Why There Was No Flood - Item #63
Budikka666
Ex creationist and geophysicist Glenn Morton
(http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm)
has this to say:
"...the data shows that there is no strata which can be identified as
the flood strata..."
"...the entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the
world, piled up in proper order..."
"...the existence of desert deposits is quite hard to place in the
context of a global flood..."
"...the geologic column is not divided by hydrodynamic sorting..."
"Here is how I know the Williston Basin sediments couldn't be
deposited in a single year. 15,000 feet divided by 365 days equals 41
feet per day. Assuming that a burrow is only 1 foot long and that the
creature could not survive the burial by an additional foot of
sediment, the creature doing the burrowing must accomplish his work in
less than 40 minutes. That doesn't sound all that bad, until it is
realized that if the poor critter ever stops to rest, even for a half
an hour, he will be buried too deeply to escape."
The entire geologic column in 26 places, and not a single sign of a
global flood anywhere in any of these stacks of rock.
Budikka
duke
>The entire geologic column in 26 places, and not a single sign of a
>global flood anywhere in any of these stacks of rock.
>Budikka
So says a past creationist dabbling in geology.
Here you go, bud the dud, complete evidence that the flood, if there was one,
could have happened in the 4.5 billion history of the earth. Remember, at one
time, Mt. Everest was just a speed bump.
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
"The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
and of mankind."
Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"
*****
http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc
So Pius XII suggests to exegetes a daring synthesis with respect to a
hermeneutic of Genesis ch. 1- 11: the first eleven chapters of the book of
Genesis employ simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of an
uncultured people to express those truths of history fundamental to our
salvation. In short, there is a solid core of history, as it were, buried under
the language and popular mentality of the ancient Hebrew.
What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical Biblical
Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has never been withdrawn in
any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the official document states that the
literal historical meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis could not be
doubted in regard to":
1.) the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time
2.) the special creation of man
3.) the formation of the first woman from the first man
4.) the unity of the human race
5.) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice,
integrity, and immortality
6.) the command given by God to man to test his obedience
7.) the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil
under the form of a serpent
8.) the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence
9.) the promise of a future redeemer.
With respect to any other dimension of Genesis 1-3, the literal sense must be
examined more fully by exegetes. So 1 - 9 form the historical core of truths
fundamental to our faith expressed in Genesis ch. 1- 3, the truths around which
the ancient Hebraic authors either elaborated a story or collected a popular
tradition or recorded a primitive pre-history.
*****
http://books.google.com/books?id=WPt7NB9GFu0C&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=
prehistory+of+genesis+%221+11%22&source=web&ots=k965YPQn2A&sig=
T1YPXZ12c_rpgMLBR6EjvD6TiFk#PPA63,M1
"Genesis 1-11 is called prehistory because it predates any history of Israelite
history; it is actually a theological preface to the whole of salvation
history."
*****
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Uncle Vic
with this:
> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St.
> Jerome Edition, the bible clearly states the following in the
> introduction to Genesis:
<snip>
Who cares? Science gives us a much better account, more believable, and
backed with evidence. We don't need no stinking bible.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester.
Member Duke Spanking Club.
Budikka666
> One fine day in alt.atheism, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> bloodied us up
That's just Duck & Run's cowardly way of admitting these things:
1. There's no way he will ever even pretend that he dares to directly
address the detailed genealogy that's contained not in some Biblical
commentary, but in the purported word of Duckshit's god himself - in
Genesis - which categorically establishes the (fictional) flood only
some 4,200 years ago, less than 1,000 years prior to Abram.
2. There's no way he will ever admit to the fact that there's
absolutely zero evidence - from any source, for a world-wide flood at
any time.
3. There's no way he will ever admit to the fact that he's a complete
hypocrite for demanding evidence from others (when a plethora of it
has already been presented) and then making assinine assertions
himself that not only are completely lacking for evidence, but that
fly in the face of a wealth of contrary evidence.
4. There's no way he will ever admit to the fact that nowhere in the
geological record, which is complete in many places and which goes
back to ~4 billion years on every continent, there is zero evidence of
a global flood.
