Did the Flood really happen?

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

Didn't I say the short tilted strata ON TOOP OF THE ISLAND? I KNOW they continue beneath the island, they ALL do, but I was trying to talk about the SHORT TILTED ONES ON THE ISLAND.Never mind, I have to leave for a while before I blow a cork again.

So you don't think this particular geological column was ever stacked vertically? Wouldn't that be unusual? Like, impossible? Like never happened before ever?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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?

quote:

---

Didn't I say the short tilted strata ON TOOP OF THE ISLAND?

---

Indeed you did, that’s the problem because there aren’t many that are short.

quote:

---

I KNOW they continue beneath the island...

---

Which is why they aren’t short. Sorry, but I don’t see how you can call a continuous stratum going from the Carboniferous label to the Cretaceous label short

quote:

---

...they ALL do, but I was trying to talk about the SHORT TILTED ONES ON THE ISLAND.

---

Which you know aren’t actually short or at least that is what you just said. This is not in the least helpful.

No, they aren't side by side.I think you're forgetting that the vertical scale is greatly exaggerated to show the relationships more clearly. In the real world the angles of those layers are nowhere near as steep as in the drawings.ABE: if the scale factor was 10, the red portion directly under "Jurassic" would look like this in reality: Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

You already conceded this isn't true, that the lower boundary of sedimentary deposits will follow the contours of the surface they're deposited upon. Yes, of course. Your use of the term "upright position" in Message 494 seems very misleading. If someone handed you a stack of three or four floor tiles and told you to put them in an upright position, how would you orient them? But the entire diagram is "on the island proper." There's no way to tell what part of the diagram you're referring to. Tilt upward or downward toward the left? I still can't tell what strata you're referring to. I think you're operating under a serious misconception. Sea level is only on the diagram as a point of reference. Sea level does not divide a stratum into two pieces, as if the part above were in some way different or separate from the part below. It is still a single continuous stratum. Were you to examine the stratum at the precise point where it passes from above to below sea level you would not see any difference.All the strata were deposited while below sea level, or Flood level as you prefer. How high or low that level was at the time can't be known since both sea and land levels can rise and fall. All the strata were submerged when the sediments forming them were deposited. You have yet to be clear about what part of the diagram is the "irregular 'wavy' section," but you again make the mistake of thinking that current sea level is somehow significant in interpreting how the strata were deposited and what happened to them after deposition. Terminology like "standing the whole island upright" is very misleading. It sounds like you're saying that the whole island stood on end. We know now that that isn't what you mean, but you should try to use more clear terminology, or even better, standard geological terminology.We understand you mean a time when all the strata were horizontal, but just looking at the structure of the various formations tells us that there was never a time when they were all horizontal, that some formations were tilted and eroded before others were deposited. Again, that is not a rock on the far left. It is Snowdon, a small mountain made up of various sedimentary strata. I wasn't able to make sense of "lying on its side," but about the rest, you seem to be saying that the layers to the right of Snowdon were at one time atop Snowdon. This would appear impossible, particularly for the strata making up Snowdon that continue downward and to the right. Please explain how strata that are part of Snowdon could have at one time been atop it? Edge didn't reply. JonF and PaulK replied, but not to those points. As I read it now it looks very difficult to tell what you mean. I did this for you in Message 554.--Percy

You're still operating under the delusion that just declaring something so makes it so. If the Bible were truly "a compendium of fact" then it wouldn't have so many internal and external errors and contradictions. The Bible isn't a false book, just a book like any other book written by fallible people, some true, some false, some indeterminate.But this is not a Bible thread. I only mentioned the Bible as part of the confirmation of the validity of radiocarbon dating, which shows that many archeological sites, including ones mentioned in the Bible, existed before, during and after the Flood. This is a Flood thread. You need to show that your Flood really happened, and there's nothing about those sites says Flood 4500 years ago.--Percy

