Did the Flood really happen?

That's totally unscriptural.

By that logic, Martians are perfectly consistent with scripture; they're not mentioned either.But scripture does mention two sources of water for the Flood - rain and "fountains of the deep" - so it seems unlikely that a major event like mountain-building would be ignored."Consistent with scripture" does not mean, "can be made up out of thin air and shoehorned into scripture".

It's a huge problem on both counts. The vast majority of evidence contradicts the Flood story. Even you have admitted more than once that there are things you can't explain.And your perverted "explanation" of the Flood ignores scripture almost entirely. You make it up as you go along without regard to what the scriptures actually say.

Making up stuff that isn't in scripture is just as bad as flat out contradicting scripture.

quote:

---

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

---

You certainly are. You are adding something that is not there, exactly what Proverbs warned against. I'm observing that you're mangling both the Bible and reality to try to match them both to the fantasy you've made up in your head.

Sure you are. The tectonics are necessary for your explanation. The tectonics are not in the Bible. Therefore, your explanation is not biblical. Yup. Nope, it says adding to the words:

quote:

---

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

---

i.e adding to a story stuff that isn't there.

Adding it to the Bible violates the Bible.Instant mountains also violate physics, by the way.

How is that not adding to it? That's certainly instant on a geological time scale. That's where your problem arises. We know how fast the continents are moving and how fast the mountains are rising. There isn't near enough time in your scenario to make the mountains as big as they are now. And you have never been able to suggest a mechanism either for how they could have zoomed so fast in the first place or for how the could decellerate so fast.

It's the "fast" part that's physically impossible. It might as well be instantaneous. It's been explained to you before the enormous amounts of energy that would have been required to move whole mountain ranges "fast". Where did that energy come from? And where did that energy go after the mountains had moved?And what magic started that process and then stopped it? And why did it never happen again?

But you don't explain. You didn't answer any of my questions.

• Where did the energy come from to lift the mountains so fast??
• Where did that energy go after the mountains had formed?
• What started that process and then stopped it?
• Why did it never happen again?

Sure we do. We know how much energy it takes and we know how much heat would be produced if all of that energy was in one place in a very short period of time. If you were actually explaining anything, YOU would have to specify what those mitigating factors are.

I didn't ask about force. I asked about energy. It's like me asking where the energy comes from to move a car and you saying the engine. I'm asking about the energy that goes into the engine to move the car. So show your work. Calculate how much energy it would take to lift a mountain and how long it would take to dissipate to current levels. Not at all. We know how much a mountain weighs. We know how much energy it would take to lift it. There's no guesswork involved. The same calculations are used every day in a thousand different situations.

Repeatable does not mean that the events are repeatable. We can not repeat the destruction of the World trade Center but we can be very sure that it did happen.What is repeatable is the observations of the existing evidence. Fifty scientists with different backgrounds can observe the wreckage of the WTC and agree on how it got into that state. Similarly, fifty scientists with different backgrounds can look at the rocks and agree on how they get into that state.

Even in the story, there was a maximum of eight witnesses and there is no corroborating evidence that those witnesses even existed. On the other hand, we have reports in writing from other civilizations - Egypt, India, China - that indicate that no worldwide flood happened. If you're going to accept witness evidence, you have to accept all of it. And my point was that that is NOT what repeatable means. The geology can certainly be tested today.

You certainly did. You mentioned "witnesses". As I have said more than once, it is not the event that must be repeatable; it's the observations. We do not repeat a murder to solve the mystery. But different people at different times must be able to repeat the observations of the evidence.