Creationist flood challenge

[Alessandro]

My dear friend, we disagree once again. Who came up with all the analysations of the evidence at hand, and how do you know that what they say is true and accurate?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

So either put up, or shut up. Answer the questions of the topic, or there's no point posting anything at all. You are just cluttering up this thread with post after post of one liners that boil down to "I'm right because I say so, but I can't back anything up or address anyone's points".

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

My dear friend, we disagree once again. Who came up with all the analysations of the evidence at hand, and how do you know that what they say is true and accurate?

Why don't first give something to interpret? Please answer the question on the first post of this thread. You have not done so yet. Have you ever heard the phrase put up or shut up?

As far as the "analysations" they have been done by thousands of geologists starting with the Christian Creationist geologists of neary 200 years ago. Nowdays much of the analysis is done by oil industry geologists. As to "flood geology" it is simply bogus. If it was not maybe flood geologists could answer the questions on the first post of this thread but they can't.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Martin Luther]

I would submit, that there was no global flood..that the was some huge local flood..that for the people of the time...was in essence considered a global flood.

However, you still have to contend, why so many cultures have a tale of a global deluge....what event in mankind's history...could have provoked such species memory?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

However, you still have to contend, why so many cultures have a tale of a global deluge....what event in mankind's history...could have provoked such species memory?

The fact that many civilizations rose in river valleys suitable for agriculture which allows for sedentary civilizations, and those river valleys are prone to large scale flooding events. That could easily be the impetus for flood myths. Further, not all flood myths are the same, and it's easy to make a story seem more grandiose by saying that the entire world was flooded.

Most importantly, however, is that cultural myths are not a good source of evidence for whether the event happened or not. Examining the geologic record that would actually substantiate such an event would be the best source.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I would submit, that there was no global flood..that the was some huge local flood..that for the people of the time...was in essence considered a global flood.

However, you still have to contend, why so many cultures have a tale of a global deluge....what event in mankind's history...could have provoked such species memory?

Lots of large local floods that many people considered in essence global. After all culture grow up near rivers and oceans. The ancient Egyptians set their calendars by the flooding of the Nile. These flood stories are also often used to convey a moral message and not all them depict worldwide floods and many are vastly different from the Noah story.

As I have pointed out before there are widespread myths of people changing into animals in many different cultures from European Werewolves to Navajo Skin Walkers. I don't really think this means you need to be especially carefull on the moors when the moon is full.

Meanwhile back to the point of this thread which is a challenge to those who do believe the flood was global. Exactly which deposits are flood deposits?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Alessandro]

Back to the original questions, would you be so kind as to enlighten us who think differently, with what you understand out of this. Do you see differences, patterns etc. in the strata you mention above, pre flood, during flood, post flood? Forget about the flood for a while, looking at the strata, anything stands out?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

So instead of answering the questions yourself, you try to divert from the fact that you cannot address the facts by trying to turn the question around.

Nothing in general stands out about the strata. We're talking about a sedimentary rock record that is hundreds of meters thick and a wide variety of fossil fauna/flora and depositional environments are represented. Making a superifical, generalized statement is unwise because for the most part, one does not exist. The geological sciences depend on observing many specific features in an attempt not to overlook evidence.

But certainly no global flood event (as per a literal interpretation of the Bible) represented by sedimentary strata stand out.

 

[Luke]

My purpose is to see if the geology of the Earth is tenable with respect to the creationist model for the history of the Earth. If it is, then creationists should be able to answer. If it is not, then it is little surprise they cannot answer.

The problem is some creationists insist the world is representative of the events described in Genesis. Therefore, I would like them to show that. Put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. That they avoid these subjects demonstrates to me that their claims are false.

Personally, I don't really have a vested interest in it either way. If the flood of Noah could be confirmed by geological evidence, I think that would be pretty darned cool, actually. And if it cannot, then so be it.

