Geologic evidence which rules out a Great Flood?

[The_Great_Philosopher]

@dracoi

There was rain too, but the point I made is that the Biblical story talks about water from the deep, which is definitely not rain. If you believe the Black Sea version, that fits very nicely, since “the deep” would refer to the ocean and any rain would be irrelevant to the flooding.

You keep making this extra step- ‘the Bible refers to the waters from the deep, therefore the rain was irrelevant!’. If the passage you quoted is accurate, I think the Bible pretty clearly says the flood had two causes, and one of them was rain.

[SlowMindThinking]

@The_Great_Philosopher

You keep making this extra step- ‘the Bible refers to the waters from the deep, therefore the rain was irrelevant!’. If the passage you quoted is accurate, I think the Bible pretty clearly says the flood had two causes, and one of them was rain.

We were responding to claims like “This, of course, fails to save Biblical inerrancy, as the Bible is pretty plain in blaming it all on the rain.” It is precisely our point that the Bible does not blame it all on the rain. Not that it really matters, the OP specifically requested no "Impossibility arguments such as “where did the water come from?” and “where did it go to?” "

[Fish]

@Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco

It always confuses me why it has to be asked where the water came from and where it went when we’re dealing with a god here, who you know, said ‘let there be light’ and somehow the sun appeared.

Because any person who insists on seeing “scientific evidence that the Flood did not happen” should not be allowed to have it both ways: to wish into existence a magical quantity of water, and wish it away again, and insist that the effect of this magical water must leave concrete scientific evidence behind.

[yandoodan]

Thanks for the correction about the wellsprings of the whatever. Didn’t bother to check.

My original point was that the amount of water was not impossible. The magma upsurge not only explains a world flood adding, then subtracting, new water, it was based on a computer model of the Earth’s core that was (at least then) widely accepted.

Of course, this doesn’t explain how the magma plug mysteriously disappeared. There should be a Holocene pluton on an oceanic ridge somewhere, and there isn’t.

The true argument against the World Flood, as others have pointed out, is that it would have left massive signs everywhere, and these do not exist.

[HPL]

@yandoodan

Of course, this doesn’t explain how the magma plug mysteriously disappeared. There should be a Holocene pluton on an oceanic ridge somewhere, and there isn’t.

Sure there is. Cthulhu lives there.

[PBear42]

Ya’ll realize, right, that none of this shakes the faith of a true believer? Answers in Genesis has “answers” for all of it, e.g., the ice cores (use the search box). Which is to say, OP, if (as appears) the context of this is that you’re in a debate with a fundamentalist, the best answer is to walk away. The debate can’t be won by science. A fundamentalist’s need for the Bible to be literally true (which is the main reason they care about the Flood) is too strong. All evidence can be waved away if one tries hard enough.

[The_Seventh_Deadly_Finn]

Wouldn’t the Dead Sea and the Great Salt Lake have more water in them now if they’d been filled by a flood in Biblical times? The water in both is evaporating at a known rate; extrapolate back 6000 years and see if they seem to have been “topped off” at that time.