Did the Flood really happen?

And you know this how? Wait, wait, don't tell me... you really really want it to be so.

Then where are the broken off strata in the Smith drawing? What color are they in the drawing? What are the nearest labels in the drawing?

There's no reason to believe they fell into place. You haven't yet understood that the angles of the strata in the drawing are very very wrong. The strata are really almost horizontal,.I doubt you'll ever get it.

And to nobody else. What do you see in that drawing that looks that way to you? There are no "other ends" shown, there's no indication of any break anywhere.

Repeating your claims is not discussion or worthwhile. Answer my questions. They're not difficult or tricky.

They are still horizontal or very nearly so. They are still stacked on top of each other. You are seriously misinterpreting the drawings and ignoring the many attempts to point out why you are misinterpreting.

It doesn't say what part of Arizona. The depth is also not specified. One needs access to the technical papers for such information. Given the ENORMOUS extent of strata in the Southwest on which you love to harp, it definitely captured one or more of those ENORMOUS strata. .The point is, ignoring color, the layering in the Arizona core is very similar to the layers in the ocean cores.Layers are being formed as I write and are adding to the geologic column. Some of them rival or exceed the ENORMOUS extent of layers in the Southwest US.Are you going to ignore this?

Since you've run from the discussion of deposition and extensions of the geologic column like a scared little bunny, shall we look forward to inane repetition of your claims that the geologic column is done growing and the growing that is happening is small compared to the layers of the Southwest US in the near future?

Again, the extent of the new sedimentary layers dwarfs those found anywhere in the Americas by any means.The Pacific Ocean is 15 times larger than the United States and 6.5 times larger than North America and 3.6 times larger than the Americas (North, Central, and South). The Atlantic Ocean is 2.5 times larger than the Americas. The Indian Ocean is 1.7 times larger than the Americas. All these oceans are areas of net deposition and are adding to the geologic column.Lying ain't gonna change that.

The geologic column underlies every point on Earth, including the oceans. Message 770:You seem to think that the geologic column appears only in "very definite locations". No, the geologic column is defined as:

quote:

---

1. a columnar diagram that shows the rock formations of a locality or region and that is arranged to indicate their relations to the subdivisions of geologic time.
2 : the sequence of rock formations in a geologic column.

---

(Merriam-Webster, note "a locality or region")

quote:

---

The geological column is the theoretical classification system for the layers of rocks and fossils that make up the Earth's crust (also known as the standard geologic column). Fossiliferous layers can often be traced across entire continents and correlated with rocks in other countries.

---

(CreationWiki.com, note "crust" )

quote:

---

The geologic system is a conceptual arrangement of rock formations around the world meshed together into a single, unbroken record of Earth's past.[1] It is also known as the geologic column or geologic timescale.

---

(Conservapedia, note" around the world "lDid you notice that none of those definitions restrict the location of the geologic column in any way? Every point on the crust (which encompasses all the parts that are above the mantle, including sea floors is the top of "the" geologic column. Really it's the local portion of a world-wide geologic column. The interior layers of the crust vary widely from place to place. But we can tell from context that "geologic column" really means "local geologic column.When sediment accumulates on the ocean floor, it's accumulating on top of the (local} geologic column, and adding to it. Message 789:Drop a grain of sand anywhere on earth, including the oceans, and wherever it lands it is on top of the geologic column.Off Greenland: Mediterranean Sea: Norwegian Sea: If you want to speak only of layers on land, you need to use a different term.

And I called it in Message 841,although I wasn't expecting it so soon:

quote:

---

Since you've run from the discussion of deposition and extensions of the geologic column like a scared little bunny, shall we look forward to inane repetition of your claims that the geologic column is done growing and the growing that is happening is small compared to the layers of the Southwest US in the near future?

---

No frozen margaritas? Say it ain't so!We are still technically in an ice age. That has nothing to do with the fact that the climate is changing extremely quickly, largely caused by our industrialization.

What makes you think she means depth?

I still think she means area, but who can be sure?I've pointed out the relative sizes twice now. So she can't have learned it.

The geologic column is defined as under every point on Earth. If you insist on speaking only of layers on the land, you are not talking about the geologic column. Use a different term.Especially since there are plenty of huge layers under the oceans and they are still building. You can't admit that the places where lots of deposition is taking place are the places where lots of deposition is taking place.