Summations Only

It is based on the observation that floods leave specific evidence in the geologic record. Belief has nothing to do with it.

Hi Coyote, If you are referring to the flood Faith and all other YEC argue I will agree with you.If you are talking about the Biblical flood I will disagree.There would be no way to disprove the Biblical flood if the Bible is true.There was one body of land at Genesis 1:10 as all the water was gathered to one place in Genesis 1:9.This body of land would have still been in existence at the time of the flood in Genes chapter 6, 7.The earth was then divided into what we see today during the days of Peleg.All the mountains were formed during this division.Which would make it impossible for you to find a trace of a world wide flood.But there is no doubt that every inch of dry land we have today was covered with water in the past. Which agrees with Genesis 1:2.Lets see now I have 3 scientific facts that support words that were written over 3400 years ago.One land mass.
land mass covered with water
divided land massGod Bless,

Hi Taq, It is actually based on your assumption of what the Bible flood would have been. What the land mass was like, and the location of the land mass.Now if you have specific evidence please share it.God Bless,

Do you think it'll turn up in court? Surely it can't be held responsible for being the wrong age.I'm thinking of suing Mount Blanc for racial discrimination and the Atlantic ocean for drowning people.

The fossils that you admitted you were unable to explain?We don't deny them, Faith. We metaphorically rub your face in them and would do so literally if this were possible over TCP/IP.

As I understand it I'm allowed to start from my biblical premises in this debate. If it is not allowed the debate does not exist, and a notice to that effect should be posted clearly for all who dare to enter here. But if it is allowed then all this snarky debunking is out of line.

The mere existence of such a depth of strata and such an abundance of dead things is what I'm talking about, that alone is the evidence for the Flood, there is no other explanation needed.

You are also allowed to be wrong, and we are allowed to point it out.I have a book that says the Moon is made of Philly Cream Cheese. I go to the Moon, dig a shovel in, and find that it is made of rock.Which is wrong? The book, or the Moon?

There is an explanation needed for why these strata are separated by millions or even billions of years.There is an explanation needed why organic fossils do not have the same 14C content throughout the fossil record.There is an explanation needed for chalk layers that are hundreds of feet thick.There is an explanation for deposits thousands of feet thick that contain nearly 100% crinoid plates.None of those explanations is a flood.

*sigh* We've been over this, ICANT. You were wrong last time, and you're still wrong this time.In the following picture, all of the water is gather to one place and there are two bodies of land: No, you don't. But you just keep going on repeating it as if it hasn't already been refuted?This has been going on for years ABE: I uploaded that picture six years ago and this is not the first or second time I've linked to it.Edited by New Cat's Eye, : ABE

No, Faith. It is not a question of need, it is a question of accuracy. The shoe doesn't fit - if you're right about the Flood occurring, then the world is a lie.Same goes for you, ICANT. If your scenario is correct, God is lying to us with the planet.

The explanation is that they aren't. The idea is ridiculous on the face of it, just open your eyes, just think. Really, just think. Separated sediments laid down by water millions of years apart. I know you have to believe it, but it's utterly absurd. Obviously there is something wrong with your dating systems. If you just really really considered the strata as they appear to us it's the dating system you'd have to question.ABE: Second thought, you don't know when the creatures lived and died but being at different times says nothing about when the whole mass of them was deposited in a layer. Simply BEING deposited in a layer is evidence for Flood deposition and certainly not for a time period of millions of years. Sheesh. /abe Why? There are also sandstone layers that are hundreds of feet thick. All the layers were obviously deposited by the same means. Just look at them. Oh I know it's hopeless. Well it sure isn't time periods of millions of years each. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, you do understand that right now as you sit typing sediments are being deposited over millions of square kilometres around the globe and flora and fauna are dying and being buried in some of those sediments? And yet there is no global flood.There's an elephant for you.

That's such nonsense. Sediments as we see them in the geological column, such as in the GC, covering such huge areas to such huge depths, are not being deposited around the world. No. And bazillions of living things are not being buried in them. That took the Flood. Talk about ad hoc.; These are phony baloney totally inadequate attempts to pretend the Flood didn't cause the strata.Really, all you have to do is LOOK, really LOOK, and think, really THINK. Sheesh.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

...that it's another legal method of moving money from the pockets of the gullible into the pockets of the liars claiming to be scientist supporting the imaginary Biblical Flood.This will help pay for a few more BMWs and Mercedes Benz and Lexus rides for the Pastors.