Did the Flood really happen?

Going to have to come back to this later.

Well I just tried three times to load your alternative link to malwarebytes and it wouldn't load. It says "No preview available" and gives a "download" button but the download doesn't download. This is the public computer. I turned off the endless scanning of the other link you gave.

Now I'm sorry I cloead it in order to try the alternative malwarebytes link. Maybe I can get it back. Yes there is a long list of something, viruses I assumed, that the program is running through. I'll try again.

I misread this earlier, I thought you were illustrating the mountain because I didn't see the letters identifying the strata. Since it represents the strata then it's more or less what I had in mind, yes, except that you have a vertical line at the very top for the break, but the break would have been more horizontal across the strata, and it is the upper ends that break off that end up as the short tilted strata that are arranged horizontally across the island, with the rest of the strata falling beneath the sea level line of the island where we see them as very distorted.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The thought is that both the greatest part of the surface of the earth AND the sea floor are not discreet sediments but mixed or jumbled sediments, in which creatures do not usually manage to get themselves buried, let alone fossilized. Predators eat them and even their bones eventually decompose. Yes but the odd thing is that both the marine and the terrestrial sedimentary rocks in the geological column are clearly in FORM -- flatness, thickness, etc -- created by the same processes. Some of the sediments are completely just one kind in both cases, all sandstone or all limestone or whatever, and all have fossilized creatures contained in them, marine creatures, land creatures, both in their respective strata. And this is not building on the geological column but you all think that's just fine even though the geological column is a very definite thing covering very definite locations, so that since the time periods were identified in relation to it, that whole system has now come to an end and you are treating this fact as meaningless. No, it has ended, as it would have if the Flood built it, but you all go on trying to cobble together utterly unrelated situations as if they continued the column. They don't. Except the geological column is all built one on top of another in the same place, and these situations you are describing are formed hither and yon with no relation whatever to the geological column which is what has defined all the time periods, until now for some reason. The actual situation of the sedimentary mixes and jumbles we see over most of the surface of the earth, and if you HAVE to include the sea bottom, there too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

Well, I know they don't but that's because I believe the Flood accounts for all of it. However, illustration after illustration definitely show the time periods as aligned with particular strata. Hard to ignore.

Well, no, I can't think of them as being part of the geological column not because they aren't rock but because they aren't in the right place to be part of the geological column, they don't have the same geographical extent, and if there's anything about their being unconsolidated that applies it's that they could never become a rock shaped like those in the geological column anyway.

OK but I want to extend it to about twice that length. That looks more like the mountain itself than what is yielded. The strata would break long before you'd get such a sharp bend at the top. Cut off the whole upper triangle and that should get closer to what I have in mind. Too vertical. I'd draw them tilted out from the mountain, sort of like swept-back airplane wings. The arrows shouldn't point straight out horizontally, the strata are going to fall on a more gently vertical trajectory, or tilted perhaps is a better word, in the direction they are going to end up, on the right or east anyway. Well, there is no island on the left/west now so the mountain is on the far left/west rather than the middle, the strata on that side are gone, yes, and the broken ends of the strata are graded more or less from longer to shorter and are tilted toward the mountain as we see them now.AND the rest of them are beneath the island proper now. If the mountain hadn't caused them to break then the strata that fell away to the left/west might have remained as part of the whole column, and fallen with those on the right. You'd have to imagine quite a length of strata being eroded away in your scenario.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just addressing the last figure on your diagram:There shouldn't be any strata on the left/west of the mountain figure.The strata to the right/east of it should not be horixontal. The broken strata should tilt upward toward the left/west, that is toward the mountain, the longer pieces first and shorter to the right/east; and should be laid out all along the sea level line as we see it on the diagram we've been looking at for so long. However we get there it has to end up looking like that diagram.So, beneath the sea level line the tilted strata should continue a short distance as they do on that other diagram, and then bend to the right until they look like the strata on that diagram.As for how you got there, I'll have to go back and think about it more.ABE: Just looked again at your diagrams and they make no sense to me at all. I thought it would get clearer but it hasn't.I just discovered there is a Paint program on this computer though my first attempt to make use of it didn't work very well so i can't promise anything.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Forget the sea floor. It's not located where it would have to be to continue the geo column.Cores taken throughout the Midwest of the US all show the layers of the geo column. They extend over a vast distance beneath the surface. No sedimentary deposit today qualifies. I don't know if cores have been taken in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area, but there is a vast surface of Kaibab and Coconino layers, covering the whole area, and cores should show the same strata we see in teh Grand Canyon, and we're talking probably thousands of square miles.All the sedimentary deposits proposed to continue the geo column today are a pathetically paltry offering.

No it's far from OK. The mild tilt illustraton is fine if we picture the rock/mountain pushing up beneath the center point.But the next picture should be the whole stack of strata breaking at that point. The broken ends on the right will become the pieces of strata we see spread across the sea level line on the diagram being discussed earlier.the whole block of strata on the right should fall sort of tilted until those broken ends are positioned as we see them on the original diagram, and the rest of the strata fall beneath the sea level line and bend toward the right.

Well, I do.

Come on, you know sedimentary deposits in lake beds are proposed to continue the geo column and that IS pretty patehtically inadequate even if the geo column is only as extensive as I've described it.The cores I had in mind look exactly like the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase sequence, don't see that yours do, but of course I know the Flood should have deposited the entire stack all over the world, it's just that people often deny it so I try to think in terms of other kinds of deposits the Flood would have made. If everyone agrees with you that makes me quite happy.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

See the straight line under the darker upper part of the diagram, that runs across the whole diagram from left to right? That's what I've been calling the sea level line because that's where sea level is today and was also in William Smith's time. Everything above that line is the tilted short, broken-off pieces of strata I'm referring to. On this diagram they've got the strata draped over them that continue beneath the sea level line. What I'm talking about is clearer on William Smith's own drawing.

NO. The mildly tilted illusration I understood just fine. Now it needs to break from the pressyre beneath it. The diagram beneath it is NOT the same thing and couldn't possibly be. Cut off the topmost triangle and it will just begin to be the broken strata I say the mountain would have caused. And get rid of the horizontal sections at the bottom right and left, they have nothing to do with anything I said. Go back to your original drawing to see that the strata would go from horizontal to the tilted illustration you give there. No longer horizontal and your tilted strata would keep falling until only their very top ends remain on the surface of the island, tilted toward the mountain, and all in order from Cambrian to Holocene. Aand the rest of that block of strata are beneath the sea level line where they get distorted as we see them on that other illustration.