Did the Flood really happen?

Maybe not. But what I ask floodists is: How do you distinguish one big flood from lots of little floods? The evidence that we have is all we have to go on, so how does that evidence point to one big flood? Why not?According to the Bible, the flood waters rose for a while, during which there would have been erosion; then the waters were stable for a while, during which there would have been deposition; then the waters receded, during which there would have been erosion and deposition. It seems quite likely to me that there would be at least one distinct layer that would be, if not on 100% of the earth's surface, at least a very large part of it.

Why not? How are they evidence?You need to do more than just post random opinions. You need to back up what you say.

And they'll be deposited somewhere else. Who's talking about a million years? The flood only lasted one year. And it couldn't have been more than a quarter-million years ago because there were no people. If I ask and you don't answer, that's a reflection on you, not on me. If you don't answer, it looks like you don't know. Then you're wasting your time here.

Why not? They're still deposited during the Flood.

They should be. They should be much more widespread than river sediments or lake sediments. Even if there is no single contiguous layer that covers the whole earth, there should be vast areas that are easily distinguishable from lake sediments and river sediments.

Sure they do. The chemical composition will give clues to where they came from. A flood is not a magic eraser that removes all evidence.

Some of them were eroded BY the flood. Because different sediments come from different formations. Some of them come from sandstone, some come from limestone, etc.

That doesn't seem likely. The amount of sediment depends on how much material was in the water, how much water there was and for how long, etc. The Bible Flood would have had vast amounts of material in vast amounts of water settling out for a long time. We would expect a very deep set of layers to form before the water receded. The receding water would erode the fesh sediment to some extent but not enough to remove all traces.It seems like you're just making excuses for the fact that there IS no evidence of the Flood.

As much as the flood waters could hold. The whole world was ocean. The mud would settle everywhere. I live on a dry lake bed. The clay is up to 15 meters thick and has been there for thousands of years.

As I said before, the chemical composition of the mud will tell you where it came from. And you were wrong. The chemical composition is not changed by erosion. Erosion just makes smaller pieces.

Yes. That's what gives us clues about what comes from where. Well, IF there was a global flood, there ought to be traces of it. If there are no traces, you can not legitimately claim that it happened.

Thanks.

Since you don't seem to know what you're talking about, I don't see much point in asking you anything. If you have something to say, say it.

Nobody begged you to come here and spout empty opinions. If you have a point to make, it's up to you to make it. I'm not going to drag it out of you.So if YOU have any questions, feel free to ask. But don't expect to be treated like the guru on the mountain with all the answers.

Correct this: There is no evidence that there has ever been a worldwide flood while humans were on earth - i.e. the story of Noah's Ark is fiction.