Did the Flood really happen?

Of course it's untrue. All the reasons your "hypotheses" were ridiculous and impossible were explained to you, but you never stuck it out in discussion to understand why. That's why you still don't understand why your "hypotheses" make no sense. How does a collection of impossible ideas show that the Flood really happened? More impossible ideas. The only person who thinks that is you. Remind me of the part where someone, anyone, thought your ideas anything but ludicrous. You should bring that up in a thread where it's relevant, but what you really mean is that it's not easy to explain all this to you. In any case, there's no logic that goes, "Because geology is wrong therefore the Flood happened." If it is shown that Joe is wrong that 2+2=5, that doesn't make Sam right that 2+2=3. You can't prove the Flood right by proving geology wrong. Take another tack. Find some facts that show there was a global flood 4500 years ago.--Percy

Theoretically, yes. However, if the rocks are totally buried and we don't see them, such as the mantle and core, they would usually be shown.In the case of your example, all of the major rock units that are seen at the surface are shown and their relationships to other units are depicted. Every line on the diagram has significance.

You're not fooling anyone but yourself. The Bible underpins all your ideas. I only asked why you were including Bible references (in this case about the ark) after you had just finished insisting your views are independent of the Bible. You're still talking about the Bible right now. If you have facts showing the Flood happened then bring them forward and stop talking about the Bible. This is a science thread. More facts, less Bible.--Percy

Question about Granite not being part of a geological column.Would Half Dome be considered as part of a Geological column?Is Texas Pink Granite part of a Geological Column?Is Stone Mountain part of a geological column?What about Granite Mountain?

I would think that a geological presentation for any of these locations would be a little awkward if the granite were omitted.

This granite boulder thing has gotten way out of hand. Percy originally introduced it as a complete misreading of something I'd said about the uniformity of the strata as an argument against the ToE interpretation or something along those lines. I know I tried to be clear but maybe I wasn't. I was talking only about the FORM of the strata, their flatness, straightness, all stacked neatly one on top of another. Percy wanted to prove that the granite boulder does not demonstrate uniformity, by which he meant the texture of the rock, which had nothing to do with what I was talking about. So then said granite isn't even part of the geo column by which I meant the strata which I'd been talking about and off we galloped into neverneverland. So now the whole discussion is all garbled up but hey nothing new there.Cheers.

Translation: "I have no facts or evidence or coherent arguments, so I'm forced to make up fantasies that have no connection to the real world and are essentially just geological Bible stories."You're welcome to try to make this case, but not here, this thread is about the Flood.--Percy

Faith's posting history: At issue is whether discussion here has helped advance Faith's understanding of science and practical knowledge. Not acceptance, just understanding. This issue arose because of Faith's claim in Message 357 that ad hoc explanations should be acceptable because no facts support her position. She additionally claimed that any science that studies what happened in the past is also ad hoc. The obvious and inherent fallacies of this position have been pointed out many times, but Faith has never discussed it that I'm aware of. Perhaps someone should open a thread called, "Is scientific study of past events inherently ad hoc?"--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I liked that boulder ...But I think Percy's question was how it got there according to the flood model.

How many geology books have you read? Even creationist geology books know the definition of geologic column, and granite is definitely part of the geological column. The column of material beneath any location is the geologic column. It consists of all material in the vertical column, without exception. That includes sedimentary rock, igneous rock, metamorphic rock, sills, dikes, still molten magma chambers, lava, volcanic ash, soil, clay, sand, and whatever other kind of thing exists upon and within the Earth. Sections of the geologic column that are not sedimentary rock are not considered blank. But you say that all of world geology is the result of the Flood, so that must include this rock. How did it get there? Here it is again: And we believe that you believe that, but it's clear that you're constitutionally unable to speak of geology without bringing up the Bible. Protesting that your arguments aren't underpinned by the Bible at practically the same time that you keep bringing up the Bible is fruitless. You're not fooling anyone but yourself. You didn't respond to what I said. Here's the image again: How did that irregular boundary between the layer running across the center with the little circles in it and the one below form if the Flood always left behind flat and originally horizontal strata? As I said before, these strata are far too deep for there to have been flowing water that erodes and carries material away. Even if it could happen it would have caused the overlying material to collapse into the emptied space, which obviously from the diagram did not happen.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Provide improved image.

And I answered that question about how it got there according to the Flood model. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Flood but with something that happened afterward. But that wasn't his only question about it; the other was how I explain its apparent lack of uniformity in texture or pattern when yu cut it open, since he misunderstood that I was talking about the uniformity of the form of the strata, their flatness and straightness etc. Original horizontality.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.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. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes the Flood shaped the general condition of the planet, but that doesn't mean other things didn't happen in the ensuing four plus thousand years. Earthquakes, volcanoes, avalanches, whatnot.

C'mon, Faith. A person with your extensive geological research background must have some solid notion as to how it got there. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

The boulder interrupted what I was saying about the strata. I have no interest in it. It would take a lot of information about the environment in which it is found to figure out anything about it anyway. But I'm back in the strata myself and not interested. You of course who really do have geological knowledge (apart, of course, from all that historical hooha I mean) might have a notion about it you could most kindly and generously bestow upon us?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.