Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

I'm never talking about some kind of PERFECT homogeneity for pete's sake, this is just a silly distraction. The overall homogeneity is however only something the Flood could have done.

---

I am still convinced that you are heavily overstating the homogeneity. But what makes you think that the Flood could have done it?

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.

quote:

---

Don't ask me. It's the others who are saying they look like surface rivers, not I. But I'm still not at all clear what exactly anyone is describing under which names.

---

Funny. In Message 1381 you were claiming that the buried rivers were just channels in rock which have NO OTHER RESEMBLANCE to surface rivers. How could you make such a claim if you weren’t aware of the actual examples?

quote:

---

Different material than the layer above it? Doesn't seem difficult to explain to me. A channel is formed between strata and material from another location flows into it and being confined between the layers has a flat surface in conformity with the layer overhead . Limestone being the liquid filling the channel in many cases IIRC. In fact the liquid limestone is probably what carved the channel anyway, one dissolved limestone dissolving the one below.

---

I guess you failed chemistry then. Calcium carbonate isn’t very soluble so a calcium carbonate solution isn’t going to be very good at dissolving calcium carbonate.

quote:

---

I've given the model for the Flood many many times. You've even read it, but you refuse to acknowledge it. I consider you to be nothing but a gadfly uninterested in real discussion

---

Jar was asking for a model that explained why rivers forming underground would look like surface rivers. Even if you had a viable model of the Flood (and I don’t think you have anything more than a collection of ideas, some of them entirely ad hoc) it doesn’t address the point.

quote:

---

I've explained how I see the situation you described above. I don't think the FLood is necessary to that anyway. You've got two layers and the same process that forms karsts, the dissolution of limestone, is all it takes to form a channel with limestone flowing through it between layers. It's a channel more or less shaped like a riverbed but that's all it has in common with a river.

---

By your own admission that doesn’t explain the rivers that are being discussed. So what’s the relevance?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I guess you can’t keep track of the conversation.You asked: Message 1389And you were answered.

Funny that you asked the question if it wasn’t important.But RAZD was pointing out the shorelines of the Cretaceous seas, and his evidence shows that not only were there shorelines(show8ng that there was dry land then), but they persisted for long periods of time.That’s not exactly possible during a one-year Flood - even if you hold that those shorelines lasted the entire year it would be nowhere near long enough.

quote:

---

Yes, so somehow the information hasn't been useful for my purposes so far..

---

Yes, because you’re doing apologetics not science. Evidence that contradicts your Flood geology is not useful and should be discarded.

quote:

---

As I mentioned earlier, in discussions here I'm confined to whatever someone wants to present and unless I'm up to researching it independingly it may not be of use to me.

---

Aside from the things you make up, that is. And have made up rather a lot in this discussion. The claim that buried rivers lack the features of real surface rivers was a complete invention, for a start.

quote:

---

This one was the usual change of subject after I'd made some point or other

---

No, RAZD was showing that the deposition over large bodies of water was not good evidence for the Flood, just your usual trick of taking an extremely superficial view of the evidence and ignoring everything else (which can NEVER be good evidence). Message 1384If you want to say that the discussion of shorelines was a change of subject - you changed it, in your reply Message 1389

quote:

---

Surely you know I'm not going to take comments that deny the Flood seriously,

---

Which outright admits your prejudice. Why, then, should we take your silly Flood geology seriously - or any of the other ideas you’ve failed to adequately support?.

quote:

---

My purpose being to show how there's a better interpretation than the standard interpretation, which is usually the case when I can see the whole situation as it really is without the standard interpretation interfering.

---

Then why do you so often use arguments which rely on seeing very little of the situation? And why are so many of your claims untrue?Name one case where genuinely seeing the whole situation shows that your Flood geology better fits the evidence than mainstream geology.

quote:

---

Refusing to understand what people say or see what people show you, and then ignoring it, could lead to making the same wrong arguments over and over.

---

It already has. Faith has already repeated her insanity about the surface returning to stone, to name only the most extreme example (and it isn’t the only example in this thread).

Your assertion is just a diversion. The fact is that mainstream geology does not state that the surface turns to stone instead stating that lithification requires deep burial. And you have no excuse for not knowing that.If you are going to use idiotic falsehoods that is your problem. You ought to be honest with yourself and admit to it. That you won’t only shows how deep the problem runs.

quote:

---

Your deep burial scenario is impossible, that's the point.

---

Obviously untrue. If that was the point you would be arguing against it instead of repeating a silly strawman.

quote:

---

You have to end up with the geological column and that won't accomplish that, nor will any scenario you could dream up.