4. There's no way he will ever admit to the fact that the Bible story
makes it clear that humans were the target of the flood and there were
no humans at *any* time in the last 4.5 billion years, but only in the
last couple of million at the very outside. Therefore Puke's own
purported word of his god proves him is a LIAR to claim the Noahic
flood could have happened at any time in the last 4.5 billion years!
Earl Weber is a liar and a hypocrite - and a coward. QED.
Budikka
Phil MacDouglass
that's a fact? HAHA!!
You suuure are a fool Kowardly K00K!!
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7rk633t5u0lrc0g6f...@4ax.com...
duke
>One fine day in alt.atheism, duke <duckg...@cox.net> bloodied us up
>with this:
>
>> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St.
>> Jerome Edition, the bible clearly states the following in the
>> introduction to Genesis:
>Who cares? Science gives us a much better account, more believable, and
>backed with evidence. We don't need no stinking bible.
But science hasn't, bud the dud. That's just it. Science has no idea what the
4.5 billion history of the world was like. How's that, bud the dud mouthpiece.
Free Lunch
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
<cn6a33pkk75c5kc1n...@4ax.com>:
>On 28 Apr 2007 18:52:14 GMT, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>>One fine day in alt.atheism, duke <duckg...@cox.net> bloodied us up
>>with this:
>>
>>> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St.
>>> Jerome Edition, the bible clearly states the following in the
>>> introduction to Genesis:
>
>>Who cares? Science gives us a much better account, more believable, and
>>backed with evidence. We don't need no stinking bible.
>
>But science hasn't, bud the dud. That's just it. Science has no idea what the
>4.5 billion history of the world was like. How's that, bud the dud mouthpiece.
You have managed to show a profound ignorance of what science does know,
making claims that are demonstrably false, claims that were shown to be
false to you in the past.
You are a total fake. If God actually existed, He would kill you for
mocking Him with your lies about Him.
DanielSan
> On 28 Apr 2007 18:52:14 GMT, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>One fine day in alt.atheism, duke <duckg...@cox.net> bloodied us up
>>with this:
>>
>>
>>>Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St.
>>>Jerome Edition, the bible clearly states the following in the
>>>introduction to Genesis:
>
>
>>Who cares? Science gives us a much better account, more believable, and
>>backed with evidence. We don't need no stinking bible.
>
>
> But science hasn't, bud the dud.
You're getting senile, old man. You're responding to Uncle Vic, not
Budikka.
> That's just it. Science has no idea what the
> 4.5 billion history of the world was like. How's that, bud the dud mouthpiece.
That is totally incorrect. Science does have an idea. You're just
unwilling to see it.
--
*******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*-----------------------------------------------------*
* Christianity: A belief in a cosmic Jewish zombie *
* who was his own father will let you live forever *
* if you pretend to eat his flesh, drink his blood, *
* and telepathically tell him that you accept him as *
* your master, so he can remove an evil force from *
* your soul that he put there a long time ago as pun- *
* ishment for all humanity because a rib-woman made *
* from a dust-man was convinced by a talking snake *
* to eat fruit from a magical tree. *
*******************************************************
duke
>>But science hasn't, bud the dud. That's just it. Science has no idea what the
>>4.5 billion history of the world was like. How's that, bud the dud mouthpiece.
>You have managed to show a profound ignorance of what science does know,
>making claims that are demonstrably false, claims that were shown to be
>false to you in the past.
Ok, so demonstrably show that science claims a knowledge of the detail geology
of the earth from now to 4.5 billion years ago.
>You are a total fake. If God actually existed, He would kill you for
>mocking Him with your lies about Him.
Or smiles at me.
duke
>>>>Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St.
>>>>Jerome Edition, the bible clearly states the following in the
>>>>introduction to Genesis:
>>>Who cares? Science gives us a much better account, more believable, and
>>>backed with evidence. We don't need no stinking bible.
>> But science hasn't, bud the dud.
>You're getting senile, old man. You're responding to Uncle Vic, not
>Budikka.
he's her mouthpiece.
>> That's just it. Science has no idea what the
>> 4.5 billion history of the world was like. How's that, bud the dud mouthpiece.
>That is totally incorrect. Science does have an idea. You're just
>unwilling to see it.
Well, here's your chance to show where. You can't.
DanielSan
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:30:16 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
>>>But science hasn't, bud the dud. That's just it. Science has no idea what the
>>>4.5 billion history of the world was like. How's that, bud the dud mouthpiece.
