Did the Flood really happen?

And of course you would know because you've seen a worldwide Flood. Honey, you never say anything too specific. Curiously, I don't ask for perfection, what I ask for is consistency, and that includes consistency with the all the known evidence. ALL the evidence.For instance you have yet to define specifically what you mean by the geological column / time scale, and your concept of "THE Flood" changes to suit your argument/s of the day.You have no evidence to show that it does anything you say (and that's a lot of different things that water simply doesn't do). Evidence, not (repeated) assertion/s. Objective empirical evidence (except you don't seem to know what that is ...).But you also missed the point I was making (so maybe I need to be clearer) - that the sedimentary deposits in each location stack one on top of the other, not in random patterns. Which is different from your previous argument du jour of large waves washing around the world laying down different layers with each wave.The question either way is how come the layers stack on top of the previous layers instead of in random places? In the geological (science), the explanation is that they are being deposited in the same basins year after year, decade after decade, century after century, millennia after millennia ... basins that are defined geologically by being low points, sea/ocean floors, lake floors, valleys, etc.... ie - what's to keep these Dancing Magic Flood deposits from landing just anywhere?Someone famous once said that if you say what is true you don't have to remember what you said.ANDStill unanswered (by you) are the questions raised by the Green River Varve formation, continental land area adjacent to the Grand Canyon / Staircase continental land areas:

quote:

---

The sedimentary layers were formed in a large area named for the Green River, a tributary of the Colorado River. The three separate basins lie around the Uinta Mountains of northeastern Utah:

​

Areas of oil shale of the Green River Formation, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (USGS)

​

• an area in northwestern Colorado east of the Uintas
• a larger area in the southwest corner of Wyoming just north of the Uintas known as Lake Gosiute
• the largest area, in northeastern Utah and western Colorado south of the Uintas, known as Lake Uinta

​

Yet this formation is curiously absent from the Grand Canyon stratigraphy ... how do you explain this absence when chronologically it was laid down during the formation of the Grand Canyon stratigraphy?

​

How do you explain the very thin varve layers, "mean thickness of a varve here is 0.18 mm," of alternating light and dark layers of very fine sediment (and we have talked about how long it takes to deposit very fine material from suspension in water)? There are over 6 million pairs of alternating light and dark layers ...

​

How do you explain the different rock types that are part of the formation ... and particularly the layers of volcanic ash within/between the varve layers?

​

How do you explain the layers of evaporite minerals within the varve layers?

​

Note the correspondence of layer times with radiometric dates. How do you explain this?

​

Note that the areas of deposition shifted over the time period of deposition in a way that corresponds with astrochronological dates. How do you explain this?

​

This all left a "continuous record of six million years" of evolution in this area ... how did the fossils get sorted by radiometric age? How did the radiometric isotopes get sorted with depth in the formation?

​

The overall deposition was so gentle (" ... The limestone matrix is so fine-grained that fossils include rare soft parts of complete insects and fallen leaves in spectacular detail ...") that these fossils were not torn up. How does this mesh with your model for the formation of the "geological column/time scale" in this area?

---

Science, including actual geology, physics, astronomy, and yes biology, explain these facts in a manner that is consistent with known processes observed today, consistent with all the known evidence and consistent from one field of science to another.And ... btw ... there is ongoing deposition in the 6 basins (ie low areas) within the Green River Formation (see map above).Isn't it curious that evidence keeps turning up pesky little details that derail your ad hoc unsupported arguments.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : grmr

I think that she thinks that, since all the strata were laid down by the fludde, the Gulf didn't exist when the strata were laid down. Then magic created the Gulf.Irrelevant to the fact that deposition and strata formation are happening in the Gulf, of course.

Actually Leonardo argued against the bivalves growing in the rock formation on the mountains, because of the different ages of the shells.Enjoy

Flood or no Flood it's very clear that the Gulf wasn't there when the strata were laid down because the strata accumulate flat and horizontal and they aren't going to do that in a gulf. The Gulf had to form afterward, probably at the end of the Flood.Also, salt domes do not take hundreds of millions of years to rise. Those have probably been rising since the Flood, though some rise in a matter of hundreds of years or even less. This is evidence for the timing of a Young Earth but it's just flatly denied by the Old Earthers, of course. Not sure how it formed, but probably formed at the end of the Flood. The strata are hammock shaped, thin at the edges, thicker in the middle. the result of being in water as the salt rises. And of course, whatever sediment is falling on top of the strata there is not how the geological column formed.

In a bowl they form a bowl. Thinner at the edges and thicker in the middle.Of course, in your black-and-white view there are no exceptions to the principle of original horizontality. It's not universal like the law of gravity. It is an expression of how gravity and topography and fluids interact to mostly produce horizontal flat surfaces. Um, you think that's how it happened. You just think it happened quickly. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

So you use the Jurassic as evidence for your arguments but only believe the earth is a couple thousand years old.
Interesting.So was the Jurrasic a couple weeks in your timeline?

quote:

---

Flood or no Flood it's very clear that the Gulf wasn't there when the strata were laid down because the strata accumulate flat and horizontal and they aren't going to do that in a gulf.

