The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

Is there any evidence of the ENTIRE geological column being complete in atleast 2 different areas? And if not, how is it we come to the conclusion that we're just supposed to take the geologists word for it?Is this thread still open for debate? Or shall I say was it already beat to death?

This is what I was talking about. Unless im misunderstanding something. The gelologic column doesn't exist then? Or it's sorta different layers of sediment? found at different times around the world and pieced together according to there estimated dates?Im asking because in some places the "column" seems to be "missing" and the "non" believers in the flood say it's due to erosion?Sorry for the confusion, im still learning how to properly use the quote box's. This is an exchange between Calypsis4 and another poster.It's Message 141 by Calypsis4Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Clipped much of the text out of the quote box (left the first part) - See the source message for the entire content.

Thanks, Iv'e made it up to message 166. So i'll be there shortly, and probably see the error in my comment.

Well ok, I think I fully grasp what the geological column actually is
now. It's sort of like piecing a puzzle together from all over the globe and simply calling it the geological column based on time periods, dating methods and well, what roxrkool said.So, I guess if I were to rephrase my question it would simply be, where is the flood layer? Maybe? . So, is it at all possible since most of the world is covered by water, a lot of the evidence of the flood could be barried under the ocean floors, if in fact we aren't finding any evidence on land? Or "enough" on land? Im sure almost everywhere in the world has been under water at some point in time and that there are areas that would say so but can it be certain it wasn't all at once at some point in time?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Let me correct myself on my previous post. I DO NOT fully understand what the geological column is. I have a good idea tho, for now.

Coyote, thanks for the links. I will look at them. I havn't been on for a few days and didn't get a chance to respond till now and will give a more detailed response after I look at the info you provided. Sorry for the late response. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Coyote, the channeled Scablands article was interesting in a lot of ways.I see your points and all I can say is are the dates accurate according to how they dated these localized floods? I can't refute your argument based on the dates of these local floods. I have no proof of the worlwide flood when it comes to "regular" Science. All my info is from guys like Steve austin and Creationist sites.Is it possible that all of the waters from the flood are in the oceans today? The mountains were "hills" before the flood and didn't "sprout " up till afterwards because of plate tectonics?Or catastophic plate tech? The earth's surface was maybe a little more level back then. Also the water poured into the deep valleys in the oceans afterwards when tectonic movement took place.So basically the moutains rose and the valleys deepened which poured most if not all of the water back into the oceans. IMO.

What type of geologic formation would demonstrate that plate tectonics didn't happen to cause the mountains to rise up? Or that the flood didn't happen?To make a long story short, it's senseless for me to try to hypothesize without being able to provide evidence. It's also senseless for me to answer a question with what I think may have happened. I believe the flood happened but not knowing what the earth looked like before the "flood" how would I know how the evidence against it is supposed to look?Im Obvioulsy not a geologist and have no hands on experience. A lot of us "cretins" hypothesize but that's it. Im not going to break any new ground here im sure. I've read every post here and it's all the same theme, suggestions with no evidence except to say "here's a picture of me next to this rock so the flood happened".Creation Scientists' are working on flood theorys all the time. There is one from 2007 that is really interesting (to me). It's a lot of reading(which im still doing) but if anyone is interested, here are the links for them. It would be interesting to comment on some of the material (if anyone is willing) but havn't finished reading all the material just yet, it's still sort of new to me but will be prepared hopefully soon to do so.Regarding taqs' questions and everyone elses, I don't mean to brush off questions, but I also don't wish to look like a fool explaining things im not prepared to backup with reliable evidence that would satisfy anyone here.Flood transported quartzites: Part 1east of the Rocky Mountains - creation.comFlood transported quartzites: Part 2west of the Rocky Mountains - creation.comFlood transported quartzites: Part 3failure of uniformitarian interpretations - creation.comFlood transported quartzites: Part 4diluvial interpretations - creation.comEdited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