>
>
>>You have managed to show a profound ignorance of what science does know,
>>making claims that are demonstrably false, claims that were shown to be
>>false to you in the past.
>
>
> Ok, so demonstrably show that science claims a knowledge of the detail geology
> of the earth from now to 4.5 billion years ago.
Sure. What would you like to know?
DanielSan
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:42:28 -0800, DanielSan <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St.
>>>>>Jerome Edition, the bible clearly states the following in the
>>>>>introduction to Genesis:
>
>
>>>>Who cares? Science gives us a much better account, more believable, and
>>>>backed with evidence. We don't need no stinking bible.
>
>
>
>>>But science hasn't, bud the dud.
>>
>>You're getting senile, old man. You're responding to Uncle Vic, not
>>Budikka.
>
>
> he's her mouthpiece.
Really? Hey, Vic. How much does that job pay? ;-)
>
>
>>>That's just it. Science has no idea what the
>>>4.5 billion history of the world was like. How's that, bud the dud mouthpiece.
>
>
>>That is totally incorrect. Science does have an idea. You're just
>>unwilling to see it.
>
>
> Well, here's your chance to show where. You can't.
I can. What do you want to know? I need some parameters to start with.
:-)
hhya...@gmail.com
Dear Budikka,
All intelligent humen would be disgusted with the view of Creationits
that there was worldwide flood that killed all living things on
earth.......
Would this mean the Creator could not do anything to prevent it from
happening.....? Then what's good about having a all powerful
Creator....?
The second point is that common sense would be able to tell you based
on current knowledge of mankind, how could such as flood
happening....?
For the worldwide flood to happen, all the iceberg in North and South
poles has to melt, could you imagine earth could have such a
temperature....?
Just pure logics would refute the conned story and need not proceed to
fine details......
Yap
Uncle Vic
bloodied us up with this:
> duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:42:28 -0800, DanielSan
>> <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St.
>>>>>>Jerome Edition, the bible clearly states the following in the
>>>>>>introduction to Genesis:
>>
>>
>>>>>Who cares? Science gives us a much better account, more
>>>>>believable, and backed with evidence. We don't need no stinking
>>>>>bible.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>But science hasn't, bud the dud.
>>>
>>>You're getting senile, old man. You're responding to Uncle Vic, not
>>>Budikka.
>>
>>
>> he's her mouthpiece.
>
> Really? Hey, Vic. How much does that job pay? ;-)
Not enough.
>
>>
>>
>>>>That's just it. Science has no idea what the
>>>>4.5 billion history of the world was like. How's that, bud the dud
>>>>mouthpiece.
>>
>>
>>>That is totally incorrect. Science does have an idea. You're just
>>>unwilling to see it.
>>
>>
>> Well, here's your chance to show where. You can't.
>
> I can. What do you want to know? I need some parameters to start
> with.
> :-)
>
--
Budikka666
>
> >>One fine day in alt.atheism, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> bloodied us up
> >>with this:
>
> >>>Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St.
> >>>Jerome Edition, the bible clearly states the following in the
> >>>introduction to Genesis:
>
> >>Who cares? Science gives us a much better account, more believable, and
> >>backed with evidence. We don't need no stinking bible.
>
> > But science hasn't, bud the dud.
>
> You're getting senile, old man. You're responding to Uncle Vic, not
> Budikka.
No, he's true to form: his response is just as "sensible" here as it
ever is! LoL!
And *still* he's running from addressing in detail (and supporting his
response) *any* of the flood items I've posted. No surprises there.
Duckshit will out.
Budikka
Budikka666
>
> >>>But science hasn't, bud the dud. That's just it. Science has no idea what the
> >>>4.5 billion history of the world was like. How's that, bud the dud mouthpiece.
>
> >>You have managed to show a profound ignorance of what science does know,
> >>making claims that are demonstrably false, claims that were shown to be
> >>false to you in the past.
>
> > Ok, so demonstrably show that science claims a knowledge of the detail geology
> > of the earth from now to 4.5 billion years ago.
>
> Sure. What would you like to know?
I already gave him that, right here in this thread - two billion years
of stacked rock right there in the Grand Canyon and no trace of a
flood anywhere.
