Did the Flood really happen?

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

There is no way to fix willful ignorance

The Nepal example looks like strata that sagged after being laid down. This diagram is intended to show how sediments accumulate on a lake bottom by sliding down the sides and ending up with the finest at the bottom and coarser up along the sides. Doesn't resemble the Geo Column in the slightest, either the way the sediments lie or the sloping sides which are nowhere to be found in the Geo Golumn. The actual evidence of the Geo Golumn shows strata that are straight and thick and flat and typically extend for thousands of square miles. Flood evidence. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, I do forget.

quote:

---

The Nepal example looks like strata that sagged after being laid down.

---

Even if, for the sake of argument I accept that the lignite layer and the rock beneath it sagged,i see absolutely no evidence that the lake sediments above the lignite sagged. The surface is nowhere parallel to the supposed sagging.

quote:

---

This diagram is intended to show how sediments accumulate on a lake bottom by sliding down the sides and ending up with the finest at the bottom and coarser up along the sides. Doesn't resemble the Geo Column in the slightest,

---

That is a strange claim. Why would some local strata look like the geological column ? Also, your diagram is taken from this page
Curiosity Peels Back Layers on Ancient Martian LakeSo this is specifically looking at the case where the water is stratified.

quote:

---

The actual evidence of the Geo Golumn shows strata that are straight and thick and flat and typically extend for thousands of square miles.

---

The actual geological column includes more localised strata, valleys, buried river systems, monadnocks and so on. Another case of your deliberate avoidance of the whole picture.

quote:

---

Flood evidence.

---

So you misrepresent the geology and claim it as Flood evidence even though you have no idea of how the Flood could do it. If the Flood can’t even sensibly account for your false version of the geological record, how can it possibly be considered anything other than a ridiculous falsehood?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Well, can't find any more diagrams of lake beds.Yes it has to be the Flood because water does that and it would have done it on a huge scale.

quote:

---

Well, can't find any more diagrams of lake beds.

---

Apparently you can’t find any evidence that the lake sediments sagged either.

quote:

---

Yes it has to be the Flood because water does that and it would have done it on a huge scale.

---

Water does that under conditions that wouldn’t apply, and the scale is way too big. Gradual accumulation over long periods of time makes much more sense.

Lake Bonnevile formed 28 or so times and drained away to salt flats in between.The formation of four large mature wave-cut beaches that each take thousands of years to build up the gravel and sand shelves from the material eroded from the land above water level.Explain that with a single flood.Modern geology explains it quite simply. Similar for the other pluvial lakesPluvial lake - Wikipedia
What They Are and How They Were Formed
Ancient Pluvial Lakes of North America and What They Can Tell Us about Climate Change - Geography RealmThere is a lot of information available on how they formed and dissipated (evaporation), and this information explains the details left behind.We don't need fantasy when we have facts and details.Enjoy

Here’s a look at the geology around the Green River Formation. USGS (pdf)Note especially figure 3. Compare that to Faith’s idea of the geological column.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Temper temper FaithShouting doesn't make your points any more valid. You wouldn't know one when you saw it. And if you did, you would likely not accept it. See Message 1493 where I've pointed out that your explanation falls short on explaining the details, like the formation and disappearance of Lake Bonneville 28 or so times and the formation of at least 4 mature shore lines with massive buildup of beaches from material eroded from the mountainsides.. There is no one single Geological Column, there are only assemblies of local geological columns.Of course a lake would not have as extensive deposition basin as an inland sea, as the geoplogical history shows for this area.You were in fact SHOWN areas with different depositions at different times in the past, and you reposted them in Message 1460 (from HBD Message 448). Let me summarize them together for easy visual comparison: Note that those maps were developed from actual cores taken in those areas. So quite obviously cores take in several places will not have identical layers for those time periods, and your concept of a single geological column wrapping across western North America is quite simply another falsehood that ignores the details.Details, Faith, details....However, what WE were discussing was the flatness of the deposits in lakes, and the evidence of Lake Bonneville is of a very flat bottom forming a 1" deep lake in the winter over a 40 sq mile area.Sufficient to say your "complaint" about lake bottoms not able to be flat is obviously false and invalid.Again the reality is shown by the details Faith.Enjoy

