Did the Flood really happen?

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

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

Okay, but don't forget that this is a sequence of diagrams intended to show everything that happens. It needs to be step by step. We can't advance forward by multiple steps in the process you're trying to illustrate without confusing people as to what happened. So we start with this: And then the granite mountain uplifts into these strata, and I showed it like this: But you don't think those horizontal strata belong there. I can remove them, but if they go away then we need a diagram before this one that shows where the horizontal strata went. They can't just disappear. If you describe the events behind these horizontal strata going away then I'll create a diagram that shows that happening.--Percy

Most strata are marine. Marine sedimentary layers were deposited on the sea floor, which you say is the wrong place. Yet continents are full of marine strata that you say is the right place. How do you reconcile the contradiction? You continue to not understand the vast expanse of oceans compared to land. Their extent is enormous. Why do you keep calling marine deposits small in extent?The depth of sea floor sediments will not approach that of land because it gets recycled back into the mantle through subduction. You forgot to say amen.--Percy

Not that anyone has noticed. We've seen you claim to have supported your position many times, but actually supported it? No. It is not true that all layers of the North American continent are the same as at the Grand Canyon. How could core samples from even the entire Midwest verify the geology of the entire continent? Still wrong. There are literally millions of lakes on the North American continent, mostly in Canada and Alaska, and most would be areas of net deposition. Basins are other areas of net deposition. A basin with no outlet to the ocean is known as an endorheic basin. There are numerous small endorheic basins in North America. The largest is the Great Basin which..wait for it...encompasses almost the entire state of Nevada where you live. How about that! Practically your entire state is a region of net deposition where the local column is growing: The conceptual worldwide geological column is of course always growing at the rate of one second per second: Local columns do not get relocated. They may get submerged and later reemerge, even multiple times, but they do not get relocated. That's ludicrous. Sea level again? When will you understand that sea levels were not the same when strata were deposited as they are today. That's even true in your Flood scenario.The geologic time scale is in Tennessee and everywhere else throughout the world (both terrestrial and marine). The local columns across Tennessee only represent subsets of the geologic timescale. That's interesting if you're correct that Tennessee has a continuous geologic column from Cambrian to Holocene, but if there's nothing before the Cambrian then that isn't all time periods, plus you might want to check your facts about that continuous column somewhere in the state. A quick poke around the Internet makes this seem unlikely. It doesn't bear on the discussion whether it really exists or not, but I am saying that you might want to check your facts.I didn't see much of anything in the geology of Tennessee that resembles the UK. What specifically did you find similar about them? You said almost nothing that was true. And even if it were all true, your conclusions do not follow from your supposed evidence. Basically you just said some random things and then stated some equally random conclusions. I never said anything like this. The geologic timescale is conceptual and worldwide, and local columns all fit within its framework. Of course sedimentation is continuing on the sea floor. That can't be denied. RAZD even presented a diagram showing how sedimentation depth increases with distance (age) from the mid oceanic ridge: This isn't a disagreement over facts. This is a disagreement with you about the importance of facts, and about how you're unable to bring any facts to the discussion, and that you're ability to build informed opinions is severely hampered by a god complex that leads you to think you personally define the facts.--Percy

This mischaracterizes one side of the discussion. You accurately characterize yourself as a YEC, and you take a YEC's approach, such as cherry picking facts to support views and declaring yourself the font of all knowledge, but we definitely are not Old Earth ToE defenders. It isn't the actual age of the Earth is or how species came to be that is important to us. We're advocates of the scientific method for gaining knowledge, and naturally we have strong confidence (as well as a lot of facts and rationale) for knowledge achieved using that method. Wherever the facts lead, that's where we'll go. If the facts led to the Flood then we'd accept Flood theory, but the facts don't lead that way, so we don't. There are no geological facts that support the Flood. That's why you spend most of your time running from the facts. You've ignored 300 messages in this thread so far, mostly ones full of facts, and of those you've responded to you ignore any points based upon facts. You're free to invent as much terminology as you like in Flood theory, but you cannot redefine the terms of geology. The terms already have definitions. We promote a science based approach. You know very little about science and are very poorly equipped to make judgments about what's untenable. You have no paradigm, just a bunch of stuff you made up. Not even other creationists buy what you're selling. You have no facts to stick to.--Percy