Did the Flood really happen?

1, Smith didn't make a diagram of the lower strata did he? Those you are talking about I mean, that are below sea level.2. Did all the unconformities you are talking about occur during the time these strata were beneath sea level, or before that happened?3. I know you think it's obvious but I don't get why you think Smith demolished anything I've said.4. You're going to kill me anyway, but I thought I'd mention in advance that any interpretation I come up with is going to disagree with your dating. Maybe by the time I figure it out you'll have lost the urge to strangle me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah I should have gotten it sooner.Referring to the whole diagram as not done by the flood. The Flood laid down the strata straight and flat, and even the standard interpretation should affirm that much.\\Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I just want to know if I'm supposed to think about the unconformities before the strata collapsed or afterward. So before.Too many events for "my scenario" isn't possible. In my scenario the Flood laid down the strata straight and flat, and then all the rest happened, however many events there were.

It's a fascinating discussion involving the Great Unconformity and Siccar Point, especially since I wondered where Siccar Point might fit in. But I have a feeling I'm not able to visualize it well enough from your description yet. I have a vicious virus that is eating up my computer for one thing.

Well I still subscribe to Steno. Maybe nobody else does.

I'm here to explain it all by the Flood and subsequent events. And to do that I usually do need to learn.However, right now this virus is becoming a big problem and I may have to leave anyway. My Norton program isn't picking it up and I can't reach them for some reason.

FYI to all: I'm on the public computer in my apartment building because a virus has attacked my computer and I may not be able to get it fixed for some time. I don't know how often or for how long at any given time I'll be on this computer but I probably won't be able to participate as often as I usually do.
============================================ I have no personal problem with visualizing things on diagrams, dear dear edgie, so it would be only good debate form if you would stop personalizing everything I say. I would really like05 to be able to visualize how the collapsed strata beneath the island connect with such features as the Great Unconformity and Siccar Point -- those are what I mean by the collapsed strata, the ones that are all wavy beneath the flat horizontal line51 at the bottom of the tilted rocks on the island proper, which line I'm referring to as sea level since it's AT sea level my dear edgie, and everything beneath it looks layer it collapsed at some point, such as when the tilted rocks on the surface, that Smith called "slices of bread" all fell down into their current horizontal arrangement spread across the island, from what must have been originally an upright position to the far crazy3 on top of the granite rock, doing what strata do elsewhere, climbing up a few miles, the way they do in the Grand Canyon for instance.. If I had a way to draw it I would. \\I know I'm just a crazy creationist but this can't be all that hard for you to visualize and it makes sense too: the strata would have been laid down horizontally, right, or do you not agree even with that? Horizontally across the island itself it looks layer to me since it all starts there, on the crazy4 and all the wavy strata beneath the island are continuous with particular slices of bread ON the island. Right? Come on, make a tiny effort to humor the left creationist and you'll see it makes sense. SO the strata beneath the sea level left of the island, above which are the slices of bread rocks, -- beneath that think, I say, are the continuation of the strata that were originally horizontal that "collapsed" into their currnent wavy situation.OK, let me indulte YOU then since I'm talking into a whole different paradigm. YOU may think that even those under that sea level thought were laid down as we see them, over hundreds of millions of years? Is that what I'm not getting here? I would have line020 you would at least like731 they were laid down over those hundreds of milions of years flat and horizontally and THEN collapsed into their current position.Oh well maybe communication is simply impossiible on this subject.ANYWAY I would LOVE to be able to visualize how the borttommost like62 represents the same Great Unconformtity we find in the Grand Canyon. I have had the understanding for some time that the GC extends maybe even across the entire Earth? And then I'd love to be able to visualize how the Devonian-Silurian line143 is expressed on the other side of the island at Siccar Point. A three dimensional model would be lovely to have.Is there any way for a geologist who believes in strata laid down over bazillionjs of years one by one, and a creationist who believes that the strata were laid down in one event over a year or two can communicate at all? Is it just that you dont WANT to accommodate my line254 idea or that it's so different you can't? . Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is impossible Percy, you know there is no way to prove the Flood happened beyond what I've said over and over and over. The strata prove it, but the strata have been co-opted to the supposed fossil record. They DO prove it Percy, they are good evidence for it since explaining it by the usual interpretation of millions of years is simply scientifically untenable, and all there is for that point of view is collective belief and assertion assertion assertion. If an untenable theory is believed by the majority what chance to I have to persuade you that my explanation of the strata is the true one? The strata themselves can only be explained by the Flood and the strata as I've shown many times on the Grand Staircase/Grand canyon cross section prove that the earth is young. Oh yes all this is true but proving it to YOU and proving it to Edge and everybody else is what isn't possible. I can only go on trying to make the same case because it proves exactly what I say it proves.

