Did the Flood really happen?

We see it on land with deserts encroaching and sea levels rising and floods depositing silt and erosion causing land slide and forests being cleared and fires laying down layers of ash and volcanoes pouring out new lava and old lava being froken up and plants take over and ...What we see happening on the surface today is exactly what we see in the Geological columns.What is so pitiful is that it really is so simple and obvious.

I misread this earlier, I thought you were illustrating the mountain because I didn't see the letters identifying the strata. Since it represents the strata then it's more or less what I had in mind, yes, except that you have a vertical line at the very top for the break, but the break would have been more horizontal across the strata, and it is the upper ends that break off that end up as the short tilted strata that are arranged horizontally across the island, with the rest of the strata falling beneath the sea level line of the island where we see them as very distorted.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The thought is that both the greatest part of the surface of the earth AND the sea floor are not discreet sediments but mixed or jumbled sediments, in which creatures do not usually manage to get themselves buried, let alone fossilized. Predators eat them and even their bones eventually decompose. Yes but the odd thing is that both the marine and the terrestrial sedimentary rocks in the geological column are clearly in FORM -- flatness, thickness, etc -- created by the same processes. Some of the sediments are completely just one kind in both cases, all sandstone or all limestone or whatever, and all have fossilized creatures contained in them, marine creatures, land creatures, both in their respective strata. And this is not building on the geological column but you all think that's just fine even though the geological column is a very definite thing covering very definite locations, so that since the time periods were identified in relation to it, that whole system has now come to an end and you are treating this fact as meaningless. No, it has ended, as it would have if the Flood built it, but you all go on trying to cobble together utterly unrelated situations as if they continued the column. They don't. Except the geological column is all built one on top of another in the same place, and these situations you are describing are formed hither and yon with no relation whatever to the geological column which is what has defined all the time periods, until now for some reason. The actual situation of the sedimentary mixes and jumbles we see over most of the surface of the earth, and if you HAVE to include the sea bottom, there too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

Lagging way behind in reading this topic, but I'll chip in a thought. Just because the Silurian strata is vertical or near vertical at that location does not mean that it is near vertical everywhere. Indeed, if that strata is found over a large area, it must be much more horizontal in general. And the cross section diagram is covering that large area.Perhaps it is some more intense local folding??? A small detail that isn't going to show up in "the big picture"???What would be nice, would be to have a good geologic map and/or cross section that only covers a few miles of lateral distance from that location. I can't find such online.Moose

quote:

---

If time periods were marked by sedimentary layers we should see one forming today exactly over the geologial columns wherever they are. We don't.

---

So, you deny that sediment is being deposited today.

quote:

---

...That's clearly what we see in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area, and it's clearly what we see in the UK diagram we've been discussing. ALL the strata are in place, all laid down one after another, AFTER which something disturbed them, cut canyons into them, caused them to collapse from original vertically stacked horizontal layers down to pieces of strata arranged no longer vertically but horizontally across the island. All this supports the Flood explanation.

---

We do not clearly see it at all. What we clearly see is evidence of tectonic events and massive erosion during the creation of the column. And you go into desperate contortions to deny the evidence. This is evidence AGAINST the Flood explanation.

quote:

---

Neat sedimentary rocks every few millions of years all neatly stacked one upon another despite the intervening millions of years, just does not fit reality as we know it.

---

Indeed we often find that sedimentary rocks are not neatly stacked on each other and we can have gaps much greater than a few million years.

quote:

---

Animals die on the surface, including the surface of the sea bottom, where predators gobble them up and they have zerio chance of being buried let alone fossilized.

---

Generally predators do not eat the hard parts - and it is the hard parts that form the vast majority of fossils. Some animals die where predators cannot reach them - like being buried by a landslide or a sandstorm - or falling to an anoxic lake bottom.

quote:

---

The surface of the earth is a jumble of sediments, not neatly sorted sediments except in special places that aren't even part of the geological column, and the sea floor is also a jumble of stuff that died and landed on it. Yes a jumble. Everyday nature creates a jumble of stuff on our earth, it has to be a special event that would create the geological column.

---

I guess you are pulling your old dodge of not counting present day sediments because they aren’t rock. So we don’t get pure sediments that aren’t sediments. Big deal. As it is we do get quite pure sediments in conditions that did produce rock.As for your jumbling of fossils, fossils are often jumbled in the same way as modern organisms. The order of the fossil record doesn’t deny that.And of course we are still waiting for you to offer any remotely viable explanation of the order of the fossil record.

