Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Coyote writes: And what scientific evidence would you use to dispute the time frame? The assumptions you have to use to begin with.

Way OT, but the only assumption underlying the time frame is that there is a real world we can investigate with our senses. The YEC three "assumptions" are BS. Modern methods do not assume known initial daughter product or closed system, and the constancy of radioactive decay rates is proven both experimentally and theoretically.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

More appropriate in Assumptions involved in scientific dating, if ICANT shows up.

The Bay of Fundy is in no way analogous to a large land mass surrounded by water.

The tides in the Bay of Fundy are unique and due to unique conditions. The time it takes for a wave to travel from the mouth of the bay to the end and back is almost exactly the same as the time between high tides. This sets up a resonance that causes the extremely high tides.

That resonance would not exist in your fludde scenario because the geometry is totally different.

That resonance is periodic, meaning that what goes into the bay must shortly come out of the bay before any more goes into the bay. There cannot be a steady rise in the Bay of Fundy or any analogous situation.

Tidal Resonance in the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Yep, I know that's what he meant.

That's why I pointed out that the tides in the Bay of Fundy are in no way anything remotely like a flood on a land mass surrounded by water.

adding the necessary difference that the Flood would not have receded after the tidal rise but kept on rising

Which, of course, is impossible in the Bay of Fundy so that "necessary difference" destroys any correlation between the two scenarios. "Kept on rising" is an unjustified and ad-hoc explanation that is not supported by anything to do with the Bay of Fundy. The Bay of Fundy is a...

You may have inferred that, but I did not imply it. {ABE} note "or any analogous situation" in my original message, which obviously means ICANT's fludde{/ABE} I pointed out that the water could not keep rising in the Bay of Fundy and therefore a global fludde would have to be wildly different.

Do you acknowledge that the tides in the Bay of Fundy have no connection whatsoever to an alleged fludde?.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Sometimes scientists assume something currently unavailable to complete an analysis that could lead to interesting investigations. Of course you know nobody would present that analysis without acknowledging and discussing the assumption, and nobody would think that the results of the analysis were established fact.

Evidence creates facts not assumptions.

Then "assumptions" is not the correct term. I prefer "premises".

But the fact is that the "assumptions" under discussion are supported by tremendous amounts of evidence, no matter what you call them. Labeling them does not change reality.

Think like a YEC. The existence of landlocked ponds and lakes or whatever today doesn't prove their existence back then. Maybe streams and rivers would be allowable as long as the water eventually gets to the ocean.

Presto! All of them gathered in one place!