Did the Flood really happen?

Thus spake Faith, making yet another unsupported claim.You really are incapable of a clue about "evidence". Amazing.BTW, the discussion is about what's happening today. Do you understand the concept of "today"? When the Gulf of Mexico is part of the ocean and strata are being laid down there?Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

So all the definitions of *the* geologic column that I posted are wrong?

quote:

---

The whole surface of the land would be so defaced just from the forty days and nights of rain it would be unrecognizable and then the strata piled on top of it would further erase any recognizable remains.

---

Now you're saying almost all plant and animal life would survive that defacing? Magic water indeed! So the first layer and each subsequent layer would overly all the fossils. Is that what we see?Faith? Are you there?

But partial geologic columns must be explained. If you're talking about this cross section then that is incorrect: There are three separate tectonic events recorded in the diagram, likely part of orogeny formation. Here are closeups. This one's roughly center bottom, showing uplift and tilting followed by erosion followed by deposition: This one's about a quarter of the way from the right side in roughly the middle, again showing uplift and tilting followed by erosion followed by deposition: This one's very close to the right side, again showing uplift and tilting followed by erosion followed by deposition: These events of tectonism followed by erosion followed by deposition had to occur in sequence, the lowest one first, then the middle one, then the highest one. They could not have occurred simultaneously, and they all would have taken a great deal of time. Without looking it up and in just rough terms going by the labels on the diagram, the lowest occurred around 400 million years ago (MYA), the middle occurred around 280 MYA, and the highest occurred around 200 MYA.--Percy

Where are you getting this? I've never said any such thing. Although I think a few creatures did manage to survive until the later stages of the Flood, it would have been very few and the vast majority must have been killed in the early stages.And I still can't make sense out of this: I assume you mean "overlie," but I still don't get it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I interpret that diagram to show one tectonic disturbance that turned the original horizontal strata on their side and removed them to their current location with part above the sea level line and the rest beneath it. You give the Old Earth interpretation, which only shows that you don't get what I'm trying to describe for you to illustrate it, about how the originally horizontal strata had to fall into their current position, which would not have taken hundres of millions of years.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Even in your warped view of reality this is wrong. The judgment of a fallen genius armed with facts is still far superior to that of a fallen nincompoop working hard to maintain ignorance. Yes, Faith, that is correct, that's exactly what the description of Leonardo's thinking says, that the shells "could not have been transported up a mountain." Try reading for comprehension. Yes, that's almost exactly what Leonardo determined, though of course the term "tectonic" did not exist at the time.You're now disagreeing with yourself. In Message 1047 you excluded sea floor from uplift, saying, "Uplift, sure, and the raising of mountains, sure, but not sea floor." PaulK showed that even hundreds of years ago that Leonarda da Vinci had divined that sea floor had been uplifted into mountains, and now you're agreeing, saying that those sea floor fossils were already embedded in strata when they were uplifted.So make up your mind. Which is it? Is the uplift of sea floor impossible (which is an outlandish position requiring that the forces within the Earth that drive tectonism somehow turn themselves off beneath sea floor, and it's contradicted by the mere existence of mid-oceanic ridges and Hawaii), or is that how sea shells find their way miles above the sea on mountain tops?--Percy

Leonardo thought the sea floor had been raised, I do not. I think the sea creatures were deposited in the lower strata during the Flood, after which the mountains were raised. NOT on the sea floor but in the lower levels of the strata on the land.I think the various cross sections show that there was one tectonic upheaval that occurred after the Flood, meaning after all the strata were laid down, and that upheaval distorted strata to different degrees everywhere, knocked them down in the UK, cut the canyons and cliffs in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area, split the continents, raised the mountains, caused the Great Unconformity, triggered volcanism and so on and so forth. I think these things can all be traced on those various cross sections. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is nonsensical. Mountains are not where seashells (bivalves, in this case) originate, and neither Leonardo nor you think that. Stated clearly, Leonardo believed that seashells originate on the sea floor, and that sea floors can be uplifted to become mountains.--Percy

What's absurd is the idea that the sea floor could be raised into mountains, especially since we can see that those mountains are built out of sedimentary strata. The only rational explanation is that the strata reflect the Flood, and since, as I just belatedly added to the previous post, the cross sections are evidence that the first tectonic upheaval occurred after the Flood, the mountains would have been raised at that point.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's an inescapable logical deduction from your claim that all the fossils were created by the flood and this: Seems to me you said the vast majority would have been killed by being "defaced just from the forty days and nights of rain" I meant "overlay". Here's the sequence:

• Forty days and forty nights of rain
• Dead animals and plants all over the surface of the Earth
• First sedimentary layer deposits
• Dead animals and plants covered by the first layer

If you want to claim they were picked up and saved somewhere to b e deposited in later layers, that's not physically possible no matter how much water you throw at it.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Thus spake Faith, making yet another unsupported claim.
You really are incapable of a clue about "evidence". Amazing.BTW, the discussion is about what's happening today. Do you understand the concept of "today"? When the Gulf of Mexico is part of the ocean and strata are being laid down there?I now take it from your abandonment of the Gulf of Mexico discussion that you have no more unsupported claims and we can proceed on the basis of the geologic column still accumulating.

The evidence is on the provided cross sections. {Message 1070}Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't see how that disproves sedimentation in the Gulf of Mexico. Please explain.ABE I note the fourth image is of West Texas TexLibris | UT LibrariesEdited by JonF, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The evidence is on the provided cross sections. {Message 1070}

---

Another obvious falsehood. But I guess it doesn’t matter to you because it’s just a diversion anyway.There is nothing in the diagrams which even supports your irrelevant claim that there are no marine strata there. Not that you care whether it is true or not.