Did the Flood really happen?

No, the layers don’t represent time periods. They represent past sedimentation events, accumulating over time, yes, but at different times in different places.They get grouped into geological time periods for our convenience in discussing them, and these groupings are arbitrary ... unless there is some cataclysmic event that provides a relatively clear boundary, like an extinction event as happened several different times. The last such event was due to a meteor strike, identifiable by the iridium layer. We identify rocks by their land of origin by the types of rocks and their chemical signatures when possible. Sands, silts and clays are difficult to do. Boulders are easier, volcanic ash/lava are easier still.But we also know that sands, silts and clays are transported downhill from mountains and hills that are being eroded.That’s what the evidence and the details show.Enjoy

Yes they do represent time periods. Just look at the model in the Grand Canyon office. Just look at any illustration. Yes they do. The time is measured on the rocks. So don't give me that. And if all you mean is there is some overlap you've got the same problem of getting from a time period to a rock anyway. The whole thing is a miserable failure but we have to make the ToE work no matter what, don't we? Can't let some stupid creationist tell us we're wrong.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It was creationists that told us what was right.

quote:

---

Yes they do represent time periods.

---

They are marked as having been deposited in the time periods. That is really not a problem.

quote:

---

And if all you mean is there is some overlap you've got the same problem of getting from a time period to a rock anyway

---

There is no problem in dating rocks to periods. That was done by relative dating methods before radiometric dating was a thing. The periods were defined by the fossil record, and rocks were identified as having been deposited during particular periods. (Note that the actual dates of the periods came later - but that is why it is called relative dating. It is a relationship not a precise number).

quote:

---

The whole thing is a miserable failure but we have to make the ToE work no matter what, don't we?

---

The only miserable failure around here is yours. You keep spouting the same ridiculous nonsense and expect us to believe it.

quote:

---

Can't let some stupid creationist tell us we're wrong.

---

More accurately we won’t worship a loon posting ignorant rubbish. And why should we?

It doesn't matter when the sediments were deposited within the time period though you are all bending over backwards to pretend it makes a difference. You still have the problem wthat it makes a huge rock that ends up in the geological column that would prevent anything from living on that spot for that part of the time period and that means nothing is evolving from anything because nothing is even living where that rock is. So you think the creatures lived on top of it and died and got buried in it? This is too tiresome.

No Faith, basics. Try to learn the basics.The evidence shows conclusively us that stuff was living on the material deposited during each period. All the same types of stuff we find living on that type of material today. All types of stuff; plants, animals, birds, bees, creepy crawlies, grasses, mosses, trees, ...It's not a matter of what we think, it is a matter of what ALL of the evidence shows.Basics Faith. Learn the basics and throw away the truly silly stuff like the Flood or Creationism or the Christianity you try to market.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

No, their relative positions show relative passage of time. There are sandstones in different geological eras, there are siltstones in different geological eras, there are shales in different geological eras. The rocks do not define the geological eras. There are even multiple layers of the same types of rock within the geological eras. They just happen to be the assortment of sediments that were deposited at various locations at various times by the geological processes of erosion, transportation and deposition.The time periods had nothing to do with their deposition, because they were defined long after all those depositions were complete. And look at how many sandstone layers there are, look at how many siltstone layers there are, look at how many layers of mudstone there are, and look at how many layers of clay there are. If I pick up a loose piece of sandstone lying at the bottom, can you tell me what time zone it came from, just from the rock? No. You need additional data to determine that. What problem is that? Something you made up?There are lots of overlaps up and down the canyon, with the same basic rock types repeated and repeated and repeated.What defines the ages is not the rocks, but -- initially -- the relative location of layer on top of layer on top of layer, and the knowledge gained from Steno's Law:

quote:

---

The law of superposition is an axiom that forms one of the bases of the sciences of geology, archaeology, and other fields dealing with geological stratigraphy. It is a form of relative dating. In its plainest form, it states that in undeformed stratigraphic sequences, the oldest strata will be at the bottom of the sequence. This is important to stratigraphic dating, which assumes that the law of superposition holds true and that an object cannot be older than the materials of which it is composed.

​

The law of superposition was first proposed in 1669 by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno.[1] In the English-language literature, the law was popularized by William "Strata" Smith, who used it to produce the first geologic map of Britain.[2] It is the first of Smith's laws.

---

People knew about this relative timing in 1669, Faith. It's not rocket science.What defines the ages now is still not the rocks, it is the radiometric dating systems. Something you can't see looking with your eyes.But what really defines -- differentiates -- the rock layers is the fossils they contain: that is what allows people to ascertain the geological era of a rock without knowing the relative positioning or radiometric data. This data easily differentiates rock layers that are of the same basic type into different eras. No, Faith, the ToE works because the evidence supports it, and the ToE provides the best known explanation for the evidence.The layers of rock show an increase in the complexity of life from simple single cell life forms to today's animals and plants, with some backing and filling for extinction events. Not one has done so to date. Many have tried, many have failed. There is not one creationist "explanation" that covers the full breadth and depth of the fossil record in the detail that the ToE does. Not ONE.That detailed depth and breadth of all the evidence known in the spatial-temporal matrix also shows that a mythic global flood is a delusion, a fantasy, a hoary myth. The overwhelming evidence says no, it did not happen, there was no flood of that scale in the natural history of the 4.5+ billion year old earth.Enjoy

You're missing the point, RAZD. The kind of rock doesn't matter, the problem is that there is a rock there at all where supposedly there was once a place where there were living things.

