All of which is extremely non-Biblical. The only thing the Bible tells us about the force of the Flood is that the rising of the water was extremely, and likely supernaturally gentle. With regards to the receding of the flood waters, that too was apparently gentle as folks on the boat did not report any undue effects.
Funny how we're always being reminded that the Bible isn't a scientific text but then it seems we're expected to just do a better job of treating it as a scientific text. The Bible is history and it gives enough facts to allow us to make some intelligent guesses about the physical effects of the worldwide Flood it describes.
The Bible doesn't say much at all to allow us to conclude just how quiet it was or wasn't. We have a lot of leeway for speculating based on our own experience of the physical world how the little it says fits with observations of the condition of the earth. If the Flood was real then certainly it is responsible for great effects on the earth, how could it be otherwise? And there are certainly plenty of obvious effects that should be ascribed to that event.
Using your imagination, intelligently of course, it would be reasonable to expect that the result of forty days and nights of heavy rain teerwhere on the planet, which is what the Bible say happened, would saturate the earth to quite a depth, would cause gigantic mudslides and so on. Some violence would be expected from huge amounts of mud tumbling downhill into the sea. The rising phase of the FLood should then be fairly quiet, as well as the period at the height of the Flood where it stayed quiet for a couple of months. (Oceans are also constantly moving, however, with waves, tides, currents and so on, so it would probably never be as a still as a lake.) But when the water recedes it will again disturb the land, in this case the strata that have been built up by the Flood. All that broken-up strata flowing downhill could be described as violent in its effects in some places, as huge amounts of debris-laden water flows back to its former sea level.
What creationists are doing is exactly what should be done with the Biblical information in conjunction with the geological facts. The strata that occur everywhere around the globe fit the description of the layering of sediments caused by rising sea level, as observed by Johannes Walther. A very good fit with the conditions of the Flood.
The prevailing idea that the strata represent time periods is truly absurd. Separated sediments for starters would be a very unlikely result of millions of years of life on earth. Then their lying horizontally one on top of another with no signs of anything similar to what is seen on the earth's surface today, just flatness, plus their containing an abundance of dead things, is NOT what the surface of the earth normally does, but exactly what the Flood would have done. That was its purpose, after all, to wipe out all living things on the land. A lot of sea life died too, of course.
Further, for all we know, the grand canyon itself predates the flood. Nobody on the planet witnessed anything that happened on this continent, or on 5 of the other continents we currently know about.
Yes, and that leaves it for us to speculate on what did happen. The idea that the canyon could have predated the Flood is highly unlikely, to put it mildly, because that much water would have reduced it all to mud and debris, no doubt completely filled in the canyon itself, mixing the sediments together, utterly destroying the form of the canyon itself. There would have been no identifiable strata left, chunks of it at best, no coherent shape to the formation. But of course the idea that the strata were formed in any other way than by the Flood itself is the most glaring absurdity. The worldwide Flood is THE reasonable interpretation, the ONLY reasonable interpretation, all the rest is just weirdly improbable.
So what you are actually posting here is speculation that does not agree with the facts
Oh it fits the facts beautifully.
and detail that can be observed regarding the canyon. We know this because when you point us at the GC, you get upset when we look too closely.
Oh I see. It's your training as a psychoanalyst that tells you the fault is in my personality, we don't need to consider my actual arguments. Nonsense. You distort the facts, you aren't looking "closely," you're refusing to acknowledge the obvious when it's pointed out. The post I am responding to is a monument to unreality and sheer destructive nonsense. Blithering nonsense. I don't know about getting upset but if something could get me that upset it would be this sort of lying mangling of the truth and denial of the obvious.
Perhaps you should stick to the story as told in the Bible.
You understand neither the Biblical account nor the geological facts. The problem with an open public debate is that such stupid ideas as yours are given as much weight as reasonable ones, and on a site predisposed against biblical interpretations the stupid ideas often get a lot of traction and undeserved approval by people who haven't a clue to any of the issues.
ABE: Apparently you, like too many other so-called Christians, don't care a fig whether the Bible is treated as a myth and Christians as delusional believers in a fake "sky wizard." I don't understand that attitude. Defending the faith as well s we can is our calling.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
