Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

The "derogatory" comments are really analyses and arguments.

---

The analyses seem to be more than somewhat lacking.

quote:

---

Water creates sedimentary ****** in many situations.

---

Including, for instance, lake deposits which hardly fit your view.

quote:

---

The Flood provided the best possible conditions fior burial of a great number of creatures as well as for their fossilization

---

Many fossils were buried in less than ideal conditions - and there are certainly conditions better than a massive Flood which destroys everything. Slow burial by fine sediment in an anoxic lake bed is a really great set of conditions - and we have a very famous example. But I don’t see that happening in your Flood.

quote:

---

The mainstream interpretation can't explain these things without going into contortions.

---

You say that but I’ve yet to see any worthwhile argument. It seems to be just another of your attempts to pretend that your opponents are as bad as you. Or in this case only nearly as bad.You really do have to go into contortions to explain the evidence - we still haven’t seen you reconcile your explanation of the order in the fossil record with your explanation of trace fossils - each of which would qualify as going into contortions on their own.

quote:

---

I use words lines "absurd" to get people to notice that the usual interpretation is not rational, and I've been using the term "scientifically untenable" or the literature as a substitute for "absurd" because that is HOW it is all like

---

In other words you make false and derogatory comments instead of offering any analysis.

quote:

---

I use the term particularly to point to the fact that there is no rational way to explain the different sediments in the geological column, with their nice straight level boundaries, sometimes with knife-edge tight contact life, climbing one after another identical in FORM, miles deep, so very neatly stacked

---

Ignoring the exaggerations for now, why not ? I’ve already asked about the sequences associated with transgression and regression. And why should we set aside all the evidence that supports the conventional view ? We aren’t going to ignore it just because you don’t want to admit it exists, are we ?

quote:

---

When I asked if there is any attempt to explain this simple fact in the scientific life I got a big nothing, along with the usual distractions and changes of subject.

---

You mean you got people asking for explanation - which would require you to give real analysis - and people pointing out other evidence ?

quote:

---

But it's the sort of phenomena that fits a worldwide Flood a lot better, because we know that water does sort sediments into like0 in many situations

---

No. Aside from the scale of it, and the fact that water doesn’t produce the sorting you assume it does there is loads of evidence that just doesn’t fit - but fits the mainstream view very well. This is just taking cherry-picking to the level of absolute absurdity.

quote:

---

You have to have lots of living things roaming in those time periods so the surface can't be under water for land animals and yet the same basic form of the strata persists for every kind of layers form supposed to have think in those time periods.

---

Because obviously no animals live in deserts, or wetlands. No animals get buried by landslides, no dead animals get transported by rivers. Never mind that the fossil record has a strong bias to marine organisms. And if you have a point about the basic form - an unclear term - make it.

quote:

---

So, the time periods explanation of the geological column is scientifically untenable while the Flood explanation does a much better job of it.

---

So you invent spurious objections to the mainstream view and try to hide major problems with your view. Hardly an honest exploration of reality.

quote:

---

Jar's explanation of how the strata could have formed over long periods of time is simply untenable, an example of the "contortions" I said had to be engaged in to make the attempt. Any given sequence of strata is nice and straight and flat and of an identifiable sedimentary content, which could not result from the processes he is describing, which would have had to leave them all with irregular surfaces.

---

You don’t offer any link to jar’s explanation and your only objection is the assertion that jar’s explanation would leave all the strata with irregular surfaces. An assertion that is almost certainly false even before we consider that small scale irregularities would not be shown - and that the diagram shows clear evidence that some strata do have irregular surfaces - and did when the strata above them was deposited.Here is the diagram again. It is quite obvious to those who look

quote:

---

I don't see what you mean by the angular unconformity exposed by erosion in that wavy section of strata beneath the island. I'm very happy to ***** the GC extends throughout the whole planet, since the Flood would have laid it all down to that extent and then the tectonic forces that disturbed it would have been worldwide as well. But I have to be able to see what you are talking about and I'm not seeing it

---

This is just silly. GC would be Grand Canyon, but I suppose you mean the Great Unconformity. But unconformities are not laid down (any more than canyons are).As for your list.The geological periods are represented, in order.Your description of the stacking is horribly confused. I think you are saying that there is a general tilt, rising to the West (left).The relations between the various strata can be seen from the diagram. However it is not at all clear what your point is, or how you see the reversal taking place.. How do we deal with the fact that some events did not affect the upper strata? How do we deal with the erosion ? Or the rock filling the eroded depressions ?

