Summations Only

I may have seen some answers, but nothing to back them up. There isn't much to take away. It appears that you really don't know much about what your flood left behind. I remember one YEC who told me that the flood was so devastating the it destroyed all evidence of its passing. That was, of course, very convenient for his argument. Arguing from the standpoint of not knowing much is always more frustrating than from knowing something about the subject material. So take your time.I'm curious however, as to your evidence that the Appalachians are the same age as the Rockies. If you get a chance, perhaps you could let us know. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

So you have lake sediments in the Claron. After the Flood. What IS your problem?

The evidence is that the timing fits the Flood timing and continental drift fits the Flood timing and continental drift is part of the tectonic activity that occurred after the Flood and raised the mountains and all that. There you go.

Then it leached upward, how about that.

There is blatant in-your-face evidence for the Flood in the Geologic Column and its bazillions of fossils. That is STUPENDOUS evidence for the Flood, which can only be klutzily explained away by OE fairytales about nonexistent time periods.Fossils are NOT being made at any rate comparable, and today's sedimentary rate which you brag about knowing is NOT the rate of the Flood deposition. So we don't need to find evidence, we have tons of it. It's just been co-opted by anti-Flood people.The creation scientists are also exploring questions about mechanism, but if there was no rain until the forty days and nights of rain and you don't know what the "fountains of the deep" are, you tell us how you would go about investigating these things. It's not that they aren't doing it you know. No, you'd be doing what we're doing.Abd of course you don't believe in God so your opinion is worthless.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They're really not, though, are they? All they're doing is speculating what coulda/woulda/shoulda/mighta happened, to reverse-engineer a Flood from evidence that doesn't support a Flood.And you're telling us that those speculations can not be tested, so there's really no "exploration" involved, is there? You're drawing a map of what could/would/should/might be there and at the same time you're telling us that there's no way to go there to confirm your map.

Evidence?You have none. All you have is belief and you're just making up whatever feels good to fit within that belief.Evidence is the last thing you either need or want.

As has been pointed out any number of times. That evidence is completely consistent with an ancient earth and no flood. And when viewed in detail, the arrangement of fossils requires Creation proponents to put forth inane explanations that do not work. That problem alone is enough to rule out the flood as a cause of the geologic column.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I recall somebody suggesting that birds are higher in the geological column than dinosaurs because they might have been riding on dinosaurs.
Henny Youngman must be spinning in his grave.

It's as sensible as any other thing they've come up with; There are a few clips of HY on youtube. I took the opportunity to watch a couple. Thanks

Poison the well much? I see that we have your opinion regarding evolution, but do you have any actual evidence for your own scenario. This is exactly what I suggested earlier when I said that YECs don't look for supporting evidence, they can only tilt at windmills. Your post itself is supporting evidence of that. Sure, if you assume they were deposited in 4ky years. However, can you imagine what it would have been like if all of those bazillions of organisms were actually alive just before the fludde? Of course I don't know what 'fountains of the deep are'. No one has ever seen one or even described one, AKAIK. Just another example of YEC science not doing its job. Well, I admit that you don't have much choice. However, I seriously doubt I'd do anything the YEC way. Why should I?

Good. Now you need a place to deposit the salt.

That's just a story. Until you have evidence to support it, you really have nothing but a sleeping aid.For instance, we know that there was emergent land elsewhere during the period of deposition of the GC-GS stratigraphic sequences.Oh wait! That's not part of your 'same data' package. You dismissed that weeks ago.

My problem is your inconsistency. You said that all of the sediments were deposited by the fludde and then the uplift and faulting occurred. But clearly. the Claron is post fludde because, as you stated, lakes and streams came after the fludde.I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

What wasn't clear to me is that you are apparently talking about the composition of the Claron layer itself as "lacustrine." At least I hope this clears it up. I just kept reading lakes and rivers on the surface which of course occurred after the Flood. So you want to know how lake type sediments got deposited BY the Flood? And my answer to that is Why not? The Flood would have deposited whatever was available to be deposited. OK? You aren't identifying what you mean by lake type sediments, is there any reason the Flood couldn't have deposited them?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.