Did the Flood really happen?

None of the strata would have been formed in isolated bodies of water if they were formed by the Flood which of course they were. Cores are specific examples, and anywhere you find a partial column there is never a sign of a sloping edge either. Shouldn't there be something like that even in the Grand Canyon which is I think eleven miles across at its greatest width? Even somewhere along its 270 mile length? Nada. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I already answered this post of yours about Lake Bonneville but reading through it more carefully I see that there is not one single feature you describe that would apply to the Flood. They all apply to what I've always postulated is most likely what happened: the formation of those huge lakes AFTER the Flood, followed by their draining away leaving recognizable evidence. Of course there are marks ON the mountains. They aren't marks of the Flood but of the lakes that formed afterward. You might find it interesting to pay attention to what I've written about these things some time. I've mentioned these lakes and my explanation of them, oh maybe a dozen times or more, and your discussion fits my explanations quite nicely. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Strata do sag under certain conditions and that's what clearly happened in Nepal. Also in the Michigan basin and the Gulf of Mexico and other places where there is a salt layer, usually at the bottom. Since I'm unable to read the legends on your illustration I have to guess that there's salt there. Yes?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If it's not a salt layer then I don't know why it's sagging. I don't see any indication of the time periods involved by the way. Legend is easier to read now but still not easy, too small and bright, but earlier too blurry. My eyes improved since then apparently. It happens.

Yes those strata are clearly the result of sagging, yes indeed.

I note that it seems more important to certain posters to change the subject than deal with what I've posted.Such as Message 1458 and Message 1460 and the ones about Lake Bonneville. Message 1462 and Message 1476Also Coragyps: Message 1470 sked you about the flatness of the oil strata in your neighborhood. Any comments?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Nepal example looks like strata that sagged after being laid down. This diagram is intended to show how sediments accumulate on a lake bottom by sliding down the sides and ending up with the finest at the bottom and coarser up along the sides. Doesn't resemble the Geo Column in the slightest, either the way the sediments lie or the sloping sides which are nowhere to be found in the Geo Golumn. The actual evidence of the Geo Golumn shows strata that are straight and thick and flat and typically extend for thousands of square miles. Flood evidence. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, I do forget.

Well, can't find any more diagrams of lake beds.Yes it has to be the Flood because water does that and it would have done it on a huge scale.

This is the sort of thing establishment Geology says that is just nonsense. Geology likes multiple events for some reason. Here multiple re-formations of Lake Bonneville. Multiple transgressions and regressions for instance where I see one gigantic Flood. Multiple ice ages for instance where I see one that started with the Flood and is now finally near its end. However, there is nothing at all about salt flats confined within the borders of the Bonneville ex-lake that could ever have contributed to the Geological Column. You know I think standard timing of ancient events is a crock. On the Flood model the lake would have been water left in a confined area after the main Flood water had drained away. Some time later whatever had dammed it up released it, most likely caused by the continuing tectonic activity that had begun at the end of the Flood. The giant lakes are one of the things that are easy to explain as post-Flood phenomena, as I already said. It is truly amazing how far people can get elaborating such an untruth. I haven't read through your links but I may do it after I finish this. We probably COULD learn a lot about the climate if it were recognized that all these phenomena point to a worldwide Flood about 4300 years ago. But if you have a false idea of the past you're going to get it all wrong.And you are certainly wrong that such bodies of water have anything to do with the Geological Column. Really, RAZD, you are very knowledgeable about all this supposed scientific history but apparently you don't have a single reasonable doubt about its veracity? If it's totally false you'll never know it.A salt flat is no indication of any relation whatever to the Geological Column, let alone its confining borders and no doubt sloping shoulders which don't exist in any of the strata of the Geo Column.Here are the two posts I made that show the great extent of the strata of the Geological Column, layers that extend much farther than your lakes, the first one from a geological textbook and the other pointing out that the cores taken in the Midwest show continuous deposition of the same layers over thousands of square miles. You've got a hidebound distaste for the idea of the Flood and that's all that keeps you from recognizing that it's the only explanation for the actual evidence, even though your own explanation requires weird forms of denial..Anyway here are the two posts I made about the extent of the strata of the gological column: Message 1458 and Message 1460. I should copy out some of it, I'll go and do that.AbE: Here's one of them: The other post contains diagrams showing the extent of the rocks of different "time periods."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Flood explains pretty much everything, where Geology is klutzy and incompetent, and the fossil order is some kind of odd illusion especially since no creature could have evolved from the others. Again, there is absolutely no way the strata as they exist as the Geological Column, spreading across thousands of square miles, could ever have come about if they represent time periods. It is a physical impossibility but that is something you deny.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The WAY the Geological Column is different in different places is just that IN SOME CASES it has different sediments, but otherwise it is continuous with all the other strata, and certainly the fossil contents are the same, which is of course a major tenet of the ToE I'm sure you don't want to deny. Otherwise it's all the same layers as shown in the two posts I refer to. There is no continuation of the Geological Column going on now, and your example of Lake Bonneville has NO resemblance to it. And that's the honesty I'm asking for which of course is never going to happen.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I read the example just fine. You don't have fossils without the rocks, duh. and the first sentence is about the sequence of the rocks. Duh. I'm sick of this equivocation about the obvious. The rfocks are continuous. Who cares if the sediments aren't identical from location ot location. And why should your excuse for an interpretation of how they got there be better than the Flood which explains it all just fine. Had enough with this crap.

Moving my Message 1380 from the thread "Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?"Subtitle: aboutRe: The unwitnessed (prehistoric) past

I can only respond briefly I'm afraid, to respond to your statement that we can observe evolution: we can only observe what is called microevolution, which is the changes that occur from generation to generation within a given species. We can NOT observe the kind of evolution described by the Theory of Evolution, species to species evolution that is. Because it does not occur. But microevolution yes, and we can discuss that on that thread where you posted the message you are refuerring to, if you like.But sorry to say I'm about to fall asleep sitting here and have to go take a nap. This happens to me after I've been up a long time, and I simply can't wake up. Sorry to interrupt the discussion, but I'll be back later.