Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?

[Clete]

Your denial without understanding is duly noted.
The fact that you ignore all of the physical forces involved is also duly noted again.

Repeat yourself all you like. Your implication that such details are relevant doesn't make it so. At the end of the day, we are talking about an explosion of one sort or another producing an orderly system of planetary bodies billions of miles away from the energy source that supposedly produced it.

Once again, explain how that system came to be is not my burden. Your position is the one making affirmative claims. Claims that are 100% correctly characterized as being "an explosion of one sort or another producing an orderly system of planetary bodies billions of miles away from the energy source that supposedly produced it".

In other words, if you want to claim that there are forces involved sufficient to control the position and relative velocities of these bodies that accounts for their current positions, orbits and overall condition (i.e. gravitationally rounded and not a chaotic jumble or rocks and water ice) then by all means show it to us and explain how it is that such a system could possibly have been created as a result of a jet of mostly water being pushed off the earth by the weight of the land masses that forced these jets of material out of the great deep.

 

[Right Divider]

Repeat yourself all you like.

You as well.

 

[Idolater]

'Agree with @Clete. I never saw the bridge between the fountains of the deep (Dr. Walt Brown's HPT) and comets and/or asteroids¹—and its connection to Pluto's system was even further and farther out there.

Clete's argument is more-or-less the same argument used against abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. The odds are just staggering.²


¹ Which doesn't mean that I'm not always hoping, that when they find this or that molecule fragment on an asteroid or on Mars, that they trace it to Earth—because I am. I hope that the HPT is right, so I do hope that there is conclusive evidence iow proof, that the Earth ejected in a c. planetary plume¹ᵃ a bunch of matter, that landed on comets (or that became comets), asteroids, Mars, the Moon, etc.

¹ᵃ Which we see happening rn in our own Solar System, so it's not at all far fetched.​

² ofc the odds involved with the theories of abiogenesis and evolution are in another galaxy of staggering, from the odds for the complete canonical HPT (including Pluto etc.). Canonical HPT is way more likely than abiogenesis, or evolution. But the odds of abiogenesis PLUS evolution ofc is just gay insanity.³

³ iow there's zero chance that happened. But there's not zero chance that canonical HPT is true.⁴

⁴ I just, and Clete also, find the c. planetary plume part of HPT to be FAR MORE likely than the c. Pluto part. And we don't see any reason why if we accept the planetary plume theory of the Flood⁵ that we have to accept with the same fidelity that the plume theory caused Pluto.

⁵ It's sometimes good to point out and remind ourselves that we do all believe in the Flood, so this discourse is all in the category of Flood theology.⁶

⁶ iow like with theology proper discourse,⁷ Our Flood theology is that it is true, and we're discussing how.

⁷ Each of us believes in God, we are only discussing the theory or philosophy of God when we do theology proper mostly, and this discourse itt is Flood theology.⁸

⁸ Many people's Flood theology is that the Flood is a myth and legend that never happened. Not us. We're on the same team re the Flood.

 

[Right Divider]

In other words, if you want to claim that there are forces involved sufficient to control the position and relative velocities of these bodies that accounts for their current positions, orbits and overall condition (i.e. gravitationally rounded and not a chaotic jumble or rocks and water ice) then by all means show it to us and explain how it is that such a system could possibly have been created as a result of a jet of mostly water being pushed off the earth by the weight of the land masses that forced these jets of material out of the great deep.

Dr. Brown's book (along with Bryan Nickel's videos) has more than adequately done so.

 

[Clete]

Dr. Brown's book (along with Bryan Nickel's videos) has more than adequately done so.

Unresponsive, unsupported claims do not an argument make. (i.e. Saying it doesn't make it so.)

They haven't done so because it cannot be done. Explosions do not create more order, they create far less. Pluto, flat out, was not ever part of the Earth - period. The second law of thermodynamics is all the proof anyone needs. A single body here or there like Haley's comet or whatever - perhaps. But a complex, multi-bodied exquisitely stable planetary system 4 billion miles away - not a chance. It did not happen.

 

[Derf]

'Agree with @Clete. I never saw the bridge between the fountains of the deep (Dr. Walt Brown's HPT) and comets and/or asteroids¹—and its connection to Pluto's system was even further and farther out there.

Clete's argument is more-or-less the same argument used against abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. The odds are just staggering.²


¹ Which doesn't mean that I'm not always hoping, that when they find this or that molecule fragment on an asteroid or on Mars, that they trace it to Earth—because I am. I hope that the HPT is right, so I do hope that there is conclusive evidence iow proof, that the Earth ejected in a c. planetary plume¹ᵃ a bunch of matter, that landed on comets (or that became comets), asteroids, Mars, the Moon, etc.

¹ᵃ Which we see happening rn in our own Solar System, so it's not at all far fetched.​

² ofc the odds involved with the theories of abiogenesis and evolution are in another galaxy of staggering, from the odds for the complete canonical HPT (including Pluto etc.). Canonical HPT is way more likely than abiogenesis, or evolution. But the odds of abiogenesis PLUS evolution ofc is just gay insanity.³

³ iow there's zero chance that happened. But there's not zero chance that canonical HPT is true.⁴

⁴ I just, and Clete also, find the c. planetary plume part of HPT to be FAR MORE likely than the c. Pluto part. And we don't see any reason why if we accept the planetary plume theory of the Flood⁵ that we have to accept with the same fidelity that the plume theory caused Pluto.

⁵ It's sometimes good to point out and remind ourselves that we do all believe in the Flood, so this discourse is all in the category of Flood theology.⁶

⁶ iow like with theology proper discourse,⁷ Our Flood theology is that it is true, and we're discussing how.

⁷ Each of us believes in God, we are only discussing the theory or philosophy of God when we do theology proper mostly, and this discourse itt is Flood theology.⁸

⁸ Many people's Flood theology is that the Flood is a myth and legend that never happened. Not us. We're on the same team re the Flood.

Nested footnotes? Why not just leave them out?