The TRVE history of the Flood...

Yeah, the Flood story is a weird one...For one, it talks about God having regret. That has ramifications for omnipotence and omniscience that you're just not going to solve.And it talks about killing all of the life that wasn't on the ark, but it turns out that it's not really all of it.And like you said, what a weird solution for the perceived problem.I think there was an event in the distant past that the Flood was based on, that it didn't really cover the whole planet, and that a bunch of different cultures have straggling myths that stem from the same event. The story in the Bible is a re-telling of that tale by smooshing together multiple sources in a, fairly poor, attempt at making it one cohesive story.Also, Biblicans today are stupid for thinking it was real like it is described. It's literally impossible as interpreted by those christians. Too, assuming it's literally true as interpreted, and then trying to shoehorn some of the facts into it has got to be one of the biggest wastes of time.And I'm completely baffles as to why they would try to come up with scientific explanations for a magic Flood while simultaneously relying on magic explanations in lieu of the scientific one for the diversity of species.

Utter bullshit Faith and really stupid bullshit. Forty days of rain would have no measurable effect on any rocks. It will not have any effect on granite, on sandstone, on limestone, on marble, on brick, on wood, on cement, on tar, on gravel, on most everything that exists.Loose soil might get moved around but a mere forty days of rain would hardly change the landscape. But we know what mudslides look like Faith and guess what? The imaginary flood did not leave us any evidence of those mud slides nor has any mudslide ever scoured the land flat.

Why would a stack of lithified sediments require a recent flood, or a worldwide flood?

Noah was on the Ark for a year but that wasn't the time that all the earth was covered. It took 40 days for the water to rise high enough to float the ark and it grounded some time before they exited. Noah sent out a dove which returned with a twig with leaves showing that vegetation was growing.

And the conclusion was what?Here is a more scholarly article on the topic of the Specimen Ridge petrified trees:Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place | Geology | GeoScienceWorld I have added bolding to direct you to the salient parts of the abstract. I think it's pretty clear that while some trees are transported, most of those in life-position were buried in situ.ETA: I think that the lesson here is that Jonathan Sarfati is not the best resource for geological information. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I'm sorry CRR, I simply can't take this seriously - it's just too embarassing that an adult can think that the ark story in real. How is it that your critical capacities fail or actually fail to engage at all when it comes to bible stories?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

We will never know the true history of the flood!As is common with historical sciences the evidence is fragmentary and can be interpreted in different ways leading to different conclusions. This becomes more so as we look at finer details. So two Young Earth Creationists can agree that there was a global flood without agreeing on all the details.This also applies to the period after the flood. How rapidly did the continents separate? What land bridges existed? What was the history of the post flood ice age? How did the animals disperse? Why are there no penguins in the Arctic? The written history in Genesis is only a few chapters and focuses on the people within small geographic areas. Any technical or scientific details are only incidental to the main story.

Two YECs can't even agree on the specific details presented in the Biblical narrative.The other major problems are:1) YECs spend all their time trying to disprove evolution and old ages rather than developing a coherent, consistent model2) YECs are unwilling to examine the finer details and follow the evidence where it leads. Instead, they look for evidence that they think fits their particular narrative.3) They postulate scenarios to explain one portion of the narrative at a time. However, those scenarios are often at odds with other parts of the narrative or create virtually impossible physical situations.So to be sure, historical sciences are not exact sciences and no one expects to have an exact re-creation of past events. YECs, however, are not trying to discover and understand past events they are merely trying to justify their belief in specific past events.ABE: A specific example of problem #3.Problem: There were trees with leaves shortly after the ark lands
Solution: Some trees survived the flood intact and only needed to begin growing again to produce leaves
Conflict (that was postulated to solve another problem): ALL the sedimentary layers were deposited by the waters of the flood to an average of 1 mile thick
Contradiction: How could an individual tree, or any plant or fish for that matter, survive an erosional / depositional period that would be required to produce 1 mile thick sedimentary deposits?
YEC response: So what? I don't see the problem./ABEHBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Two scientists would let the evidence, not belief, decide their differences.

To be fair, scientists disagree A LOT. Right? There can be some pretty heated debates around certain topics and each side can be emotionally invested in a particular interpretation. But eventually, when enough evidence is examined, the consensus goes one direction or the other.YECs hold on to their particular interpretation tenaciously, and will continually trot out old arguments that have been disproven time and time again.HBD

Hell, even the Bible can't get the details of the supposed flood straight; either one or both of the stories has to be false.Yet that small detail (that the Bible itself refutes the Biblical flood having happened) pales in the face of several facts: The Pando tree has been around for tens of thousands of years and never spent a year under water. The Jurupa Oak has been around over ten thousand years and never spent a year under water. Old Tikko has been around since before the Garden of Eden without ever spending a year under water. And Lomatia tasmanica has been cloning itself now for at least 40 thousand years.And there are Bristlecone pines that have been living for over 5000 years.

I don't see where he denies that the sediment is volcanic.

True. Sarfati tries to plant some seeds of doubt, but never really commits himself. The guy isn't stupid, just wrong. And devious.

Isn't in telling that creationists all have to fudge on the dating issue?The dating issue alone disproves both a young earth and a global flood during historic times.Because creationists can't accept this, they have to come up with ever more ingenious (and erroneous) "just so" stories to fit their beliefs into the constraints of real world evidence. Mostly this ends up as simple denial--"I believe scientific dating is wrong somehow but I don't know how."As dwise1 said, "If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science..."Hmmmmm. Makes one wonder, it do.

Actually, I would think that there would be very substantial areas of the ocean that would be isolated enough from this sediment problem.Freshwater fish etc., however, are pretty screwed. Marine corals, too.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Add "Marine corals, too."