Did the Flood really happen?

Translation into the fact-based world: --Percy

You know that just claiming this without actually showing it is what typifies actual nonsense. The evidence -- the details -- show multiple events, geologists just report what the evidence actually shows, not what someone wishes it showed. It's called honesty. And of the other pluvial lakes that were formed from glacial melting. Yes there was flooding and yes there was runoff/overflow/outflow from those lakes at different times, reoccurring as the glaciers continued to melt and retreat. But no flooding occurred above the glacier carved mountain sides or covered more than localized areas.The scabland is another case of glacial melt flooding and erosion. We have discussed this area before in regards to what such erosion shows vs what we see in the Grand Canyon (which is not due to glacial melt overflows or world wide mythical floods ... because the details show a different erosion pattern due to typical river and wind erosion patterns ... but this is not a Grand Canyon thread).

quote:

---

The Channeled Scablands at one time were a relatively barren and soil-free region of interconnected relict and dry flood channels, coulees and cataracts eroded into Palouse loess and the typically flat-lying basalt flows that remain after cataclysmic floods within the southeastern part of the U.S. state of Washington.[1][2] The channeled scablands were scoured by more than 40 cataclysmic floods during the Last Glacial Maximum and innumerable older cataclysmic floods over the last two million years.[3][4][5] These cataclysmic floods were repeatedly unleashed when a large glacial lake repeatedly drained and swept across eastern Washington and down the Columbia River Plateau during the Pleistocene epoch. The last of the cataclysmic floods occurred between 18,200 and 14,000 years ago.[6]

---

So there is plenty of evidence of localized flooding even of cataclysmic proportions in this one area, but the detailed evidence shows it comes from glaciers, not mythic floods, that it occurs multiple (40+) times ...And there is more:

quote:

---

Geology

​

Distinct geomorphological features include coulees, dry falls, streamlined hills and islands of remnant loess, gravel fans and bars, and giant current ripples.[7]

​

The term scabland refers to an area that has experienced fluvial erosion resulting in the loss of loess and other soils, leaving the land barren.[9] River valleys formed by erosional downcutting of rivers create V-shaped valleys, while glaciers carve out U-shaped valleys. The Channeled Scablands have a rectangular cross section, with flat plateaus and steep canyon sides, and are spread over immense areas of eastern Washington. The morphology of the scablands is butte-and-basin.[9] The area that encompasses the Scablands has been estimated between 1,500 and 2,000 square miles (3,900 and 5,200 km2), though those estimates still may be too conservative.[10]

​

They exhibit a unique drainage pattern that appears to have an entrance in the northeast and an exit in the southwest. The Cordilleran Ice Sheet dammed up Glacial Lake Missoula at the Purcell Trench Lobe.[10] A series of floods occurring over the period of 18,000 to 13,000 years ago swept over the landscape when the ice dam broke. The eroded channels also show an anastomosing, or braided, appearance.

​

The presence of Middle and Early Pleistocene Missoula flood deposits have been documented within the Channeled Scabland as other parts of the Columbia Basin, e.g. the Othello Channels, Columbia River Gorge, Quincy Basin, Pasco Basin, and the Walla Walla Valley. Based on the presence of multiple interglacial calcretes interbedded with glaciofluvial flood deposits, magnetostratigraphy, optically stimulated luminescence dating, and unconformity truncated clastic dikes, it has been estimated that the oldest of these megafloods flowed through the Channel Scablands sometime before 1.5 million years ago. Because of the fragmentary nature of older glaciofluvial deposits, which have been largely removed by subsequent Missoula floods, the exact number of older Missoula floods, which are known as Ancient Cataclysmic Floods, that occurred during the Pleistocene cannot be estimated with any confidence.[3][4] As many as 100 separate, cataclysmic Ice Age floods may have occurred during the last glaciation.[11] There have been at least 17 complete interglacial-glacial cycles since about 1.77 million years ago, and perhaps as many as 44 interglacial-glacial cycles since the beginning of the Pleistocene about 2.58 million years ago. Presuming a dozen (or more) floods were associated with each glaciation, the total number of cataclysmic Ice Age Missoula floods that flowed through the Channeled Scablands for the entire Pleistocene Epoch could possibly number in the hundreds, perhaps exceeding a thousand Ancient Cataclysmic Floods.[5]

---

There's those pesky details again. Now we have "As many as 100 separate, cataclysmic Ice Age floods" for you to explain with a single imaginary flood. Cue the denial machine ...And don't forget the relative timing:

