Did the Flood really happen?

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

Oh right, lakes and basins are all filling up with the same sediment at the same rate and will eventually all blend together into a single remarkably (I didn't say perfectly) homogeneous layer of the geological column without there being any evidence remaining of their shorelines, rim lines and so on. Yep, a perfect candidate for continuation of the geological column. Not.Yes of course sediment is continuing to be deposited on the sea floor. Which is not on the geological column.I refer to the sea level line IN THAT DIAGRAM , which shows the broken off strata above it arranged from left to right instead of as they would have been laid down from bottom to top, and the rest of those same strata arranged beneath the sea level line as we see them on that diagram. That is where they ended up and exist today and that is why I refer to that sea level line. In the Flood, just as in the Grand Canyon, the water would have continued some depth above the horizontal strata as you drew them, and were probably receding as the mountain was rising, making it very much the same kind of situation as I've argued was the case in the Grand Canyon. Sea level ENDED UP where it is and has stayed there ever since.I've made consistent use of the actual facts. This should end the discussion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : 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.

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

Evidence for that claim is in my description/definitioln of the geological column which is the only rational definition in this discussion.

Gosh a whole bunch of the usual personal attacks. Oh well. Having a different paradigm always means "not understanding science," of course, cuz science is defined by the establishment paradigm.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm going to draw my own sequence of events as I see them forming the current geological situation as we see it on that UK diagram, and hope to figure out how to scan them in and post them later.

I had another post further on that also addressed your "sediments in the wrong location" claim, and you responded to that one. I'll get to it eventually.--Percy

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

Correction: Nobody HERE agrees with me, OR No OE/ToE believer agrees with me.

If I have a stack of coins and I put a new coin on top, do I still have a stack of coins?

If you have a stack of thirty silver dollars and you put a dime on top of it -- or even three or four dimes -- are you continuing the same stack of coins?And if you have a stack of thirty silver dollars on the table and you put a stack of three silver dollars on the floor are you continuing the same stack of coins?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, Faith, yes you are. And in fact that is exactly what is seen in reality; stacks that contain different types of rock. Of course not. And in fact that is exactly what is seen in reality; the cores in the geological column from different places will have differing layers of rock.Thank you Faith, you have just agreed that the geological column is still growing and that no two geological columns from different areas will be exactly the same.It really is that simple Faith.The Flood and Young Earth are simply silly.

Faith, that whole world is the geological column including the sea floor. In fact the majority of the sedimentation is happening on the sea floor. Why don't you think that the sea floor isn't part of the geological column?

Ah well I HAVE explained it. Over and over. Really I have. Sigh.Let me ask this: If the whole world including the sea floor is the geological column how is it that the strata we find on the continents, from Precambrian to Holocene, are not also found on the sea floor? Hm?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.