Did the Flood really happen?

Ah! So you have evidence of this! Finally!Please present your evidence.

In addition, geologists are able to tell the difference between strata that were laid down by rapidly moving water (eg, a flood) and still water (eg, a lake or sea). That evidence also does not support the Flood.

No, nobody has any clue what magic water could do, since it could do anything imaginable and more.However, what real does and can do is understood very well. It cannot do what you demand of it.If your position depends entirely on magic, then at least admit it. Just don't call it science, which it isn't.

Which you imagine without any basis in reality did impossible things contrary to the laws of physics and without leaving any evidence. In doing so, you are invoking magic.Your next magic trick is to imagine without any basis in reality that the laws of physics were completely different than they are now. No evidence of that, no explanation for it, no nothing except your magical wishing. So yet again, MAGIC!Magic is as magic does. You keep invoking magic, so that means that you are indeed using magic.Just admit the truth, that you are using magic, and stop pretending that you are doing anything like science.BTW, all along you have been playing your games in accordance with the fundamental deception of "creation science": that their position and claims are not based on religion, but rather are based entirely on scientific evidence. That fundamental deception was designed to circumvent court decisions in the wake of Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) which invalidated the use of religious reasons to bar the teaching of evolution in the public schools. So the anti-evolution movement created "creation science" as its game of "Hide the Bible" (literally!). And to make matters worse, there is no scientific evidence to support their claims, but rather they have to misunderstand and misrepresent the actual evidence when they are not outright fabricating it.Every time a creationist tries to appeal solely to scientific evidence, she is playing the game of that fundamental deception. Why must your god be served solely through deception?

This is science, not theology.Science uses definitions to describe reality. Theology uses definitions to redefine reality.Here you are trying to redefine reality for your own purposes. You are engaged in theology, not in science.Reality is that time has not stopped and depositation is still continuing at present and into the future. It is most definitely not over and done with.

That requires an actual falsification. Presenting completely made-up bullshirt nonsense does not qualify as a falsification.

Of course not, since they completely contradict your prejudices. Actual real-life facts have a nasty habit of doing that. Of course not, because your Flood nonsense makes no sense at all. Except when what you are wanting to express is complete and utter nonsense.Nonsense is still nonsense.

How could you possibly think that you could make such an absolute claim when the almost ALL of those layers are still buried OUT OF YOUR SIGHT?To the contrary, seismic mappings of strata do indeed show the shapes of buried lake bottoms and rivers as we have shown to you repeatedly and which you persist in denying for no valid reason! In addition, we have also shown you cross-sections of buried streams and rivers which have been exposed and which you persist in denying for no valid reason!Why do you persist in accusing that image in the mirror? We keep trying to tell you that that image is you, not us. Yet you persist in denying even that.

Since you're referring to Noah and family, it's valid to ask when they were and when the narrative was written down.I reposted a YEC's article which repeated a Ussher-style chronology using the Bible to date the age of the earth -- BTW, that YEC is known to plagiarize so I suspect that he merely copied the article for an unknown source. I reposted it at ARE THERE GAPS IN THE GENEALOGIES IN DETERMINING WHEN ADAM LIVED?. I neither believe its conclusions nor endorse it, but at least it presents a more complete approach than I had ever seen elsewhere as so it may be of interest.Like most, when I engaged in this exercise myself I could get no further than the Flood. This reposted article is a more complete exercise which works its way through the reigns of the various kings to get a count of years AC ("After Creation") which he eventually ties in with a known historical event, Cyrus, the Persian setting the people free (2 Chronicles 36:23) in 538 BCE, which the article calculates was in 3647 AC. He used that to determine the AC date of the start of the Common Era (what he erroneously calls "the turn of the century") which he gives as 4185 AC (538 + 3647). Add 2020 CE to that and you get the current AC year to be about 6205 AC. That works out to Creation to have occurred about 424 years earlier than the Jewish Calendar gives it as being.So given that 1 CE was at about 4185 AC (remember that there was no Year Zero, so, no, we are not moving into a new decade tomorrow; see my page, DWise1's Millennium Page), we can convert between BCE and AC to see what was supposed to have happened when (Biblical dates based on that YEC's article): The effect that these dates have on Faith's attempts to claim an eye-witness record for the Flood is devastating. At the very best, there are more than 1300 years between the biblical date for the Flood and the earliest writing down of any part of the Bible. That's more than one thousand years of oral tradition to transmit that story. All our experience with oral tradition shows that at best the stories can change from considerably to completely within just a few generations -- and at worst, such as in the fake news spread by Trump, within mere minutes. More than one thousand years of oral tradition cannot possibly be considered historically reliable.Worse for Faith's false claims of historicity is that the Flood account was written during the Babylonian Captivity, which is supported by the incorporation of Babylonian mythology into the stories (eg, the Epic of Gilgamesh, which includes both the Flood and a snake that steals immortality from Man). Not only would that involve a full two millennia of oral tradition, but also the massive assimilation of foreign mythology.The only way for Faith to claim the historical accuracy of the Flood account would be for her to appeal fully on Magick. That would directly contradict Faith's persistent false claim that her claims do not rely on Magick.