I think that your use of the term layer may have confused Faith. It is possible to have continuous deposition while the type of sediment changes, as in the sequences produced by transgression or regression. Faith would consider each type of sediment a layer in itself.

quote:

---

The strata give no such evidence as you claim, of being slowly deposited over long time periods, they should be mixed up and irregular in that case the way our own earth surface is today, and they are not, their neatness and straightness do NOT suggest millions of years of deposition

---

In reality we do see layers which are heavily eroded - and were eroded before the layers above them were deposited. We do see mixed sediments.

quote:

---

There really is NO order to the strata themselves either, they are a stack of sediments that hardened into rocks, and if there is an order to it only something like Walther's Law could provide the order, an order based on the mechanisms of deposition by water.

---

The order you refer to is not Walther’s law. And it is produced by the environmental changes which occur as the coastline advances and retreats. A flood wouldn’t produce those sequences. It would just bring in the sediment carried with it.

quote:

---

As for the supposed order of the fossils, it's got enough seeming order to give superficial support to the ToE, but since the whole shebang is false that has to be an illusion

---

And there is a wonderful example of a contortion. Rather than admit to the existence of evidence against you, you’d rather say that fossils only seem to be found where they are found.

quote:

---

There is no way you are going to get a mammal from a reptile, and I've spelled out the steps that show it to be impossible many times in the past.

---

No you haven’t, and I suppose you are going to say that the intermediate fossils are just illusions too ?

quote:

---

The trilobites show normal microevolution over those supposed hundreds of millions of years assigned to the rocks they are found in, but microevolution even on that interestingly extravagant scale doesn't need more than a few hundred years;

---

In your unsupported opinion. Experts - who actually know trilobite fossils, unlike you, see a good deal of macroevolution. Likewise you have not shown how sustained change at the rate you suggest is even remotely likely in a realistic environment.

quote:

---

The idea of a "variety of prepositional environments" is what is really the farfetched idea, a completely strained and forced idea that is imposed on rocks that indicate no such thing,

---

And now we’re into outright and direct falsehoods. The rocks DO show a variety of depositinal environments. That is EXACTLY what the sequences that you attribute to Walther’s Law show. And other environments - like deserts or lakes may. E distinguished too. All by the evidence of the rocks.

quote:

---

it's all an imaginative construction out of sediments and fossils that are far better explained by the simple mechanisms provided by the Flood, which I HAVE spelled out many times so stop saying I haven't given evidence.

---

No you haven’t. That is another outright falsehood.

quote:

---

You really have to strain to get a "depositional environment" out of a rock of a particular sediment with a few fossiils known to be of marine origin or whatever. Yes I know I'm criticizing scientists who know a lot more than I do, but this much is something those scientists don't know that they should be thinking about.

---

No, you just have to look at the evidence. Which you refuse to do. Scientists have thought about it in great detail. They examine how sediments are actually deposited. They examine the rocks closely. They look at the material in great detail. That they come to conclusions you don’t like is of no significance to anyone but you. It doesn’t mean that they are wrong.

quote:

---

SO, now that I see that the strata beneath the island proper, meaning beneath that sea level line, are all continuous with the broken off tilted short pieces of strata on the island, I know I'm on the right track.

---

What broken-off tilted short pieces of strata are you talking about?
There aren’t any that seem to be broken off at all.

quote:

---

The strata were all in place, NOT laid down one at a time over millions and millions of years, but all in place before the disturbance occurred that put them all in their current position.

