Did the Flood really happen?

Yes. We'd expect to see erosion in the layers UNDER the Flood-deposited layers. No. Mud doesn't fold. No. An earthquake can cause a tsunami but not a worldwide one.And the Bible is explicit that the Flood was caused by rain. Most important (to me) is that the Flood evidence would have to be EVERYWHERE. We have evidence for relatively small floods all over the world. Your challenge is to find evidence of ONE BIG FLOOD, not just evidence of "floods".

Oil is a BIG problem. I do have questions. Who can help?

Contemporary local floods do show both features of erosion and deposition. (you can not have one without having the other). However, may be in your imagination, a global flood should produce similar features but in a super large size. This is a misconception. It won't. In most cases, it won't even make flood features larger than any local flood. During a global flood, most place on the earth would simply see a gradual rise and fall of quiet water. It is quite similar to the flood we usually see along the downstream floodplain of Mississippi River.We probably can not find any geological evidence of the global flood. Except may be the unusual abundance of seawater.

Start a thread. I don't think we have one specifically about oil "problems".

So you're done here.

quote:

---

During a global flood, most place on the earth would simply see a gradual rise and fall of quiet water

---

I think that would depend on the cause of the Flood. If it is primarily rainwater, delivering 1100 feet of rain in 40 days and nights would require more than 25 feet of rain every day. Everywhere. If the area is restricted the amount of water delivered in those areas where it did rain would have to be accordingly greater.

quote:

---

It is quite similar to the flood we usually see along the downstream floodplain of Mississippi River.

---

Doesn’t that deposit sediment in the flooded areas? And if it lasted longer, should there not be more sediment?Of course, the flood story is a myth and taking it literally is a mistake, and that’s why I wouldn’t expect any evidence.

I think the main source of water is from the "fountains of the great deep". Can you imagine people at a few thousand years ago wrote this wonderful term? It is simply amazing.We can approximate how much water could be given by the rain. The saturation moisture in the air could be much higher than it is today due to a possible denser atmosphere. And the temperature could be some degrees higher. Today, the water stored in the air is approximately the same amount of surface water on the land. Anything deposited during the global flood is likely to be eroded away in a very very short geological time. They are not special substance but are normal sediments. They get washed into the ocean and no one can tell them apart from sediments of other sources. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I think the main source of water is from the "fountains of the great deep". Can you imagine people at a few thousand years ago wrote this wonderful term? It is simply amazing.

---

Of course it is a translation, so the exact wording is more like a few hundred years old.Do you have a workable explanation of these fountains of the deep and any evidence that supports them supplying this volume of water?

quote:

---

We can approximate how much water could be given by the rain. The saturation moisture in the air could be much higher than it is today due to a possible denser atmosphere. And the temperature could be some degrees higher. Today, the water stored in the air is approximately the same amount of surface water on the land.

---

Of course in the story the rain water is allowed through the firmament (the windows of heaven, another poetic phrase - but if the fountains of the deep are literal, why not the windows of heaven?).

quote:

---

Anything deposited during the global flood is likely to be eroded away in a very very short geological time. They are not special substance but are normal sediments. They get washed into the ocean and no one can tell them apart from sediments of other sources

---

There are enough areas where it would be preserved that I think you should be able to detect a period of widespread and short-lived flooding, on a global scale. Not in every location, of course, but in every region.

I don't like to do multiple answers in a post. So I only pick this one to reply. If you like to talk about the other two, we can do it later. New flood sediments spread on land, will be quickly washed into channels, lakes, swamps, and other environments of deposition. Once they are remobilized and redeposited, they can not be recognized as the original flood sediments any more. All sedimentary environments on land will also not last longer than one million years or so. All flood sediments will be ended in ocean.It is hopeless in trying to identify sediments laid down by the global flood anywhere on land.(Needless to consider all kinds of facies variation of the deposits.)

What do you mean "the water stored in the air is approximately the same amount of surface water on the land"? My geology book says about 0.001% of Earth's water is in the air, less than 3% on the land, 97% ocean.

quote:

---

New flood sediments spread on land, will be quickly washed into channels, lakes, swamps, and other environments of deposition.

---

This seems to be a very questionable assumption. Floods are not automatically erased from the record, and this flood was supposedly a bigger event than most. Even if it was erased in many places it is not going to be erased everywhere.

quote:

---

It is hopeless in trying to identify sediments laid down by the global flood anywhere on land.

---

So, according to you even local flooding will leave no trace?

Water on land includes running water (river, lake), groundwater and ice. Surface water means running water.

Good point. That is what I said. Don't forget that I have limitation of time. Of course you can see flood sediments one day after the flood.

quote:

---

Good point. That is what I said

---

Interesting that you said that it would leave the same traces as local floods when you meant that it would leave nothing.Of course catastrophic local floods have left some very severe mRks on the landscape - the channeled scablands of Washington. These investigators were able to find evidence of ordinary flooding in the sediments they examined. The flood produced coarser-grained sediment.So, it is far from clear that a violent, deep and long-lasting flood would be impossible to detect, at least in areas which experienced net deposition after the flood.Of course, there are other lines of evidence which also rule out the flood as a literal world-wide event - which is likely why (in my experience) old-earth creationists often prefer to interpret it as a local flood.

Erosional landform last longer and is a better indicator for large flood. Just like you said, the channel scablands is a good example.But, like I said, the current landforms are mostly younger than one million years. The channel scablands are mostly likely eroded out of shape within one million years. Probably in two million years, that particular landform will disappear. Can anyone find flood related erosional landform older than 2 million years? Not likely.