That's the though but not the reality. How do you know? Creatures do not usually get buried, let alone fossilized. But a very few do. You've said than many mnay times. It would be a refreshing change for you to at least try to produce some evidence and/or reasoning for this claim. [qs]Except the geological column is all built one on top of another in the same place,[/qsq]
As are the sediments being deposited today. To you "hither and yon" means "in the same place on top of previous layers? The sediments are being deposited on top of the geologic column. That's a relationship.Insofar as layers are associated with time periods, the sediments deposited today are associated with the Quaternaty period and the Holocene epoch. That's awfully vague. What is your source for your claim of "what we see"? Personal and physical observation? Collecting and inspecting samples? Reading other's investigations? Making it up out of whole cloth?It's not at all obvious what you mean by "jumbled". It's defined as "mixed up in a confused or untidy way." That's definitely not true of the sea floor and river deltas, and I fail to see how it's applicable to the land.

Well, I know they don't but that's because I believe the Flood accounts for all of it. However, illustration after illustration definitely show the time periods as aligned with particular strata. Hard to ignore.

Well, no, I can't think of them as being part of the geological column not because they aren't rock but because they aren't in the right place to be part of the geological column, they don't have the same geographical extent, and if there's anything about their being unconsolidated that applies it's that they could never become a rock shaped like those in the geological column anyway.

They are in the right place, directly at the top of the existing geologic column.Some of them have tremendously extent, such as the floor of the Pacific Ocean, covering 30% of the Earth and 15 times the area of the United States.Why can't they become rock like the other layers? Oh, I know, there's no physical reason but you don't want them to.

OK but I want to extend it to about twice that length. That looks more like the mountain itself than what is yielded. The strata would break long before you'd get such a sharp bend at the top. Cut off the whole upper triangle and that should get closer to what I have in mind. Too vertical. I'd draw them tilted out from the mountain, sort of like swept-back airplane wings. The arrows shouldn't point straight out horizontally, the strata are going to fall on a more gently vertical trajectory, or tilted perhaps is a better word, in the direction they are going to end up, on the right or east anyway. Well, there is no island on the left/west now so the mountain is on the far left/west rather than the middle, the strata on that side are gone, yes, and the broken ends of the strata are graded more or less from longer to shorter and are tilted toward the mountain as we see them now.AND the rest of them are beneath the island proper now. If the mountain hadn't caused them to break then the strata that fell away to the left/west might have remained as part of the whole column, and fallen with those on the right. You'd have to imagine quite a length of strata being eroded away in your scenario.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Well, no, I can't think of them as being part of the geological column not because they aren't rock but because they aren't in the right place to be part of the geological column, they don't have the same geographical extent, and if there's anything about their being unconsolidated that applies it's that they could never become a rock shaped like those in the geological column anyway.

---

I can’t imagine what you think the right place might be. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that the sediments that settle and stay do so anywhere but in the surface - which is the right p,ave, wherever it might be.The extent is also a dubious objection since we already have the example of the Sahara, we already know that many strata are more local in extent and we already know that the extent of many strata is greater than the area they were being deposited at any particular point in time.Your finAl objection just denies that sediment can become rock. Which I guess rules out the Flood explanation.

quote:

---

Well, there is no island on the left/west now...

---

I think that the Irish might disagree with that.

The flood would not have laid down many layers, it would have laid down a simple structure with larger stones precipitating out first and, of course no igneous or metamorphic strata. Consider the strata shown by the valley of the Grand Canyon. The flood certainly wouldn't have laid down volcanic basalt at a low level, sandstone in the Bright Angel formation, limestone and dolomite in the Muav formation, shale in the Supai formation, sandstone in the Coconino formation, shale in the Toroweap formation, lava and cinders in the Shivwits and Uinkaret formations and sedimentary rock on top of that lava.And that's just a few of the many, many different layers.

