Summations Only

I thought the rain and the flow from the fountains of the deep went on for only 40 days and 40 nights, and that it was another half year after that before the ark ran aground on Mount Ararat. During that half year when there was no longer constant rain nor flow from the fountains of the deep the ark could have drifted a considerable distance at the mercy of random currents and the prevailing winds. The ark could have ended up anywhere, so if you believe it ended up on Mount Ararat then that's as good a place as any.But the ark isn't the topic. The topic is evidence for a geologically very recent global flood.--Percy

And yet you post anyway.Oh, wait, there was more: First you say there's no evidence and none should be expected.Then you say there is evidence all over the world, but in order to interpret this evidence properly we have to assume the flood was followed by "division of the land mass to its present configuration."I'm not even going to try to untangle this. If you ever develop a coherent account of the evidence for a geologically recent flood then please let us know.--Percy

I'd like to again call your attention to something mentioned earlier, the thread's title, more specifically, the first word of the thread's title: evidence.This thread isn't about how ICANT thinks it all happened. It's about evidence for how it all happened.Actual events, such as "fountains of the deep" releasing water at a rate sufficient to flood the world in a mere 40 days, leave behind evidence, and evidence is what this thread is about. So if you have evidence for any of your ideas, this is the thread. If all you have is ideas, not so much.--Percy

If you mean evidence of what came before the Big Bang, then you're right, there's no evidence and a thread wouldn't be a good idea. A thread about hypotheses of what came before the Big Bang might be pretty interesting, though.But if you mean evidence of the Big Bang then there's lots of evidence, and a thread would be a fine idea. This is a science thread. Why are you asking me? This thread is an opportunity for those who believe the flood really happened to present evidence demonstrating it's not just a religious myth. If you need some ideas for what to look for then I think some have already been mentioned in this thread. A few that come easily to mind off the top of my head:

• A genetic bottleneck the same age as the flood.
  ​
• Massive openings in the Earth's surface from which water flowed.
  ​
• Scoured landscape around these massive openings where the water flowed over the land before the water level rose.
  ​
• Debris fields similar to northern Japan all dating to the same age.

And since you believe the separation of the continents was post-flood:

• Young seafloor all around the world, slightly younger than the flood.
  ​
• Mountains pushed up by plate tectonics dating slightly younger than the flood, such as the Himalayas that are the result of India colliding with Asia.
  ​
• Absence of life on Earth, since the rapid motion of the continents would have generated enormous heat.

--Percy

If the Earth were the size of an apple, the depth of the oceans would be less than the thickness of the apple's skin. The mantle is almost 2000 miles thick. The mantle is about 80% of the volume of the entire Earth. It is big. Enormous. Yes, it contains a lot of water. It contains a lot of almost anything you care to name.So sure there's more water spread throughout the 2000 mile thick mantle than in the 2 mile deep (on average) oceans. We all know and agree about this.The question for you is, where is the evidence that this water ever left the mantle, rose to the surface, and flooded the entire Earth? Since this water is roughly equally distributed throughout the mantle but came to the surface from "fountains of the deep", it must have somehow been aggregated into regions beneath these fountains. Where is the geological evidence of these regions where the water gathered beneath the surface? Where is the geological evidence of these fountains of the deep?And where is the evidence that the water eventually left the surface and somehow became distributed back into the mantle? The magma that emerges from volcanoes contains no evidence of a recent period of diminished water content. Water plays a key lubrication role in tectonic movements, and its temporary reduction would have had a measurable impact. The water content of subducting plates also plays a key role in forming rising bubbles of magma that are responsible for the formation of volcanoes when they reach the surface, so we should see a reduction of this process at depths that correspond to the period of the flood.Imagine I claimed that 5000 years ago all the methane or helium or mercury or whatever in the mantle rose to the surface, stuck around for 9 months, then returned to the mantle. Wouldn't you want to see some evidence before accepting this idea?--Percy

I get 2.1 billion km³. Here's what I typed in to Google: --Percy

Oh, right, Edinburgh, didn't think. Yes, our answers were very close.--Percy

Oh, a better way - it didn't occur to me.I think Trixie used 4 km to err on the side of making it easier for creationists to find a source of the water, I think because some creationists claim the flood did cover all mountains, and some don't.--Percy

You did, unless you're still making things up instead of arguing from evidence. In Message 309 you said: You're right, there is a great deal of water in the mantle (that's what's beneath the crust), and it is contained within the rocks. That's what we have evidence for.But this? This we have no evidence for: I again return your attention to the first word in the title of this thread: EVIDENCE.Do you have evidence for anything you're claiming? If so, could you please describe it?--Percy

Hi ICANT,The key question, the one repeatedly being asked of you over and over in this thread, is do you have evidence of anything you are claiming. If so then please present it. If not then you really shouldn't be posting to this thread.My best guess now of what you believe is that the water for the fountains of the deep was placed there by God during creation, and that after the flood it became distributed throughout the mantle. If this is correct, great, if not then please make a clear statement of your view of what happened.But once you have clearly described your views then the next step is to provide evidence. If you have no evidence then you really shouldn't be posting to this thread. If you think you are justified in posting without evidence because the Big Bang has no evidence, then you still shouldn't be posting to this thread, just on the principle of two wrongs don't make a right and without consideration of whether you're right about evidence for the Big Bang.Please stop using ambiguity and vagueness to distract attention from the thread's topic: Evidence for a recent flood--Percy

One of the earliest developed principles of geology is that the present is the key to the past. The same processes of erosion and sedimentation (and storms and earthquakes and volcanoes and subduction and uplift and so forth) that we observe today have been happening throughout time and are responsible for transforming our world from the way it was to the way it is.Fossils are in the process of formation today in the same ways as they have formed throughout time.--Percy

This is just a slight modification to your previous statement ("no fossils forming today" became "very few") with no hint that you read any of the responses.Rather than forcing people to repeat what they said, if you haven't already perhaps you could go back and read the responses, and then if you still think that "very few fossils are formed today" you could explain what makes you think this is true.--Percy

There's a reason it's not easy. In order for there to have been a recent world-wide flood, generations of geologists and their research going back to the late 1700's would have to be wildly wrong. For so many geologists over so long a period of time to be so wrong would require the source of the error to be incredibly well hidden. It is unlikely to be found in a blender of dirt and water or anything else so simplistic.You're going to have an incredibly hard time becoming informed enough about geology to argue effectively in this thread. You're not here in this thread out of a love of geology but out of a love of God. The devotion and fascination required to study geology are just not there for you. You're doomed to forever troll the Internet for creationist websites with effective arguments, but those websites were put together by people who though they share your love of God also share your ignorance of geology.--Percy

You haven't paid attention to anything anyone has said. I'd reply in more detail, but I fear I'd again be wasting my time.Just repeating your errors at greater length and with pictures won't get you anywhere. Why don't you quote something someone has said about why you're wrong about what flood evidence looks like, and then respond to that.--Percy

Hi Portillo,We can tell from your last post that you still believe the geologic record is consistent with a flood, but you ignored all the posts explaining why a flood doesn't deposit sediments in ways that resemble the layers of the geologic record. How much credit do you think you deserve for ignoring all this information? If what we post to you doesn't matter, why should we bother?While there are some people who will always be snarky , even normally polite people will become snarky when ignored.Debate isn't you talk, I talk, you talk, I talk. Debate is you talk, I react to what you say, you react to what I say, etc. What you've got going here is you talk, we react to what you say, you talk, we react to what you say, you talk, etc. How about responding to the information you've been provided?--Percy