Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

Absolutely. Of course.

​

And I ALSO thlnk about the geological and biological facts without reference to it.

---

Your thoughts seem to be all about fitting the evidence - at least the little you are prepared to look at - to your ideas. Which are ultimately rooted in a Young Earth and a global Flood.It does not seem at all likely that you would assume either unless you interpreted the Bible as saying that these events were historical fact.

quote:

---

Not true. I didn't see the oddness in the interpretation of the geo column at all at first, I stared at it blankly and saw only what science tells us is there

---

Yes, you only started imagining the “oddness” when you adopted anti-scientific beliefs.

quote:

---

I really had to do some heavy thlnking about it to come to that conclusion, inadequate though of course it is as any kind of scientific thoght.

---

Of course your “heavy thought” comes down to things like your assertion that it is “obvious” that there are too many fossils - when it is really obvious that you don’t know how many there should be at all. Indeed, you don’t even seem to realise that you need to come up with at least a rough- but justifiable - estimate. That’s just letting your prejudice run away with you. It is inadequate to rational discussion.Another example is your attempts to claim that mutation cannot halt your assumed decline in diversity. You first argued against the idea that a single mutation would be sufficient - which is pointless because there is a constant stream of mutations (despite your insistence that in “reality” there isn’t). You then assumed an incredibly high mutation rate. Never did you consider using mutation rates consistent with observation.It isn’t heavy thought it’s heavy rationalisation, uninformed by the evidence.

quote:

---

Completely different sediments, straight and flat and all neatly stacked up for miles. For starters.

---

And why exactly do you consider that odd ? Minus the exaggeration, it seems to be what we’d expect given hundreds of millions of years.It would certainly be odd if you assumed that the Flood did it, but we don’tStart with the sequences associated with transgression and regression. Don’t we see exactly what we should expect if the sea level slowly rose and fell ? If not, why not ?

quote:

---

Totally lost me. All I want is another term for "******" and a comment on whether anybody ******4 the geological column stack of sediments is an unlikely fit with the time periods interpretation.

---

If you think so, you are going to have to explain why.

quote:

---

I was using the term "uniform" to refer to the regularity of the form of the strata as straight flat slabs of separate sedimentary content. Nothing to do with rock as such or its composition or texture etc.

---

Except that they often aren’t straight or flat.

quote:

---

Not getting your point. Steno's law refers to original horizontality and that's apparent everywhere there are strata in whatever condition they happen to be.

---

Well, it refers to how sediment is deposited. Now if you want to explain why it’s odd that the laws of physics applied in the distant past go right ahead. The rest of us don’t think it’s odd at all.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Completely plausible.

---

That makes the whole post look like a joke.

quote:

---

I hypothesized that they occurred during a phase of the rising water when waves and tides came in and went out, leaving sllck wet sediments as they went out.

---

And at what point in the Flood is that plausible ? The initial Flood is supposed to have covered the mountains.And is it really plausible that “slick wet sediments” would look like desert deposits ? Or that the time between the “waves” would allow dinosaurs to mate, build nests and for the eggs to hatch?

quote:

---

Some creatures were still alive and their footprints and burrows got impressed in the wet sedment which were then preserved when the next wave deposited a new load of sediment on top of them.

---

It doesn’t exactly seem likely that a Flood covering the mountains would leave many dinosaurs alive. Add in the fact that Genesis 7:21-23 seems to indicate that everything died then - and your own proposal the the pre-Flood world was completely annihilated and I’d say that that doesn’t seem plausible at all.

quote:

---

What other explanation for the distortions in the underwater strata do you propose?

---

I would propose that the whole idea is nuts and we should accept the sensible view of long periods of time including tectonic events and large amounts of erosion. But that’s because I don’t subscribe to Biblical literalism (which is the only reason you make these things up)

quote:

---

The strata are laid down flat. Steno said so and it makes sense

---

Which is why deposition on tilted or unevenly eroded surfaces will result in changes in thickness.

quote:

---

If they are now thick and thin here and there something had to distort them while they were still wet.

