Did the Flood really happen?

Under certain circumstances. What's your justification of extrapolating to a fludde? And several other factors you are ignoring. How is sedimentation and layers related to quantity of water?

The point I was making was that according to the fossil record we got mammals in a lot less time than we got an enormous variety of trilobites that didn't evolve into anything other than trilobites over hundreds of millions of years. I find this to be an interesting evidence for simple mechanical deposition of the creatures and a strong suggestion that the evolutionary interpretation is wrong. Also I DID try to sugggest how a mammal ear could have evolved from a reptilian ear from the illustrations given a few years ago here: that would involve an enormous number of changes, from adding a whole new chamber and repositioning the whole shebang, which would have to have occurred by trial and error over those millions of years. This is believed possible only as an assumption, but when you try to visualize the steps involved it clearly appears impossible, unless you believe in "magic" as we creationists are accused of: that is, you have to imagine that exactly the right changes occurred in exactly the right order, rather than by trial and error, and that's magic. Trial and error is how it had to have happened and there is no way even a bazillion years would be enough because there is no predictable means for making the changes required. If you KNOW the changes are going to get you a mammalian ear from the reptilian ear then they are possible but the whole ToE assumes randomness that leads to selection that leads to the new creature. Randomness might get you an ear vestibule on the reptile's butt, but here is no reason to think it's going to create a mammalian ear. And the ear change is only one tiny part of turning a reptile into a mammal. I believe i established that with the GC/GS cross section years ago, and repeated many times since. The evidence is there that the whole area shown on that cross section had to have occurred in a very short period. And I believe the cross section of the UK which has been under discussion here is support for that conclusion.I know I drive you bananas. I can say I'm sorry since i wish I didn't.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And believe it or not geologists can tell the difference between a pyroclastic flow, a volcanic ash deposit and a flood.

Huge huge gigantic blocks of sediment need huge quantities of water to lay them down.

The worldwide Flood was not just "a flood."

Correct, the worldwide Flood was a fantasy. And believe it or not geologists can tell the difference between a flood and a fantasy.

And hundreds of ordinary flloods year after year provide huge quantities of water.

SO what it was pyroclasitic, it was a liquid flow. Water is a liquid you know, would behave similarly as a flow.

Another vacuous and un-evidenced false claim.

All liquids are the same? Gasoline, molasses, liquid helium, it's really hard telling the difference.Pyroclastic flow is not liquid.

quote:

---

pyroclastic
/prklastik/
GEOLOGY
adjective
relating to, consisting of, or denoting fragments of rock erupted by a volcano.

---

ABE You could think of it as a landslide of small particles. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

You are trying to reconstruct such environments from a sedimentary ROCK with a few fossilze of creatures of a particular kind buried within it. You ASSUME the rock represents a time period in which those fossil creatures lived, and that raises the question how that whole time period got squished down into a rock. I know you don't think this is what you think but it's the only conclusion possible from the fact that an entire time period and "depositional environment" is represented ONLY by such rocks. I know this isn't going to convince you of course, but there is simply no way to reconstruct an actual earth surface from the rock and fossils. Yeah, I know, I act like I know more than scientists to. Well, I do feel like the kid in the Emperor's New Clothes much of the time here. Oh well. So shoot me.

quote:

---

There is supposedly something in the lower strata (beneath sea level of the "island proper) which indicates a folded rock, which indicates the order of deposition according to standard geology. I suppose I'd recognize an actual folded rock but I don't know what schematic representation is being talked about.

---

Let us note that this has nothing to do with my question. If your collapse isn’t the general tilt of the rocks, what IS it ?Let us also note that giving confused renditions of arguments posted here - if that is what you are doing - doesn’t do anything to help your case.

quote:

---

I skip posts, sorry, especially if they start out with or are clearly full of snark and criticism so if you want yours read you may have to be a tad more accommodating. I understand that, as someone said recently, there is no good reason to accommodate a crazy creationist's ideas, so for me there is no reason to accommodate my opposition.

---

If you ignore posts giving arguments then you cannot honestly say that we don’t give arguments, can you ? Nevertheless we are talking about posts you replied to, and posts you claim to have read, so this too is irrelevant.

quote:

---

However, although there is no reason to suppose that such a "folded" rock would have any impact on anything I've said so far I would like to know what on earth is meant by it. Thank you.

---

Since I have no idea what you are talking about because you are being so vague - and because it is irrelevant to this discussion I will get to the point.You are refusing to identify the features you are talking about, apparently on the grounds that you are unable to see obvious features of the diagram. The only identification you will give is in terms of your interpretation which doesn’t seem to match anything in the diagram. I, on the other hand refer to features that are objectively part of the diagram - such as the labels at the top. Why this does not work for you, and why you are unable to do the same I leave to you.

Assuming you mean the deeper parts of the cross section, sure. Often, there is no hard data along a given cross-section line, so information is projected from some distance off the section, either toward the viewer or away. Yes, cross-sections are based on surface data with interpretations for unexposed areas projected from a distance, or from drilling data or geophysical modeling. Below the water table, all rocks are saturated with water. This doesn't mean much because saturation means only that the available porosity is occupied by liquid. As one goes deeper and deeper that porosity decreases so there is less and less liquid present. Considering that the rock is lithified and under lithostatic stress, this has little effect on the strength of the rock. Several rock borings are shown on the diagram. However, as I said much of the deeper information is projected onto the section. Nowadays there is much more drilling information available and geophysics has become quite refined.

So their thinking needs an update.

It's up to date.