Did the Flood really happen?

Interesting that you compare the UK diagram to the Grand Canyon because I do too with some differences. I see the tilting of the Supergroup that raised the strata that broke the upper strata that formed the Grand Canyon itself, as having occurred at the same time as the rising of Snowdon that broke the strata there, that tilted the strata on right and left, that caused the right side to fall into their current position as shown on the cross section, of the strata on their side with the broken-off tops arranged along the surface of the island and the rest beneath it.In both cases tectonic forces beneath the strata caused basement rock to rise and break the strata above. And I think this happened at the same time as the Flood waters were receding, cutting the Grand Canyon itself as well as the cliffs of the Grand Staircase, AND tilting the strata of the UK so that they ended up on their side, part above the island and part below, as we see them on the cross section.The pushing up of the Supergroup caused the rising of the strata up over the mound it created, could be compared to some extent with what happened in the UK, where the tilted strata fell into their current position, their tops having been broken off by the pushing up of Snowdon. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Plate tectonics. Some plates are separating, some are colliding with tremendous force. When two plates collide they don't stop. The edge of one plate gets pushed down under the edge of the other, which edge is pushed up or crushed into a pile of rock(= mountain). Just as the Himalayas are growing as India rams into Asia.I assume you have some plates with raised edges? Fill a flat-bottom sink or tub with a few inches of water. Place one raised-edge plate right side up under water. Place another raised-edge plate right side up next to it. Push the plates toward each other. Is there a force between the plates?Now flip one plate over and push them towards each other. Is the right-side-up plate lifted?In the Aleutians the Pacific plate is colliding with the Bering microplate, and the Pacific plate is being "subducted" under the Bering microplate.

Please direct your comments to the topic and moving discussion forward.We know you explained how the strata would be pushed up, break in two, then fall to the right and left. This makes sense to no one, so you and I are working together to create a series of diagrams so that everyone can visualize what you're trying to describe.--Percy

...Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hey, again, leave me out of it. I didn't make any claims about myself. I was responding to claims you had made about *yourself*. You introduced yourself as a topic of discussion, not me. Pretty much it is. The majority of what you write is factually incorrect and terminologically confusing. No, time periods are not strata. Each stratum was deposited during a specific period of time. Those time periods are collected into a conceptual framework known as the geologic time scale with which all local columns conform, because the time scale was constructed from them. You just finished saying "time periods ARE strata," and now you're saying, "There is no such thing as a time period," completely reversing yourself from one sentence to the next. This is a good example of your level of clarity and comprehension. You are misrepresenting what has been said, which is that current views within geology are very strongly supported by the evidence, which has been described in many messages here. Engaging in persuasion by the presentation of evidence in a discussion in which you are freely participating can not be represented as an exercise of force. You don't have a paradigm. You have an assumption that your religious book's story about a flood really happened. You have not the slightest evidence, just a bunch of cockamamie stories bearing no resemblance to reality that you clutch desperately to. I respond to messages in the order they appear in the thread, and I respond to every one of your messages addressed to me, so of course I have already responded to your Message 1134. You, on the other hand, have only responded to 74 of my 171 messages to you. You've ignored 97.--Percy

No Faith, despite your delusions the Bible is not a scientific text and since it is filled with contradictions and two mutually exclusive flood tales it would never qualify as a scientific text under ANY conditions.Reality once again shows you are wrong and even the Bible itself shows you are wrong.

Please do go on about this sorting that happens with deceased life. How did you establish that this sorting is something that really happens? Do you have any examples from the real world? How does deceased life get sorted into the same stratum in which it lived, and how does life overall get sorted so that it is increasingly different from modern forms with increasing depth? This is science. You should be arguing for what has evidence, not for your assumptions. Do you have evidence, any evidence at all, for the content of that sentence? Or are you just telling stories you wish were true again?--Percy

In Message 1072 you said, "The whole surface of the land would be so defaced just from the forty days and nights of rain it would be unrecognizable and then the strata piled on top of it would further erase any recognizable remains," but if you say that doesn't mean that one followed the other then I believe you.What's important is the evidence you have for the stories you tell, and whether you meant it one way or the other, you don't have evidence for either one. There's that word "assume" again. Please start telling us about your evidence instead of your assumptions. In that case shouldn't the vast majority have been buried in the first sediments deposited? Were no mammals drowned during the first days of the rain, then their bodies swept into the flood waters as the land was scoured away, and then buried as the first sediments were deposited? If not why not? And if they were, then why do we find no mammals in the deepest strata? Wouldn't finding mammals throughout all strata be the best evidence for the Flood? We don't assume anything. We accept that for which we have evidence, and the evidence we have says that the actions of floods are fairly random. Why do we not find life of all eras scattered throughout the strata?--Percy

Perhaps that explains why you haven't put in the effort to understand it. If you did understand it then you would be offering responses like, "Now I know that to geologists it looks like three separate tectonic events, but it's not, and that's because..." But you don't respond this way. You instead respond with no explanation or evidence at all, like this: Please explain the sequence of events caused by your flood that created these geologic formations. I thought the cause of the tilting was something we agreed upon, uplift caused by tectonic forces. You really have to work on your terminology. All of the strata except the portions at the very surface are beneath the island. What you're actually thinking of is sea level, and you're still wrong about sea level. Sea level is not some line of demarcation with short tilted strata above and long draping strata below (I'm using your terminology). Sea level is irrelevant, and the strata are continuous from the surface on down into the geologic depths to bedrock. I won't even try to guess what this means. Please explain. I can tell you think you've said something meaningful, created a picture in some way, but nothing you've said makes any sense. Could you please clarify?--Percy

Why do you think tectonic forces only affect land? Since mountains are primarily marine strata, why shouldn't that be conclusive that tectonic forces can uplift sea floor?--Percy

Yes. Isn't that what I just said? I used the word "draping" to describe the strata draped over the mountain, not the strata below.And in this context sea level is indeed irrelevant and I'm not interested in sea level, although it's the bottom of the island as William Smith drew it so I don't see how there's any other proper designation for it. The disturbance caused by the tilting of the strata and falling down now horizontally arranged across the island AND beneath the island, which had to happen because THEY ARE NOT IN THE POSITION THEY HAD TO BE IN WHEN DEPOSITED. Since I've been knocking myself out to get this across to you and you still haven't the smidgen of a clue I don't see any point in continuing to try. I don't care if this is my own fault, I'm out of alternatives and I don't see any reason to continue to try.

The tectonic forces operate laterally on the land, and apparently their movements are always lateral. I don't see how that is going to raise the bottom of the ocean to the level of the continents.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

the tectonic plates are really far down faith, they're under the sea floor too.

Damn Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Non-lateral movement under lateral forces is a well-known and sometimes fatal problem when supports collapse in this manner. It's called "buckling".It happens to continuous railroad tracks in excessive heat. The Himalayas are rising at about a half inch per year, like this: The same processes operate underwater. If the Himalayas were on the sea bed they could be islands depending on the water depth.Of course a lot of mountain building everywhere is volcanic.