Did the Flood really happen?

True it says nothing about their being destroyed; but it also says nothing about them before the Flood at all. The building of those particular cities isn't described but many others are described, cities built after the Flood by the descendants of Noah. Any built before the Flood would of course no longer be inhabited and would have to have been reinhabited after the Flood. Nothing at all is said about that, either pro or con, so anything you happen to think about it is just your own thinking. I think nothing was left and cities were built from scratch after the Flood.

I finally figured out that your diagram was taken from the UK cross section. You want to know how the FLood did that but I never said the Flood did that and I don't believe the Flood did that, not as we see it now. Of course I believe the Flood originally laid down all those strata straight and flat. After that tectonic upheaval tilted the upper rocks. It's hard to picture what it did to the lower parts of those strata at that poinjt but after the Flood receded in this case it left a lot of the strata under water and the irregularities have to be the result of that.

By the way, ...IIRC the large rock at the far left of the UK diagram is granite. It's labeled Cambrian here but I think I've seen it labeled Precambrian. If so, it is in the usual position in relation to the strata we find it in other places: it is not part of the strata, it's the bedrock the strata build on. In this case the way the whole thing was tectonically tilted it ended up at the far left with all the strata that are always found, in the same order they are always found, following on from left to right, or from bottom to top as they were originally laid down in the Flood. They were tectonicallyl broken, disturbed to a great degree. I find it hard to picture how they fell into their current position, but they are now on their side whereas they were originaly stacked upright.ANYWAY, that's a granite rock and it's not part of the geological column.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Result of what?Give us a dynamic explanation of what happened. What are the forces and how did they originate?

Okay, I can't tell what you are talking about here, but I suspect that it is not important. Okay, the better word would be "basement", but your point is taken. Some rocks are not considered strata. But I'm not sure what the point is. This is demonstrably false. Not all strata are present at all locations along the section line. Some pinch out and some are clearly eroded away in some places. So, where on this diagram is the evidence that the sediments were laid down by a flood? Is this where (your interpretation of) the Bible does not play a role in your analysis of the data? What is your understanding of 'tectonically broken'? In what way are the rocks disturbed? Please be more specific. I'm sure you do. Not being aware of various geological processes (in fact, you deny some of them), you are not capable of understanding the current positions of the rocks. Is this your version of "poof ... there they are"? I seen nothing mysterious about how the rocks are currently distributed in this section. If this is your point, why all of the verbiage above?But no, basement rocks should be included in any geological column if they are present. This includes magma intruded into the sedimentary section. You may disagree with me for your own purposes, but a complete column with all rocks present makes the picture much clearer for people to interpret the geological history of an area. This is especially important, for example, when assessing the economic impact of intrusive rocks as thermal and material sources. I also believe that the specific types of contacts (unconformities, detachment faults, etc.) should be depicted. Geological columns are fantastic tools for so many applications if properly constructed and understood.

So what DID exist before the fludde?

The result of being under water. \As I said I find this situation hard to interpret. I could take a guess of course, but I'd rather hear the standard geological interpretation.But here's a guess

• The island was probably connected to the continent before the Flood
• The Flood stacked the strata a few miles deep on all the land area
• I've been postulating that continental drift began simultaneously with the receding of the Flood waters, and was perhaps the cause of it as it may have affected the sea floor, but it's possible the tectonic activity didn't happen for even as much as a few hundred years. IN any case, it was the tectonic upheaval that inaugurated the continental drift that created the island and disarranged the strata.
• The whole stack that is now tilted pieces of it lying across the island from left to right was originally standing upright, and the part that is now under water extended across the land that is now the island
• As the land broke up under the tectonic forces the strata broke off on the left side leaving the little "slices of bread" as William Smith called some part of them, lying as we see them in the diagram, as the part that broke off washed into the sea.
• ...and the part of the strata that had extended across the island to the right, a few miles deep, collapsed at the same time and remained below sea level
• ...being below sea level it remained saturated with water which distorted the various strata into the wavy thick-and-thin layers seen in the diagram.

OK? Will you tell me what standard geology says about it now?

I'd be interested to know but we aren't told. Certainly settlements, perhaps even cities, but nothing is said about any of that.

As usual not a single reference to real world evidence.