Peter,

I believe that your purpose is much higher than that. Creationists can answer and, as I read through some of these posts, (I have just joined) they have been answering. The confrontation begins when the Creationists speak from Faith in the Word and general science and Non-Creationists speak from a view of wanting every single shred of minutiae to line up with a classical flood theory. Are you surprised that that cannot be? If you want evidence of the flood, evidence that fits the classic norm of academic orthodoxy, then you must begin to review what has been said of the formation of the Grand Canyon. Then compare that to the event on Mount Saint Helens, where a canyon four or five hundred feet wide and two hundred feet deep formed in about an hour. It has a small stream running through the middle of it right now. Other evidence fitting the standard that you are requesting would be the "badlands" in the Northwest, that huge Red mountain in Australia (I forget its name) and others that escape me. But to make a demand that every strata be satisfactorily explained to a non believer as to whether or not it is pre, post or actual flood strata is unreasonable, and it is not necessary for a flood proponent to be able to defend on that ground. How much less ground has there been put forth for evolution and yet you accept it (?) By the same token, if some pieces do not fall neatly into place does that discredit the theory? I do not believe it.

If it is more that you seek, if you are truly open to the discussion and not simply trying to shout down believers (as others are attempting by my review) then you will need to step outside the standard publications on this matter. I suggest you read "Forbidden Archaeology", which will outline just how scientific samples are treated that have not passed "Evolutionary Muster." Yes, it is not quite the flood theory, but it deals extensively with the age of the earth based on evidence, evidence that scientific types like yourself rely on to make judgements. It deals extensively with fossil remains found in strata and what the data revealed. In it you will also read how an evolutionist (Wallace, I think his name was) went to the East Indies to find the Missing Link. He failed, as all have in the past, but made a remarkable discovery. He found that all the waters around Java, Malaysia, etc have no reef. You can anchor a boat anywhere. Thus discovering that the ground under the water is flooded.

Reading the National Goegraphic, typical science books in the Public School, etc., I think you will find that you are not so much viewing the evidence as you are viewing the evidence that you are supposed to review. There's a difference. And the fact that a flood believer cannot explain all the strata reveals oly that we cannot expound in geological expertise, a failing that seems to afflict most.

I hope to hear from you again.

Luke

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Creationists can answer and, as I read through some of these posts, (I have just joined) they have been answering.

Show us the post(s) that answered the question of which strata represent the pre-, syn-, and post-flood periods.

The confrontation begins when the Creationists speak from Faith in the Word and general science and Non-Creationists speak from a view of wanting every single shred of minutiae to line up with a classical flood theory.

If the evidence doesn't fit your flood hypothesis, and scads of evidence falsifies your flood hypothesis, then why would it still be possible for that event to happen?

Are you surprised that that cannot be? If you want evidence of the flood, evidence that fits the classic norm of academic orthodoxy, then you must begin to review what has been said of the formation of the Grand Canyon. Then compare that to the event on Mount Saint Helens, where a canyon four or five hundred feet wide and two hundred feet deep formed in about an hour. It has a small stream running through the middle of it right now.

This "evidence" has been presented on this forum literally dozens of times. It comes from people who lack any understanding of the geological sciences.

Pyroclastic flow combined with a mudflow from a volcanic eruption is not the same as wind-blown sand deposition or limestone formation as is represented in the Grand Canyon. These are not even close to being analogous scenarios. Furthermore, this stream carving out the canyon at Mt. St. Helens was a result of human involvement by pumping water away from the eruption site.

Those two situations aren't comparable at all even in the most superficial observations of sediment color, texture, and composition.

Other evidence fitting the standard that you are requesting would be the "badlands" in the Northwest, that huge Red mountain in Australia (I forget its name) and others that escape me.

That claim is far too vague to serve as supporting evidence.

But to make a demand that every strata be satisfactorily explained to a non believer as to whether or not it is pre, post or actual flood strata is unreasonable, and it is not necessary for a flood proponent to be able to defend on that ground.

