Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

The topic WE ARE DISCUSSING is whether the geo column could have been formed in small bodies of water

---

Parts of it certainly were, parts of it certainly were not. That isn’t hard to understand. If you want to argue that none of it was,then you need to deal with the specific examples. That shouldn’t be hard to understand either.

We would see the surface rising based on satellite data. We would see elevation increasing everywhere.AbE: it's the same as measuring how some mountain chains are still growing.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

A great weight on one region either from mountain building or accumulating sediments or accumulating ice or something else causes that region to sink into the buoyant mantle which in turn compensates generally by rising elsewhere around the world. I think it's called isostasy. Isostatic equilibrium can take a long, long time.You mentioned increasing compression from the weight, and while that must happen it seems unlikely as a significant factor in the rising or sinking of land due to glaciation and deglaciation.--Percy

None of the strata would have been formed in isolated bodies of water if they were formed by the Flood which of course they were. Cores are specific examples, and anywhere you find a partial column there is never a sign of a sloping edge either. Shouldn't there be something like that even in the Grand Canyon which is I think eleven miles across at its greatest width? Even somewhere along its 270 mile length? Nada. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Okay, change the term. But submitting every square foot of the earth to a few billion pounds of water placed there in just one year is a pretty extreme event.

I already answered this post of yours about Lake Bonneville but reading through it more carefully I see that there is not one single feature you describe that would apply to the Flood. They all apply to what I've always postulated is most likely what happened: the formation of those huge lakes AFTER the Flood, followed by their draining away leaving recognizable evidence. Of course there are marks ON the mountains. They aren't marks of the Flood but of the lakes that formed afterward. You might find it interesting to pay attention to what I've written about these things some time. I've mentioned these lakes and my explanation of them, oh maybe a dozen times or more, and your discussion fits my explanations quite nicely. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

None of the strata would have been formed in isolated bodies of water if they were formed by the Flood which of course they were.

---

Except of course some strata were formed in isolated bodies of water. Because they weren’t formed in the Flood - the idea that they were is just daft. Even if the Flood happened it wouldn’t form the strata we have.

quote:

---

Cores are specific examples, and anywhere you find a partial column there is never a sign of a sloping edge either.

---

You’re saying that the examples of river channels you have been shown don’t exist?

quote:

---

Shouldn't there be something like that even in the Grand Canyon which is I think eleven miles across at its greatest width? Even somewhere along its 270 mile length? Nada.

---

Even if the Grand Canyon happened to cut through a former lake bed, do you think that you would know about it? How? And would you recognise it?And what if the edge were lost to erosion as appears to be the case with the southern edge of the Claron Formation ?Anyway, here is a nice illustration of strata from Nepal

Strata do sag under certain conditions and that's what clearly happened in Nepal. Also in the Michigan basin and the Gulf of Mexico and other places where there is a salt layer, usually at the bottom. Since I'm unable to read the legends on your illustration I have to guess that there's salt there. Yes?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Strata do sag under certain conditions and that's what clearly happened in Nepal.

---

Really? On what do you base that conclusion?(ABE I will add that even if the lower strata sagged, it doesn’t look as if that applies to anything above the black lignite layer. The strata immediately above it - which is a lake deposit of sticky black clay occasionally interspersed with coarse sand - does not seem to have sagged with them)

quote:

---

Also in the Michigan basin and the Gulf of Mexico and other places where there is a salt layer, usually at the bottom. Since I'm unable to read the legends on your illustration I have to guess that there's salt there. Yes?

---

I don’t know why you can’t read the legend, but no, there is no salt layer. The bottom layer is gravel and clay. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Faith is at least consistent. As in the Smith stratigraphic diagram of Britain, she interprets any non-horizontal and/or non-straight strata as having sagged. Anyone who doesn't accept her interpretation and her explanations of it just doesn't understand: Eyesight issues, probably too much white, but I don't know that it matters. Faith has enumerable excuses for rejecting contrary information.--Percy

If it's not a salt layer then I don't know why it's sagging. I don't see any indication of the time periods involved by the way. Legend is easier to read now but still not easy, too small and bright, but earlier too blurry. My eyes improved since then apparently. It happens.

Yes those strata are clearly the result of sagging, yes indeed.

I note that it seems more important to certain posters to change the subject than deal with what I've posted.Such as Message 1458 and Message 1460 and the ones about Lake Bonneville. Message 1462 and Message 1476Also Coragyps: Message 1470 sked you about the flatness of the oil strata in your neighborhood. Any comments?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If it's not a salt layer then I don't know why it's sagging.

---

I don’t think even think that it is relevant. If there is a lake filling a basin, it doesn’t matter how the basin formed.

quote:

---

I don't see any indication of the time periods involved by the way

---

These are quite young sediments. According to this the lowest layer shown (which is a river deposit) is late Pliocene to early Pleistocene in age and the oldest part of the lake deposits are 2.5 million years old, which is early Pleistocene, while the youngest are a mere 29,000 years old which is still in the Pleistocene.

What is important there is the difference in age between the oldest and youngest deposits. Again, if the material REALLY was from a flood, what is the flood mechanism, model, process, method or procedure that sorted the material to deposit the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on top.