Did the Flood really happen?

Look at what I bolded in the "quote"

She literally can't. She is unable to detect any difference between her inventions and reality. She believes deep down in her soul that repeating claims is discussing and supporting. See Message 920 where she repeated her claim that the geologic column does not exist under the sea floor as "evidence" against the definitions that contradict it.

Part of it does. Just as part of it is in the Southwest US.If you insist on a complete column to be part of the geologic column you are excluding almost all of the land. Including your beloved Grand CanyonIf you will accept an incomplete column as part of the geologic column, define where the cutoff is and justify your choice. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Geologic processes unavoidably produce the geologic column. No more geologic column requires that geologic processes not be active.

Big problem. That definition is incompatible with the definition everyone else uses, and the six versions I have posted. You don't get to redefine standard and widely used terms. Nothing else is necessary to define something, but that something is not the geologic column of long and widespread use.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

So all the world except you is wrong. Quite a delusion. We do have a strong tendency to require evidence before changing our minds, especially when redefining standard and widely used terms. So far the only evidence produced is your sincere and strongly held belief. That's not convincing.(Remember repeating unsupported claims is not evidence. I do expect you to ignore this and repeat your claims.)

We've explained why your claims are "completely made-up bullshirt nonsense" over and over again in many different ways. All you've done is repeat your claims.Do you at least admit that nobody but you accepts those claims? Not just here, but worldwide.Who but you believes those claims?

Mindless repetition of unsupported claims.. You got nothing but the fantasies in your head.The geologic column underlies every point on Earth, by definition. Your feeble attempt to change the definition is obvious. There are no wrong places. Anywhere deposition is happening adds to the column, no matter how small. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The geologic column is indeed a very specific thing. It's defined as I have posted so many times. It is not what you claim it is.Will you ever figure out that intrminably repeating you claims is not evidence for them?What you need is a definition from some reputable authority that agrees with you. Or examples of being used in the liter in your sense.But no such things exist. Since you never can admit err, you're stuck.

It's not evidence for your claims. That's a description of some layers intermixed with more of the same unjustified assertions. That's one of your claims. Your claims are not evidence for your claims. That's one of your claims. Your claims are not evidence for your claims.Once you remove your infinitely repeated unsupported claims, you have an uncontroversial and unrelated description of some formations.Your claims are inconsistent with the universal definition of the geological column. You haven't addressed and obviously cannot address that fatal flaw. You are wrong. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

That's one of your claims. Your claims are not evidence for your claims. That's one of your claims. Your claims are not evidence for your claims. You can't say anything else. You can't say "here's a definition that agrees with me". You can't say "here's a quote from someone who knows using it in my sense." Nobody in the world agrees with you. You can't say anything that would support your claims because your claims are wrong and unsupportable.Saying it is not supporting it. Your inability to understand it is not a valid criterion.

Not even YECs agree with you. One of the definitions I posted and which agreed with the mainstream definition came from Answers in Genesis. Another came from Conservapedia (Conservative Wikipedia). Both are very strongly creationist. AIG is one of the largest and best known YEC organizations. NOBODY agrees with you, no matter their religion or opinion on the age of the Earth and life.

What evidence, and in what way does it support your claims? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

That is one of your claims. Your claims are not evidence for your claims.Also your ignorant incredulity is not evidence for your claims.

Another unsupported assertion including a gratuitous derogatory adjective. Your determination of reality is highly suspect for many reasons. In this case,