Did the Flood really happen?

Ringo, THINK! I am not adding TO THE BIBLE, I do not claim that any of my theories are biblical, i'm just working from the scant information in the Bible to understand the geological record. That's all. If I'm "adding to the Bible" then so are all the preachers and theolgicans and apologists I mentioned. Adding to the Bible means adding teachings you take to be on the level of scripture. That's what the Book of Mormon is for instance. And since Islam is based on what they consider to be new revelation from Mohammed, that is what Islam is too. It's also what some Catholic teachings are, such as the immaculate conception of Mary and her status as co-redemptrix with Christ and other papal decrees.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

However, the Cretaceous is not a marine layer, it's a terrestrial layer and often has dinosaurian type fossils IIRC, reptilian anyway. It's not marine however

---

What on Earth are you talking about ? There are plenty of marine strata from the Cretaceous. It’s known for having more sea than most eras. That’s why it has so much chalk - which is where the Cretaceous name comes from.There is no single Cretaceous layer - and that is true for every geological period.

And so once again you make a really silly false statement.Cretaceous is a time period. During the Cretaceous there is land and seas and hills and valleys and rivers and streams and lakes and shores and examples of all those things and all the lifeforms that lived on and in those environments can be found.

OK, that'just adds evidence for the Flood even at what I thought were the terrestrial levels where we get land animals. Marine stuff does occur throughout the geological column, doesn't it?

Oh good, more evidence for the Flood, all given the usual ad hoc rationalizations of course.

Sure you are. The tectonics are necessary for your explanation. The tectonics are not in the Bible. Therefore, your explanation is not biblical. Yup. Nope, it says adding to the words:

quote:

---

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

---

i.e adding to a story stuff that isn't there.

Good luck trying to justify that absurdity Faith.As in every era there are areas that have never been under water.

There is nothing about tectonic movement hat violates the Bible.

Well for starters, as usual, you are wrong: it is not on one single layer of shale, every single dark layer contains pollen -- that's 6 million layers.It is distributed to each layer as they are formed by the sediment, with the pollen appearing in the dark organic layer and not in the light layer.Curiously, I DID explain it, TWICE: Now I'll also add another tidbit: the density of the pollen in the layers is not constant, it varies from low in the bottom of the dark layers to high in the top layers --- and that matches the pattern of annual release of pollens by plants.so now you have another sorting problem to explain ...AND you have still failed to provide a mechanism to do the sorting at such a fine scale that layers less than the thickness of a dime are laid down one atop the other, consisting of fine materials that would be swept up by any current passing over them.It just gets worse ... for you.Enjoy

quote:

---

Oh good, more evidence for the Flood, all given the usual ad hoc rationalizations of course.

---

I will grant that you are desperate enough for evidence for the Flood that you will try and take this - despite the fact that the Earth was never entirely covered by water even in the Cretaceous. And other eras were dryer - even though you think the Earth was flooded then.And of course you follow up with your usual false and hypocritical accusations. What a surprise.

Adding it to the Bible violates the Bible.Instant mountains also violate physics, by the way.

Yeah, I know you aren't going to give up this ridiculous idea so I'll have to stop answering it, but the fact is I am not adding any of my ideas about the Flood TO THE BIBLE. Sheesh. I'm using the Bible as the launching pad.And the mountains were not "instant," they rose over the following 4300 years and may still be rising, the same way the continents have been moving over that same period and are still moving. It all started out fairly fast but has gradually slowed to the present tiny part of an inch per year. That would apply to everything the tectonic forces created, the twisting of the strata too. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How is that not adding to it? That's certainly instant on a geological time scale. That's where your problem arises. We know how fast the continents are moving and how fast the mountains are rising. There isn't near enough time in your scenario to make the mountains as big as they are now. And you have never been able to suggest a mechanism either for how they could have zoomed so fast in the first place or for how the could decellerate so fast.

In the places where the mountains were pushed up to great heights there weren't any people or even many animals living until their growth had slowed down quite a bit. Fast then slow, gradual, not sudden, not instantaneous.

And the evidence to support that absurdity is????????????????How do you account for the evidence inside the very rock of the mountains of living things?