---

Not necessarily at all. Even if it is distortion - and it doesn’t have to be - we know that it can happen to rock.

quote:

---

Being beneath sea level would seem to be the explanation. HOW I can intuit but it's hard to explain. I suspect you can intuit it too.

---

I can’t and I don’t believe you can either. The fact that you haven’t answered edge’s question supports that.

It sounds nuts (it IS nuts) but it follows from Faith’s claims.Faith asserts that the order of the fossil record is due to the Flood sorting the fossils.However, trace fossils - notably tracks - are part of the fossil record and fit that order. Dinosaur tracks are found in the strata that mainstream geology assigns to the age of the dinosaurs.But tracks can’t be separated from the strata. They are a feature of it. The only way to sort the tracks is to sort the strata.And that does not make sense.

quote:

---

Wouldn't one expect the trace fossils to occur in the strata where the creature that made them got overtaken by the Flood?

---

I wouldn’t expect the Flood to sort all the other dinosaurs - including the ones that died earlier or later - into the same groups of strata. That’s the point.So which is it. Did the Flood sort the fossils or does the order of the fossils represent the order of death ? I can’t see either option working for you.

It’s really simple. The order of the fossil record is the same whether we’re talking about trace fossils or physical remains.Now, if some dinosaur remains were sorted by the Flood, why would those remains end up in the strata where we find dinosaur tracks ? Likewise for other creatures. If the order is the product of two separate mechanisms why would they agree ?But if there was only one mechanism, which is it ? Sorting by the Flood, or just the order of deaths ?

quote:

---

We disagree, I don't accept your dates, the Flood is my assumption based on the Bible and that is that.

---

Thanks for admitting that your beliefs are based on the Bible and not on the geological - or archaeological facts. I also note that rejecting the evidence because it contradicts your assumptions is hardly conducive to discussion.

quote:

---

If it is going to be questioned at every turn there is no point in this discussion at all.

---

The whole point of this thread is to discuss whether the Flood happened. Obviously questioning it is the main feature, not a sideline that can be dropped.

quote:

---

I already explained that diagram but as usual you don't get it, though you always accuse me wrongly of misunderstanding the physical world. It's you who misunderstand it and say the most absurd things, as about the GC cross section years ago and then the shadow in the picture of the ledge of the Tapeats sandstone, and then the contact line between two layers whose identity I forget. You really have a terrible time understanding the physical world,but the problem for me is that your inability to understand becomes the standard you use against me.

---

Let us note that your explanation of the order of the fossil record is in conflict with physical reality. It is also in conflict with your explanation of trace fossils (which also doesn’t seem to fit with physical reality or your assertion that the Flood obliterated the pre-Flood world). And there are more examples.Percy seems to be interpreting this particular diagram correctly. The irregularities in the lower contact have no clear relationship to those in the upper contact. Indeed, we can see that the thickness of the dotted formation varies according to the presence of irregularities in the lower contact. The obvious interpretation is that those irregularities were in place when the dotted formation was deposited, and were filled by the sediment. Unless you have evidence to the contrary that interpretation is obviously reasonable and obviously in line with physical reality.

quote:

---

The diagram is of the strata long after they were laid down straight and flat and horizontal, then after the tectonic upheaval that broke off the strata to the left and knocked down the rest into those "slices of bread" across the surface of the island, and ALSO pushed the right side of the strata beneath what is now the island's sea level, where over time their remaining saturated with water and never drying out distorted them.

​

That's my interpretation.

---

Let us note that there is no explanation there, just the assumption that you are correct no matter what. That hardly demonstrates an understanding of physical reality.

quote:

---

Let us now note that you are making up any old thing you can think of to discredit anything I say and support Percy and the whole thundering herd of people who are anti-creationist here.

---

Let us note that I am not making up any old thing. That is what you do. Let us also note that you have no sensible answer to my points. As is commonly the case.

quote:

---

Maybe if you trample me to death you'll win?

---

We’ve already won, time and again. That:# why you have to resort to these silly tactics.

quote:

---

The Flood laid down the strata straight and flat, and even the standard interpretation should affirm that much.

---

The evidence in the diagram. clearly shows that some strata were laid down on irregular surfaces. Why should the ‘standard interpretation disagree ?

quote:

---

Well I still subscribe to Steno. Maybe nobody else does.

