Did the Flood really happen?

PaulK already explained this, but it bears repeating. First here's the UK cross section for reference: There was never a time when all those strata were stacked one above the other straight and flat and horizontal. The sequence might have gone something like this:

1. Initial deposition in a marine environment, such as the Cambrian and Silurian layers
2. Tectonic uplift associated with mountain building elevated these strata, much more in the west than in the east causing tilt
3. Erosion of the uplifted and tilted layers
4. Subsidence and/or sea level rise
5. More deposition in a marine environment, such as of the Devonian layers
6. More uplift, again more in the west than the east causing yet more tilt
7. Erosion of the uplifted and tilted layers
8. Subsidence and/or sea level rise
9. More deposition in a marine environment, such as of the Jurassic layers
10. More uplift, especially in the east
11. Erosion of the uplifted and tilted layers, again in the east
12. Subsidence and/or sea level rise
13. More deposition in a marine environment, such as of the Cretaceous and later the Tertiary layers
14. Uplift of the whole region to it's current height above sea level

I'm sure Edge could have done a much better job and included more detail, but this should give you a good idea of the sequential stages necessary to creating the current appearance and orientation of the strata. It definitely was not a case of first lay down all the strata, then deform them to have their current appearance. Just as the weather in the US west is much different than that in the UK, the geological events in the US west were much different than those in the UK. Nothing would lead us to expect that they would look similar. The only similarity they should have is that they both followed the rules of geology, such as initial horizontality, superposition, the present is the key to the past, etc. This was answered earlier , but if you need more detail just ask.--Percy

The point I made in Message 1210 was how the tilt of the layers on the periphery of the Colorado Plateau could have been eroded to produce the appearance of a lateral sequence of strata of the surface. This is a pretty good diagram, what more do you want: If you instead meant creating a sequence of diagrams using character graphics showing how the UK cross section came about, I believe I said it was possible but would be incredibly time consuming. It shouldn't be necessary once you understand the principle of tilting plus erosion plus deposition is what creates angular unconformities. That sequence of events is shown happening multiple times in the UK cross section. It's a "lather, rinse, repeat" kind of thing, you shouldn't need the entire repetitive sequence illustrated.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

I don't think dismissing things by calling them names like "pure theory" is the way to go, particularly when you've been offered so much evidence and explanations. You haven't offered any evidence that the Flood really happened. It's fine to disagree with any scientific discipline or theory. What's not fine is to disagree with no understanding. It doesn't look like draping to anyone but you. There's no expectation that the American west and the UK should be equally smooth. They're hugely distant from each other and have experienced completely different geologic histories. The sloping layers near the Grand Canyon were merely used to show that tilting plus erosion will result in a lateral sequence of strata at the surface. That's basically what happened in the UK, tilting plus erosion. It isn't rocket science. (Of course, it was actually multiple iterations of tilting plus erosion.) Remember that the vertical dimension is greatly exaggerated in those diagrams. The exposed strata are eroded, not broken off, and on a scale of a couple hundred miles the vertical relief is almost flat. There's nothing broken off, nor are the remains of anything broken off apparent. You're forgetting that uplift is operating at the same time as erosion. The UK's geologic history was not a) Deposit all the strata; b) Uplift and tilt it; c) Erode for several hundred million years. It was nothing like that simple. It was far more complicated than that. See Message 1223 where I attempt to enumerate what happened. If you can't describe it then perhaps it didn't happen.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

West is to the left, east is to the right, like on any map since forever. Why do you think they "fell"? Strata are rock all the way down to basement rock which is just more rock all the way down to where it melts. There is no hole or depression or whatever for the strata to fall into. We need to understand why you keep describing them as falling, because without that explanation all we can answer is that we see nothing that indicates falling. Until we know why you think the strata fell it isn't possible to respond to this. Again, the two widely separated regions experienced different geologic histories. For example, when one was above sea level and experiencing erosion the other might have been below sea level and experiencing deposition. Contradicted by radiometric dating.Also contradicted by strata not being ordered by size/density of sediments.Also contradicted by the fact that there are many, many strata in any local geologic column, instead of all sand settling into one layer, all mudstone/clay into another, all limestone into another, and all pelagic sediments into another.Also contradicted by the many layers of strata that are in an order consistent with Walther's Law.Also contradicted by the many unconformities.Also contradicted by the way fossil types appear in specific strata instead of scattered across all strata.Also contradicted by the increasing difference of fossils from modern forms with increasing depth. "Massive tectonic upheaval" is vague, and no evidence for it is identified. Seas will recede from uplifted land, but that doesn't cause the water that is claimed to have been added to the Earth by rain and by the fountains of the deep (for which there is also no evidence) to go away. Unconformities, angular or otherwise, cannot be created in buried strata. They must be exposed first. Contradicted by dating of volcanic activity and deposits.Also contradicted by the history of tectonic plate movements. Contradicted by the details in the UK cross section itself, in particular the unconformities. So vague as to be content free. Contradicted by details in the diagram showing different tilts, for example strata bent nearly 45° from a descending slant to an ascending slant, and ending in an unconformity: And also contradicted another example of opposite tilt: Everything in the UK cross sections suggests the opposite: multiple episodes of uplift, subsidence, sea level rise, sea level fall, deposition and erosion.--Percy

