Did the Flood really happen?

I disagree with everything you said, that's why I repeat things but I'll stop. That may mean I have to stop posting altogether on this subject. The more I see of the interpretations of Historical Geology the less sense it makes to me. I really want to draw it the way I see it so I think I'll do that and try to understand the instructions about scanning it all in later.The thing about your insistence that sedimentary deposits follow unstraight contours is that in the geological columns they are all clearly either straight or originally straight and those in the UK diagram are unusual and were clearly not deposited in their current position.I use "upright" for vertical, not horizontal, but I'll use "vertical" since there is a problem with "upright."======================================
Thanks for the information about how to scan in something and about the virus.About the virus:
If it says somewhere "safe mode" I'll use it. If I ever get the computer plugged in again.I know it's a virus because I know I clicked on the wrong thing and got a weird looking orange page, and I stupidly did it twice and only realized what I'd done later. What it has been doing is using text that is not relevant to the site I go to but to some other site. I'll go to a Christian site and get a page of information about something else. It freaked me out so I didn't keep track, just shut down the computer and unplugged it. I unplugged three or four plugs and am not sure I could even get it all plugged back in, but maybe I can get help with that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually that's pretty much what I have been describing, but I still think I'll do my own sketches.The tilting as you see it would be enough to cause some of the disturbances we see in the strata that are beneath the island.And what you've shown here ought to make it clear that the strata beneath the island got there due to the tilting and were not there originally, as edge seems to be seeing it. The tilting would have thrust the righthand side of the strata beneath the sea level line and the upheaval itself would account for a lot of the distortion we see there. In fact since the tilting would have been caused by the one tectonic upheaval to which I ascribe all the disturbances everywhere, including in the Grand Canyon, it would account for the Great Unconformity everywhere it is found, and for Siccar Point too.Maybe I won't need to do the sketches. We'll see though. I was going to sketch the tilting as caused by the raising of the mountain, Snowdon, on the west side of the island, which I see as originally the basement rock beneath the strata above. Its raising would have pushed up the strata there, causing it to tilt to the right. It would also have broken off the strata on the west side which accounts for the broken off tops of those along the surface of the island. Not erosion, breaking.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I wanted to see if I could use your schematic system to do my sketches but it isn't working for me. I can describe what I'd like to do though:Take your horizontal strata and lentghten them by fifty or sixty hyphens.
That would represent the original deposition of the whole columnThen we have the tectonic activity, so we show the mountain being raised beneath the column about a third of the way from the west end of the drawing.As it rises the strata above tilt both to the west and to the east, breaking right over the mountain's top.
The west side falls off into the sea.
The east side keeps tilting, now with its broken-off tops, as the moutain keeps rising, until the strata on the east are mostly beneath the sea level lilne with their broken-off tops tilted above that line.At some point in this tilting process most of the disturbances occur that we see in the strata beneath the sea level line, within the block of strata in various layers, and in the different thicknesses of the strata. Since these should all be under water as I've been suggesting, the differing thicknesses are probably explained by water saturation distorting them. But the tilting itself would have gone a long way to distorting the whole column.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Seems to me it's the Old Earth system in which everything should be all jumbled up, not the Flood. The surface of the earth NOW is all jumbled up isn't it? Animals die willy-nilly on the surface, they don't get nicely buried in nice neat specific sediments, whether above or below the sea, let alone in conditions that would fossilze them. Why should any previous time period, let alone, what, dozens? hundreds? of "time periods" be marked by such nice neat sedimentary strata with specific collections of fossils buried in them? it makes no sense at all that such periods of time should be marked out by flat neat sedimentary rocks of different kinds of sediment for every few million years, and the effort to rationalize it has to involve extreme mental contortionism. Or just denial.

Thank you, you saved me from having to sketch it all out and figure out how to scan and post it. But what your schematic sketch shows, as would mine, is that the strata beneath the sea level line were not originally laid down there, and that the most probable explanation for all the disturbances found there is that they occurred due to the tectonic upheaval which caused them to be moved from their original straight flat condition on the island proper, above the sea level line, to their current location beneath the island. They were clearly originally as you illustrate them, stacked vertically, and clearly fell down into their current position with their upper broken-off ends now arranged horizontally across the island, giving ample opportunity for all kinds of disturbance and distortion to those strata on their way to their current position. You did a great job of illustrating this. I just had a little more I wanted to include in my sketches, which I describe above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's the sediments above all that would have been jumbled. There's no reason for neat flat sedimentary rocks to exist in each time period at all, not even one time period let alone dozens, and all stacked up so neatly too . As for the fossils, there really should be a lot more fossils from early time periods mixed into each subsquent period than there are anyway, but certainly if things just die willynilly on the bottom of the sea or on the surface of the land, mostly there will be a LOT fewer that get fossilized but also there should be some jumbling, and there is none.Transgressions and regressions are just a way of accounting for what the Flood actually did, and they require you to have living land creatures roaming around where you postulate water covering the land anyway.I don't say NOTHING gets fossilzed, what I say is that there's way too much regularity about how things got buried and fossilized in the OE and ToE scenarios, and way too many neat sedimentary rocks and way too many fossilized creatures. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Water produces layered sediments, why would you expect there to be any of the necessary conditions just happening to show up every few million years to lay down a new sediment on top of sediment laid down millions of years previously, all containing fossils just as the previous did, and the next and the next and the next. See THAT makes a LOT less sense than the Flood as the explanation for the geological column no matter how many objections you can think up against the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No regular timetable. Hm. Funny how the strata just happen to show up regularly enough to form the geological column. Containing a specific bunch of fossils. Oh well.

