Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

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.

---

Everything we see is on the island. I don’t believe there has been substantial horizontal movement, and I don’t see any evidence of it.

quote:

---

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 prope

---

Most of the strata have portions above the current sea level. I’m sure that there has been uplift and subsidence, but the latter would be impossible to reconstruct from the diagram.ABE the Cretaceous strata seems to be entirely above it, or almost so, and the Tertiary definitely is.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

So still, you give us nothing to work with but your own overheated imagination.

OK I will repeat it because obviously it's a brand-new idea that nbody wants to consider: The strata we see both on the surface of the island and beneath it, which are all one geological column spread out from left to right across the island both above and below, cannot be the way it was originally laid down, since they would have been laid down one on top of the other from bottom to top. They are now left to right, Cambrian to Holocene, but they would originally have been Cambrian on the bottom to Holocene on the top and all the strata beneath the island which are extensions of those on the surface, would have made up a complete geological column sitting ON the sea level line instead of below it.I have a feeling nobody has ever noticed this and doesn't want to have to think about it.

I don't think anybody but you has noticed that the world is round. You should mention it to them.

Well, at the moment I would really like someone to address the situation I keep bringing up and just restated in Message 648 that as far as I've noticed has not been addressed: that the strata as we see them in that diagram of the British Isles are NOT where they would have been laid down originally, but on top of the island, and all the strata that are now on top of the island would be stacked up vertically rather than as we now see them, and all their extensions that are now beneath the island would be ON the sea level line, ON the island. OK? The discussion seems to have proceeded as if it is assumed that the strata have always been where we find them on that illustration.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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?

---

There are very few short tilted strata, pretty much all around the Devonian. Maybe some surface deposits above the coal around the Carboniferous, and there is a shortish stretch that looks Cambrian.They certainly weren’t tilted when they were laid down, I don’t see any reason to assume horizontal movement.

quote:

---

n 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.

---

I am well aware of how the strata are laid down, although I suppose it suits you to pretend otherwise. But I do not see any broken-off ends.

quote:

---

So are you going to say yes to this question?

---

Probably, so far as horizontal movement goes. Definitely in their relation to the other strata (principle of superposition) and if you mean anything else you will have to be clearer.

Nothing to think about considering that so little thinking went into this idea in the first place.All you are describing is a regional package of rocks that has been tilted and then eroded. No special processes or evidence necessary.

That was the 'top' of the island at the time.

They were not merely tilted, they are now side by side whereas they would originally have been one on top of the other. Speaking of the parts of the strata we see ON the island.

I see, THAT's how you explain it. So sea level rose up to the current sea level line? And how do you explain the fact that the strata that are currently ON the island are arranged from left to right rather than stacked one on top of the other as is the usual situation with a geological column?

Faith, we are well aware that the strata have been tilted. However it is not at all clear that all of them - especially the later strata - ever covered the whole island. There is no Cretaceous rock shown West (left) of Cambridge, for instance. Maybe the Cretaceous strata once extended further, but I doubt that it got all the way to the Welsh coast.

Gosh, I see a whole lot of short pieces of strata all tilted toward the left, arranged (sorry you hate the more literary "marching") from left to right across the whole island. Perhaps this is a little clearer on Smith's own diagram but I think it's clear enough on the other too. I don't think I said anything about "horizontal movement." Anyway I gather you still don't get what I'm trying to describe.Yes the principle of superposition is violated in their current position one after the other from left to right. Superposition would describe the usual situation of one on top of the other, which is not what we see here but was surely their original position when they were laid down. Stand the presently horizontal sequence upright on the Cambrian piece and that should recapitulate the original position.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Maybe the previous post will help. I can hope anyway. I'm not talking about the tilt, I'm talking about how a geological column is never laid down on its side, it is stacked vertically, but this one is on it's side, marching, as it were, from left to right ACROSS the island when it would originally have been stacked UP vertically.

quote:

---

Gosh, I see a whole lot of short pieces of strata all tilted toward the left, arranged (sorry you hate the more literary "marching") from left to right across the whole island. Perhaps this is a little clearer on Smith's own diagram but I think it's clear enough on the other too.

---

The better diagram shows that a large majority continue East (Right) beneath the island For instance the dotted layer just to the left of the Carboniferous (the black coal) continued until it is under the Cretaceous- hardly short.

quote:

---

I don't think I said anything about "horizontal movement." Anyway I gather you still don't get what I'm trying to describe.

---

You talk about the strata having moved but you don’t give any idea of how you think they moved. If you won’t specify I have to deal with all the possibilities.

quote:

---

Yes the principle of superposition is violated in their current position one after the other from left to right. Superposition would describe the usual situation of one on top of the other, which is not what we see here but was surely their original position when they were laid down.

---

Since none of them are truly vertical - and most are closer to horizontal - superposition still applies.

quote:

---

I'm not talking about the tilt, I'm talking about how a geological column is never laid down on its side, it is stacked vertically, but this one is on it's side, marching, as it were, from left to right ACROSS the island when it would originally have been stacked UP vertically.

---

That is the tilt.