Flood Geology, Again

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@PDPrice

Makes plenty of sense. The geologic column is evidence of a global flood. Gradualistic processes would not produce what we find.

That is much, much too simplistic an answer. You’ve also confused “gradualistic processes” with mainstream geology. Mainstream geology posits a combination of both gradualistic and catastrophic processes of varying degrees of scope and magnitude.

@PDPrice

Lots of reasons. Getting into all of it is way outside the scope of this thread. For one thing, the layers we find are often seen to lay cleanly and flatly on one another, with no evidence of long periods of erosion between them (as we would expect given an old earth).

It is not at all clear why we would not expect that, and surely any expectation of what we should find would depend on local circumstances. Even now in the present, the environments and processes occurring across the globe are far from identical in scale or type. There are no glaciers anywhere near where I live, just to pick an example.

@PDPrice

Any time you see a fossil, you’re seeing evidence of rapid, catastrophic burial. Normal death circumstances do not produce fossils. (And certainly not polystrate ones!)

So what? Mainstream geology doesn’t say there were never any catastrophic burials taking place. Big but ultimately local and restricted landslides happen.

I’m amazed at this extremely simplistic thinking you’re exhibiting.