Did the Flood really happen?

Could you please sketch out how you distinguish One Big Flood from lots of little floods?Suppose somebody asked you what happened to all of the food that came in the back door of a restaurant. Your reply was, "A giant ate it." How do you know it was One Giant and not a lot of ordinary people?

There has been continuous occupation at the current site of Damascus, Jericho and Aleppo for at least 10,000 years.The current location of Athens has been occupied for at least 7000 years.The areas known as Plovdiv in Bulgaria, Faiyum in Egypt, Byblos & Sidon in Lebanon as well as many other major settlements have existed for well over 6000 years.The folk there never noticed the flood and there is no evidence of the flood at any of those locations.Only the delusional, willfully ignorant or utterly dishonest think that either of the Biblical Flood stories ever really happened.

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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But to dispute those dates requires willful ignorance or dishonesty just as denying that there are two mutually exclusive flood stories in the Bible requires willful ignorance or dishonesty.Why hasn't anyone ever actually provided any evidence to show they have more than their willful ignorance or dishonesty?

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.

Well, all you have for your dates is subjective shuffling of whatever historical events you think you know.And it's time Percy put you on a censorship diet as he has done to me.

No, but the insult is noted.

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.

Not much of an age if it only lasted a few hundred years at most. Also, how come there is no historical record of this post flud ice age?

quote:

---

The Greenland ice sheet didn't exist before the Flood, was probably the result of the ice age that followed the Flood.

---

The Greenland ice sheet is a lot older than you say your Flood is.

quote:

---

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.

---

Along with every other dating method used by archaeology and geology.

quote:

---

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.

---

Don’t be ridiculous. Aside from the sheer volume, the time required for lithification, the fossils, the evidence of arid conditions, the heavy erosion of some strata - and more all point to long periods of time as the explanation rather than a single Flood.

quote:

---

You either see it or you don't.

---

You don’t see it, you just fantasise it. But ignorant day-dreams are no substitute for real science.

No problem with volume. You just have the usual extreme underestimation of the size of the Flood. No problem under the weight of the huge stack of sediments. The fossils are the best evidence for the Flood of all since it would have provided the conditions for the fossilization of bazillions of dead things. The arid conditions occurred before the Flood which merely carried the material and deposited it. The ones I'm aware of clearly occurred after the strata were laid down. Yeah I know that's the establishment view, and I'd have to put in more time than I feel like doing to make my case.

Who said the ice age only lasted a few hundred years? I think it's still receding.Oh there's a record of it, only it's misinterpreted in terms of multiple ice ages over a much longer period.

You obviously have no idea what the term "ice age" means. So glacial ice didn't create the lakes in Minnesota? Your jesus daddy poofed them into existence?

Disputed by opinion, not by facts, is nothing more than a (re)statement of opinion/s.If you want to dispute "the secular-science timing" of the measurements of age, then you need to do so at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and the information in Message 2 through Message 4 where the minimum age of the earth is determined through annual ring growth in Bristlecone Pines, Irish Oaks, German Oaks and German Pines, each one confirming the previous set of data and then extending it. The minimum age of the earth is 12,405 years based on these tree rings that grew undisturbed by any flood.Remember your response (from 03-14-2014), Message 278: and later (from 10-09-2018), Message 844: It's been over 5 years since you first acknowledged your inability to dispute the facts of annual tree ring age. Since that time the evidence continues to mount against a Noachin Flood:

quote:

---

(The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1), Message 3)

​

the "Schulman's" tree(3) (my name for the tree because Edmund Schulman took the core samples and he was a pioneer in dendrochronology in the area), with an minimum germination date of 3051 BCE

​

(3) - Anon, Wikipedia.com (website), Oldest Trees, last modified 18 December 2013,[2013, December 27]: List of oldest trees - Wikipedia

---

That's 5069 years ago and no evidence of a flood.In Message 853 you said: Your problem is not just to explain the annual tree ring counting system and any errors you perceive in it, but to explain the correlations of the different sets of data and with recorded history. See The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1), Accuracy and Precision in Dendrochronologies Compared to Historical Events:

quote:

---

So we have another historical calibration date of 2660 BCE with 98% consilience between history and European oak chronology. ...

---

That's 4618 years ago and no evidence of a flood.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .