Did the Flood really happen?

Sedimentation of just ONE sediment that falls down from mountainsides just doesn't compute. Dirt, including the dust that settles in houses, isn't likely to be made up of a single sediment, and yet the strata are mostly composed of layered single sediments.Not to mention that this sediment has to form a huge FLAT STRAIGHT NAKED ROCK that covers the entire territory where you claim there was once a body of water or a landscape teeming with living things. It's an ad hoc idea that makes no sense.You don't bother about the Flood so you can just make up whatever you want that you think accounts for it. But a huge quantity of water accounts for it very nicely.AND again, it's impossible for there to have been a landscape where there is now a slab of rock in the geological column.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure, MOTLEY sediments accumulate in MOTLEY ways all the time. They don't make flat sandstone or siltstone or shale rocks that cover thousands of square miles as deep as your chalk cliffs.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh the things I've been "shown" here and laughed at. Some have made up tall tales about depths of dirt over a single sediment, whose collecting as a single sediment has no sensible explanation in the first place, not to mention its formation in the shape of a huge flat area that covers thousands of square miles. Anyway a great depth of dirt over it makes it lithify into the rock, and somehow the dirt itself doesn't lithify or if it does it becomes the next rock in the column meaning it too has to be of a single sediment and represent a whole time period....Look there is no way this scenario every happened. It's impossible. And if it did anything living on it would have to die. And only a particular collection of fossils are found in such a rock... Oh come ON, this is ridiculous.The Flood is the only reasonable explanation.

Sure if you include all the variations you can try to make what I said look stupid but I know all that and it's still true that most of the rocks are single sediments. The Coconino sandstone for instance is sandstone, not dirt, and it extends for huge distances and it's very deep. The limestones are limestones and they are also very deep and extend for huge distances. The mentality here would make a person wrong for not taking every little variation into account. The devil is indeed in the details. Try focusing on the big picture for a change.And instead of making petty little objections out of petty little facts how about addressing the FACT that it's absolutely impossible for any of the strata to ever have been a time period/landscape.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Most are very SLIGHTLY mixed but the homogeneous rocks, especially the sandstones and limestones, are typical and enormous. Besides the examples in the American Southwest think of the Tepui of South America and the Cliffs of Dover.Ya don't get a FLAT surface from lithification under a huge depth of dirt.Drat I can't remember what else I was going to say. Oh well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What's your problem? It's the same force that split the continents. Volcanic activity deep beneath them for one thing, the volcanic activity that formed the Atlantic ridge. It's been gradually dissipating for some 4300 years. The movements are continuing but nearly completely expended. Volcanic eruptions. It hasn't stopped. Why should it?No, you don't know what happened so your calculations can only be guesses.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm never talking about some kind of PERFECT homogeneity for pete's sake, this is just a silly straw man. The overall homogeneity is however only something the Flood could have done.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And oh wowsy wow, "erosion" again. Righto. The teensy weensy little roughtnesses on the surface of some of the strata that show the effects of run-off between the layers, which is shown in a few cases where there is some rubble between the layers == which in the Grand Canyon I think can be attributed to an earthquake that occurred after the strata were all in place; and the effects of shrinkage as they dried and lithified. Big wowsy deal.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Deposition over large bodies of water as an alternative to the Flood is really funny since it is actually good evidence FOR the Flood. And think of HOW large these bodies of water would have to be, in some cases covering most of a continent. Such a huge amount of water is evidence for the Flood. Seems to me that a lot of establishment Geology is just the piecemeal assembling of all the parts of the Flood, splitting it up into smaller increments over larger spans of time but really amounting in the end to what the Flood would have done in less time.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They were all deposited in water, and the idea of sand dunes getting compressed into a squared-off rock covering thousands of square miles is ridiculous. CLUE: it wasn't part of the impeachment, just made up after the fact as everything has been from the beginning.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They weren't sand dunes, they were sand and it was deposited in water, yes I know about the angle of repose, sorry but the sand was deposited in water.

Sure, the "unconformities" reflect the supposed "erosion," Duh.l Your rivers are very rare and all they are is runoff that occurred after the strata were laid down but still wet. Duh. They are channels in rock, they have NO OTHER RESEMBLANCE to surface rivers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It says do not add to HIS words, meaning add YOUR OWN words, but the New Testament is HIS words. The only thing on the level of scripture is His words. The Book of Mormon is human and demonic, and so is the Koran.And you follow what is appropriate to the situation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What keeps it from being just a temporary shoreline during the regression of the Flood?

If the riverbeds are in a layer of the geological column then they are rivers but not rivers like those on the surface of the Earth. Certainly there had to be lots of running water between the layers when first laid down, and such running water would cut channels and carry rubble and behave like rivers, but not be rivers such as we see on the surface. You claim they are proof of former surface but they aren't. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.