An attempt to let Flood supporters explain how things were created

you are really obsessed with forcing believers into the ring of logic, reason, and reality....I doubt she will take the bait.

It's not trying to force anyone into logic, reason or reality; it's the fact that reality ultimately wins 100% of the time.If supporters of one of the Biblical Flood stories expect anyone to consider a Biblical Flood as reality they MUST support that position by showing how the Biblical Flood produced the reality that exists.They assert that some Biblical Flood happened.They have NEVER been able to provide a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that can explain the reality that exists.This is their chance. If they do not take it I will simply refer any claims they make back to this thread.

Since it seems that those who believe there was some Biblical Flood have not presented a model, method mechanism, process or procedure that would allow a flood to create the evidence shown so far; maybe they will do better with some other examples. Once these five small examples are explained then we can return to the first examples or move on to another set of evidence that needs a floodist explanation.

Hi jar What if you believe there was a flood but you don't believe the flood did it.God Bless,

Then you have to show us the physical evidence that a recent global flood would leave behind.We should see the markers in geological, archaeological and genetic record. But we don't.

Then simply say "You believe there was a world-wide flood during the time humans existed." Just don't expect anyone else to believe that unless you can present actual evidence beyond the contradictory versions of the flood found in the Bible stories.There is no problem with believing there was such a flood, or in fairies or gremlins or unicorns or things that go bump in the night.The issue is when someone claims such things are not simply beliefs but instead factual.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

This kneejerk definition of the word "belief" with "imaginary" is false both logically and linguistically.

Nonsense.Unless someone can provided evidence of an item believed to exist actual existence in reality it remains simply a belief.

In the case of some beliefs, like the Flood, the beliefs are held despite the knowledge of the evidence to the contrary. I think that is plenty of reason to call the belief false even if you apply the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" canard.

The logic is pretty simple: If we can't see it we can only imagine it.I like the picture of the salt mine. Near where I live we have some salt lakes that are dry in a dry year and have a few inches of water in a wet year. You can actually see the layers of salt and silt accumulating from year to year. It would be hard to imagine that amount of salt accumulating in a short period of time.

That is true BUT that does not change the truth that the person might believe in the flood.The belief itself is real even though the object of the belief is imaginary. In the case of the Biblical Flood the evidence is overwhelming that it is fictional.The problem arises when they try to pretend that the belief is not imaginary. Once they try top insert the belief into reality they need to present evidence to support that reality.Edited by jar, : fix attribution.

Hi Tangle What would you expect it to leave behind?
There was only one body of dry land with no known elevation above sea level.The water rises and falls up to 53 feet every 12 hours in parts of the Bay of Fundy.It hadn't washed it away yet.If the land mass was all in one place and was relativity flat and you had that kind of rise of water the land mass would be covered in just a few hours. The tide would not go out the water would just rise until it reached 15 cubits above the highest point on the land mass. The water had 40 days to rise on the land. That would mean it did not have to rise too fast. When it returned it could take its time as it had over 300 days.Then just over a hundred years later the earth was divided into the positions we observe today. So just what do you think you would find that looked like a world wide flood?God Bless,

Well first off it's not for me to say; if you have no physical evidence that you can point me too why would I accept what you say? But if you actually accept that you have no evidence, thanks, that's me done.Second I would expect to see evidence of such a massive and recent global event everywhere in the strata. But we don't see it. What we DO see are many local flood events.Similarly, we'd expect to see a genetic bottleneck in every species of plant and animal on earth - we don't. Nor do we see any interuption in man's societies spanning the supposed time of this flood. IF you want to claim many miracles, then fine, believe this tosh if you must, but this is a science thread, where's you evidence for this nonsense? There is no known mechanism for The earth's land masses to move at that speed. Moreover, had it done so, the earth would be reduced to a cinder. But I guess we're back with the miracle stuff?

As usual and as expected you are once again simply making shit up and misrepresenting what is in the Bible.You are also once again and as expected failing to provide the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that would address the specific items in the order they are presented in the thread.If you are totally incapable of following even the most basic instructions perhaps you should return to the non-science forums.From the OP:

quote:

---

Maybe if we move really slowly and stick to only one piece of evidence at a time Faith or some other believer in a Biblical Flood can finally explain just how the flood do that.

​

I'd like to stick to only ten specific items and work through the list only moving to the next item after a workable model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that can be seen in action today has been presented to explain how the flood did that specific example.

---

If you wish to participate in this thread please begin by presenting the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that explains the image in Item 1.Edited by jar, : moderate annoyances

Since the sediment at the Grand Canyon is over 5,000 ft and the Grand Staircase another 5,000 ft of sediment, the water had to be over 10,000 ft deep. So the water would have to rise 250 ft per day during the flood.The Bay of Fundy is a very extreme example of tides. The normal range of tides is more like 3 ft IIRC. The range varies according to orientation and subsurface geography.