The TRVE history of the Flood...

Well I am, and for all I know David is too, looking at real-world evidence (not scientific theories but physical observations) -- it's what I've been arguing here and everywhere else I've argued this -- observations of the real world.

Since these observations call the Old Earth model into question, they also call the dating methods into question, so you can't just keep pointing to those methods as if they trump everything else.

So you're saying one can't make any true observations about say conditions on Mars unless one has been there? Or a geologist who has studied one feature of his science in great depth can't arrive at any true observations about some other facet of the science he hasn't actually experienced? Or nobody can talk about the molecular formula for water without having seen the oxygen and hydrogen atoms actually doing their thing? Did I have to be there when the apple fell on Newton's head to follow his analysis of the event? Is it possible to know anything about anything in the past when all that's available is written documents and maybe some photographs?

Also, I suspect that a person could spend a lifetime in the Grand Canyon and not understand how it formed.

Proving a negative?

The evidence for the Flood is gargantuan, worldwide, starting with the sedimentary strata that were laid down one on top of another across huge spans of geography, obviously deposited by water, showing very tight contacts between them, razor sharp in many cases.

Then there was the amount of time erosion would have had since then to carve various figures out of the deposited sedimentary rock. 4500 years just about exactly the right amount of time to carve the hoodoos and the monuments and the Grand Staircase and so on.

CatsEye's refusal to address the evidence because I've never taken a pickaxe to a rock;

The receding water would have scoured off those huge plateaus.

It's commonly believed here but the actual observed facts of the strata don't fit that long-term scenario but are best explained by rapid deposition. The strata are laid one on top of another quite straight and flat, there is nothing about them to suggest there was ever anything like a normal earth surface to any of them, they are flat as a pancake stretching over huge distances and stacked to huge depths.

Cats Eye, add to the discussion without all your crap comments.If you dont know history thats your problem. If you have numerous billion years of missing links and eras. Again thats your problem.Get your crap together, and explain your history, in solid form.And please no one liners, it shows your lack of depth ....Start your luck and chance thesis off, with maybe your summation....that all human history is by luck and chance and there has never been and never will be any rhyme or reason or design to history. Suggest there is NO DIRECTION OF TIME, and its all just hit and miss MISTAKES of man never learning anything.Sum up your thesis, rather than making crappy comments against others and me.

Now back to the true dating of the Great Flood, the catacylsms that Darwin so well noted and documented.

Meanders have nothing in common with the widest parts of the canyon.

Notice any similarities today, as man still hasn't learned his lesson, even though reuniting under a new one world
language through translations on line. Why, because man in his arrogance when united, is dangerous and so way back
then, the Lord divided their languages so that they could no longer communicate to each other, and therefore had to leave
off building their proud work of the flesh. So the Lord brought them back down to Earth, and divided them into
linguistic groups and separated them into the four corners of the earth .... and then it seems at the very same time era
divided the Earth into new continents, so as to further keep them apart.The Lord commanded the animals and people after the Flood, to breed abundantly and they obviously did as well as
redistributing themselves over the face of the remaining dry land. But after this redistribution, expansion and biological
explosion, then came the Tower of babel and the language separation.So maybe at the same time, there was a shifting of the geological plates, some raising and lowering as the waters
receeded downwards. And so surely after these great land mass had drained and dried out, there could have been a
dividing of the Earth. It can't be absolutely be proven, but the very real possibility remains.

They don't have to be "uniform," just originally laid down flat, as Morris also said.

And yet, we see Faith say the same thing over and over again, that these sedimentary units are 'flat' with parallel top and bottom, and are continentally extensive.

I know this is a quote from edge but I'll answer it here. I have never said anything about them being parallel top and bottom to some degree of perfection, but you can look at them and see a GENERAL parallel form and that's all I've ever meant. All I've ever said is that they are originally laid down horizontally or "flat" across the flat continent, which is what water would do.

So what? The point is that they were originally laid down flat,

The point is that mainstream Geology says that the layers represent time periods, (Cambrian, Devonian, Permian, Jurassic, etc) or groups of layers do, and they will point to minuscule amounts of erosion between some layers to prove it,

Yet they claim those time periods persisted over millions of years. No, their actual appearance is of sediments laid down in water one on top of another

and sometimes they have those extremely razor tight contacts. That is not what you'd get from a surface that had been on the the surface of the Earth for lmillions of years, or even ten or one, or a month.

What on earth is your obsession with "compaction?" Of course they were compacted. So what?

The fact is they were. You should stay out of discussions you haven't been following.