Can religion reject this science ?

[gnostic]

Don't forget in the laws of charge , a neg or pos charge is attracted to neutral charge .

Huh?

Neutral has no charge.

A positive charge and negative charge are actually attracted to each other, they are not attracted to neutral.

In an atom, having equal numbers of protons and electrons will cause the atom to become neutrally stable atom.

When the atom loses one or more electrons, the atom become “positive charged”, and will try to attract the nearest electrons from neighboring atoms, so to replace the missing electrons.

Like others have been saying (ratiocinator, polymath257, Subduction Zone, and probably a whole lot of other members, because I haven’t read all the replies), you really don’t understand maths and physics half as well as you think do.

They have been trying to correct you, but it has become very to all of us, you are unwilling to learn from your mistakes.

 

[Prestor John]

I know the Bible never claims to be perfect and it is refreshing to hear that you understand that.

I'm honestly surprised that you didn't know my stance on it because I mention it a lot.

The Bible is neither perfect nor complete.

In Gen. 6 13 God tells Noah that he is going to put an end to all people. Since Noah was to be saved this implies that anyone not with him would die.

Then Gen. 6 17-18 he makes this clearer.

Finally in Gen. 7 21-23 it says that everything that breathes air died as a result of the flood, excepting Noah and his family.

You make a strong point with these references, but I hope you can understand why they might not be that convincing to me.

One of the main issues I have with the Bible is the matter of perspective. Who wrote what and when?

The book of Genesis is the first book attributed to Moses. The belief is that either he or some scribe wrote the book.

Now, what the Bible does not mention is how either of them gained this information. They did not live until many centuries after the death of Joseph in Egypt.

The story was either preserved as a written record which was translated into ancient Hebrew or it had been passed down orally from generation to generation.

Neither of these methods are perfect and they wouldn't necessarily reveal who originally recorded these events.

The only other alternative is that Moses received all of this information via direct revelation. If that was the case, then I could not dispute the claim that all other flesh had died, but we will never know.

Fortunately, (for me at least) the LDS Church has other books of scripture that support many Biblical events, such as the existence of Noah, his building of the Ark and of a world-wide Flood event.

They also help us better understand these and other Biblical events.

For example, the Bible claimed that the language of "all the earth" had been confounded at the Tower, but the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon claims that the language of Jared and his family and friends as not changed but remained pure.

So, when the Bible says "all", it might not mean literally ALL, but more like every member of a certain group. Like those who built the Tower.

The Book of Moses, which was received by Joseph Smith through revelation, revealed that Noah most likely had more children than the three mentioned in the Bible, but those three were considered righteous, so that was most likely why they were the only ones mentioned.

The Bible also didn't mention the other children of Adam and Eve which had to have existed, otherwise who did Cain marry and have all those other children with that the Bible mentioned?

This is why I said one of my main issues with the Bible is of perspective. It leaves out many relevant things because it wants to focus on only what it wants to focus on.

However, more to the point, the Book of Moses does record God's declaration to Noah that "all flesh" would be destroyed in the Flood.

I admit that does look bad for my argument, but God complained about the wicked and how He gave Noah a hundred years to preach repentance to them before He made this declaration.

So, by "all", maybe He meant only the wicked? Or those who rejected Noah's preaching? I mean, how likely was it that Noah preached to every single person on the planet at the time?

That there was no flood. I could provide links or you might look up the concept of a population bottleneck. The gist of it is that if a population of a group is greatly reduced the genetic diversity of the group will also be greatly reduced. And that diversity will take some time to develop again. For example cheetahs went through such an event about ten thousand years ago. Scientists can calculate that their population got down to less than ten breeding individuals. As a result all cheetahs are very closely related to each other genetically than you are to your sisters or brothers. There is no problem doing organ transplants with cheetahs. With people extensive tissue matching needs to be done. If the Noah's Ark story were true the threat of waking up in a cheap hotel bathtub missing a kidney could be a reality.

That is just one example of how we know that the story is not true.

Thank you for sharing this, but again, there are just too many variables at play for me to rule anything out.

First of all, the scriptures (by this I mean the LDS canon) claim that the species began with only the two members, Adam and Eve - so if they could gain diversity once they could possibly do it again.

We are talking about people that lived to be almost a thousand years old. They were obviously very different from us today and cheetahs for that matter.

