Summations Only

I think some of the strata were deposited by waves or the rising water itself in that phase of the Flood and gravel would have been carried along that way instead of suspended. Either that or gravel CAN BE suspended in water under certain circumstances.All the questions you are raising are incidental details after it's become clear that the Flood is the best explanation for the main facts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What I said is based on how the strata look and what it is like to walk on the rocks is utterly totally absolutely irrelevant. They should not look so uniform if there were different causes and processes involved for different strata.You really don't know how to assess evidence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course there are differences, I already said so myself, but they are not differences that matter in this context. They have nothing to do with the form of the strata, which is what I am talking about.Assessing evidence involves being able to recognize the context of what is being talked about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I suppose you have some evidence for such 'waves'? Sure. But, essentially, you are talking about extreme velocities and saltation.Do you really think that such things would leave no evidence behind?On what surface would gravel be transported? The pre-flood surface or the surface formed by the previous 'wave'? That's the nature of inquiry. You create a hypothesis and then test it by looking for evidence. That necessarily involves details.

You have to see them from a distance to see their form. Walking on them won't tell you anything about their form. You can look at a slice of carrot close up or under a microscope and know nothing about its form.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not with creation "science" and related apologetics.In those you start with a conclusion and cherry pick any evidence that you can stretch or manipulate to support that conclusion. Anything else you deny and ignore.

So, it doesn't matter that an eolian deposit occurs in the middle of a global flood?I'm sorry, but that's just plain weird. Well, maybe the 'form of the strata' is not important in contrasting environments. I think that most of us are talking in the context of evidence for or against your flood. The fact that some rocks are eolian in origin would be kind of important.

Well, there is that ...

Ok, now I see where you went wrong.

What gravel would do in the Flood is c ompletely totally utterly irrelevant to the evidence I've already given for the Flood as the explanation for the strata. This is not the kind of "detail" that illuminates the important issues. I already have the relevant evidence, all the details would get worked out later in the normal life of any paradigm.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But what if the form looks the same from a distance, but different from close-up?In much of the Navajo, I don't see large-scale cross beds from a distance and yet, on close examination, they are present. Are you telling us that this is not important?And I'm still curious about your statement that the Navajo 'just ran out of sand'. What do you mean and what is your evidence for this?

Except for the fact that you cannot explain the occurrence of gravel deposits such as the Diamond Peak Conglomerate or the Fountain Formation, etc., etc.But mainstream science can explain it, and does. Well, that hasn't happened so far, so your celebration of the preeminence of flood geology is not warranted. And it looks like you have a long way to go.

And when a normal person realizes that ALL the details show they are wrong, they abandon their failed paradigm.

Cross beds are not part of the form, they are a detail related to the sediment which has nothing to do with the form. The whole point here is that I know the Coconino and the Navajo were and are not dunes because they had to be deposited in the same way as all the other strata of other sediments were because of their identical form-- meaning their straight flat form.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure, which is what Old Earthism should do since it misreads all the details as well as the major facts related to the age of the earth.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.