---

There’s no disagreement with Steno. Steno never said that sediment couldn’t be deposited over irregular surfaces. That would be daft. Irregular surfaces don’t magically repel sediment, the sediment just fills them.

quote:

---

This is impossible Percy, you know there is no way to prove the Flood happened beyond what I've said over and over and over.

---

It isn’t surprising that there is no way to prove the Flood if it didn’t happen. That you have to rely on assuming the Flood and trying (unsuccessfully) to force the evidence to fit is your problem. It certainly isn’t honest exploration of physical reality.

quote:

---

The strata prove it, but the strata have been co-opted to the supposed fossil record.

---

And by co-opted to the fossil record you mean that you have no explanation for the order of the fossil record. But that is certainly not the only evidence against a Flood origin for the strata, as we have been discussing.

quote:

---

They DO prove it Percy, they are good evidence for it since explaining it by the usual interpretation of millions of years is simply scientifically untenable, and all there is for that point of view is collective belief and assertion assertion assertion

---

That is one of your usual inversions of reality. The Flood explanation. Is scientifically untenable and supported only by dogmatic belief and assertion, assertion, assertion. That is what you are doing here. The fact that we know your assertions are false does not help you.Indeed you are reduced to trying to set aside evidence from the strata, for instance by accusing me of making it up Message 461 or insisting that Steno’s Principle of Orignal Horizontality somehow rules out deposition on an irregular surface Message 471.

quote:

---

. If an untenable theory is believed by the majority what chance to I have to persuade you that my explanation of the strata is the true one?

---

More accurately, if there is a good scientific theory that explains the strata what chance do you have to persuade us to accept your religious dogma? That is the reality of the situation.

quote:

---

The strata themselves can only be explained by the Flood and the strata as I've shown many times on the Grand Staircase/Grand canyon cross section prove that the earth is young.

---

No, we have shown that it proves that the Earth is old and that the strata have a long, long history. You just assume otherwise and try to force everything to fit. And fail.

quote:

---

Oh yes all this is true but proving it to YOU and proving it to Edge and everybody else is what isn't possible.

---

That’s because your arguments are obvious nonsense. And no, that isn’t because of the conclusions - the arguments themselves are very, very bad.

quote:

---

I can only go on trying to make the same case because it proves exactly what I say it proves.

---

If the best you have is obviously rubbish, it’s time to be honest and admit that you don’t have a case.

quote:

---

Yes, but I don't accept this idea that it followed the contours of the land, it settled so that the upper level was horizontal and flat.

---

It’s interesting that you say that after rejecting the idea that sediment could be deposited on an irregular surface when I put it forward in Message 469. Indeed, Percy’s point is the one you say you agree withLet’s go back to the diagrams: And we will consider the layer filled with little circles that starts under the a in Devonian, also seen in the detail above.As can easily be seen it varies in thickness, and those variations are caused by irregularities in the layers beneath it. In fact those layers show a good deal of folding that is not seen at all in the layers above - distinct from the more general tilting.The conventional explanation is that these layers were tilted and folded before the layer with the circles was deposited. The variations in thickness are the sediment settling so that the upper surface was flat. And there is nothing in the diagram to contradict that.So these wavy strata as you call them are not proposed as exceptions to original horizontality as you seem to think. The idea is that they were bent and folded after they were deposited - but before the layers on top of them were deposited.And that really makes a lot of sense. We don’t need to violate original horizontality. We don’t have to propose that that folding or the erosion somehow occurred without leaving signs in the material above them - as you do.But until you have a viable explanation for how we got this situation it stands as evidence of an Old Earth. And - as it is a genuine difficulty for your views - it’s better evidence than anything you’ve offered.

...is like using gunshot wounds as evidence of lead poisoning.Sure, if the bullets are still in the body there is a lot of lead there. But that hardly overrides the evidence that the victim died from being shot.And that is probably too generous.The strata show clear evidence of having been deposited over a long period of time, in a range of conditions. The fossil record is incompatible with the Flood - even the numbers of some fossils seem to be too high. The evidence Faith claims supports her shows that she is wrong. She has no real evidence,