Summations Only

Perhaps it was "to some degree lithified" then, but if it was formed in the Flood it would only have been at most a few months before the sediment had all accumulated on top of it, and I am still putting the time of the tectonic upheaval while the Flood was at its height, the movement being the cause of the water's receding, so would you expect it to be completely dry?I'm going to assume that they weren't soft enough to be deformed, but instead the abrasion produced crumbles and chunks. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no tectonic activity in the flood myths Faith. You are just making shit up again.

This is one of the kinds of things people say that is totally irrelevant and a waste of time. The Bible describes the Flood in general terms and mostly from the point of view of Noah's relationship with God. The specifics of how the Flood occurred are not relevant in that context, but there's nothing against trying to reconcile what little information is there with the observable physical facts today. The Bible is a guideline to many kinds of knowledge it doesn't spell out.

Yes Faith, you are just making shit up to fit the dogma of your Cult. It really is just another example of your perversion of the Bible.

And subsiding seas also. In multiple regional events. Probably. I would classify your 'flood' as a discontinuity in sedimentation which means that it would not apply exactly. As a slow transgression I can see it, but as a raging torrent careening across the continent, there is no time for the sediments to sort out. The entire Tapeats would be deposited and then the entire Bright Angel, followed by the entire Muav.That isn't Walther's Law in action which says that the depositional environments are laterally adjacent.On the other hand, various dating methods show us that time as passed and that at any given time the Tapeats is contemporaneous with the Bright Angel deposition.Once again, you lack the time factor.

Your equivocation belies the unviability of your model. Even soft sediments have some internal structure that can be deformed.Your requirement for kind'a, sort'a, just-a-little, maybe slightly hard sediment is not helping your argument. "Crumbling" is not what soft sediments do.

In comparison with millions of years I suppose the rising of the sea over forty days and nights would seem like a raging torrent, but although I'm sure there were phases of violence during the Flood I also have no reason to believe it was "raging" all the time. I picture its rising over the land as an incremental encroachment of the usual waves and tides. Perhaps I'm wrong and more violence has to be part of the picture.

Oh, that's nice. It means that you can make up whatever you want.Must be nice.

Crumbling is definitely what very hard damp clay would do when abraded.

More equivocation. Just more evidence that the flood does whatever YECs seem to want at the time.And I find it impossible that a current or wave or tsunami to carry sand and gravel half-way across the continent without leaving behind any evidence.

No I can't make up just anything, it has to fit with the general description of the Flood and its timeline, and I'm doing my best to find a way to fit it with the physical world as well, even in the teeth of hostile remarks by geologists.

Please demonstrate in a valid context.

The waves didn't reach all the way from the original coastline, edge, they only had to travel from whatever level the water had risen to.But of course since nobody was there all anyone can do is speculate and try to fit all the parts together into some kind of coherent whole.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's hardly a constraint.It's like saying, "Well, the flood must have happened on earth".

Then, indeed, Walther's Law has nothing to do with your scenario. This has been and is being done by modern, mainstream geology. There is evidence out there. You should look for it.