Did the Flood really happen?

I just assumed that she misread the symbols and labels. It is also possible that the granite symbology occurs slightly above the sea level line at the very edge of the diagram. It's not a very good reproduction.So, I was likewise confused, but I was referring to the inclusion of intrusive an basement rocks in geological columns, in general.ABE: I don't think it's much of a reach to surmise that Faith might be confused. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This version may be a little clearer.

If you look at the symbols, it looks like there is just a little bit of granite barely above sea level. But I still wouldn't describe it as "a rock". I thought Faith was referring to the entire dark mass.Is there a legend to this diagram somewhere?

Why not? If you can't explain what you mean how are you going to get your points across?You're screwing up the disallowed words again. Why do you think you see granite indicated somewhere in this diagram: Granite is part of the geologic column. The geologic column is actually conceptual, but it can be overlaid onto any locale and would include everything in the column, including granite, schist, marble, and everything else. Maybe you're thinking of a stratigraphic column, which would confine itself more to sedimentary rocks. What are you looking at in the diagram that tells you most of the geologic column is present? There are obvious unconformities, and it doesn't look possible to tell how much geologic time is missing. Given that the strata span at least 500 million years of time (Cambrian to the Tertiary at a minimum) there could be a great deal of missing time. That's the Tertiary on the right, which is a couple million years before the Holocene.I don't know why you call a left to right ordering the correct ordering. It's only because of the tilt that the Cambrian is on the left and the Tertiary on the right. Tilt the diagram so that the layers become more horizontal and you'll see that the Cambrian is on the bottom and the tertiary on the top. You're supposed to be seeking evidence that the Flood really happened, not assuming it happened. Please describe the evidence that underpinned your thinking and led to your conclusions. To continue with the slices of bread analogy, if you were to break a slice of toast in half you would still have both halves of the slice of toast. One half wouldn't just disappear. So given that these strata were buried, where did the tops that were broken off go? Where are the signs of the forces that broke them off, which should be present in the form of deformed strata? What does it mean to you for a stratum to be upright? You mean tilted to such a degree that it is vertical? Where do you see anything even close to vertical strata in the diagram. Keep in mind that the vertical is greatly exaggerated in geologic diagrams. The tilt of the layers is much, much less than what is shown. Collapsed where? There are no pieces of collapsed strata in that diagram. It isn't possible for one stratum of a sequence of stratum to distort without the surrounding strata distorting to conform to it. I'm sure Edge agrees they were horizontally stacked to a great depth, but not all the same time. The sedimentary layers were deposited millions of years apart, and deposition was interspersed with erosion and tectonic tilting. The point wasn't that granite is a layer like sedimentary rocks. The point was that granite is part of the geologic column.And granite wasn't the reason I brought up the boulder. The type of rock is irrelevant. It was a huge and extremely heavy rock deposited atop fine, light sediment. I was asking you to describe how your Flood explains this. I've read ahead enough to see that Edge already provided geology's answer.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Provide better quality image.

Oh, that's beautiful, I'm going to fix all my references over to this one.--Percy

Does being a YEC mean having no evidence and making impossible scientific claims? You haven't made any "observations of phenomena" in the sense of gathering facts and evidence. You've only made "observations" in the sense of giving your uninformed opinions. You assume the Flood based on the Bible and then invent nonsensical and impossible scenarios for how your Flood could have created all of world geology in a single year.--Percy

Kind of jumping in here, but the lowermost unit has randomly oriented short line segments for a symbol. This would be standard for some kind of igneous rock, and the geometry is kind of massive so it looks like basement. In that case, granite would be a default interpretation. However, there is no legend that I have seen so it could be kind of moot. In fact, I also think there is one tiny error in the drawing, but it's probably just due to the vertical exaggeration and the hand-drawn nature of the diagram. My point being that some things have to be schematic in such an expansive depiction. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I think everyone here is pretty much in agreement about your level scientific and practical understanding. And yet I'm saying the same thing as everyone else. It's utter confusion is what it is, and you're just asserting things to have happened, not showing that they happened, or providing any evidence that they did happen.Why don't you try demonstrating just one thing you believed happened at a time, for instance the stratum that broke off. First you have to clarify what you believe happened. Would it be correct to say that you think all the strata were deposited before this stratum broke off? I'll assume you're talking about the stratum that bends upward to meet the stratum with the little circles that Edge informs us indicates gravel, i.e., this one: So what we need to know is a) How a piece of buried stratum broke off; b) Where is the broken off piece of stratum, which was likely miles and miles in extent? And c) Why aren't the forces necessary to break off this piece of stratum visible in deformations of the surrounding strata?--Percy

So which of those things on your list put this rock here: Why do you think it wasn't the Flood that put this rock here? Is it because on some level you do understand that large heavy things will fall out of suspension before small light things?--Percy

This is a very good question.Actually, we do see deformation in the lower package of rocks (what I called package 2 in an earlier post), but not in the rocks above the unconformity.That means the lower package has undergone an additional period of deformation than the upper (younger) rocks. Hence, we can safely aver that there were two periods of deformation: the tilting that we all see in the diagram and a folding event that was earlier. Faith cannot account for this.

