Did the Flood really happen?

It doesn't make sense that you''re saying this in reply to JonF's Message 731 - the word "extent" doesn't even appear in that message. He doesn't begin trying to explain extent to you until much later in Message 811 and Message 813.You say "extent" but what you really mean is "depth." JonF was talking about extent. He described the extent in area over which sediments are being deposited throughout the oceans, not the depth of sediments.--Percy

You're ignoring pages of messages on the geological column and simply declaring, "It doesn't exist there," without any evidence or explanation. Assertions made with no evidence can be ignored, and this is an acutely ignorant thing to say anyway. The worldwide extent of the geologic column is definitional, and there's nothing controversial about it.Naturally YECs would disagree with the scientific interpretation of the geologic column, but there's no reason to assert absurd things like that there's no geologic column beneath the oceans. We've even shown you cores from beneath the oceans that record the history of sedimentary deposits through geologic time. Whether you believe the cores go back only 4500 years or millions of years, they still exist.Neither Answers in Genesis (their article on the geologic column) nor the Institute for Creation Research (one of their articles about the geologic column) agree with you. We all agree that the sedimentary deposits of the past 4500 years are minuscule compared to the billions of years of sedimentary deposits that came before.--Percy

Because she talks about the layers of cores, and cores are vertical in depth. But I suppose nothing should surprise me at this point - maybe Faith really doesn't know how much greater in extent the oceans are than land.--Percy

Of course the oceans are not the land, but the world wide geologic column exists everywhere around the globe. You think the geological column must be on land? Why? Any geology book will tell you otherwise. Why this determination to be so ostentatiously wrong?It's also inconsistent within your own belief system, since you believe the Flood deposited the strata in a marine environment, and the strata beneath the world's oceans are being deposited in a marine environment. You can't accept one without the other.The rest of your message is just silly statements that assume the geologic column exists only on land, so I'll ignore them.--Percy

I'm not sure what you mean by core samples across the Midwest showing "the familiar geological column." The geologic column is conceptual and is the same the world over. It will always be the familiar geologic column.Perhaps you mean geologic column in another sense. Perhaps you're using one of the definitions from JonF, maybe one of these two:

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.

---

If you mean one of these definitions then the sequence of rock formations will differ from place to place and will not be the "familiar geological column" everywhere. Some formations such as at the Colorado Plateau are great in extent, and some are not. Whatever the extent, these local geologic columns exist the world over, both under sea and on land. As the undersea cores presented to you indicate, the undersea geologic columns cover the same time periods and contain layers of strata just like cores from land.One significant difference between the strata from beneath the ocean and the strata from land is that land strata are very likely to reflect Walther's Law, while strata that have consistently been under the ocean for millennia and have not experienced transgressing and regressing seas will consist mainly of pelagic ooze whose nature varies only according to changes in local conditions, such as what types of sediments currents bring in, what life lives in the overlying water column, and so forth. You're too narrowly focused on the Grand Staircase region. That is an area of stratigraphic layers of great lateral extent, but that is not true of the entire world. Some regions of the world are similar in this way to the Grand Staircase region, many are not. If the Grand Canyon were instead in California and if you again erroneously extrapolated one region to the entire world, in this case a region of twisted strata of small extent, you would have concocted a completely different flood theory than the one you have now.You can't base your ideas on just one region of the world. World geology is far more varied than that, and even the Grand Staircase region is far more varied then you've convinced yourself to believe. Your first fact was incorrect, and your second fact doesn't even bear on your claim that the geologic column doesn't exist under the sea. This is a core from under the sea. Strata exist under the sea. Sediments are being deposited atop these strata and are adding to the geologic column (as defined as a sequence of formations) in those locations. Here's a long deep core from the Mediterranean. It's a single core split into many shorter pieces displayed side by side. This is visual evidence of the geologic column beneath the sea: The accumulation of sediments at the lower elevations, most often lake and sea beds, will continue contributing to the geologic column regardless.The contradiction in your position should be obvious to you. In your Flood scenario sediments were deposited in a marine environment, contributed to the geologic column, and turned to rock except at the upper levels where the weight was insufficient. In the world at present sediments are being deposited in a marine environment, contributing to the geologic column, and turning to rock except at the upper levels where the weight is insufficient. They're exactly the same, and your claim that they are not is obvious nonsense.From your Message 872: I don't think you bothered to grasp the sentence you responded to. The amount of sediments deposited in 4500 years will of course be minuscule when compared to the amount deposited over billions of years. Billions is a million times bigger than thousands, so sediment deposited over billions of years instead of just thousands will of course be a million times deeper. Simple math.But the sea floor will never be billions of years old because it resides on a conveyor belt transporting the accumulated sediments from oceanic ridges to subduction zones, where it disappears into the bowels of the Earth. The oldest sea floor is probably only a couple hundred million years old. Ancient sea floor only becomes preserved for longer periods of time when it somehow becomes attached to a continent.--Percy

What do you mean by "extent"? If you mean lateral extent, then no, you couldn't be more wrong. The lateral extent of the oceans upon whose seabeds sediments are accumulating is far greater than the land strata with the greatest lateral extent in the world. This is just an obvious fact because the oceans cover 71% of the Earth.But if by extent you mean depth, then of course the depth of sediments laid down over millions of years exceeds the depth of those laid down over just the last few thousand years. Assuming roughly similar sedimentation rates, that couldn't help but be true.So by either interpretation, what you said is false.--Percy

