Did the Flood really happen?

You're not fooling anyone but yourself. The Bible underpins all your ideas. I only asked why you were including Bible references (in this case about the ark) after you had just finished insisting your views are independent of the Bible. You're still talking about the Bible right now. If you have facts showing the Flood happened then bring them forward and stop talking about the Bible. This is a science thread. More facts, less Bible.--Percy

Translation: "I have no facts or evidence or coherent arguments, so I'm forced to make up fantasies that have no connection to the real world and are essentially just geological Bible stories."You're welcome to try to make this case, but not here, this thread is about the Flood.--Percy

Faith's posting history: At issue is whether discussion here has helped advance Faith's understanding of science and practical knowledge. Not acceptance, just understanding. This issue arose because of Faith's claim in Message 357 that ad hoc explanations should be acceptable because no facts support her position. She additionally claimed that any science that studies what happened in the past is also ad hoc. The obvious and inherent fallacies of this position have been pointed out many times, but Faith has never discussed it that I'm aware of. Perhaps someone should open a thread called, "Is scientific study of past events inherently ad hoc?"--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

How many geology books have you read? Even creationist geology books know the definition of geologic column, and granite is definitely part of the geological column. The column of material beneath any location is the geologic column. It consists of all material in the vertical column, without exception. That includes sedimentary rock, igneous rock, metamorphic rock, sills, dikes, still molten magma chambers, lava, volcanic ash, soil, clay, sand, and whatever other kind of thing exists upon and within the Earth. Sections of the geologic column that are not sedimentary rock are not considered blank. But you say that all of world geology is the result of the Flood, so that must include this rock. How did it get there? Here it is again: And we believe that you believe that, but it's clear that you're constitutionally unable to speak of geology without bringing up the Bible. Protesting that your arguments aren't underpinned by the Bible at practically the same time that you keep bringing up the Bible is fruitless. You're not fooling anyone but yourself. You didn't respond to what I said. Here's the image again: How did that irregular boundary between the layer running across the center with the little circles in it and the one below form if the Flood always left behind flat and originally horizontal strata? As I said before, these strata are far too deep for there to have been flowing water that erodes and carries material away. Even if it could happen it would have caused the overlying material to collapse into the emptied space, which obviously from the diagram did not happen.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Provide improved image.

And there you go arguing from the Bible again. Where is your evidence that the Flood really happened and that there's nothing on Earth older than the Flood? It's good that you recognize there is no evidence for your Flood, but science has both archaeological and radiometric evidence for the age of those sites. To mention just one, the evidence from Jericho is that it was first occupied about 11,000 years ago and has been fairly continuously occupied since about 6500 years ago. The deeper the archaeological layer the older the radiocarbon date. Jericho existed both before and after 4500 years ago.--Percy

Faith is arguing from a Bible perspective again, but even though it isn't relevant in this thread the Bible does imply that God is going to do some serious damage to the Earth, which could be interpreted as also affecting any signs of civilization:

quote:

---

Genesis 6:13 So God said to Noah, I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth."

---

But instead of citing the Bible, if Faith really believes the Flood washed away everything on the surface of the Earth then she should try to show that no evidence of human habitation exists anywhere in the world prior to 4500 years ago.--Percy

No shit, Sherlock. What gave it away? Was it where I said, "I've magnified the diagram and put the layer with the little circles in roughly the center." Here it is again: You do love your pronouns. When you say, "I never said the Flood did that and I don't believe the Flood did that," what are you referring to? Everything in the whole diagram? Everything in the portion I cropped and magnified? Just the boundary between the layer with the little circles in it and the one below? And if the Flood didn't do it (whatever "it" is) then what did do it, and what other things did it do? This contradicts your claim that world geology is a result of the Flood. But as the above diagram shows, they're not straight and flat and could never have been straight and flat. Everyone agrees the tectonic forces created the tilting. "Being under water," is not an answer and is certainly not evidence of anything. Please describe the evidence you've collected that leads to the conclusion that water somehow created the very irregular boundary between the layer with the little circles in it and the one below. Also present your evidence that whatever happened took place around 4500 years ago.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Provide improved image.Edited by Percy, : Provide improved image.