You really took my ENTIRE comment out of context. Do you always try to twist what other members say and or bully them? Are you under the impression that im on this thread to try to inform everyone here why and how the flood happened from MY perspective? Here's a thought, instead of cherry picking things i've said TRY to keep my comments in context. It really isn't hard.As for declaring my opinion as informed and using what I said about NOT knowing how the earth looked before the "flood" how would I know what things are supposed to look like? As an example (since you like to cherry pick and forget everything else i've said regarding how I said I "lack EVIDENCE" to back up MY opinions which you overlook and instead try to demean) if the earth was LEVEL or less "mountainess" before the SUPPOSED "FLOOD". Possibly the mountains TODAY are WAY higher than then and catastrophic Plate Tectonics could have caused the mountains to rise and ocean valley's to sink but I can't know for sure because I wasn't there. So that's why I said it would be nice to know how it used to look. I know YOU/Scientists say they've been rising a few inches a century or so? So it must have been millions of years for them to form like they are now. HENCE the debate. I know you think there is no "debate" but that's why your here right? To debate or just shout down? I can't stand arrogant know it alls even after people admit they have a lot of work to do finding supporting evidence. It's a HYPOTHESIS. You know what a HYPOTHESIS is? I didn't say it was a proven THEORY. YET.So now, you are bringing me into an argument about ideas and opinions i've already expressed and am learning not to just say things without sufficient evidence AFTER I already said I have no theory to support it. Are you just jumping in or have you been following along? If you've been following along then you're a playground bully and should stick to the coffee house and free for all and stick it to the Creationists' over there. IF you have a shred of humility and can see that EVERYONE is NOT as smart as you then stick around, you might actually lean how to be a decent human being and how the 'FLOOD" really happened, after I get the evidence, of course. The truth doesn't hurt. As the reason everyone is here IS because they WANT truth. It's only people like you that don't care about truth but instead relish in the showing of everyone how wrong you think they are.

Wow, you do know this is a debate site right? Force anti-rational crap? YOU are the only one forcing crap on people here, and why? Because your DAUGHTER happened to hear about a different view other than yours? That's YOUR problem not mine. Take your anger out on someone else. Maybe you should settle into the fact that your daughter may not believe the same things you do, it happens, it makes the world go around you control freak.About you taking me on my word and thinking it's not your problem im wrong well, you must have been born with all of the knowledge you have now. Not me, im still learning. I know how to admit when im wrong and how to search for answers I don't yet have. The reason you can't see that is because your the total opposite. You have to much pride and not enough humility to admit error.The best thing for your daughter is that she get a wider view on how people reason and come to conclusions while maintaining that they don't know it all. The only way she'll ever learn that is by getting as far away from you as possible.Thanks for bringing the simple comment I made a few comments up and taking everything in it off topic. As a veteren member here you should know better. As a new member here well, I don't know any better, yet. I only go by what I see. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : spelling

Dr. Adequate, excuse me for this example as it's a flood article BUT when it's comes to the TOE evolutionists often/always say TOE deals with already EXISTING life and not it's origins. We are often refered to Abiogenesis if we want "answers"/guesses that deal with origins.When it comes to matters of Creation tho, that doesn't seem to jive with the evolutionists. Are we to dismiss all evidence of what we can actually see until we know exactly where the water came from?Or how it started? If the TOE did that there wouldn't even be a theory! The fact is that there are things that can't be explained properly if attributed to localized flooding(based on the articles I provided)."The distribution of quartzite gravel, cobbles and boulders on the mountaintops, ridges plateaus and valleys of northwestern USA and southwest Canada."I'd say it's more than enough "evidence" that suggests something BIG happened that isn't happening today and it wasn't due to anything local. I guess by dismissing the content of the article(s) and using the word "magical" is easy enough. I wish we were afforded that same luxury.Anyway, thanks for taking time to read the links I posted. Im not being difficult but making a point. I feel it deserves a little more respect than simply brushing it off as unreliable. They are dealing with certain specifics of the "flood" and not steps 1-900 in that order.If you can study/research/test/observe already existing life and form a theory I see no difference here. It's atleast worth exploring IMO.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Zen, well now that there are THREE of you I have no choice.Thanks for suggesting it. Im on my way to read it right now, and yes, I will let you know what I think.

Sorry jar, this isn't the religious section. If I can't use the Bible as evidence for The flood (or anything for that matter) then you can't use it as evidence against it. If you want to go over to the religious section and discuss verse by verse exactly how the flood happened, what took place, how many "clean" and "unclean" animals were aboard etc etc. then ok. jar, how do YOU know that the mountains we see today AREN'T evidence of a Catostrophic flood caused by CPT? Im not talking about already existing moutains being raised up due to flooding. Im talking about them being FORMED because of it. Are you following along? Your comments aren't exactly doing anything to add to that idea.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Thanks percy, for checking it out. I realize some of it is a little simplistic, but I don't feel all catostophic events need to be put under a microscope and examined to the very last itty bitty detail in order for there to be some agreement on the matter. Some things can just be observed and being well, catastophic in nature.The new thread is a good idea, and I'll consider it.

Sorry folks. It's not a falsifiable theory so I can defend it. I tried and failed. Hopefully someday they'll find the ark or something or the bones of Noah who knows, for now I admit I have no proof but it was fun "debating" with you all. Im in over my head and obviously look like a fool arguing my points.Im going to try to stick with things I have a better grasp on, this NOT being one of them. Sorry for wasting everyones time, but thanks for amusing me anyway.