Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

I thought that marine life preceded land life in the "fossil order" that's all

---

It does in the sense that there was marine life before there was any terrestrial life. But only in that sense. Marine life went on and continued to leave fossils and those fossils are every bit as much a part of the fossil record and it’s order. (E.g. consider the great marine reptiles that lived alongside the dinosaurs - the ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs and plesiosaurs. Marine life in it’s place in the fossil record - because they are descended from terrestrial life)

quote:

---

What's the big deal? I

---

That your objection was ignorant nonsense. Plenty of marine life stayed in the seas, and it’s descendants are still there.

quote:

---

Love how you guys rewrite your theory every time it's challenged.

---

You mistake ignorance and thoughtlessness for infallibility.Correcting your foolish and ignorant ideas by citing facts I knew as a child, decades ago, is not rewriting the theory.

quote:

---

Facts? Na. Purely imaginative conjurings.

---

Ah, Faith how you love inverting the truth. The fact is that the order of the fossil record never was from only marine life to only terrestrial life. It always went from only marine life to terrestrial life and marine life.You could have worked that out if you bothered to think about it, if only from remembering that the last ammonites in the fossil record appear in Cretaceous strata - which is also where you will find the last non-avian dinosaurs. Long after the great amphibians of the Carboniferous and the synapsids typical of the Permian are gone.And we have marine fossils newer than that.There is no rewrite of the theory, no imaginative conjurings on my side. You just made those up to avoid admitting to your ridiculous error.

quote:

---

But of course. In reality there are NO "land" sediments or fossils since all were transported in the Flood waters, and therefore carried marine creatures all the way through the whole fossil record

---

This is just assumption at odds with the evidence. There are identifiable terrestrial sediments in the geological record, including some deposited by wind, not water.

quote:

---

But alternating marine and land sediments? Doesn't compute.l

---

Then you need to get your circuits checked. A transgression followed by a regression followed by a second transgression will naturally produce this. And of course we see the sequences indicating this in the geological record. (Someone - RAZD, I think, did this analysis for the Grand Canyon rocks)

quote:

---

No, all that is what is assumed, based only on the ToE

---

Another of your inventions. Sedimentology is NOT based in the Theory of Evolution. It does, however include a good deal of study of sediment being deposited in the present day. Scientific conclusions are not assumptions.

quote:

---

If you believe against all reason that each layer of sediment represents a time period of millions of years then of course you are going to interpret some of it in terms of their land origin

---

I doubt that you will ever find a single layer of sediment representing millions of years. The formations we discuss consist of multiple strata. Besides the time scales are based on evidence and are not contrary to reason.But more importantly terrestrial layers are identified from the features of the rocks. It is not assumption at all, or even based on the timescale.

quote:

---

In reality they were all deposited by the Flood water no matter what their original location.

---

According to the evidence that is not the case. And the mere say-so of someone who makes up ridiculous nonsense and then invents more nonsense to pretend she’s right carries very little weight.Edited by PaulK, : Corrected spell-corrector

quote:

---

Yes they do represent time periods.

---

They are marked as having been deposited in the time periods. That is really not a problem.

quote:

---

And if all you mean is there is some overlap you've got the same problem of getting from a time period to a rock anyway

---

There is no problem in dating rocks to periods. That was done by relative dating methods before radiometric dating was a thing. The periods were defined by the fossil record, and rocks were identified as having been deposited during particular periods. (Note that the actual dates of the periods came later - but that is why it is called relative dating. It is a relationship not a precise number).

quote:

---

The whole thing is a miserable failure but we have to make the ToE work no matter what, don't we?

---

The only miserable failure around here is yours. You keep spouting the same ridiculous nonsense and expect us to believe it.

quote:

---

Can't let some stupid creationist tell us we're wrong.

---

More accurately we won’t worship a loon posting ignorant rubbish. And why should we?

quote:

---

It doesn't matter when the sediments were deposited within the time period though you are all bending over backwards to pretend it makes a difference.

---

The point is that the time of deposition is the primary association between the rock and the time period. And I think you know that makes a nonsense of your silly argument which is why you’re changing the subject.

quote:

---

You still have the problem wthat it makes a huge rock that ends up in the geological column that would prevent anything from living on that spot for that part of the time period and that means nothing is evolving from anything because nothing is even living where that rock is.

---

No. You still have the problem that you are posting ridiculous nonsense. The surface does not suddenly turn to stone. That is a silly strawman that you made up.

quote:

---

So you think the creatures lived on top of it and died and got buried in it?

