Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.

He did a bit more than that. He alluded to, admittedly without citation, evidence that the flood did not occur; namely the continuity of human life and civilizations over the relevant period indicating no interruption by a global flood. Coyote has made that argument in varying levels of detail an endless number of times since you've been here.

It's been proved a million times over at EvC already, with all the features of a model and all the rest of it.

It amounts to no more than saying "my dates are right, and yours are wrong." It's not an argument, it's an assertion.

then provide a link to those posts or stop making that claim.

It's implicit in hundreds of posts over a dozen years and Percy once called you on your constant bleating about the lack of a model and method, pointing out places where what I said clearly amounted to a model or method. For you to keep on about this is just obfuscating noise intended to misrepresent your opponents. It's YOU who should stop your accusation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again, please provide the links because there is no flood model in existence that can explain what is seen in reality.This topic is about explaining what a Biblical Flood would be like as well as why it must look that way. Unless you can provide some support for the Biblical Flood the answer is conclusively, "It just never happened."

No. There are no two sides. There's science and then there's the lunatic brigade. Apples and oranges are not different enough - more like apples and bucket of mercury.Can't you see how silly your magical arguments are? When someone presents you problems that reality present, you wave everything off with magic (this time it's magical olive tree that can withstand soggy soil).

I occasionally try to talk to my wife about this sort of stuff. She's one of the many vague and pleasant Christians that has a generalised fuzzy belief in something, possibly. This general belief presents itself as being nice to people if you possibly can.She has absolutely no time for worrying about whether it all stacks up to modern analysis. She knows it's all bunkum but likes the general message.When asked a difficult question about something that makes no actual sense she just shrugs and says 'well, its a miracle, god can do anything.' And you know she's just laughing at you. Which just about sums it up. Why pretend it has to make any sense? Just go with the flow.

There is nothing magical about the effect a completely different and more advantageous environment would have had on a tree. You don't believe in the pre-Flood world but that doesn't allow you to call it magical. If it actually exists it would be as natural and real as the Bahamas. And there was nothing magical about my postulating that the soil wasn't soggy either. The only thing strange here is your weird inability to distinguish between realistic hypotheses and your own disbelief.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Pardon me? After a year underwater the soil would not be soggy? Another magical attribute - water that doesn't get things wet.

When all of the evidence shows conclusively that the environment at the period that would have been before the alleged flood was very much like it is after the flood and there is only one year between the environment pre and post flood your claim certainly sounds like magic. In fact what other explanation could there be. In addition, nothing in either of the Biblical Flood stories says anything about any pre or post flood environments.You are free to make stuff up but unless you have some support for your assertions they are not at all persuasive.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

I don't think you read what I said about the wet soil. If you did you didn't think about it.

Haven't heard anything from you yet except stuff you've made up, on top of your utterly wacko insistence on the idea of two floods in the Bible, which as far as I know is absolutely unique to you.

It's not unique to jar:

quote:

---

Many exegetes believe that the Genesis narrative is a composite of two different stories that were combined into the final canonical form of Genesis 6—9. Some scholars call these the Jahwist (JHWH) source and the Priestly (Elohim) source. Some notable difficulties between the two sources include: two different reasons are given for why the flood happens, Noah is given two different instructions about what animals and birds to take on board the ark, there are two different time frames given for how long the flood lasts, there are different explanations of the "nature of the flood waters", different circumstances by which Noah and the animals leave the ark, and two different "divine names" (elohim and Yahweh) are used.
From Wiki

---

Here's a webpage that splits out the J and P sources and puts them side by side:The Two Floods of Noah

What I have said is that there are two mutually exclusive flood stories in the Bible, not that there were two floods.And let's look and see if I posted anything that I made up.First, please point to stuff I made up in Message 1.Then point to the stuff I made up in Message 3.After you answer those two issues I will gladly walk through every one of my posts in this thread to allow you to point to anything I made up.Faith, this software even has a way readers can pull up each and all of my posts in this thread and I doubt you can point to anything I made up.The issue is that it is very easy to describe what the Biblical Flood would have been like and to then check to see if what must be seen if it actually happened is found in reality.