Did the Flood really happen?

For the sake of discussion let's say that you are correct and that it is unreasonable to assume that any depositional environment could persist long enough to leave behind sediments of any significant thickness, such as seen at the Grand Canyon. How does that mean that contemporary sedimentary deposits on the surface of a geologic column are not in fact occurring atop the geologic column? If not atop the geologic column, what are they being deposited upon?We're not actually having a discussion now. We're trying to find some way to make your lightbulb go on for something that is incredibly obvious. I'm beginning to wonder if you haven't diverted discussion down this rathole because you want to avoid the thread's topic, showing the Flood actually happened.--Percy

He posted the definitions twice in these messages (and I notice in yet another message, but that occurred after this one):

• Message 770 (no reply from you)
• Message 857 (no reply from you)

Seems like you miss a lot of stuff. Your reply rate is dropping (alternatively, your "ignored posts" rate is rising).--Percy

People are trying a variety of ways to get you to engage in serious discussion, so far unsuccessfully. You're basically stonewalling all discussion.--Percy

What a marvelous researcher you are. "Fixed It For You" is the first response of a Google search.--Percy

How many pancakes in a short stack? Where is it defined how deep a stack must be to be considered a stack?Ocean sediments are very deep, as was already explained to you earlier in this thread. Here are a couple images of cores of marine sediments, the first going back to the K-T boundary (the end of the dinosaurs) and beyond: This is just Steno's Law of Superposition. Of course sediments above are newer than those below. But in your view the Flood deposited sediments on both continents and sea floor, right? So why would only sediments deposited on continents make up the geologic column? What is the column of sediments deposited on the sea floor part of if not the geologic column? The time periods exist in both marine and terrestrial strata. But in your view the Flood deposits were new 4500 years ago and were part of the geologic column, so if new deposits were part of the geological column 4500 years ago, why wouldn't new deposits today be part of the geological column? The geologic column is conceptual and worldwide, including beneath seas and lakes and rivers and streams. Wherever did you get the idea that unabashedly wrong assertions are evidence of anything? How? Your post is equivalent to the ironical, "See, I'm an ignoramus! Ba Da Boom." We know you're certain you're right, but that you can't seem to explain how you know you're right should tell you something. Find some evidence and organize it into some arguments for your position.--Percy

No, you have not provided any evidence. You've done what you always do, spoken a bunch of nonsense, then claimed it was evidence.--Percy

And yet Holocene sediments are being deposited on the sea floor as we speak. What are they being deposited upon if not the geologic column? This makes as much sense as, "Time is OVER AND DONE WITH. Ba Da Boom!"Your ability to make the most basic of errors is extraordinary, as is your apparent inability to experience no embarrassment while making them.--Percy

I don't know what problems would be introduced by defining the geologic column as existing only on continents. What matters is that it is not defined that way. You don't get to invent your own definitions. This is false even by your own erroneous definition. There is deposition at many places on the continents. All it takes is a basin. You're stonewalling and repeating yourself while ignoring the content of the messages you're replying to. Try responding to what people say.--Percy

Please explain (hopefully using information that is actually true) what it is that convinced you that a geologic column is restricted to the continents and is (in your words) "OVER AND DONE WITH" (whatever that means). Certainly stratigraphic columns are not over and done with. Some are growing (deposition), some are shrinking (erosion). As has been explained many times, but that you refuse to discuss, the sedimentary strata we see in stratigraphic columns precisely resemble the processes we observe taking place today. For example, sandstone is the lithified form of sand we see accumulating along coastlines today. We've compared them for you. Sediments accumulating today (primarily marine) precisely resemble the unlithified form of strata we observe in stratigraphic columns. Many strata obviously formed following Walther's Law, which is the same process we see taking place along continental margins today. If they're not the same then this is your opportunity to explain how they are different. It is evidence for nothing. You're just repeating a fallacy.Let me ask you something. If someone asked me for evidence of mass/energy equivalence, and I replied, "E=mc²," have I provided any evidence? If your answer is yes then why do you think so? How could the final conclusion arrived at by the evidence, namely E=mc², itself be evidence?--Percy

Your omniscience notwithstanding, at this forum you still have to support your position with evidence. We've seen no evidence of any paradigm on your part, just declarations of your infallibility. Everyone's been trying to engage you in an evidence-based discussion, but you are resisting these efforts for all you're worth.--Percy

You haven't offered any facts to rationalize away. Having offered your fellow debaters no facts to engage with they are forced to describe what it is you're actually doing, like avoiding facts, making things up, declaring yourself the definer of reality, and so forth.--Percy

I've supported my position many times. The geological column, let's take the North American ontinent, covers thousands of square miles. Its layers have been identified to be the same as those in say the Grand Canyon area by core samples all over the Midwest. The same layers, the same stack, the same Geological Column, miles deep. Nothing is building on top of it but a lakebed here and there, nothing even remotely in the ballpark. Relocating it to the sea bed removes it from its well known location. I Could point to the state of Tennessee which has a wonderful example of the Geo column from Cambrian to Holocene all lying down the same way the strata do on top of the sea level line in the UK diagrams. The "time periods" are all there, the column was built and then it was tectonically disturbed. AFTERWARD. Grand Canyon, Grand Staircase, Tennessee, UK. It's over and done with.That's it, that's the evidence. The Geological Column is a specific stack. It is no longer being built on. That's it, it's over.Since you think it is about time and not about the stack you will continue to disagree and claim its continuing on the sea floor until we've used up hundreds of pages. There's no point. I've given my reasons why it's over and done with and I don't see any point in continuing further. We disagree. End of subject.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It would probably be fair to say that "geological column" has more than one definition, and one of those is as a conceptual and worldwide geologic timescale that can be superimposed upon any columnar sequence of rock formations. Wikipedia's definition of the geologic column is very detailed. There's also a Wikibook called Historical Geology/Geological column that puts the geologic column in historical perspective.JonF provided a number of other definitions of geologic column, and you're using one of those, where each plot of ground has its own geologic column that is a partial representation of the conceptual geologic column of time periods.--Percy

This has been rebutted over and over, and instead of responding to the rebuttals you just keep repeating it. Repeating fallacies again and again doesn't make them true, and it isn't discussion, either.--Percy

This is just the typical problem between me the YEC and you all the Old Earth ToE defenders. I point out how the geological facts support the Flood, say, and that requires redefining some things, while you all go on insisting on the establishment view, which I believe to be scientifically untenable. This will just go on and on here as it does on every other debate topic because it is a paradigm clash and you aren't going to bend to what I consider to be the facts that overturn your paradigm and I'm sticking to mine.