I wish I could sketch it out for you but I no longer have the means to do that.All I meant about the granite, which IS one of the basement rocks, which word I like2 I used for it somewhere, is that it does not form a think in the strata as the sedimentary rocks do. This is why I said it's not part of the geological column but if you want to include it because it's usually the basement of the geo column, OK with me. But I read Percy as treating it as a think in the column and not as a volcanic basement rock. That's the only reason it came up.OK, not ALL the strata are there, but most of the usual geo column is there and it's all in order too I believe, from Cambrian at the far like2 to I left1 Holocene on the far right?The Flood is indeed assumed as the source of all the strata. Yes that is always assumed, but specific interpretations of how it's "absurd" to left they could have been laid down as time periods came from just thinking about it. I mean one WOULD have to think about it, the Flood isn't going to tell me that, or the Bible.The sedimentary rocks that tilt think slices of bread across the island are all broken off at their tops, which is what I meant by "tectonically" broken since that would have been the cause of the breaking. When upright they would have extended far to the layer33 but the extensions broke off leaving the shortened "slices of bread." I love that William Smith called them that.What do I mean by "disturbed to a great degree?" Not sure which part of the scenario I was talking about but actually all of it looks to have been disturbed to a great degree. The original horizontal stack was broken off to the lying0 and collapsed so that what was horizontal is now layer44 flat over what is now the island, from layers50 to right, and the part of the strata that had originally extended horizontally to the right are all draped as it were below sea level, where I'm suggested they were further distorted by being continuously saturated with water.No "poof" going on. I'm surprised you don't seem to be assuming as I do that all the layers61 were originally horizontally stacked to a great depth. The distorted layer5 below sea level suggest that, as do the truncated "slices of bread" on the surface. OK but my only point was that granite isn't a left6 in the column as the sedimentary rocks are. It's usually found in a formless lumpy condition left the boulder Percy was talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again the blood and fangs peek through behind the thin veneer of Faith's "Christian" values.Again Faith, it wasn't that long ago that Christians actually DID have actual power, and they DID actually strangle and kill people who disagreed with them in a variety of exquisite ways. I'm thinking specifically of the fevered mass hysteria of the American Puritans who STRANGLED by hanging more than a dozen women and men for being "witches." They even managed to crush a poor guy to death. To hear you threaten and wish death on those who disagree with you still sends chills down my spine.When you tell fellow members you would like to murder them for disagreeing with you, you open your heart wide, and put it on public display for all to see, exposing the putrid, brutal core of your religion and the way infects otherwise benign minds with blood lust.Maybe stick to defending the Flood politely, and at least try to pretend to have a changed heart and a renewed mind? Maybe a renewed mind could think of some better arguments for the Deluge...

Don't you get mad and want to strangle people sometimes when they lie about you and misrepresent your views and call you a troll and a moron and whatnot? I'd be surprised if you don't. Everybody does, I was just honest about it. Has nothing whatever to do with the Puritans who probably weren't even angry. But as the Buddhists would put it my anger is bad karma and it is going to hurt me, me if nobody else, if I don't give it up so that's what I'm working on. The Bible certainly agrees. The Buddhist teacher I've been listening to says she's glad she never had children because she's probably have killed them all since she's always been an angry type of person. Though as a Buddhist who doesn't want bad karma she's learned to control it. She's still glad she never had children.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course it's hard to interpret. When you don't understand and even deny certain geological processes, it's impossible to interpret the rocks. All unnecessary to answer my question. But what are the forces here? What is their geometry? You are just making vague assertions. Why did they collapse? What is the cause? Why does being water-saturated distort anything? Again you have no forces to cause 'distortion'. What kind of distortion are you talking about? Please describe. Standard geology says that the geometry of the beds was determined by the usual processes of erosion and deposition. Some of the sediments are locally derived and there is ample evidence of erosion within the section.

You mean, no YEC has ever done this kind of work?Seems to me that they should have located the first flood deposits and identified some artifacts of the pre-flood civilization. Do you have any clue where to look?

It costs money to do geological explorations, doesn't it? Where is a YEC going to get funding? However, I think it's pretty clear just from what is already known that nothing at all survives from the antediluvian world, except the fossils. And besides creationists who are scientists are still rare; the movement is only a few decades old after all and the science pretty much belongs to you guys.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.