Summations Only

Lat and lon for Mt Ararat or more precise locating information would be a start but only a start.In addition:
When was this supposed flood?

​

Where was it?

​

What was the duration?

​

What was the extent?

​

Where are the sites where evidence of this alleged flood can be found?

​

What is the evidence of this asserted flood?

Lat and lon for Mt Ararat or more precise locating information would be a start but only a start.In addition:
When was this supposed flood?

​

Where was it?

​

What was the duration?

​

What was the extent?

​

Where are the sites where evidence of this alleged flood can be found?

​

What is the evidence of this asserted flood?

Lat and lon for Mt Ararat or more precise locating information would be a start but only a start.In addition:
When was this supposed flood?

​

Where was it?

​

What was the duration?

​

What was the extent?

​

Where are the sites where evidence of this alleged flood can be found?

​

What is the evidence of this asserted flood?Sorry but if it existed then it exists now and can be identified by lat lon.So far you have presented NO evidence that there was a flood, a local flood, regional flood, world wide flood, recent flood, ancient flood, no evidence at all. All you have provided is word salad and irrelevant crap.

Sorry but that is simply bullshit, and tells us nothing. To say that Mt Ararat is between Babylon and Egypt is simply nonsense if it is meant to give us a location. It is also impossible to have a flood that would cover Babylon and Egypt that is not a world wide flood.Details. Give us some details. In addition:
When was this supposed flood?

​

Where was it?

​

What was the duration?

​

What was the extent?

​

Where are the sites where evidence of this alleged flood can be found?

​

What is the evidence of this asserted flood?Sorry but if it existed then it exists now and can be identified by lat lon.So far you have presented NO evidence that there was a flood, a local flood, regional flood, world wide flood, recent flood, ancient flood, no evidence at all. All you have provided is word salad and irrelevant crap.

If the Biblical Flood has any actual historical basis, then it would be reasonable to look at the areas where the source might have originated.There are several possibilities. Recent evidence seems to show that there were human inhabited settlements along the shores of the Black Sea when the damn at the Mediterranean end broke and flooded that area, but that is a long long way from the Armenian Plateau where the mountains of Ararat are located.The Armenian Plateau is also pretty high averaging over 3000 ft above sea level and is bordered on the east by the Iranian Plateau and on the west by the Anatolian Plateau. The significance here is that both the Anatolian Plateau and Iranian Plateau are significantly lower than the Armenian Plateau and drain into two entirely different bodies of water, the Aegean Sea to the west and the Persian Gulf in the east.The mountain ranges in the area run generally east to west and so if there was some flood that was high enough to float a boat onto the Armenian Plateau, as the water receded the vessel would have been carried towards either the Aegean or Persian Gulf, away from the Mountains of Ararat.Another possible location is the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. This area has a definite history of severe flooding, but again, problems arise. There are mountain ranges to the north between the Tigris Euphrates valley and drainage is towards the westeast, away from the Armenian Plateau. A severe rainfall that could create a flood deep enough to raise sea level to over 3000 feet would still be flowing west to east in this area carrying any vessel away from the Mountains of Ararat and towards the Persian Gulf. The problem is that water flows down hill, and even if there was a flood that was deep enough to raise a vessel high enough for it to get to the Mountains of Ararat, the currents would all be away from the high points and so without some motive force sufficient to run against the currents there is just no way to get to the Mountains of Ararat.Edited by jar, : add emphasis in last paragraphEdited by jar, : yeast is yeast and vest is vestEdited by jar, : damn damEdited by jar, : close strikeout

Down hill.But then you have no evidence for either the fountains of the deep or the rate that those supposed fountains of the deep flowed.AbE:The Fountains of the Deep as some motive force is just plain silly.Again, look at the geography of the areas where the Biblical Flood supposedly happened.If the Fountains of the Deep were located on part of that land mass, the flow would still be down hill away from the Mountains of Ararat.If the Fountains of the Deep were located in the waters, then they would simply be overwhelmed by the run off from the land mass. They might create some local turbulence but could not significantly effect the overall water flow.There is simply lots of land area to accumulate rainfall, and it all flows downhill.Edited by jar, : add AbE:

