There is no geological evidence of a single world wide flood occurring around the world at any one specific time. This was determined centuries ago by ****** looking for such evidence, including Leonardo da Vinci.
Could you please sketch out the arguments "centuries ago" that "determined" there was no worldwide Flood.
My scenario is different from Hovind's. But I would like to see the arguments supposedly used against the Flood idea you say established that there was no Flood a long time ago. I'm sure I've already addressed them at one time or another but I need to see them described.
Re: If there was a Biblical Flood, no one noticed.
Yes, in order to argue for the [ONE] biblical Flood the secular-science timing of all those locations is disputed. And on good grounds too: it's all conjecture that can't be tested except by reference to similar conjectures.
What can I say, ringo. I've tried to clarify this so many times that making another attempt brings on a wave of hopelessness. There is simply no comparison with a local flood and it's hard for me to see how anyone would make the comparison at all. It's quantity for starters but the whole is also much greater than its parts in a way that's hard to describe. Does constant rain for forty days and nights sounds like it can be compared to a local flood? Multiply by millions the runoff from high places in a local flood, and the saturation of the hills in a local flood that produces mudslides that bury things, and then consider that the ocean water is soon going to rise up over the land area and completely cover it. Not to mention that tons of sediment will be collecting in the ocean water in the early phases too. And whatever "the fountains of the deep" are is probably going to contribute something to its uniqueness though since I don't really know what that refers to I don't know what.
Oh well, that's a start but I got such a sinking feeling about how nothing I say will ever get anything across to anybody I have to stop.
You are expecting to see the marks of a bottleneck as we would see it today, in which there is such a genetic depletion, down to homozygosity for a huge percentage of loci there is hardly any capacity for further evolution. But I thlnk that at the time of the Flood all living things would have still had a great deal of their original genetic diversity so that although the bottleneck would reduce some of it to fixed loci, it wouldn't be noticeable to us and there would still be an enormous capacity for further variation.
I've explained this a million times before and I know you've seen it but you don't llke it so you pretend I never said it.
The Greenland ice sheet didn't exist before the Flood, was probably the result of the ice age that followed the Flood.
It is true that the timing of tree rings and ice cores has to be wrong if the Flood is true so I put those in the column on your side for now. Sedimentary layers of course are far more easily explained as the product of the Flood than they are the natural occurrence over hundreds of millions of years. You either see it or you don't.
It doesn't say there was a Greenland either, or a North America or continental drift. Putting together a scenario for the Flood has to take into account whatever seems to apply as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible, and I don't see how any of that does.
Yeah I know, but a whole stack miles deep of such neat flat straight layers of different kinds of specific sediments just doesn't fit with the vagaries of everyday llfe, which llfe we llve on a pretty jumbled-up dirt surface, which is what I'd expect of all periods in the history of the earth myself.