Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)

Let's be clear. You have not been IN those mountains. You have been ON those mountains.You have seen fossilized sea creatures ON those mountains.However, if you were to find a strip mine ON one of those mountains, or a cliff face, or a land slide, or even just took a shovel and digged down - you would now see what's IN those mountains.You know what you would find? Sea fossils. The same fossils which erosion is exposing on the surface are found through out the layer deep under ground.How does a flood explain that?What sort of magic water would cause the fossils to go INTO the mountain which is already standing so that the fossils can be dropped on top of it?There's no logical answer.The evidence points to one conclusion. The fossils ON the mountain are part of the same layer which we find IN the mountain. Since the mountain is MADE of that layer, it must PREDATE the mountain.Another point - you find sea creatures ON the mountain, theoretically deposited there by the "flood". Why ONLY sea creatures? Should there be a mix? Why would the flood water bring CLAMS and SNAILS (which both live on the bottom of the ocean) to the TOP of a mountain but NOT BRING dead mammoths, rabbits, t-rexs, horses, even people? Where are the OTHER animals? Where are the fossilized plants? Where is the pollen?How did the magic water sort ALL these different kinds of fossils before magically imbedding ONLY the old sea fossils into the strata and NEVER ONCE MISSED A SINGLE GRAIN OF GRASS POLLEN?Is there a logical explanation? No.You know why? Because it's a myth. It's a story ripped off by illiterate goat herders living in the middle east thousands of years ago.Even the Jews who OWN THE STORY don't believe it is a historical account.

No, Wump, you've never been IN a mountain. You've been IN a cave maybe or IN a mineshaft.I'm talking about going THROUGH the layer of sediment you find eroded on the surface.If you have a cliff face with a horizontal band of sandstone full of seashells, that band is not "painted" onto the cliff face.It runs through the rock.If you did STRAIGHT into it, it will keep going back and back and back. And 100s of ft, 1000s of ft, into the mountain you will STILL be finding the SAME sea shells EMBEDDED into the band of sandstone.HOW did the flood water magically INSERT that band INTO the pre-existing mountain?And HOW did it sort out the material so that there is NEVER EVER EVER EVER a rabbit bone or a t-rex tooth or a mammoth tusk or a grass pollen mixed in with those shells? Sort of like how when you went in a cave you saw stalagmites and stalagtites which "seemed as if" they were formed very quickly.I mean, after all, icycles for every winter, they take only days.Why don't you go ahead and explain to me IN DETAIL how you can come across a collection of fossils and determine "this was laid down very quickly"?For example, there are huge piles of fossils stacked deep here at the La Brea Tar Pits. Were they all laid down in one afternoon of incredibly stupid animal behavior?Did all 10,000 wolves jump in all at once? Were they followed in by the ground sloths, camels and sabertooths?How long did it take exactly? Five minutes? Seven? An hour? Surely, not as long as a whole day.I mean, after all, it "seems" to you that it was all done so "quickly".LOL

Let me guess, New Orleans was destroyed in the Great Flood and the news reporters that blamed it on Katrina were biased.Apparently there has never been, nor ever will be, localized flooding anywhere on Earth.Good to know.Let me ask you something Wumpi, does your mother believe in the same God you do?Do you think that's an amazing coincidence?If you were born in India instead of Indiana, would you still be arguing for the Biblical Great Flood? Or would you be Hindu now instead of Fundamentalist?Basically, the deciding factor in your belief system is not evidence or logic, it's "My mommy said so."That's not a valid foundation for argument.

Yeah, the tar pits are STILL actively killing animals (allbeit rats and pigeons rather than sabertooths and direwolves). If they weren't in the MIDDLE OF HOLLYWOOD, I'm sure they would be killing all manner of hapless creatures.However, NOT ALL AT ONCE!!!These Floodies are absolutely insane!
"Here's two fossils the appear near each other in the sediment" - PROOF of the Flood
"Here's two fossils that have a lot of sediment in between them" - PROOF of the FloodThere's simply no winning.Once again, the foundation for their argument is "My mommy says so". How do you have a rational discussion about that? You can't.

Don't bother to respond. You've already made it clear that posts you can't refute will get ignored. (And I thought you didn't want to be treated like a stereotypical uneducated creationist).Here's the "theological implications" which you state that you want to discuss.The "Magical Great Flood", for which you claim to have evidence, would have been created by the all powerful, all knowing Judeo/Christian God."All powerful" and "all knowing" means that he could have chosen ANY solution to solve his problem AND he would have know the outcome of that solution.As is demonstrated in Exodus, God can selectively kill infants of the people he doesn't like while leaving the rest of the city standing.However, in the case of the Great Flood, God chooses genocide.He chooses to kill millions of innocent animals, plants, children, etc with a "worldwide flood", rather than to go down and kill off JUST the wicked adults who are misbehaving.For a deity who is "all powerful", both acts are possible.So, the unavoidable "theological implication" which you asked to discuss , is that this so called God is profoundly evil.Are you sure that you want to present evidence for this Flood?Now for the admins:
Yes, I know, I confronted a Creationist with logic about something THEY raised in one of their posts. Time for you to ban me. While you are at it, let's change the name from "EVC forum" to "C forum".