Yes, I know, that's why I asked for a description of where the horizontal parts go, but you didn't tell me.This will eventually be a sequence of diagrams, but all I've been showing is the first two because you objected to the horizontal parts in the second diagram, which shows the strata just as the granite has thrust up into it on the extreme west end of the island. The rest of what you described about falling and broken upper parts and spreading out on the surface and falling beneath the surface and distorting will all come later.So let me try asking again. We start with this: Then granite thrusts up into the strata like this: But you don't think the horizontal strata should be there, so we need a diagram between these two showing where the horizontal strata go. If you just tell me I'll diagram it.Please just reply to the paragraph above. We'll get to all the falling and so forth later.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improve 2nd diagram.

Okay. I need to understand how what you describe differs from what the diagram shows now. Right now the diagram shows the granite pushing up into the strata to create an inverted "V" shape, which is the shape of a pup tent or a teepee. What kind of tent shape would you like to see instead, keeping in mind that this is character graphics, not a freehand drawing? Are you saying the sides should descend in a curve that gradually becomes horizontal? If so then again, character graphics, and I think what is shown is fine. People will understand that there's only so much you can do with character graphics.--Percy

Not that the Bible has anything to do with this topic, but anyway: Proverbs was written at various times prior to the 3rd century. Ringo quoted this: Doesn't this invalidate the entire New Testament?Of course, there are problems with Proverbs, e.g.: Which to follow? As the scarecrow said, "Of course, people do go both ways."--Percy

Really? Aren't, for example, the first four books of the NT not by God but by men: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?You'll argue that they were just conduits for God's word, but that's just an unsupported claim. I know you'll go on to say how many esteemed Church leaders have believed this (which is true) and showed it true (which is false). All you've got is a "50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong" kind of argument, an argument which has been wrong over and over again throughout history.But we probably shouldn't have this discussion in this thread. Perhaps move to the The Bible: Is the Author God, Man or Both? thread.--Percy

Refusing to understand what people say or see what people show you, and then ignoring it, could lead to making the same wrong arguments over and over.What you don't know *can* hurt you. I'm reminded of a Life in These United States item in Reader's Digest from a half century ago. A policeman pulled over a young lady. She'd been driving carefully and didn't understand why she'd been pulled over. The policeman asked to see her license and registration. Looking at her license he said, "It says here that you wear glasses.""Yes, it does, but I don't really need them.""Can you read that sign for me?"She strained, could but not make it out. "Uh, I'm sorry, no. I guess I do need my glasses.""Why don't you put those glasses on and then try reading that sign again.""Okay," she answered, putting on the glasses. "'Road Ends 500 Feet.' Oh no!""You wear your glasses when driving from now on, okay miss," he said, handing her back her license and registration. "Have a nice day."If we can't see what we're looking at or what's being explained then we won't learn anything and we'll be doomed to making the same wrong arguments over and over again.--Percy

Sorry, too subtle.Yes, it has. For years and years.--Percy

Because...--Percy

Because...--Percy

A great weight on one region either from mountain building or accumulating sediments or accumulating ice or something else causes that region to sink into the buoyant mantle which in turn compensates generally by rising elsewhere around the world. I think it's called isostasy. Isostatic equilibrium can take a long, long time.You mentioned increasing compression from the weight, and while that must happen it seems unlikely as a significant factor in the rising or sinking of land due to glaciation and deglaciation.--Percy

Faith is at least consistent. As in the Smith stratigraphic diagram of Britain, she interprets any non-horizontal and/or non-straight strata as having sagged. Anyone who doesn't accept her interpretation and her explanations of it just doesn't understand: Eyesight issues, probably too much white, but I don't know that it matters. Faith has enumerable excuses for rejecting contrary information.--Percy

For the 137^th time, when image and/or text is too small, use CTRL+'+' repeatedly until it's large enough. Use CTRL+'0' to return to normal size. If you're on a Mac substitute CMD for CTRL.--Percy