Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

Uplift, sure, and the raising of mountains, sure, but not sea floor.

---

Leonardo da Vinci discovered otherwise. Leonardo’s Mountain of Clams (summary)And he had evidence:

quote:

---

What a strange response. Doesn't the entire geological column/time scale span the entire Earth?

---

Only if you mean the abstract geological column synthesised from multiple different strata in different locations. And the entire geological column is not present in many places, including much of the Grand Canyon. The Kaibab Limestone, often the upper level is Permian.

quote:

---

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.

---

It is quite obvious that you are rationalising away the evidence of earlier tectonic disturbances because it contradicts your model. And that fact is quite sufficient to show the falsity of your claim.

quote:

---

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.

---

And because they are composed of the sediment that is deposited on the sea floor. And no, there is no viable alternative explanation.

I know the geological column is only partial in any given location, that is a mistake I do not make, it's irrelevant to anything I've said.There are no earlier tectonic disturbances, at the least it's a matter of interpretation but the cross section actually shows only one. The other disturbances are the result of that one tectonic movement.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Leonardo got it wrong. Even a genius can get things wrong, his intellect was fallen like everybody else's. Nothing was "transported up a mountain." The clearly tectonically raised mountains were formed after all the strata with their fossils were in place. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I know the geological column is only partial in any given location, that is a mistake I do not make, it's irrelevant to anything I've said.

---

It is certainly relevant to your claim that the entire geological column/time scale span the entire Earth? When, so far as I can tell no location on Earth has received continuous deposition and only a relatively few locations have strata from all the geological periods.

quote:

---

There are no earlier tectonic disturbances, at the least it's a matter of interpretation but the cross section actually shows only one

---

That is simply untrue as shown by your attempts to rationalise away the evidence. The Grand Canyon Supergroup was clearly tilted before the strata above it were deposited, to give just one example.

quote:

---

Leonardo got it wrong. Even a genius can get things wrong, his intellect was fallen like everybody else's.

---

Disagreement with your opinions is hardly evidence that Leonardo was wrong. Especially when the disagreement is your mistake in the first place.

quote:

---

Nothing was "transported up a mountain." The clearly tectonically raised mountains were formed after all the strata with their fossils were in place

---

So he was right - not wrong - and the mountain is composed of seabed. Which, of course, was the point.

If he'd known the mountain was originally where seashells would normally be found then I'd agree with him.

quote:

---

If he'd known the mountain was originally where seashells would normally be found then I'd agree with him.

---

That is very unclear - and you did agree with at least most of it, and didn’t offer any argument against the rest.

And everyone else.All you are doing is blocking accurate communication.

I have to understand the above better, because just this part all by itself deserves at least one diagram in the sequence. Here's the UK diagram again: Snowdon is in the extreme west of the diagram. How would Snowdon rising way over there "uplift the whole block of strata" all the way to Harwich?There are a couple things we must be careful to consider. First, rock on a scale of miles is plastic and wouldn't break.Second, the vertical dimension of the diagram is greatly exaggerated. The diagram makes it look like Snowdon is so high that you could see it all the way from Harwich 200 miles distant. But that's not really true, because the vertical dimension isn't to scale. It's exaggerated by between 50 and 100 times. If the diagram had equal scales in both horizontal and vertical directions then since it is 200 miles from Snowdon to Harwich, and since Snowdon is 3500 feet high, the height of Snowdon would be 0.3% of the distance to Harwich. That's probably about the same as the width of the lines used to create the diagram. The land surface from Snowdon to Harwich looks much more like this: You might have trouble making out the little horizontal line that is Snowdon, so look carefully. That tiny thin line is much closer to the actual height of Snowdon than that diagram. So the question becomes, how do you imagine granite uplifting by that tiny 3500 feet is going to lift up the entire stack of strata 200 miles all the way to Harwich? Why won't the rock around Snowdon just bend a little bit to accommodate? Please explain and I'll draw the diagram to match.--Percy

Gulf of Mexico is ocean. ABE Wikipedia: "The Gulf of Mexico (Spanish: Golfo de Mxico) is an ocean basin and a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ocean, largely surrounded by the North American continent. It is bounded on the northeast, north and northwest by the Gulf Coast of the United States, on the southwest and south by Mexico, and on the southeast by Cuba."ABE here's a map showing the continental shelf and the deep ocean Exactly what are the signs of it "having been formed after all the strata were laid down, and that would include the strata of the Cretaceous with its iridium layer"? Why do you think that iridium layer was laid down after the rest of the world's iridium layer?Time to repost... see my next message Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The geologic column underlies every point on Earth, including the oceans. Message 770:
You seem to think that the geologic column appears only in "very definite locations". No, the geologic column is defined as:

quote:

---

1. a columnar diagram that shows the rock formations of a locality or region and that is arranged to indicate their relations to the subdivisions of geologic time.
2 : the sequence of rock formations in a geologic column.