Do you have ANY idea what you've said?Over the years you have repeatedly tried to use biblical accounts as "eye-witness reports". Furthermore, you have repeatedly insisted that those biblical "eye-witness reports" be given precedence over the physical evidence.Furthermore, over the years as we have pointed out that your wildly contrary-to-fact claims regarding geology are appeals to Magick, you have repeatedly and persistently denied that obvious fact.Obviously, you suffer from the same mental deficiency as Trump does in that he is incapable of remembering the many falsehoods he spouts constantly (though he appears to be much worse off as his new falsehoods contradict his previous ones).You may not be able to remember what you have said, but we do remember!

Yeah, right. We have to wade through years of the crap that you've posted. After which you'll just ignore it or deny it like you have done so many times already. Why would anybody want to waste their time like that?Our memory is very good. We know what you have written. You will deny it all you want, like you do everything else.

Message 1528Well?

What I thought was that she was appealing to pretty much the same simplistic and false idea of "The Ladder of Life" that leads to that old canard, "Why are there still monkeys?"* Or the other way around, appealing to "Why are there still monkeys?" with a touch of "Ladder of Life".My reading of Faith's "conclusion" was that she was thinking of the "evolutionist" interpretation of fossil order as supporting the "Ladder of Life" (as opposed to the Darwinian ever-branching bush of descent), in this case the historical sequence of life having started in the seas and then moving onto the land. But then she forgot the fatal flaw of "why are there still monkeys?", which is the mistaken idea that the evolution of a new species requires the extinction of the parent species, which would logically lead to the impossible and ludicrous idea that the establishment of life on the land would have emptied the seas of all life (or the colonization of the New World would have left the Old World devoid of human habitation).Of course, we, unlike Faith, can understand Minnemooseus' point in Message 1538: Faith's fuller response (Message 1539) was: That tells me that she somehow thinks the fossil order would dictate that once land fossils appear then you should never again see marine fossils -- why her bag-of-cats mind would have her think that, nobody can possibly know.Rather in reality, when you have a marine environment then you would get marine fossils and when you have a land environment (including rivers and lakes, the existence of which Faith vehemently denies) then you would get land fossils. Not only does Faith deny these very obvious facts, but she has been denying persistently and vehemently for years the very obvious fact that something that had been buried (eg, a plant or animal) had existed at the same time as that burial event. How her bag-of-cats mind could possibly deny such obvious facts, we normals cannot understand.What Faith appears to be unable (or unwilling) to understand is that the order of the fossil record is the overall pattern that we see world-wide. And that an individual location can have its own history of both marine and terrestrial depositation, even overlapping each other, in which marine layers would have marine fossils and terrestrial layers would have land fossils.

---

FOOTNOTE *: "Well, if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?"Almost every time I would even mention that extremely bad creationist argument to a creationist, that creationist would very bitterly accuse me of having made it up in order to create a strawman argument. Far from it.In 2002, Answers in Genesis published an article which listed really bad or flagrantly false creationist claims that AiG pleaded its readers to stop using; eg, men having one rib fewer than women (because of how God created Eve from Adam's rib), missing solar neutrinos, Darwin's deathbed conversion. One of those claims was "Why are there still monkeys?". That shows that that claim did actually exist and that creationists were actually using it or else AiG would not have included it in their list.In addition, since I started studying "creation science" around 1981 I have personally observed that claim being used in the wild at least three times. The first time was on a radio show on which the guests were Dr. Duane Gish of the ICR and Fred Edwords of the American Humanist Association. One of the call-ins was a woman whose primary question was "so why are there still monkeys?". It was Gish who tried to explain to her that that idea was wrong and why. 
BTW, AiG received some negative feedback for that "Please Don't Use" article, especially from Kent Hovind (the list included a number of the claims that he routinely used). I saved Dr. Sarfati's reply and have reposted most of it on my quotes page. It turns out that Dr. Sarfati supports my own position, that it only does harm when creationists use false claims.BTW,

Actually, both are correct (except for your erroneous qualifier, "only").Science does indeed get results. Very good results and far more reliably than any other system that we know of.But perhaps much more importantly, science also get us more questions. Every new discovery that provides us with answers also raises more questions which points us to where we need to do further research. The practice of science is one of continuous investigation. Every fruitful investigation involves collecting clues with each new clue directing us to where to look for the next clue. If all science ever did was to result only in answers and never in new questions, then it would die.We see repeated attempts, especially from "intelligent design" (ID) types, to force science to incorporate the supernatural such that when we don't have an immediate answer then that means "God" (or more accurately, "goddidit"). Such a "supernaturalistic science" would only produce "answers" that are not actual answers ("goddidit" explains nothing) and so would be unable to learn anything new and would die. Please refer to the topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY), which examined this issue.Basically, that's what most religion has become: the source of "answers" which explain nothing while luring us away from asking the questions. The most valuable function of religion is to get us to ask the right questions, not to seduce us into submission with spurious "answers".

Evidence precedes a solid model, because the solid model must be based on evidence. Without evidence, you cannot even begin to build a model, let alone a solid model.What you are proposing is exactly what Phat was warning about in his message Message 1941 to which you purported to reply (but was replying to ringo instead) So you are admitting to following the erroneous "Creationist Method" of reaching your conclusions first and then trying to cherry-pick "evidence" to support it. Very bad form, that.Since models, especially solid models, must be developed based on evidence, if you have a solid model then you must also have evidence. It is impossible to have a solid model in the complete absence of evidence. Oh, you claim to have a model! Therefore you must have evidence. So why do you fight against providing that evidence?