---

No, sediment is quite happy to fill - or try to fill - depressions. And we can see places that happened on the cross-section of Britain. And really, why wouldn’t that happen ?

quote:

---

Also, salt domes do not take hundreds of millions of years to rise. Those have probably been rising since the Flood, though some rise in a matter of hundreds of years or even less. This is evidence for the timing of a Young Earth but it's just flatly denied by the Old Earthers, of course

---

Of course to a rational person it doesn’t matter how quickly a salt dome can form. That can only provide a minimum age, not a maximum. The dome will only form if conditions are right - and I bet the conditions also control the speed.

quote:

---

Not sure how it formed, but probably formed at the end of the Flood. The strata are hammock shaped, thin at the edges, thicker in the middle. the result of being in water as the salt rises.

---

The Gulf formed by rifting, starting in the Late Triassic. Which you can’t admit to. I’m not at all sure what you mean about the strata, it doesn’t seem to match the diagrams.

The bottom of the Gulf of Mexico isn't sea floor? Really? It certainly isn't land. Sea life lives on its floor and in the water column above. The surface teams with boats. It's huge. If the Gulf of Mexico is not a sea, then what is it? According to Wikipedia:

quote:

---

The Gulf of Mexico is an ocean basin and a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ocean, largely surrounded by the North American continent.

---

You'll get a core different in character to the one from the Gulf of Mexico. The K-T signature will be weaker since it is much further than the Gulf of Mexico from where the asteroid struck. The Gulf is shallow and warm, so limestone deposits are likely, while the Atlantic is cold and deep so pelagic ooze is likely. It depends upon which continental strata you mean. You usually mean the strata of the Grand Canyon region, so no, the Gulf strata are not similar to them. This isn't because they're from different time periods, though they are (the Gulf strata all postdate the Triassic, the Grand Canyon strata all predate it). It's because the Grand Canyon strata formed from repeated sea transgressions and regressions creating strata that follow Walther's Law, while the Gulf strata formed while relatively far from any coast, except at the margins. Limestone is a common Gulf deposit, which doesn't form from processes related to Walther's Law. That would be this image: What is it about this image that says the Gulf of Mexico is not a sea?About the salt, according to geologists, before the end of the Triassic the Gulf of Mexico was continental, but as Pangaea broke up and North and South America separated the Gulf region stretched and subsided below sea level. Still mostly blocked off from the Atlantic, the flow of water into the Gulf was restricted, and evaporitic processes (it was an arid region) caused salt to rapidly accumulate, perhaps a couple kilometers in just a couple million years.If the Flood was real, how did it deposit the salt? Of course there's rock beneath the Gulf of Mexico. There's rock beneath all sea floor as soon you go deep enough for pressure to begin the lithification process. What did you think was down there except rock?You haven't said anything to indicate that the Gulf of Mexico is not a sea, no one but you would ever make such a claim, and you're avoiding the original point: sediments were and are deposited upon all sea floors everywhere and everywhen (barring unusual conditions), whether they eventually became part of continents or not.How does your Flood explain how those sediments got on the sea floor? And why, if the Flood really happened, isn't there a discontinuity between marine Flood deposits and deposits over the past 4500 years? When you look at deep sea cores, why does 4000 years ago look pretty much the same as 5000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, and so forth?--Percy

What? What argument? Are you referring to the fact that the Jurassic is the deepest layer shown on the cross sections of the Gulf? I didn't determine that. The salt layer starts at the Jurassic level, and no other strata before that are visible on the cross sections. I guess you must be referring to this although I have no idea what point you are trying to make. You must not have read anything I've written on this topic before. I argue for the Flood so the Jurassic was just one layer of sediment laid down in that Flood. Probably took oh maybe a week at most to deposit it. The earth is SIX thousand years old according to the most common way of reading the Bible, and it's been roughly 4300 years since the Flood. Does this change your view?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If what the Flood would do can't be imagined, why are you telling us what it would do?Why would water covering the entire planet do anything much different from the oceans that currently cover 71% of the planet?Why would a Flood do anything other than what the practical aspects of the laws of physics call for? Like I said, for something that can't be imagined you sure have no trouble imagining it. You have no evidence that anything like you describe ever happened. It's just your imagination.--Percy

Please read in context. I didn't say it couldn't be imagined, what I said is that LOCAL FLOODS don't provide a basis for imagining it.

quote:

---

The earth is SIX thousand years old according to the most common way of reading the Bible, and it's been roughly 4300 years since the Flood. Does this change your view?

---

Why would it ? Myth is myth, and taking it as accurate history - in the teeth of all the evidence is daft. And the crazy things you say to try to prop it up are just insane.

Why don't you stop saying incredibly wrong things and start showing that the flood really happened. The Gulf of Mexico is a sea. Certainly it wasn't always a sea, but it's been a sea for a very long time, a couple hundred million years at least.To prevent discussion from bogging down on this point I've opened a thread called The Gulf of Mexico is Not a Sea.--Percy

Why don't you stop being so blind and realize that I have given plenty of evidence?

So can it be imagined? Especially based on physics, chemistry, hydrodynamic, and geology?