Of course it is!

If the geologic record cannot be explained by a global flooding mechanism, and if the sedimentary strata and certain features in the geologic record CANNOT have been formed during such an event, then the event could have never happened.

It is not unreasonable to ask which strata are pre-, syn-, or post-flood. That should be a simple task.

How much less ground has there been put forth for evolution and yet you accept it (?) By the same token, if some pieces do not fall neatly into place does that discredit the theory? I do not believe it.

Evolutionary biology has not been falsified by evidence. A global flood has been. There is not enough water on earth, the geologic record does not indicate that an event took place, and NUMEROUS features in the record CANNOT have been formed by such an event.

If it is more that you seek, if you are truly open to the discussion and not simply trying to shout down believers (as others are attempting by my review) then you will need to step outside the standard publications on this matter.

So-called "standard publications" are the result of unbiased analyses and the self-correcting process of peer-review. Other sources are merely creationist propaganda. Those sources ignore evidence they don't like and misrepresent data.

Reading the National Goegraphic, typical science books in the Public School, etc., I think you will find that you are not so much viewing the evidence as you are viewing the evidence that you are supposed to review.

Provide evidence that geology texts and journals disregard evidence. They don't. Geologists seek to explain ALL available data. Creationists seek to explain only the data that conform to their preconceived conclusion while ignoring and manipulating all other data they don't like. They even mention that they will omit any evidence that falsifies their position on religious grounds. That's flat out dishonest.

Creationist organizations do disregard evidence and manipulate data. Any trained geologist or any introductory geology student even would not have made the assertion that the Grand Canyon and Mt. St. Helens are analogous scenarios. They don't even involve the same rock types--a basic part of an introductory student's education.

There's a difference. And the fact that a flood believer cannot explain all the strata reveals oly that we cannot expound in geological expertise, a failing that seems to afflict most.

I hope to hear from you again.

Luke

If you do not understand geology, then how does that make a creationist qualified to answer geologic questions without making intellectually dishonest conclusions?

 

[Luke]

Show us the post(s) that answered the question of which strata represent the pre-, syn-, and post-flood periods.

As I have already said, there is no way to know that. Which is why you ask the question. Your approach is not meant to engage any discussion, but to shut it down.


If the evidence doesn't fit your flood hypothesis, and scads of evidence falsifies your flood hypothesis, then why would it still be possible for that event to happen?

Scads of evidence do not "falsify" a global flood belief. You don't quote it. You are far more vague than my reference to the badlands.

This "evidence" has been presented on this forum literally dozens of times. It comes from people who lack any understanding of the geological sciences.

Would that be you?

Pyroclastic flow combined with a mudflow from a volcanic eruption is not the same as wind-blown sand deposition or limestone formation as is represented in the Grand Canyon. These are not even close to being analogous scenarios. Furthermore, this stream carving out the canyon at Mt. St. Helens was a result of human involvement by pumping water away from the eruption site.

The Grand Canyon does not illustrate any evidence of wind blown sand deposition. Stating it in the most technical terms possible will not make it come true, either. The Grand Canyon is the result of a single cataclysmic event that hurtled tons of house sized bolders through the area on its race to the sea. That is hardly a stretch, especially for the scientific types like yourself. If it was "windblown" as you say, where are the deposits? At the end of the colorado? I think not. I know of no pumping of water away from the site at Mount Saint Helens. That even appears ridiculous in tgext, since the water is flowing from the general direction of the volcano, aweay down the valley. What are you suggesting, that someone wanted a dry disaster area, presumably so they would not muddy yup their boots when they went to clear the aces and acres of felled trees?

Those two situations aren't comparable at all even in the most superficial observations of sediment color, texture, and composition.

So you say.

That claim is far too vague to serve as supporting evidence.

Ibid.

