Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

I explained how the rock rising up into the strata would break them in two and cause the two parts to fall to the right and left which would tilt them.

---

The rise is all you need to cause the tilt, and you haven’t explained how that happened at all.

quote:

---

What is there to cause the sea floor uplift? I don't see any possible cause.
But we know that tectonic force can push the land up into mountains

---

There is nothing special about the sea floor that exempts it from the same forces that raise the land. Indeed, there are quite large areas of sea floor that once were land (the Black Sea, much of the Mediterranean, at least parts of the North Sea, just to name those I’m familiar with)

quote:

---

There's nothing obvious about it, strata don't deposit neatly over a mounded surface, the idea is preposterous,

---

And they didn’t. What you call the mounding happened much later.

quote:

---

it is far more defensible that the tilting of the Supergroup pushed up the stack of strata.

---

That isn’t defensible at all, especially as the strata on top of the SuperGroup wasn’t affected by the tilt.

quote:

---

I have no problem with the idea that land can sink,

---

Which has nothing to do with what I said. Indeed the areas I referred to were covered by rising sea levels or the breach of natural dams.The point is that there is no distinction between land and sea bed that prevents sea bed from being uplifted.

quote:

---

Anyway, sinking isn't all that unlikely, raising the sea floor is. It is not like the land

---

It is, because the main distinction is the sea level. Doggerland was covered because melting ice caused the sea to rise. Being covered by the sea doesn’t make it that different.

quote:

---

Tectonic pressure can create twisted pretzels of strata, can can make accordion type mountains like the Appalachians besides pushing the land in a way that causes mountains to rise straight up

---

And the sea bed is subject to exactly the same forces.

quote:

---

You were talking about "large areas of sea floor that once were land" by which you meant the floors of the various bodies of water you mentioned

---

As evidence for the point that there is no real distinction between land and sea bed that would exempt sea bed from the forces that make land rise. It is quite clear if you read it. You just went off about land sinking for no reason, without even addressing the real point.

quote:

---

I don't see any way they are going to lift the sea floor to land level.

---

What is going to stop it ? There’s nothing special about sea level - which changes anyway. So why can’t sea bed be raised higher than the current sea level ?

quote:

---

We can SEE, we can UNDERSTAND, how tectonic forces alter the land, push up mountains, twist the strata and so on. The physics involved is really very clear.

---

And we can see and understand that the same can happen to the sea bed, because there is no relevant difference.

quote:

---

You just keep asserting that there's no reason why the sea floor couldn't rise to land level but that's no argument.

---

Sure it is. You need a reason why it can’t happen - it’s all the Earth’s crust after all, underwater or not there’s no big difference.

quote:

---

You have no mechanism in mind for how it could happen.

---

Sure I do and I’ve been saying so all along. It’s exactly the same mechanism that acts in the land. Because there is no relevant difference. You claim that the seabed must be exempt from these forces but you have offered no explanation, nor any reason to think so other than that you decree it.

quote:

---

What pushes it up?

---

The same forces that push up the land, of course.

quote:

---

A mountain is not the sea floor rising, it's just a mountain on the sea floor.

---

The region around the Grand Canyon is not a mountain either, none the less it has risen. What stops the same happening to a different portion of the Earth’s crust that happens to be underwater ?

I don’t believe we are talking about oceanic crust. Faith is disputing that marine sediments in mountains could have been uplifted.Not that I think that the higher density is sufficient in itself (as the existence of oceanic ridges would suggest)

quote:

---

OK, so the strata were originally stacked straight and horizontal across the island, and vertically from Cambrian to Holocene?

---

That was never the case. Some tilting occurred before all the strata were deposited and not all the strata completely covered the island. These things can be seen in the diagram - and they have been mentioned before.

quote:

---

Then uplift caused the whole thing to tilt so that they were arranged across the island horizontally from Cambrian to Holocene, with most of the strata now beneath the island and quite distorted.

---

Much of the distortion below the surface happened before all the strata were deposited.

quote:

---

ABE: Hm, but that wouldn't look at all like the example Percy was pointing to in the Grand Canyon cross section.

---

The parts that Percy is pointing out are close enough. The fact that earlier events complicate the diagram of Britain isn’t relevant.

quote:

---

Cuz the way the strata look suggests something that happened all at the same time, not separately to the separate strata, rather after all the strata were laid down, and since all the time periods are represented in both cases, or at least the overall span of them is represented, whatever happened happened globally at the same time. Didn't I already say that?

