Did the Flood really happen?

"Laying down" does not take more than a few minutes if water does it, whether a river or precipitation out of standing water, or the kind of deposition that gets created by rushing water which has been shown many times before, mostly in flume experiments but once in nature caused by a flash flooding river. Many layers can be laid down simultaneously by these means. And don't forget the amazing laying down of sediments to a great depth that Mt. St. Helens created in very short order. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The strata give no such evidence as you claim, of being slowly deposited over long time periods, they should be mixed up and irregular in that case the way our own earth surface is today, and they are not, their neatness and straightness do NOT suggest millions of years of deposition

---

In reality we do see layers which are heavily eroded - and were eroded before the layers above them were deposited. We do see mixed sediments.

quote:

---

There really is NO order to the strata themselves either, they are a stack of sediments that hardened into rocks, and if there is an order to it only something like Walther's Law could provide the order, an order based on the mechanisms of deposition by water.

---

The order you refer to is not Walther’s law. And it is produced by the environmental changes which occur as the coastline advances and retreats. A flood wouldn’t produce those sequences. It would just bring in the sediment carried with it.

quote:

---

As for the supposed order of the fossils, it's got enough seeming order to give superficial support to the ToE, but since the whole shebang is false that has to be an illusion

---

And there is a wonderful example of a contortion. Rather than admit to the existence of evidence against you, you’d rather say that fossils only seem to be found where they are found.

quote:

---

There is no way you are going to get a mammal from a reptile, and I've spelled out the steps that show it to be impossible many times in the past.

---

No you haven’t, and I suppose you are going to say that the intermediate fossils are just illusions too ?

quote:

---

The trilobites show normal microevolution over those supposed hundreds of millions of years assigned to the rocks they are found in, but microevolution even on that interestingly extravagant scale doesn't need more than a few hundred years;

---

In your unsupported opinion. Experts - who actually know trilobite fossils, unlike you, see a good deal of macroevolution. Likewise you have not shown how sustained change at the rate you suggest is even remotely likely in a realistic environment.

quote:

---

The idea of a "variety of prepositional environments" is what is really the farfetched idea, a completely strained and forced idea that is imposed on rocks that indicate no such thing,

---

And now we’re into outright and direct falsehoods. The rocks DO show a variety of depositinal environments. That is EXACTLY what the sequences that you attribute to Walther’s Law show. And other environments - like deserts or lakes may. E distinguished too. All by the evidence of the rocks.

quote:

---

it's all an imaginative construction out of sediments and fossils that are far better explained by the simple mechanisms provided by the Flood, which I HAVE spelled out many times so stop saying I haven't given evidence.

---

No you haven’t. That is another outright falsehood.

quote:

---

You really have to strain to get a "depositional environment" out of a rock of a particular sediment with a few fossiils known to be of marine origin or whatever. Yes I know I'm criticizing scientists who know a lot more than I do, but this much is something those scientists don't know that they should be thinking about.

---

No, you just have to look at the evidence. Which you refuse to do. Scientists have thought about it in great detail. They examine how sediments are actually deposited. They examine the rocks closely. They look at the material in great detail. That they come to conclusions you don’t like is of no significance to anyone but you. It doesn’t mean that they are wrong.

Faith, just saying water did it is just silly. How did water do what is seen in reality.

I just had to fit that in somehow.So, just remember it for future discussions ...

Coral is attached to the sea floor. Are corals animals or plants? "Corals are sessile, which means that they permanently attach themselves to the ocean floor, essentially "taking root" like most plants do. We certainly cannot recognize them by their faces or other distinct body parts, as we can most other animals.""literally uprooted" by what process? What forces lifted them? How were those forces generated? Why didn't the reefs break?Derogatory Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster: "expressive of a low opinion : DISPARAGING"The fact that you can make up a story but can't explain how the events happened is evidence that story is true? Wowsers.

You have it backwards. They could not have been transported without breaking. The Flood could not have moved them without breaking. That means they must have grown there (unless there's a third alternative).

