Did the Flood really happen?

Except history of areas that have not experienced any flood. Like the mountaintops of the Sierra Nevada White Mountains with continuous growth of Bristlecone Pines for over 8000 years.For starters. Except that the correlations between the dating methods show consistent agreement.IE -- one dating method verifies the other, and is in turn verified by a third.Denial is not refutation.Enjoy

Oh nonsense, RAZD, all that has been explained many times. I don't know if the bristlecone pines survived the Flood or grew up afterward and your dating is as usual wrong, but the mountains grew up AFTER the Flood, one of the results of the tectonic activity that began AFTER the Flood and probably caused the draining of the Flood water too. Volcanoes also were the result of the tectonic movement and therefore so were the volcanic mountains.The dating methods are the ONLY thing you have and yes they corroborate each other, although I do suspect that a really honest examination of them would turn up confirmation bias and other reasons to question them, and in any case they are unverifiable in the sense that you can't go back in time to check them out, all you have is what you can see in the present. And while that logically supports the idea it is NOT provable. And everything else supports the Flood. Especially the strata and the bazillions of fossils. The strata are really totally inexplicable on the Time Periods scheme when you really put your mind into trying to figure out how huge slabs of rock thousands of square miles stretching across whole continents were what each Time Period left behind, a sheer flat slab of rock, RAZD. And huge flat rock where all the fossils are found that you think lived in that period which is now nothing but a rock. It's physical impossible.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The dating methods are the ONLY thing you have and yes they corroborate each other, although I do suspect that a really honest examination of them would turn up confirmation bias and other reasons to question them,

---

Plenty of honest examination has been done. That’s why YECs resort to dishonest examination.And the dating methods are not all we have. We have the order of the fossil record. We have sequences diagnostic of slow transgression and regression. We have evidence of large scale deformation of rock - after lithification. We have evidence of a long history of tectonic disturbances. We have strata that could not be deposited by a flood. To list just some of it.

quote:

---

... and in any case they are unverifiable in the sense that you can't go back in time to check them out, all you have is what you can see in the present.

---

The consistence is a form of verification. So are tests against items of known date, which have been done.

quote:

---

And everything else supports the Flood.

---

You keep telling massive falsehoods. No, you have nothing of significance.

quote:

---

Especially the strata and the bazillions of fossils

---

No, they Clare evidence against the Flood. As you know.

quote:

---

The strata are really totally inexplicable on the Time Periods scheme when you really put your mind into trying to figure out how huge slabs of rock thousands of square miles stretching across whole continents were what each Time Period left behind, a sheer flat slab of rock, RAZD.

---

When you realise that they don’t have to be deposited over all that area at the same time (Walther’s law), that there are large areas of deposition today, like the Sahara, that ancient conditions do not have to be exactly the same as today, like the epeiruc seas of the Cretaceous - it becomes a lot easier. The Flood explanation still has massive problems, as you know.

quote:

---

And huge flat rock where all the fossils are found that you think lived in that period which is now nothing but a rocK

---

The strata are not all huge - many are not - and they certainly are not all flat - remember the buried monadnocks in the Grand Canyon ?

quote:

---

It's physical impossible.

---

No it isn’t. You prefer physical impossibilities, like the Flood sorting the fossils. And you admit that fossil footprints were not sorted, yet they are consistent with the observed order. How can that be - unless you are wrong.Don’t you think the fact that you have to resort to a catalogue of falsehood - falsehoods that have already been shown as false - very much proves our point ?

That's totally unscriptural.

It’s not just totally unscriptural - it’s totally nonsensical.

It's perfectly consistent with scripture, which says nothing about such things.

Yeah, well, it is the only thing that works and it does work. However, I think I get more mileage out of criticizing the silly establishment understanding of the geological column and the fossil record.