Two billion years takes us wa-ay beyond any semblance of multi-
cellular life on Earth, and NO FLOOD. QED, he's proven wrong. The
fact that he's too stupid to see it, is his problem and his alone.
His hypocrisy is glaringly obvious. His *only* pretence at support
for this global flood story is the Bible! The Bible story isn't even
original. It came from the Sumerians via the Babylonians. That's
*all* he has, and the Bible makes it crystally clear that the flood
was sent (if you buy that myth) to punish *humans*. There were no
hominids prior to some 4 million years ago, ergo Puke loses.
I showed that we have rocks on Earth going back to 4 billion years,
not one of which has a trace of a flood. The case is made. Puke ran
from it as usual.
The Bible dates the flood to some 4,200 - 4,300 years ago by the
detailed genealogy in Genesis showing a *continuous* set of fathers
and sons with ages in between.
The *only* way to get around the genealogy is to assert that the Bible
lied, which is precisely what Puke is asserting, but if this is the
case, the Bible equally *lied about the flood*! So we already have a
de facto concession from Hurl.
But if Duckshit wants to argue his 4.5 billion-year-old flood, then
it's *entirely* incumbent upon *him* to provide the evidence
supporting *his* assinine claims. And he admits he cannot because he
has nothing. He pulled this claim straight out of his ass and it
stinks jsut as bad. It, like him, really is that simple.
Duke lost because he is lost. Completely. Hopelessly.
Budikka
Budikka666
This is not only the view of creationists, it's what the purported
word of a god explicitly states.
> Would this mean the Creator could not do anything to prevent it from
> happening.....? Then what's good about having a all powerful
> Creator....?
It's not a matter of whether he could prevent it from happening. it's
that the creator actually deliberately caused the flood, according to
the Bible myth.
> The second point is that common sense would be able to tell you based
> on current knowledge of mankind, how could such as flood
> happening....?
It could not. The laws of physics disallow it, and there's zero
evidence for it, no matter where you look, no matter how far back in
time you look.
> For the worldwide flood to happen, all the iceberg in North and South
> poles has to melt, could you imagine earth could have such a
> temperature....?
Yes I can. The ice has only been there for the last 35 million years
or so. Prior to that, there was a huge period of time with no polar
ice.
> Just pure logics would refute the conned story and need not proceed to
> fine details......
Oh, you gotta keep hitting them, hitting them hard and hitting them
frequently. It's the only way to keep them in their palce.
Budikka
duke
>> Ok, so demonstrably show that science claims a knowledge of the detail geology
>> of the earth from now to 4.5 billion years ago.
>Sure. What would you like to know?
Can you read? Maybe you can get bud the dud to wind you up.
duke
>>>You're getting senile, old man. You're responding to Uncle Vic, not
>>>Budikka.
>> he's her mouthpiece.
>Really? Hey, Vic. How much does that job pay? ;-)
She's not already paying you?
>>>>That's just it. Science has no idea what the
>>>>4.5 billion history of the world was like. How's that, bud the dud mouthpiece.
>>>That is totally incorrect. Science does have an idea. You're just
>>>unwilling to see it.
>> Well, here's your chance to show where. You can't.
>I can. What do you want to know? I need some parameters to start with.
> :-)
Can't you read - the geologic history of the earth for the last 4.5 billion
years. Here - I'll start you off - at one time, Mt Everest was just a speed
bump. You can supply the time in the past.
Haahaahaahaahaa.
duke
>>> he's her mouthpiece.
>> Really? Hey, Vic. How much does that job pay? ;-)
>Not enough.
Then you're a fool for being her underpaid mouthpiece.
DanielSan
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:17:04 -0800, DanielSan <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Ok, so demonstrably show that science claims a knowledge of the detail geology
>>>of the earth from now to 4.5 billion years ago.
>
>
>>Sure. What would you like to know?
>
>
> Can you read?
Yes, I can.
Next question?
DanielSan
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:17:46 -0800, DanielSan <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>You're getting senile, old man. You're responding to Uncle Vic, not
>>>>Budikka.
>>>
>>>he's her mouthpiece.
>>
>>Really? Hey, Vic. How much does that job pay? ;-)
>
>
> She's not already paying you?
