The TRVE history of the Flood...

The evidence is there, ringo, even if you haven't bothered to grasp any of it.

But true, none the less.Once again, I thank edge for his patience with your lack of self awareness, because I learned a lot from him.

NOBODY has grasped your fantasies, including the geologists whom you insult.

Too bad what you learned is wrong.abe: Welllll, maybe not so much wrong as contextually misplaced and therefore irrelevant.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's called brain cramp from paradigmosis.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Big of you to admit it.

An uninformed guess, of course.Do you really think that we cannot tell sills from flows? Of course there are volcanic flows and volcanoes of different ages. Yes, I would say that your arguments are irrelevant. Primarily because you have no knowledge or experience. Considering that it is not a slab, nor a flat slap of 'rock', your post is meaningless. In your case a wrong meaning. Sure. We should just ignore the evidence left behind in the rock record.What a dreary, intellectually vacuous life you must lead. At the moment?

Well, as I recall, they had to reach pretty far up into dark places to come to that conclusion.Anything to maintain that tiny little doubt in your mind, eh? Just another baseless assertion ... So, how many 'non-tight' contacts do you need to contradict your preconceived notion? Another baseless assertion.I am not talking about time periods, I'm talking about transitional contacts between lithologies.It appears that tight contacts or transitional contacts, or any contact at all is 'evidence for the flood'.

Just the usual semantic miscommunication. If I get even 25% of what you say I consider that good. My fault of course, no matter. I've reached the point where I don't even want to ask you to clarify because I know it will only get worse.Not to worry, once it's clear the Flood Did it, I know eventually things will fall into place. I thought it interesting that the only ones shown in the GC area were one confined beneath the canyon as far as the cross section shows, and two others after the strata were all laid down, shown by their penetrating upward all the way through all the strata to the very top. Just an observation to be compared to other observations when needed. Ooo another little snarky snark. Actually I have quite a bit considering that I'm confined to the internet, a few books and a hostile geologist plus the usual band of hecklers. Semantic evasion is SUCH fun. What shall I call it then? You know, those layers of lithified sediments to which such weighty lore is attached by Geology? Not rock? What then? Not a slab? What then? Those sedimentary deposits, you know, that sometimes stretch many miles hundreds of feet deep in some cases. You know, THOSE things. Whaddayacallem? Fossils n dirt? How can that be wrong? Oh not IGNORE it, just don't build imaginary time periods out of it. Ooo, now THAT is some fancy snark there! But I agree, Fossils n dirt is far less interesting than imaginary time periods with odd flora and fauna cavorting therein. Snark of a lesser quality, but still snark. Honesty doesn't pay of course.

But it is clearly true. The only kind of contact that would be consistent with time periods would be something on the order of erosion down through many strata as a block, to the depth of the Grand Canyon perhaps, or a surface with hills and valleys on a scale such as we see on the surface today. You know, something that really LOOKS like it could have been a time period instead of a layer of wet sediment. Any at all is sufficient. But all the other actual contacts are evidence for the Flood too, as suggested above, it's just that the razor-sharp ones are the best. A few inches of rubble doesn't suggest surface time either but it's claimed for that purpose so pointing to the really neat tight ones makes the case better. But those represent time periods. As lithologies they make good evidence for the Flood anyway. Yes, I think so, yes. There is simply nothing about the appearance of ANY strata ANYWHERE that makes sense in terms of the Geological Time Scale.

I expect this would be true for you. For myself, it all make perfect sense and fits together incredibly well. And the geological explanation includes thousands of details that cannot be explained by the flood and that in fact, totally invalidate the flood as being responsible for any of the sedimentary layers.Billions and hundreds of millions of years are recorded in the sedimentary layers of this planet and they provide wonderful clues of past environments and the organisms that lived there at those times.

The stories may fit together well but the physical reality of the strata is a glaring contradiction to the whole idea. I'm drawing a blank, can't think of one. It's a nice story I guess. But I find that the details contradict it myself, the details and the physical fact of the strata themselves.

Well, except that the glaring contradiction is that the flood cannot explain 1) how we got strata made of extremely fine silt that would take a long tome to settle out covered with coarser material like sand the should have settled out earlier. These density anomalies occur over and over in the layer order. 2) The Navajo Sandstone represents a huge erg that covered much of the Colorado Plateau 190 million years ago. In places it is 2300 feet thick. Try explaining how this layer of sand dunes managed to get deposited in between two of your supposed "Flood" layers: the Carmel Formation and the Wingate sandstone. The crossbedding in the dunes can be seen many places where the Navajo is exposed. Animal tracks are preserved which is kind of hard to do in the middle of a flood. 3) Preserved dinosaur nests that are intact rather than washed away in the "flood".These are just a few, since I know you will dismiss them all without a single logical explanation. We have listed an incredible number of these flies in your ointment or flaws in your argument in past discussions, so if you really cannot remember them maybe you should seek medical help.Oh yeah, one more 4) The ordering of the fossils. You have never provided a credible argument for how the fossils came to be in the order they are found in. Science and specifically geology explain this perfectly.

We can remind you of a few of them to jog your memory.As pointed out in Message 643 which had the sub-title of "The truth of the Biblical Flood is that the Biblical Flood never happened.":

quote:

---

Except of course for the fact that there has never been a world-wide flood while humans existed and the evidence, including what is actually written in the Bible shows that is a fact.

​

First, as was shown back in Message 120 and again in Message 171 there is not just one Biblical Flood myth but two and they are mutually exclusive. One or both must be false.

​

Second as was shown in Message 169 there are paintings and petroglyphs from before the dates of the imagined Biblical flood that have never been submerged under water.

​

Then there are the facts laid out in Message 175 that also predate the imaginary Biblical Flood and continued right through the period.

​

And the facts that show the Bible is not a good witness were presented in Message 279.

​

Then there are the other things that lived and existed right through the imaginary Biblical flood that were presented in Message 342 and Message 346 and Message 347.

​

The TRUTH of the Biblical flood is that it never happened.

---

Any one of those things alone is sufficient to refute the fantasy that there ever was a Biblical Flood at the time claimed by those who market the idea that there was some Biblical flood or during times when humans existed.