Did the Flood really happen?

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.

I don't know if you overlooked it or what, but I did go back and finish Message 1169 as well as I can to explain what's needed to complete your diagram: how the strata changed their position from their original vertical stack to their current position in which the time periods are not vertically stacked but laid out horizontally across the surface of the island. You illustrated the original stack of strata as tilting into the position in which they finally end up, but never finished it by showing that the tilted strata are what we see arranged from left to right across the island, with the greater part of them beneath the island. If you still don't get it, it's the best I can do and I'm leaving this discussion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What caused the strata to tilt?

I still want an answer to the question about the tilt, but I also want to point out that your idea about how the tilted strata on the British island are just eroded curved strata is nonsensical. Aren't you guys always saying that erosion will level out a surface? Anyway in this case you aren't going to get those separately delineated short pieces of strata with their flattened tops.Oh well. I haven't been having much success with my drawings, which should explain what I mean about how the strata must have fallen into their current position, but if I get them done maybe I'll figure out how to post them. If not, since we are clearly not communicating AT ALL, either you to me or me to you, as I said I don't have any reason to continue with this discussion. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Uplift due to tectonic forces. OK, so the strata were originally stacked straight and horizontal across the island, and vertically from Cambrian to Holocene?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.Yes?ABE: Hm, but that wouldn't look at all like the example Percy was pointing to in the Grand Canyon cross section.Question: What caused the uplift? (it's more or less the same question I just asked)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I see the point you are trying to make but I really don't see the steps that had to be followed to get to it. You did suggest that you could illustrate those steps so may I ask that you please do that? Thanks.

Sea level is sea level, I can't see it any other way. The idea that it has changed is pure theory. Any evidence for it would just as well be evidence for the Flood, which is the only time I'm aware of that sea level ever changed. Yes I know that mainstream Geology is against me.Sorry, I did refer to the strata beneath the island as "draping," so I can see how that would be confusing. But it does also drape over Snowdon.Again, I don't see that your Grand Canyon reference applies to the UK example since they aren't smoothed off which is what mainstream Geology always claims erosion does over such huge lengths of time. The tops of the strata continue to look broken off to me. I suppose if millions of years really had intervened since they got arranged across the island as we see them now, they might have been leveled off or smoothed off, but as we see them in their rectangular form they serve best for evidence that the time hasn't been that long.I despair of describing what I mean by "fallen" in any way that would get it across. I've tried and failed too many times already.But your vision of what happened seems reasonable to me up to a point. It seems to suggest that the strata sagged rather than falling into their current position. The upper parts above the sea level line, --which you may not see as sea level but at least I know you know what I'm referring to -- still look like theyhad to have been broken rather than eroded.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've rewritten this to take out the sarcasm. It's not screaming in all caps but it's also not the right tone so I hope this reads better. Perhaps not the best simile though they do look drapish to me. But they also look sort of like they've been blown by the wind toward the east or is it the west, to the right anyway. They look like they fell beneath the sea level line and got misshapen in the process. It seems to me that if erosion is going to smooth out a rough surface in the same span of time in two different parts of the world-- and it IS the same span of time -- you can tell by how it's all the same time periods in both places --, anyway, it does seem to me that the time factor should smooth out both surfaces just because we're talking millions of years.My theory of course is that the Flood covered the whole planet, it laid down sedimentary strata all over that planet all in the same time period, and at the end of the Flood there was a massive tectonic upheaval that may have caused the receding of the Flood, and all the deformities we see of all the strata everywhere on earth, AND the angular unconformities, particularly the Great Unconformity, were the result of that one great event, and it also was connected with the beginning of volcanic activity as the tectonic plates began to move and separate the continents. And I'd say there is some evidence for such a chain of events in the fact that those strata on the surface of the UK island don't look like they underwent tectonic upheavals in separate time periods millions of years apart, they look too similar to each other across the surface of the island, same tilt etc.suggesting whatever happened to them happened to all of them all at once.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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?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.Even on the standard interpretation we're talking global timing right? The time periods don't exist in just one part of the world separately, they exist all over the world at the same time. All the strata would have been deposited in the same time frame. Or there would be no point to the whole idea of the time periods. However, the evidence for that timing is also good evidence for a single event, i.e. the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If that is supposed to be your illustration of my vision it's not what I have in mind. The strata should be pushed up as a tent, both sides tilted to either side of the mountain, no horizontal parts left on each side. The top of the tent would break open from the upward push of the mountain/rock, the left side would fall into the ocean, the right would fall down until the broken off upper parts are what we see spread out above the surface and the rest fall beneath the surface and get distorted as we see them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

02
+2
04

You've probably given the evidence for this already, but would you present it again? Thanks.

They look like they "fell" --- or perhaps' "sank" would say it better? -- because originally they had to have been deposited as all the geological column are normally deposited, as horizontal layers stacked vertically. I realize this has been disputed here but you know I'm not going to go with that. Anyway, since I'm thinking of that as their original position, which I see as having been stacked on top of the island, it just looks like they "fell" from that position to their current position beneath the island, especially considering the great degree of deformation they exhibit. I assume they weren't yet rock when the shift in position occurred, and I can't say it's easy to understand how it could have happened anyway: it merely LOOKS like that's what had to happen. There's no way to make sense of the idea that they were deposited as we see them now. Big eyeroll from me if that's what you are all saying.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They LOOK LIKE they experienced very similar geological histories. That is, the strata WERE all laid down first, BEFORE the tectonic force deformed them, left the tilted ends above the island and the rest of their length beneath it so very deformed as we see it. The Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase strata were all laid down before the tectonic upheaval that tilted the Supergroup and cut the canyon s well as Zion Canyon and the cliffs of the staircase to the north, and the receding Flood water scoured off the Kaibab plateau and the Coconino plateau etc. First the stacking, then the deformation.You say you don't see a massive upheaval in that UK cross section despite the massive deformation of the strata which certainly would not have been deposited in that condition.

I thought I explained: the sides slope out like the sides of a tent. They don't bend as you have them. Farther out to the side they may become horizontal again but without a bend.