Did the Flood really happen?

Stuff rolls down hill.I live at the bottom of a valley with fairly sloping sides. I put a path down in my garden 15 years ago, until this summer it had become subsurface, I had to dig it out and remake it.Never wondered why archaeologists have to dig? And why their sites are called 'digs'? Its because sediments gradually bury whatever is on the surface. The longer you leave it, the further down it will be.

There's that demon devil Gravity, again. Just can't seem to get away from it.

Sure you "explain" things to me that I take issue with and I explain things to you that account for the Flood. So?You guys have no idea how fast is possible for building a mountain or separating the continents. It's all guesswork what it would do since you have no way of testing it, how much heat it would generate. And you don't know what mitigating factors are likely to be involved. Such as for instance the ice age that got generated about the same time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no Ice Age in either of the Biblical Flood stories. You are just writing the Bible in YOUR image yet again.

Sedimentation of just ONE sediment that falls down from mountainsides just doesn't compute. Dirt, including the dust that settles in houses, isn't likely to be made up of a single sediment, and yet the strata are mostly composed of layered single sediments.Not to mention that this sediment has to form a huge FLAT STRAIGHT NAKED ROCK that covers the entire territory where you claim there was once a body of water or a landscape teeming with living things. It's an ad hoc idea that makes no sense.You don't bother about the Flood so you can just make up whatever you want that you think accounts for it. But a huge quantity of water accounts for it very nicely.AND again, it's impossible for there to have been a landscape where there is now a slab of rock in the geological column.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure, MOTLEY sediments accumulate in MOTLEY ways all the time. They don't make flat sandstone or siltstone or shale rocks that cover thousands of square miles as deep as your chalk cliffs.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sedimentation of just ONE sediment that falls down from mountainsides just doesn't compute. Dirt, including the dust that settles in houses, isn't likely to be made up of a single sediment, and yet the strata are mostly composed of layered single sediments.

---

No, they aren’t.

quote:

---

You don't bother about the Flood so you can just make up whatever you want that you think accounts for i

---

No, we don’t make things up. You have to because you insist that the Flood did it.

quote:

---

But a huge quantity of water accounts for it very nicely.

---

No, it doesn’t. How could it? Just postulating a huge quantity of water doesn’t explain even the presence of sediment.

quote:

---

AND again, it's impossible for there to have been a landscape where there is now a slab of rock in the geological column.

---

So far you’ve made up a silly strawman and tried to pretend that the surface features aren’t found. And you call that success. Well it certainly isn’t a success at supporting your assertion. So, when are you going to make a serious case for it?

That's exactly what they do.
You've been shown exactly how a thousand times.

Oh the things I've been "shown" here and laughed at. Some have made up tall tales about depths of dirt over a single sediment, whose collecting as a single sediment has no sensible explanation in the first place, not to mention its formation in the shape of a huge flat area that covers thousands of square miles. Anyway a great depth of dirt over it makes it lithify into the rock, and somehow the dirt itself doesn't lithify or if it does it becomes the next rock in the column meaning it too has to be of a single sediment and represent a whole time period....Look there is no way this scenario every happened. It's impossible. And if it did anything living on it would have to die. And only a particular collection of fossils are found in such a rock... Oh come ON, this is ridiculous.The Flood is the only reasonable explanation.

Faith has been shown a Brazillion different images of the geological column at the Grand Canyon that show layer related to specific eras but without it seems understanding anything at all. But it's always worth yet anopther attempt to try to teach her a little about reality.This image includes demarcation lines segregating layers by their geological period and maybe will help. Note that in this particular column only the Mississippian era and the Devonian era consist of a single type of deposition. But even there when examined in detail we find that the layers are not monolithic but include evidence of other materials and where erosion has removed a significant percentage of the additional material as for example the partial remains of some Temple Butte formation within the Mauve Limestone layer and some remnant of the Surprise Canyon formation within the Redwall Limestone layer.

Sure if you include all the variations you can try to make what I said look stupid but I know all that and it's still true that most of the rocks are single sediments. The Coconino sandstone for instance is sandstone, not dirt, and it extends for huge distances and it's very deep. The limestones are limestones and they are also very deep and extend for huge distances. The mentality here would make a person wrong for not taking every little variation into account. The devil is indeed in the details. Try focusing on the big picture for a change.And instead of making petty little objections out of petty little facts how about addressing the FACT that it's absolutely impossible for any of the strata to ever have been a time period/landscape.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But all sandstone is not the same Faith. All limestone is not the same Faith.And reality does exist. No one has ever presented a model, mechanism, method, process or procedure that would make it possible for any flood to create what is found in reality.The two Biblical Flood stories are just fiction Faith and not even very good or original fiction.AbE: Actually Faith, ALL of the evidence shows that every layer, every strata was originally a landscape on the surface of the eath with its own unique environment and population.Edited by jar, : see AbE.Edited by jar, : ever----> everY

quote:

---

Oh the things I've been "shown" here and laughed aT

---

Laughing at the truth doesn’t make it false.

quote:

---

Some have made up tall tales about depths of dirt over a single sediment, whose collecting as a single sediment has no sensible explanation in the first place,

---

Not really. Most formations are mixed. And as I pointed out Walther’s law does a lot to explain the extent.

quote:

---

Anyway a great depth of dirt over it makes it lithify into the rock, and somehow the dirt itself doesn't lithify or if it does it becomes the next rock in the column meaning it too has to be of a single sediment and represent a whole time period....

---

Noe you are being silly again. Mocking things you refuse to even understand doesn’t make you look any better.The pressure is typically required for lithification. The material above will obviously experience less pressure. So naturally some of it won’t be under enough pressure to lithify. And the idea that a single sediment represents a whole time period is just another silly strawman you made up.You may be laughing, but it is your arguments that are laughable.

quote:

---

Look there is no way this scenario every happened.

---

So you can make up silly scenarios.

quote:

---

And if it did anything living on it would have to die.

---

Why? The surface is hardly affected by the lithification going on far below.

quote:

---

And only a particular collection of fossils are found in such a rock...

---

Only a particular collection of species are found in a given region today. So what is the problem?

quote:

---

Oh come ON, this is ridiculous.

---

The only ridiculous parts are the ones you made up.

quote:

---

The Flood is the only reasonable explanation

---

The Flood is not even a reasonable explanation.Let me know when you come up with an explanation of the order of the fossil record, That alone kills the Flood as a reasonable explanation before we get on to all the other major problems.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Most are very SLIGHTLY mixed but the homogeneous rocks, especially the sandstones and limestones, are typical and enormous. Besides the examples in the American Southwest think of the Tepui of South America and the Cliffs of Dover.Ya don't get a FLAT surface from lithification under a huge depth of dirt.Drat I can't remember what else I was going to say. Oh well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Most are very SLIGHTLY mixed but the homogeneous rocks, especially the sandstones and limestones, are typical and enormous. Besides the examples in the American Southwest think of the Tepui of South America and the Cliffs of Dover.

---

Limestones are typically mixed. [url=https://geology.com/usgs/limestone/]This page boasts that some limestones are up to 95% pure calcium carbonate. I know of a highly pure sandstone, but that’s something of an exception.

quote:

---

Ya don't get a FLAT surface from lithification under a huge depth of dirt.

---

The compression will make it flatter. And if the surface was already pretty flat to start with that’s likely to be enough. And we know that there are surfaces that are far from flat.