One of the main reasons why I believe in a world-wide deluge (other than the scriptural account) is the fact that Joseph Smith claimed that the Flood had been the baptism of the Earth.

However, like any baptism by immersion, the person is lowered into the water and brought back up again. No one is thrown into the water with a splash.

I mention this because there isn't a lot of descriptions about the Flood event. Yes, the water covered the mountains, but did it cover every mountain everywhere at the same time?

I always imagined it being like an actual baptism.

I see it as water beginning to fill and cover one region of the Earth and then it spreads across the entirety of it. And while some regions are being flooded, the initial flood zone begins to dry out.

To Noah's perspective, floating atop the water, it would look like the entire planet was covered all at once.

I think people had time and it is my belief that God may have prepared other means to save other righteous people.

Noah may have been riding that initial wave for a while, but other places on Earth dried up before they did wherever Noah landed.

Either way, whether our genetics today doesn't compare to the ancient's or there were more people who survived, I don't see any solid reason to stop believing.

 

[james blunt]

Huh?

Neutral has no charge.

A positive charge and negative charge are actually attracted to each other, they are not attracted to neutral.

In an atom, having equal numbers of protons and electrons will cause the atom to become neutrally stable atom.

When the atom loses one or more electrons, the atom become “positive charged”, and will try to attract the nearest electrons from neighboring atoms, so to replace the missing electrons.

Like others have been saying (ratiocinator, polymath257, Subduction Zone, and probably a whole lot of other members, because I haven’t read all the replies), you really don’t understand maths and physics half as well as you think do.

They have been trying to correct you, but it has become very to all of us, you are unwilling to learn from your mistakes.

You have no idea how electrical charge works if you think neg and pos charge is not attracted to a neutral charge


(e) + (+1e) = N neutral

-0.5 Q + 0.5 Q = 0

A + B = 1 where both A and B are 1/2

Neutral is attracted to neutral , that is the gravity mechanism


m for mass m= (e) + (+1e)2

F1 + F2 = m

Where F is force .

<N is attracted to >N and >N is attracted to lesser <N

e is attracted to N

+1e is attracted to N

I'm a GENIUS ,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm honestly surprised that you didn't know my stance on it because I mention it a lot.

The Bible is neither perfect nor complete.

You make a strong point with these references, but I hope you can understand why they might not be that convincing to me.

One of the main issues I have with the Bible is the matter of perspective. Who wrote what and when?

The book of Genesis is the first book attributed to Moses. The belief is that either he or some scribe wrote the book.

Now, what the Bible does not mention is how either of them gained this information. They did not live until many centuries after the death of Joseph in Egypt.

The story was either preserved as a written record which was translated into ancient Hebrew or it had been passed down orally from generation to generation.

Neither of these methods are perfect and they wouldn't necessarily reveal who originally recorded these events.

The only other alternative is that Moses received all of this information via direct revelation. If that was the case, then I could not dispute the claim that all other flesh had died, but we will never know.

Fortunately, (for me at least) the LDS Church has other books of scripture that support many Biblical events, such as the existence of Noah, his building of the Ark and of a world-wide Flood event.

They also help us better understand these and other Biblical events.

For example, the Bible claimed that the language of "all the earth" had been confounded at the Tower, but the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon claims that the language of Jared and his family and friends as not changed but remained pure.

So, when the Bible says "all", it might not mean literally ALL, but more like every member of a certain group. Like those who built the Tower.

The Book of Moses, which was received by Joseph Smith through revelation, revealed that Noah most likely had more children than the three mentioned in the Bible, but those three were considered righteous, so that was most likely why they were the only ones mentioned.

The Bible also didn't mention the other children of Adam and Eve which had to have existed, otherwise who did Cain marry and have all those other children with that the Bible mentioned?

This is why I said one of my main issues with the Bible is of perspective. It leaves out many relevant things because it wants to focus on only what it wants to focus on.

However, more to the point, the Book of Moses does record God's declaration to Noah that "all flesh" would be destroyed in the Flood.

I admit that does look bad for my argument, but God complained about the wicked and how He gave Noah a hundred years to preach repentance to them before He made this declaration.

So, by "all", maybe He meant only the wicked? Or those who rejected Noah's preaching? I mean, how likely was it that Noah preached to every single person on the planet at the time?