There is no evidence for the Fountains of the deep.The Bay of Fundy is irrelevant.Gravity is still a constant, and water runs downhill.Water deposited by rainfall OR the imaginary Fountains of the Deep on existing seas will still get spread out uniformly.Water that falls on land from rainfall OR the imaginary Fountains of the Deep will still run downhill.The area is NOT a single flat piece of land.You have still not presented any evidence for either a worldwide or regional flood.It really is that simple.

What is so funny about ICANT's Biblical Flood fable is that you MIGHT think that a recent splitting apart of some super continent just MIGHT leave a little evidence.His scenario is even less plausible than some recent flood, and so far no one has presented any evidence to support even the flood fable.

Too funny.Stop and think.Fountains of the Deep?Sure there are springs and we actually understand why there are springs.But that is totally irrelevant.There is no evidence of your alleged "Fountains of the Deep".Gravity is still a constant, and water runs downhill.Water deposited by rainfall OR the imaginary Fountains of the Deep on existing seas will still get spread out uniformly.Water that falls on land from rainfall OR the imaginary Fountains of the Deep will still run downhill.The area is NOT a single flat piece of land.You have still not presented any evidence for either a worldwide or regional flood.It really is that simple.

He also seems to forget that springs work because water runs downhill.

I'd like to point out to you first that you are yet again changing the subject but that yes, even geysers and hydrothermal vents work because water flows downhill. How exactly did you think the water got to the point where it could be heated?The topic though is about evidence and it is time that you provided some evidence for your assertions, evidence that there was a flood and that there was a single land mass before the flood that split apart after the flood and that there were fountains of the deep and that the water flow from those fountains was many times greater than the flow from rain.Evidence.When was the flood?What is the evidence of the flood?Where are the sites where that evidence may be examined?

Evidence of a flood.The fact that something was once underwater is NOT evidence of a flood.Yes, the water is where it is because water runs down hill.No where does the Bible say that all the land was in one place.You still refuse to answer the basic questions.To make it easy I'll limit it to one at a time.When was the flood.AbE: The author(s) of Genesis did not say that Pangea was around.Edited by jar, : see AbE:Edited by jar, : fix quote box

Bullshit, nothing but bullshit.Both cavediver and Son Guku can and have provided you with tons of evidence of both that there was a Big Bang and of when it happened.Now it is time for you to stop just sholvelin shit and actually provide some evidence.When was the flood?What evidence do you have of that flood?

That experiment is one of the best examples of the total dishonesty as well as the total gullibility of Creationists.If you really want to learn we can have yet another thread on the subject.

It is really not easy when you are trying to defend a position that is not just false but one that is refuted by literally all of the evidence available.I understand that.But it is an opportunity for you to actually learn what reality tells us and what is actually supported by evidence.Your blender example is a great starting point for you to understand what is true.When we look at this world we find examples where there are layers just as you would expect from your blender example, but what we see is a whole series of those layers, heavy on the bottom, lighter above, that then repeat again and again, often hundreds of thousands of such layers, sometimes millions of such layers, one on top of another, turtles all the way down.If the layer was caused by a flood, then that flood did not happen once, but rather hundreds of thousands of times in the very same area, millions of times at that very location.But wait, there is more you can learn from your blender experiment. You can determine how long everything must sit still for particles of a given size to settle out. And guess what, scientists have done just that and found that the really really fine particles can take a long period to settle out.Using the knowledge gained from your blender experiment you too can prove that what is seen is NOT from one massive flood but rather from an annual cycle that repeated yearly for hundreds of thousands of years, often millions of years.This is a great opportunity for you and can be the first step towards throwing away the many falsehoods you've been taught and beginning your journey towards truth and reality.