A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea

[FebruaryOfReason]

If the were a world wide flood, there would be a world wide sedimentary flood layer all at the same level.  There isn't.  Therefore,  no world wide flood.  There are many, many other impossibilitissues associated with the Genesis  flood story, but the biggest unanswered question is where is the sediment layer?

I don't think Drich is bothered about unanswered questions, Jenny.

Maybe the sedimentary layer got eaten by worms? ARE YOU DOUBTING THE EXISTENCE OF WORMS? AHAHAHAHA! ROLLS ON FLOOR LAUGHING

[Drich]

There is evidence for solar winds, so we accept the idea that they are plausible.

Wait are you sure because just a few post back you were convinced that nothing I said was supported.

There is no evidence for a 30,000 ft increase in the height of the oceans, then all that water vanishing.

So you are now claiming we have no evidence for a whole planet's worth of water just up and 'vanishing?' Now take your time and be sure..

That is the difference between scientific principle and speculation.

You weren't clear, what was the difference? Because i can defiantly show 'evidence that the principles I have laid out could have indeed taken away a whole planet's worth of water.

If you accept NASA's word on scientific principle, why don't you ask them if what you think is plausible?

Silly doom-cuff, that's not how science works... Science is about peer acceptance, not about plausible fact. For instance their are several competing theories to Darwinism All of which are plausible, none of which have been vetted through the peer review stage. why? Agenda. Science, rather specific science is a growth industry. Tickle the right ego as countries give away billions and billions to fund research (*cough Hadron Super collider)

Our buddies at NASA are in the same boat. They want billions and billions from the gub-ment to build rockets. However the gub-ment will not fund a 'church' to build rockets. so NASA has to stay our of arguments like this even if they would indeed think it is possible.

so next best thing??? Take the principles of their theory and apply it to conditions here if a flood where to take place. would these very same principles work for the reason stated in the NASA theory on mars? Yes, and Yes.

That is called thinking for one's self sport... Think for one's self. might want to give it ago before you try and use a your next scripted argument.

[Cyberman]

Or wiping your ass.

I disagree, the paper is not nearly absorbent enough.

And already covered in shit.

[Cyberman]

yeah.. what chapter and verse was that one found in?

That particular nugget was felched straight out of Kent Hovind's arsehole by the... 'unique' Jack T Chick.

[Drich]

If the were a world wide flood, there would be a world wide sedimentary flood layer all at the same level.  There isn't.  Therefore,  no world wide flood.  There are many, many other impossibilitissues associated with the Genesis  flood story, but the biggest unanswered question is where is the sediment layer?

who says? The d-bags who study localized floods? people who study tsunamis? What do all floods have in common (except a global flood)???

A body of water moves to a previously dry area, and along the way picks up and deposits a sedimentary flood layer. why? because a body of water over takes dry land in a localized area. This would be like busting open you above ground pool and it washing all your stuff into your neighbors back yard.

So how does a global flood differ?

No one body of water over takes localized dry land. Water does not rush in from one direction and carries and push your crap to another.

No the ground (all of it) pukes up water. this is more like being on a boat that takes 40 Days and 40 nights to sink. Very little was move or destroyed, why? the water did not come in and wash everything out, it slowly crept up till the world was full

The titanic sank in hours and their are pictures of dinner plates/china still in their cuboards, of all sorts of things not nailed down remaining undisturbed why? Because in those parts of the ship water did not rush in, it crept in and filled/ stabilized everything when it did.

That is why your sediment argument does not apply. It does not account for the conditions set fourth by the account. The sediment argument pushes or rather forces the idea the flood happened like a tsunami nothing in the bible remotely records that.

what else you got?

[Drich]

If the were a world wide flood, there would be a world wide sedimentary flood layer all at the same level.  There isn't.  Therefore,  no world wide flood.  There are many, many other impossibilitissues associated with the Genesis  flood story, but the biggest unanswered question is where is the sediment layer?

I don't think Drich is bothered about unanswered questions, Jenny.

Maybe the sedimentary layer got eaten by worms? ARE YOU DOUBTING THE EXISTENCE OF WORMS? AHAHAHAHA! ROLLS ON FLOOR LAUGHING

Oh, I know the flood is a goto/always win argument for atheist... Give me time and the benfit of the doubt. Otherwise your are going to have to eat so much crow you will have to put me on your 'ignore list.'

Please let keep things in a question form and lets both hold off the victory lap before a winner had been declared. (It makes you look desperate, to mock and claim victory when clearly you haven't yet cleared the topic.)

[Drich]

yeah.. what chapter and verse was that one found in?

That particular nugget was felched straight out of Kent Hovind's arsehole by the... 'unique' Jack T Chick.

Well, see if his 'b-hole' is willing 'receive' this BS back. I'm sure he means well, but in the long run he just sets you guys up with a lot of false hope.

[Cyberman]

How long after the flood did it take for the salt water to separate from the fresh?

Did the Antarctic ice cap have to survive the flood year totally submerged in water - not something usually good for ice - or did it float away from the continent and magically find its way back afterwards?

How did all the marsupials end up in the post-flood Australias and not settle in some equivalent environment? Why did pumas trek back to South America and not decide simply to set up camp in Africa? How did all this animal displacement happen without leaving a trace of fossil evidence?

[Crossless2.0]

No the ground (all of it) pukes up water. this is more like being on a boat that takes 40 Days and 40 nights to sink. Very little was move or destroyed, why? the water did not come in and wash everything out, it slowly crept up till the world was full

Yes, slowly . . . approximately 30,000 feet of water worldwide over the course of 40 days. In other words, an average of about half-a-foot rise in sea level per minute. You know, slowly.   

[Cyberman]

That particular nugget was felched straight out of Kent Hovind's arsehole by the... 'unique' Jack T Chick.

Well, see if his 'b-hole' is willing 'receive' this BS back. I'm sure he means well, but in the long run he just sets you guys up with a lot of false hope.

Hey, these guys are batting for your team, not ours.