Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)

No, you have not. Your argument is now reliant on Goddidit, not actual evidence.Furthermore any water under the crust is going to be superheated. Once again, a creationist runs into their biggest foe: heat. Of course none of them will ever deal with it though.Explain to me how there is sufficient water to cover Everest right now.

I've noticed in the so called evidence for the underground water that every single one of them has temperatures well above the amount necessary to kill all forms of life except for thermophylic bacteria.Now, I haven't seen any of the creationists even attempt to deal with the heat.Why is that? What good is the water if it kills everything?

quote:

---

Have you tried looking at the bottom of the oceans, that's where the rivers tend to flow.

---

Meaning what? You do realize that as rivers flow they deposit silt and sediment? In a global flood, we should see all type of rock and silt mixed into one layer as all it would have deposited within a very short time. Nothing like this exists anywhere on the planet.

quote:

---

I would expect that the sediment would contain fossils in the order they were washed away.

---

Except that Genesis states that the flood was very turbulent and chaotic, which would have mixed up organisms and then deposited by fluid mechanics.

quote:

---

Stone and metal tools would be found where they were dropped.

---

Silly. So you're saying if we take billions of gallons of water, add huge amounts of energy to them, that stone and metal tools won't move?

quote:

---

Your assuming that this is a single homogeneous layer.

---

Why wouldn't there be? What change in physics are you proposing? Furthermore, what EVIDENCE do you have for such a radical change in physics?

quote:

---

Without doing any maths I would guess that this level would be insignificantly low. And there's salt everywhere.

---

But it should be detectable. The variations within the large oceans that are freely connected (read not meditarrian) should have extremely low deviations of salinity. [quote]The first animals to leave the ark could have been half way around the world within a few months without leaving any trace.

quote:

---

There's plenty of water, I thought that been established.

---

No there is not. This has already been established. Furthermore, any mantle sources of water would be superheated. Try see how long your pets last in a world that has just got up 212 Fahrenheit.

quote:

---

We'd expect things to be dragged along based on their physics.

---

Hence why a global flood should uniformally deposit silt in a consistent fashion all over the world according to mass. Explain to me why we have nothing like this anywhere. Furthermore, explain to me why iridium which is heavier then many other elements is found on top of lighter elements if a global flood occurred.

quote:

---

A hammer, which is relatively dense, but small, should stay where it was dropped.

​

A rock which is big (large surface area) would be dragged away.

---

Therefore you think that nothing heavy with small area got moved during the massive floods several years ago.Stop being absurd.

quote:

---

Why do you use the bible as a reference?

​

Remember resistance has a squared effect.

---

So you're saying that billions of cubic miles with huge amounts of energy was peaceful?Again, stop being absurd.

quote:

---

I'm not proposing any change in physics!

---

You are proposing an entirely new set of physical laws, where energy doesn't matter.

Your argument is COMPLETELY absurd. Why would billions of cubic miles of superheated water only raise the temperature locally when the superheated water rose into the sky to come down as rain?Do you understand the sheer amount of energy that is contained in billions of cubic MILES of superheated water?