Did the Flood really happen?

And most of the interior Americas were Oceans for billions of years. And we have gone over the Great North American Seaway with Faith again and again and again and again ...

Volcanic layers appear at both old and young positions, with sedimentary layers in between and above.You claim that your flood could lay down different sedimentary layers, such as shale and sandstone, but how could it lay down multiple such layers interleaved? That is, how could shale be between two sandstone layers, or sandstone between two shale layers?

quote:

---

I've said dozens of times already that the strata we see on the surface continue below the sea level line...

---

More accurately you have said dozens of times that they don’t. You call them short, broken off pieces of strata and even say that they rest on the sea level line - clearly you are saying that they are broken off from the parts below the sea level line, especially as many of them are nowhere near short.(ABE Also, in Message 800 you assert that the strata are not continuous because Smith cut off his diagram at sea level. Even though it’s clear that that is just where Smith chose to end it - and it appears that even that extent was at least partly extrapolated.)Is this like when you talk about strata on the island proper - when that describes all the strata on the diagram ?

quote:

---

You do realize they are not in their original position, don't you? They had to have been stacked one on top of another originally, then they fell down into this current arrangement and the rest of the strata went beneath the sea level line.

---

You do realise that they don’t have to have extended over the entire island, or even much further than they do now ?Edited by PaulK, : Add reference to Message 800 and a clarification

quote:

---

I've analyzed the Grand Canyon in great detail. The volcanic action clearly occurred after all the sedimentary strata were in place.

---

No. The Cardenas Lave erupted onto the surface while the Dox formation sediments were still being deposited.And where would lava and cinders in the Shivwits and Uinkaret formation come from, other than volcanic action when they were being laid down?

It isn't the rate of sedimentation atop the geologic column that is at issue. You've been questioning the very principle that local representations of the geologic column can undergo change, through either erosion or sedimentation. And of course the conceptual geologic column, the geologic time scale, is growing at the rate of 1 second/second.By conceding that a lake bed can accumulate sediments atop the geologic column you are conceding that sedimentation is still adding to the physical geologic column. The exposed, weathered and eroded rock of the Grand Canyon has a much different appearance than cores from the same region. Here are a couple images of cores from the Colorado Plateau Coring Project:

Triassic sediment cores from Chinde Point. Image courtesy of the Colorado Plateau Coring Project.

Representative facies in core segments from cores CPCP-PFNP-13-1A (A-J) and CPCP-PFNP-13-2B (K-L) with bedding dipping down towards left except as noted

Like the cores JonF presented, they reveal a great deal of detail. This is detail that you could not normally see on exposed and weathered rock.You have a number of severe misimpressions about world geology by looking at the surface rocks of the Grand Canyon and extrapolating what you see to the entire world.How does this bring you any closer to showing that the Flood really happened?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

We also have cores from Lake Suigetsu and Cariaco Basin showing the annual varves in each location. These layers show the annual accumulation of the geological column in those locations. For example: This shows the geological column growing year after year with sediment and foraminifera shell deposit extending to 12,724 BCE. (The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1), Message 20)Similar cores in Lake Suigetsu extend to 40,149 BCE and we also have this diagram of depth vs age with the bottom layer at 35 meters (115 feet) below the top layer. (The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1), Message 21)Another example of the geological column is provided in this chart of Pelycodus fossils:

quote:

---

​

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

---

Have you never wondered why fossils are buried? They are buried by the gradual accumulation of sediments over time. Geological time.These cores also show there was no flood covering the world at any point during their formation.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

A flood miles deep lasting for months would have pulverized and melted the polar ice caps, not to mention every glacier on the planet. But the ice caps were there centuries before the birth of Christ. The records go back as far as Pytheas of Massalia. That's an impossibly short time for ice caps to form!

How? Have you been there and analyzed the rocks? Drilled bore holes? Follow the transitions down? Looked at all the layers? Have you taken graduate level courses on Geology? Or how about just college level?
Tell us how you have analyzed the Grand Canyon in great detail?

Yes, of course, except the diagram above that line is not all darker. It's only darker on the left. On the rest of the diagram it is the same shade both above and below the line. We all agree that that line is sea level and that it has been sea level for at least several hundred years. But it wasn't sea level when the sediments were deposited, neither in a geology or Flood context. It has no relevance except as a point of reference. I think you must not be able to see the diagram clearly. As has been described for you many times, the strata are continuous across the sea level line. There are no "broken-off" pieces of strata in the diagram. If you think there are then please specifically identify one piece of broken off strata in the diagram by saying something like, "A broken off piece of strata can be found below the 'a' in Jurassic."Maybe you're referring to where all the strata that slope upward toward the left reach the surface, calling that point "broken off." If that's what you mean then please identify a specific piece of strata at the surface that has the appearance of another piece of strata having broken off. Just as an example, here's a closeup of Jurassic strata reaching the surface. The strata appear fairly smooth and eroded, not "broken off": Also, if the tilted strata were originally sticking up into the air and "broke off," where are the "broken off" pieces of strata? They should be scattered all across the landscape as huge hill-sized hunks of rock. By "them" do you mean the broken off chunks of strata? If so then you're saying that the strata are draped over the broken off chunks of strata. Please identify where on the diagram we should look to see at least one of these broken off chunks of strata that the other strata are draped over. And again, there is no significance to current sea level. Here's Smith's diagram. Please tell us specifically where to look on the diagram to see the ends of strata that were broken off, and the huge chucks of strata that broke off and should be lying immense upon the landscape: Here's a better resolution image of part of the Smith diagram that you'll have an easier time reading: See Malvern approximately above the "n" in "Succession"? See the huge chunk of strata that Smith drew sticking up into the sky? Well here's an image of what that actually looks like. It looked little different in Smith's time: Note that it does not stick up into the sky, and that there are no jagged ends that look like something broke off. Nor is there anything on the surrounding landscape that looks like the pieces of what broke off, which would be immense.Smith's sketch was not intended to show how things actually appear. The vertical dimension is greatly exaggerated, and as Edge informed you already, Smith's intent was to show the tilt of the strata in various locations, not to render an accurate cross section.--Percy

Okay, here are the first two diagrams of the sequence, revised according to the above instructions. These are the originally horizontal strata: And this is after the granite basement rock has uplifted and pushed up into the strata: Is this okay so far?--Percy

No, you have not analyzed the Grand Canyon in great detail. You've looked at some diagrams and made up some outlandish stories that not only don't align with the diagrams but are contrary to reality and what is physically possible.--Percy

Funny, as I recall, you have always been the one with the inability to understand physical reality. In any case, since this IS a debate, I DO disagree with you about my study of the Grand Canyon area and my conclusions.Cheers.

Strata will not bend like that. Cut off the top triangle all the way down, another five or so layers, or even a tad lower. The two legs of your figure have to be separated: the left/west one is going to fall into the sea, and the right one is going to fall down on that side until only a short part with its broken ends is seen above the sea level lilne and the rest have fallen beneath it. And really, the figure shouldn't be so steep either. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's what all of the Napoleons in the asylum say.

The ends had to have been broken off for the reasons I gave: otherwise there would have been long lengths of strata where the short pieces stop at their tops.I hope you don't mind if I just get too tired to pursue this endless discussion. I know how I see it, you are never going to get it no matter how I labor to describe it.