Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.

Ocean water is salty because water that flows into the ocean contains minerals leached from rocks by rivers and streams that flow into the ocean. If there were water above the earth that had never flowed across the landscape, why would we expect that water to be salty?In any event, both sources of water are made up out of whole cloth. Is it really reasonable to inquire into whether or not imaginary sources of water might contain dissolved minerals?

The analysis of water from comets looks at the isotopes of oxygen because the ratios of isotopes other than O-16 is different in the water. That has nothing to do with salts. And those chemicals that constitute the building blocks of life, namely carbon compounds are generally covalent molecules and not the minerals that constitute salts. Yeah, there might be minerals in comet water but the stuff you are discussing does not get address that issue.Beyond that, the canopy of water that is described in Genesis is something different entirely. That water came from who knows where. Actually, in the case of water from the windows of heavens, it probably is not reasonable to expect it to be just like ocean water, or to conform to the origin of the solar system as understood by science, because if the Bible is correct, all of that other stuff is irrelevant and wrong.Waters from the fountains of the deep is another question entirely. You'll note that I don't ask about that.

He did a bit more than that. He alluded to, admittedly without citation, evidence that the flood did not occur; namely the continuity of human life and civilizations over the relevant period indicating no interruption by a global flood. Coyote has made that argument in varying levels of detail an endless number of times since you've been here.

You are incorrect. You have no way to assign a date to any soil sediments, pre or post flood. Absolutely none. What you do instead is deny that the dating Coyote uses is correct regardless of how much evidence supports those dates. So it is an evidenced argument against your denial. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is of course no reason to continue a scientific debate when one party is free to make stuff up as needed, while the other side is honor bound to provide evidence and argument. Magic trees, infinite numbers of alleles for every possible trait distributed among a mere handful of humans, and water that can sort radioactive materials and fossils into an evolution appearing order. Humans that can reproduce into pyramid building populations in only a few generations, and not a single bit of evidence needed for any of it.

Nonsense. You have no witness accounts for a super genome. You made that up. You have no witness accounts for the idea that there is missing landscape evidence. You made that up. You do have a Biblical testimony that an olive leaf is available, but as for how that happened you don't have any witness as to how that occurred. You made your explanation up.In one post you tell us that there is no explanation for the sorting of fossils. In another you tell us you have a working model for the flood. One of those statements is obviously false. I think Jar has properly guessed that neither of those things is true. In one post you tell us that there is no way to obtain information regarding the unwitnessed past. Yet you devote an entire thread to telling us how you can use that same evidence to rule out a scientific explanation. Quite obviously one at least one, and almost certainly both of those statements are wrong. But not when you tell it.Perhaps you've simply blundered into the wrong forum?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Do you understand how tides work? Is this really a plausible thought?

What's required for salvation, Faith? Haven't we discussed this point a dozen times? You don't have to be endorse YEC to be a Christian. Beyond that, this is a discussion where evidence based discussion is the order of the day.

The sun and the moon's gravitational effect on the oceans as a whole accompanied by the rotation of the earth. ICANT, what you said was this: It's not feasible for the tide to come in and not go back out. Further the extreme rise of the tides at the Bay of Fundy is caused by the region's topology. The fountains of the deep are like the tides in what way? How would the effect get expanded to the rest of the world, where the tides are of a substantially smaller scale. What is the point of your comparison with the Bay of Fundy.

You are missing the point. Your claim is that we are all guessing. That claim is wrong.You require that the 8 people on the ark, 3 of whom were direct descendants of one and probably two of the others include enough genetic variety to account for all of the variation among humans currently observed without invoking mutation. In many cases, you require even more from the animals on the ark. Your guess requires far more than even being heterozygous at every loci can provide. That means you are using guess work against a conclusion backed by evidence.You've similarly missed the point with the rest of the things I've raised by yelling about how accurately I have quoted you. The point is that your claims are dismissed as being completely unsupported by the evidence and are even contradictory to some other of your claims.ABE: Your claims are far more dismissive than that. Your claim is that the sciences like geology and paleontology are not sciences at all even where they rely directly on things like physics which are hard sciences. You claim that people doing geology are simply guessing like you do. But then you claim an ability to use that same science as proof that geologists are wrong. If so then there must be a degree of certainty available from the geological record. That is the contradiction I am pointing to.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I appreciate your politeness, but you are just asserting that I am wrong in response to an argument that you are wrong. If that's where you want to leave the record, that's fine with me.

Right. In particular, the effect of the tide over a large area is funneled into a small region multiplying the effect of the normal tide. If that is supposed to be an illustration of how the flood could work, how can you generate a world wide multiplying effect if the flood itself is supposed to be global? In short, what is the purpose of even referring to Fundy?

I asked you the relevance of your example regarding the Bay of Fundy because you appeared to use it to tell us that extreme rising of water levels in a short period were feasible. Here is what you said: What portion of the above sentence is the least bit relevant to the flood as you describe it happening. What you did above is simply take the water level rise in a 12 hour period and multiply it by 80 to find a rise in 40 days. How is it relevant to do such math without implying a similar mechanism?Rather than answer the question, you talk about other things having no relation to the Bay of Fundy at all.Here is a similar argument once made by someone else at EvC,The record for rainfall in one hour is 12 inches. So clearly we can get a total rainfall of 40 * 24 feet in 40 days, more than enough for a flood over the entire earth. Except that we know that this cannot work.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Where did you make such a point?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Let's consider that argument.1. What you observe now is what happens after every removable bit of soil has been eroded. Is there some evidence of what happened the first couple of times the tide came in? What would happen if I put up a tent city in the path of that 48 foot flood right now? Nothing?2. If I noticed that not much changed after a bunch of 4 inch floods, would it be reasonable to assume that nothing much occurred after a single 4000 inch flood?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.