Did the Flood really happen?

Juve, if it is possible to get a clear answer from you, could you please give us a reference to this store of water in granite? Wikipedia does not mention hydrogen as a constituent of granite, let alone H2O.
Are you referring to AIG claiming a lot of water in the primary melt allowing greatly accelerated cooling of granite masses?

quote:

---

It is either correct or not correct. It is not a right age, then why would the 6000 years age of the earth be right? Why must the global flood be a recent geological event?

---

None of the others ARE literally true.

quote:

---

If it a right age, then the current biological knowledge is wrong. If that is true, then what is the point to insist Noah has to be one lived in the time frame of human history as we know it?

---

Well, nobody is insisting on the time frame of written history, but obviously the point of insisting that Noah must have lived at a time when there were humans and animals and trees is because the story demands it.

quote:

---

Now you see the reason of considering the Noah's age together with the timing of global flood.

---

Yes, it’s just a pretext for some bizarre fantasy you’ve made up. That isn’t a valid reason.

quote:

---

Tell me which planet/satellite in the solar system has granite on it.

---

Science DirectOn the Moon for one.

quote:

---

I will surrender to you if you can find one.

---

I doubt it.

quote:

---

Do you even know how much water stored in 1 kg of granite? In fact, granite is one of the largest water reservoir on the earth.

---

I thought you were arguing that water was released by the formation of granite. That’s not very consistent with it as a reservoir.

quote:

---

What I'm trying to get him to see is the different thought process demanded in our Science Forums.

I know that process. What I am trying to do is to make one feel shame or inferior in operating that process.

---

That sounds like a topic. Why don’t you start one explaining why people should be ashamed of preferring science to your opinions.

Isn't the question supposed to be, "Were you there?" That's what they usually use.

Then why ask? It would be really great if you would start. So far all you've said demonstrates that you know nothing of the scientific method and process.I'll give you a couple of pointers. You need to start by telling us fully what your claim about the flood is. (A critical point is when.) You then have to present your evidence for it. Evidence is not coulds and ad hoc individual rationalisations it's a series of empirical observations that build to an explanation of a whole. It needs to include ALL the available observations not a couple of random points. I'm going to take this at face value and accept that you really do think that you're doing science here rather than just trolling. So it's clear that you do not know what the scientific method is. If you think the fact that there is granite here on earth demonstrates a flood you have to explain fully why. Asking me if I know what granite is, is not a scientific argument for anything. Steps of the Scientific MethodI'm not asking for a PhD dissertation, I just need to know what your story actually is and the arguments and evidence supporting it. Just lay it on the table and we can pick somewhere to start.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

It is not a problem to get the water out. It is a serious problem on how to get the water in.Talking to me always widen your eyesight.

Why don't you tell me something about science?
For example, what is a "flood"?
Can you do that?

That tells me the person is dumb at that moment. And it usually leaves the person in the dark.

Use you an example: why don't you respond something on my instruction about granite on the earth? Do you want me to repeat what I said?Be be easy on you, you may respond by a question. Can you even do that?

I wonder why we bother with people like you?I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I asked you politely to outline your case and showed you why it was necessary to do it, but it turns out that you are indeed yet another crackpot, fundie troll.Perhaps others here have a better developed sense of masochism; bye for now.

Thank you very much for digging this up. It seems they have the sample of the moon rock at hand. I believe it is a small piece of granite-like (they called it A-type) clast in a dominantly basaltic moon rock.In the same abstract, I clip another short paragraph for you: We do find scattered pieces of granite in Hawaiian Islands. But that is less than may be one in million proportion to basaltic rock on the islands. So basically, we say that Hawaii does NOT have granite.And that article indeed help to explain what I said that earth is the only planet/moon which has continental-size granitic mass. Some coward asked me to prove it. I will give you that honor that this abstract you digged up indeed strongly suggested that. (Also a lesson to you here: NEVER use the word "prove" in geology. Because it is not a right word in geology dictionary. Use this word in geology just showing that person is very ignorant.)Again, thank you for your searching work. I wish other people can do the similar.
-------------For the water in granite, you can see this study emphasized that the granite they have is "dry". Since most granite (I-type, S-type) is "wet", so the understanding should be: when the granite was solidified (from magma), the environment should be "very wet". Igneous rock does not like to take water into the rock. The fact that granite has up to 3% of water says there were A LOT of water outside that piece of granite. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.

I believe you are not able to say anything about geology. You do not even know what a flood is.

Why don't YOU tell US what a flood is?

I rather not. You will say it is wrong because you will not understand what I would say.However, I do can argue on what you would say. It is not as easy as to look it up in a dictionary. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.