Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

No problem with volume. You just have the usual extreme underestimation of the size of the Flood

---

Do you have actual figures ? Of course not.

quote:

---

No problem under the weight of the huge stack of sediments.

---

The usual estimates account for pressure which is required. Evidence that a relatively small pressure increase can speed lithification by several orders of magnitude ?

quote:

---

The fossils are the best evidence for the Flood of all since it would have provided the conditions for the fossilization of bazillions of dead things.

---

And long periods of time explain even the numbers better. Your “best evidence” is evidence against you. Try thinking about that.

quote:

---

The arid conditions occurred before the Flood which merely carried the material and deposited it.

---

You do invent some crazy fantasies. How does that work ?

quote:

---

The ones I'm aware of clearly occurred after the strata were laid down.

---

in your crazy fantasies. You have never come up with any evidence or even an explanation that makes sense.

quote:

---

Yeah I know that's the establishment view, and I'd have to put in more time than I feel like doing to make my case.

---

You’ve had years to do it. And you still have nothing but fantasies and denial.

You've made up a story a million times before which is utter shit.You'll notice that if someone says something that does not contradict settled science and is backed by credible evidence, it's not discussed again. But if someone makes stuff up on the hoof that is patently unevidenced bullshit and flies in the face of known facts, we tend to keep on saying it.

Yeah, well I do expect the logic of it to make sense to some but it doesn't and I don't care any more.

Hold on, where in the Bible does it say there was an ice age?

Correction This is because the temporal-spatial matrix of all known fossils supports the long term deposition of sediments and fossils, and not the jumbled mess of flood debris. Even just the relative ages of the sediments and fossils from fully developed ecologies adds up to a minimum period well in excess of a single year of flooding. See Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?. In addition each layer correlates with radiometric dates consistent with extreme age (even just using the current present amounts of radioactive material and ignoring for now the validity of calculated dates) and not the jumbled mess of flood debris. Indeed.Enjoy

It doesn't say there was a Greenland either, or a North America or continental drift. Putting together a scenario for the Flood has to take into account whatever seems to apply as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible, and I don't see how any of that does.

Yeah I know, but a whole stack miles deep of such neat flat straight layers of different kinds of specific sediments just doesn't fit with the vagaries of everyday llfe, which llfe we llve on a pretty jumbled-up dirt surface, which is what I'd expect of all periods in the history of the earth myself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yet more utter bullshit from you Faith.What we have is absolute evidence in the form of artifacts and a variety of separate lines of dating that again rely on reality.There is no question about either the fact that those sites show continuous occupation for over 6000 years or that there are two mutually exclusive flood stories in the Bible.To deny either requires either willful ignorance or utter dishonest or severe delusion to the extent of being totally disconnected from reality.

There's no logic in it, you just made up a story.The story you made up could be called a hypothesis, but then you'd need evidence to support it. And the evidence does the opposite. So it's just bullshit.

Why not? Every particle is deposited individually, so there's no fundamental difference between a small pile of particles and a big pile of particles. Yup.

quote:

---

"From 1939-40, Maunawili Ranch on the island of Oahu saw 331 straight days with measurable rain...." link

---

I'm not asking you to imagine a really big flood. I'm asking you how you would distinguish the results of a really big one from a million little ones. Specifically. What would be different?We see lots of little floods as they happen and we see the layers that they deposit, so we know very well what little-flood layers look like. We see the same kind of layers all over the world, whether we saw them being deposited or not. We do not see any "special" layers that can not be explained by the little floods that we see all the time. So how can you tell, specifically, which ones were deposited by little floods and which ones were deposited by The Big Flood?

Would you say that the flood stories were parables and teachable moments? What was the motive of the stories being recorded?

Are you talking about the flood story of the Bible or all of the many flood stories told throughout history? There are probably many reasons for the stories and some are simply historical recollections such as the annual floods of the Nile River.

Good point,. I'll never win this argument because though most apologists believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, I need to somehow defend the absolute idea of God found in its pages from the numerous other definitions of God, god, and GOD proposed by innumerable religions, philosophies and assertions. I think I will just stick to my basic arguments that I make in my own words as my understanding grows.

I would say they are most certainly propaganda, another Just So Story and marketing. They explain why there are rainbows but also sell the concept of an all powerful despot that can kill everything but then picked YOUR ANCESTORS as something special and so saved.

I think the question is which Flood stories you are talking about. The Biblical version is an amalgam of two variants of an older story, going back at least to the Sumerians.The compiler of the Biblical story may have had quite different motives from the original creator of the story.One question to ask yourself is why were two differing versions merged together, not by creating a fully harmonised synthesis of the two but by keeping two versions of some of the events.