Did the Flood really happen?

Well, it's not really a granite first of all. It was probably transported. Not very far, but the local bedrock would tell us this. It might be glacial.ABE: Ah...From the image address, I see that it is called an 'erratic', so someone else thinks that it is a glacial erratic.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Colloquially, it might be called a granite and, in fact, it may be granitic in composition (by chemical analysis), but it is almost certainly a gneiss. It is likely Precambrian in age, especially considering the internet source which is based in Ontario. I was going to guess New York (but I suppose the guy's clothing kind of gives him away ). If someone asks an honest question I can be very congenial. Unfortunately, I find the most YECs do not really ask questions. They just want to preach.

This is what I was talking about in my last post. YECs typically want to end the discussion. This is largely because the facts are against them and dismissal + denial is the only way to escape.

This detail of the diagram is packed with information that most people may not be able to see. Every line and every dot and smudge has a very specific meaning. There is so much that I cannot take the time to begin an explanation, but if there are specific questions, anyone feel free to ask.A couple of basic observations are important, however. First, there are three unconformities separating four distinct packages of rocks in the diagram. Each one has a story and the deeper you go, the longer story. Each of those unconformities are erosional in nature. We can tell by the oval-shaped symbols just above the jagged unconformity line. They denote gravel deposits and there are gravels just above each one of the unconformities.The curious thing is that the gravel fragments are composed of the same rock that occurs below the unconformity. They are what we call 'locally derived'. The implication here is that those cobbles and boulders were completely lithified prior to erosion. Otherwise, they would not survive the mechanical erosion producing the unconformity surface.This happens three times in the history as depicted in the detailed diagram.The lowest unconformity is the Great Unconformity that we all know about. The second one is the one visible at Siccar Point placing the Old Red Sand over older rocks, and the third one is the where the sea transgressed a third time depositing the New Red Sand (and the fourth package of rocks).Note that the rocks below the Old Red Sand are shown schematically as folded, whereas the ones above (packages three and four) are simply tilted. Again, this is the situation at Siccar Point. This shows that there was a tectonic event prior to the Old Red. The tilting occurred much later after much or all of the third and fourth rock package were deposited.The whole point here is that William Smith's work, over 200 years ago, absolutely demolishes Faith's biblically forced interpretation.

Actually, I'm not sure who created the diagram, now that you mention it. Nevertheless, if one understands the symbology of the diagram, your argument is invalidated. I have no idea what you mean here. Sea level varies. Practically by definition, large scale erosion occurs above sea level. Which does not connote a flood.What are you trying to say? Because there are too many geological events occurring to fit into your scenario.

Where does the diagram show the strata 'collapsing'?You are not making sense. The diagram shows at least two tectonic events, three erosional events, several completed lithification processes.You account for none of them.

Take my word for it, Faith, you never will.Whatever you are here for, it certainly isn't to discuss or learn.

Good points.Original horizontality is a useful stratigraphic principle and even though we can think of some exceptions such as cross-bedding and fan deposits, it is a valid tool for geological interpretation. It does not however, address what happens during processes that follow deposition (such as lithification, deformation or erosion).What is confusing to me is how Faith attempts to use original horizontality as evidence for one period of deposition (the flood), one period of lithification, and one period of deformation (tectonic rifting and divergence).If she is talking about the discontinuity of formations, it really has nothing to do with original horizontality. She seems to understand this in some convoluted way, but ascribing it to horizontal layers 'being under water' is child-like thinking.The diagram is so information-rich that to distill it down to a just-so story that ignores information is a travesty.

I just assumed that she misread the symbols and labels. It is also possible that the granite symbology occurs slightly above the sea level line at the very edge of the diagram. It's not a very good reproduction.So, I was likewise confused, but I was referring to the inclusion of intrusive an basement rocks in geological columns, in general.ABE: I don't think it's much of a reach to surmise that Faith might be confused. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

If you look at the symbols, it looks like there is just a little bit of granite barely above sea level. But I still wouldn't describe it as "a rock". I thought Faith was referring to the entire dark mass.Is there a legend to this diagram somewhere?

Kind of jumping in here, but the lowermost unit has randomly oriented short line segments for a symbol. This would be standard for some kind of igneous rock, and the geometry is kind of massive so it looks like basement. In that case, granite would be a default interpretation. However, there is no legend that I have seen so it could be kind of moot. In fact, I also think there is one tiny error in the drawing, but it's probably just due to the vertical exaggeration and the hand-drawn nature of the diagram. My point being that some things have to be schematic in such an expansive depiction. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This is a very good question.Actually, we do see deformation in the lower package of rocks (what I called package 2 in an earlier post), but not in the rocks above the unconformity.That means the lower package has undergone an additional period of deformation than the upper (younger) rocks. Hence, we can safely aver that there were two periods of deformation: the tilting that we all see in the diagram and a folding event that was earlier. Faith cannot account for this.

Now THAT is funny. That's easy for you to say.I recommend a logical, structured argument using standard grammatical tools. Jar explained this pretty conclusively in post 476. Have you not been reading the posts on this thread? What you are trying to say here? I have no idea what you are trying to say. What do you mean by 'collapsed'? What is collapsing? No one else here seems to be having a major problem. If you can visualize a global flood, why can you not visualize a global unconformity? No, the Grand Canyon only extends to the limits of the Grand Canyon. Again, I'm not sure what you are tying to say. It is expressed as an angular unconformity exposed by erosion. I'm not sure why anyone should 'accommodate your ideas' if they do not conform to reality.Please concentrate on substance in the future.

Yeah, and here's how they were transported ...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVjr4mii3cE

I just had to fit that in somehow.So, just remember it for future discussions ...