Wumpini, Wumpini, Wumpini...
Who was it that said: Care to explain why Ravin should be held to a higher standard than yourself? Oh, that's right, it's because you're special. I forgot. And R pointed out that that water is under high pressure and dissolved in magma. You've offered NO explanation as to HOW the water go OUT of the magma without burning the Earth to a cinder.It's not enough to find a "source" of the water if you have no means of getting to from point A to point B. You might as well have said "there's plenty of water in the Ortt cloud". Guess what? It's still there. Just like any water below the crust is STILL below the crust. And if YOU had read the article YOU would have seen the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH:"That much seawater in the mantle means that as much as 10 percent of Earth’s oceans have been subducted into the planet’s interior throughout its history ” "That means that the water in the mantle represents an amount equal to 10% of the ocean water currently on the Earth today.In other words, NOT ENOUGH WATER.What's the matter? Decided to skip that part because it contradicts your point.Here's a tip: If you are going to quote an article, make sure that it supports your claims.And just for the record: A stereotypical uneducated Creationist would likely quote mine a scientific article for a tidbit while missing the parts that contradict their claims.But, you aren't a stereotypical uneducated Creationists, right? And given that the article implies that it's 10% of the ocean volume, you are coming up 290% short.Oh wait, that's right, earlier you quoted a different article which claimed 10X the amount of water.So, which article you are citing is wrong? The one that claims it's 10X the amount or the one that claims the water in the mantle is seawater?Either way, you've just destroyed 50% of your argument. The thread is about evidence - not claims of evidence.You CLAIM that there is enough water available for the "magical great flood" to have occurred. You've failed to provide evidence for that claim.But, let's pretend you have provided evidence that there is enough water - THAT is not evidence FOR a "magical great flood".There is enough sand to form a giant sand Godzilla. The amount of sand is NOT evidence FOR a giant sand Godzilla.If you were a stereotypical uneducated creationist, you would want to stay on this topic since it doesn't require you to address the fact that there is no actual evidence. You would grab desperately to any attempt to force Rahvin to try and prove a negative.But, as you pointed out earlier, you aren't a stereotypical uneducated Creationist, so let's move on to evidence FOR a Great Flood.Got any?

Unless of course the OTHER scientists that Wumpini cited are correct, in which case he is coming up 290% short.See, that's the problem for you Creationists. You want to cherry pick data from source A and source B and exclude the parts from A and B you don't like.That's not how it works. Either A is valid and there is plenty of water but it is NOT transferable from mantle to surface OR B is valid and there isn't enough water but you CAN get to it.Which is it? Which way are is Wumpini wrong is his claim? I'll let you pick.

While I still hold that you have absolutely failed in your attempts to prove access to the "magic water", I would like to point out the following:SO WHAT?Let's ASSUME that you get to cherry pick your answers. So you take one number from one report and multiply it by another number from another report, then discard all the evidence that contradicts you, claim that "magic" solves the thermodynamic problems, etc, etc, etc.That's STILL not evidence FOR a Flood.Like I pointed out before - there is PLENTY of sand on Earth to form a giant sand Godzilla. By your standards, THAT ALONE is evidence of a giant sand Godzilla.As a different poster pointed out -
Whether or not there is enough water for a flood is totally MOOT!We are talking about a "magical" invisible wizard who "magically" sucked the "magic" water from deep in the Earth's crust and "magically" made it rain from the sky.Why not just both agree that the "magic" wizards could "magically" make the "magic" water out of thin air then "magically" make it vanish again?There. Problem solved.Now, let's get on to EVIDENCE that this MAGIC WATER actually WAS PRESENT. Got any? Didn't think so.

No, there was one that claims that there is 10x the amount of water and then there is one that claims that the water in the mantle represents seepage totaling 10% of the ocean water.Only, Wumpi didn't bother to quote THAT part of the article, did he?No, he quoted the paragraph directly above it which said that "50% of the water in the mantle is ocean water".You see, Can't, when someone cherry picks data from one study and combines it with cherry picked data from another study, then present both as collaborating evidence - that's called LYING.And when you guys LIE to try and convince people that you are correct, that means that you KNOW that you are incorrect. Otherwise, why would you lie.So here we have it. Wumpi KNOWS that he's incorrect, resorts to LYING in the hopes that he won't get caught. He does get caught. The lie is exposed, then you come along and PRETEND like you are unaware of his lie.Interesting position.You may want to check with the Bible to see what it says about lying. (Hint: It's one of the commandments).Additionally, exactly WHEN did you become the self proclaimed GOD of the forums?The TITLE of the thread is: "Does the evidence support the Flood".The TITLE of the thread is NOT: "Can a Creationist pretend like there is a lot of water".WHERE is the EVIDENCE which SUPPORTS THE FLOOD.I've asked several times. You've dodged several times.I'm even ALLOWING YOU to PRETEND that the wizard used "magic water" so you don't have to rely on LYING about what is or is not in the articles.Well, time to pony up.WHERE is the EVIDENCE?