If the geologic record cannot be explained by a global flooding mechanism, and if the sedimentary strata and certain features in the geologic record CANNOT have been formed during such an event, then the event could have never happened.

If, if, if. Obviously there are parts of the geological record that will support the theory, (as in the Grand Canyon) and others that will be more open to interpretation. The slow carve theory on the canyon is eroding a lot faster than they say the river created it.

It is not unreasonable to ask which strata are pre-, syn-, or post-flood. That should be a simple task.

Of course it is unreasonable! And you know absolutely nothing about Geology. There is no model that can fit every single piece together as you demand. You are not only incorrect, but unscientific as well. Anyone knowing Geology would know not to gauge that answer as a simple task. Therefore, you are speaking from a view of obstinance and not idea, of entrenched prejudiced belief, and not a willingness to discuss and consider. The Canyon is an example that supports the flood theory, due to its rapid and dramatic formation, a formation that could never have occured with the soft trickle of a tiny river that somehow managed to keep its course for untold millions of years, that somehow found a way to flow in the area in the first place and then managed to carve what someone like you would attempt to suggest. Let me put it to you in your own terms, that you may understand; I want to know, based on the geological evidence, exactly when this river came into being, how it came into being, how it managed to find the course of the Grand Canyon (since the Canyon wasn't there before the Colorado carved it) when did it begin to carve its path, why didn't it carve a straighter path since there was no Canyon to suggest its route in the first place, where are the deposits because they are not at the mouth of the Colorado, and last but not least, since secular science tells us the earth was a study in major upheaval, why there appears to never have been a disturbance in its path. If there was one, when was it? What deviation did it cause the river to take? What part of the river is an original path and what is a deviation from the same? someone as sharp as you should have a simple task at hand if all they have to do is look at the geological evidence.

Evolutionary biology has not been falsified by evidence. A global flood has been. There is not enough water on earth, the geologic record does not indicate that an event took place, and NUMEROUS features in the record CANNOT have been formed by such an event.

You're wrong! Apparently you never heard of Java Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, and how about that little gem the National Geographic did a piece on, front cover it was, about the ridiculous bird from china that had a reptilian tail? They printed a correction, of course, when it was discovered that this little disgrace was forged in China and sent to the eager beavers at NG who can't get Evolution enough face time if their lives depended on it. Proven forgery. Ditto for that other piece the NG did on the "Cave People" of the Phillipines. Actors and scammers. Another retraction from NG. Ever heard of these?

So-called "standard publications" are the result of unbiased analyses and the self-correcting process of peer-review. Other sources are merely creationist propaganda. Those sources ignore evidence they don't like and misrepresent data.

I can't laugh loud enough.

Provide evidence that geology texts and journals disregard evidence. They don't. Geologists seek to explain ALL available data. Creationists seek to explain only the data that conform to their preconceived conclusion while ignoring and manipulating all other data they don't like. They even mention that they will omit any evidence that falsifies their position on religious grounds. That's flat out dishonest.

Read "Forbidden Archaeology."

Creationist organizations do disregard evidence and manipulate data. Any trained geologist or any introductory geology student even would not have made the assertion that the Grand Canyon and Mt. St. Helens are analogous scenarios. They don't even involve the same rock types--a basic part of an introductory student's education.

The latter of which you are, in the fine art of discernment and naivete.

If you do not understand geology, then how does that make a creationist qualified to answer geologic questions without making intellectually dishonest conclusions?

I appear to understand as much as you. At least that much.
Luke

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Of course it is unreasonable! And you know absolutely nothing about Geology. There is no model that can fit every single piece together as you demand. You are not only incorrect, but unscientific as well.

So you are telling us that this totally unique event changed all the world's geology and yet you can't distinugish world flood deposits layers that are not worldwide flood deposits. I am wondering if you know anything about geology.

