Did the Flood really happen?

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.

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.

Centuries before Christ fits the YEC view but before the Flood, no. There wouldn't have been any ice at all on the planet before the Flood, no ice caps, no glaciers. All that would have been the result of the Flood. You have to think outside the usual scientific box.If you look up ice age, by the way, you may run across the information that we are still IN the last ice age, in the phase where the earth is warming up and meltinjg it all. Kind of gives a different perspective on global warming. And without reference to the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again, the extent of the new sedimentary layers is minuscule by comparison with that of the layers found by core sampling in the Midwest US and in the area of the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase.

Yeah, that's how politics works.

You have to cut the top off your lower figure down to the point where you have two separatee "legs" of strata, one to the right and one to the left. The rising of the mountain would have broken it all apart like that, and there never would have been that upper point you put on it. It would have started breaking as soon as the mountain pushed on it from below and would have been broken completely in two before the mountain even got to its upper level. The left one will fall away into the sea and the right one will fall MOSTLY beneath the sea level line on the right, leaving its broken-off ends above that line, tiltedas we see them on the diagram, forming the current geograpny of the whole island from left/west to right/east. The strata beneath the sea level line will form the strata we also see on that diagram, the distorted strata that are the extensions of those broken off pieces, that bend toward the east and show various specific kinds of disturbances within them as well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Pacific Ocean bears not the slightest geographic relation to the geological column anywhere.And those sedimentary deposits you all point to on the land are minuscule by comparison to the extent of the Geological Column. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again, the oceans are not on the land. To continue the geological column the layers must be on top of it, and those that are are way too small -- the geograpnhic extent of the layers in the geo column in both the Midwest where core sambles have identified it, and in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area, is enormous, a matter of thousands of square miles in each case. If you like the word "area" better than "geographic extent" then the area exceeds thousands of square miles. No lakebed accumulating sediments today, or any other location you want to point to ON THE LAND, covers any area worth considering as part of the geo column.

No, but there are places where it is so extensive there is no doubting that its overall extent far exceeds anything being deposited today.

If core samples over the extent of the Midwest show the familiar geological column there is no other evidence needed. If the same layers cover thousands of square miles in the area of the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area, no other evidence is needed. Those two facts demonstrate what I've been talking about. All the attempts to make teeny little lakebeds suffice, or commandeer the ocean beds as the next layer of the geo column, are ...I'm trying to avoid insulting language ... how about "inadequate."

It has to have something to do with it if it's receding and contributing to global warming.

Aha. Then if we agree on that, surely we can agree that the geological column is over and done with, absolutely kaput.

By "extent" I mean "extent," geographic extent, surface area. One does not use the term for depth. JonF is doing the usual rationalization of teeny weeny little sedimentary deposits as the continuation of the geological column. When its paltry geographical extent, or its area, is pointed out, this should disqualify any claim to being part of the geological column. You all keep putting up utterly inadequate candidates for that role, either sediments on a paltry scale by comparison though in the right place, or sediments on an enormous scale in the wrong place. None of it works. The Geological Column is Over and Done With. This is obvious in many places, including the Grand Staircase where it comes to a very decided end at the very top in the Claron formation. And these facts I'm discussing now are more evidence of its having ended, which is evidence that it was a singular event that laid down all the strata, an event that has long since ended, which is evidence for the Flood.

Aw, you're just saying that...And my guess is you don't even know what I'm talking about.

When I said recent deposits are teensy weensy I MEANT in extent, not depth.Nonesense to the rest of your nonsense.