Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

My answer has some serious words in it. Why is it nothing?

---

I didn’t say that it was nothing. I said that it meant absolutely nothing - note the quote marks. Because it did not include anything that answered the question.

quote:

---

A term at a Ph.D. level will not mean anything to a kid.
Although, when that took place, it is, indeed, the fault of the Ph.D. if he ever want to communicate with the kid

---

I am sorry that my point went over your head. I will try to write more simply for your benefit.Here is the real question you haven’t answered:How do conditions on the Moon support the idea that there was a global Flood on Earth?

quote:

---

The moon rocks can generate some water. So the earth rocks can generate tremendous amount of water.

​

This is a very simple answer and you probably can not understand. But you can ask question.

---

We already know that the Earth has a lot of water. So this adds nothing. Even if it is true.It’s the sort of argument you wouldn’t bother with if you had anything worthwhile. But of course you don’t.

quote:

---

Your first sentence would sound better if it is a question

---

No it is a fact that your point is completely redundant. We know how much water the Earth has. More, if the amount of granite matters then the amount on the Earth matters not the amount on the Moon. And simply asserting that the Earth has a lot of water is not nearly enough to provide any significant support for a global flood.

quote:

---

It is your second sentence that turned me off. I really don't like to reply when I see a person talk with that attitude. Why should I?

---

It is a fact that my own investigations have not found anything that really supports your claim. At most the crystallisation of granite might release water trapped in the minerals. Which means that the water must already be there.It is also a fact that you have contradicted yourself, a fact that you use vagueness to pretend to have an important point and a fact that you claim to know better even when you obviously don’t. If you don’t like being distrusted then you shouldn’t do do much to earn that distrust.

quote:

---

I think I would like to reiterate there is evidence of a flood.

---

Well let’s see how you do presenting it.

quote:

---

There is. The B.E.D.S model, inselburgs, (erosional remnants), experiments for progradation showing facies can be laid down both laterally and superposed in hydraulic conditions with flume experiments proving it. Water gaps, polystrate fossils, standing arches, paraconformities (flat gaps), and some methods of dating. (Geochronomoters).

---

So, claims of a model, small scale experiments carried out under artificial conditions which likely won’t scale up, and things which are unexplained (as far as I am aware any dating method that works confirms the antiquity of the Earth).And I’d love to know how your floating fancies can preserve trackways.

quote:

---

New experiments have also now shown bouyancy counters any sedimentation meaning you need a LOT of sediment to counter the gases in the carcasses of animals, which leads to bloat-and-float disarticulation of fossils.

---

And no explanation of why this should be considered evidence, especially in the light of the order of the fossil record.

quote:

---

A flood is the perfect mechanism for fossilisation because of the large sediment hauls conducive to quick burial and preservation.

---

And this contradicts the bloat and float which argues that a flood is not that great for sudden burial compared to landslides or sandstorms.

quote:

---

There is also C14 in diamonds and soft tissue in various dino bones more favourable to youth, despite the desperate explanations put forward for why they could last millions of years.

---

C14 is only found in trace amounts, and no actual soft tissue has been found - only it’s altered remains (if that).

quote:

---

There is also the correctly qualified evidence we would expect from a flood. Obviously because of what the bible says about the flood, a flood would have been easy to falsify, all you would have had to say before finding the rock record is this;"well if the flood killed everything while it was living, all we need to do is show we won't find every phyla or type of animal preserved dead killed by a flood."

---

This is just silly. It would only be easy to refute the Flood were like that if at least one extant phylum didn’t escape fossilation. Which is not even remotely likely. The desperate clutching at straws makes the weakness of the case perfectly obvious.

quote:

---

That would have been easy, because obviously the bible says all life perished. But the fact we find fossils fighting, in the suffocation position, tracks of them scurrying, digesting meals, giving birth, and the fact we find all types of life, is the exact type of evidence to expect from a flood.

---

Or the exact evidence we would expect from the conventional view. Indeed the bloat and float model predicts none of this.

quote:

---

In the rocks we would also expect to NOT find any intermediates for bats, pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, snails, trees. Obviously if it is a history of created kinds, no matter how far back we went in the rock record we would expect to find things that pretty much look the same as they do today.

---

Cherry picked examples - even if they were entirely true - are hardly good evidence. For instance, the early ichthyosaurs are so different from the later, that it is questionable if they should be included in the group. Which is an example of how things do not look the same as today, when there are no ichthyosaurs at all.

quote:

---

Here's a little list I prepared earlier of some that appear with no evolutionary history and can be found today and even compared to their living counterparts and they look IDENTICAL. To say this is not the evidence expected from a flood/creation scenario is to LIE, and LIARS will have to answer to God when they stand before Him

---

Of course it isn’t. Especially as I only need look at the examples to see who the LIAR is. Modern coelacanths are NOT identical to the fossil varieties- they aren’t even considered to be in the same genus.
Finding outright falsehoods is not not nitpicking.
(And there are fossil crocodilians unlike any extant today - even bipedal crocodiles. Yes, the ancient world looked pretty much the same as today. Ha!)