The TRVE history of the Flood...

Ah yes I do remember that you pointed out that some did think all the strata were caused by the Flood. Sorry. I keep remembering the ideas about one layer or another being the evidence, which I thought was generally accepted. Some DID and still do hold this false idea, however.

Rivers are the result of lots of little deluges and occasionally slightly bigger ones. We have rivers and we have deluges, so we know how these things work. What we do NOT have is any justification for extrapolating to one really really big deluge.

Bones, dear, bones.I think most of astronomy has been verified by space travel if nothing else. When there's a time machine that can travel to the past THEN we can talk verified -- or disproved -- dating methods.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure you do, tons of it. All those strata piled miles deep for starters, most of them so neatly distinguished from one another by straight flat contacts. And the amazing size of the Grand Canyon for another.

Those straight flat contacts indicate that they were NOT deposited by a violent cataclysm. Violence would mix the layers.The layers can be explained by the normal events that we see happening every day. The amazing size of a tree suggests that it took a long time to get that big.

Those early geologists were far more honest and actually looked at the evidence as opposed to the dishonesty and willful ignorance found in Young Earth supporters and Creationists.But the Bible itself refutes any nonsense that there actually was a Biblical Flood since it includes two different flood myths. If it was simply a matter of opinion you might even be justified; but of course it is not. It is an issue of reality versus the myths found in the Bible.Edited by jar, : fix floating quote box.

There you go misrepresenting what has been said and supported by facts Faith. No one said there were two Biblical Floods (since there was not even one in reality) but rather that the Bible has two different flood myths. That is simply a fact as you have been shown.

I didn't say anything about violence. The strata have all the earmarks of following Walther's Law, the layering of different sediments by the rising of the oceans, which of course would describe the first phase of the Flood. Later when the Flood was at its height a different kind of deposition, precipitation out of standing water, would have taken over. There would have been some violence in the earliest phase no doubt, because of the forty days and nights of heavy rain and the consequent saturation of the land, but the layering would have occurred after that.Walther's Law also describes SIMULTANEOUS layering, so that the idea that one layer succeeded another is false, except for the phase where precipitation was the cause of deposition. This has interesting implications for the idea that the layers represent successive Time Periods.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith. Do you know what a river is? Seriously, do you even know what a river is? And yet people who unlike you have studied erosion think that this "little" river could easily have cut the canyon, and laugh at the thought of your magic flood.Let's think about how "little" this river is, shall we? According to figures from the USGS, over the last century or so the flow through the Grand Canyon has averaged about 15000 cubic feet per second, let's convert that to 140 cubic meters per second, so 4.4 billion cubic meters per year. It may have fluctuated a bit over longer periods of time, but let's use that as our ballpark figure. Now the minimum age given by geologists for the Grand Canyon is about 6 million years, so in that time that would be 26 quadrillion cubic meters of water, or, to put it another way, seven times the volume of the Mediterranean Sea.

So not by getting in your time machine and seeing any living dinosaurs?Fine. And how do we verify the ages of the rocks? Isotopes, dear, isotopes. I specified stars. We haven't visited a single star.

All funneled through the canyon at the current size of the river?What about the enormous width of the canyon?But none of this is relevant since the canyon was cut all at once at the end of the Flood about 4200 years ago, by probably half the amount of the Mediterranean Sea rushing into cracks, carrying broken up strata with it. Over the sides, too.

Does that include layers that are not sedimentary?

True, and maybe we'll find out all that is an illusion?I don't claim I have to see living dinosaurs, the bones are good enough evidence for their existence in the past.But there is nothing IN the past to verify your theory of the isotopes.

No.

As I say, it may have increased or decreased its rate of flow over time, but yeah, more or less. What about it? Rushing water wouldn't have caused meanders: these are only caused by leisurely water.