Did the Flood really happen?

Sure, the "unconformities" reflect the supposed "erosion," Duh.l Your rivers are very rare and all they are is runoff that occurred after the strata were laid down but still wet. Duh. They are channels in rock, they have NO OTHER RESEMBLANCE to surface rivers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sure, the "unconformities" reflect the supposed "erosion," Duh.

---

Please explain why you consider it supposed erosion. What else could it be?

quote:

---

Your rivers are very rare...

---

Really? They seem fairly common to me. Please present your evidence.

quote:

---

...and all they are is runoff that occurred after the strata were laid down but still wet

---

That seems rather implausible if the Flood supposedly deposited the sediment filling them and the sediment above them - in some cases a considerable depth.

quote:

---

They are channels in rock, they have NO OTHER RESEMBLANCE to surface rivers.

---

Really? How many have you examined to determine that? What features are absent? With actual examples, please.

So you claim but again, just as with the Bible, the evidence shows you are simply wrong.This is a fossil sand dune and it is impossible for water to create anything like this. Only wind blow sand does this. Now if you can present a model, mechanism, method, process or procedure for either of the Biblical floods to create that formation, here is your opportunity.The idea that there was ever a world-wide flood at anytime when humans existed is a silly as claiming the Bible does not have errors, fallacies and contradictions or that it is not simply the product of humans.

... based on evidence.

quote:

---

The Western Interior Seaway (also called the Cretaceous Seaway, the Niobraran Sea, the North American Inland Sea, and the Western Interior Sea) was a large inland sea that existed during the mid- to late Cretaceous period as well as the very early Paleogene, splitting the continent of North America into two landmasses, Laramidia to the west and Appalachia to the east. The ancient sea stretched from the Gulf of Mexico and through the middle of the modern-day countries of the United States and Canada, meeting with the Arctic Ocean to the north. At its largest, it was 2,500 feet (760 m) deep, 600 miles (970 km) wide and over 2,000 miles (3,200 km) long.

​

Western Interior Seaway during the mid-Cretaceous, about 100 million years ago

​

At its largest, the Western Interior Seaway stretched from the Rockies east to the Appalachians, some 1,000 km (620 mi) wide. At its deepest, it may have been only 800 or 900 metres (2,600 or 3,000 ft) deep, shallow in terms of seas. Two great continental watersheds drained into it from east and west, diluting its waters and bringing resources in eroded silt that formed shifting delta systems along its low-lying coasts. There was little sedimentation on the eastern shores of the Seaway; the western boundary, however, consisted of a thick clastic wedge eroded eastward from the Sevier orogenic belt.[1][2] The western shore was thus highly variable, depending on variations in sea level and sediment supply.[1]

​

At the end of the Cretaceous, a continuing uplift in a mountain-building episode called the Laramide orogeny hoisted the sandbanks (sandstone) and muddy brackish lagoons (shale) — the thick sequences of silt and sandstone still seen today as the Laramie Formation — while low-lying basins between them gradually subsided. The Western Interior Seaway divided across the Dakotas and retreated south towards the Gulf of Mexico. This shrunken, regressive phase of the Western Interior Seaway is sometimes called the Pierre Seaway.[1]

---

By google for Cretaceous inland sea images I find several showing different stages of innundations. Based on evidence of sea plants and animals, fossil shorelines, etc.Enjoy

No resemblance to real rivers except for the piddly little trifles like channels, riverine sediments, banks, deltas......Hell, Faith! Read up at least at the 11th-grade level on what you’re planning to write about before you start typing. There are hundreds of fossil riverbeds just in the oilfields of northern Oklahoma alone. The sand made some of the really good reservoirs of the last century - and were easy to find besides!

Plus sand comes from eroding rocks that were higher than wherever the sand is found. Before you can get sand you first gotta build mountains and then wear them down.

Not that the Bible has anything to do with this topic, but anyway: Proverbs was written at various times prior to the 3rd century. Ringo quoted this: Doesn't this invalidate the entire New Testament?Of course, there are problems with Proverbs, e.g.: Which to follow? As the scarecrow said, "Of course, people do go both ways."--Percy

It says do not add to HIS words, meaning add YOUR OWN words, but the New Testament is HIS words. The only thing on the level of scripture is His words. The Book of Mormon is human and demonic, and so is the Koran.And you follow what is appropriate to the situation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What keeps it from being just a temporary shoreline during the regression of the Flood?

If the riverbeds are in a layer of the geological column then they are rivers but not rivers like those on the surface of the Earth. Certainly there had to be lots of running water between the layers when first laid down, and such running water would cut channels and carry rubble and behave like rivers, but not be rivers such as we see on the surface. You claim they are proof of former surface but they aren't. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Rivers underground carve out very different channels than rivers on the surface do.It's trivial to tell the difference.Typical underground: Buried rivers: Current surface rivers: Note the branching pattern. The second two have similar structures, the buried rivers were once surface rivers. The first is an obvious odd-man-out and has always been underground. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

,,,Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The evidence that it is a mature shoreline, including wave cut shores

quote:

---

(Salinas-de-Chao View to the west along the ancient shoreline)

---

and evidence of marshlands and of terrestrial life and aquatic life on each side of the shoreline and amphibians in the marshes. Evidence of this at several different levels, each many many years to develop the mature shoreline ecological profiles. What regression? A regression is more than just the tide going out Faith, it is an extended period of time during which terrestrial plants and animals inhabit the land and shallow water marine life (seaweeds, clams, etc) inhabit the water.Where does the bible say there is a regression? One flood, one 'regression" --- when it goes away.Or are you making stuff up again? (hint: you're making stuff up again).Enjoy

Really? Aren't, for example, the first four books of the NT not by God but by men: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?You'll argue that they were just conduits for God's word, but that's just an unsupported claim. I know you'll go on to say how many esteemed Church leaders have believed this (which is true) and showed it true (which is false). All you've got is a "50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong" kind of argument, an argument which has been wrong over and over again throughout history.But we probably shouldn't have this discussion in this thread. Perhaps move to the The Bible: Is the Author God, Man or Both? thread.--Percy

Yeah, and the rest are by Paul and Peter and James and Jude. And the OT is by Moses and Ezekiel and Isaiah and Jeremiah and Hosea and Jonah and lots more plus sundry unnamed scribes, but we believe it's all inspired by God. Yeah I guess so. We base it mostly on the scripture that says "all scripture is God-breathed." Yeah I suppose so, from your point of view of course. It's hard to see any point but we canl see how it goes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.