Did the Flood really happen?

As usual, it's a lot more complex than that. If you cannot pick up a good geology text and take the time to read it, there is little that we can discuss in a forum such as this. I assume nothing without evidence. And I do not assume that time periods get 'squished'; nor are they represented by a single rock, depositional environment or formation.Please understand that when I answer a question it is more for the audience that includes interested parties.

Of course not. We were relying on you (all) to tell us.So far, you have failed. Miserably.You ad hoc-isms conflict and/or require further evidence which is not forthcoming.So, we have to draw comparisons.This is your problem, not ours.

Pretty much. Some have been uplifted others down-dropped. I suppose there may be some supracrustal extension or shortening, but essentially they are where they were. Well, lower sea level and then they would be on the 'island proper'. I think I mentioned that sea level is only a datum in reference to the present, but is otherwise meaningless.So, I suggest you lose the 'island proper' distinction if you want to understand geological processed and be understood by others. Essentially, yes. Yes, most sedimentary packages are deposited below sea level or very close to it.

So still, you give us nothing to work with but your own overheated imagination.

Nothing to think about considering that so little thinking went into this idea in the first place.All you are describing is a regional package of rocks that has been tilted and then eroded. No special processes or evidence necessary.

That was the 'top' of the island at the time.

Because the layers were laterally extensive and they have been eroded, just as we see them being eroded today.

I doubt that the Cretaceous was ever deposited in Wales, but there is certainly some exposed up in Antrim and Derry in Northern Ireland.

No, each major package was stacked vertically but there were intervening orogenies that disrupted older rocks. For instance, the pre-Devonian rocks are folded and eroded before the Old Red Sand was deposited. In fact the older rocks were the source of sediment for the Old Red.The Smith diagram is a simplified stratigraphic column with little information on erosion, deformation and intrusion, other than the concession that some granites are found on the west.In other words, the E-W cross section gives you a lot more geology than the Smith modified stratigraphic column.

Faith, the rock units above sea level (your 'island proper') do not just end at the sea level datum. Whatever causes you to think that the rocks below sea level are different from the ones above sea level?

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.

As evidenced by the fact that the rocks cannot actually 'rest on the sea level line'.Sometime, it takes me days to figure out what Faith is trying to say.

We do not have a legend, so it's kind of moot, but one could argue that the lowest rock unit is "granite" in the sense that there appears to be an intrusive rock below the Cambrian sedimentary rocks. Certainly farther south in Cornwall, there are very granite-looking rocks exposed around the tin mining areas, and the old literature that you linked me to, prominently mentions granite.For the record (and I mentioned this earlier), the symbol using short, randomly oriented line segments is a traditional symbol for intrusive rock. The diagram is smudgy in this area but if you follow the line that dips down below the sea level datum at about 60% of the way (left to right) across the detailed diagram, you will see continuity of the intrusive symbology present in the deepest parts of the long cross section.I think I also pointed out the other day that there are some odd symbols on the Smith stratigraphic column that appear to indicate some kind of intrusive rock. This basement is shown as an intrusive. I believe that is what Faith is calling granite. However, it's always hard to tell what Faith is thinking.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Actually, collapse is a well-known process in geology and that is why we can say that it is of no consequence in this particular discussion. I think the best way to explain would be that this is a schematic diagram. Notice that there is no scale shown in either the horizontal or vertical dimensions, other than the notation about it being 200 miles across. It is also a hand-drawn diagram which does not lend much precision to measurements.I think we can safely say, however, that there is an extreme amount of vertical exaggeration which sacrifices angular relationships to readability and basic strtigraphic concepts.As to the comparison with deformation at Siccar Point, keep in mind that as we go north and west on the diagram (toward Ireland and Scotland) deformation increases as the core of the Caledonian Orogeny is approached. Hence, the deformation at Snowdon is greater than Northhampton, etc. I'm pretty sure that the apparent folds shown at Snowdon are also schematic and that they are more intense than the diagram indicates. Some easy internet research should confirm this or not.