Summations Only

You have clearly demonstrated several of the impossible consequences of her flood deposition hypothesis. If she was an honest debater she would acknowledge the flaws, but that would mean she would have to abandon the whole thing and that will never happen.She will never address the issues you have pointed out and will continue to brush them aside or continue to misinterpret and minimize those issues. Plan on being frustrated.

If, If, If, If,But, it could and it did and it does, and it still is forming.You can not point to one single valid point you have made in all of your 12941 posts at EvC that shows that the strata could not have formed exactly as Geology and Science say it has. It only looks like that to you because you have never actually looked at any strata anywhere. You have never studied Geology or read a geology book. The only place you have seen any strata is in fantasy "experiments" that you make up in your head and that have no resemblance to reality. There is not one shred of evidence anywhere on the whole planet that such a flood ever took place. If such a flood ever did take place it would not leave strata that looks anything like the actual strata that we can see.We know what floods look like, big floods and little floods and none of them leave behind what we see in the kilometers thick sedimentary layers on this planet.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

In this post you talk a lot about the flood water receding. Can you explain a little bit about how that happens and where the flood water receded to?

So, what's with all the facts? Do you think Faith hasn't figured all this out? She's got all the answers to the big picture. And if she is right about the big picture, then you are just going to have to come up with a better explanation for all those insignificant facts.

I bet it was actually evaporation.

You kind of got steamrolled on this one.It is a shame that once everyone gets up to speed and starts pointing out all the flaws in your argument, you pick up your marbles and leave.There are always details, consequences, clues, evidence, that will be left by any events in the geological history. We can predict some of the evidence we should see if various hypotheses are true. When we discover details that do not fit with our hypothesis we have to figure out what it means and how it will change our hypothesis. The devil is in the details.That is where you go wrong every single time you participate at EvC. The details that are flaws in your argument, you ignore, but if you cannot explain them your whole argument falls apart.You accuse us of misunderstanding your argument and repeat it over and over. You seem to think that is the reason we disagree with you is a lack in understanding. We understand you just fine. Your hypothesis just is not that complicated.Understanding does not mean agreement. We disagree with you because you are wrong. Too bad you have not answered any of the particulars. The past is only unknowable if you never actually study it, and sitting in your living room with your silly mind experiments is not studying it. That should read "some of the strata require water for deposition, but there is no evidence of a worldwide flood."Happy Holidays!

That is right, finally. They were at the bottom of the sea when they were deposited, so there was not much disturbance during the million and millions of years that their deposition took. Whenever any of the layers were exposed at the surface erosion took place. That was the only time there was erosion. You do realize that it is just a graphic representation of the strata, don't you? It is not an actual map of the strata.There are some sections of exposed strata where you can see nice level layers, but there are huge stretches that show all kinds of disturbance. The straight level stretches are not the rule.I wish you had posted some photos of the specific stretched of strata you are talking about, along with the exact localities.It is interesting that quite a lot of the trip I made down through the area last May went past parts of the terrain depicted in that cross-section. I came south past several volcanic cinder-cones into Snow Canyon, just north of St. George, Utah. Then I went east through Hurricane, Utah, where there was a long line of tilted and uplifted blocks of crust. The areas right around them are experiencing a housing boom. From there I went southeast into Arizona to Jacob Lake and then on past the Vermilion Cliffs and Marble Canyon. What spectacular scenery all along the way!

Ok, if YOU say so, it must be true. Atheos and I agree about the formations he was specifically talking about. The physical properties of sand clearly demonstrate the the formations he was specifically talking about could only have been formed aerially, when the layers they formed on were exposed on dry land, and could not have been formed by any kind of flood or submersion. This is one of those facts that falsifies your scenario.If your hypothesis cannot explain the real world observations then it is crap. If you keep insisting it is true in the face of overwhelming and obvious flaws, the you are deluded and probably should take a break.When you come back all those flaws in your ointment will still need to be explained.

No it isn't.The flood is physically impossible the way you describe it (none of which is in the Bible).

That was pretty much at the beginning of the industrial revolution and the coal they found then was exposed at the surface or discovered as a result of mining for other minerals.

Nope, she would look for pictures in a book.

No, you have not "shown that the layers were not laid down over millions of years".You have made up a bunch of silly, blind assertions that you fantasized in your head and that are completely un-evidenced.Not only are they un-evidenced but they are completely refuted by the actual evidence that anyone can go and look at and touch.There is not one single post in this thread where YOU have shown anything....no evidence, nada, ziltch. That you could think and say that you have shown anything, with a straight face shows just how deluded you are.

I have read it and thought about it, but there is no evidence to back you up. Just you saying the same thing over and over and then whining that "You aren't reading or thinking about anything I've said."After reading and thinking about what you are saying, I am saying that you are wrong and that is what the evidence all shows.

Nice double standard Faith. You want us to read all your imaginings and think hard about it, but you will not take a chance at understanding a couple of simple flaws in your story.There are sand formations in some layers of strata, that you are supposedly interested in and looking at, that you say was all deposited by a flood of water, but this sand has all the characteristics of sand on dry land and none of the characteristics of sand deposited under water.It is that simple.Therefore, your story of all the layers of strata exposed by the Grand Canyon being deposited at one short, recent time by your flood is WRONG... IT DID NOT HAPPEN- I keep wondering why you are involved in discussions here. I cannot imagine that you have convinced a single person of anything, except that the bible isn't true and the biblical flood never happened, and that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Yeah, a ton of evidence spread evenly over the whole earth. No wonder we cannot find it.Faith, you will never know the meaning of evidence. Everything you claim is evidence ignores the physical impossibilities of everything you assert.