Did the Flood really happen?

Could you please sketch out how you distinguish One Big Flood from lots of little floods?Suppose somebody asked you what happened to all of the food that came in the back door of a restaurant. Your reply was, "A giant ate it." How do you know it was One Giant and not a lot of ordinary people?

Why not? Every particle is deposited individually, so there's no fundamental difference between a small pile of particles and a big pile of particles. Yup.

quote:

---

"From 1939-40, Maunawili Ranch on the island of Oahu saw 331 straight days with measurable rain...." link

---

I'm not asking you to imagine a really big flood. I'm asking you how you would distinguish the results of a really big one from a million little ones. Specifically. What would be different?We see lots of little floods as they happen and we see the layers that they deposit, so we know very well what little-flood layers look like. We see the same kind of layers all over the world, whether we saw them being deposited or not. We do not see any "special" layers that can not be explained by the little floods that we see all the time. So how can you tell, specifically, which ones were deposited by little floods and which ones were deposited by The Big Flood?

Sure they are. A flood that destroys everything you have is going to seem like an earth-shattering event even if people a few miles away never even hear about it.

Ever hear of science fiction? There are thousands of post-apocalyptic stories and they're all based on little apocalypses like the ones we see in the news every day. There has never been One Big Apocalypse that somebody felt the need to remember.

Reminds me of something Velikovsky wrote. Some fish fossils had died with horrified expressions on their faces indicated that they must have died in some immense catastrophe. But I would think that their own deaths (and maybe the deaths of their loved-fish) would have been horrifying enough.

Nobody's misrepresenting you.

quote:

---

Job 15:5-6 For thy mouth uttereth thine iniquity, and thou choosest the tongue of the crafty. Thine own mouth condemneth thee, and not I: yea, thine own lips testify against thee.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

---

anglagard's signature:

quote:

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

---

And your mind just dismisses,

The Bible doesn't say that the flood destroyed every trace of what went before. Its only purpose was to kill, not destroy.

What "perished" is not the issue. You were talking about sites such as Ur, Jericho, Sidon and Rujm el-Hiri. The Bible doesn't say anything about such sites being destroyed.

That's what I'm saying to you. You claimed in Message 386, "my view is biblical". It isn't. It's made up.

You've just been shown that the Flood could not have done it without breaking them. All you're doing is saying, Nuh uh."

You have it backwards. They could not have been transported without breaking. The Flood could not have moved them without breaking. That means they must have grown there (unless there's a third alternative).

It only needs to be disproven in one way for all of the "proofs" to be irrelevant. The magical bulletproof coral has definitely been disproven.

On the contrary, it is very easy to test the fragility of coral. That's another experiment that creationists could do. Throw some coral into a flood, have it transported a few hundred miles and check for damage. Why don't they ever do the experiments? The evidence would be transporting coral without damage. Demonstrate that.