Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)

I've just looked at this thread and see the paralells. I was in that thread with Faith and did what I thought I wouldn't which was lose my temper.Its one thing to get mad when speaking, but having to type out replies should give one time to get 'cooly academic' again, particularly while hunting and pecking like I do. Apologies to all there here, as that thread is closed.Differences in debate style favor Randy here; he at least has a lot of material and references and isn't afraid to quote them.The similarities are telling though, and ignoring information of the quality of Bill B is to be expected. Holding on to the 'river formation' argument of the Joggins fossils when it has been explained that the area is prone to fresh/brackish/salt water cycling of environments seems to be glaring.Ned is probably right that it is a lot of work for little gain to discuss Randy's sources, but it seems to me Bill B covered this by use of his sources, even if it doesn't always explicitly refute specific Randy sources. I guess someone must do it, but I'll await another Bill B. post as he seems to be an expert here, and my formal geology was freshman level some years ago.What I have enjoyed from these threads are the excellent links from several posters. Some of the stratigraphical info about the Grand Canyon were good info and Bill's link to forminafera were very instructive.Also, a number of Randy's links are to his webpage which seem to have a lot of Hovind flavor to them. Answers to many questions here are in the previously mentioned How Good are those Young-Earth ArgumentsAt least its a change of pace, being in Randy B's blizzard as opposed to Faith's fog.Hopefully Bill will soon find enough oil, time and patience to get back to us as I find his posts fascinating.ABB

I'll have to be brief in response to the first three links and first few points, as the Joggins material are new to me and I'm starting to read the links and google some others.A quick perusal of message 21 by Bill talks about 'rhythms' of layers that alternate between brackish water deposits and costal plains,with periodic subductive episodes that cause the alternations. Continuous deposition doesn't seem inconsistent here.As to river strata formation, some googling led me to this site http://www.cox-internet.com/coop/deltawebpage.html
where in figure 12 one sees that several lobes of Mississippian deltic material approach 45km and exceed that figure in total. Rivers deposit alot of material in their deltic fans.I didn't research this, so perhaps I'll be corrected, but that freshman geo course taught that many oil deposits are found in these deltic areas because of the accumulation of organic materials that are capped by deposited sediments.I'll have to study on the root problem so no comment there yet.As to the last link I have no problem with the info,as old as it is. It is probably accurate as far as it goes because I'm pretty sure that geologic mapping of rock layers in North America was probably well under way by then. Another research topic for me there. And as to its interpretation vis-a-vis a global Flood I really don't have a problem. The area reresents a large inundation relative to present, but using conventional geological dating the Silurian/ Carbon Age boundry was about 400 million years ago and while lacking expressed detail of the area involved, the site Dinosauria On-Line shows the positions of the continental masses at that time. I note that North America was much smaller then and that large land masses existed elsewhere in the world. And even with the large inundation there are still large parcels of North American land in the figures from 1894. I consider this a large but regional influx of the seas then present and far from worldwide.Rhetorically it is better to know a lot about a few subjects than virtually nothing at all. And far be it from me to steer you from a subject that you have looked at extensively, yet to look at many different situations in their context says more than completely focusing on one. It seems to me that focusing on the Joggins fossils exclusively is a tactic I've seen before. By focusing on one involved or highly technical issue one can try to cast doubt on the whole(polonium halos come to mind).But again, far be it from me...I look forward to my education on Joggins.ABB

Could you elaborate on "ocean waters travelling east" and "ocean waters losing steam"?The first point seems unsuported and the second sounds like hydrological sorting.ThanksABB