Did the Flood really happen?

As usual, it's a lot more complex than that. If you cannot pick up a good geology text and take the time to read it, there is little that we can discuss in a forum such as this. I assume nothing without evidence. And I do not assume that time periods get 'squished'; nor are they represented by a single rock, depositional environment or formation.Please understand that when I answer a question it is more for the audience that includes interested parties.

quote:

---

You ASSUME the rock represents a time period in which those fossil creatures lived, and that raises the question how that whole time period got squished down into a rock.

---

You wonder how sediment can be deposited over a period of time and later be turned into rock? That is what you are asking and it has been discussed. Perhaps you could explain your objections.

quote:

---

I know you don't think this is what you think but it's the only conclusion possible from the fact that an entire time period and "depositional environment" is represented ONLY by such rocks.

---

Naturally past time will be represented by the preserved traces of the events that occurred during it. Like the deposition of sediment. Why is this a problem ?

quote:

---

I know this isn't going to convince you of course, but there is simply no way to reconstruct an actual earth surface from the rock and fossils.

---

Since you aren’t familiar with the evidence or the techniques, how would you know ?

Where the "Cambrian" and "Silurian" strata are shown starting on it and hanging down from there to become the lowest portion of the strata beneath the island.And I might as well repeat here what I already tried to describe to PaulK (I think): From something he said I came to think the mountain was probably raised up by the same tectonic force that caused all the rest of the strata to "collapse" as I put it, from their original position stacked above what is now the mountain, so that what is now the left to right positioning of the usual order from Cambrian to Holocene was originally vertically stacked on top of the mountain before it was a mountain but would have been basement rock like those beneath the Tapeats in the Grand Canyon area. So the strata that now spread across the island horizontally would have been stacked vertically when originally laid down, and the continuation of their strata which we see now all sort of "draped" and wavy and irregular beneath the sea level line of the island proper (as Smith depicted it) would have been horizontally lying across the island. It is hard to make words say what I want them to say which is why I wish I could sketch this.Anyway I gather the strata as they are now seen on that illustration are assumed to have been laid down that way, meaning laid down just as we see them on the illustration? Is that correct? So that what I keep saying about how they "collapsed" into that position is not recognized at all?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In addition, geologists are able to tell the difference between strata that were laid down by rapidly moving water (eg, a flood) and still water (eg, a lake or sea). That evidence also does not support the Flood.

The strata or most of them may most likely have been precipitated out of standing water. The Flood stayed a couple of months at its height, no doubt just deep fairly still water at that point except of course for waves and tides.THE PROBLEM WITH ALL THESE SPECIFIC THINGS GEOLOGISTS KNOW ABOUT, INCLUDING THE CORALS, IS THAT NOBODY KNOWS ZIP ABOUT WHAT THE WORLDWIDE FLOOD WOULD HAVE DONE. NO, LOCAL FLOODS CAN'T GIVE EVEN A CLUE. WATER COVERING THE ENTIRE EARTH? GEOLOGISTS HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT, NOBODY HAS, AND APPLYING ALL THEIR KNOWLEDGE FROM CURRENT CONDITIONS AND LOCAL FLOODS IS MEANINGLESS IN THAT CONTEXT.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, nobody has any clue what magic water could do, since it could do anything imaginable and more.However, what real does and can do is understood very well. It cannot do what you demand of it.If your position depends entirely on magic, then at least admit it. Just don't call it science, which it isn't.

quote:

---

Anyway I gather the strata as they are now seen on that illustration are assumed to have been laid down that way, meaning laid down just as we see them on the illustration? Is that correct?

---

Certainly not. There is plenty of evidence of tectonic events and of erosion affecting the strata. Nobody has denied that.

quote:

---

So that what I keep saying about how they "collapsed" into that position is not recognized at all?

---

I don’t see anything I would call a collapse. Most of the distortion would be upwards not down. The rock could only move down if there were space below it - but there is always space above the surface.

It would help if you actually tried to learn the very very very very very very very very very very very very very very basics. What is a pyroclastic flow?

Of course not. We were relying on you (all) to tell us.So far, you have failed. Miserably.You ad hoc-isms conflict and/or require further evidence which is not forthcoming.So, we have to draw comparisons.This is your problem, not ours.

I wasn't clear. I meant were they all laid down WHERE we find them now? I know you all think various disturbances occurred to them in the process of being laid down, but I believe the whole column was laid down ON the island proper and not where we find them now.So please address THIS question: Do you all believe they were laid down WHERE we see them now? That is, BENEATH the sea level line of the island proper.

Here's another questoin:Do you all think the short tilted strata that are ON the island, that run from left to right from Cambrian to Holocene, were laid down in that position originally? (Since there are the broken-off ends of the strata beneath the island, if you think those beneath the island were laid down where we see them now, then I suppose your answer has to be yes, but as I keep trying to point out, the geological column is not laid down from east to west or left to right, it is laid down vertically, the many strata in original horizontal form stacked on on top of the other and not next to each other from left to right.So are you going to say yes to this question?

I know the Flood would have done things standard Geology doesn't imagine and I've imagined it with that in mind, as opposed to the usual attempt to pretend it's just like a local flood or that all the phenomena such as coral transport could be explained on the basis of the usual observations.

No magic at all, just a volume of water millions of times greater than any of you seem willing or able even to TRY to imagine.

Pretty much. Some have been uplifted others down-dropped. I suppose there may be some supracrustal extension or shortening, but essentially they are where they were. Well, lower sea level and then they would be on the 'island proper'. I think I mentioned that sea level is only a datum in reference to the present, but is otherwise meaningless.So, I suggest you lose the 'island proper' distinction if you want to understand geological processed and be understood by others. Essentially, yes. Yes, most sedimentary packages are deposited below sea level or very close to it.

You don't know that. It's an empty opinion based on a profound ignorance of what standard Geology does know.