Attempted improvement.AbE: I think the problems with Faith's perspective are obvious from telescopic range all the way down to the quantum level.-PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

This is the sort of thing establishment Geology says that is just nonsense. Geology likes multiple events for some reason. Here multiple re-formations of Lake Bonneville. Multiple transgressions and regressions for instance where I see one gigantic Flood. Multiple ice ages for instance where I see one that started with the Flood and is now finally near its end. However, there is nothing at all about salt flats confined within the borders of the Bonneville ex-lake that could ever have contributed to the Geological Column. You know I think standard timing of ancient events is a crock. On the Flood model the lake would have been water left in a confined area after the main Flood water had drained away. Some time later whatever had dammed it up released it, most likely caused by the continuing tectonic activity that had begun at the end of the Flood. The giant lakes are one of the things that are easy to explain as post-Flood phenomena, as I already said. It is truly amazing how far people can get elaborating such an untruth. I haven't read through your links but I may do it after I finish this. We probably COULD learn a lot about the climate if it were recognized that all these phenomena point to a worldwide Flood about 4300 years ago. But if you have a false idea of the past you're going to get it all wrong.And you are certainly wrong that such bodies of water have anything to do with the Geological Column. Really, RAZD, you are very knowledgeable about all this supposed scientific history but apparently you don't have a single reasonable doubt about its veracity? If it's totally false you'll never know it.A salt flat is no indication of any relation whatever to the Geological Column, let alone its confining borders and no doubt sloping shoulders which don't exist in any of the strata of the Geo Column.Here are the two posts I made that show the great extent of the strata of the Geological Column, layers that extend much farther than your lakes, the first one from a geological textbook and the other pointing out that the cores taken in the Midwest show continuous deposition of the same layers over thousands of square miles. You've got a hidebound distaste for the idea of the Flood and that's all that keeps you from recognizing that it's the only explanation for the actual evidence, even though your own explanation requires weird forms of denial..Anyway here are the two posts I made about the extent of the strata of the gological column: Message 1458 and Message 1460. I should copy out some of it, I'll go and do that.AbE: Here's one of them: The other post contains diagrams showing the extent of the rocks of different "time periods."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

This is the sort of thing establishment Geology says that is just nonsense.

---

But it isn’t nonsense. You only say that because it contradicts your opinions. You haven’t considered the evidence at all.

quote:

---

Geology likes multiple events for some reason.

---

No, it is just that the evidence shows multiple events, where you assume only one.

quote:

---

ltiple transgressions and regressions for instance where I see one gigantic Flood. Multiple ice ages for instance where I see one that started with the Flood and is now finally near its en

---

But you do not see these things, you just assume them. If you saw multiple instances of the sequence indicating a transgression below the sequence indicating a regression - at a single location - why should it not be interpreted as multiple transgressions and regressions? If you see glacial erosion and glacial deposits within the strata why should it not be interpreted as evidence of a glacier?

quote:

---

However, there is nothing at all about salt flats confined within the borders of the Bonneville ex-lake that could ever have contributed to the Geological Column.

---

And just more assumption. Why not? There are salt deposits in the geological column. Why could they not have formed in the same way.

quote:

---

You know I think standard timing of ancient events is a crock. On the Flood model the lake would have been water left in a confined area after the main Flood water had drained away. Some time later whatever had dammed it up released it, most likely caused by the continuing tectonic activity that had begun at the end of the Flood.

---

And yet RAZD listed evidence of age, which you did not answer. And no, the lake did not simply drain. It dried up, that’s how the salt gets deposited.

quote:

---

The giant lakes are one of the things that are easy to explain as post-Flood phenomena, as I already said.

