Did the Flood really happen?

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.

, your denial ought to offend even you.

Sound almost exactly like the position of one George McReady Price when Harold Clark, one of his prized students got off his ass and went to the field to compare what Price said against the evidence. Clark wrote back :

Forum: Geology and the Great Flood
Topic: Why the Flood Never Happened
Subtitle: Re: Palouse Canyon -- what extreme flood cascade flow does I believe you have created a false dichotomy for yourself. For you, it boils down to either the Bible is wrong or the evidence is wrong. But perhaps there is a third option... remember that the Bible (specifically Genesis in context of this discussion) was not written to twenty-first century, scientifically knowledgeable people, but to bronze age nomads who had just left Egypt and who God intended to make into a great nation, the nation he promised Abraham. Yes, the Bible was written for us but not to us. You must understand the Bible in the context of its original audience. I won't go into it any further here, but suffice it to say that the third option might be that you simply misunderstand what the original intention of the passages were. If that position is correct then both the physical evidence and the Word of God can be true. It doesn't have to either / or. No dichotomy needed.Back to the topic at hand, I found these charts in An Introduction to Geology. Its kinda old (1921 ?) so I'm sure more evidence has been added since then but he has some good illustrations spanning the time period we are talking about (particularly the unconformity between the Muav limestone and the Redwall limestone. (hatched areas = known deposits, black areas = exposed areas)Now for the purposes of this exercise, there is no need to assign dates to any of the layers, simply to recognize that they were laid down sequentially and to note the pattern of distribution. The order is:Cambrian (there is not a distribution map available in this book), Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian.
Ordovician: Notice there is a large circular area near the beginning of the canyon that has no Ordovician deposits but all around it there are? What can you conclude from that? Consider that we are talking about that area being uplifted at some point in the past. Does that area look like it might be higher than the surrounding areas (that were seas)? Could that be why there were no Ordovician deposits - because the land was above sea level?
Silurian: Notice the large area north and south of the GC that have no Silurian rocks?Devonian: Notice that there are Devonian deposits in the upper GC area but they aren't extensive. Further down into the canyon, they are more widely distributed. Does the distribution of rock in this layer look similar to the Silurian period but with more area under water? Could this be due to a rise in sea level?Mississippian (Carboniferous): Notice how extensive Carboniferous deposits are in North America. Most of the US and Mexico were underwater.
Muav limestone is Cambrian. Ordovician and Silurian rocks are missing from the formation. Devonian is represented by Tempe Butte formation. And Mississippian is represented by Redwall limestone.
Consider that the layers were laid down while they were under water (they are sedimentary rock after all). What do these distribution charts tell us about what the land was like during the times when the layers were being laid down?Bottom line is this ... How can a global flood explain these patterns of distribution? And how could that explanation do a better job of explaining this pattern than deposits made sequentially over an extended period of time (doesn't even need to be millions of years)?
Another point. I live in Michigan and we are experiencing glacial rebound that has been measured to be up to 15 inches per century in the northern Great Lakes region! that is more than 1/8" a year! I've never even noticed it. No bedrock cracking, no problem with our rivers flowing. Uplift is not as big a problem as you think. Yea, if it lifts 10 feet in a year - that would be a problem. But not a couple inches a century. Our world is pretty flexible.HBD

Faith writes:Oh but there would be no Flood rebound because it drained into the vaccume left by the fountains of the deep beneath the sea floor when the water started rising. That's the theory of the moment. You might try to keep up, jar. I would also suggest that the rising of the land from the rebound would go a long way to counteracting the rising of the sea water.

Again, if the Biblical Floods had ever happened we would have to see evidence of Flood Rebound many, many times greater than Glacial Rebound at ever point of the Earth.