Did the Flood really happen?

,,,Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah, and the rest are by Paul and Peter and James and Jude. And the OT is by Moses and Ezekiel and Isaiah and Jeremiah and Hosea and Jonah and lots more plus sundry unnamed scribes, but we believe it's all inspired by God. Yeah I guess so. We base it mostly on the scripture that says "all scripture is God-breathed." Yeah I suppose so, from your point of view of course. It's hard to see any point but we canl see how it goes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The maps and pictures don't do me any good, sorry. No idea what you are trying to get across. Maybe you could put it into words? Or draw some thick lines on the pictures or something or both?

Can't see the picture RAZD and even if I could I suspect I might not be able to make out what you want to show me in it.

This discussion is unfortunately one of those arguments just thrown in after I've been making other points, it's a change of subject and I'm expected to be able to follow it but there is not enough information, AND since I've been dragged into it when my mind was elsewhere I'm not really inspired to get into it at all.Now you give me the mystifying information, meaning descriptions without evidence, so I'm forced to ask, what is a "mature shoreline," and what are "wave cut shores" and why don't they fit the idea of the regressing Flood waters? It seems to me they probably fit quite well in spite of your hit and run assurance they do not. But the Flood took months to drain away, why wouldn't there be stationary shore lines in the process, including waves? But of course. And I assume the "evidence" is fossils, yes? Nothing "developed" in the Flood of course, though you often seem to think that is claimed, which it is not. There may of course be all kind of evidence that you are not reporting because it isn't of interest to the support of the Old Earth and the ToE. Creationists in the field might discover it of course but I can't go out there to look for myself. Anyway since the life forms are divided between the different environments it suggests more the rising of the Flood than the regression of the Flood. Please do not put words in my mouth. I said nothing to indicate the timing of a tide. I'm talking about a lengthy period of pausing during the regression. OR the rising of the Flood, hard to know at this point. And of coruse the shorelines were temporary, to refer to your title: they no longer exist, right?Since of course your terrestrial plants and animals are in fossil form above your shoreline, and the marine life etc is within the shorelines in fossil form, so ALL were overtaken by the Flood. If it was the rising phase of the Flood then it brought the marine life from the oceans onto the land and the terrestrial life moved to avoid the water.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The problem is I'm confined to whatever "evidence" you see fit to mention and I may not get the picture you are trying to convey. I forget the sequence of this discussion so I don't know how we got here and I don't know where you may be talking about a "fossil" river bed versus an active underground river for instance.But a river with few branches would be running on a relatively flat survace, no? Such as the surface of a sedimentary flat rock? However, if such a rock got tectonically distorted so that water might run from higher areas to the main channel, then it would have branches, no? I'm just trying to think this through. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't think in terms of buried surface rivers. I can't figure out how to explain them in relation to the Flood. Maybe if I rethink it I'll find it possible, but there should only be strata left by the Fllood beneath the surface, and there would have been water running through those strata, some no longer running, but some continuing, some of them looking like surface rivers. That's what I would suppose just based on what the Flood would have done.I don't mind being ignorant of the standard terminology if it needs to be different in order to express what I want to express. Sometimes the terminology can only express the prevailing paradigm, in which case it isn't useful for an alternative paradigm. If it says what I want to say then it would be best to use it of course.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Don't ask me. It's the others who are saying they look like surface rivers, not I. But I'm still not at all clear what exactly anyone is describing under which names.Different material than the layer above it? Doesn't seem difficult to explain to me. A channel is formed between strata and material from another location flows into it and being confined between the layers has a flat surface in conformity with the layer overhead . Limestone being the liquid filling the channel in many cases IIRC. In fact the liquid limestone is probably what carved the channel anyway, one dissolved limestone dissolving the one below.I've given the model for the Flood many many times. You've even read it, but you refuse to acknowledge it. I consider you to be nothing but a gadfly uninterested in real discussion.I've explained how I see the situation you described above. I don't think the FLood is necessary to that anyway. You've got two layers and the same process that forms karsts, the dissolution of limestone, is all it takes to form a channel with limestone flowing through it between layers. It's a channel more or less shaped like a riverbed but that's all it has in common with a river.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sand dune? Na, that's formed by water, like that famous formation I can't think of the name of. The Wave or something like that?

My problem with all this is that I really have no idea what you are talking about or why, what it has to do with the Flood or anything related. Thanks for answering my questions but I end up with a big "so what?"

that's why I said thanks for the answer.But it turns out to be uninformative in the end.

They would have to have predated the Flood then but I'd need to spend time on it and I'm not interested right now.

Yes, so somehow the information hasn't been useful for my purposes so far.. As I mentioned earlier, in discussions here I'm confined to whatever someone wants to present and unless I'm up to researching it independingly it may not be of use to me. This one was the usual change of subject after I'd made some point or other, and though sometimes I can get interested in pursuing such a change in this case it's not useful. Rather boring really. Surely you know I'm not going to take comments that deny the Flood seriously, I have to do my own research and I don't feel like it at the moment.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My purpose being to show how there's a better interpretation than the standard interpretation, which is usually the case when I can see the whole situation as it really is without the standard interpretation interfering.

You can't get the geological column unless the landscapes of the time periods somehow become the sedimentary rocks that make it up.