---

Your Flood certainly won’t do it. And your use of a strawman hardly suggests that you have much of a case against the actual mainstream view. Again, the fact that we find actual surface features in the geological record - including features which take considerable time to develop - shows that the mainstream view is far closer to the truth than anything you’ve offered.

quote:

---

Interesting of course how all you do is attack me personally. Yo

---

You chose to answer a post which pointed out that your refusal to Learn was causing trouble. And your reply was an evasion. Dishonestly trying to cover up your faults is not a sensible strategy here - yet here you are doubling down on it.

quote:

---

You can't make any scenario work so you attack me.

---

I don’t have to make your strawman scenario work. All I have to do is point out that it is a ridiculous strawman. You don’t have to dishonestly rep,y to side comments, yet here you are whining that you were caught dishonestly replying to a side comment.I - and others even more - have produced quite a lot of substantive posts. If you want to avoid criticism then stop bringing it upon yourself. Answer the substantive points honestly - with intellectual honest as well as the more normal sort. Don’t repeat idiotic nonsense you made up.

And there’s deposition on the shoreline and in the rivers and on their flood plains and in the deserts and in places where the wind carries loess.To look at one particular example of deposition and say that it can’t account for the geological column is to refuse to look at the whole picture.

quote:

---

Geo column not confined to disparate bodies of water, it extends over thousands of square miles straight and flat, no shape of curved bottoms of bodies of water. I

---

Really ?

quote:

---

I shouldn't have to describe this, your denial ought to offend even you.

---

Why should we invent the things you want us to believe, and why should we be offended by the fact we don’t?

quote:

---

Different sediments in different places but no signs of the shapes of lake bottoms or river bottoms etc.

---

You’ve been shown examples of river bottoms, and I doubt you’d know what a buried and lithified lake bottom should look like.

quote:

---

There is no comparison whatever between the geological column which is a stack of flat mostly separated sediments that is found all over the world and not in bodies of water but everywhere.

---

Except for the comparisons actually made. Including these in this thread,Really Faith, we do not have any duty to pretend you’re right. If you want to look silly that’s your problem. I’d rather stick to the truth.

quote:

---

Some of you people need to get honest for a change and stop trying to muddy up this discussion.

---

Oh look, unfounded personal attacks. Coming from someone who posts complete nonsense and then objects to anyone talking about it. From someone who boasts about being regenerated by a conversion to Christianity, no less.

quote:

---

There is NO evidence whatever that any of the strata of the known Geological Column, abstract or not, local or not, has ever been shown to have sloping sides like a lake or a river bottom.

---

Now that is an attempt to muddy the waters. You’ve seen river channels in the geological column, with sloping sides. And nobody claims that a river channel would be an extensive deposit in itself. Big rivers can have multiple channels (especially at a delta) and tributaries but that isn’t a single channel covering a wide area. The river’s food plain would extend over a much wider area, but that obviously wouldn’t be a river channel.

quote:

---

They are ALL straight and flat, straighter and flatter than any lake bottom or riverbed, and cover hundreds to thousands of square miles, a lot more area than the biggest lakes known, both the marine and the terrestrial strata

---

False. Strata can be of limited extent.

quote:

---

Hey Coragyps: Your field is oil, right? You know about the geology of oil country, you must know about this core information I refer to above, since it was necessary for finding oil, yes? Why are you taking the side of these obfuscators? Yeah I know you like the ancient earth crap, but look at the data about the strata itself.

---

Because he knows that you are telling falsehoods.

quote:

---

The topic WE ARE DISCUSSING is whether the geo column could have been formed in small bodies of water

---

Parts of it certainly were, parts of it certainly were not. That isn’t hard to understand. If you want to argue that none of it was,then you need to deal with the specific examples. That shouldn’t be hard to understand either.

quote:

---

None of the strata would have been formed in isolated bodies of water if they were formed by the Flood which of course they were.

---

Except of course some strata were formed in isolated bodies of water. Because they weren’t formed in the Flood - the idea that they were is just daft. Even if the Flood happened it wouldn’t form the strata we have.

quote:

---

Cores are specific examples, and anywhere you find a partial column there is never a sign of a sloping edge either.

---

You’re saying that the examples of river channels you have been shown don’t exist?

quote:

---

Shouldn't there be something like that even in the Grand Canyon which is I think eleven miles across at its greatest width? Even somewhere along its 270 mile length? Nada.

---

Even if the Grand Canyon happened to cut through a former lake bed, do you think that you would know about it? How? And would you recognise it?And what if the edge were lost to erosion as appears to be the case with the southern edge of the Claron Formation ?Anyway, here is a nice illustration of strata from Nepal