You're wrong! Apparently you never heard of Java Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, and how about that little gem the National Geographic did a piece on, front cover it was, about the ridiculous bird from china that had a reptilian tail? They printed a correction, of course, when it was discovered that this little disgrace was forged in China and sent to the eager beavers at NG who can't get Evolution enough face time if their lives depended on it. Proven forgery. Ditto for that other piece the NG did on the "Cave People" of the Phillipines. Actors and scammers. Another retraction from NG. Ever heard of these?

Neither Nebraska man or the composite Dinosaur fossil you are talking about were ever published in peer reviewed literature. Peking man is a genuine fossil.

Now as to the idea that Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon are in any way similar, it is absurd. I have been to St. Helens. The material that was cut through by the Toutle River to form a 100 foot deep canyon, that by the way immediately began collapsing into the river, is so soft and unconsolidated still that you can dig it up with your bare hands. This is the same stuff that still flows down Mt. Pinatubo in Lahars long after the eruption there. All the creationist claims about St. Helens do is show how desperately professional creationist twist reality in failed attempts to support a long falsified myth with science.

The Grand Canyon was not formed by a worldwide flood and the sediments of the Colorado Plateau were not deposited by a worldwide flood.

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand.htm

The creationist attempts to claim the sediments of the Colorado Plateau are based on very incomplete analysis of only a small fraction of the data and simplify the lithography of the area grossly in order to try to support their claims.

Here are some images of the Grand Canyon.

Since you seem to be claiming such expertise in geology please explain how a global flood produced those stuctures. I am sure that Mechanical Bliss can show you many other features of the Grand Canyon that could not ahve been formed by a worldwide flood. In fact there are some threads on it on this board.
http://www.christianforums.com/t36254&page=1&highlight=grand+canyon

Then maybe you can explain how Paleosols formed during a global flood

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/pweathering.htm

HOw the flood formed the fossil record

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/ff.htm

and how 71 trillion tons of salt in layers under Michigan were deposited from sea water during a global flood not to mention the hundreds of trillions of tons of salt deposits that are found in other places all over the world.

http://www.geo.msu.edu/geo333/saltminingM.html

Does that look like a flood deposit to you?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I believe that your purpose is much higher than that. Creationists can answer and, as I read through some of these posts, (I have just joined) they have been answering.

Nobody has answered the questions posed in the opening thread. All I have seen are diversionary tactics and off-topic posts.

The confrontation begins when the Creationists speak from Faith in the Word and general science and Non-Creationists speak from a view of wanting every single shred of minutiae to line up with a classical flood theory.

No, the confrontation begins when creationists insist that the Earth's geology is representative of a world-wide flood. If creationists want to take the Kurt Wise position and at least admit the Earth's geology is not representative of a world-wide flood, then I wouldn't have a problem with that. But some insist it is, therefore I am calling them on it.

Are you surprised that that cannot be?

Not at all. Actually, it speaks to me that the Earth's geology is not representative of a world-wide flood, and therefore, it is highly likely that such a flood never occurred.

If you want evidence of the flood, evidence that fits the classic norm of academic orthodoxy, then you must begin to review what has been said of the formation of the Grand Canyon. Then compare that to the event on Mount Saint Helens, where a canyon four or five hundred feet wide and two hundred feet deep formed in about an hour. It has a small stream running through the middle of it right now.

I've seen the Grand Canyon arguments before. But that's not the purpose of this thread.

But to make a demand that every strata be satisfactorily explained to a non believer as to whether or not it is pre, post or actual flood strata is unreasonable, and it is not necessary for a flood proponent to be able to defend on that ground.

Flood-proponents routinely make the claim that flood is responsible for depositing various sediment layers and creating the fossil record (among other things). So it's perfectly reasonable to ask which layers were laid down during the flood (and therefore, also which layers are pre-flood and post-flood). Being unable to answer simply says to me that the Earth's geology is not-representative of a world-wide flood.

How much less ground has there been put forth for evolution and yet you accept it (?) By the same token, if some pieces do not fall neatly into place does that discredit the theory? I do not believe it.