I must have misunderstood what you said originally, but I'm still not sure. When you said "grading of sedimentary grains with coarser conglomerates at the base" I thought you meant a stratum that graded gradually from fine-grained at the top to coarse sediments at the bottom, which sounds like what would happen if very active water with a heavy sediment load suddenly became still.But now I think you might have meant something different, but I'm not sure what. What does "grading of sedimentary grains" mean if not grading from fine to coarse with increasing depth? Here's a closeup of one of those layers running through roughly the center of the image: This is getting complicated, at least for me. If you look on the left side of the diagram and count the boundary lines between stratum up from the bottom, then I'm looking at the stratum between the 2nd and 3rd line up. That stratum runs right into the basement rock, not pinching out or anything like that. The whole thickness of that stratum just dead ends at the basement rock. So do others. How does that happen? I see the circles representing the conglomerate at the base. It is continuously there across the top of the boundary to the basement rock. Here's the full diagram: I think you're saying that the conglomerate got there by erosion from the basement rock, and that much of it might be there by lag erosion (is that a term), water or wind flow strong enough to carry away smaller grains away but not larger/heavier conglomerate. Do we know the story in any more detail? What caused the basement rock to break up into so much conglomerate?The stratum at the base of the left side of the diagram all end at that basement rock. Could they all be marine deposits of a rising sea? Wouldn't that mean that the deposits should show evidence of Walther's Law, perhaps with the rising water going into or out of the diagram?Here's a closeup of the layer with multiple lines of circles: In that layer that has one, two or three rows of circles in a line (the number depends on thickness), does that mean there are "gravels or cobbles or boulder deposits" arranged in sublayers of the stratum? Are the "gravels or cobbles or boulder deposits" also conglomerates? And finer sediments are mixed in, called the matrix, I guess? Are the dashes between circles meaningful, maybe referring to the matrix? Is the composition of the stratum uniform, because if the "gravels or cobbles or boulder deposits" are what you mean by conglomerates then the conglomerates in this layer do not reside at the base of the stratum.Are the large number of fine diagonal lines throughout the diagram meaningful?Since there's a layer with little dots labeled Lower Greensand, I assume that little dots mean sandstone. So looking this up I see that cobbles are a type of conglomerate.I feel more knowledgeable in the sense of learning something by rote rather than through understanding, that I need to get a better feel for this.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix image.

The lower boundary, yes, at the very bottom of the stack, but the top of each will be straight and horizontal. NONJE OF THE STRATA WERE DEPOSITED IN THEIR PRESENT POSITION as illustrated on the diagram.The strata on the island is those above the straight line which is sea level. They are all tilted upward toward the left like slices of bread. They are broken off at the top. They were obviously not deposted in that position.The strata beneath the sea level line are continuations of the shortened tilted strata above the line. They were obviously not deposted there, just as the strata above were not deposited in their illutrated position, because strata are deposited horizontally and stacked vertically. These are neither. In their original position the lower strata would have been spread out horizontally across the island and the whole stack with the short strata at the far left would be upright from Cambrian up to Holocene.Sorry if my language is hard to understand. That is why I would like to be able to sketch it. In fact I'm wondering if I drew it on paper, a few drawings at least and then scanned them into my computer if those could be somehow transferred to the forum. I'm not even sure what program to scan them TO in order to make that possible, AND I'm still afraid to turn on my computer because the virus had already eaten up a lot of material and I don't even know if I'll have time to load the malwarebytes program. BUT if I can and do, is there some way I could draw what i have in mind and scan it in so it would get onto the forum?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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. 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. 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. That is how they would originally have been deposited.

I know that but I'm making a distinction in the effort to be clearer even though I risk the opposite. Referring to the ones ON the island SHOULD make it clear that they have collapsed in some way from their original position since they are side by side from left to right rather than stacked vertically one on top of the next. I keep referring to those beneath the island as CONTINUATIONS of those above, but since they are going in different directions I wanted first to emphasize those ON the island. Those beneath the island would originally have been deposited ON the island, which would be seen if the portions above the island were restored to their original vertical relation to each other. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.