Thank you for sharing this, but again, there are just too many variables at play for me to rule anything out.

First of all, the scriptures (by this I mean the LDS canon) claim that the species began with only the two members, Adam and Eve - so if they could gain diversity once they could possibly do it again.

We are talking about people that lived to be almost a thousand years old. They were obviously very different from us today and cheetahs for that matter.

One of the main reasons why I believe in a world-wide deluge (other than the scriptural account) is the fact that Joseph Smith claimed that the Flood had been the baptism of the Earth.

However, like any baptism by immersion, the person is lowered into the water and brought back up again. No one is thrown into the water with a splash.

I mention this because there isn't a lot of descriptions about the Flood event. Yes, the water covered the mountains, but did it cover every mountain everywhere at the same time?

I always imagined it being like an actual baptism.

I see it as water beginning to fill and cover one region of the Earth and then it spreads across the entirety of it. And while some regions are being flooded, the initial flood zone begins to dry out.

To Noah's perspective, floating atop the water, it would look like the entire planet was covered all at once.

I think people had time and it is my belief that God may have prepared other means to save other righteous people.

Noah may have been riding that initial wave for a while, but other places on Earth dried up before they did wherever Noah landed.

Either way, whether our genetics today doesn't compare to the ancient's or there were more people who survived, I don't see any solid reason to stop believing.

Let's try to avoid writing books. iI will keep this short and sweet. First off Moses was fictional as well and modern Bible scholars know that Exodus as portrayed in the Bible was fictional too. But that is not why we know that the floor never happened.

First off the term "LDS scholars" is a bit of an oxymoron. We know that there was no flood because of what real scholars found out. One thing that one can never do and claim to be a scholar is to assume that an idea is correct ahead of time, and that is what your scholars did with the Noah's Ark myth. As I pointed out the lack of a universal population bottleneck. Cheetahs are not that different from people in that aspect. Both cheetahs and humans are mammals, we are going to have very similar rates of mutations.

Let's quickly go over the concept of a population bottleneck:

Population bottleneck - Wikipedia

A population bottleneck occurs when the numbers of a species is greatly reduced due to some event. Severe ones will lower the genetic diversity of a group to the point that they begin to have problems breeding. If the flood story was true we would see a universal and extremely strong population bottleneck pointing to one shared time. We do not see that. Instead we see rare examples of population bottlenecks of different intensities at different times.

That is of course not the only example of evidence that tells us the flood never happened. There is no geologic evidence for the flood and a flood of that size would leave undeniable evidence. And that evidence would be all around the globe and of the same age. Geologically claiming that there was a recent worldwide catastrophic flood would be the same as your neighbor fail my you and claiming that a herd of buffalo just stampede through her house. You rush over and the house is clean with no sign of damage. Do you believe her or know that she was telling a fib, to put it mildly?


The fact is that a flood would leave indelible undeniable evidence and that evidence just does not exist. I can give you an article on a flood that probably inspired the myth that early Hebrews copied from the Babylonians, but it was a local flood. One in which an ark would be superfluous.

 

[Katzpur]

First off the term "LDS scholars" is a bit of an oxymoron.

I really have no interest in discussing this topic except to respond to this one statement. It's stupid. There are many LDS scholars in various fields who are widely respected as knowledgeable by their peers, both inside and outside the Church. Your statement was an ad hominem if I've ever heard one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really have no interest in discussing this topic except to respond to this one statement. It's stupid. There are many LDS scholars in various fields who are widely respected as knowledgeable by their peers, both inside and outside the Church. Your statement was an ad hominem if I've ever heard one.

He referred to unnamed "LDS scholars" . That is normally a phrase that means apologists and not actual scholars. There is no reason to trust any apologist for any religion since they openly admit the flaw that no evidence will change their minds. Once one admits that he can no longer claim to be a scholar.

 

[james blunt]

This is the latest updated version of my theory ,please comment on how it's looking / reading !

The Universe inside and out !

Author:

Introduction.

The Universe inside and out is a scientific theory and paper that investigates and researches past physics and present physics . An investigation that'll propose semantic errors , incorrect physics interpretation and ostensible content that has no others uses but that of the practitioner. The Universe inside and out conceptually considers the intricate details of physical process in search of relative correctness ! Additionally , The Universe Inside and Out proposes several theoretical notions , including the beginning of the visual universe , the gravity mechanism , the true nature of light and the meaning of time .



