Did the Flood really happen?

Those erosional and depositional features will not exist long. We need to think about something larger and more permanent. The oceanic water and oceanic basins ARE the evidences. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.

Flood deposits are loose sediments, they will be quickly washed away.
Flood entrench channels will last longer. But they will also be eroded away within one million years or so.I am repeating what I said. There is no qualified question to push me say anything more than that. It is not what I don't say. It is what you don't ask. I am NOT going to give any more information which you do not understand.

Then you will not recognize it as flood sediments.

Sediments deposited during the global flood are no different from any sediments we can see in our normal environment. Gravel, sand, mud, etc. The only way to tell that they are flood sediments is to look at their depositional structure. So, once the original deposit is moved (eroded and redeposited), the original structure is destroyed. They can not be recognized as flood sediments any more (they become river sediments or lake sediments or marine sediments etc. )I always try to answer genuine questions. Otherwise, may be not.

No. They are normal material. Once relocated, they don't have any tag to show the origin.However, your idea is good. There might be something in the sediments which can be used as a tag of the global flood. We do not know what it is. But this thread may deserve some study. However, it is not likely to find any support for the project.

Think: where did those sediments come from? They were sediments on the ground BEFORE the Flood. Why would they be different from other sediments on the ground?

They are normal sediments just like sediments laid down everywhere and every day.

It is quite amusing to see a layman's argument on geological process.How much sediments is available for deposition? They are in the same amount as the current soil on the surface. More precisely, they are the part of pebble, sand in the soil. The mud in the soil will suspend in water and be carried to the ocean and deposited in the ocean.So if you average out the amount of soil material and re-pave it on the surface, it would be much. May be a foot?How do I explain to you that loose sediments DO NOT stay on land for long (say, 100 years)? How about rain. Rain will easily wash them around and eroded them away, or redistribute them to river channel.

It is not likely to have that thick of soil (know why?). What you said should be the glacial deposit laid down about 5000 years ago.Not be ignorant again, I suggest you save your last sentence if you respond again.

That is good to know. Should be an exciting place.
The mud accumulated in there because it is the lowest place in the region. And, if those mud was laid in the surrounding high ground before, then it was eroded into this dry lake. Then you will not be able to identify which lump of mud came from which direction. Like I said, if sediment was eroded, then it lost the identity of its depositional locality.

You are stubborn.
Chemical composition of sediments are different everywhere. We do not know what does the chemical composition of the sediments look like during the global flood.

No.If you like to know why, then ask.

very good. you do can use dictionary. great achievement.

No question, no answer.
I am not begging you to understand.

If you said something wrong, I will correct it.