>
>
>>>>>That's just it. Science has no idea what the
>>>>>4.5 billion history of the world was like. How's that, bud the dud mouthpiece.
>>>>
>>>>That is totally incorrect. Science does have an idea. You're just
>>>>unwilling to see it.
>>>
>>>Well, here's your chance to show where. You can't.
>
>
>>I can. What do you want to know? I need some parameters to start with.
>> :-)
>
>
> Can't you read - the geologic history of the earth for the last 4.5 billion
> years.
Okay. In the 4.5 billion year history of the earth, what would you like
to know?
> Here - I'll start you off - at one time, Mt Everest was just a speed
> bump.
And there are Mount Everests of the past that are speed bumps now. So what?
> You can supply the time in the past.
>
> Haahaahaahaahaa.
Don't post drunk.
duke
>>>>>That is totally incorrect. Science does have an idea. You're just
>>>>>unwilling to see it.
>>>>Well, here's your chance to show where. You can't.
>>>I can. What do you want to know? I need some parameters to start with.
>> Can't you read - the geologic history of the earth for the last 4.5 billion
>> years.
>Okay. In the 4.5 billion year history of the earth, what would you like
>to know?
The geologic history of the earth for the last 4.5 billion years.
>> Here - I'll start you off - at one time, Mt Everest was just a speed
>> bump.
>And there are Mount Everests of the past that are speed bumps now. So what?
You're the professed expert on the geologic history of the earth. You tell me.
DanielSan
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:38:14 -0800, DanielSan <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>That is totally incorrect. Science does have an idea. You're just
>>>>>>unwilling to see it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, here's your chance to show where. You can't.
>>>>
>>>>I can. What do you want to know? I need some parameters to start with.
>
>
>
>>>Can't you read - the geologic history of the earth for the last 4.5 billion
>>>years.
>
>
>>Okay. In the 4.5 billion year history of the earth, what would you like
>>to know?
>
>
> The geologic history of the earth for the last 4.5 billion years.
You're going to have to narrow that down a bit.
>
>
>>>Here - I'll start you off - at one time, Mt Everest was just a speed
>>>bump.
>
>
>>And there are Mount Everests of the past that are speed bumps now. So what?
>
>
> You're the professed expert on the geologic history of the earth. You tell me.
I'm not sure what you want to know. You're going to have to give me
some parameters.
Budikka666
>
> >>>>>>That is totally incorrect. Science does have an idea. You're just
> >>>>>>unwilling to see it.
>
> >>>>>Well, here's your chance to show where. You can't.
>
> >>>>I can. What do you want to know? I need some parameters to start with.
>
> >>>Can't you read - the geologic history of the earth for the last 4.5 billion
> >>>years.
>
> >>Okay. In the 4.5 billion year history of the earth, what would you like
> >>to know?
>
> > The geologic history of the earth for the last 4.5 billion years.
>
> You're going to have to narrow that down a bit.
>
>
>
> >>>Here - I'll start you off - at one time, Mt Everest was just a speed
> >>>bump.
That was 60 million years ago - and still no evidence of a global
flood. I think we should nominate Duke for the Olypics. He's an
expert at running - away.
Budikka
Budikka666
of evasion, straw men, lies, hypocrisy, and hiding behind Bible
commentaries to obfuscate.
The Bible genealogy in Genesis 5 & 11 (something which Duck & Run has
consistently avoided directly addressing) is clearly fictional, but
from the fundie perspective, it gives names of fathers and the ages at
which they had their sons all the way from Adam to Abram without
interruption.
Instead of having the guts to face up to and directly address these
names and ages, Duck & Run has hidden behind a Bible commentary (which
likewise offers no rationale, evidence, or support for *its* claims)
and consigned everything prior to Abram to "prehistory".
This is where he's blowing his FART (Flood at Random Time) from. He
then builds a house on this sand, and claims that the flood could have
been at any time in the last 4.5 billion years.
The Bible genealogy places the flood just 290 years prior to Abram:
Abram
back to Terah: 70
back to Nahor: 29
back to Serug: 30
back to Reu: 32
back to Peleg: 30
back to Eber: 34
back to Shelah: 30
back to Arpachshad: 35
The Bible insists that Noah was 600 when Arpachshad was born. That's
also when the flood came (there's a whole other story in there which
I'll address later), but this means the flood actually came **ONLY 290
YEARS BEFORE ABRAM** according to detailed Bible chronology.
