Summations Only

Do you propose a vastly different time frame from the standard 4500 b.p. flood and 6000 b.p. creation event? Because unless you do, the flood needs to account for the vast majority of the geological record, not just a portion of the Permian and the PT boundary. I would guess something like 90% of the geological record needs to be explained by the flood. 6000 years just isn't enough time to lay down all the other layers. As an example, the 1500 years from creation to flood is not enough time to lay down the layers of just the Carboniferous, let alone those prior to it.HBD

I see this thread is about to go into summation, but this should be a relatively easy question. If it requires a new thread, I can start one later.I saw a creationist video that claimed that there was no actual geological column - that it only consists of fragmentary pieces scattered throughout the world. Geologists assembled the fragments into what appear to be a column and that ...

quote:

---

For more than 100 years the geologists of all countries have cooperating in this endeavor and the total thickness of the stratified rocks now recognized would exceed 500,000 feet (95 miles) if all the beds were directly superimposed.

---

Now they seem to think that this disproves conventional geology and provides support to flood geology. But if the geological layers were laid down in a world wide flood, wouldn't the layers be much more uniform and evenly distributed throughout the world? Doesn't the fact that the different strata are dispersed throughout the world and not distributed evenly actually disprove flood geology rather than support it?HBD