Did the Flood really happen?

Not a curve, just a sloped or slanted line.The broken-off tops of the right side strata as you've drawn them have to end up as the tilted upper parts of the strata that we see along the surface of the island, with the rest of their lengths beneath the island. With that sharp bend in it at the base of your upside down V I don't see how it's going to work.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know this always sounds like a vapid excuse but I can't read that bright white chart. I also should add I suppose that I'm so allergic to the standard interpretation of these things I just get motivated to shore up the Flood interpretation against it all anyway. And I DO think it makes a lot more sense Razzyman, despite the timing problems. It's ONLY the timing problems that are the problem.

Let me know when you have an independent source of information from any ancient time period to verify this method of dating. I never know what this is supposed to mean. That the strata should be ordered this way in relation to other strata, or are you talking about the gradations within each layer or what? If a given layer is built up increment by increment then there is no reason for a particular ordering of the size or density of the sediments. Again no idea what this means. There do happen to be quite a few layers that are all one sediment you know. "Are?" But of course that's what should be expected of what rising sea water would have done, which is of course how the Flood covered the land. Only if you interpret them by the usual Time Scale. Otherwise they are no problem for the Flood. Which is just an assumption based on nothing. All the different forms of fossils are merely what was living at the time of the Flood. They are all variations on their Species, many of which are now extinct, which is why they aren't "modern" to us. All the strata in the UK cross section that are not in their original position of vertically stacked horizontal layers, plus the distorted mass of strata beneath the island, make evidence for such an upheaval. Also the Grand Canyon itself, and the cliffs of the Grand Staircase plus the canyons in that area too and the scoured-off plateaus surrounding those phenomena. Also the volcanoes that erupt deep beneath these rocks and rise all the way up to the very top such as the Claron in the GS, or whatever layer is exposed at the surface.There is no reason to interpret all these things in terms of millions of years. It works a lot better to see them as the result of a single major tectonic event. If there is ANY evidence for the rising and falling of "seas" then there is evidence for the Flood, which is really the one and only sensible interpretation of such evidence. It's hard enough to explain that one time transgression without trying to account for many. And this is a problem how? And again I refer you to the problem that you have no independent means of checking the correctness of such dating methods. Only through the attempt to deduce them from the Time Scale assumption. Otherwise they fit fine into the Flood scenario. Only as interpreted through the Time Scale lens. Otherwise no problem.Basically all you are saying is that the Flood is contradicted by the Old Earth theory.

I've answered all that even in this thread, but maybe later I can come back and do it again.

But I do understand the basic principles. But my job as I see it is to make the best case for the Flood I can manage. It's possible that eventually I would have to give in, but although nobody here thinks much of the case I've made I think it's pretty good. Very good as a matter of fact. It isn't going to cover all the factors, but those it does cover seem to me to make a good case. VERY good case. I wish someone could come along at EvC who gets it though, gets the main shape of the argument and thinks it's good, AND knows more than I do about the scientific factors. Lot to ask but it's what I wish and I guess I can wish anything I want. With someone like that to help we could write a book about it. Hey hey hey.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thanks for making that more readable.

Hi Roxy,
Don't know how I missed your post here but it's good to see you on the board again.Yeah, I don't care about making my views match with all the scientific claims, it is enough for me to try to understand what I see, using what I do know of the science involved, in connection with the Biblical report which I know to be the truth. If science doesn't conform to the Biblical report then it's science that is wrong. But I've found a lot of it does conform to it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Bible must match any iincontrovertible scientific claims but many of them are conjecture and not reality. sometimes what is claimed to be incontrovertible is not, but subject to further investigation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not possible. It would have to fit somehow or be wrong.Cheers back to you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nope, Bible's infallible, not me.

Bible has no effors. The word "literal'' is easily misconstrued, that's all.

Depends on what science is involved. It might only mean I have to give up a particular theory of my own, which in fact has happened.

You are of course thinking of a scientific fact that would challenge the truth of the Bible. So do you have one?

RThere is no scientific fact that challenges that biblical event. The dating methods are not verifiable.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh nonsense, RAZD, all that has been explained many times. I don't know if the bristlecone pines survived the Flood or grew up afterward and your dating is as usual wrong, but the mountains grew up AFTER the Flood, one of the results of the tectonic activity that began AFTER the Flood and probably caused the draining of the Flood water too. Volcanoes also were the result of the tectonic movement and therefore so were the volcanic mountains.The dating methods are the ONLY thing you have and yes they corroborate each other, although I do suspect that a really honest examination of them would turn up confirmation bias and other reasons to question them, and in any case they are unverifiable in the sense that you can't go back in time to check them out, all you have is what you can see in the present. And while that logically supports the idea it is NOT provable. And everything else supports the Flood. Especially the strata and the bazillions of fossils. The strata are really totally inexplicable on the Time Periods scheme when you really put your mind into trying to figure out how huge slabs of rock thousands of square miles stretching across whole continents were what each Time Period left behind, a sheer flat slab of rock, RAZD. And huge flat rock where all the fossils are found that you think lived in that period which is now nothing but a rock. It's physical impossible.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.