1. mountains formed
2. ice age occurred, ice sheets covered vast areas
3. glaciers carved into the mountains (making lots of sand and gravel)
4. climate changed, ice started melting
5. melting waters formed large lakes between the glaciers and their moraines left by their furthest advance/s.
6. lakes overflowed or cut through the ice/moraine dams releasing massive amounts of water
7. the released waters caused cataclysmic erosion downstream
8. repeat from step 5 several times as glaciers continue to melt and retreat
9. ends when glaciers are gone or stop large scale melting (gosh ... melting like we are seeing now in Greenland ... )

Only by ignoring the details that show hard evidence of multiple occurrences. Ignoring evidence doesn't make your fantasy real, it just makes it a fantasy propped up by denial. And AGAIN you missed the point that the bottom is very very flat, with a winter lake 1" deep over 40 sq miles, and this refutes your claim about lakes not having flat bottoms, which is part of your fantasy about some overall geological column that does not in fact exist. See Message 1495 for details. Yes, I know that you have nothing but denial of the evidence in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 that shows any fantasy of a young earth is contradicted by annual evidence of tree rings, lake varves, marine varves, ice cores, etc etc etcOnce again, it is the details, Faith, that trip you up and make your concept/s fall flat on it's face. But not their multiple forming and vanishing and forming and vanishing 28 times. Just saying it only occurred once is ignoring the details in the evidence that show multiple formations. Fail.I'm going to break this here as this is long enough.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by Admin, : Fix italic dBCode.

Continuing from Message 1502, Re: Depositions, and Lake Bonneville DON'T show Flood Geology PT1 It is truly amazing how far people (you) can get elaborating such an untruth. You need to stop calling people liars just because they don't say only what you want to hear.You asked for an honest poster, but you can't deal with honestly presented evidence that contradicts your fantasies. Which is why it is imperative to rid ourselves of the worldwide flood nonsense fantasy and focus on the actual evidence of reality. The message you are replying to said nothing about geological column/s. It was about the many pluvial lakes that formed several times in the past, and are evidence of glacial melt, not a world wide flood. Well knock me over with your evidence and gratuitous insult, boy that makes me change my mind. NOT.You need at least one iota of evidence Faith ... you don't have it. Again, the post you are replying to, Message 1493 makes no mention of geological column/s. You need to reply to Message 1495: it discusses why those diagrams actually refute your concept of a single geological column, showing that it would be different from location to location.Just a quickie, your final quote does not say what you think it says: Great sheets due to inland seas that existed, not to a single flood, but they covered slightly different areas at different times (see Message 1495). Note that the sequence mentioned is of the fossils, not the rocks (you are misreading it): Here they are obviously talking about index fossils and their companion fossils being found world wide, how these fossils are found in the same ages of the various geological strata in different locations rather than in the same rock formations in those locations.Details, Faith.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

The WAY the Geological Column is different in different places is just that IN SOME CASES it has different sediments, but otherwise it is continuous with all the other strata, and certainly the fossil contents are the same, which is of course a major tenet of the ToE I'm sure you don't want to deny. Otherwise it's all the same layers as shown in the two posts I refer to. There is no continuation of the Geological Column going on now, and your example of Lake Bonneville has NO resemblance to it. And that's the honesty I'm asking for which of course is never going to happen.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I read the example just fine. You don't have fossils without the rocks, duh. and the first sentence is about the sequence of the rocks. Duh. I'm sick of this equivocation about the obvious. The rfocks are continuous. Who cares if the sediments aren't identical from location ot location. And why should your excuse for an interpretation of how they got there be better than the Flood which explains it all just fine. Had enough with this crap.

quote:

---

The WAY the Geological Column is different in different places is just that IN SOME CASES it has different sediments, but otherwise it is continuous with all the other strata...

---

Of course there are quite a lot of discontinuities, both vertically and horizontally. Indeed, differing sediments will often indicate a discontinuity.

quote:

---

... and certainly the fossil contents are the same, which is of course a major tenet of the ToE I'm sure you don't want to deny.

---

The fossil contents vary by the environment of the time, of course.

quote:

---

Otherwise it's all the same layers as shown in the two posts I refer to.

---

One of them doesn’t even show layers. And the other only says that the microfossils are the same worldwide - not the rocks.

quote:

---

There is no continuation of the Geological Column going on now, and your example of Lake Bonneville has NO resemblance to it

---

The first claim is false. As for the second, I see no reason why pluvial lakes should not be a source of evaporites.

quote:

---

And that's the honesty I'm asking for which of course is never going to happen.

