A little normal imagination ought to be able to tell you that much just because nothing like it ever occurred before or since. That's obviously how one knows it was different.
But that's not evidence, particularly when you can't tell us what the flood was like.
The effects it left would of course be within what we observe of the planet's condition, but how the Flood operated simply cannot be compared with a river or any local flood. Really, edge, how could it be, a Flood that inundated the entire planet?
So, what effects are those? Everything we see is explainable by normal, mainstream interpretation.
What was different about your flood?
And it ought to be pretty obvious that when you are talking about a one time worldwide event that nobody reported on scientifically at the time, so that all you have is a few scanty descriptions, that you are left with speculation, so that the scientific approach to that would be to work with the known facts of the world you do know about, in connection with what is presented in the only report we have of that one time worldwide event.
But speculation is not fact. And you have given us nothing as far as 'known facts' about your flood.
I have no problems with speculation, nor with imagination, but they are not evidence.
I'd grant you that you with your geological knowledge should do better at this than I do, but you don't believe in it so you don't bother and you spend your time coming up with objections to it, but if it is real as those of us who believe in it of course take it to be, then we work with what comes to hand. And I believe that once you know it happened you see it in everything on the planet. I do. I see it in the strata and the fossils, and the tumble-down appearance of things. The world screams worldwide Flood to me, the more so the more I get some idea of how perfect, green and lush the original Creation was, from which the planet we have now has fallen.
A screaming world is not evidence. If you showed me some actual evidence that could not be explained by mainstream science, then you might have a case; but so far, you have shown me nothing.
What's with the phrase "in the middle of?" As I've answered many times the idea is that the sediments come from the land mass that was saturated at the beginning of the Flood, and the limestone from the ocean, as per Walther's Law according to the first version of this thread. Sand, silt, clay, carbonates, the spectrum that ended up in the sedimentary rock. If the ocean lays down separated sediments as it transgresses the land, according to Walther, it makes sense to me that it did so with the sediments available in the Flood water.
So, your sediments came from a land mass that existed during a global flood.
And a one-year flood gave us thousands of feet of limestone.
So, did the dinosaur track just occur on the lang masses that existed during the flood? And the evaporites occurred from dessication of lakes during the flood, also?
Of course you don't. Again, what's with that "middle" bit? My guess would be that they leached out of the surrounding rock after deposition of the whole stack, but a more knowledgeable geological thought on how it could have happened would be welcome.
You mean like, "the flood never happened"?
Please give us your mechanism for 'leaching' of the salt and deposition in nice pure strata.
Figure the rock was full of water at first, which carried down through the layers whatever chemicals were in it, those that would have contributed to the lithification of the rock over time for instance, and salts and whatever else was there as well. Imagination, hypothesis of course. Haven't worked on it much but there's what I've thought.
You need more practice. Dewatering does not occur in a downward direction.
A few would be the depth, ...
How was the depth different? Do we not have deep oceans now? Do we not have thick accumulations of sediments now?
... the fact that there were no boundaries to it just endless water, ways it would move according to tides and currents and probably long breaking waves before and after the land was inundated, ...
We don't have those now, in the ocean? What would be different and how would the waves create different features? Evidence, Faith...
... movements we don't see in rivers and small floods and that sort of thing.
What movements are those? Don't you see that you are just making stuff up?
Full of sediments that killed creatures by the bazillions, buried many of them in the layers on the land, in conditions perfect for fossilization.
Do we not have fossils forming today?
Show us what was different back then, in the form of evidence, of course.
Those occur rather high up in the stack rather than at the bottom of the ocean, and the best guess I'm aware of is that they occurred between tides or waves of either the transgressing or regressing ocean.
So, once again, you are saying that there were land masses during the flood? Do you know how many high tides there are in a day? How did dinosaurs build nests and raise young in less than 12 hours?
Of course they would. That's all one CAN do with the unwitnessed prehistoric past. That's all Old Earthers and evolutionists do with their scenarios of different time periods and the flora and fauna they imagine to have lived then, with the geological scenarios of those past ages too, all conjured up from stuff found in the rocks. The theory of how the dinosaurs were supposedly wiped out depends on this layer of iridium found at the surface of a particular layer that probably came from a meteor. That's it, that's the basis for the fantasy of a global catastrophe brought about by the meteor that did them in. You've got the iridium, you've found a large meteor crater, you've got the dinosaur fossils and the rest is imagination.
So, basically, you are saying that evidence is over-rated and that pure unconstrained imagination should be the basis of theories. I disagree.
You have been given reams of evidence in this forum, including the iridium layer. And you simply dismiss it. What about the old 'same evidence, different interpretation' canard. How can you justify that when you just refuse to address evidence?
Just as you have to imagine how millions of years of erosion did it all instead, how the Missoula flood cut the scablands and so on. You just don't seem to appreciate how much of your work involves nothing but imagination based on a clue here, a fact there.
Actually, I don't just imagine it, I have data such as known sedimentation rates and radiometric dating, etc. So far, you have shown us nothing but, 'it was a really, really, really big flood!'.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