---

Most terrestrial environments are dominated by erosion, but for those that are not the creatures lived in areas where there was net deposition of sediment - as they do today. The deposited material buried them and only became rock much later

quote:

---

This is too tiresome.

---

It is obviously worse for us. You’re the one who insists on posting pathetic nonsense again and again. You don’t even attempt to answer the previous rebuttals. You could stop this ridiculous behaviour any time. But of course you won’t. you just can’t admit how badly wrong you are. So you just going on making a mockery of yourself. If you enjoy looking like a raving loon you can just keep going on. If Not - it’s up to you to stop.

quote:

---

If a rock replaces either a landscape or a waterscape, whether it takes overnight or a million years, it displaces living things.

---

No, it doesn’t because there is nothing living there when it becomes rock. Everything is living on the surface or closer to it. We’ve been through this. You know it.Really what is the point of this idiocy? What we we supposed to think? That you are mentally ill is the kindest reaction possible.

quote:

---

Juvenissun writes:

​

The earth has the largest amount of ocean water in the solar system.

I don't know about that.

---

It’s likely untrue Extraterrestrial Liquid Water

quote:

---

Ice does not make flood. Water does.

---

So? The ice isn’t counted. Europa likely has twice as much liquid water as Earth.

quote:

---

In fact, Europa is a model for the global flood happened once on the earth.

---

What an interesting assertion. So Earth had about 30x as much liquid water as it does now (Europa has ~6% Of Earth’s surface area) and a thick layer of ice on top of that.Please let me know what evidence you have for these claims,

quote:

---

During a global flood, most place on the earth would simply see a gradual rise and fall of quiet water

---

I think that would depend on the cause of the Flood. If it is primarily rainwater, delivering 1100 feet of rain in 40 days and nights would require more than 25 feet of rain every day. Everywhere. If the area is restricted the amount of water delivered in those areas where it did rain would have to be accordingly greater.

quote:

---

It is quite similar to the flood we usually see along the downstream floodplain of Mississippi River.

---

Doesn’t that deposit sediment in the flooded areas? And if it lasted longer, should there not be more sediment?Of course, the flood story is a myth and taking it literally is a mistake, and that’s why I wouldn’t expect any evidence.

quote:

---

I think the main source of water is from the "fountains of the great deep". Can you imagine people at a few thousand years ago wrote this wonderful term? It is simply amazing.

---

Of course it is a translation, so the exact wording is more like a few hundred years old.Do you have a workable explanation of these fountains of the deep and any evidence that supports them supplying this volume of water?

quote:

---

We can approximate how much water could be given by the rain. The saturation moisture in the air could be much higher than it is today due to a possible denser atmosphere. And the temperature could be some degrees higher. Today, the water stored in the air is approximately the same amount of surface water on the land.

---

Of course in the story the rain water is allowed through the firmament (the windows of heaven, another poetic phrase - but if the fountains of the deep are literal, why not the windows of heaven?).

quote:

---

Anything deposited during the global flood is likely to be eroded away in a very very short geological time. They are not special substance but are normal sediments. They get washed into the ocean and no one can tell them apart from sediments of other sources

---

There are enough areas where it would be preserved that I think you should be able to detect a period of widespread and short-lived flooding, on a global scale. Not in every location, of course, but in every region.

quote:

---

New flood sediments spread on land, will be quickly washed into channels, lakes, swamps, and other environments of deposition.

---

This seems to be a very questionable assumption. Floods are not automatically erased from the record, and this flood was supposedly a bigger event than most. Even if it was erased in many places it is not going to be erased everywhere.

quote:

---

It is hopeless in trying to identify sediments laid down by the global flood anywhere on land.

---

So, according to you even local flooding will leave no trace?

quote:

---

Good point. That is what I said

---

Interesting that you said that it would leave the same traces as local floods when you meant that it would leave nothing.Of course catastrophic local floods have left some very severe mRks on the landscape - the channeled scablands of Washington. These investigators were able to find evidence of ordinary flooding in the sediments they examined. The flood produced coarser-grained sediment.So, it is far from clear that a violent, deep and long-lasting flood would be impossible to detect, at least in areas which experienced net deposition after the flood.Of course, there are other lines of evidence which also rule out the flood as a literal world-wide event - which is likely why (in my experience) old-earth creationists often prefer to interpret it as a local flood.