Contents:

1. Absolute Newtonian space
2. Micro bang theory (Point charge temporal transition to lower energy state points).
3. Binary energy particle ( A quantum singularity )
4. Binary energy particle expansion ( Singularity expansion)
5. The n-field theory (The interior field matter of a binary expansion)
6. The N-field theory (Atomic matter)
7. The gravity mechanism
8. The nature of light
9. The meaning of time


1. Absolute Newtonian space .

For purposeful and meaningful discussion I feel it is of utmost importance that we firstly all agree upon the definition of space .

A continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.

It is important we do not change the context of this definition where semantics are important . People often generalise space as being contents included which is contradictory to our definition of space and not of fact .

Newton believed that absolute space remains always similar and immovable , independent of everything else . In consideration of what is space ? I propose that space is the unique property of an infinite void , agreeing with Newton that space is absolute and immovable . In regards to space , my scientific research as revealed there is no evidence that suggests anything other than these provided seven postulates :

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

2) Space is immovable

3) Space is timeless and has no mechanism to age or decay

4) Space is the unique property of a void

5) Space has no mechanism to be visible light or visible dark

6) Space is transparent

7) Space has no physicality

There's no reason or reasons why these postulates are not of axiom value and hold true to observation . It would be quite absurd , subjective and illogical to disagree with the postulates without providing proof of evidence to demonstrate falsity of the postulates . Objectively , the seven postulates hold true and are unarguable without evidence of the contrary . An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions , theory or hypothesis .
It is universally important that we define simplistic axiom's in a simple understandable manner that clarifies the exact content that all readers of the information can easily relate to without misinterpretation of the information.


Let us now in brief detail discuss each postulate individually to clarify our understanding !

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

It would be illogical to suggest that space , which has no physicality , can be created or destroyed ! There is no observed evidence to suggest anything other than the proposed postulate . Even after a nuclear bomb test , when the cloud settles , the observed space remains unaltered although there will be an increased radiation/energy levels , occupying that space .

2) Space is immovable

Bodies traverse through space and a bodies emitted spatial field moves with the body through space . The body moves relative to other bodies and all bodies move relative to space . Space itself being the relative stationary reference frame of fixed geometrical points . There is no evidence observational or otherwise to suggest that geometrical points of space can be displaced . Minkowski space-time , XYZt , is a four dimensional manifold coordinate system where the background is ''fixed '' and an objects coordinates are calculated by this . Einsteins four dimensional space-time and curvature is of field lines relative to the ''fixed'' reference frame of Minowski's space-time . However , in all scenarios , XYZt , is a finite metric visual measurement within a greater Newtonian absolute space .

3) Space is timeless and has no mechanism to age or decay

Observationally with our eyes we can observe the decay of things and the aging of things . However , we never observe with our eyes the aging or the decaying of the space . Neither can we measure the age or decay of space as the only property of space itself is spatial room . It is quite clear literally speaking , that space itself has no mechanism to age or decay .

4) Space is the unique property of a void

A void is empty space and the only property of a void is the space until some thing such as matter is placed within the void ''frame'' . I do not feel this postulate needs a greater explanation other than this .

5) Space has no mechanism to be visible light or visible dark

We only observe the visible light of objects but at times we can observe visible light when visible light is formed , such as a rainbow . Generally we do not observe visible light of / in the space between masses but we can detect it . The space itself has no mechanism to produce visible light and the space does not have magnitude of permeability to cause sufficient interaction with electromagnetic radiation to produce visible light .
Space neither has mechanism to be visible dark , darkness is of objects that are not illuminated , darkness not existing of the space . The space being relative transparent and clear to observation , passive to all matter .

6) Space is transparent

See postulate 5 .

7) Space has no physicality

There is no evidence to suggest that space itself has physicality , presence of bodily structure . Space is passive and this is seemingly evident . In the inflation of a balloon , the exterior space of the balloons surface , passes through the surface of the balloon , unimposing to become interior space . Similar we can move an upside down glass on a flat surface to the left or the right and the space passes through the glass , the movement displacing the interior air to a different position but not displacing the space . There can be no doubt that space has no physicality and the demonstration and simple experiments of the balloon and the glass confirms this .