We're not talking about evolution. We're talking about geology.

If it is more that you seek, if you are truly open to the discussion and not simply trying to shout down believers (as others are attempting by my review) then you will need to step outside the standard publications on this matter. I suggest you read "Forbidden Archaeology", which will outline just how scientific samples are treated that have not passed "Evolutionary Muster." Yes, it is not quite the flood theory, but it deals extensively with the age of the earth based on evidence, evidence that scientific types like yourself rely on to make judgements. It deals extensively with fossil remains found in strata and what the data revealed. In it you will also read how an evolutionist (Wallace, I think his name was) went to the East Indies to find the Missing Link. He failed, as all have in the past, but made a remarkable discovery. He found that all the waters around Java, Malaysia, etc have no reef. You can anchor a boat anywhere. Thus discovering that the ground under the water is flooded.

Unless this book contains an answer to my questions, then I don't see any reason to read it. Especially, since I've already read a lot of material on creationism, and it sounds like it doesn't put anything new forth.

Reading the National Goegraphic, typical science books in the Public School, etc., I think you will find that you are not so much viewing the evidence as you are viewing the evidence that you are supposed to review. There's a difference. And the fact that a flood believer cannot explain all the strata reveals oly that we cannot expound in geological expertise, a failing that seems to afflict most.

You're last statement heavliy implies that you think geologists don't know how to do their jobs. Do you really believe that?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

As I have already said, there is no way to know that. Which is why you ask the question. Your approach is not meant to engage any discussion, but to shut it down.

Wait a minute. You replied that "creationists can answer" the questions and "have been answering" the questions to Pete's claim that creationists have been unable to answer his challenge. In no way have you said that there is no way to know that. In fact, you plainly stated the opposite.

Furthermore, there IS a way to know which sediments are pre-, syn-, and post-flooding: by examining the evidence: types of rocks desposited and the features appearing in those rocks. If it's an event that only occurred a few thousand years ago, the evidence would be sufficiently "fresh" and clearly marked. After all, geologists know when sea levels rise and fall by looking at the rock record. The same process should be able to substantiate the claims of global flood proponents.

Scads of evidence do not "falsify" a global flood belief. You don't quote it. You are far more vague than my reference to the badlands.

I didn't list it because there are too many pieces of evidence and so little space. I have already created a thread so I don't have to keep repeating myself that samples only a few of the evidence that falsify a global flood here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t41209

So far, in the past four months or so, no creationist has been able to address these points or have even tried.

MB: This "evidence" has been presented on this forum literally dozens of times. It comes from people who lack any understanding of the geological sciences.

Would that be you?

No, that would certainly not be me, and that was a pathetic statement on your part. I don't lack an understanding of the geological sciences considering I AM a geologist whose education was at one of the top universities in the country that has one of the top geology departements in the country. My educational background is in the geological sciences. Clearly I don't lack that knowledge.

The Grand Canyon does not illustrate any evidence of wind blown sand deposition.

False. The Coconino Sandstone is an excellent example of aeolian sand deposition. Sedimentary structures within the stratum called cross bedding are formed as sand travels down the back slope of desert sand dunes. This is further substantiated by trace fossils of reptile footprints in this formation. Both from a paleontological point of view and a sedimentological point of view, this stratum in the Grand Canyon was once part of a desert whose primary mechanism of deposition is wind.

Stating it in the most technical terms possible will not make it come true, either. The Grand Canyon is the result of a single cataclysmic event that hurtled tons of house sized bolders through the area on its race to the sea. That is hardly a stretch, especially for the scientific types like yourself.

Apparently you are discussing the erosion of the canyon while completely neglecting the sediments deposited there in the first place. The Colorado River is responsible for canyon erosion and its direction has shifted over time. This is evidenced by older deltaic deposits to the northeast and all younger deltaic deposits to the southeast corresponding with the uplift of the Colorado plateau. There is zero evidence of what you are talking about. You are merely making hypothetical statements.

