Summations Only

Another interesting thing I've been pondering from the film is the presentation of the various sequences of transgressions as seen from the conventional point of view, as maps of sedimentary "packages" one on top of another, more than one sediment per package representing one of the sequences, such as the Sauk, the Tippecanoe, etc. etc.That makes it a lot clearer to me than the diagram I could never figure out how to decipher. This way it represents a series of waves coming up over the land from all directions, depositing a few layers in that one pass and then going out again, as waves do. which would fit with the Flood timing. Or, it could be a series of tides.

Reading a geology textbook should certainly suffice to answer my question whether the version of how strata are formed that makes Austin a liar is indeed a standard subject in a geology class. For such a purpose there is no need for first-hand information.I don't doubt what you said about your own experience but I do doubt that it's a standard feature in a geology class without further evidence. Or I would look for a different explanation for why Austin insists on thinking in terms of slow incremental accumulation. I won't call him a liar.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What "six" waves are you talking about? I don't remember discussing any six "waves." The Flood as a whole destroyed all life on the planet, not any particulsr phase of it. Seems to me I've described the process of its rising to its height in terms of long waves across the land mass with flat wet sediment between waves on which animals left tracks. All this new idea suggests is that the animals were overtaken by a wave immediately after laying down the tracks, which makes sense because they appear to be running for their lives.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nothing at all surprising about that. The strata were still wet, the uppermost strata fairly unstable because not compacted as the lower would have been, and huge chunks of those layers would have acted as abrasives as the water poured into the canyon. And wherever the strata were left standing, which of course is the whole land behind the walls, whatever tracksw and nests or whatever else were buried in the layers would have remained intact. Nothing magical about it.Besides, the film documents the fact that the flows from Mt. St. Helens did indeed carve right through hard rock.

Since sediment-laden waves are thought to have been the way most of the living things got buried, most of it including turtle poop, and especially dried-out turtle poop, would have remained intact as the sediment covered it, and then been preserved within it as more strata built above. And I'm sure the turtles would have washed ashore, not simply ambled there on their own.No problem.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'll go with the majority traditional reading of the Bible over two thousand years which is basically the YEC reading, rather than your weird revisionist version which you share with jar.

You obviously aren't bothering to think. The rising of the Flood would have covered and preserved things, while the receding water pouring down openings and cracks would have cut things in its path. But the strata that weren't cut remain intact with their contents preserved. You really aren't thinking at all.

What's weird and revisionist is your reading, not the Bible. If you want to find the traditional readings you could start with the Reformers and work your way beck through theological writings to the Church Fathers, looking for majority readings and avoiding the oddballs.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What you think is straightforward and obvious is not. Up until whatever diabolical inspiration you and jar suffer from, the entire history of Christianity understood there to be only one Creation account and one Flood account in the Bible. You simply do not understand how to "rightly divide the word of truth." Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

These were really looooooong waves that pushed far up onto the continent, they didn't just rush a few dozen feet up onto a beach and then rapidly rush out, dragging through footprints as they went (and even then I've seen footprints on a beach partially survive a wave). By the time the second long long wave returned, however, the footprints would have had time to solidify some and the whole wet expanse even dry some. The long long wave would pass over the footprints and fill them and not flow back out right away because its reach is so far, dumping a huge amount of sediment in the process.I get the impression you think that words have some kind of magical power. That is, if you call something "silly" often enough even something very sensible will become silly. Well, you may succeed at making it seem silly to people who aren't thinking carefully, but that's about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A jumble of the bones of thousands of the creatures, according to the spokesman for this segment. Thousands all broken up in one heap. Not what you'd expect of death in normal conditions.That's one part of the evidence against the Old Earth interpretation and for the Flood. Another is his comment about a fact that we really all know very well but which is nevertheless irrationally denied by the OE/Evolutionist side: it takes special conditions to fossilize the remains of animals and those conditions do NOT occur even once in a great while in normal circumstances, while the Flood would have provided such conditions on a worldwide scale in less than a year. This fact alone should require all you evos to admit your favorite scenarios can't be true.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why not? Tidal waves go very nigh onto the land, even some regular tides do. But the ocean level is also climbing during this whole period anyway, which would shorten the waves. Yes I'm guessing, but it seems logical that while the Flood is rising the water reaches farther and farther onto the land.

Sure, you can make up something to explain it, why not? No evidence is needed, just a plausible scenario, of course.But the Flood would be the most reasonable explanation. Well, it didn't. And besides YOUR scenario should not have formed straight flat single-sediment layers, that makes no sense at all, and neither does fossil contents of all sizes and ages jumbled together if you really think they died normal deaths in a normal time frame.

No, it only "pushes far up onto the continent," as I said, not all theway across the continent, which isn't going to happen because the water is raising all around the shores of all the continents, not coming in from just one side, and they will all eventually meet in the middle. I'm figuring the footprint had time to dry out just a little because of the long waves which are created by the water rising and pushing them farther inland. The previous wave is still sucking water out of the sediment.The great load of sediment dumped by the next wave is the reason the return trip doesn't erase the footprints, because they are now deeply buried.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Lance formation. Parts of dinosaurs, thousands of dinosaurs.Why not normal deaths you ask? You guys are willing to make up even more absurd things than you think creationists do. Normal deaths of thousands of animals broken into bits and buried in one place?