---

Perhaps you would like to explain your definition of honesty since it requires us to say things that we believe to be false - and have good reasons to believe false.

In some places yes, in others there would be erosion of exposed surfaces. This would apply to most areas not covered by the inland seas. Because what you are really talking about is the geological time scale as shown by the various age rocks found in various places. These strata can vary extensively in depth from place to place, down to zero thickness where there is net erosion. They can also vary in type of rock in different locations.Thus there is no single "Geological Column" that extends around the world, there are a series of local geological columns showing the local depositions for the geological ages involved: it is a time scale you are talking about. Except where it is discontinuous (per previous comment) it is continuous with other strata of the period or geological time zone. That's like the current surface of the earth is continuous around the globe.Certainly the fossils are of the same age. Because what you are really talking about is the geological time scale as shown by the various age rocks in various places. Which is what the evidence (details, Faith) show. That it is consistent with the ToE only shows the validity of the ToE in it's ability to explain the natural history of life on earth. The layers are continuous where the depositions from the inland seas are continuous, as shown by the maps for the different age depositions distributions. False. Nor was it intended to show that, it was intended to show you that a lake bottom can be flat flat flat.A point you seem to miss entirely. If you want honesty, you need to start accepting the honesty of the evidence in the details, not just what fits your fantasies.It seems you can't handle the truth, you continually shy away from it.Enjoy

But there can be many different sedimentary deposits with the same fossils. That doesn't make the rocks the same deposition, it just makes them the same age. Yes, but then there are six sentences about other things. The next sentence resets the context of "sequences" to be "The sequence of the microscopic fossils ... " followed immediately by the sentence "The same sequence is found in America, Europe, and anywhere that detailed studies have been made."Further the two sentences before this states "The science has become a very exact one. Millions of dollars are spent in drilling, with the paleontological findings of the company geologists taken as the basis for the work."The paleontological findings are the fossils, the index fossils of interest to the oil companies. Reading comprehension. No
they
aren'tThe time periods are "continuous," in the sense they are the same around the world. The rocks laid down in those time periods are the same age/s, but that doesn't mean the rock layers are continuous. Those geological time periods cover large slices of time, so you can have several depositions at different times within those geological time periods. People looking for honest evaluation of the evidence perhaps?Different sediments show different deposition events or processes rather than a continuous process -- in fact it is evidence against a continuous process, such as would be the result of flood waters. Except that it doesn't ... unless you ignore the details. Claiming it does is not showing how a flood can drop one type of sedimentary deposit (say clay for example) and then change to a different type of sedimentary deposit (say sand for example). This is a problem that you have yet to explain ... along with all the other sorting problems your fantasy model has. Then stop spreading it.

Moving my Message 1380 from the thread "Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?"Subtitle: aboutRe: The unwitnessed (prehistoric) past

You bring up a good point with the idea of "repeatable" phenomena. But while we can study beta decay or radio waves by watching ("detecting" rather!) them over and over, what about the happenings at the center of the Earth, or on a pulsar millions of light-years away? I'm sure you can think of many areas of science concerned with phenomena which cannot be manipulated "repeatably" with forceps and gloves on a lab bench!(Of course, we CAN directly observe evolution and we CAN conduct experiments, as I described in my original post EvC Forum: "Best" evidence for evolution.. Look at the links about such topics as Buffalo grass, Madeira island house mice, the "American goatsbeard" and Nereis acuminata, but that's for another thread.)

I can only respond briefly I'm afraid, to respond to your statement that we can observe evolution: we can only observe what is called microevolution, which is the changes that occur from generation to generation within a given species. We can NOT observe the kind of evolution described by the Theory of Evolution, species to species evolution that is. Because it does not occur. But microevolution yes, and we can discuss that on that thread where you posted the message you are refuerring to, if you like.But sorry to say I'm about to fall asleep sitting here and have to go take a nap. This happens to me after I've been up a long time, and I simply can't wake up. Sorry to interrupt the discussion, but I'll be back later.

To expand further on the points made in Message 1508, there is an essential element to the geological column time scale.Let's start with a typical creationist approach: Geologic Column | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

William Smith first used the similarity of fossils to construct detailed geologic maps across wide areas. He used fossils to map and correlate rock layers and constructed the first geologic map of England and Wales in 1815. Smith was a creationist who believed in the old-earth view now known as progressive creationism. By the early 1800s the idea of an old earth was popular, though the idea of a global flood was still used to explain many geologic deposits.