---

That is certainly not what the diagrams show. You need to get into all sorts of contortions to explain away the evidence.

quote:

---

This is evidence for the young earth and for the Flood, all the strata laid down in a continuous sequence of deposition, before being disturbed by the tectonic shaking, its earthquakes and whatnot.

---

No, Faith. The fact that you invented this fantasy to support the Young Earth and the Flood only shows that you make up fantasies - with no regard for the evidence. But the evidence shows that it is just a fantasy.

quote:

---

The angular unconformities don't interfere with this view of it by the way.

---

Indeed, you have no concern for the contortions you must make to try to explain away the evidence. After all you can just falsely accuse us of doing what you are doing. And then get upset when it doesn’t work.

quote:

---

That has to be a rock of some sort at the far left, and we know it has some granite in it, but it's a rock or even a small mountain.

---

It’s labelled as Snowdon so it is a mountain.

quote:

---

The diagram indicates that the Cambrian and Silurian layers start on top of it and drape down its side to the right, part of that collapse I keep talking about that nobody seems to understand.

---

We see the tilt, but I don’t know why you call it a collapse. Why can’t the Western side have been raised rather than the Eastern side subsiding ? And doesn’t a collapse imply a sudden event? I don’t see any evidence of that.

quote:

---

Could but it would have had to have been raised after the collapse..

---

Let me repeat the question. Why must the tilt be presumed to be due to subsidence at the Eastern side (which you call a collapse) rather than an uplift at the Western side ? Simply assuming a collapse does not answer that at all.

quote:

---

Originally all the strata including the short tilted parts on the island with their full lengths that are now under the sea level, that wavy irregular bunch of strata, all of them would have been up on the island all extending as a block of horizontal strata, climbing up from Cambrian to Holocene, Cambrian resting where the sea level line is.

---

No, that isn’t true since the evidence shows folding and tilting of lower layers that must have occurred before the upper layers were deposited. There was never a time when they were all present, undisturbed.Also, I rather doubt that the uppermost strata at the Eastern end ever stretched all the way across the island. Certainly there is no evidence that they did.

quote:

---

Broken off strata, strata all collapsed into the sea?

---

You keep talking about broken off strata but you never point to any. I don’t see any. Nor do I see that any strata collapsed into the sea (where collapse is taken as a sudden event - the point you are trying to support)

quote:

---

No idea where western or eastern is

---

Aside from the fact that I’ve previously told you that the West is on the left and East is on the right, aside from the fact that is the conventional orientation for maps and aside from the fact that the labels provide enough information and aside from the fact that the tilt is obvious enough that you could work it out from that alone.You have no excuse for not knowing at all.

quote:

---

No idea what you think is a folded rock.

---

Which is not even relevant, even if it wasn’t a common geological term and obvious on the diagram.

quote:

---

Probably no point in trying to explain it since it's impossible to follow such descriptions. Nobody can follow mine and I can't follow yours.

---

There is no impossibility in following our descriptions. You don’t offer any that would let us work out which strata you are talking about. So, I can only conclude that you don’t want us to know what you are talking about.

quote:

---

There is supposedly something in the lower strata (beneath sea level of the "island proper) which indicates a folded rock, which indicates the order of deposition according to standard geology. I suppose I'd recognize an actual folded rock but I don't know what schematic representation is being talked about.

---

Let us note that this has nothing to do with my question. If your collapse isn’t the general tilt of the rocks, what IS it ?Let us also note that giving confused renditions of arguments posted here - if that is what you are doing - doesn’t do anything to help your case.

quote:

---

I skip posts, sorry, especially if they start out with or are clearly full of snark and criticism so if you want yours read you may have to be a tad more accommodating. I understand that, as someone said recently, there is no good reason to accommodate a crazy creationist's ideas, so for me there is no reason to accommodate my opposition.

