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

No Nuggin, your wrong..

1. If Antarctica's ice sheets melted, the worlds oceans would rise by 60 to 65 metres (200 - 210ft) everywhere.
2. Antarctica is pushed into the earth by the weight of its ice sheets. If they melted, it would "spring back" about 500m (1 625 ft). It would do this v...e...r...y s...l...o...w...l...y taking about 10000 years to do so.
   Scotland and Scandinavia are still rebounding today after the last ice age - at the rate of half a meter a century in the Northern Baltic - the fastest place.

read this And we are just coming out of an ice age so all the continents are
being pushed up out of the water and have been ever since the flood.Edited by LucyTheApe, : and/asEdited by LucyTheApe, : frd

Firstly Bluegenes, I'm a quadraped, sometimes I do walk upright for short stretches, but when I do, I always scrape my knuckles.Secondly I don't really mind the name Darwin for my favorite city, but I resent the fact that they changed the name of my University to "Charles Darwin" one month before I graduated".Thirdly and more to the point even the Himalayas were under water, the fossil hunters will vouch for that.

Thanks for the lecture on density I'll skip the experiment. Thanks anyway.However Nuggin, Antarctica IS A CONTINENT almost twice the size of Australia (and US) the ice is on average 2500 metres thick. Poor reasoning Nuggin. Claiming that there was a flood doesn't necessitate being a YEC.The claim that we are coming out of an ice age is made by the scientists. I'm just agreeing with them.I believe the ice age was before the flood, the flood finished it. I think Jesus arrived a few thousand years after Noah who rode the flood out in his boat.Edited by LucyTheApe, : size countsEdited by LucyTheApe, : Tag

Edited by LucyTheApe, : Unless the grammar's right you're not taken seriously.

The flood is possible without taking into account antediluvian geology.But anyway.. So who is it that knows . The fact is that your science is based on a set of assumptions. One of those is that the age of the earth is in the billions of years. I mean think about it; billions of years. Growth is exponential, if life has been around for billions of years we'd be knee deep in bones. Tell me have you found evidence of a puddle? Maybe a creek overflowing or a river breaking its banks?
Obviously you have been digging in spots that weren't washed away during the flood.

Nuggin, are you talking about the Antarctic ice shelf. ? If it wasn't cold, why did God bother to make Adam and Eve fur coats before kicking them out of Eden. So what? I'm not bound by anything, I'm free to think what I want.
Day of the week? I'll have a guess and say Monday. Friday afternoon and a flood would be just too much.Edited by LucyTheApe, : fontEdited by LucyTheApe, : damn tagsEdited by LucyTheApe, : double damn

Have you tried looking at the bottom of the oceans, that's where the rivers tend to flow. I would expect that the sediment would contain fossils in the order they were washed away. Stone and metal tools would be found where they were dropped. Your assuming that this is a single homogeneous layer. Without doing any maths I would guess that this level would be insignificantly low. And there's salt everywhere. Yes we should be able to trace all life back to a few mitochondrial lines. Genetics will teach us much in the coming years, I hope. The first animals to leave the ark could have been half way around the world within a few months without leaving any trace. There's plenty of water, I thought that been established.Is that all you got. Think a bit harder and come up with something convincing.

I have no idea about your digs or about digging full stop. I can't comment. You know infinitely more that I do in that regard. So I have to take your word that there was no flood based on your interpretation of your work. I refuse to do that. You don't convince me. What did I miss.

• Salinity. If I could be bothered I would do the maths. But there's such an abundance of salt all over the earth, the maths would be pointless.
• Genetics. It's in its infancy.
• One homogeneous layer of silt after a world wide catastrophic flood, I don't think so

I don't believe that all these species faded out over time due to natural selection. Disease, maybe, catastrophe more likely.

We'd expect things to be dragged along based on their physics. A hammer, which is relatively dense, but small, should stay where it was dropped.A rock which is big (large surface area) would be dragged away. Why do you use the bible as a reference?Remember resistance has a squared effect. I'm not proposing any change in physics!

Evolutionary genetics is in its infancy.Do you disagree?

They're your words;not mine.A hammer is about 8 times heavier than water. You showed me wood and cars which are both lighter than water. That's why they're floating away.Five things determine whether or not an object will get dragged away.

1. The rate of flow.
2. The density of the object
3. The aerodynamics of the object
4. The amount of solids in the water
5. The objects' stability.
   

Given the right conditions just about anything can be dragged along.Edited by LucyTheApe, : Five things not four.

I don't like your logic here OC.Just say the earth split open at some point at its mantle.
This vaporised the ocean for 40 days or so which melted the ice
and was also responsible for the rain.If something is sitting on a slope it might well be washed away with the rain.
If something is sitting on a plane and it's heavy enough, the water might just cover
it with silt without it being dragged anywhere. If something is sitting in a valley it
might be dragged to the lowest point in the valley, say the bottom of a lake.
A lot of stuff would be dragged to the bottom of the oceans.So a homogenous layer of silt, in my opinion is unlikely. I never said anything of the sort, nor did I think it. Again, I never said that.
There may have been places on the earth where it was peaceful, but not everywhere. No I'm not, I'm using the laws we already have, rationally.

Ok, Its not in its infancy even though it was only a couple of years
or so ago that the human genome was sequenced.
My point is that genetics has a lot to learn.

The entire planet would be under water not at the bottom of the ocean. Any material that is suspended in the water would have the potential to fall, any further movement would require other forces.

Ice tends to melt above 0⁰C. The 1000⁰C or so that would superheat the water would be localized.If you put your hand in front of a steaming kettle, you will burn your hand; if you move it away just a little, its not hot at all. What is wrong with my rationale?I'm making up a scenario to use as a model, what's wrong with that?