Sorry for the delay. I needed to give my friend a ride to the hospital for an operation and am now waiting there for the outcome. The problem is that what you describe as having happened hundreds if not thousands of times perfectly each time is virtually impossible. You cannot just wave away the impossible like that, but rather you need to explain how it could possibly happen. So far, you have not even begun to attempt that.In Message 514, JonF described the very special and very rare conditions and forces that would be needed to lift an entire coral formation without breaking or even cracking it and transporting it whole and depositing it in the correct orientation elsewhere. The likelihood of all those conditions and forces coming together to achieve that is extremely low, hence the probability of that event is extremely low. I point out that that exact same set of very rare conditions and forces had to play out hundreds and even thousands of times without fail -- for example, we know of no case where that coral got deposited upside down. The probability of all those hundreds or even thousands of independent events all succeeding would be so very extremely low as to be far less than virtually impossible (I have seen "virtual impossibility" to be defined as any probability less than 10^-120 -- that source was a YEC making the standard false "modern protein coming into existence by chance" claim).First an example to acquaint you once again with the math. If you have a series of n independent events, each with a probability p of succeeding, then the probability that all n events succeeded will be pⁿ. Since the value of p lies between 0 and 1, every time to multiply p by itself the product keeps getting smaller and smaller. For example, the probability of flipping a fair coin 10 times and getting all heads would be: 20 times would be 9.5367×10^-7. 50 times would be 8.881784197×10^-16. 100 times would be 7.8886×10^-31.The greater the number of events, the more improbable they become. That's how the math works out.The probability of the conditions and forces all working together to achieve the uplifting of an entire coral formation, transporting it whole and unbroken without even a crack, and depositing it whole and unbroken without even a crack and right side up is extremely low. I would think it to be less than one in a million, but I feel very generous so we'll assume it to be one in a hundred: 0.01 (AKA 1%, 10^-2).But that's just for one island. For two islands, that would be 0.01² = 0.0001 = 10^-4. For ten islands, 10^-20. For a hundred islands, 10^-200. For a thousand islands, 10^-2000.Remember that a probability less than 10^-120 is deemed to be virtually impossible. The probability of hundreds of islands created in the manner that you propose is hugely less than virtual impossibility.Hence, what you propose is impossible. That is the problem.

Even if someone could come up with some possible way a flood could move the reefs it still does not help the YEC cause since many took far longer than 6000 years to grow in the first place.YECism and Floodism are both simply silly and anyone suffering under such fantasies should be pitied.

Actually, you have it completely backwards.Rapidly deposited sedimentary deposits do not have time to go through the tedious process of sorting and isolation to create pure sediments. This is a well known aspect of sedimentology. In fact, rapidly deposited materials are often called 'immature sediments'. An example would be a graywacke which is an impure sandstone, as compared to a finely sorted quartz sandstone (as deposited on a beach) that has been reworked for centuries. Oh, my ... where to begin.I'm not sure where you are suggesting there is no order, but the Great Britain cross section shows plenty of orderly patterns. For instance, several of the formations show grading of sedimentary grains with coarser conglomerates at the base."Hardening into rocks", is an awkward phrase. We usually term it 'lithification'. Hardening has several other usages in engineering and construction.And what is the problem with Walther's Law? Does it not include well-sorted sediments such as beach sands ... exactly what we see in both the modern seashore and in the geological record? What is your evidence for a rapidly deposited beach?And no, it is not just 'deposition by water'. It is a serious of processes including sorting, settling, transgression, etc. Your oversimplification of "done by water", is painful to read. This is argument by assertion and personal incredulity. You do not have a shred of evidence to support it other than your certainty in a certain biblical myth. Well, that's compelling. Faith says the evolution is an illusion and supporting that is what? Nonsense, all you have provided is your assertion that it is impossible.Very few people are going to be convinced by your untrained opinion. Again, this is just your assertion. If you can have rapid microevolution a hundred years, why not macroevolution in millions of years. You have not established that the fossil record is only a couple thousand years at most. And your evidence for this is what? Your say-so? Why is that? Do we not have varied environments even now? So, the depositional environment does not dictate the type of sedimentary deposits to be found there? What do we see today? So, imagination is not good or useful? The problem you have is that we see different environments today that have different organisms and sediment types. Why would the past be any different? Actually, your idea of a mechanism is to assert that something is impossible and that 'water did it'.These are hardly compelling arguments. We do? But the point is that we see it happening today. And what have you got but a bunch of baseless assertions, denial and personal incredulity. Faith, they did think about it.Two hundred years ago.And those ideas were abandoned.

