Did the Flood really happen?

Supercontinent name Age (Ma) Period/Era Range Citation
Vaalbara 3,636—2,803 Eoarchean-Mesoarchean
Ur 2,803—2,408 Mesoarchean-Siderian
Kenorland 2,720—2,114 Neoarchean-Rhyacian
Arctica 2,114—1,995 Rhyacian-Orosirian
Atlantica 1,991—1,124 Orosirian-Stenian
Columbia (Nuna) 1,820—1,350 Orosirian-Ectasian
Rodinia 1,130—750 Stenian-Tonian
Pannotia 633—573 Ediacaran
Gondwana 596—578 Ediacaran
Laurasia and Gondwana 472—451 Ordovician
Pangaea 336—173 Carboniferous-JurassicSupercontinent - WikipediaThere's a tradition of creationists coming here, making one line, un-evidenced assertions and arguing disingenuously. It would be great if you didn't turn out to be just another one of them.Make your argument properly in full, up front. Don't avoid questions, don't cherry pick, make your position clear and provide evidence for your claims. This is a science thread - if you continue this way, you'll be banned by the mods.

Indeed.What if the highest mountain on the earth was not that high (in contrast to the amount of water "suddenly" increased on the earth?) For example, the highest peak was 1000 feet and the seawater suddendly increased 1100 feet deep?See, this would be related to the issue on the source of sea water.

Where is your question?
Do you know ask a right question is more difficult than answer a hard question? So far, I have answered all your questions.

Then that would have nothing to do with what you've been talking about. If you want to claim that the mountains rose up after the flood, you'll need evidence of that. That also is not what you've been talking about. If you want to claim that there was more water on earth during the flood than there was before the flood or after the flood, you'll need evidence of where it came from and where it went.

Well this is interesting! I get to meet a new member... And so far your argument appears to be polite and reasonable. Do try and stick around if you want to learn something. And welcome to EvC, Juvenissun. My name is Phat, and I spend most of my time in the Faith & Belief section of the forum, which is where I perceive most of your argument belonging. Ask any of these guys here. They regularly challenge my faith & belief which is fine and dandy but I never dare argue anything in the science side of the Forum (which this topic is, by the way) without having studied the science to support my points.
That being said.... Have they even "found" ocean water...or even oceans or water...on any other planets IN the solar system? Well...with God, ALL things are possible. But again, this IS a science forum. One of our members, a feisty old guy from Texas, always steers me towards CONTENT rather than SOURCE when arguing. So even if we disagree about the SOURCE (God the Creator vs Natural Processes that originated from a singularity which Hawking argues can and will create itself from "nothing"), the issue is not the source but the content of the understanding...the science. We know very little about the solar system. We DO know about water, about floods, and about the Geographic History of the earth. Or do you have an argument that challenges the established science? I am a believer. I believe that God initially created the Heavens(Universe,Solar System, potential Multiverses and so on)and the Earth. That being said, I am not a word for word Biblical literalist. There are many things that we humans do not understand, including the very concept of God the Creator. But again, that is not a question that current science can answer.

I had to again share this cartoon taken from my Message 266Its funny, but the basic point of the cartoon is that one needs to stop and think how they construct an argument and what it is that they are really trying to "prove". I'll give you that. In Geology, progress is made through study of accumulated evidence arrived at through testing. As far as I know, Geologists don't regularly hold prayer meetings.

Do not ask so fast about evidence. It is not good.
We should have a solid model. Then any evidence would become valuable.
Do you understand my model of the global flood? If you do, then we can talk about evidence.

Nice to know you are a faithful. I am looking forward to talk to you on Faith and Belief issues somewhere else. You may guide me to where it is. I don't have enough time to explore the site yet.This is the science forum, in particular, the forum about Noah's Flood. To me, it is a fascinating knowledge in science as well as in faith. I try to reason to unfaithful on science ONLY. I assume I know everything they know about this issue. I am only trying to see who care to ask thoughtful questions and who really cares to reason. At this stage, nothing about faith is needed. Faith is something needed beyond science. So far, science only is good enough.

He is very wrong. Science only gets QUESTIONS.

Science gets results like oil. Oil is not a question.

Evidence is always the first thing to ask for. Without evidence, there's nowhere to go. A solid model would be based on evidence. If your "model" is that the mountains grew up after the flood, I understand it. Now show us the evidence.

Actually, both are correct (except for your erroneous qualifier, "only").Science does indeed get results. Very good results and far more reliably than any other system that we know of.But perhaps much more importantly, science also get us more questions. Every new discovery that provides us with answers also raises more questions which points us to where we need to do further research. The practice of science is one of continuous investigation. Every fruitful investigation involves collecting clues with each new clue directing us to where to look for the next clue. If all science ever did was to result only in answers and never in new questions, then it would die.We see repeated attempts, especially from "intelligent design" (ID) types, to force science to incorporate the supernatural such that when we don't have an immediate answer then that means "God" (or more accurately, "goddidit"). Such a "supernaturalistic science" would only produce "answers" that are not actual answers ("goddidit" explains nothing) and so would be unable to learn anything new and would die. Please refer to the topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY), which examined this issue.Basically, that's what most religion has become: the source of "answers" which explain nothing while luring us away from asking the questions. The most valuable function of religion is to get us to ask the right questions, not to seduce us into submission with spurious "answers".

Evidence precedes a solid model, because the solid model must be based on evidence. Without evidence, you cannot even begin to build a model, let alone a solid model.What you are proposing is exactly what Phat was warning about in his message Message 1941 to which you purported to reply (but was replying to ringo instead) So you are admitting to following the erroneous "Creationist Method" of reaching your conclusions first and then trying to cherry-pick "evidence" to support it. Very bad form, that.Since models, especially solid models, must be developed based on evidence, if you have a solid model then you must also have evidence. It is impossible to have a solid model in the complete absence of evidence. Oh, you claim to have a model! Therefore you must have evidence. So why do you fight against providing that evidence?

Oil is a BIG question.
Of course, you can just use it without asking anything.

We can have many theoretical models.The global flood could start with a theoretical model.