Did the Flood really happen?

Well, maybe if I spend more time practicing watching my mind and purging my negative feelings I'll get loving and joyful and stop irritating you and everything will be SO nice. It probably won't change my opinions that you don't like but the fact that you don't like them won't irritate ME so I can stop irritating you. I'll go back to it now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Really? Well, that would make EvC truly unique!

They did not overturn it on any scientific grounds. It was James Hutton's wild speculations that started that ball rolling but it was only wild human speculation and did not deserve scientific standing. Also their interpretations of the Flood were just as silly as they are now. No sense of the magnitude of the thing for starters.And they accepted what seems to me to be the utter abbsurdity that time periods of millions of years of earth's history are memorialized in slabs of rock of identifiable sedimentary content, each bearing a peculiarly distinct set of dead things, fossilized in a remarkably consistent way over hundreds of millions of years despite the fact that fossilization needs very specific conditions which are not all that easy to come by. This is a truly abbsurd science, sorry. Sometimes the scientific romance we've all learned from grade school is just that, a romance.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Bible does not contradict itself. If it clearly teaches a worldwide Flood it isn't going to turn around and imply that if we study the earth it will tell us something different.The many flood stories from many cultures, even with all their distortions, are not going to be memories of a merely local flood which occur all the time all over the earth. They wouldn't bother. So their existence is evidence of Noah's flood, as remembered by his descendants all over the world with the usual distortions we should expect of human storytelling. Only the Bible is presented to us as an accurate accounting of history, and its circumstantial details alone give credibility to that claim.

I thlnk the enormous weight of something like three miles depth of strata would have forced the water out of the lower layers and hardened them quite rapidly. Lithification proper may have taken a lot more time, but even hundreds of years should have been enough. The compression of the strata should also have intensivied and speeded up the fossilization process.The other theory is what takes so much time, the aabsurd theory. The sediments had to build up slowly in contant exposure to the elements, and keep their straight flat form, and fossils had to form in the same kind of very iffy conditions, an uncertain security of burial without compression, and subject to predators among other things, and again all without the straight flat form of their peculiarly identifiable sedimentary gravebed maintaining its amazingly flat straight surface. PaulK keeps trying to claim this doesn't describe ALL the strata. Fine, but it certainly describes the whole stack in the Grand Canyon and most in many other places.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah but there isn't a universal lightning story or volcano story from all those cultures, as there is a flood story, a very specific story considered significant enough to be preserved. Despite the fact that lots of other floods happened all the time that they didn't feel needed to be preserved.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Odd then that it isn't confined to a quiet little backwater but is found in some form all over the entire planet.

Why would they have to "end up" anywhere? Excuse me if I get a little gruesome here, but I've been reading and watching a lot of stuff about mmurder cases in which bodies are often disposed of in mountains and forests, and even if the victims are buried it's never deep enough to keep animals from digging them up and destroying them. If they are just on the surface they are destroyed by insects and microorganisms as well as animals. If they are found at all they are often found strewn all over the landscape and it doesn't take much time before there is nothing but bare bones, certainly not fossilized or in any condition to ever be fossilzed.Burial is not a natural thing that happens to dead things. You need special circumstances, and even if buried they aren't going to get fossilized without being saturated in mineral-bearing water and compression helps too, all conditions that are very rare in normal circumstances. But they are all conditions that would have been amply provided by the Flood.The remarkably uniform conditions in which we find all the strata of the geologic column miles deep, both the fossils and their stratified gravebeds. is really impossible to explain on the basis of time periods of millions of years and typical conditions of burial. Nothing gets buried in rock. What are you talking about? What???? Yeah but as I said just getting buried at all is far from something to be expected. Oh for sure, but isn't it odd then that they occur so regularly and consistently in such uniform conditions that stacked one on top of another with such neat contact lines in so many cases and such very specific sorted out corpses, all stacked one on top of another miles deep? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ppeople who "live near water" have no reason to treat it as something significant in itself, or even periodic local floods that they could easily escape. It would have to be something of a huge magnitude they couldn't escape except by being on a boat, which wouldn't be needed if it was just a local flood. There's be no reason to memorialize anything less. And they didn't need to understand the extent of the Flood beyond their own experience to have handed down stories of something so catastrophic and inescapable they had to preserve its memory. They clearly didn't understand much but they knew that water once covered everything around their ancestors who could only be saved on a boat.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you. I should have reported it long ago but I had this weird idea that it was just something about what brackets do that was causing the problem and I had the responsibility to remember to avoid it. Being tech-challenged plays havoc with computer life.

Two things: There IS a "thunderbolt throwing god" though he got deposed by Jesus Christ.And cultures passed their religions and their stories on to each other. The Two Babylons is a book that traces the pagan religion of Semiramus and Tammuz through cultures all over the world, ending up in the pagan superstitions of the Roman Church. And of course the Flood story would have been handed down the same way. They all came originally from the family on the ark, and that story was handed down, same as the stories of the pagan gods and religions they developed, that distorted the story of the true God but nevertheless got preserved in that distorted fashion. Pagan religion distorted the memory of the true God due to the influence of demons, and the same happened with the memory of the Flood. Those all clearly present local floods. The universal flood stories are smething different. Gilgamesh is the one that most clearly refers to a worldwide flood, but there are plenty of others that are clearly NOT about local floods but give a distorted picture of the flood of Noah in the understanding of many scholars. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Chemical lithification doesn't need thousands of years. And if you squash pores what happens to the water in them?

They didn't affect ppeople to the extent of their only being saved on a boat. They are clearly local no matter how catastrophic.Why do you believe all that and deny the Biblical account? That one just doesn't count of course, only the reimaginings of atheists matter, only the corrupted pagan world matters, only the debunkery matters, the denigration of the biblical account is the point, the one story that accounts for all the rest of them.The Bible needs to refer to China to describe a worldwide Flood? Why is that?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

MY use? I was just using YOUR word. On the contrary. See Message 163

Uh, a worldwide Flood would have flooded everything in the world, there's no need to name each part of it for that to be true.