Good to know you're using standard definitions in this case. Recent deposits from the past few thousand years are teensy weensy in *depth*, not extent. You do seem to be confusing depth with extent, especially when combined with what you say next: You're both ignorant of world geography and are not reading or are ignoring most of the messages to you. The oceans could in no way be described as having "paltry geographical extent." They are 71% of the Earth's surface. Here's the Pacific hemisphere. Look at the thing compared to the continents. It's huge: Information that is 100% wrong does not disqualify any claim. You need to reach a better understanding of the extent of the world's oceans. There is no such thing as sediments in the wrong place, if by that you mean not on the geologic column. The geologic column is world wide. There is no place that sediments could be deposited that is not atop the geologic column. What makes you think so? Upon what are sediments being deposited today if not atop the geologic column? You're very confused. The subject is deposition atop the geologic column, and your example is a region of strong erosion. A message that gets nearly everything wrong has no likelihood of showing evidence of anything. First get your facts right, then start organizing your arguments.--Percy

Congratulations on a 21 word response to a 227 word message. Way to get into the details. Are you daft? How many times do we have to tell you (and it must be way beyond 10 by now) that sedimentation is occurring at this very moment throughout the oceans, and that the oceans are immense in extent. I explained why what you said was nonsense. You can't do the same because your position is nonsense.--Percy

Finally have a block of free time large enough to respond to your very helpful post. I was rushed for time the first time I read it and thought i would have more questions, but upon a more thoughtful reading I see that you answered most of my questions already. There's one thing I have a question about. Here's the diagram just for reference: I think this was about the layer that has three rows of circles at its thicker parts. Wasn't sure what a gradient is in a stream energy context, or how this explains how a stratum could be uniformly conglomerate throughout a substantial thickness.--Percy

As you stand in the shallow water at the beach atop a piece of the geological column, peering down and watching sand settle around your toes, atop what, precisely, is that sand settling on if not the geological column? Can you find any definition of deposition that says how small is too small to count? Does a varve count, or is it too small? Can you find any definition of deposition that says where the right places are for the geological column? Can you find any definition of deposition that says how large is large enough to count? Can you find any definition of deposition that says where the wrong places are for the geological column? Can you find any definition of the geological column that says it is a static entity?Please don't reply if it's only to reassert your unsupported assertions again.--Percy

Okay, good. Okay, I'll make one of the lines of strata also be the current sea level line. The granite rock/mountain is already on the left. This was more evident in an earlier revision where the strata continued to the left and right of the mountain. Arrows were on the right hand side (indicating the island continued onward to the right out of view) and no arrows on the left hand side (indicating that the island ended there). But you had me remove those strata. I do think they should be there. I'll put them back in so it's possible to tell that the mountain is on the left side of the island. That would be the next couple of diagrams in the sequence. You didn't think the earlier revision that showed that captured your vision, so I need a few more details. What does "falling into the ocean" look like? I need instructions for this part also. The sea level line is a few strata layers below ground level. How are strata to fall through the sea level line if the ground level strata are in the way? Again, there are already strata below the sea level line. What should the diagram look like to show the lower part of that block of strata doing anything below the sea level line when there are already strata there?Here's what it looks like so far. This is the strata as originally deposited: And this is after the granite basement rock has uplifted and pushed up into the strata: What should the strata currently on the left and right sides of the granite mountain look like in the next diagram of the sequence?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

The vacuity of this statement has been described many times, yet you keep repeating it. You can say it (over and over ad infinitum) but are unable to explain it. It makes as little sense now as it did the first time you said it. You have to figure out what facts are driving this belief that you have, then explain them to us.But until then, and for the umpteenth time, in a discussion about deposition, why are you bringing up regions of net erosion? And what does extent of a depositional area have to do with anything? And why do you think the geologic column is ended and over?As I asked once before (and that, of course, you did not answer), after the very last particle of sediment of the Flood settled atop the geologic column, when a few minutes later a little particle of sediment emerged from a river and settled right beside it, upon what did it settle if not the geologic column? You have this mistaken belief that if it doesn't resemble the Grand Canyon that it isn't part of the geological column.The geological column is worldwide. It is on the land and under the sea. Anywhere you stand on the Earth, either on land or under water, you are standing atop the geologic column. Should a grain of sediment settle beside your foot, it has deposited atop the geologic column.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

What needs to happen is for you to involve yourself in a discussion of the geological column so that the facts driving your rather strange definition can be understood. Right now it looks like your criteria for something to be part of the geologic column are:

• Strata you think were deposited by the flood
• Lithified into rock
• On land

You deem any deposition not fitting your criteria to not be part of the geologic column. We understand that. Repeating it again and again is unnecessary. What people are asking is the facts behind why you believe this, despite that it is contrary to all the facts and information everyone else has presented.--Percy

For the sake of discussion let's say that you are correct and that it is unreasonable to assume that any depositional environment could persist long enough to leave behind sediments of any significant thickness, such as seen at the Grand Canyon. How does that mean that contemporary sedimentary deposits on the surface of a geologic column are not in fact occurring atop the geologic column? If not atop the geologic column, what are they being deposited upon?We're not actually having a discussion now. We're trying to find some way to make your lightbulb go on for something that is incredibly obvious. I'm beginning to wonder if you haven't diverted discussion down this rathole because you want to avoid the thread's topic, showing the Flood actually happened.--Percy

He posted the definitions twice in these messages (and I notice in yet another message, but that occurred after this one):

• Message 770 (no reply from you)
• Message 857 (no reply from you)

Seems like you miss a lot of stuff. Your reply rate is dropping (alternatively, your "ignored posts" rate is rising).--Percy