Did the Flood really happen?

Nobody accepts ad hoc fantasies in science. You know nothing of the evidence and analysis that led to the mainstream theories.

Were you there?

A few can't convey any sense of the situation. A lot is too much to ask in this medium. But it's all readily available and presented better than I could. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

You may have read a lot but you've made it clear you've absorbed nothing.

quote:

---

Morton's demon sits at the front of the mind and filters incoming ideas, only letting in those with which the person agrees and blocking the rest. This is much more powerful than any system where the ideas are tested for compliance by the mind and then rejected - they don't even get considered in the first place.

---

Of course you do. See Ken Ham or Kent Hovind.

No, that's not it in your case. You don't know the terminology and when you're asked to explain what's wrong you merely repeat your claims

As usual not a single reference to real world evidence.

You haven't made any observations. You've posted lots of ridiculous physically impossible opinions.Being a YEC is incompatible with reality. Pick one.

Which, of course, would not produce the order we see. E.g. grasses grow pretty much everywhere. Yet their pollen is only found in relatively high parts of the fossil record, starting around the layers we measure as 70 million years old

That's not an answer.What process transported that boulder by what action(s)?

This version may be a little clearer.

"Assumption" seems right to me; something accepted without proof.The evidence is the best evidence. All of it demands explanation and discussion of why it supports a particular interpretation.Derogatory comments on the mainstream explanation are irrelevant, even though you have nothing else. Claims of impossibility are meaningless without demonstration why it's impossible. Rejecting explanations out of hand doesn't say anything about their viability.As to your interpretation, it's clear that your claim it's supported by the evidence is wishful thinking. You can never explain why the evidence supports your interpretation. Without that explanation you're just blowing smoke out a lower orifice and nobody will be convinced. All your arguments boil down to "I don't know how it could have happened but I can't be wrong about the fludde".You're human. You can be wrong. No matter how many times you say you can't.

The derogatory comments are pointless derogatory comments. Calling something impossible or ridiculous without discussion is not analysis or argument. None of what you post is analysis or argument.E.g. the without a discussion of exactly *how* the fludde sorted the fossils and how the coral reefs and paleosols wound up as they did you don't have the best explanation; you have no explanation.But tell us about the "contortions" in mainstream explanations. What are those contort and what (other than your opinion) makes them unrealistic? Got any analysis or argument?

I explained the problems several pages back. Of course you ignored it.A coral reef is brittle and significantly heavier than water. To pick it up you need to apply nearly identical upward force over the entire extent at the same time. Otherwise it will crack where it isn't being pushed upward or where the force varies significantly.Water pressure is hydrostatic. That means that it pushes equally in all directions. It doesn't pick stuff up.So you need to break off the attachment of the reef to its substrate, get water under all the reef, and get that water to produce a constant upward fotce over the entire extent of the reef at the same time. That requires the water to act in a manner unknown to modern science... and we know a lot about water.Start by explaining how the reef was detached. Then explain what forces lifted it without cracking and exactly how those forces were generated.Once you've failed miserably at that we can move on to the much more difficult problem of transportation.(Fast moving water above the reef would produce an upward force per Bernoulli, which would rip the reef apart). Edited by JonF, : No reason given.