Did the Flood really happen?

OK I will repeat it because obviously it's a brand-new idea that nbody wants to consider: The strata we see both on the surface of the island and beneath it, which are all one geological column spread out from left to right across the island both above and below, cannot be the way it was originally laid down, since they would have been laid down one on top of the other from bottom to top. They are now left to right, Cambrian to Holocene, but they would originally have been Cambrian on the bottom to Holocene on the top and all the strata beneath the island which are extensions of those on the surface, would have made up a complete geological column sitting ON the sea level line instead of below it.I have a feeling nobody has ever noticed this and doesn't want to have to think about it.

Well, at the moment I would really like someone to address the situation I keep bringing up and just restated in Message 648 that as far as I've noticed has not been addressed: that the strata as we see them in that diagram of the British Isles are NOT where they would have been laid down originally, but on top of the island, and all the strata that are now on top of the island would be stacked up vertically rather than as we now see them, and all their extensions that are now beneath the island would be ON the sea level line, ON the island. OK? The discussion seems to have proceeded as if it is assumed that the strata have always been where we find them on that illustration.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They were not merely tilted, they are now side by side whereas they would originally have been one on top of the other. Speaking of the parts of the strata we see ON the island.

I see, THAT's how you explain it. So sea level rose up to the current sea level line? And how do you explain the fact that the strata that are currently ON the island are arranged from left to right rather than stacked one on top of the other as is the usual situation with a geological column?

Gosh, I see a whole lot of short pieces of strata all tilted toward the left, arranged (sorry you hate the more literary "marching") from left to right across the whole island. Perhaps this is a little clearer on Smith's own diagram but I think it's clear enough on the other too. I don't think I said anything about "horizontal movement." Anyway I gather you still don't get what I'm trying to describe.Yes the principle of superposition is violated in their current position one after the other from left to right. Superposition would describe the usual situation of one on top of the other, which is not what we see here but was surely their original position when they were laid down. Stand the presently horizontal sequence upright on the Cambrian piece and that should recapitulate the original position.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Maybe the previous post will help. I can hope anyway. I'm not talking about the tilt, I'm talking about how a geological column is never laid down on its side, it is stacked vertically, but this one is on it's side, marching, as it were, from left to right ACROSS the island when it would originally have been stacked UP vertically.

Didn't I say the short tilted strata ON TOOP OF THE ISLAND? I KNOW they continue beneath the island, they ALL do, but I was trying to talk about the SHORT TILTED ONES ON THE ISLAND.Never mind, I have to leave for a while before I blow a cork again.

So you don't think this particular geological column was ever stacked vertically? Wouldn't that be unusual? Like, impossible? Like never happened before ever?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The lower boundary, yes, at the very bottom of the stack, but the top of each will be straight and horizontal. NONJE OF THE STRATA WERE DEPOSITED IN THEIR PRESENT POSITION as illustrated on the diagram.The strata on the island is those above the straight line which is sea level. They are all tilted upward toward the left like slices of bread. They are broken off at the top. They were obviously not deposted in that position.The strata beneath the sea level line are continuations of the shortened tilted strata above the line. They were obviously not deposted there, just as the strata above were not deposited in their illutrated position, because strata are deposited horizontally and stacked vertically. These are neither. In their original position the lower strata would have been spread out horizontally across the island and the whole stack with the short strata at the far left would be upright from Cambrian up to Holocene.Sorry if my language is hard to understand. That is why I would like to be able to sketch it. In fact I'm wondering if I drew it on paper, a few drawings at least and then scanned them into my computer if those could be somehow transferred to the forum. I'm not even sure what program to scan them TO in order to make that possible, AND I'm still afraid to turn on my computer because the virus had already eaten up a lot of material and I don't even know if I'll have time to load the malwarebytes program. BUT if I can and do, is there some way I could draw what i have in mind and scan it in so it would get onto the forum?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The strata ON THE ISLAND PROPER, meaning resting on the straight horizontal sea level line, are all side by side from left to right, and the scale will make no difference to that fact. They would not have been originally deposited in that position, they would have been stacked one upon another, Cambrian on the bottom, Holocene on the top, instead of as we now see them, Cambrian on the left, Holocene on the far right. If they were returned to their original position, the strata beneath the sea level line would be pulled up to extend across the island from left to right, the Cambrian or bottom layer resting ON the sea level line. That is how they would originally have been deposited.

I know that but I'm making a distinction in the effort to be clearer even though I risk the opposite. Referring to the ones ON the island SHOULD make it clear that they have collapsed in some way from their original position since they are side by side from left to right rather than stacked vertically one on top of the next. I keep referring to those beneath the island as CONTINUATIONS of those above, but since they are going in different directions I wanted first to emphasize those ON the island. Those beneath the island would originally have been deposited ON the island, which would be seen if the portions above the island were restored to their original vertical relation to each other. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Vertical is vertical, horizontal is horizontal, scale makes no difference to these orientations.

So the Grand Canyon strata were deposited continuously with no intervening disruptions like those you say interrupted the UK strata, even though it's all the same "time periods" -- with some omissions here and there. Does the time factor work out? That is, is there time for those orogenies to have grown up and been eroded down between the strata as found in the Grand Canyon just for a comparison?This is what I meant by the "contortions" the standard interpretations have to go through, but oh well. At least I see better why we can't communicate about this stuff.Even without bothering about the Flood it seems clear to me that the short pieces of strata that are tilted upward toward the mountain on the west that we see on the island proper, that were all that Smith illustrated -- that those pieces were broken off at their tops from longer lengths of strata and collapsed into their current side-by-side positions when originally they were stacked vertically, with the Cambrian on the bottom instead of to the west, and the Holocene on the top instead of to the eastern end, and that the rest of their lengths which are seen beneath the island would have been ON the island spread horizontally from left to right. That just seems apparent from the illustration itself.When all the gravels and other evidence of disturbances occurred would then be the next topic, but I think I just found out in depressing detail why we can't communicate about any of this. Yes, and I would expect to think about it after I get across that the original geo column was not in the positions we see illustrated on the diagram.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.