Did the Flood really happen?

We seem to be spinning here on what 'rare' means.It is certainly true by most any definition, that large terrestrial fossils (the ones that were drowned in da fludde) are rare.At the same, time the marine fossils (the ones that also drowned in da fludde) that are much more abundant and seemingly less 'rare'.Now that makes sense ... (to a YEC)I think even YECs would agree that this is a matter that depends on sheer population numbers, widespread distribution and conditions of preservation. However, the conclusion I would draw is that, while fossilization is 'difficult', the numbers of known fossil species tells us nothing about how many species (or individuals or transitionals) should ever have existed or how they should have evolved. This argument is a YEC red herring that depends on ignorance rather than knowledge. It is a "should have" argument based on nothing.It is serendipitous that any particular individual or species should be preserved in the fossil record. For some, it is obviously more difficult and can be considered 'rare'. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I submit that it is more likely the the years are lunar revolutions. Why would anyone want to trace human ancestry back millions of years?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I thought you said this: Seems that your reasoning is a little compromised.

And if you came up with a thought that was contradictory to (your interpretation of) the Bible, that wouldn't influence you at all.Suuure. So, more thinking and more thoughts. Might I suggest that you are a beginner?

What situation is that?The situation where you don't know all of the facts and where religious dogma puts you in an intellectual straight-jacket?Yeah, that would be tough. Please provide an example. How how do you label a theory that is based on known facts and interpretations that are consistent with each other as ad hoc?

Result of what?Give us a dynamic explanation of what happened. What are the forces and how did they originate?

Okay, I can't tell what you are talking about here, but I suspect that it is not important. Okay, the better word would be "basement", but your point is taken. Some rocks are not considered strata. But I'm not sure what the point is. This is demonstrably false. Not all strata are present at all locations along the section line. Some pinch out and some are clearly eroded away in some places. So, where on this diagram is the evidence that the sediments were laid down by a flood? Is this where (your interpretation of) the Bible does not play a role in your analysis of the data? What is your understanding of 'tectonically broken'? In what way are the rocks disturbed? Please be more specific. I'm sure you do. Not being aware of various geological processes (in fact, you deny some of them), you are not capable of understanding the current positions of the rocks. Is this your version of "poof ... there they are"? I seen nothing mysterious about how the rocks are currently distributed in this section. If this is your point, why all of the verbiage above?But no, basement rocks should be included in any geological column if they are present. This includes magma intruded into the sedimentary section. You may disagree with me for your own purposes, but a complete column with all rocks present makes the picture much clearer for people to interpret the geological history of an area. This is especially important, for example, when assessing the economic impact of intrusive rocks as thermal and material sources. I also believe that the specific types of contacts (unconformities, detachment faults, etc.) should be depicted. Geological columns are fantastic tools for so many applications if properly constructed and understood.

So what DID exist before the fludde?

Of course it's hard to interpret. When you don't understand and even deny certain geological processes, it's impossible to interpret the rocks. All unnecessary to answer my question. But what are the forces here? What is their geometry? You are just making vague assertions. Why did they collapse? What is the cause? Why does being water-saturated distort anything? Again you have no forces to cause 'distortion'. What kind of distortion are you talking about? Please describe. Standard geology says that the geometry of the beds was determined by the usual processes of erosion and deposition. Some of the sediments are locally derived and there is ample evidence of erosion within the section.

You mean, no YEC has ever done this kind of work?Seems to me that they should have located the first flood deposits and identified some artifacts of the pre-flood civilization. Do you have any clue where to look?

That is no reason to ignore rocks that are present in an area. If you understood geology, you would see that what you describe is a stratigraphic column, showing only the sedimentary rocks ina given area. I never read that into Percy's posts.But even here, you show your lack of depth. First of all, volcanic rocks can form layers and hence, strata. Second, not all basement rocks are volcanic. A huge percentage of them metasedimentary as well as metavolcanic and intrusive igneous.I am limiting this post here for lack of interest. There is no way to give you the background necessary to understand the situation. For instance, we have not even gotten into the Caledonian Orogeny that occurred while the sedimentary package was being deposited. There is simply too much ignorance and denial in your posts.

Theoretically, yes. However, if the rocks are totally buried and we don't see them, such as the mantle and core, they would usually be shown.In the case of your example, all of the major rock units that are seen at the surface are shown and their relationships to other units are depicted. Every line on the diagram has significance.

I would think that a geological presentation for any of these locations would be a little awkward if the granite were omitted.

I liked that boulder ...But I think Percy's question was how it got there according to the flood model.

C'mon, Faith. A person with your extensive geological research background must have some solid notion as to how it got there. Edited by edge, : No reason given.