ICANT writes:
What would you expect it to leave behind?
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 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.
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?
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?
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?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