---

(Merriam-Webster, note "a locality or region")

quote:

---

The geological column is the theoretical classification system for the layers of rocks and fossils that make up the Earth's crust (also known as the standard geologic column). Fossiliferous layers can often be traced across entire continents and correlated with rocks in other countries.

---

(CreationWiki.com, note "crust" )

quote:

---

The geologic system is a conceptual arrangement of rock formations around the world meshed together into a single, unbroken record of Earth's past.[1] It is also known as the geologic column or geologic timescale.

---

(Conservapedia, note" around the world "lDid you notice that none of those definitions restrict the location of the geologic column in any way? Every point on the crust (which encompasses all the parts that are above the mantle, including sea floors is the top of "the" geologic column. Really it's the local portion of a world-wide geologic column. The interior layers of the crust vary widely from place to place. But we can tell from context that "geologic column" really means "local geologic column.When sediment accumulates on the ocean floor, it's accumulating on top of the (local} geologic column, and adding to it. Message 789:Drop a grain of sand anywhere on earth, including the oceans, and wherever it lands it is on top of the geologic column.Off Greenland: Mediterranean Sea: Norwegian Sea: If you want to speak only of layers on land, you need to use a different term..

Please explain how tectonic forces know not to uplift sea floor? Just looking at this diagram alone reveals that there were several periods of uplift/falling-sea-levels (erosion) and subsidence/rising-sea-levels (deposition): There are many local columns showing deposition that followed tectonism, faulting and volcanoes. I'm sure everyone agrees that all strata in existence at the time would be subject to whatever tectonism occurs in the region. But this contradicts your claim that the Grand Canyon Supergroup was tilted by tectonism while all the overlying layers were not. And magma also rises only part way, such as intrusions and dikes.--Percy

The geologic column or time scale is conceptual and worldwide. It is not a specific physical column of rock formations. It's about time.Local geologic columns of actual strata and rock formations can be superimposed on the geologic time scale. It is almost always the case that a local column will not include all time periods of the geologic time scale. Pretty much, though once you get deep into the Precambrian you begin to find periods of time for which no strata have ever been found. As I said before, the UK cross section alone gives the lie to this: Just look at this closeup where strata were first tilted and bent, then eroded, then deposited upon: No, they actually look like sea floor.This is incomplete and I can't tell what you were going to say: Suffice to say that just as your favorite region, the Grand Canyon, can experience uplift, so can the sea floor. Tectonism is global, not just on the continents.--Percy

Why not? Be specific. What stops the sea floor from being uplifted?There is evidence of uplift and depression along sea coasts, raising and lowering the land relative to the sea level. When uplifted, what was underwater becomes land. Some yes, some no. They have been ongoing since the formation of the earth 4.5+ billion years ago.The Baja peninsula is in the process of separating from the mainland:

quote:

---

The Baja California Peninsula was once a part of the North American Plate, the tectonic plate of which mainland Mexico remains a part. About 12 to 15 million years ago the East Pacific Rise began cutting into the margin of the North American Plate, initiating the separation of the peninsula from it. Spreading within the Gulf of California consists of short oblique rifts or ridge segments connected by long northwest trending transform faults,[3] which together comprise the Gulf of California Rift Zone. The north end of the rift zone is located in the Brawley seismic zone in the Salton Sea basin between the Imperial Fault and the San Andreas Fault.[3] The Baja California Peninsula is now part of the Pacific Plate and is moving with it away from the East Pacific Rise in a north northwestward direction.

---

This movement has been measured. The movement is a fact. It is a geological process that is ongoing today. You should have said: Because there is evidence of earthquake fault zones being buried by later deposition of sediments, so those fault lines do not extend to the full height of the modern day "stack" ...There is also evidence of volcanic ash layers between some layers, which also needs to be explained. And only rising through some of the layers before spreading out into large horizontal fields, not affecting layers above that (except at the contact zone of course).Now I noticed that you avoided the part of my message regarding: This is a question you need to answer. Is the Green River Formation area also part of your geological column or are you going to restrict your definition even further?Here's the map again: The Green River is a Tributary to the Colorado River, and this area is adjacent to the "Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area" and there is no barrier I can see to exclude it from your "stack" concept.If it is, then you have several problems that are detailed in Message 1017 ...If it isn't then your stack only covers a small portion of North America, and then obviously it isn't representative of other areas of the US, so lack of deposition (growth of the "stack") in this restricted area does not mean that it is not ongoing elsewhere in the world.Enjoy