Abram's time is typically placed somewhere around 2166BC, this would
place the flood in 2456BC, or 4,462 years prior to 2007.
Duck & Run has never addressed the detailed genealogy - he runs and
hides behind a Bible commentary - which doesn't address it either!
So here are the issues that Duck & Run is ducking and running from so
far:
1.
The Bible places the flood just 290 years prior to the birth of
Abram. In what conceivable way does this constitute "prehistory"?
Prehistory is defined as the time before humans began recording
events. Since the Bible actually *does* record events (however
fictional they may be), the Bible itself shows what a lie Duck & Run's
claim is.
We have extra-Biblical records of events prior to the time when Abram
was purported to have lived. 290 years prior to his time in no way
qualifies as prehistory, not even remotely.
Those who wish to project the flood back to before this time need to
supply evidence or rationale. Duck & Run has proven beyond all
contention that he cannot do so.
2.
We have geological records all the way back to 4 billion years. The
Grand Canyon alone provides a detailed stack of these "geology books"
going back almost 2 billion years.
The entire geological column is found in several places, but nowhere,
in any rock record that geologists have been able to find, is there
any evidence of a *global* flood.
Duck & Run has proven by now that he cannot point to evidence of a
*global* flood anywhere. He's explicitly admitted that his recent
"petrified rain forest" claim is *not* evidence of a global flood.
For this reason, his comprehensive lack of an ability to estbalish a
flood, Duck & Run is prepared to outright LIE about what's in his own
Bible, to lie about what makes sense, to lie about what the evidence
shows, and to desperately carry the flood back to any time up to 4.5
billion years ago. Yes! rather than admit to being wrong, he will
make this much of a fundamental idiot of himself.
3.
There's lots of evidence of local floods at different times throughout
history. No one has ever denied that. There's evidence of extensive
flooding in the Middle East, from which, no doubt, the original legend
of the flood derived. This proves that *when there is a significant
flood*, the geological record *does* provide evidence of it. But a
local, even a regional, flood is not a global flood. And the
geological record provides no evidence of a *global* flood.
Duck & Run has proven by now that he dare not face this issue.
4.
The Noahic flood could not possibly have been *any time in the last
4.5 billion years* as Duck & Run lies, unless the Bible lies. If the
Bible lies about *when* the flood was, why should we trust that there
even was a global flood at all? The Bible not only explicitly dates
the flood at 290 years prior to Abram, it provides other clues as to
when it was.
According to the Bible tale, the flood took place during the time
humans were living on Earth. There weren't even any bipedal hominids
prior to some 5 million years ago, so the flood cannot have been
before then.
Duck & Run has consistently been too cowardly to address this and
bring in his 4.5 *billion* year claim by an order of magnitude to 4.5
million years.
The reason he won't do this is that he knows perfectly well that the
closer he allows the flodo to the present, the harder he will get
solidly nailed by the lack of geological evidence.
He erroneously thinks that if he can only keep the time frame back to
the entire hsitory of Earth, it will render the geolgical record vague
enough that he can hide his stupidity somewhere there.
He's wrong. As usual. His stupidity is too big to hide anywhere any
more.
5.
According to the Bible tale, the flood took place during the time
humans became "civilised" after a fashion - they lived in
communities. This has only been within the last 10,000 years.
Duck & Run has been consistently too cowardly to address this.
7.
According to the Bible tale, the flood took place during the time
humans had significant boat-building skills. Again, this has only
been within the last 10,000 years.
Duck & Run has been consistently too cowardly to address this.
8.
According to the Bible tale, the flood took place during the time
humans were capable of viniculture. Again, this has only been within
the last 10,000 years.
Duck & Run has been consistently too cowardly to address this.
9.
According to the Bible tale, the flood took place during the time
there were birds. This has only been within the last 200 million
years - wa-ay inside the time of Duck & Run's petrified 300 million
year old rain forest. He's too stupid to think about things like this
in his desperation to toss out every scrap he can desperately find to
shore up his failed "flood theory".
Duck & Run is too cowardly to address this.
There are lots more issues, listed in the 'flood series", but these
here really derive directly from his own Bible tale!
Budikka