Did the Flood really happen?

Yes, weigh and consider, that's what the critical mind does.

No, I can't think of any layer of granite; it's not part of the geological column, but there's a lot of it beneath the Tapeats layer in the Grand Canyon, along with schist.I have no idea how the boulder got there; probably nothing to do with the Flood, something that happened afterward.And I sincerely do believe I was looking at the geo column without input from the Bible.Sorry was confused about the strata beneath the UK. Of course the whole thing was tectonically created when the strata on the island tilted, but the differences in the thickness of the strata do suggest the effect of water afterward -- it is all underwater of course.CheersEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

None of those sites existed before the Flood. You are welcome to your different view of the dates, but my view is biblical and the Flood is as far back as anything goes. Evidence for either view doesn't really exist.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I guess we could consider what might have survived, but the Bible DOES say that whole world perished:2 Peter 3:6

True it says nothing about their being destroyed; but it also says nothing about them before the Flood at all. The building of those particular cities isn't described but many others are described, cities built after the Flood by the descendants of Noah. Any built before the Flood would of course no longer be inhabited and would have to have been reinhabited after the Flood. Nothing at all is said about that, either pro or con, so anything you happen to think about it is just your own thinking. I think nothing was left and cities were built from scratch after the Flood.

I finally figured out that your diagram was taken from the UK cross section. You want to know how the FLood did that but I never said the Flood did that and I don't believe the Flood did that, not as we see it now. Of course I believe the Flood originally laid down all those strata straight and flat. After that tectonic upheaval tilted the upper rocks. It's hard to picture what it did to the lower parts of those strata at that poinjt but after the Flood receded in this case it left a lot of the strata under water and the irregularities have to be the result of that.

By the way, ...IIRC the large rock at the far left of the UK diagram is granite. It's labeled Cambrian here but I think I've seen it labeled Precambrian. If so, it is in the usual position in relation to the strata we find it in other places: it is not part of the strata, it's the bedrock the strata build on. In this case the way the whole thing was tectonically tilted it ended up at the far left with all the strata that are always found, in the same order they are always found, following on from left to right, or from bottom to top as they were originally laid down in the Flood. They were tectonicallyl broken, disturbed to a great degree. I find it hard to picture how they fell into their current position, but they are now on their side whereas they were originaly stacked upright.ANYWAY, that's a granite rock and it's not part of the geological column.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The result of being under water. \As I said I find this situation hard to interpret. I could take a guess of course, but I'd rather hear the standard geological interpretation.But here's a guess

• The island was probably connected to the continent before the Flood
• The Flood stacked the strata a few miles deep on all the land area
• I've been postulating that continental drift began simultaneously with the receding of the Flood waters, and was perhaps the cause of it as it may have affected the sea floor, but it's possible the tectonic activity didn't happen for even as much as a few hundred years. IN any case, it was the tectonic upheaval that inaugurated the continental drift that created the island and disarranged the strata.
• The whole stack that is now tilted pieces of it lying across the island from left to right was originally standing upright, and the part that is now under water extended across the land that is now the island
• As the land broke up under the tectonic forces the strata broke off on the left side leaving the little "slices of bread" as William Smith called some part of them, lying as we see them in the diagram, as the part that broke off washed into the sea.
• ...and the part of the strata that had extended across the island to the right, a few miles deep, collapsed at the same time and remained below sea level
• ...being below sea level it remained saturated with water which distorted the various strata into the wavy thick-and-thin layers seen in the diagram.

OK? Will you tell me what standard geology says about it now?

I'd be interested to know but we aren't told. Certainly settlements, perhaps even cities, but nothing is said about any of that.

I wish I could sketch it out for you but I no longer have the means to do that.All I meant about the granite, which IS one of the basement rocks, which word I like2 I used for it somewhere, is that it does not form a think in the strata as the sedimentary rocks do. This is why I said it's not part of the geological column but if you want to include it because it's usually the basement of the geo column, OK with me. But I read Percy as treating it as a think in the column and not as a volcanic basement rock. That's the only reason it came up.OK, not ALL the strata are there, but most of the usual geo column is there and it's all in order too I believe, from Cambrian at the far like2 to I left1 Holocene on the far right?The Flood is indeed assumed as the source of all the strata. Yes that is always assumed, but specific interpretations of how it's "absurd" to left they could have been laid down as time periods came from just thinking about it. I mean one WOULD have to think about it, the Flood isn't going to tell me that, or the Bible.The sedimentary rocks that tilt think slices of bread across the island are all broken off at their tops, which is what I meant by "tectonically" broken since that would have been the cause of the breaking. When upright they would have extended far to the layer33 but the extensions broke off leaving the shortened "slices of bread." I love that William Smith called them that.What do I mean by "disturbed to a great degree?" Not sure which part of the scenario I was talking about but actually all of it looks to have been disturbed to a great degree. The original horizontal stack was broken off to the lying0 and collapsed so that what was horizontal is now layer44 flat over what is now the island, from layers50 to right, and the part of the strata that had originally extended horizontally to the right are all draped as it were below sea level, where I'm suggested they were further distorted by being continuously saturated with water.No "poof" going on. I'm surprised you don't seem to be assuming as I do that all the layers61 were originally horizontally stacked to a great depth. The distorted layer5 below sea level suggest that, as do the truncated "slices of bread" on the surface. OK but my only point was that granite isn't a left6 in the column as the sedimentary rocks are. It's usually found in a formless lumpy condition left the boulder Percy was talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Don't you get mad and want to strangle people sometimes when they lie about you and misrepresent your views and call you a troll and a moron and whatnot? I'd be surprised if you don't. Everybody does, I was just honest about it. Has nothing whatever to do with the Puritans who probably weren't even angry. But as the Buddhists would put it my anger is bad karma and it is going to hurt me, me if nobody else, if I don't give it up so that's what I'm working on. The Bible certainly agrees. The Buddhist teacher I've been listening to says she's glad she never had children because she's probably have killed them all since she's always been an angry type of person. Though as a Buddhist who doesn't want bad karma she's learned to control it. She's still glad she never had children.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It costs money to do geological explorations, doesn't it? Where is a YEC going to get funding? However, I think it's pretty clear just from what is already known that nothing at all survives from the antediluvian world, except the fossils. And besides creationists who are scientists are still rare; the movement is only a few decades old after all and the science pretty much belongs to you guys.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Neither do we. You are taking a literary point literally.

Earthquakes mostly.What other explanation for the distortions in the underwater strata do you propose? Water saturation would cause expansion and contraction here and there. The strata are laid down flat. Steno said so and it makes sense. If they are now thick and thin here and there something had to distort them while they were still wet. Being beneath sea level would seem to be the explanation. HOW I can intuit but it's hard to explain. I suspect you can intuit it too.

Oh for heaven's sake, what ARE you talking about? Biblical punishment which is something that's come up now and then? Good grief that's not me, that's God's righteous judgment which we should take to heart. It makes me shudder too. As for my own apparently ill-considered statement, you really think it's not a common thing for people to say "I could just STRANGLE so and so?" If you take such things literally for lack of experience you must have lived a very insulated life.