Did the Flood really happen?

"Killas" is one of those archaic terms that permeate the earth sciences. According to Wiki:

quote:

---

Killas is a Cornish mining term for metamorphic rock strata of sedimentary origin which were altered by heat from the intruded granites in the English counties of Devon and Cornwall. The term is used in both counties.

---

So, there are certainly some intrusive granites in the region. Their age is not clear at this point. The killas might be metamorphic lower Paleozoic sedimentary rocks or older Precambrian rocks. If all of the rocks are below the Great Unconformity, then they would be the older rocks intruded by Precambrian granite.ABE: According to the reconstructed strata diagram, there are intrusives into the Paleozoic rocks (Cambrian). So there appear to be some non-Precambrian intrusives. This is pretty schematic designed to show the formation of the slates. The diagram does not address any Precambrian rocks that could be present. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

The Bible is not a "storybook," and it IS a "compenium of fact," just not facts that interest hou.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know coral is attached to the sea floor, I read the same Wikipedia article you did, there seemed no point in answering. I already said they would have been "uprooted," -- by the "fountains of the deep" perhaps.

And transported intact, from the ocean basins onto the continents?I'm sure that makes sense to everyone here. An imaginary, ad hoc construct. Now you need to provide evidence for 'fountains of the deep'.

You wrote "IIRC, they have no attached roots that they normally use to attach to the sea floor". So you've now admitted they are attached.You left out responding to the meat of my message. Obviously you have no response. And no evidence.literally uprooted" by what process? What forces lifted them? How were those forces generated? Why didn't the reefs break?The fact that you can make up a story but can't explain how the events happened is evidence that story is true? Wowsers.

So nobody seems to be very interested in my analysis of how the strata must have originated as a stack of strata from Cambrian to Holocene, that then collapsed into the current position. Somebody asked where the broken off parts of the strata went, by which I suppose is meant the strata that broke off the pieces that are left standing, which would originally have been to the left of the island when they were in their original position, and the answer must be the usual one: they were washed away into the sea when the Flood water receded. Which is also when the tectonic upheaval occurred on my scenario.Thank you Percy for posting the original Smith cross section. If that mound isn't a rock it makes no sense to me. Granite plus whatever is usually found as basement rocks. This by the way is what I mean by the "island proper," the strata that are shown beneath it on the other diagram are beneath sea level, which is the horizontal straight line along the bottom of "the island proper." And edge, since you referred to sea level in a recent post to mean the same thing you can't now accuse me of some terminological glitch, which seems to be about all you ever have to say to me.I used this original Smith cross section some time ago to buttress my view of the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase area, specifically using it as evidence for the Young Earth, but then someone posted the version of it with the strata beneath the island which created a detour in my thinking. But as I've been thinking it through now and realizing how it must originally have been laid down, I'm back to my original view of it too. Those strata beneath the "island proper," which means the land part above sea level, originally extended straight and horizontal on the "island proper" from sea level on up.Since we all seem to speak different dialects, although I will do my best to be clear I suppose this will all bog down again into a terminological morass in which edge claims not to understand a word I'm saying, but oh well.SO. When I first saw the Smith cross section I understood it to show that the whole geological column was present minus some strata here and there, but the RANGE of strata was there from Cambrian to Holocene, all in various degrees of brokenness and tilt from left to right. Just the fact that the whole column is represented is proof to me that THEY WERE ALL IN PLACE BEFORE THE TECTONIC DISTURBANCE OCCURRED that collapsed them into their current positions. And that is how the island represents the same thing I was finding in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area where all the strata were also in place before the tectonic disturbance occurred that cut the canyon itself and the staircase. There are no disturbances within the strata, no erosion of a magnitude that would suggest surface erosion during a long time period, none of that. Oh I know you'll all come along and tell me there is and point to this or that small area of erosion but no, that degree of erosion is explainable as occurring as a result of tectonic disturbance after all the strata were in place. And since edge insists on treating me like someone who can't even write a coherent sentence, and he's not the only one, I'm just going to write what I write and if you get it you get it and if you don't you don't.SO, now that I see that the strata beneath the island proper, meaning beneath that sea level line, are all continuous with the broken off tilted short pieces of strata on the island, I know I'm on the right track. The strata were all in place, NOT laid down one at a time over millions and millions of years, but all in place before the disturbance occurred that put them all in their current position. This is evidence for the young earth and for the Flood, all the strata laid down in a continuous sequence of deposition, before being disturbed by the tectonic shaking, its earthquakes and whatnot.The angular unconformities don't interfere with this view of it by the way. The Flood itself was worldwide and so was the tectonic disturbance, so the GU is there as well as in the GC/GS area, hip hip hooray. SO halfway across the world we have the same basic geological situation despite all the objections to my making this connection. This cross section helps to prove both the young earth and the worldwide extent of the processes involved.I keep thinking there's more to this than I'm remembering at the moment but I'll add it if and when it comes back to me.So bring on the debunkery.

