Abiogenesis is impossible

[The Grand Nudger]

The amount of water is the same regardless. Doesn't matter if it comes from below or above. Again, it's bathtub math until you draw me a line on a map. Not just any lake bed, remember, I used a small portion of the area you suggested and it's equivalent to lake Erie. Yep, plenty of pressure - and discernable evidence for it's having been there even if it all disappeared tomorrow. And of course, it took more than a month for all that water to get there.

There's no way you won't come out of this looking like a moron, at this point.

[Jackalope]

Bullfuckingshit.

poor guy, guess he thought I was serious.

I know better than to take you seriously.

[Esquilax]

There's no way you won't come out of this looking like a moron, at this point.

Snowy passed the point of no return on that score maybe fifty pages back.

[Tonus]

well you ask me to consider your math. didn't use the right input for the water source so it's wrong. not sure what the point is about the water weight that pressing down on a lake bed. after all, there's water currently in the gulf with beaucoup pressure.

And if all of that water drained away, what do you think would be left behind?

[RobbyPants]

Oh, fuck. Flood apologetics are the worst.

[The Grand Nudger]

Agreed. You never get the impression that the apologist buys their own bullshit. Really shameless stuff.

[Angrboda]

120 pages and still no argument as to why abiogenesis is impossible. Improbable maybe. But no evidence that it's impossible.

I hope you didn't really read all 120 pages. I didn't have the patience.

I think I've been following the thread since it began. It's had several lives.

[snowtracks]

well you ask me to consider your math. didn't use the right input for the water source so it's wrong. not sure what the point is about the water weight that pressing down on a lake bed. after all, there's water currently in the gulf with beaucoup pressure.

And if all of that water drained away, what do you think would be left behind?

have already posted that the genesis flood lasted a mere 1 year and 10 days which is not enough time for deposits to be positively identified after some 40,000 years. the 1993 Mississippi and Missouri floods after a few decades, which in some areas covered 100 miles, have virtually left no flood deposits.

[downbeatplumb]

If the flood was restricted to a relatively small area wouldn't that make the entire point of the story pointless?

[Tonus]

And if all of that water drained away, what do you think would be left behind?

have already posted that the genesis flood lasted a mere 1 year and 10 days which is not enough time for deposits to be positively identified after some 40,000 years. the 1993 Mississippi and Missouri floods after a few decades, which in some areas covered 100 miles, have virtually left no flood deposits.

If all of the water in the gulf drained away, you'd have an enormous basin with at least a few layers of massive deposits. We're not talking about a few feet of water spread out over flat land and draining back over time. Flood literalists are talking about an enormous amount of water (enough to change the geographic features of the earth, according to some of them) covering the whole world for 150 days and draining away over the course of another seven and a half months, and that it happened some 4,500 years ago.

If you think it was a localized flood that happened at a different time and was minor enough to leave little or no trace, fine. But you're at odds with a heck of a lot of your fellow Christians, at least some of whom would consider you a heretic for your view.