And since I am NEITHER of those people, I am not restricted to that discussion. Instead, I am ON TOPIC for the thread. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you bring it up with the admins. GOOD LUCK. Then I suggest you go back and follow Wumpi's links. You CLAIM to have read all the article Wumpi linked. You ALSO claim to have NOT read the paragraph I quoted.ONE of those two claims is a lie.As for your REPEATEDLY quoting ONE of the two articles (as though referring repeatedly to one somehow negates the lie), I didn't contradict that article. Wumpi did.My point is that he can not cite TWO different articles which claim RADICALLY different things and use BOTH of them as evidence for water.EITHER one is right and the other is wrong OR both are wrong.Both are right is NOT a possible outcome.I understand that YOU are backing the 5x as much water article. That's fine.HOWEVER, that article DOESN'T allow for water to transfer out of the magma.The article which DOES allow for water to transfer out of the magma states that the water in the mantle (or 50% of the water in the mantle depending on how you read it) consists of sea water which represents 10% of the total amount of sea water on the planet.In other words, depending on your math, the mantle contains either an addition 10 or 20% of the volume of sea water.I know the Bible fans aren't exact "strong" in math (after all the Bible claims that pi=3) but 10-20% more water is LESS than 500% more water.

Let's be clear.You are saying that the ARTICLE THAT YOU LINKED IS WRONG.That you have been presenting KNOWINGLY INCORRECT INFORMATION and CLAIMING IT AS EVIDENCE FOR YOU ARGUMENT.That's "lying".You may not want "personal attacks" on you, but your behavior leaves little else available.By your own admission, your sources are not to be trusted (and obviously neither are you).So, given that we can now disregard ALL the evidence you claim, that leaves us with only you as a (very untrustworthy) person to confront.So, take it personally or not, your LIES prove to us that not only is your position false, but that YOU YOURSELF KNOW that it is false. Otherwise, WHY LIE?So, there we have it.We have the evidence on our side, you've got lies. Both sides agree that science is correct.Why exactly are you still here?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note - Nuggin given 24 hour suspension for this message.

Which are you? Rahvin or Wumpini? Because, on my computer you are "ICANT" and you are posting in the "Does the Evidence support the Flood" thread.What color is the sky in your world?

That would be a valid point if Wumpini was not ALSO trying to discredit the articles he linked.Can't have it both ways. Either they ARE evidence or they ARE not evidence.He can't selectively use SOME of the data when it fits his claims and discount other data because it doesn't fit his claims.It's DISHONEST (and frankly par for the course for Creationists).

Once again, you are being extremely dishonest (or should I just say "Christian") in your methodology here.I could EASILY say "Well, since hydrogen and oxygen are the components of water, THEORETICALLY any hydrogen or oxygen in any molecule anywhere on/in/or near the Earth counts as water".But that's NOT the point Rahvin is making, is it?Here, I'll help you, since clearly honesty is a problem for you. NO, it isn't.Rahvin is talking about WATER.WATER being FREE h2o. If you have a hunk of sandstone which is saturated with water, that IS water.If you have a pool of magma with superheated hydrogen and oxygen gas infused through out - that is NOT water. It's MAGMA.You can't get the water out, therefore the water is NOT available.You CHOOSE to believe that the discussion is about "all the potential water which may or may not exist in inaccessible areas" because that provides you with access to unprovable assertations like "There's 500 million gallons of water hiding in the Earth's core" while allowing you to studiously avoid questions like: "Where's the evidence OF ACTUAL FLOODING".So, fine, believe what you will about the nature of the discussion. It's EXACTLY what we'd expect from you.And, for the record, you don't get to tell me "God Bless" at the end of your posts. God isn't going to listen to you. "Thou shalt not bear false witness." It's a commandment. You might want to look into it.

North pole ice is floating and therefore has no effect on sea level.Ice shelf ice in Antartica is floating and likewise doesn't effect seal level.Continental ice in artarctica would effect sea level if it were to melt, as would the ice in Greenland.However if ALL fo this ice melted, it would not raise sea level high enough to cover the mountain ranges in the US, let alone the Hims or the Andes.Simply not enough ice to make up for the "magic!" flood water.