---

One tectonic event happening to all the strata after they were all laid down, doesn’t mean that all the tectonic events happened to all the strata after they were laid down. That is simply an assumption you make in spite of the evidence.Moreover, given the time scales we get from the evidence you can’t even justify the assumption that it is a single global event.

quote:

---

I don't accept this whole theory about erosion though, but since it involves millions of years erosion would have to have leveled both areas, and not take anywhere near that amount of time to do it either.

---

And there is another rationalisation. You don’t know how long the rocks were exposed to erosion, or the strength of the erosional forces involved. We certainly can see that erosion happened but your idea that much more should have happened is just a baseless assumption

quote:

---

Even on the standard interpretation we're talking global timing right?

---

Wrong.

quote:

---

The time periods don't exist in just one part of the world separately, they exist all over the world at the same time

---

In the same sense that the year 2019 exists all over the world. Time periods are periods of time.

quote:

---

All the strata would have been deposited in the same time frame.

---

In the standard time frame - which we are discussing - the Kaibab Limestone at the Grand Canyon was not deposited at the same time as the chalk underlying the English Downs.

quote:

---

However, the evidence for that timing is also good evidence for a single event, i.e. the Flood.

---

That thinking is why you pretend to have evidence that all the tectonic events happened at the same time. When the reality is that you have to deny or explain away evidence to the contrary.

The Kaibab Limestone is Permian. The chalk is visible on the cross-section of Britain - labelled Cretaceous (which shouldn’t be a surprise).The Permian would roughly correspond to the New Red label on the cross section.

It is incontrovertible science that the geological record was not produced by a flood. And the Bible doesn’t say otherwise. That’s just you and other YECs - and you’re extreme even among that crew.

quote:

---

Nope, Bible's infallible, not me.

---

To which I point out, that it is you who says that the Flood story is intended literally not the BibleAnd that the Bible does have errors as shown by the known contradictions.And that you have no problem misrepresenting the Bi le when it is convenient for you.And that you have no remotely sensible alternative to the science anyway. Deception, falsehood and smears yes. Sensible arguments. No.

quote:

---

Bible has no effors.

---

Explain to me how the post-Resurrection appearances to the Disciples can be in Galilee (without a hint of any anywhere else) and only in and around Jerusalem.And that’s just one example.

quote:

---

The word "literal'' is easily misconstrued, that's all.

---

Not in this case.

quote:

---

The dating methods are the ONLY thing you have and yes they corroborate each other, although I do suspect that a really honest examination of them would turn up confirmation bias and other reasons to question them,

---

Plenty of honest examination has been done. That’s why YECs resort to dishonest examination.And the dating methods are not all we have. We have the order of the fossil record. We have sequences diagnostic of slow transgression and regression. We have evidence of large scale deformation of rock - after lithification. We have evidence of a long history of tectonic disturbances. We have strata that could not be deposited by a flood. To list just some of it.

quote:

---

... and in any case they are unverifiable in the sense that you can't go back in time to check them out, all you have is what you can see in the present.

---

The consistence is a form of verification. So are tests against items of known date, which have been done.

quote:

---

And everything else supports the Flood.

---

You keep telling massive falsehoods. No, you have nothing of significance.

quote:

---

Especially the strata and the bazillions of fossils

---

No, they Clare evidence against the Flood. As you know.

quote:

---

The strata are really totally inexplicable on the Time Periods scheme when you really put your mind into trying to figure out how huge slabs of rock thousands of square miles stretching across whole continents were what each Time Period left behind, a sheer flat slab of rock, RAZD.

---

When you realise that they don’t have to be deposited over all that area at the same time (Walther’s law), that there are large areas of deposition today, like the Sahara, that ancient conditions do not have to be exactly the same as today, like the epeiruc seas of the Cretaceous - it becomes a lot easier. The Flood explanation still has massive problems, as you know.

quote:

---

And huge flat rock where all the fossils are found that you think lived in that period which is now nothing but a rocK

---

The strata are not all huge - many are not - and they certainly are not all flat - remember the buried monadnocks in the Grand Canyon ?

quote:

---

It's physical impossible.

---

No it isn’t. You prefer physical impossibilities, like the Flood sorting the fossils. And you admit that fossil footprints were not sorted, yet they are consistent with the observed order. How can that be - unless you are wrong.Don’t you think the fact that you have to resort to a catalogue of falsehood - falsehoods that have already been shown as false - very much proves our point ?