Did the Flood really happen?

Would a hundred years be "suddenly?"Hello back. Nice to hear a friendly voice. And how is your little doll of a baby boy? -- who must not be a baby any more.

The igneous layers are pretty rare and most of them are clearly dikes and sills that rose as magma after the sedimentary strate were laid down. Besides which there is still the problem of the perfect straightness and flatness of the sedimentary layers as well as their simple one-sediment composition in so many cases, that defies the whole idea of such regular deposition over millions of years to be the burial grounds of different collections of fossils.

The question is whether the tree rings and the ice cores really consistently represent ANNUAL rings. It's possible they don't. In any case as I said I put them on your side of the issue.

So you say, but it didn't, and there are lots of demonstrations of water, both rushing water and still water, depositing separate layers of sediment.

I guess all that is Brit stuff: reception, uniform, and he's only four. But it sounds nice to camp out in a "back garden," Americans usually only have "back yards."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"No evidence of *A* flood there," sigh. The whole stack was laid down by *THE* Flood. There's a lot of stuff said that supposedly proves "there's no evidence of a Flood" that is just silly when there's that huge stack of sediments as the elephant in the living room, but as I said I'm putting the ice cores on your side anyway and sticking to evidence that I thlnk is very good FOR the Flood, and there's plenty of evidence without the ice cores.And even all that data has to be interpreted because nobody watched the ice cores form. That's the thing about the sciences of the past, it isn't like lab science where your results can be replicated and are pretty much irrefutable if done right, it's all a one-way projection into the past that can't be replicated or tested.One thing that's certain from the Creationist point of view is that lots of things were very different before the Flood than they are now: the whole climate was different, it never rained until the Flood came, and I'm not sure there were even seasons as we know them. And the effects of that would have carried over after the Flood for some period of time too. I can't answer you about the ice cores, so as I said I stick to the stuff that corroborates the Flood until further notice.And I don't know what poeple at AIG and CMI have said, it's the reasonable conclusion from the Flood though.I got dragged into this subject and still don't feel up to pursuing it though I've been trying. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes all I've got is a lot of speculation aagainst all your data so i'm krazy and you can just dismiss anything I say and that's OK, but about volcanism it looks to me like it all started at the end of the Flood, not before and not during. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I keep putting brackets in the wrong place and losing my post.
\\\Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

New topics keep getting brought up although I really don't want to be in this discussion any more. I know, however, that if I don't address them at all I'll be accused of running away when I've been shown to be wrong.But all this has been discussed in the past. Mostly it seems I concluded the traps were either all igneous layers rather than part of the geologic column, or where interspersed were sills and not layers put down in order.I'm sure you'll object to this but I keep saying I don't want to be on this thread and I need to get off it. I know I may get seduced into feeling I have to answer something nevertheless but I'm going to try to leave now.

"Sorted in a way that flood waters do not sort."Yes but this isn't any old flood, this Flood was more like the rising of the sea over the land, and that's the circumstance in which Walther's Law does apply.Sorry, I'm trying to get off this thread I didn't want to be on in the first place.

RAZD himself once demonstrated how Walther's Law accounts for the sorting of all the layers in the Grand Canyon area.

As long as you can make up "rapid dumping" I can make up "rapid organized deposition." You weren't there and neither was I but the results are there and the Flood did it.

Well, jar, I'm tired, depressed, overwhelmed and don't want to be on this thread, so I will leave you with this:Science does not judge the Bible, the Bible judges science and all of us and everything else.2Pe 3:3-6 Pretty clearly talking about one Flood there, as is also the case wherever else in the Bible the Flood is referenced.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thanks.If you put in a bracket, a left-hand bracket anyway, and forget to close with the other bracket, you will lose everything after the left hand bracket. At least down to the end of the paragraph but I've lost whole posts that way. I'll put a bracket hereI kept on writing and it all got erased. But now I see at least that it only erases to the end of the paregraph.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

To answer part of Percy's Message 759But YOU are "ignorant" of the fact that THIS Flood was not in the slightest comparable to "floods" of the sort that occur now, that the very least its magniture was millions of such floods combined, but because it was also the rising of the oceans over the land it brought phenomena that couldn't have occurred in a local flood. But this is of course all speculative, because there is no way for us to witness what actually happened in the past. You can't and I can't, and your speculations are based on a false correlation and have no more authority than mine in which I try to envision how this worldwide drowning of the entire earth could have sorted things as we see it did. You say it couldn't but you can't possibly know and your assertions are not at all compelling. Truly I see the establishment explanation as so nonsensical I can't consider it a real threat to the Flood point of view.Summary: I'm certainly not ignorant of it, I reject it. I don't see how I'm ignorant of this or what possible application it has to anything I've said. I'm quite aware that is the establishment point of view so how can I be "ignorant" of it? I have a hypothesis that conflicts with the establishment point of view, which is that the GC is simply the most perfect example of what happened around the world at the same time, and I have in fact described instances that I thlnk represent that idea. So just as I keep saying, the view that I'm "ignorant" is really just a way of objecting to my having a different point of view. Yes this one is hard to prove because so much damage has occurred to the strata in most other places than the Grand Canyon, but it's nevertheless my hypothesis and all you re saying is that you disagree with it and thlnk the establishment view is right. You can offer evidence, but I thlnk your evidence shows something other than you thlnk it shows, which I've argued elsewhere. And so it goes. --OK I will move this over there.Done.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.