What large rock at the far left? That large black mound on the left isn't a rock, it's a rise consisting of layers of strata that are miles and miles in extent. As in most geological diagrams the vertical dimension is exaggerated - the slopes of the sides of the rise are far, far less steep and the rise far less high than it seems from looking at the diagram. The diagram doesn't say, but the strata must be sedimentary and are not granite. Here's a closeup: This closeup should make it clear to you that it isn't a rock. How is anything you see in that part of the diagram evidence of the Flood? But what you thought was a rock is actually a sequence of sedimentary layers. The "Cambrian & Silurian" label in the diagram appears to indicates that these strata are Silurian underlain by Cambrian. Certainly if you go deep enough you'd likely find precambrian rock.What has this to do with evidence for the Flood? By "it" one would think you still mean "the large rock at the far left of the UK diagram," but it makes no sense to call it "bedrock the strata build on", so I don't know what you're referring to. Please clarify. Does "it" still refer to "the large rock at the far left of the UK diagram?" If so, what do you mean by "it ended up at the far left?" I assume you don't mean it moved laterally, so please explain. This is a pretty confusing sentence. What are "all the strata that are always found?" Do you only mean the common types of strata like sandstone and limestone and so forth? What do you mean by "in the same order they are always found," since strata are found in a wide variety of orders? Please clarify. Do you mean the strata that dead ends at the bottom of the strata with the little circles in it, as shown here. I've positioned where the strata starts at the lower left and then continues upward to the right to dead end at the layer with the little circles in it: If that is the section of the diagram you mean then it isn't "tectonically broken." That would be a fault with the rest of the strata shifted up or down by some amount, which we don't see. Instead we see the strata dead ending at the strata with the little circles. The rest of that strata cannot have disappeared into thin air. What happened to it? This isn't very clear. How do strata fall into a position? Are you just referring to tectonic tilting? And why do you think they are on their side? Is this another way of describing a direction of tilting, and if so what direction of tilting is that? All the diagram seems to show is that generally the left side was uplifted or the right side subsided or some combination. You still have the definition of geological column wrong. Granite is definitely part of the geological column. Igneous rock, metamorphic rock, dikes, sills, etc., they're all part of the geologic column.--PercyEdited by Percy, : No reason given.

You seemed to understand what Faith was referring to about a granite rock, so I was hoping you could point me to what that was. In Message 393 Faith said: You responded to that last line like this: But I don't see a rock that the diagram indicates as granite or as a basement rock on the left side of the diagram. I blew up that section of the diagram for Faith, here it is again. I'm just wondering where the granite rock Faith referred to is: --PercyEdited by Percy, : Provide better quality image.