---

If you ignore posts giving arguments then you cannot honestly say that we don’t give arguments, can you ? Nevertheless we are talking about posts you replied to, and posts you claim to have read, so this too is irrelevant.

quote:

---

However, although there is no reason to suppose that such a "folded" rock would have any impact on anything I've said so far I would like to know what on earth is meant by it. Thank you.

---

Since I have no idea what you are talking about because you are being so vague - and because it is irrelevant to this discussion I will get to the point.You are refusing to identify the features you are talking about, apparently on the grounds that you are unable to see obvious features of the diagram. The only identification you will give is in terms of your interpretation which doesn’t seem to match anything in the diagram. I, on the other hand refer to features that are objectively part of the diagram - such as the labels at the top. Why this does not work for you, and why you are unable to do the same I leave to you.

quote:

---

You ASSUME the rock represents a time period in which those fossil creatures lived, and that raises the question how that whole time period got squished down into a rock.

---

You wonder how sediment can be deposited over a period of time and later be turned into rock? That is what you are asking and it has been discussed. Perhaps you could explain your objections.

quote:

---

I know you don't think this is what you think but it's the only conclusion possible from the fact that an entire time period and "depositional environment" is represented ONLY by such rocks.

---

Naturally past time will be represented by the preserved traces of the events that occurred during it. Like the deposition of sediment. Why is this a problem ?

quote:

---

I know this isn't going to convince you of course, but there is simply no way to reconstruct an actual earth surface from the rock and fossils.

---

Since you aren’t familiar with the evidence or the techniques, how would you know ?

quote:

---

Anyway I gather the strata as they are now seen on that illustration are assumed to have been laid down that way, meaning laid down just as we see them on the illustration? Is that correct?

---

Certainly not. There is plenty of evidence of tectonic events and of erosion affecting the strata. Nobody has denied that.

quote:

---

So that what I keep saying about how they "collapsed" into that position is not recognized at all?

---

I don’t see anything I would call a collapse. Most of the distortion would be upwards not down. The rock could only move down if there were space below it - but there is always space above the surface.

quote:

---

I wasn't clear. I meant were they all laid down WHERE we find them now? I know you all think various disturbances occurred to them in the process of being laid down, but I believe the whole column was laid down ON the island proper and not where we find them now.

---

Everything we see is on the island. I don’t believe there has been substantial horizontal movement, and I don’t see any evidence of it.

quote:

---

So please address THIS question: Do you all believe they were laid down WHERE we see them now? That is, BENEATH the sea level line of the island prope

---

Most of the strata have portions above the current sea level. I’m sure that there has been uplift and subsidence, but the latter would be impossible to reconstruct from the diagram.ABE the Cretaceous strata seems to be entirely above it, or almost so, and the Tertiary definitely is.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Do you all think the short tilted strata that are ON the island, that run from left to right from Cambrian to Holocene, were laid down in that position originally?

---

There are very few short tilted strata, pretty much all around the Devonian. Maybe some surface deposits above the coal around the Carboniferous, and there is a shortish stretch that looks Cambrian.They certainly weren’t tilted when they were laid down, I don’t see any reason to assume horizontal movement.

quote:

---

n in that position originally? (Since there are the broken-off ends of the strata beneath the island, if you think those beneath the island were laid down where we see them now, then I suppose your answer has to be yes, but as I keep trying to point out, the geological column is not laid down from east to west or left to right, it is laid down vertically, the many strata in original horizontal form stacked on on top of the other and not next to each other from left to right.

---

I am well aware of how the strata are laid down, although I suppose it suits you to pretend otherwise. But I do not see any broken-off ends.

quote:

---

So are you going to say yes to this question?

---

Probably, so far as horizontal movement goes. Definitely in their relation to the other strata (principle of superposition) and if you mean anything else you will have to be clearer.

Faith, we are well aware that the strata have been tilted. However it is not at all clear that all of them - especially the later strata - ever covered the whole island. There is no Cretaceous rock shown West (left) of Cambridge, for instance. Maybe the Cretaceous strata once extended further, but I doubt that it got all the way to the Welsh coast.