blasphemous things you say. But you say so many it's hard to prioritize them properly.I'm not claiming to provide a model. I've provided it many times over in the course of this debate over the years. Go on bleating, you're just wasting your breath.The evidence pf the Flood in bazillions of fossils in a miles-deep stack of water-deposited sediments over thousands of square miles is in-your-face evidence. It takes a bizarre level of denial to pretend there isn't any.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Erosion shouldn't take much time when it is caused by torrential continuous rain over every inch of Earth for forty days and nights. I've seen a three-day local rainfall make mud out of a hill and flood the lower areas. There are lots of videos of such events you can find online. Ocean waves bring sand from the water, even from far out to sea, and deposit it on beaches. Higher elevation is obviously not necessary. The initial stage of the Flood would have dumped tons of sediments scoured off the land into the water which also was laden with ocean floor sediments stirred up by the "fountains of the deep," calcareous ooze and so on; the water rose high over the land and the sediments were deposited or precipitated out in layers. It took months for the water to rise, and it sat at its highest level for a couple of months; that should be enough time to deposit the layers.Something like that..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.