2. Micro bang theory ( Virtual particles popping into and out of existence ).

We've already discussed the absolute of space and in a sense , space is an infinite volume of nothingness that has always existed and will always exist . It would seem quite impossible that a fundamental energy that powered the Universe could manifest itself from nothingness . Any given point of space would have no force or pressure acting on it , it would seem a miracle would be required for zero point energy (ZPE) to form at any given point of space . The notion of how energy first manifested is seemingly imperceivable , we can only make our best guess's , using our knowledge , logic and intuition of how this manifestation event could of possibly occurred.

The present model , The Big Bang Theory , suggests the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state but gives no origin reason(s) of how this high-density , high -temperature state manifested . Micro bang theory is my proposal and best ''guess'' of how this high-density , high -temperature state manifested, proposing opposite polarity electrostatic point charges (mono-poles) , popping into and out of existence .

The Universe inside and out considers the conditions of a very high-density and high-temperature state , firstly recognising and proposing , that for any form of energy to exist or any event to take place , that energy or event would with a certainty need a pre-existing spatial volume to exist in or occur in . Thus concluding a pre-existing absolute space as explained prior in section 1 .

The Universe inside and out now explores the physics involved in the process and what would happen to a manifested point charge , that manifested at any given point of real coordinate space. In conceptual thought of a point charge namely zero point energy , it would be seemingly apparent that the surrounding spatial points of real coordinate space would have a lesser magnitude of energy and a lesser dense state than the higher density , higher energy state of the point charge .

In consideration of thermal dynamics and spectral emissions , a higher energy state points energy , traverses to lower energy state points . In the second law of thermodynamics ,heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature. Too assume a point charge does not function the same way would seem unrealistic ! Proposing that a manifested point charge undergoes a temporal transition , changing from one state or condition to another over a period of time , would seem realistic and an evidential proposal based on thermal dynamics and spectral emissions .

One could suggest that the point charge simply self annihilates by dispersing into space , by the natural self drive mechanism of higher energy temporal transition to lower energy state points . This would seem a ''true'' assumption and for our understanding the Universe inside and out proposes and requests you accept the self annihilation to be namely , The Micro bang process .

It is propositioned to you , that from the instant of manifestation of the point charge , the charge energy is instantly attracted to all of the surrounding real coordinate space of lesser energy , in an isotropic manner . This event being a conditional and natural transitional state , causality of self annihilation . It is also propositioned to you that the speed of this temporal transition process is the constant of c . The speed of light being a causality of the temporal transition of energy to a lower state energy .

It's difficult to express the temporal transition of energy changing from one state or condition to another mathematically in terms of units and values. The infinitive of space having no representation in terms of dimensions or values , XYZt and entropy being irrelevant .

To gain mutual understanding the Universe Inside and Out requests that you'll preliminary accept the value R^n to represent a n-dimensional , unspecified volume of real coordinate space .

Additionally for the purpose of the Micro Bang process , it is requested the preliminary acceptance of -Q to represent a negative charged mono-pole (traditionally an electron charge) and +Q to represent a positive charged mono-pole (traditionally a Proton charge).

In preliminary acceptance of these values , the Micro bang process expresses :

1) (-Q / R^n)/t = 0

A negative point charge divided by an unspecified volume of real coordinate , lesser energy space .

2) (+Q / R^n)/t = 0

A positive point charge divided by an unspecified volume of real coordinate , lesser energy space .


Both the negative point charge and positive point charge , diminishing out of existence to 0 magnitude and 0 density .

 

[Prestor John]

First off the term "LDS scholars" is a bit of an oxymoron.

He referred to unnamed "LDS scholars".

I never once mentioned "LDS scholars". The only times I mentioned LDS-anything was "LDS Church" and "LDS canon"

So yeah, I had hoped that you had become more responsible and mature, but that hope is gone now.

You returned, like a dog to its vomit, to your usual habits of: claiming that I had said something that I never did, not actually reading what I wrote, relying on false assumptions and being so very rude and condescending.

You have reminded me why I have been claiming that talking to you is a waste of time and effort.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never once mentioned "LDS scholars". The only times I mentioned LDS-anything was "LDS Church" and "LDS canon"

So yeah, I had hoped that you had become more responsible and mature, but that hope is gone now.