If it was "windblown" as you say, where are the deposits? At the end of the colorado?

Coconino sandstone is one windblown deposit in the Grand Canyon.

I know of no pumping of water away from the site at Mount Saint Helens. That even appears ridiculous in tgext, since the water is flowing from the general direction of the volcano, aweay down the valley. What are you suggesting, that someone wanted a dry disaster area, presumably so they would not muddy yup their boots when they went to clear the aces and acres of felled trees?

Of course the water was flowing away from the site. The US Army of Engineers were trying to lower the level of Spirit Lake to prevent the collapse of pyroclastic materials from the eruption that were containing the lake. They were trying to control what would have been a larger scale flood. Also, any flood waters from the eruption formed the canyon over the course of several months.

MB: Those two situations aren't comparable at all even in the most superficial observations of sediment color, texture, and composition.

So you say.

Any trained geologist would "say." The canyon at Mt. St. Helens is comprised of loose soil mixed with water formed by a mudflow combined with volcanic ash from the eruption. That doesn't have the same color, texture, or composition as the Grand Canyon. Example: the Redwall limestone has a red color, a coarse crystalline structure, and a calcite composition resulting from precipitation from a marine fluid. There are several other examples, but it only takes one. Those situations aren't comparable at all--creationists even ignore the most superficial observations of sediment color, texture, and composition. That is a fact.

Furthermore, the sediments at Mt. St. Helens were unlithified (not rock) whereas the Grand Canyon strata were lithified. Not analogous situations at all.

MB: If the geologic record cannot be explained by a global flooding mechanism, and if the sedimentary strata and certain features in the geologic record CANNOT have been formed during such an event, then the event could have never happened.

If, if, if. Obviously there are parts of the geological record that will support the theory, (as in the Grand Canyon) and others that will be more open to interpretation. The slow carve theory on the canyon is eroding a lot faster than they say the river created it.

I'm not making unsubstantiated "if" statements; you are. I'm saying that there are consequences to your claims. If the geologic record cannot be explained by a global flooding mechanism, and if the geologic record contains numerous features that cannot have been formed during event, then the event could NOT have happened. This is exactly what we see: there are numerous features on all stratigraphic records that CANNOT have been formed by the flooding event you say, therefore it CANNOT be responsible for them.

MB: It is not unreasonable to ask which strata are pre-, syn-, or post-flood. That should be a simple task.

Of course it is unreasonable!

No, it's not. Flooding leaves evidence. If you can't present it, and evidence falsifies it, it didn't happen.

And you know absolutely nothing about Geology.

That's HILARIOUS--you telling me that. My educational background is in geology. I know a great deal about it.

There is no model that can fit every single piece together as you demand.

That's because there is no single event responsible for earth's geology. There are numerous events throughout its billions of years of history. You can't just say: the geologic record was caused by such-and-such a thing. MANY different processes have been acting on the earth. Geologists deal with all details. Creationists ignore them.

You are not only incorrect, but unscientific as well.

How is deducting the most logical conclusion from ALL available evidence unscientific?

Anyone knowing Geology would know not to gauge that answer as a simple task.

Anyone knowing geology would indeed know that it would be a relatively simple task. Flood deposits should leave characteristic evidence. The fact that no creationists have been able to come up with any model whatsoever is very telling.

Therefore, you are speaking from a view of obstinance and not idea, of entrenched prejudiced belief, and not a willingness to discuss and consider.

No, I am speaking as a scientist. I have no prejudices about this discussion. IF the evidence indicated what you say, THEN I would have no reason NOT to believe it.

The Canyon is an example that supports the flood theory, due to its rapid and dramatic formation, a formation that could never have occured with the soft trickle of a tiny river that somehow managed to keep its course for untold millions of years, that somehow found a way to flow in the area in the first place and then managed to carve what someone like you would attempt to suggest.

