Did the Flood really happen?

On the contrary, it is very easy to test the fragility of coral. That's another experiment that creationists could do. Throw some coral into a flood, have it transported a few hundred miles and check for damage. Why don't they ever do the experiments? The evidence would be transporting coral without damage. Demonstrate that.

So now you have a worldwide flood that was violent enough to destroy all traces of civilization before the flood, and at the same time gentle enough not to damage coral.

Neither do you, evidently. Actually, we do have an idea. We know what transport does to geological bodies. There are physical limits and consequential structural elements.

It didn't have to be violent, it just had to be huge, full of mud and debris, and constantly moving in its earliest phase, to destroy everything in its path. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

It’s labelled as Snowdon so it is a mountain.

quote:

---

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.

---

We see the tilt, but I don’t know why you call it a collapse. Why can’t the Western side have been raised rather than the Eastern side subsiding ? And doesn’t a collapse imply a sudden event? I don’t see any evidence of that.

I'm sure, but since I've been proving the Flood occurred and withing the Young Earth time frame, it needs further consideration.

Faith, that is a mountain. In fact, it is a schematic mountain. You may as well say Japan is a rock. Please try to use standard terminology so as not to confuse the discussion. We understand that the early Paleozoic rocks were deformed by the Caledonian Orogeny. They are folded in ways that the younger rocks are not. Hence, they were deformed prior to deposition of the younger rocks. The sedimentologial record supports this interpretation.

If it destroyed "everything in its path", why didn't it destroy the coral too?

Water was water. Physics was physics. Gravity was gravity. We have a very good idea what those limitations entail. There's no way large and extremely brittle objects attached to the sea floor were lifted whole, transported whole, and set down ehole. 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?Since you obviously can't figure it out:YOUR UNSUPPORTED AND PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE STORIES ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

That is your untrained opinion. There are thousands of geologists who disagree and you insult the work of thousands more who dedicated their careers to reconstructing the geological development of Great Britain and the planet; all with a simple dismissal.But I'm sure you know better.

Yes a Brit would know that Snowdon is a mountain, thanks. Could but it would have had to have been raised after the collapse then, since the strata are not in their original position but already collapsed across the length of the island. Originally all the strata including the short tilted parts on the island with their full lengths that are now under the sea level, that wavy irregular bunch of strata, all of them would have been up on the island all extending as a block of horizontal strata, climbing up from Cambrian to Holocene, Cambrian resting where the sea level line is. \\Broken off strata, strata all collapsed into the sea? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry for the insults, I'm just working with what I see.

The coral wasn't in its path.

Apparently, the fludde is whatever you want it to be. And it will do whatever you want it to do.Very convenient, really.

But to an anti-Floodist it's whatever YOU want it to be, incapable of doing anything you don't want it to do and always doing what YOU want it to do.