See 258. You don't know what you are talking about.
I think you are confusing flood sediments from a river, where there would obviously be current effects, with oceanic flooding, which would be much more like slow deposits.
(Took that out of order, I know.) River floodplains are made of lots of little flood layers and you can tell it wasn't all one big flood. While I'm not familiar with "oceanic flooding," I have never seen a credible account of how it produces the geologic column.
I'm really not interested in debating you.
You're not interested in addressing the flood predictions versus reality problem. That doesn't give us much to discuss.
The answers are in the Bible.
I don't see it as that kind of a book.
Enjoy your secularist atheist alliance with Karl Marx and Co.
"Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home."
(Took that out of order, I know.) River floodplains are made of lots of little flood layers and you can tell it wasn't all one big flood. While I'm not familiar with "oceanic flooding," I have never seen a credible account of how it produces the geologic column.
If you aren't familiar with this, please look up on Google "Western Inland Sea Late Cretaceous". Should being up lots of evolutionist sites explaining how a vast sea stretching over the Great Plains made all of that sedimentary rock we now see. For example:
http://www.priweb.org/ed/ICTHOL/ICTHOL04papers/63.htm
Quote: "Over 65 million years ago Kansas, including the whole Midwest Region of North America from the Arctic Circle to the Gulf of Mexico, was covered by the Sea. Due to the continental uplifts of the mountain ranges in North America during the Pangaea stage, the once shallow sea of Kansas became shut off from the sea-water flow and dried out to what we know it as today."
"Continental uplifts", "inland seas", etc. are all the same stuff required for a global flood and its aftermath, and are all used by evolutionists simply on a different timescale to explain the same strata. As I said, the evolution model also requires large scale flooding of land (or emergence of what is now land from having been underwater). It simply places it on a different timescale.
Again, since no one was there to observe it except Noah, I'd prefer to stick to his scientific account (shared by every tribe around the world), than to models created 10,000 years after the fact by atheists attempting to tell us there is no God and Christ never came.
The answers are in the Bible.
I don't see it as that kind of a book.
Obviously. You place your faith in geology and biology textbooks and scientific hypothesies pretending to "know" exactly what happened in the past, rather than the Incarnate Living God.
That's you choice, I just don't see why I must follow you over the cliff with all its logical consequences of making man nothing more than matter in motion.