This complete misunderstanding of yours seems to be at least partly recent. But it’s still bizarre. The Canyon Reef, about a mile below where I am sitting, is a great big hunk of limestone. It grew in place in the shallows of the North American Seaway that we’ve been talking about here. It GREW, similarly to reefs today, by organisms at its surface forming limestone around themselves. It grew thicker at way slower than an inch every year, just like reefs do now.The Canyon Reef is up to a third of a mile thick in places. It’s one BIG ROCK, made entirely out of fossil shells of critters. They all grew at the surface of the rock (yes, under a few feet of water, but at the rock surface.I have no idea, Faith, what you have as your mental image of how rocks in general form, but it isn’t an accurate image. Not at all

Yes I kinow that's what you think ahd I think you are wrong, I think it was all deposited by the Flood. HOWEVER, that is another subject. The point is that you can't have a time period that is completely occupied by a rock.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter when the sediments were deposited within the time period though you are all bending over backwards to pretend it makes a difference.

---

The point is that the time of deposition is the primary association between the rock and the time period. And I think you know that makes a nonsense of your silly argument which is why you’re changing the subject.

quote:

---

You still have the problem wthat it makes a huge rock that ends up in the geological column that would prevent anything from living on that spot for that part of the time period and that means nothing is evolving from anything because nothing is even living where that rock is.

---

No. You still have the problem that you are posting ridiculous nonsense. The surface does not suddenly turn to stone. That is a silly strawman that you made up.

quote:

---

So you think the creatures lived on top of it and died and got buried in it?

---

Most terrestrial environments are dominated by erosion, but for those that are not the creatures lived in areas where there was net deposition of sediment - as they do today. The deposited material buried them and only became rock much later

quote:

---

This is too tiresome.

---

It is obviously worse for us. You’re the one who insists on posting pathetic nonsense again and again. You don’t even attempt to answer the previous rebuttals. You could stop this ridiculous behaviour any time. But of course you won’t. you just can’t admit how badly wrong you are. So you just going on making a mockery of yourself. If you enjoy looking like a raving loon you can just keep going on. If Not - it’s up to you to stop.

The point is that your picture of how rocks are formed is wrong. Why not educate yourself.

quote:

---

The land around you, no matter where you live, is made of rock. If you live in a place that has good rich soil, the soil itself is finely broken down or weathered rock.

​

People that live in a desert region can easily find rocks on the surface. These rocks lay on a surface of clay that is also a product of weathering rock. Weathering is the process of breaking down rocks and minerals into smaller pieces by water, wind, and ice.

​

Sedimentary rocks are formed from the breaking apart of other rocks (igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary rocks) and the cementation, compaction and recrystallization of these broken pieces of rock.

---

Access denied | Volcano World | Oregon State University You and me live on top of sediments which are made from eroded rock and will eventually become rock again by the same process. In a few million years some of our fossils will be found inside those rocks buried under a mile of sediment.

Faith, can I clarify your understanding of what the science says about the formation of layers of rock ?Science doesn't say that the rock turns up on day 1 as rock. There's loads of different ways it forms of course, but a lot of the stuff with fossils in it isn't rock when stuff is living on it or in it. It often starts off as accretions of soil, sand, dust, mud etc - all of the stuff we see on the surface of the world today.The surface slowly gets buried over time, usually with dead stuff in it, by more mud, soil, dust etc., and over millions of years, that surface can get buried further, and get subjected to increased heat and pressure and lithified, turning it into the rock we're talking about. Sometimes, the dead critters are preserved in that process.Then over a few more million years, that rock can get exposed again through tectonic activity, erosion, excavation and other means. Voila - rocks with fossils.The point is that when the critters got stuck in it, it wasn't rock - it was growing piles/layers of soil, mud, dust, whatever.You agree that that is what the science says, yes ? (In really broad terms - I'm not a geologist, so apologies to our members who are for any errors in this).

Instead of calling others dishonest and accusing them of random goalpost moving, it might be more helpful to explain what you perceive as the rewrite of theory. As far as I can tell, everyone is saying pretty much the same thing and pretty much what's in the textbooks. Some people do employ a brevity that can cause ambiguity, and I'm sure there's some talking past each other going on, because I see some certainty about what you're saying that I don't myself see.--Percy

Just to add a little detail, a regression exposes land to erosive forces, so a second transgression could result in an unconformity. In other words, part or even all of the stratigraphic record of the first transgression might be absent.--Percy