It's baffling that you remember so little. We've explained contemporaneous sedimentation atop the geologic column many, many times. We don't expect you to agree with what we say, but how can you not even remember the many times it's been explained?What would you think if every time we discussed the Flood I said, "Remind me who Noah was again, and what he did with those tablets?" You'd think my mind had reached a stage in life where information didn't hang around too long, and what did was unorganized and haphazard. You'd wonder if I'd lost the ability to read for comprehension since you'd explained it so often. You'd begrudge the time wasted repeatedly explaining the same things about Noah and the Flood, and would ask yourself whether just this once I might I'd stay on topic long enough for you to communicate anything useful about them, or would I keep throwing out ridiculous theories about how Noah wrestled the fountains of the deep and then spent three days with his ark inside a giant fish.But you don't have to face that problem because I and everyone else here can read and comprehend and research and investigate and learn and remember what we said just yesterday.Moving on to the topic, repeating this for the nth time, sediments are being deposited today atop the geologic column. Every point on the surface of the earth, both land and submerged, is at the top of a partial representation of the geologic column, and the exposed portions of every one are in one of three states: a) erosion; b) no change; c) deposition. Nothing else is possible.Sediments come from formations exposed to erosion and weathering, things like wind and rain and cold and hot and currents and flows and so forth. The sediments have to go somewhere. Sediments that begin on land gradually make their way to lower and lower elevations and eventually to rivers and streams that carry them to lakes and seas where they are deposited on the bottom.The Earth's surface, including all submerged surface, is at the top of the geologic column. It's definitional, you can't change it, only fail to understand or remember it.Much of the ocean accumulates sediments at the rate of an inch or two per millennium, though of course it can vary widely, and deposition rates are much higher near coastlines due to runoff from land and the sediment load delivered by rivers and streams. Except for the part about "broken up" this seems to be correct. It is absolutely inevitable that sediments deposited at any location will be affected by whatever tectonism, volcanism, earthquakes, erosion, etc., occur in that region. Nothing else is possible. To deny this is happening while it is happening would be insanity. Yes, of course we see strata acted upon by the array of forces present on the Earth. What else would you expect to see? What you mean is that strata are deposited according to well known principles of geology, first formally articulated by Steno and later refined. Yes, the law of superposition. You're doing good so far, except maybe for the "something disturbed them" part. We know what "disturbed" them, and it's the normal array of geologic forces we're already familiar with. Whoops, you've gone off the rails. The term "collapse" does have a definition within geology, but you're making up your own definition. What you're describing seems impossible, and there's no evidence that any such thing ever happened. The strata were only tilted, and by far less than shown on the diagrams, as has been repeatedly explained. If you want to discuss it then please, please, start discussing it. Tell us what you're seeing in the diagram that makes you think this. Don't just repeat this again. All what supports the Flood explanation?All you did was recite a little standard geology followed by the same crazy talk (meaning it's transparently impossible) that you've been repeating all thread. You don't seem to know what facts and evidence are. What you're doing is as absent of facts and as physically impossible as saying, "And then the stork brings the baby to the mommy and daddy, and that's how babies are born. All this supports the stork explanation." Are you blind? Go to any coast and you'll see thousands upon thousands of miles of ocean over a fairly flat sea bottom (which of course you can't see, but see typical photo below). Sediments are gradually, steadily and unceasingly deposited upon the sea floor millennium after millennium. That is reality. Life dies in a variety of different circumstances, and some of those circumstances permit burial and eventual fossilization. Rapid burial of life in a flood would make soft tissue outline preservation a common find instead of a rarity. If you truly mean just the Earth's surface then of course it is a "jumble of sediments," though that's a strange way to describe it. Sediments, the products of erosion and weathering, are everywhere they can be carried by wind, rain and flowing water. Sediments cover almost the entire Earth's surface and can be soil or sand or clay or mud or gravel and so forth. But you were talking about the Earth's surface. You can't have a stack of "neatly sorted sediments" at the surface - that would make no sense. It would be like saying, "Look at the stack of paper in this top sheet of paper." There is no place on Earth that is not part of the geological column. You mean a jumble like this? Yeah, really jumbled: The sea floor is actually highly varied, and it is subject to the effects of storms, volcanos, earthquakes, tectonism, and so forth, but because of constant sedimentation it is mostly fairly smooth, flat and horizontal. A general characterization of the sea floor would not be that it is a jumble.Sea floor cores reveal neat sequences of layers. The top layer is from today and the bottom layer, depending upon how deep they drill, is thousands and millions of years old. For example, here's a part of a core from deep beneath the top of the sea floor from the K-T boundary (they've renamed it the K-Pg boundary, a finger is pointing to it) from about 65 million years ago, but the very top of that core was from today: Sedimentation is adding to the geologic column as we speak.--Percy

Nothing is possible but that you are misremembering. No one in that discussion could look at this and not see the sedimentary layers: If because of your eye issues you didn't initially discern the sedimentary layers then everyone else in the discussion would have brought them to your attention. Although the odds are good you never read the messages with that information. Don't take my word that Snowdon isn't solid granite, take the diagram's. The diagram is all I'm going by, and it shows sedimentary layers running through Snowdon. Granite doesn't layer in the way that sediments do. Maybe Edge knows other ways, but as far as I know granite can only appear as an igneous basement rock or as an intrusive. Which diagram? The one in Message 734? Don't call that "Percy's schematic drawing." I may have done the rendering, but I was trying to get as close as I could to how you were describing things. It's your diagram, though you may have requested changes/refinements, I don't know yet, I haven't read that far.--Percy