Evidence of the flood

I DON'T THINK IN TERMS OF AGES.

IF THE POST DOESN'T DESERVE ANY BETTER IT DOESN'T GET ANY BETTER FROM ME

And that is part of your problem Faith but ignorance can be cured.Back when the thread was in summation mode in Message 497 I posted:

quote:

---

There is conclusive and overwhelming evidence that there has never been a world-wide flood at any time when humans existed.

​

There is no evidence that there has ever been a world-wide flood during any time when humans existed except several contradictory and mutually exclusive stories from unreliable anonymous testimony.

​

There is conclusive and overwhelming evidence that the Earth is old.

​

There is no evidence that the Earth is young except calculations based solely on unreliable anonymous testimony.

---

While that is still a reasonable summary of the thread I think it worthwhile to expand somewhat on what constitutes good evidence.A fossil itself is not good evidence for the fact that biological critters evolved over time. What is evidence of the fact of evolution are the patterns found in the fossil collections; that certain forms are always found in a particular order from oldest to youngest samples and that the items change in a consistent way over the lineage.No single fossil or even bunch of fossils are good evidence of evolution but rather the accumulation of data points show a pattern that is not just good but overwhelming evidence of the fact that living things evolved over time.So far the ONLY explanation for that evidence is the Theory of Evolution and it in fact does explain what is seen in reality.In addition, as newer technologies have been developed every single technology has confirmed what was seen in the evidence.A perfect example is the recent discovery of how DNA is organized which provided conclusive support for what had been suggested and went on to show the model, method, process, procedure and mechanism of duplication and modification that resulted in changes to the biological organism.In geology it is again the sum of the data points rather than any single data point that shows conclusively that the Earth is old.In the case of the Green River Varves there is a known and observed model, method, process, procedure and mechanism that creates similar layers and that is seasonal changes in plant growth, rainfall and no alternative model, method, mechanism, process or procedure as been presented or observed that would do the same thing.The example of the Oklo Reactor and uranium halos and tree rings and ice cores and mountain creation and mountain weathering all also provide support for the fact that the Earth is old and the processes that happened in the past are the same processes that happen now.In the case of the world-wide flood it is even simpler. If a claim is made that the whole world was flooded at one time and for one year, if ANY site or item is found that did not suffer from the flood then that is overwhelming evidence that there was no flood at that location. One such location is sufficient to conclude the flood was not world-wide. As more and more and more data points accumulate that show overwhelmingly that many locations did not get flooded it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that if there was a flood it was local in duration and extent.And again, that is what we see today. Parts of Texas get flooded. Most of Texas is not flooded. Parts of Florida get flooded but other parts do not get flooded.What happens today is what happened in the past. What happened in the past is what is happening today.Societies, cultures, technologies, art, all of the mythos of an area or mileau continue. We do NOT see any abrupt discontinuation of any areas culture that points to the same period of time and shows the existing culture being replaced by one radiating out from the Middle East.If the Biblical flood actually happened then what we must see is a disruption of every society on Earth happening at the same time and then remaining in that state until Middle Eastern immigrants arrive.There is no evidence of that.

It was my question. If you can't accommodate that, then you shouldn't be asking me to answer an unanswerable question.I need some kind of a target.However, I will say that, IIRC, the Mississippi Delta has been forming since possibly as early as the Triassic, so it should be continuous since then at least.And it hasn't stopped yet.

ONCE IT IS SHOWN THAT THE STRATA WERE ALL LAID DOWN RAPIDLY AND NOT OVER HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS, YOUR FOSSIL ORDER COLLAPSES

TRIASSIC IS MEANINGLESS. IT STARTED AFTER THE FLOOD

Granting, in just this post and just for the sake of making an argument, that the Flood was an actual event, there had to have been a topmost layer deposited by the flood. After the flood there would be places in the world where there was net sedimentation. These sediments were deposited atop the topmost Flood layer and were therefore continuous with it. Nothing else is possible. This must be true by definition.And the deposits on top of those first deposits on the topmost Flood layer are in turn continuous, and the deposits above those, and the ones above those, and so on right up to the current day.You are therefore wrong to state that "current deposits are not continuous with the deposits of that one-time event" and will have to rethink your position.--Percy

Except Faith, you (and no one else in the whole world either) has ever shown that or provided a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that could possibly do that.The fact remains Faith. The existing models do explain what is seen while you have never presented anything like a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that can explain ANYTHING that is seen in reality.But we will continue trying to help you.

Then you should show us the evidence that such is the case.

Hi Faith,You're reverting to one-liner messages again. This is extremely unconstructive. It is causing other people to respond in kind because they know that putting time and effort into a lengthy post that will just be met with another one-liner is a waste of time. You are bringing the thread down. Please stop this behavior now. If you're too frustrated to participate constructively then take a day off.--Percy

PROVE IT. SHOW A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF DEPOSITION ON TOP OF THE GEO GOLUMN THAT IS CONTINUOUS WITH IT. THE MISSISSIPPI DELTA LAYERS DON'T EVEN COVER THE GOLUMN THAT SAGS INTO THE GULF OF MEXICO

Well, that's kind of odd.I'm pretty sure that the fossil evidence would show that such is the case. Are you willing to refute actual geologists in the field? I'll track down the references if you are serious.

I COULD NOT CARE LESS. YOUR ATTITUDE IS OFFENSIVE.

But they ARE the sediments that are loading the delta.Whatever are you talking about?

ON TOP OF IS NOT CONTINUOUS WITH