​

The standard geologic column was constructed by combining descriptions of local areas to form a composite record. By 1885 the finer divisions of the column had been identified based on the principles established by Steno, Smith, and Lyell. These ideas were also beginning to impact the study of biology, and Lyell’s long-age ideas played a major role in Darwin’s development of the theory of biological evolution over vast geologic eras.

​

Index fossils played an important role in the development of the geologic column. The idea that life became increasingly complex over time, whether by some evolutionary force or continuous creation by God, was used to analyze the fossils in the rock layers. It was assumed that by identifying the order of fossil succession, the layers could be correlated from one region to the next. Index fossils are still one of the major indicators of the age of a given layer. Shelled creatures such as ammonites and mollusks are the most commonly used index fossils.

​

​

The geologic timescale we know today was not added to the column until after the development of radiometric dating techniques. Lyell and others had promoted the idea of millions of years of geologic history, but dates were not assigned to given layers until much later. Working on the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism, the rock record was interpreted from these starting points. By the time radiometric dating techniques were implemented, the idea of millions of years of earth history had already become an established scientific fact. Using uniformitarian assumptions (see the discussion in chapter 4), the radiometric dating techniques are put forward as support for the timescale of the standard geologic column.

---

Which by and large is a fairly honest presentation of the history and development of the Composite Geological Column aka Time Scale (note that the vertical axis is years rather than types of rock). Note that radiometric techniques/data confirm the consistent ages of index fossils, because they have the same level ratios of parent/daughter, whether you accept the age calculation or not. Thus they also confirm the relative ages of the rocks in the assembled time scale.The consilience of data from all the different sources show an ordered structure of sedimentary rocks building up over time from the distant past to the present (and continuing today). A sequence of rocks that is then associated with time by the sequence of fossils, fossils that exist around the world at each time period ... index fossils. This statement is confused at best, "the rocks are continuous, who cares if they aren't the same rocks" is what I read from it, and this implys that you mean something else by "the rocks" than what it sounds like.What we can (hopefully) agree on, broadly speaking, is that the individual layers of sedimentary rocks are the same approximate age, made from sediment deposited in roughly the same time period, thus they can be a composite of different sedimentary formations in different locations but all of that same time period. That makes sense to me.Now, returning to the diagram above we see that the time periods are measured in millions of years and we can combine this with the maps provided by HBD Message 448). So let me summarize them together for easy visual comparison, with the time periods from the Geological Time Scale added from Answers in Genesis above: Now it is rather unlikely that the patterns of the inland seas changed abruptly, and there must have been some transition from one to the next, a transition that would leave sedimentary deposits of slightly different ages and types and coming from different sources as the erosion patterns changed. As long as they fall within the time scale for the Devonian period, they would all be classified as Devonian sediment rocks.Thus you could have sediments deposited at different times, still classified as Devonian, but from different sources, ie -- not a continuous rock formation, just all within the Devonian period, and similar transition periods throughout the other geological time periods.These transitions would take time, because we know from fossil evidence that mature marine ecosystems were formed in each of the pertinent life zones for sea and shoreline habitats. After all that's how the index fossils get deposited in the sediments.Indeed we know from Walther's Law that you would likely have silts, clays, sand deposits, etc all forming at the same time with transgressions and regressions -- different rocks being then form from these deposits as time passes. The siltstones would not be continuous across the area, the shale (from clay) would not be continuous across the area and the sandstones would not be continuous across the area.Indeed, I see that what is now Wyoming is not covered at all in the Silurian period, but it is in the other maps, so the Silurian rocks would not be continuous over Wyoming.The argument that the rocks are large continuous slabs is patently false, there is no single layer of only one type of stone all formed at one time.The details show the difference between fantasy and reality.Enjoy

Repeatable does not mean that the events are repeatable. We can not repeat the destruction of the World trade Center but we can be very sure that it did happen.What is repeatable is the observations of the existing evidence. Fifty scientists with different backgrounds can observe the wreckage of the WTC and agree on how it got into that state. Similarly, fifty scientists with different backgrounds can look at the rocks and agree on how they get into that state.

Your statement that species-to-species evolution hasn't been observed is no more true than a statement that beta decay or radio waves haven't been observed, as I described in my original post EvC Forum: "Best" evidence for evolution.. Look at the links about such topics as Buffalo grass, Madeira island house mice, the "American goatsbeard" and Nereis acuminata, but that's for another thread.

Good idea, I'll move my off-topic post from Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? as well: Edited by RAZD, : .