The TRVE history of the Flood...

Hunh? What are you talking about. This is an unsupported assertions as far as I can tell. Where is your evidence that no one could respond? Do you have any awareness of the literature regarding plate tectonics (I assume this is what you mean by 'continental drift')? Not sure. There isn't much to grind on here. Okay, where does the Bible talk about volcanoes and earthquakes and the enormous amount of heat shed by this recent event? You are kidding ...

By your lack of a counter argument, I'd suggest all of them. Why do you ask?

Or it could be that parts of the geological column were deposited this way. In fact, it shows the construction of a single bed which may take many years or just minutes. How long it took is completely irrelevant to the length of the geological record.

Of course no claim of rapid continental "drift" will be considered without at least a reasonable estimate of the heat produced and its effects.

Okay, now I see why no one responded. This all just silly. Hmmm, not very detailed stuff.You realize that when geologists say 'it came from great depth', they are always telling a joke.Can you do a little better than a joke? Well, we can tell you that this is what is happening today.So we know that it does happen.On the other hand, catastrophic plate tectonics has consequences that would sterilize the planet by shedding a huge amount of heat in a short time. The oceans would probably boil away. Sorry, you're still on the launch pad. No on said that they don't know. Most of them are probably wondering where you came up with this stuff.

And this came from where in the Bible?

"I'm not geologist, so one of them will have to answer this specific question."
So roll a die.1 Fossils and Animals
2 Marine Fossils
3 Varves
4 Disease Germs
5 Fossil Sequence
6 Overturned Strata

I picked number 5 and gave you a link to a thread where it is discussed.

edge, you're trying to rationally explain geological processes to a person who is convinced and sincerely believes that the Cambrian is a layer...and that the Cambrian "layer"globally occurs beneath the surface everywhere... you really might as well try to have a rational conversation about geology with a parrot.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Evolutionists deal with biology, not tectonics.Tectonics fall under geology. Not biology. Tectonics don't deal with evolutionary theory.

Actually, Mount Everest contains marine fossils in the highest of the exposed sequences. Marine strata form part of the highest peaks of the Himalyays. Those fossils were fossilised in the rocks; not on top of them. Those fossils form part of the Himalayas. And those rocks, containing those marine strata with the fossils, still go higher above sea level at a rate of about 15 mm per year. It's measured. "Sea" rocks and fossils containing them and all...they grow up to be high above sea level. It's called plate tectonics.You really should read a scientific book sometime, CRR.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Since edge the swashbuckling geologist is back, smiting creationists right and left and giving no quarter, I thought I'd bring up another subject that I don't think ever got fully discussed. I could be wrong but anyway we can always have a review. I need an explanation. This is about the "cratonic sequences" of six seas that came and went during the Phanerozoic Era, one after another, usually illustrated something like this: I'm unable to decipher those charts but I can figure out at least that they describe six different transgressions of the sea over North America one after another during the periods indicated.We start with the shallow Sauk Sea. It comes and goes from the pre-Cambrian into the Ordovician,over about 100 million years, then the Absaroka starts and comes and goes for another 100 million years or so and so on up the Geological Time Scale.I think these are all shallow seas? And periods of erosion are indicated on the chart, but I really can't grasp exactly what the chart represents, what is supposed to be going on. Perhaps someone can explain that for starters. ANYWAY:
Observation: Each of these seas lays down strata. The transgressions may be limited to one area in particular. The sea stays for a while and then regresses and eventually along comes another transgression. Observation: The strata are being built up one on top of another in each of these periods. Deduction: That means the depth/height of the stack of strata is growing with each transgression. (Using the Grand Canyon area as the model, the strata ultimately reach a height of three miles or more.) Deduction: If the strata are continuing to grow higher and higher that means each new transgression has to rise higher than the previous to cover the previous sedimentary deposits and lay down new deposits. Observation: By the time the Tejas sequence has regressed in recent time the six seas have come and gone over some 540 million years, and the strata have climbed to over two miles.I skimmed Wikipedia entries for each of the transgressions but somehow missed answers to my question: Question: Which is basically this: By the time the whole stack of strata has built up to the Cenozoic level the sea would have to have risen almost as much as it would have in Noah's Flood, only in large increments at a time, and over a hundred or two million years in most cases. Rise to that level, deposit sediments over those millions of years, and then recede, and then return again to a yet higher level. If Noah's Flood is supposedly impossible, why are all these sea transgressions possible? Almost as much water would have been involved, rising and falling six times and each time to a greater depth/height. If it's hard to imagine the mechanics to explain the Flood it is just as hard to explain these sea transgressions at higher and higher levels. Yes?I eagerly await the complex rationalizations laced with snarky insults.My suspicion: This is all evidence for the Flood in reality. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : Correct grammarEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Interseting, Faith, but it is so different than the rocks I studied. We don't have the Tejas or Zuni or Absaroka or any of the rest of those names or anything really equivalent to those.I'm still trying to figure out why you think that what happened in North America could indicate a global flood?

But do you have a series of sea transgressions over the period of the Phanerozoic?To answer your second question, the water would have risen high enough to swamp every other continent, no? abe: Note that although the sea transgressions are all shallow or very limited in extent, they ARE sea transgressions, which don't happen only to one continent but have to affect all; and each occurs at a higher level than the previous until the uppermost has to rise over two miles to lay down the Cenozoic sediments. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This one is funny. Anyone can have views, Faith. Any view, Faith. Crazy views, Faith.Empirical, verifiable evidence for you view, Faith. That would matter.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.