Did the Flood really happen?

You still talk toooo much. The quote above is the only meat in your reply.We do think the year on the earth could become longer and longer when the earth went away from the sun farther and farther.Would that be enough to count for the longevity of Noah and other patriarchs? Why not?

That is quite simple. In a scientific argument, one does not dismiss the problem as a myth or a faith. That is it. If the issue sounds like a myth, then give logic or scientific reasons to show its very very low possibility.

I thought you want to talk about Noah, not the Flood. I have talked about the Flood (without Noah) since the beginning of my post. Where was you response to my arguments about the Flood? This question is an improvement. So we can move forward a little bit. (I said, if you do not improve, I will just stop). Post in this forum gives you a very bad habit: can't help yourself to insult others. I am very sorry for that. Please try to talk in a more civilized way.There are some ways that the earth could change its orbit suddenly. One possibility is that the earth could be attracted (or pushed) by another passing by celestial body in the solar system, for example, the moon or another planet/comet. The gravity interaction should be able to drive the earth's orbit suddenly farther away from the sun. Notice that the movement should be a deceleration process, so the length of an earthly year gradually increased.

We are try to evaluate the description in a few chapters of the Bible by science. Do not forget this root purpose. Don't jump to the "myth" conclusion until you reasoned about it in a scientific way. If you think it is a myth, i.e. scientifically unreasonable, then you can quit (no need to reason any more). If I talk about it in science, and you do not, then I can quit. The talk won't continue unless both sides can talk in science.Science is data plus reason. Only rootlessly yell evidence, evidence won't make any science discussion. Without a solid theoretical background, no one can recognize any evidence. Started from my first post, I said the strongest evidence of the Flood is the ocean of the earth. Can you understand the evidence? Of course you can not. What I was doing is to explain to you why is that a strong evidence.

The interaction could be collision, or a very close fly by. In either case, if the angle of interaction is correct, even a comet might be enough to suddenly change the orbit of the earth.Of course it would have some dramatic effect on the earth. The one hit the earth in late Cretaceous caused the termination of dinosaurs. However, it did not terminate lives on the earth.As long as the orbit of the earth suddenly changed, the longevity question may have an answer.

May be you did not. But I did. I hate to go back to find them. But if you do, I bet they are there.Anyway, for your sake, I can do it again. It won't take much trouble.Are we finished with Noah and time? If not, we could continue until you feel tired of it. If yes, we may start to think about the seawater as a strong evidence the global flood.

I did not read those arguments. I wonder what is the idea about. If the sun lost its mass, would that make the planets go farther away from the sun? What is the sucked earth about?And what is the purpose of going through those arguments?The short goal of my argument is to explain the longevity of patriarchs and the decrease of longevity though time. One way this could become possible is a sudden lengthening of earth's orbit to the sun, and the slow down of the self rotation of earth. The quantitative part of this model could be figured out once this idea is accepted. Roughly, we can take the current condition of Mercury as a reference.

My goal is to show the possibility of Biblical longevity. I present a model. That is all we have now. If you do not agree with the idea, I like to know why. Please do not thrown out a bunch of questions (only get ignored except one). Just give the strongest point of opposition, and see how could I deal with it.

If you do not agree on my idea, why should I do that?

It will change the time counting significantly. A year on the Mercury is only about 1/4 year of the earth.The orbit change of the earth could take place and not be detected by life on the earth.

You are talking about the details of the longevity model. Does that mean if your questions above could be dealt with, then the model becomes a possibility?1. amount of change?
2. timing and duration of change?
3. effect to the life on the earth?Any more concerns?

The Mercury today is inhabitable. BUT, if put the earth there and a lot of the seawater evaporated into the atmosphere, plus if the earth rotated faster than the Mercury does, then the earth at that orbit may have a habitable environment.Suppose the earth is moving away from the sun at a speed 3 miles per year, how would be the environment change from what it is today? It would have some difference. However, every life form would also probably quickly used to it.

No, I will try the math after:
1. you agreed on my idea,
2. you request it.

No way. I learned enough from people like you.
Unless we agreed on something, I won't go to the next step. I won't be so stupid to waste my time.

We do not know when was the time of the Patriarchs time. So, let's assume the earth moved away from the sun 500 million miles from the time of Adam to the time of Abraham. If the average speed was 100 miles per year, it would only take 5 million years. At the beginning the runaway, the speed could be much higher, then it gradually slowed down.These ball park estimations suggest a true possibility of the model.