You have provided zero evidence of rapid formation, especially considering you ignore the deposition of the deposits that we see in the walls of the canyon.

Let me put it to you in your own terms, that you may understand; I want to know, based on the geological evidence, exactly when this river came into being, how it came into being, how it managed to find the course of the Grand Canyon (since the Canyon wasn't there before the Colorado carved it) when did it begin to carve its path, why didn't it carve a straighter path since there was no Canyon to suggest its route in the first place, where are the deposits because they are not at the mouth of the Colorado, and last but not least, since secular science tells us the earth was a study in major upheaval, why there appears to never have been a disturbance in its path. If there was one, when was it? What deviation did it cause the river to take? What part of the river is an original path and what is a deviation from the same? someone as sharp as you should have a simple task at hand if all they have to do is look at the geological evidence.

Of course this is unfair because my questions were simple and unspecific. Furthermore, I see you are only trying to divert because you cannot answer the simpler questions yourself. All you have to do is point out which part of the geologic record represents the flood. After all, that isn't a local feature as you want me to discuss here. Those deposits should be globally correlatable and easily found.

WHEN: The Colorado is old; about 60 million years, but the relevant time period is ~15 Ma when the Colorado plateau began to uplift for about 5 Ma. This changed the direction of the river to flow to the west/southwest. We see sedimentary outwash at the base of the plateau from the canyon that dates to 5-10 Ma--exactly what should be expected.
HOW: Water coming down from the Ancestral Rocky Mountains formed the river.
COURSE: This is completely arbitrary. The uplift of the colorado plateau allowed gravity to push the river downward into the rock. That is how its course formed. If it were a catastrophic event, it would be a a straight path, but it is not. Rivers often meander due to abnormalities in the rocks more resistant to erosion.
DEPOSITS: Yes, they are in the outwash over the Colorado plateau despite what you claim.

Your other statements are false about "secular science" statements on the earth.

You're wrong! Apparently you never heard of Java Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, and how about that little gem the National Geographic did a piece on, front cover it was, about the ridiculous bird from china that had a reptilian tail? They printed a correction, of course, when it was discovered that this little disgrace was forged in China and sent to the eager beavers at NG who can't get Evolution enough face time if their lives depended on it. Proven forgery. Ditto for that other piece the NG did on the "Cave People" of the Phillipines. Actors and scammers. Another retraction from NG. Ever heard of these?

How many of these were published in scientific journals? None. Furthermore, they are not falsifications. They were hoaxes exposed by paleontologists themselves except for Peking Man I believe. However the debate here is not evolutionary paleontology.

So-called "standard publications" are the result of unbiased analyses and the self-correcting process of peer-review. Other sources are merely creationist propaganda. Those sources ignore evidence they don't like and misrepresent data.

I can't laugh loud enough.

Then you might as well stop. Creationists are either liars or incompetent. There is no way around that. They are incompetent geologists if they think Mt. St. Helens is any way comparable to the Grand Canyon. Any geologist would laugh at that complete disregard for a detailed analysis.

MB: Creationist organizations do disregard evidence and manipulate data. Any trained geologist or any introductory geology student even would not have made the assertion that the Grand Canyon and Mt. St. Helens are analogous scenarios. They don't even involve the same rock types--a basic part of an introductory student's education.

The latter of which you are, in the fine art of discernment and naivete.

Calling names doesn't help your case. There is nothing naive about my analyses. If anything, the naivete here is yours. You refuse to look at the details. Furthermore I am not an intro geology student as you seem to imply. I am a trained geologist.

I appear to understand as much as you. At least that much.

No, you clearly do not if you do not understand the difference between the volcanic ash and mud at Mt. St. Helens and the sparry limestones and aeolian sandstones and basalts and unconformities (and so on) at the Grand Canyon. You aren't even acknowledging that there are different basic rock types present. Even an introductory geology student learns the different rock types and how they are formed.