Did the Flood really happen?

Well, as I said, they couldn't have grown there, they had to be transported, and that means the Flood.

Yeah, and you have no idea how but you can't be wrong.

Derogatory comment with no analysis or argumentation noted.The fludde musta dunnit because Faith is infallible.

But if the general logic is correct, the "how" can wait.

What "derogatory" comment are you talking about? Is "transported" a problem? What's the problem? Looks like a simple logical statement to me: didn't grow there, had to be transported. Speaking of course of fossil corals. "Faith" didn't invent the logic you know, logic is logic.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 ?

No, the "how" can't wait. Logic alonedoesn't establish any connection to reality. If something is physically impossible all the logic in the world cannot save the hypothesis.Your logic is "The fludde must have happened therefore it produced everything we see." Well, that's logic;if the premise is true the conclusion is true. But also physically impossible according to everything we know about the world. I mean everything . You're literally telling us to abandon everything we've learned in physics and chemistry and geology and paleontology and...Logic with no "how" isn't going to cut the mustard. You should be trying to establish the truth of your premise. Your fanatically held belief is impressive but unconvincing. If you continue to insist that your logic represents reality without any attempt to establish the truth of your premise you're wasting your and everyone's time.

"Can't have grown there" is derogatory with no analysis or discussion. No, you haven't addressed that issue any differently before.

IIRC, they have no attached roots that they normally use to attach to the sea floor, they were literally uprooted and transported, with disattached roots. That's the evidence they were transported and didn't grow in the places where their fossilized remains are found.And you are misusing the word "derogatory." Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah, and here's how they were transported ...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVjr4mii3cE

Sorry, poor old crazy obtuse me misses your point.

The explanation that Faith calls untenable is at Message 476.Copied here for them what have trouble following links.

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.

Well I tried to keep it as simple as possible. Baby steps.

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, you are just parroting the status quo explanation that in fact is utterly untenable in relation to the actual reality. 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. 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 certainly the evolutionary explanation is an illusion. 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. 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; all the characteristic parts of a trilobite are present in all the examples, there are no new parts to justify the claim of macroevolution, and certainly not on the scale of reptile to mammal which in the fossil record itself covers many fewer years for its impossible transformations than the trilobites do. The trilobitese are all cousins and third cousins and great grandnephews of the same species, they are not different species despite the forced concepts that would say they are. No, your claim that there is anything clear at all about the standard interpretation isThe 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, 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. 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.