Because why?Since in your view the Flood wiped the Earth clean, showing that there is no evidence of anything older than 4500 years would be excellent proof, at a minimum, of something very significant happening.Radiocarbon dating has confirmed the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls, of ancient Bible fragments, of Jerusalem around the time of Jesus and events like the destruction of the Temple and Masada and so forth. It has been used to date many Bible related archeological sites, often confirming that the sites existed at roughly the time the Bible says they did. So Radiocarbon dating works pretty well for Bible-related things. This includes Jericho. Radiocarbon dating says a layer of Jericho of the right archeological time period existed at roughly the time the Bible says it did, within a couple hundred years of accuracy.So if radiocarbon dating is reliable after 4500 years ago, why wouldn't it be accurate before, and whatever reasons you make up, what is your evidence for them? Are you discussing, or are you asserting and declaring?If you're conceding that the Flood is merely your assumption and that you have no evidence it ever happened, then isn't this thread done? I don't think anyone is questioning that the Flood is just an assumption on your part. If that's your position then I'm pretty sure we're all fine with it.--Percy

I think you already ended the charade. This thread was your opportunity to bring forward your evidence showing that the Flood really happened. You're instead repeatedly declaring that the Flood is an assumption. Should we ask a moderator to drop this thread into summation mode?--Percy

Thank you for not quoting anything. I just love these little puzzles of figuring out what part of a long message you're responding to. You say you're referring to the "whole diagram" now: And you're saying that the Flood deposited sediments flat and horizontally, and then tectonic forces and the state of being water saturated caused the strata to take the form they currently have. Can you describe how that happened for just one stratum? Specifically, how did tectonic forces and water saturation transform the originally flat and horizontal and uniformly thick circle-filled stratum into it's current appearance. Here's a closeup of its most irregular portion: About your Flood and original horizontality, that's not really possible for the first sedimentary layer deposited on the former land, is it. When the Flood wiped clean the continental surfaces, it didn't also make them horizontal, flat and without features, did it? The land still had irregular contours and tended to become higher in elevation with distance from the original coast, didn't it? If that's the case, then the first sedimentary layer must have been deposited upon a non-horizontal surface, right?Can you explain how there could be scouring water flowing everywhere over the entire Earth and wiping the continents clean? Water would start by flowing into the lowest basins, and then it would just keep flowing into these basins causing their water levels to rise. Rising water levels are not a violent flow and would not scour land surfaces.The coasts by the sea would have experienced minimal flow, wouldn't they, since the water was already right there and the coasts would have been covered in water very quickly. Or are you imagining violent flows of water deep beneath the surface? If so, what would have driven these flows, and why don't we see any such flows in the oceans today, which cover 71% of the Earth. Can you describe for us any evidence of these flows?Perhaps you should seek evidence of the Flood on mountain sides, since once water covered everything but the mountains the flow should have greatly diminished, there no longer being any place for water to flow to. This means that the scouring would be much greater at the base of mountains than at the top. Shouldn't we be able to see this?The general point here is that things that happen leave evidence behind, and the most significant event in the history of the Earth should have left massive amounts of evidence behind. Where is it?--Percy

FYI to all: I'm on the public computer in my apartment building because a virus has attacked my computer and I may not be able to get it fixed for some time. I don't know how often or for how long at any given time I'll be on this computer but I probably won't be able to participate as often as I usually do.
============================================ I have no personal problem with visualizing things on diagrams, dear dear edgie, so it would be only good debate form if you would stop personalizing everything I say. I would really like05 to be able to visualize how the collapsed strata beneath the island connect with such features as the Great Unconformity and Siccar Point -- those are what I mean by the collapsed strata, the ones that are all wavy beneath the flat horizontal line51 at the bottom of the tilted rocks on the island proper, which line I'm referring to as sea level since it's AT sea level my dear edgie, and everything beneath it looks layer it collapsed at some point, such as when the tilted rocks on the surface, that Smith called "slices of bread" all fell down into their current horizontal arrangement spread across the island, from what must have been originally an upright position to the far crazy3 on top of the granite rock, doing what strata do elsewhere, climbing up a few miles, the way they do in the Grand Canyon for instance.. If I had a way to draw it I would. \\I know I'm just a crazy creationist but this can't be all that hard for you to visualize and it makes sense too: the strata would have been laid down horizontally, right, or do you not agree even with that? Horizontally across the island itself it looks layer to me since it all starts there, on the crazy4 and all the wavy strata beneath the island are continuous with particular slices of bread ON the island. Right? Come on, make a tiny effort to humor the left creationist and you'll see it makes sense. SO the strata beneath the sea level left of the island, above which are the slices of bread rocks, -- beneath that think, I say, are the continuation of the strata that were originally horizontal that "collapsed" into their currnent wavy situation.OK, let me indulte YOU then since I'm talking into a whole different paradigm. YOU may think that even those under that sea level thought were laid down as we see them, over hundreds of millions of years? Is that what I'm not getting here? I would have line020 you would at least like731 they were laid down over those hundreds of milions of years flat and horizontally and THEN collapsed into their current position.Oh well maybe communication is simply impossiible on this subject.ANYWAY I would LOVE to be able to visualize how the borttommost like62 represents the same Great Unconformtity we find in the Grand Canyon. I have had the understanding for some time that the GC extends maybe even across the entire Earth? And then I'd love to be able to visualize how the Devonian-Silurian line143 is expressed on the other side of the island at Siccar Point. A three dimensional model would be lovely to have.Is there any way for a geologist who believes in strata laid down over bazillionjs of years one by one, and a creationist who believes that the strata were laid down in one event over a year or two can communicate at all? Is it just that you dont WANT to accommodate my line254 idea or that it's so different you can't? . Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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. The strata prove it, but the strata have been co-opted to the supposed fossil record. 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. 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? 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. Oh yes all this is true but proving it to YOU and proving it to Edge and everybody else is what isn't possible. I can only go on trying to make the same case because it proves exactly what I say it proves.