Did the Flood really happen?

Derogatory comment with no analysis or discussion noted.We have an explanation. What is wrong with it? Don't just say it's wrong list what it is and why it is impossible.

I.e. "I have no idea how but I can't be wrong." Physical impossibility is never a problem for you.That's also some pretty tight circular reasoning there. The fludde did it because the fludde did it. That isn't going to convince anyone or persuade anyone to consider your hallucinations any further.

Oh, it's descriptive, but there's no analysis or argument or even a lame attempt to connect the claim to reality. IOW descriptive but meaningless. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Except, of course, for those that aren't straight and flat.Derogatory comment with no analysis or argument noted.You are incapable of anything more.

Yeah, and you have no idea how but you can't be wrong.

Derogatory comment with no analysis or argumentation noted.The fludde musta dunnit because Faith is infallible.

No, the "how" can't wait. Logic alonedoesn't establish any connection to reality. If something is physically impossible all the logic in the world cannot save the hypothesis.Your logic is "The fludde must have happened therefore it produced everything we see." Well, that's logic;if the premise is true the conclusion is true. But also physically impossible according to everything we know about the world. I mean everything . You're literally telling us to abandon everything we've learned in physics and chemistry and geology and paleontology and...Logic with no "how" isn't going to cut the mustard. You should be trying to establish the truth of your premise. Your fanatically held belief is impressive but unconvincing. If you continue to insist that your logic represents reality without any attempt to establish the truth of your premise you're wasting your and everyone's time.

"Can't have grown there" is derogatory with no analysis or discussion. No, you haven't addressed that issue any differently before.

Coral is attached to the sea floor. Are corals animals or plants? "Corals are sessile, which means that they permanently attach themselves to the ocean floor, essentially "taking root" like most plants do. We certainly cannot recognize them by their faces or other distinct body parts, as we can most other animals.""literally uprooted" by what process? What forces lifted them? How were those forces generated? Why didn't the reefs break?Derogatory Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster: "expressive of a low opinion : DISPARAGING"The fact that you can make up a story but can't explain how the events happened is evidence that story is true? Wowsers.

Nothing to say, Faith?Coral is attached to the sea floor. Are corals animals or plants? "Corals are sessile, which means that they permanently attach themselves to the ocean floor, essentially "taking root" like most plants do. We certainly cannot recognize them by their faces or other distinct body parts, as we can most other animals.""literally uprooted" by what process? What forces lifted them? How were those forces generated? Why didn't the reefs break?Derogatory Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster: "expressive of a low opinion : DISPARAGING"The fact that you can make up a story but can't explain how the events happened is evidence that story is true? Wowsers.{I really want to see your defense of that last item. Pretty please?)

You wrote "IIRC, they have no attached roots that they normally use to attach to the sea floor". So you've now admitted they are attached.You left out responding to the meat of my message. Obviously you have no response. And no evidence.literally uprooted" by what process? What forces lifted them? How were those forces generated? Why didn't the reefs break?The fact that you can make up a story but can't explain how the events happened is evidence that story is true? Wowsers.

IOW "I have no idea how but I cannot be wrong." You might as well just reply that to all the messages. So the fact that you can make up a story with no consideration of physical possibility or how the events occurred is evidence for your point of view? Need a hint?

Water was water. Physics was physics. Gravity was gravity. We have a very good idea what those limitations entail. There's no way large and extremely brittle objects attached to the sea floor were lifted whole, transported whole, and set down ehole. So the fact that you can make up a story with no consideration of physical possibility or how the events occurred is evidence for your point of view?Since you obviously can't figure it out:YOUR UNSUPPORTED AND PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE STORIES ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

Not in its path? What about coral reefs surrounding inhabited islands?

Guess it must have jumped over this reef to get at the island: