Did the Flood really happen?

Yes, it would, as I've demonstrated. But it appears the concept of different scales in the same drawing is too much for you.The island proper consists of the part above and the part below current sea level.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Vertical is vertical, horizontal is horizontal, scale makes no difference to these orientations.

So the Grand Canyon strata were deposited continuously with no intervening disruptions like those you say interrupted the UK strata, even though it's all the same "time periods" -- with some omissions here and there. Does the time factor work out? That is, is there time for those orogenies to have grown up and been eroded down between the strata as found in the Grand Canyon just for a comparison?This is what I meant by the "contortions" the standard interpretations have to go through, but oh well. At least I see better why we can't communicate about this stuff.Even without bothering about the Flood it seems clear to me that the short pieces of strata that are tilted upward toward the mountain on the west that we see on the island proper, that were all that Smith illustrated -- that those pieces were broken off at their tops from longer lengths of strata and collapsed into their current side-by-side positions when originally they were stacked vertically, with the Cambrian on the bottom instead of to the west, and the Holocene on the top instead of to the eastern end, and that the rest of their lengths which are seen beneath the island would have been ON the island spread horizontally from left to right. That just seems apparent from the illustration itself.When all the gravels and other evidence of disturbances occurred would then be the next topic, but I think I just found out in depressing detail why we can't communicate about any of this. Yes, and I would expect to think about it after I get across that the original geo column was not in the positions we see illustrated on the diagram.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I knew it was too much for you.Making up some numbers, the horizontal scale is 40 miles per inch. The vertical scale is 1/2 miles per inch.The angles of the contacts between layers are not correct. They are way, way wrong. This is almost unilaterally true in geologic cross sections of broad extent. It's true in your beloved Grand Staircase cross section. People have told you this many times, including this thread.They do that to make the relationships clear.

This is a semantic problem due to the difference between 'graded bedding' and the engineering use of the term "graded." What we generally refer to around here is graded bedding where the grains settle according to settling velocities. In the engineering sense, it's more like sorting the grains into different groups. I think if I used the phrase 'sorted according to stream velocity' that might have made more sense to most people.Grain size is not just a factor of settling velocity, but a major factor is distance from the source of sediment. It is for most people. I've mentioned this to Faith a few times. This is partly an artifact due to scale. In fact, you have hit upon a shortcoming to the diagram that I mentioned a day or so ago. I explained it as not being able to show an effect that occurs over a short distance, especially where there is vertical exaggeration. It could also be a problem with the way the diagram was drawn by hand, making it hard to change.The problem is that it makes the contact look intrusive (i.e., the contact cuts across bedding planes and is therefor younger than the bedding). However, the depiction of cobbles tracing along parallel and above the contact assures the interpretation of an erosional surface. Yes, in this case the cobbles could not be moved very far from their source. They would be termed lag deposits. And sure, just look at any weathering granite mass and you can often see everything from house-sized boulders that have barely moved to fine 'grus' (decomposed granite, sometimes called "DG") and soil that can be carried away by currents. That is exactly the interpretation. Notice that the layers follow Walther's Law. Well, in transgression, the shoreline should be rising up against the land mass. While Walther's Law would be shown in the horizontal layering, each layer would have a boundary against the granite containing fragments of the granite (assuming it is actually granite). Possibly. Oftentimes, bedding isn't really clear in conglomerates, and remember this was a hand-drawn diagram that has to be schematic in a lot of respects. Yes and in this case a layer composed mostly of gravel means that there is very active erosion somewhere in the region. Yes, that would be the symbology. Correct. When the gravels are detached from their source, they are transported. This required higher energy streams and/or steeper gradients. Ah, someone noticed ...Without a legend, I am not certain. But if you notice, the diagonal lines that cut across the bedding and are confined to the pre-Devonian. Those would be the rocks affected by the Caledonian Orogeny. I think they represent fractures related to folding of the rocks. While it would be hard to show innumerable folds in such a diagram, the fracturing would be relatively easy to schematically portray. Yes, this is standard symbology. I'm using the terms for larger grain sizes interchangeably here. But yes, each term has certain connotations. It is a different way of looking at the earth. It takes time, despite what Faith seems to think.

Yes, there have been many orogenies across the world occurring at different places and different times. In the GC region there were no major orogenies for most of the Phanerozoic. Not for you. Sure. I see no contortions. Please elaborate. Some punctuation would make your posts easier to read.Everything you see would be attributable to erosion imposed on a tilted package of strata.

Which you imagine without any basis in reality did impossible things contrary to the laws of physics and without leaving any evidence. In doing so, you are invoking magic.Your next magic trick is to imagine without any basis in reality that the laws of physics were completely different than they are now. No evidence of that, no explanation for it, no nothing except your magical wishing. So yet again, MAGIC!Magic is as magic does. You keep invoking magic, so that means that you are indeed using magic.Just admit the truth, that you are using magic, and stop pretending that you are doing anything like science.BTW, all along you have been playing your games in accordance with the fundamental deception of "creation science": that their position and claims are not based on religion, but rather are based entirely on scientific evidence. That fundamental deception was designed to circumvent court decisions in the wake of Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) which invalidated the use of religious reasons to bar the teaching of evolution in the public schools. So the anti-evolution movement created "creation science" as its game of "Hide the Bible" (literally!). And to make matters worse, there is no scientific evidence to support their claims, but rather they have to misunderstand and misrepresent the actual evidence when they are not outright fabricating it.Every time a creationist tries to appeal solely to scientific evidence, she is playing the game of that fundamental deception. Why must your god be served solely through deception?

I addressed the Bertault flume experiments in the very message you're replying to. I said that they deposited sediments at a steep angle, not horizontally. This is queued up at the exact right spot in case you don't remember: What flooding river? If you have evidence that multiple distinct sedimentary layers can be laid down simultaneously, something you've never before claimed about the flood, then please present it. The energy level of the water from the river drops when it reaches the sea and with increasing distance from shore. This has been known like forever. How is this evidence for your flood? Mount St. Helens did not lay down a whole stack of distinct strata simultaneously, but how is a volcano evidence for your flood? You're here to make the case for your views, which requires evidence and rationale, not just taking up space with empty claims.--Percy

quote:

---

Vertical is vertical, horizontal is horizontal, scale makes no difference to these orientations.

---

But it makes a big difference to the angles. The differing scales will make the angles seem closer to vertical. This is High School mathematics. Try drawing two right angled triangles, one twice as tall as the other. Take a look at what that does to the angles.

See previous message about the flume experiments, which deposited diagonal layers, not horizontal. Is precipitation out of solution something you're proposing for your Flood? What is the evidence that any significant portion of the Earth's sedimentary layers were due to precipitation out of solution? "Water did it" explains nothing. You're supposedly here to show that the Flood really happened. Show us the evidence so we can see for ourselves.--Percy

Mammals are a class. Trilobites are a class. The spans of time are not that different. Trilobites became extinct after a run of about 275 million years. Mammals originated about 300 million years ago. There is no indication of either the Trilobite or Mammal class evolving into anything else.But you're drifting off-topic, which was the fossil record of increasing difference from modern forms with increasing depth in the geological record. How is this evidence for the Flood? You are again claiming to have presented evidence that you did not. Just as you're doing here, you said some words that made no sense and withstood not the slightest scrutiny. This is a new thread. If you have a case to make supporting your premise that the Flood really happened, then you should make it now.--PercyEdited by Percy, : "300 years" => "300 million years"

quote:

---

The strata ON THE ISLAND PROPER, meaning resting on the straight horizontal sea level line, are all side by side from left to right, and the scale will make no difference to that fact

---

This is where you are using very confusing terminology. Many strata are in part above sea level, but those portions are not separate strata, nor do they rest on the line - which corresponds to nothing physical that they could rest on.Further, Not only are they are not vertical, they are much closer to horizontal than they appear in the diagram because of the differing horizontal and vertical scales.

quote:

---

They would not have been originally deposited in that position, they would have been stacked one upon another, Cambrian on the bottom, Holocene on the top, instead of as we now see them, Cambrian on the left, Holocene on the far right.

---

They have been tilted, obviously. Their extent has likely been reduced by erosion. But it is not at all clear that they all covered the entire island. In fact that seems quite unlikely.

quote:

---

If they were returned to their original position, the strata beneath the sea level line would be pulled up to extend across the island from left to right, the Cambrian or bottom layer resting ON the sea level line.

---

I’m not at all sure of that. The sea level has nothing to do with their original position, and I am sure that there is more folding than collapsing here. (So the presumed Cambrian layer at the bottom of Snowdon - which is not bounded by sea level - has likely been raised from it’s original position).

quote:

---

That is how they would originally have been deposited.

---

It’s more complicated than that because there are multiple tectonic events going on. A single pivot at Snowdon will not undo the bending of the strata, so it will not make all the strata parallel.And what do you make of the Silurian deposits directly underlying early Cretaceous - or perhaps late Jurassic - strata at the Eastern end (beneath the Cretaceous label, and identified as Silurian)?Edited by PaulK, : Correct minor typo

Mammals 300 years? ;-}

A pyroclastic flow doesn't deposit multiple distinct layers simultaneously as you claimed. It also isn't clear why you're claiming thiss since you've never said the Flood did that. Please explain why you think a pyroclastic flow is evidence for your Flood.Here's a pyroclastic flow from Mount St. Helens. Please point out the multiple distinct layers that were deposited simultaneously: --Percy