Why not? If you can't explain what you mean how are you going to get your points across?You're screwing up the disallowed words again. Why do you think you see granite indicated somewhere in this diagram: Granite is part of the geologic column. The geologic column is actually conceptual, but it can be overlaid onto any locale and would include everything in the column, including granite, schist, marble, and everything else. Maybe you're thinking of a stratigraphic column, which would confine itself more to sedimentary rocks. What are you looking at in the diagram that tells you most of the geologic column is present? There are obvious unconformities, and it doesn't look possible to tell how much geologic time is missing. Given that the strata span at least 500 million years of time (Cambrian to the Tertiary at a minimum) there could be a great deal of missing time. That's the Tertiary on the right, which is a couple million years before the Holocene.I don't know why you call a left to right ordering the correct ordering. It's only because of the tilt that the Cambrian is on the left and the Tertiary on the right. Tilt the diagram so that the layers become more horizontal and you'll see that the Cambrian is on the bottom and the tertiary on the top. You're supposed to be seeking evidence that the Flood really happened, not assuming it happened. Please describe the evidence that underpinned your thinking and led to your conclusions. To continue with the slices of bread analogy, if you were to break a slice of toast in half you would still have both halves of the slice of toast. One half wouldn't just disappear. So given that these strata were buried, where did the tops that were broken off go? Where are the signs of the forces that broke them off, which should be present in the form of deformed strata? What does it mean to you for a stratum to be upright? You mean tilted to such a degree that it is vertical? Where do you see anything even close to vertical strata in the diagram. Keep in mind that the vertical is greatly exaggerated in geologic diagrams. The tilt of the layers is much, much less than what is shown. Collapsed where? There are no pieces of collapsed strata in that diagram. It isn't possible for one stratum of a sequence of stratum to distort without the surrounding strata distorting to conform to it. I'm sure Edge agrees they were horizontally stacked to a great depth, but not all the same time. The sedimentary layers were deposited millions of years apart, and deposition was interspersed with erosion and tectonic tilting. The point wasn't that granite is a layer like sedimentary rocks. The point was that granite is part of the geologic column.And granite wasn't the reason I brought up the boulder. The type of rock is irrelevant. It was a huge and extremely heavy rock deposited atop fine, light sediment. I was asking you to describe how your Flood explains this. I've read ahead enough to see that Edge already provided geology's answer.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Provide better quality image.

Oh, that's beautiful, I'm going to fix all my references over to this one.--Percy

Does being a YEC mean having no evidence and making impossible scientific claims? You haven't made any "observations of phenomena" in the sense of gathering facts and evidence. You've only made "observations" in the sense of giving your uninformed opinions. You assume the Flood based on the Bible and then invent nonsensical and impossible scenarios for how your Flood could have created all of world geology in a single year.--Percy

I think everyone here is pretty much in agreement about your level scientific and practical understanding. And yet I'm saying the same thing as everyone else. It's utter confusion is what it is, and you're just asserting things to have happened, not showing that they happened, or providing any evidence that they did happen.Why don't you try demonstrating just one thing you believed happened at a time, for instance the stratum that broke off. First you have to clarify what you believe happened. Would it be correct to say that you think all the strata were deposited before this stratum broke off? I'll assume you're talking about the stratum that bends upward to meet the stratum with the little circles that Edge informs us indicates gravel, i.e., this one: So what we need to know is a) How a piece of buried stratum broke off; b) Where is the broken off piece of stratum, which was likely miles and miles in extent? And c) Why aren't the forces necessary to break off this piece of stratum visible in deformations of the surrounding strata?--Percy

So which of those things on your list put this rock here: Why do you think it wasn't the Flood that put this rock here? Is it because on some level you do understand that large heavy things will fall out of suspension before small light things?--Percy

Because why?Since in your view the Flood wiped the Earth clean, showing that there is no evidence of anything older than 4500 years would be excellent proof, at a minimum, of something very significant happening.Radiocarbon dating has confirmed the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls, of ancient Bible fragments, of Jerusalem around the time of Jesus and events like the destruction of the Temple and Masada and so forth. It has been used to date many Bible related archeological sites, often confirming that the sites existed at roughly the time the Bible says they did. So Radiocarbon dating works pretty well for Bible-related things. This includes Jericho. Radiocarbon dating says a layer of Jericho of the right archeological time period existed at roughly the time the Bible says it did, within a couple hundred years of accuracy.So if radiocarbon dating is reliable after 4500 years ago, why wouldn't it be accurate before, and whatever reasons you make up, what is your evidence for them? Are you discussing, or are you asserting and declaring?If you're conceding that the Flood is merely your assumption and that you have no evidence it ever happened, then isn't this thread done? I don't think anyone is questioning that the Flood is just an assumption on your part. If that's your position then I'm pretty sure we're all fine with it.--Percy