A Creationist Creed

[OldWiseGuy]

Why are you saying a global flood wouldn't have left such evidence?

Why do you think it would?

 

[RickG]

Why do you think it would?

All floods leave debris and sediment regardless of their size. If there were a global flood that covered all land there would be a single layer over the entire earth containing such sediments all of the same age. Why do you think it would not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you think it would not?

Because God cleaned up the mess and made the earth habitable again.

Else Noah [his remains] would probably still be on the Ark today; and you wouldn't be here.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

All floods leave debris and sediment regardless of their size. If there were a global flood that covered all land there would be a single layer over the entire earth containing such sediments all of the same age. Why do you think it would not?

Why would such flood sediments be the same age? And how could their age be determined in the first place? And why would a rather gentle flood spread sediments over a wide area? And, are flood deposits 'sorted' by age?

 

[lesliedellow]

Why would such flood sediments be the same age? And how could their age be determined in the first place? And why would a rather gentle flood spread sediments over a wide area? And, are flood deposits 'sorted' by age?

Let me get this straight. It covered the entire Earth, put Mt Everest under water, and it was a "gentle" flood.

Heaven preserve us if a catastrophic flood ever comes along.

 

[RickG]

Why would such flood sediments be the same age?

Because they were deposited at the same time.

And how could their age be determined in the first place?

Dating of organic material (sediments).

And why would a rather gentle flood spread sediments over a wide area?

If it covered all land, which is impossible anyway, it wouldn't be gentle, especially over a period of 40 days and nights.

And, are flood deposits 'sorted' by age?

Absolutely! Ever hear of varves?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Let me get this straight. It covered the entire Earth, put Mt Everest under water, and it was a "gentle" flood.

Heaven preserve us if a catastrophic flood ever comes along.

I don't believe Mt. Everest was covered. I think the translators got carried away. And why flood places where there was no "living substance" that was corrupted by man?

 

[RickG]

I don't believe Mt. Everest was covered. I think the translators got carried away. And why flood places where there was no "living substance" that was corrupted by man?

So all mountains except Mount Everest?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If it covered all land, which is impossible anyway, it wouldn't be gentle, especially over a period of 40 days and nights.

It didn't cover all the land, just the high hills. The rain only fell for 40 days, the flood continued to come in for five months or more.

 

[RickG]

It didn't cover all the land, just the high hills. The rain only fell for 40 days, the flood continued to come in for five months or more.

Did the rain raise sea level?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So all mountains except Mount Everest?

All the "high hills" which is likely the highest elevation that man's corruption extended to. No point in flooding elevations higher than that.

 

[AV1611VET]

So all mountains except Mount Everest?

I'm not sure Mt. Everest even existed before the Flood.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Did the rain raise sea level?

The amount of rain was insignificant compared to the 'fountains of the great deep' being broken up, which provided almost all of the flood water. The flood came up from the sea. Rainwater ran down to the sea.

 

[RickG]

I'm not sure Mt. Everest even existed before the Flood.

I'm very sure it was.

 

[RickG]

The amount of rain was insignificant compared to the 'fountains of the great deep' being broken up, which provided almost all of the flood water. The flood came up from the sea. Rainwater ran down to the sea.

Where are the fountains and where did the flood waters go and why are there not any global flood sediment layers?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm very sure it was.

Fair enough.

In that case, minus height due to erosion, I submit the Flood was 29,051.5 feet deep.

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't believe Mt. Everest was covered. I think the translators got carried away. And why flood places where there was no "living substance" that was corrupted by man?

The translators of every single version of the Bible into English? Was the Hebrew of all of them so bad that none of them could get it right?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Where are the fountains and where did the flood waters go and why are there not any global flood sediment layers?

The flood waters returned to the sea from whence they came. The notion of global sediments requires an accurate model of both the earth's surface, and the flood, at that time. Science is assuming topography and vegetation as it exists today. It also assumes a fast moving flood, none of which was the case.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The translators of every single version of the Bible into English? Was the Hebrew of all of them so bad that none of them could get it right?

Many parts of the bible are 'interpreted by translation'. The translators had no reason to oppose each other at the time. Even scientists assumed that the flood actually happened. All those translators have invested their credibility in their versions, they can't change now. Thankfully the KJV allows some wiggle room that helps make some narratives more clear.

 

[lesliedellow]

Many parts of the bible are 'interpreted by translation'. The translators had no reason to oppose each other at the time.

They had every reason to get it right. And what does "at the time" mean? The ESV in the twenty first century, or the Geneva Bible in the sixteenth?