Did the Flood really happen?

Problem is the silver dollar analogy doesn't reflect the reality that on the ocean floor the accumulating sediments have nothing to do with the geological column as we know it, say, in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area.This notion of sea floor being raised onto continents or becoming continents is a really untenable idea, and pure theory since there is no indication whatever that such a thing has ever occurred or could occur. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You haven't *explained* anything. What you've done is asserted and declared. Have you forgotten your "I'm the one defining the reality" declaration. You're really not at all into explaining. They are. Here, again for the third time, is an image of a sea core showing the K-T boundary when the dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous: --Percy

It's your analogy.That's yet another repetition of one of your claims. Your claims are not evidence for your claims. That's a slightly new version of one of your claims. Your claims are not evidence for your claims.

Where was the core taken? And at what depth is the iridium band? And does any of it bear any resemblance at all to Cretaceous deposits on th eland?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Gee, ya think? So why did you falsely claim that only people HERE disagree with you in Message 1000: Moving on: You don't know enough geology (or any science) to be forming your own conclusions. What you're doing is creating a false idol of religious myth clothed in misused geological terminology. Beyond the idea that there was a Flood, you have extremely little in common with other creationists. No, he's a YEC for all intents and purposes. He might think the Earth is old, but he follows the Biblical narrative for anything recent like the creation of man and the Flood and all that. This is from Dredge's Message 612: You and Dredge are peas in a pod, both full of ideas too dumb for anyone else to believe, even each other. There you go making statements about yourself again. The quality of your ideas is judged not by you, because you are the easiest person for you to fool, incredibly easy in your case. You've developed no internal checks on your ideas, you've learned almost nothing practical about anything related to your ideas, so you just let 'em fly. This means that the ideas you release into the world are incredibly poorly thought out. You compound your error by almost never considering any criticism. Correct, there is no point in repeating fallacies. Find some evidence, then develop some argumentation and explanatory framework to build around them. You will get nowhere just declaring to people that they should ignore the evidence before their very eyes and just listen to your crazy ideas. I'd like to hear what happens to the horizontal strata to the left and right when the mountain uplifts into them so I can move forward with the sequence of diagrams.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Did I say ONLY people here disagree with me? That's unlikely since I know all believers in the ToE everywhere disagree with me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What you should have said: Although I can't see any rationale for excluding deposition at observed rates and locations from occurring, as that should not interfere with your model ... can you explain this? Again, what you should have said: How much area does your Geological Column cover? Can you show it on a map?Doesn't it extend to the area of the Green River Formation (see Message 1017)? The whole world is involved in self-deception but you? Wowsers.Enjoy

There ARE no horizontal strata to the left and right. The mountain would uplift the whole block of strata, breaking it apart, which would create the two parts that fall to left and right. It's very clear on the diagram that the strata beneath the island/sea level line are part of the short tilted strata on the surface which are not in the position they were in when deposited. The right hand strata therefore became those that we see on the diagram. There are no others.I've been dealing with a bunch of distractions but I still plan to do my own diagrams on paper and hope to figure out how to scan and post them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What about the Green River Formation -- Varves, Fossils, Time and Geological Columns? We can measure the uplift in many places, from the Grand Canyon to Mt Everest, and we find that the rate of uplift is consistent with the rise of mountains. Plate Tectonics explains this process in great detail, as well as earthquakes and volcanoes, things like the Hawaiian Islands and the ages of the different islands.Enjoy

I thought you just said there's no point to repetition. Until you find some reason for believing this crazy idea that the geologic column is "over and done with" you should stop saying it. The geologic time scale continues to grow at the rate of one second per second, and most local columns around the globe are undergoing change. Most on land are eroding (only the upper elevations of your state, of course, which overall is a region of net deposition), while most beneath the oceans are experiencing deposition. This doesn't even make sense, but if you think you've found some images showing that the geologic column is inconsistent with geological processes then please present them, by all means. Why didn't you present them now? Is copy/pasting and typing [img] that hard? Self-deception is an excellent word. If you think we're deceiving ourselves then begin presenting the evidence that shows it. That's evidence you need, not declarations of your infallibility or repetitions of the same rubbish.--Percy

You're noting a reality, not a problem. Why would sediments deposited in the Grand Canyon region have anything to do with those deposited in the UK or the South China Sea or Australia or the North Atlantic or South Africa? In other words, why would sediments deposited in widely separated locations have anything to do with each other? Surely you're not still clinging to the silly belief that the same stack of sedimentary layers were deposited worldwide. And yet the continents are mostly marine strata. These strata do not look like marine detritus washed up onto land because that's not what they are. They look like former sea floor, because that is what they are.--Percy

Uplift, sure, and the raising of mountains, sure, but not sea floor. It has appeared to me from many cross sections that all the tectonic processes began after all the strata were laid down, also earthquakes which of course are the result of tectonic forces, and volcanoes as well. Evidence is that it's the whole stack that is affected all at once and in the same way, not separate layers independently of one another. Magma can be seen to rise all the way from beneath the Precambrian rocks to the top of a given sedimentary stack, etc.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What a strange response. Doesn't the entire geological column/time scale span the entire Earth? Aren't there strata everywhere that indicate the time periods from Precambrian to Holocene, however incompletely in some cases? Pretty clear to me that the strata in the UK are the same as those in Tennessee and in the Grand Canyon, Grand Staircase area, in that they were all deposited completely, before the tectonic upheaval occurred that distorted them in their various ways.I'm sure the marine strata do look like "former sea floor" but that's only because they contain fossils from the sea floor. There IS another explanation for this.This notion of sea floor being raised onto continents or becoEdited by Admin, : Fix quote.

The Gulf of Mexico. The image can be found at A Visit to the Gulf Core Repository. The main website is at IODP (International Discovery Ocean Program) Core Repositories. I don't know. It would be very unlikely to closely resemble Cretaceous deposits anywhere else, whether marine or terrestrial. Once you get far enough away from one location the conditions become different, and so the sediments deposited become different, though certainly you can count on the K-T boundary standing out in some way in all cores that span that point in time.Another factor is whether that part of the Gulf of Mexico was ever above sea level, i.e., did it ever experience Walther's Law? Or was it always marine? If it was always marine and far from shore then it would consist primarily of layers of pelagic ooze and perhaps of limestone if conditions permitted. If it helps, the oldest part of the core is at the top of the image, the youngest at the bottom.--Percy

Gulf of Mexico is not the same as the oceans, it shows many signs of having been formed after all the strata were laid down, and that would include the strata of the Cretaceous with its iridium layer. I see you asked some of these questions I've just answered. Yes it was part of the continent and not sea floor.