They were uprooted and transported, the roots they had are no longer functional, and they did not put down new roots in their new location. They WERE attached to the sea floor, they are NOT attached in their new location.I don't worry about all those other details when I know the Flood has been proved in so many other ways so it had to be the cause of the coral transport too whether I can explain it yet or not. Science doesn't know everything all at once.Cue insults galore.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It only needs to be disproven in one way for all of the "proofs" to be irrelevant. The magical bulletproof coral has definitely been disproven.

Please keep in mind that all this is purely speculative, your stuff, my stuff. All your speculations sound reasonable but there is no way to prove them one way or another so they remain speculations. That's the problem I keep talking about with the "historical sciences." The coral transport scenario has not been disproven, sorry. Eventually someone will recognize the means by which it occurred.ABE: Scuse me but I have been actually proving the Flood and the Young Earth as I say above, I can demonstrate the eivdence although there's a very strange inability to see it by those enamored of the other paradigm. But the transport of the corals is all speculation with no proof whatever. Other considerations of what could have happened can yet be shown. Not proved, sorry.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

IOW "I have no idea how but I cannot be wrong." You might as well just reply that to all the messages. So the fact that you can make up a story with no consideration of physical possibility or how the events occurred is evidence for your point of view? Need a hint?

Simply once again what you say is not true.The coral exists. That is not speculation.You have provided NO evidence showing it was ever moved and as always, no model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that might allow either of the Biblical floods to move the corals. That is pure speculation.Thinking that either of the Biblical Flood stories ever happened is simply more evidence of being totally divorced from reality or honesty.

You have no idea what a worldwide Flood wouldl have done so you have no idea whether the corals could have been transported or not. Sorry.

That has to be a rock of some sort at the far left, and we know it has some granite in it, but it's a rock or even a small mountain. The diagram indicates that the Cambrian and Silurian layers start on top of it and drape down its side to the right, part of that collapse I keep talking about that nobody seems to understand.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

SO, now that I see that the strata beneath the island proper, meaning beneath that sea level line, are all continuous with the broken off tilted short pieces of strata on the island, I know I'm on the right track.

---

What broken-off tilted short pieces of strata are you talking about?
There aren’t any that seem to be broken off at all.

quote:

---

The strata were all in place, NOT laid down one at a time over millions and millions of years, but all in place before the disturbance occurred that put them all in their current position.

---

That is certainly not what the diagrams show. You need to get into all sorts of contortions to explain away the evidence.

quote:

---

This is evidence for the young earth and for the Flood, all the strata laid down in a continuous sequence of deposition, before being disturbed by the tectonic shaking, its earthquakes and whatnot.

---

No, Faith. The fact that you invented this fantasy to support the Young Earth and the Flood only shows that you make up fantasies - with no regard for the evidence. But the evidence shows that it is just a fantasy.

quote:

---

The angular unconformities don't interfere with this view of it by the way.

---

Indeed, you have no concern for the contortions you must make to try to explain away the evidence. After all you can just falsely accuse us of doing what you are doing. And then get upset when it doesn’t work.

Actually, this is not a cross-section. It is only a stratigraphic column with the enhancement of showing the changing tilt of the layers. Correct. It is not a cross-section. As such it does not provide as much geological information. No, there are major parts of the geological time scale that are not recorded on Great Britain.No, the whole purpose of the Smith column is to show the variation in tilting from west to east. If you agree that the strata were deposited 'straight and flat' and deformed at one time all together, then all of the strata should be tilted to the same degree.And no, there is no evidence of collapse. A collapse event would leave behind some kind of evidence such as a collapse breccia which is easily recognized. Incorrect, as demonstrated. The cross-section refutes this argument. There are clear evidences of extensive erosion as described in previous posts. Okay, so simply dismiss the data. That's convincing. Okay, demonstrate this tectonic event. Describe the deformation. Give us a kinetic model of the rock movements. What is the geometry of the forced involved. Oh, we get it alright.