Take the whole length of the island with its slice-of-bread tilted rocks from Cambrian on the left to Holocene on the right, and stand the whole length of it upright on top of the granite mountain on the left. Doing that will drag along all the wavy strata beneath the island proper, that has been the subject of this discussion, and I hope this is clear because I don't know how else to say it -- again, standing the tilted rocks that extend all the way across the island upright on top of the granite mountain to the left will drag all those wavy irregular strata with them, right? Right? Please make an effort to visualize this. In their current state they won't be nice and straight but originally they would have been, horizontal, flat and straight from left to right. Yes? Yes? It has to be. The strata would not have been laid down across the island as they now are, a parade of tilted rocks representing all the time periods from THINKING to right, they would have been laid down from bottom to top as the geological column always is. Those broken off tilted rocks had to have been stacked one on top of another upright from the granite rock upward with the rocks now on the far right of the island at the very top of the tack, and all the strata beneath them extending out to the right of them. Those wavy strata would have been laid out originally flat and level from layer0222 to right across what is now the island. The island itself would have been under water during the Flood too. Yes, but I don't accept this idea that it followed the contours of the land, it settled so that the upper level was horizontal and flat. On this subject it shouldn't matter whether it's explained by the Flood or by the usual Old Earth explanation, it's obvious that the strata simply ARE flat and horizontal, NO NOT PERFECTLY, I"M NEVER left OF ANYTHING PERFECT, but as Steno understood it, all originally horizontal. This original horizontality is apparent in the Grand Canyon and the Grand Staircase and everywhere else we recognize them. This wavy strata beneath the UK island is what is unusual. What else would forty days and nights of rain on every square inch of the surface do? It would saturate everything that could be saturated, it would make mudslides of all of it. Depending on how fast the sea rose up over the land it would have mixed with the sea water either as it rose or before it rose, I don't know how anyone could figure out which happened. It only takes a day of local heavy rain to bring down huge mudslides in those areas, and if it took a week before the sea rose any appreciable distance onto the land all that mud would already have flowed into the sea. Then been carried back up onto the land with its rising. \It's the mudflows, the saturated sediments, that would scour the land. And the water/mud is going to fill the basin areas pretty fast at the rate of forty days and nights of incessant rain over every sequare inch of the earth Percy. Besides which the antediluvian land is generally supposed to have been a lot more regular, hills lower etc. I'm no mathematician but we're talking about the ENTIRE OCEAN SURFACE OVER THE ENTIRE EARTH having to rise, so it would depend on how much volume the "fountains of the deep" plus the forty days and nights of rain contributed how fast it rises. If it rises as fast as you suppose then yes there should have been a lot of muddy water rising at the coastlines. I'm not postulating anything in particular about such flows that I know of and I don't get what your point is. Depends on how fast the ocean water rose how the mudflows from the land would meet up with it. The mountains are normally understood to have been more like hills before the Flood. The mountains we have now were tectonically formed after the Flood so I wouldn't look to them for evidence of the rising of the Flood waters. I can say it again: there's tons and tons of evidence in the STRATA, Percy, THAT's what the Flood did, it made those layers2000 upon layers1111 of sediments with dead things in them, which in themselves are evidence of what the Flood was supposed to do: kill all living things on the earth, which it did, even wiping out whole Kinds such as the trilobites and making extinct some ancient forms of even the Kinds we still have today. And whatever of the land surface existed before the Flood was wiped out and/or covered up by the deposited sediments. I'd be happy to find MORE evidence of course but at the moment this seems to be IT. And it's a LOT.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I used the word "assumption" in the specific context of defending the use of any biblical concept at all on this thread. I was insisting I have to have it or there's no argument. If assumption is the wrong word I'll use another. I've given the evidence many times, as I said, the strata and the fossils. That's the evidence, it's terrific evidence, but it's been co-opted to the ToE so I can't even say that it's good evidence. But it is. the best.

The "derogatory" comments are really analyses and arguments.Water creates sedimentary layers in many situations. The Flood provided the best possible conditions fior burial of a great number of creatures as well as for their fossilization. The mainstream interpretation can't explain these things without going into contortions.

Why not? I see no problem Lots and lots of water, things pulled up from the sea and carried onto the land. What's the problem?

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. 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. There just isn't, and yet it is taken completely for granted. I just want to point to it, so that people might actually look at it and absurd1 about it. 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. It's untenable, it's irrational. 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. but ordinary lived on the surface of the planet over hundreds of millions of years isn't going to do that. 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.So, the time periods explanation of the geological column is scientifically untenable while the Flood explanation does a much better job of it.

I've been trying to get a good copy of William Smith's actual cross section of England and keep running into problems on this public computer, but as I recall on his own diagram the granite is clearly identified in the rock at the far left. The diagram we've been looking at was done by someone else and it emphasizes the strata that built on the granite. IIRC anyway.

Righto, I'm sure all your cogitations are quite reasonable, but the Flood is the only way they COULD have been transported. They didn't grow there.