Seems pretty clear to me: "As it (the mountain) rises, the strata above tilt both to the west and to the east, breaking right over the mountain's top." Pretty clear it seems to me that it's the strata that break, not the mountain.The mountain/basement rock, rises after all the strata are in place, those horizontal strata you illustrated back in Message 696. I suggested for purposes of illustration that it should rise beneath the strata about a third of the way from the edge of those strata on the west.(I've been using west for left and east for right but you have west for right. I'm going to continue with my understanding of it but please correct if I'm wrong.)As it rises it pushes up the column of strata and they break as it rises, right over the mountain top, one side of it falling to the west / left, and disappearing into the sea, the other side tilting to the east or right. The east/right side falls down until its broken upper edge forms the short pieces of strata we now see arranged on the sea level line from left/west to right/east, with the rest of the layers now beneath the sea level line where they bend to the right/east and show signs of various disturbances and distortions.I think it's pretty clear those short pieces of strata on the island had to be broken off because they would originally have had very long extensions which wouldn't just erode away.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yesterday on the public computer some weird things happened while I had my yahoo email open, which I thought might be that virus getting into THIS computer too, which is really a scary thought. I immediately tried to get to malwarebytes.com and the computer wouldn't let me go there. I tried a number of times and it wouldn't open the site. That made me worry even more, and suggests that if I did the same on my own computer it wouldn't oopen there either. So do you think I should still do that on my computer?What happened was I wanted to watch a You Tube program. A box appeared blocking a lot of the picture, with the familiar link that ooften appears when an ad is running "skip ad." THAT's what I clicked on but instead of stopping anything it took me to that weird looking orange page. A clue should have been that there was no ad running anyway, it was the program I wanted to watch that was partially blocked by this box with the "skip ad" button in it. When I got back to that video it was the same situation and I stupidly clicked on the button a second time and got the same weird orange page again. That's when I shut off the computer. I am sure this is some kind of malicious thing that got into my computer. I don't know how I'd even know if anything was deleted but I was getting information on sites that doesn't belong there.On this public computer I had trouble turning it off. It brought up more than one shut-down page and it took some time before I figured out how to turn it off. I seem to be able to use EvC OK though. I'm afraid to open my Yahoo email.I don't know if this changes your view of the situation or not. If it doesn't then I'll follow your instructions when I get back to my apartment.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The weird thing is that ALL the strata of the geological colulmn wherever we find it are stacked one on top of another, while the current situations that are always being used as proof the whole thing continues occur in no geographic relation to that column.And I can see with my own eyes on many illustrations that the rocks ARE associated with the time periods so please stop saying they aren't.AND all the strata, the marine AND the terristrial, LOOK THE SAME, they all occur in the same FORM, laid down horizontally and stacked on top of those beneath them. This is what the Flood would have done.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If time periods were marked by sedimentary layers we should see one forming today exactly over the geologial columns wherever they are. We don't. We see columns that were disturbed after they were laid down, broken up, much of it washed away (eroded slowly according to the standard theory). That's clearly what we see in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area, and it's clearly what we see in the UK diagram we've been discussing. ALL the strata are in place, all laid down one after another, AFTER which something disturbed them, cut canyons into them, caused them to collapse from original vertically stacked horizontal layers down to pieces of strata arranged no longer vertically but horizontally across the island. All this supports the Flood explanation.Neat sedimentary rocks every few millions of years all neatly stacked one upon another despite the intervening millions of years, just does not fit reality as we know it. Animals die on the surface, including the surface of the sea bottom, where predators gobble them up and they have zerio chance of being buried let alone fossilized. The surface of the earth is a jumble of sediments, not neatly sorted sediments except in special places that aren't even part of the geological column, and the sea floor is also a jumble of stuff that died and landed on it. Yes a jumble. Everyday nature creates a jumble of stuff on our earth, it has to be a special event that would create the geological column.

I originally thought the mountain was solid granite from some former discussion or other, but then you all said that it isn't all granite so I accepted that, but I still think it was originally basement rock on which the strata were laid down as shown in Percy's schematic drawing.

Your own drawing illustrates what I meant by "collapse:" you show the strata all in place horizontally and then tilted so that the vertical part becomes horizontal as we see the short pieces of strata laid out alonjg the island. They were ioriginally vertical, and with the rest of the strata now beneath the island it looks like it all "collapsed" to me. The tilted part in your drawing kept falling until it was under the sea level line with just the broken-off ends on the surface, now horizontal when originally they were vertical. It all tilted into its current position. If you want a word other than "collapse" I'm not sure what the best choice would be.

Thanks for all the information. I tried the second one JonF mentioned on this public computer and many hours later it is still "scanning" so I don't know what to make of that. But I'm going to try the alternative link to Malwarebytes next, and on my own computer later too.