Evidence of the flood

Yes it is too much of a stretch. I see nothing being deposited on top of the Holocene.

But it is representative of what happened in the Flood as is every other stratigraphic column. The strata were all deposited one after another in rapid succession during the Flood and that re

But it is representative of what happened in the Flood as is every other stratigraphic column. The strata were all deposited one after another in rapid succession during the Flood and that represents the entire extent of the Geo Time Scale everywhere.

WHY SHOULD THE FLOOD HAVE DEPOSITED THE SAME THING EVERYWHERE? AS IT IS IT SEEMS TO HAVE ALMOST DONE THAT ANYWAY BUT THERE'S NO REASON IT HAD TO.

THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE SAME FORM AS THE ACTUAL GEO/STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN, BUT NOBODY WILL ANSWER MY REQUEST TO PROVE IT, WHICH I TAKE AS EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I AM ABANDONING THIS THREAD. IT HAS BECOME THE USUAL INSANE DISCONNECT. THIS IS A PARADIGM PROBLEM AND IT CANNOT BE RESOLVED HERE.

THEY ARE NOT ONE SINGLE SEDIMENT WHICH SO MANY OF THE STRATA IN THE STRAT COLUMN ARE, FOLLOWED BY A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SEDIMENT THAT OFTEN DOESN'T BLEND OR MIX AT ALL WITH THE OTHER, AND THEY ARE NOT FLAT FLAT FLAT LIKE THOSE STRATA, EITHER ON THE TOP OR THE BOTTOM. THE COMPARISON IS ABSURD. SAME WITH LAKE BOTTOMS. IF THE GREEN RIVER VARVES BELONG TO THE STRAT COLUMN THEN THEY WERE FORMED IN THE FLOOD AND CERTAINLY NOT BY ANNUAL TWOS.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

THEY ARE ALL THE SAME IN BASIC FORM: FLATNESS ON TOP AND BOTTOM, OFTEN UNIFORM SEDIMENT, OFTEN TIGHT CONTACTS BETWEEN RECOGNIZABLY DIFFERENT LAYERS.

ONLY AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE LAID DOWN.

WHY ARE YOU GIVING EXAMPLES OF DEFORMED STRATA? THOSE PROVE THAT THE STRAT COLUMN IS A UNIT THAT WAS ALL LAID DOWN BEFORE IT WAS DEFORMED, AND THE ONLY WAY IT COULD SERVE AS A BASE FOR FURTHER STRATA ABOVE THE HOLOCENE IS IF YOU COULD SHOW THAT THE NEW DEPOSIT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THE STRATA BELOW. ALL THE STRATA ARE THE SAME IN FORM, THIS IS SHOWN IN EVERY CASE, SO IF YOU CLAIM THE COLUMN IS ONGOING ALL NEW LAYERS HAVE TO CONFORM TO THE OLD. WHICH IS RIDICULOUS BECAUSE THE STRAT COLUMN IS A UNIT, IS ALWAYS A UNIT, AND IT'S OVER AND DONE WITH. IT WAS LAID DOWN IN THE FLOOD BY CONTINUOUS DEPOSITION, DEFORMED AFTERWARD, AND ANYTHING BUILDING ON IT IS SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

THEY DON'T "LATER HAVE THE EFFECTS OF SURFACE EROSION!" YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY NEVER UNDERSTOOD ONE THING I'VE EVER SAID ABOUT THAT CROSS SECTION, WHICH I SUSPECTED LONG AGO.LOOK AT THE CROSS SECTION. THERE IS NO "EROSION" UNTIL THE CANYON AND STAIRCASE WERE CUT AND THEN THERE IS MASSIVE "EROSION"THE MAGMA STARTS AT THE VERY BOTTOM AND PENETRATES TO THE VERY TOP -- OBVIOUSLY BEGUN AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE. I'VE EXPLAINED THIS HUNDREDS OF TIMES ALREADY WHEN THIS CROSS SECTION HAS COME UP.I ALSO ARGUE THAT THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY FORMED AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE AND HAVE ARGUED IT IN GREAT DETAIL.I REJECT THE WHOLE IDEA OF INVISIBLE UNCONFORMITIES AND THERE IS CERTAINLY NO EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS THAT COULD HAVE OCCURRED ON THE SURFACE.IT IS SICKENING TO HAVE TO START ALL OVER EXPLAINING WHAT I'VE EXPLAINED SO MANY TIMES ALREADY TO SOMEONE WHO NEVER BOTHERED TO UNDERSTAND ONE WORD OF IT.THIS COULD BE MY PROBLEM OF FAILURE TO SAY IT CLEARLY ENOUGH THOUGH I EXPLAINED IT ALL SO MANY TIMES I DOUBT IT, NOW YOU ARE COMING ALONG KNOWING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF IT. BUT WHATEVER THE PROBLEM THERE IS NO POINT IN EVEN TRYING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THIS DEGREE OF MISCOMMUNICATION. WHAT A PATHETIC JOKE DEBATE AT EVC IS.

OH GOOD GRIEF. A SLIGHT SLOPE THAT IS NOT EVEN VISIBLE DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT OF THE FLATNESS I'M TALKING ABOUT.THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU AREN'T INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M SAYING.THERE IS NO POINT IN THIS DISCUSSING. THIS IS SICKENING.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I NO LONGER BOTHER TRYING TO EXPLAIN THINGS I'VE EXPLAINED A MILLION TIMES BEFORE TO DEAF EARS AND CLOSED MINDS. YOU HAVE SAID THE MOST IDIOTIC THINGS ABOUT MY ARGUMENTS OF ANYBODY HERE. I'VE MADE THE CASE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER HERE AND PEOPLE WHO SUPPOSEDLY READ IT SAY SUCH STUPID THINGS ABOUT IT THERE IS NO POINT IN TRYING ANY MORE. THE CASE HAS BEEN MADE, IT'S ALL THERE IN PAST THREADS FOR ANYBODY WHO HAS ANY REAL INTEREST, BUT IF NOT WHO CARES.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, all edge was doing was repeating the standard explanation with which I disagree. ALL strat columns everywhere were laid down and THEN erosion, volcanism and all the other disturbances occurred.And the volcanism at the bottom of the GC also occurred after the strata were all in place just as the Great Unconformity did. And I've explained my thinking on this a million times and if you never got it that's just typical for you. You should at least know what my argument is after all this time with a million restatements of it and you don't. That IS your fault, the usual inability to think.No you don't understand any of it, and you cannot rebut it. All you can do is repeat the idiotic standard interpretation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Most of the creationist-evolutionist debate doesn't involve new evidence. It's all about different interpretations of the same facts held by both sides. Such as: Evos look at a wall of strata and see millions of years; I look at it and see rapid deposition/ the Flood.There is a sense in which there is new evidence, however, since I would point out different features of, say, a cross section of the Grand Canyon area, than an evolutionist is likely to notice, to show that it supports my interpretation and not theirs.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.