By that logic, Martians are perfectly consistent with scripture; they're not mentioned either.But scripture does mention two sources of water for the Flood - rain and "fountains of the deep" - so it seems unlikely that a major event like mountain-building would be ignored."Consistent with scripture" does not mean, "can be made up out of thin air and shoehorned into scripture".

I agree that the dating methods are the biggest challenge to any Flood theory, but I still suspect that there's some slippage in the way the atomic decay methods are calculated and applied, and yes I know there's the supposed fossil record, and it's very suggestive too of course, but since the strata themselves defy the whole establishment conception of time periods it's out the window anyway.Slow transgressions and regressions are based on observations that are probably better explained by phases of the Flood, but that's something I have to work on.Large scale deformation of rock after lithification. Well lithification doesn't take anywhere near the great spans of time you all impute to it and if the post-Flood tectonic pressures can raise mountains, they can certainly be the cause of such deformations. You are all so enthralled with the establishment view you'll never even seriously consider what I'm proposing, but some day someone will.Strata that could not be deposited by a flood. Well again we've got an interpretive conflict here. The Flood fits overall so all such conflicts will eventually be resolved.Oh but the strata and the baziillions of fossils certainly ARE evidence of the Flood, and not evidence against it. Only such a worldwide inundation could possibly explain the great extent and thickness of the strata, and so many fossils are wonderful evidence of exactly what the Flood was supposed to do: wipe out all life on the land, plus of course plenty from the oceans as well. Just because you like the establishment interpretation doesn't make it right and as I say it's physically impossible for the strata to represent time periods, just impossible. No, you can't think a rock a hundred feet thick that extends for thousands of square miles dould be the burial ground for a very particular set of living things. I plan to work on this one more too but it's quite clear to independent thinking that it couldn't have happened.There is no reason to think exceptions make any difference to the overall explanation, the variations in size of some of the strata for instance, or the monadnocks which are just intrusions into the strata.I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop referring to an alternative theory as "falsehoods" but I guess that's how you have to do it. Yes it is physically impossible for the strata to have formed according to the time periods scenario.And yes I agree that the establishment theory has superficially persuasive evidence.

You have no theory Faith and have never even shown that you have a clue what a theory is.But there is NO tectonic activity in either of the Flood myths and no model, mechanism, method, process or procedure for any flood to create mountain raising tectonic activity.The Biblical Floods are not alternative theories but just fantasy.AbE:You and your cult can create God and Bible in your image but you cannot create physics, chemistry, geology or reality in your image.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

quote:

---

Yeah, well, it is the only thing that works and it does work.

---

It only works in the sense that you like it. There’s plenty of contrary evidence, such as the Cardenas lava at the Grand Canyon.

quote:

---

However, I think I get more mileage out of criticizing the silly establishment understanding of the geological column and the fossil record.

---

I don’t know why you think that. Maybe it’s because you prefer doing other people down then inventing silly fantasies? It’s not as if you have any real evidence for either.

Martians may or may not be consistent with scripture. They don't contradict it as far as I know. But you have to have independent evidence of them, and evidence that fits a whole Flood scenario and doesn't contradict scripture is not a problem.

If you just think carefully about the strata, take any of them, but particularly one that contains fossils of land animals, and think through the whole scenario of how those animals supposedly lived in that "time period" that is represented by a huge flat rock, having evolved from those that supposedly lived in the time period represented by the rock beneath it, and really really honestly think it through, you'll see how utterly impossible the prevailing theory is.

Gosh, no tectonic activity in the Flood story (there's only one; the idea of two is a misreading by someone who doesn't understand biblical exegesis) but there doesn't have to be. Noah's ark just floated on water and landed on a mountainside and that's all he knew. However, earthquakes are mentioned in the Bib;e and those are evidence of tectonic activity, and they continue because the tectonic movement continues. Noah probably experienced earthquakes but didn't pay much attention to them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Once again you are simply creating a Bible in your own image. There are no earthquakes mentioned in either Biblical Flood tale.