Evidence of the flood

It was my question. If you can't accommodate that, then you shouldn't be asking me to answer an unanswerable question.I need some kind of a target.However, I will say that, IIRC, the Mississippi Delta has been forming since possibly as early as the Triassic, so it should be continuous since then at least.And it hasn't stopped yet.

Then you should show us the evidence that such is the case.

Well, that's kind of odd.I'm pretty sure that the fossil evidence would show that such is the case. Are you willing to refute actual geologists in the field? I'll track down the references if you are serious.

But they ARE the sediments that are loading the delta.Whatever are you talking about?

In that case, it appears you are saying that the Mississippi River stopped flowing for a significant period of time.I mean, we are attributing a certain set of sediments to the river and they are sequential, ostensibly deposited in the same way, so the river must have stopped.I have to say that I was actually surprised at the age of these sediments when I read the paper, but yes, they do have oil wells to support the conclusions.When the Appalachians began to erode, some of the rivers flowed out to the south and another system appears to have flowed west to form, ultimately, the great erg deposits of the Mesozoic. If you were serious, I'd do some more research and try to tie it all together, but I'm just concerned that you will simply dismiss my efforts.

Well, yes.And that is what we call an unconformity. There are thousands of them in the geological record around the world.

Okay, took me one minute.The lowest sediments in this section are upper Triassic and there is a continuous depositional sequence through the Pleistocene.

Here is another example of continuous sedimentation through the Mesozoic and into the Tertiary. I hope it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that sedimentation is continuing in the present.

Well, geological terminology is not something that one just jumps into after reading a few websites. The science is old and has a lot of terms that are overused and misunderstood even by people with degrees.Hence, the therm geological column becomes kind of a vague idea. Speaking precisely, I would prefer the term stratigraphic column. This would emphasize the fact that it is the rocks themselves that determine its composition and that each location on earth is different to some degree from other locations.The geological timescale is something different and simply denotes different time intervals in which the rocks were deposited. These are based on life patterns, or the types of fossils found during each interval. For instance "Mesozoic" means 'middle life', and Paleozoic means old life and so on.Now, of course, we are seeing the advent of the term 'Anthropocene' with an obvious meaning. I have yet to accept that since it seems a bit arrogant to assume that we will have a very long tenure on the planet. WE are not even a pixel on the screen yet.So the time scale is like a tape on which certain life patterns are recorded. Depending on where you are, you get different recordings, and in some places there is nothing to record while in others it has been erased by erosion.Consquently, there is really no such thing as THE geological column.Faith seems to think that the Grand Canyon geological column is essentially representative of the entire world, while, realistically, it isn't even representative of Arizona.

Well, that was predictable.So are you saying that there are no sediments being deposited on the bottom of the ocean now?Or are you saying that the end of the flood was in the Holocene?

In that case, where are the huge sandstone deposits of the Colorado Plateau in Great Britain? Where are the coal seams in the Superior Province?Sorry, note even remotely.

Why not?Please explain.

Once again, that is very strange. Other geological columns show the effects of erosion, volcanism and plate tectonics.

This does not answer my question.But what do you mean by the "actual geo/stratigraphic column"?

But Siccar Point proves you completely wrong.There is no requirement that lower layers are not disrupted prior to continued deposition above them.Why should I not show deformed rocks?Just because you assert that it cannot happen does not make it so. No. Volclanic rocks, for instance do not need to conform to any particular shape or size. There is no such requirement for a stratigraphic column. In fact, you will often see at the top of a diagram something we call Qal, which is recent alluvium. Still part of the column. Nonsense. Are you not presupposing a flood here?If there was no Bible, would you say the same thing?And no, deformation has occurred throughout the geological record and that fact has little to do with the stratigraphic column for any given location.You have been given a fairly large number of places where sedimentation continues in the same fashion as always. All you really have here is denial of that fact.