---

If the evidence was so easy to address why did you refuse to address it?

quote:

---

It is truly amazing how far people can get elaborating such an untruth

---

You have demonstrated that with your amazing ad hoc inventions about the Flood. Geology, on the other hand, is science and must stick to the evidence (including the evidence you want suppressed).

quote:

---

I haven't read through your links but I may do it after I finish this. We probably COULD learn a lot about the climate if it were recognized that all these phenomena point to a worldwide Flood about 4300 years ago. But if you have a false idea of the past you're going to get it all wrong.

---

That is obviously self-contradictory. The evidence does not point to a worldwide flood a mere 4300 years ago. That is why you have to ignore so much of it, that is why we know that it is a false idea of the past.

quote:

---

And you are certainly wrong that such bodies of water have anything to do with the Geological Column. Really, RAZD, you are very knowledgeable about all this supposed scientific history but apparently you don't have a single reasonable doubt about its veracity? If it's totally false you'll never know it

---

You aren’t asking for reasonable doubt, you are asking for unreasonable doubt. Your history on this forum reveals a long trail of errors, some completely inexcusable. You ignore much of the evidence to put forward your pre-determined conclusions. Why should any reasonable person prefer your opinions over solid scientific conclusions? And there is no blind faith on our side, we consider the evidence where you largely ignore it.

quote:

---

A salt flat is no indication of any relation whatever to the Geological Column, let alone its confining borders and no doubt sloping shoulders which don't exist in any of the strata of the Geo Column.

---

More assumption.

quote:

---

Here are the two posts I made that show the great extent of the strata of the Geological Column, layers that extend much farther than your lakes, the first one from a geological textbook and the other pointing out that the cores taken in the Midwest show continuous deposition of the same layers over thousands of square miles. You've got a hidebound distaste for the idea of the Flood and that's all that keeps you from recognizing that it's the only explanation for the actual evidence, even though your own explanation requires weird forms of denial..

---

It is not a case of distaste for the Flood it’s just a fact that the evidence disproves it. As you know.But let’s deal with your posts.First I will point out that the statements you quote were made to refute Flood geology. Price doubtless had more of a model of Flood geology than you have, so it is far from clear that his ideas of what the Flood would produce are less reasonable than yours. Even lake deposits could be found over hundreds of miles - the Great Lakes cover more than 94,000 square miles. The quote is lacking in detail - it does not deny that some deposits are more localised. Nor does it contain any information that would let us conclude that these rocks are problematic for mainstream geology. It may be a starting point for an argument but you need to go further, much further.And this is evidence against the Flood The Flood cannot explain they order in the fossil record. You know that.

quote:

---

The other post contains diagrams showing the extent of the rocks of different "time periods."

---

Which is why it is useless to you. The time periods are not strata. That rocks from a particular time period are found in two places tells you very little. They could have been deposited millions of years apart in completely different conditions.Edited by PaulK, : Fixed tag and 1 typo

The Flood explains pretty much everything, where Geology is klutzy and incompetent, and the fossil order is some kind of odd illusion especially since no creature could have evolved from the others. Again, there is absolutely no way the strata as they exist as the Geological Column, spreading across thousands of square miles, could ever have come about if they represent time periods. It is a physical impossibility but that is something you deny.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The Flood explains pretty much everything..

---

If that was true you wouldn’t be ignoring so much evidence.

quote:

---

... where Geology is klutzy and incompetent,

---

Well, no. Geologists aren’t trying to cover up the truth and pretend that you are right. They are trying to understand the evidence - something you don’t do.

quote:

---

... and the fossil order is some kind of odd illusion especially since no creature could have evolved from the others.

---

The order of the fossil record is objective fact. Your opinion about evolution is irrelevant to that.

quote:

---

Again, there is absolutely no way the strata as they exist as the Geological Column, spreading across thousands of square miles, could ever have come about if they represent time periods.

---

The rocks only represent time periods in that they were deposited at particular times and therefore provide evidence about the environment at that time. There is nothing silly about that.

quote:

---

It is a physical impossibility but that is something you deny.

---

You’ve never presented any valid reason to think that there is a physical impossibility there. Indeed you seem to be horribly confused about the whole relationship between the time periods and the rocks.