You returned, like a dog to its vomit, to your usual habits of: claiming that I had said something that I never did, not actually reading what I wrote, relying on false assumptions and being so very rude and condescending.

You have reminded me why I have been claiming that talking to you is a waste of time and effort.

You are correct. You did not use that phrase. That was my error. The implication was there. Why else refer to it? What does that have to do with the debate at all?

When you write a book to something that only needs a much shorter response people will boil it down for you. I see that you are still making far worse personal attacks than I ever did against you.

Let's forget that for now. Do you want to discuss how the lack of a universal population bottleneck refutes the flood? We would see one in humans, in lions, in wolves, in deer. We would see that in every species on the face of the Earth, but instead they are the exception rather than the rule. To believe in a flood one has to dilute the story to the point where it did not do anything as described in the Bible and could be walked away form in most areas.

 

[Prestor John]

You are correct. You did not use that phrase. That was my error. The implication was there. Why else refer to it? What does that have to do with the debate at all?

There was zero implication.

It has to do with your tendency to say whatever you want to say without even reading the posts of the person you are supposedly "debating".

When you write a book to something that only needs a much shorter response people will boil it down for you.

"Boiling down" includes making stuff up and ignoring what was said?

I see that you are still making far worse personal attacks than I ever did against you.

There was not a single personal attack.

Let's forget that for now. Do you want to discuss how the lack of a universal population bottleneck refutes the flood? We would see one in humans, in lions, in wolves, in deer. We would see that in every species on the face of the Earth, but instead they are the exception rather than the rule. To believe in a flood one has to dilute the story to the point where it did not do anything as described in the Bible and could be walked away form in most areas.

Read my earlier post first and talk to me about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was zero implication.

It has to do with your tendency to say whatever you want to say without even reading the posts of the person you are supposedly "debating".

Then why are even bring it up?

"Boiling down" includes making stuff up and ignoring what was said?

There was not a single personal attack.

Read my earlier post first and talk to me about it.

Your whole post was a personal attack. Probably done because you had no response.

Try again.

 

[Katzpur]

He referred to unnamed "LDS scholars." That is normally a phrase that means apologists and not actual scholars. There is no reason to trust any apologist for any religion since they openly admit the flaw that no evidence will change their minds. Once one admits that he can no longer claim to be a scholar.

He didn't refer to LDS scholars at all, and for your information, an unnamed scholar (LDS or otherwise) means exactly what it says -- i.e. an unnamed scholar. What even prompted you to make the comparison is beyond me, since Prestor John never said anything about LDS scholars. Try to make your arguments against what your opponent actually said, for Heaven's sake.

 

[Prestor John]

Then why are even bring it up?


Your whole post was a personal attack. Probably done because you had no response.

Try again.

Talk to me about my earlier post.

 

[Prestor John]

Lack of appropriate sedimentary layers, lack of population bottlenecks, evidence of dry conditions extending continuously back for millions of years, etc.

There is no scientific doubt: there was no world-wide flood in the last 500 million years. I think that covers the Noah story.

When you think of "world wide Flood", what do you imagine?

 

[Polymath257]

When you think of "world wide Flood", what do you imagine?

A flood that covers the whole world? Such would have left extensive evidence, No such evidence exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Talk to me about my earlier post.

As soon as you apologize for the personal attack.

 

[Prestor John]

A flood that covers the whole world? Such would have left extensive evidence, No such evidence exists.

Wouldn't the extent of the evidence depend on how long the areas were covered with water?

I mean, if a region were only flooded for a day or two, you believe we would see evidence of that today?

 

[Prestor John]

As soon as you apologize for the personal attack.

I never made a personal attack.

Do you not know what a personal attack is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never made a personal attack.

Do you not know what a personal attack is?

Yes I do and yes you did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wouldn't the extent of the evidence depend on how long the areas were covered with water?

I mean, if a region were only flooded for a day or two, you believe we would see evidence of that today?

Water moving in and moving out of an area will leave evidence. The more water that moves the more evidence will be left behind. We can see evidence of far smaller floods that were older than the flood of Noah. Even with the toned down version that you believe in the evidence would be obvious. There is none to be found.