Wherever it is possible to determine a date from the Bible it can be used as verification for a date given by radiometric methods. Where there is agreement I would think the Bible would be understood to be the standard that verifies the radiocarbon method, but clearly it is not in such cases as the dating of Egypt, where the Bible could be the standard but the radiocarbon method is used as the standard instead. The Bible is certainly more reliable and should always be the standard. In fact I take this bit of comparison in which sometimes there is agreement to be an argument that the radiometric methods are NOT reliable in themselves.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Individual strata are always originally horizontal, but the whole stack of such strata is vertical, one on top of another from bottom to top, Cambrian or Precambrian on the bottom, up as far as it goes, to Holocene in this case.In this diagram the strata that are on the island proper, the short "slice of bread" strata that tilt toward the left, march horizontally across the island from Cambrian to Holocene. They are just short pieces of strata, but their extensions lie beneath the island, beneath the sea level line, the straightest line between the upper short pieces and the lower irregular strata.Strata are never laid down this way, they would have been laid down horizontally and stacked up vertically, but what we have here is broken off pieces of strata with the greatest part of their length beneath the island proper in that irregular "wavy" section we have been talking about.To restore them to their original position would require standing the whole island upright on the rock to the far left, Cambrian on the bottom, with Silurian on top of it instead of to its right which is where it is now, and so on UP the geological column as we usually see it, instead of lying on its side as it is in this picture.I tried to lay this out to edge earlier in a list of three bullets, in Message 523ABE: It MIGHT make things a little clearer if someone could post the original William Smith cross section which is only of the island proper. I think the granite on the left is more clearly there in his drawing for one thing, more clearly the "basement" rock it must originally have been.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Okay, so we have established that the sedimentary rocks are deposited in horizontal layers that are stacked vertically.This is a shock. I have no idea what this means. Again this is gibberish. how can sedimentary layers that are lying down 'march'? I don't see 'short pieces of strata. What are you talking about? Of course, what is your point? There is nothing important about the sea-level line. It is just a datum, an artifact, like the labels for towns. The layers cut across this line. Yes, you said that above. Okay, so as Percy has asked repeatedly, if the layer is broken, where is the rest of it? What do you mean by "island proper"?Our Brits are going to be upset that part of their island is improper. What do you mean by "upright" and what is the "rock to the far left"? I do not see a rock. I do not see Silurian "to the right" of the Cambrian. I see a folded and tilted contact, but you make it seem like the layers are standing on end. Faith, it's simply a matter of tilting and erosion of a rock section. I don't see what the big deal is. You word choice is hopelessly mangled and leads to gross misunderstanding of the geology of the diagram.

The Bible is a storybook, not a compendium of fact, evidence and scientific observations. Anyone entering facts into this discussion must show that they are actual facts. "The Bible says so," does not establish factuality. Then unless you can show that any information you draw from the Bible is factual, you have no argument. Should we get a moderator to drop this thread into summation mode? It's up to you, but the word "assumption" seems apt.You must be able to support any claims you make. You have this tendency to demand that things you or the Bible say be taken as true without evidence, that even just saying them makes them evidence. You can't seem to tell the difference between a story you make up and evidence. Strata and fossils are terrible evidence for you. None of the stories you've made up about them withstand the slightest scrutiny. If the strata and fossils are such good evidence for you then explain how the flood sorted them in ways contrary to how we know the physical world works. You've actually offered explanations many times, and each time people have pointed out in detail why your scenarios are impossible. The only thing that seems to keep you pushing these hopeless ideas is that you don't understand most of science or how the real world works. What you've been doing these many years is akin to someone relentlessly pushing that 2+2=5 for no other reason than that math comprehension is beyond them and 2+2=5 is what they like.--Percy

Do you mean this diagram? My interpretation of the Snowdon portion (on the left) is that there are some granite outcroppings on the surface, which from other articles I've read I think must be intrusions. Smith describes the sedimentary layers of Snowdon as "Kllat and Slate". I could not find a definition of "Kllat". One article I saw claimed that much Snowdon strata are volcanic ash.Snowdon is not a granite mountain, and definitely not some huge granite rock. Edge earlier commented that the other diagram may indicate some granite at the left base of Snowdon in the other diagram. Can you describe where in this diagram that strata built upon granite is indicated: --Percy

Nothing to say, Faith?Coral is attached to the sea floor. Are corals animals or plants? "Corals are sessile, which means that they permanently attach themselves to the ocean floor, essentially "taking root" like most plants do. We certainly cannot recognize them by their faces or other distinct body parts, as we can most other animals.""literally uprooted" by what process? What forces lifted them? How were those forces generated? Why didn't the reefs break?Derogatory Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster: "expressive of a low opinion : DISPARAGING"The fact that you can make up a story but can't explain how the events happened is evidence that story is true? Wowsers.{I really want to see your defense of that last item. Pretty please?)