The TRVE history of the Flood...

There's nothing I can say about your dates except that they are wrong by the dating of the Flood. All we can do is continue to disagree about that.I think I answered what you said about the scablands though -- not a flood on the scale of Noah but the flooding of water that was left standing after the Flood, and apparently iced over as well.

I'm aware of your positions, but I was hoping David would at least address the evidence I posted.He's been ducking, dodging and weaving. He just keeps repeating his empty claims with no effort to debate.I predict he won't last much longer here.

Im not allowed to post HERE.... from what I read before..But I always respond and add more truths and proofs when asked, and when I am allowed to.Its easy to defeat evolutionists because they have no answers and can not defend their positions because they have never had to defend their positions.Lets see if the ADmin's disallow me posting HERE, as they did previously.

What insane lies you tell. Whom do you hope to deceive?

DavidJay is a zealot who proclaims victory with every post. When you are on that kind of 'winning streak' you might stick around for quite a while.

Go to the top of the thread and select "Admin" and review all of his posts. He just said you have to support your claims with more than "the bible says so." You have been ducking, dodging, and weaving concerning the evidence I posted for a couple of weeks now. Other than hand-waving it away (never a very good counter to real-world evidence) you haven't laid a glove on it.You claim the flood was ca. 4350 years ago, while my personal archaeological research shows continuity of Native American cultures from before to after that date, along with continuity of mitochondrial DNA from before to after that date.My colleagues around the world have produced the same evidence thousands of times over.One example: Not far from you, in extreme southern Alaska, is a cave with a skeleton dated to 10,300 years ago. It has a rare mtDNA haplotype that has been traced to 46 living individuals in North and South America. This shows there was no replacement with Near Eastern mtDNA as would be required if there were a global flood around 4350 years ago.Faith disputes the dating, but at least she addresses the question. You just duck, dodge and weave.

If that was true, they'd be teaching creationism in the public schools instead of evolution.

There were a couple of people who provided information about subsidence. We can elaborate on that all you want. However, there is another phenomenon going on.As this diagram shows, sedimentary formations of the Phanerozoic can be very thick on the edges of the continents or basins, and thin toward the center of the continental landmass. So that the oceans do not have to be as deep as you seem to think they should be to stack a very thick package of sediments. As you go to the left, the formations become fewer and they become thinner; and in some cases can pinch out completely. Part of this effect is due to later erosion, but I think it's pretty clear that thicker sections are outbound from the continental core. Here is a cross section of the Michigan Basin. I'm not sure how to get this situation without subsidence of the basin. Sometimes the subsidence is accompanied by uplift along fault zones. Here is a cross section of the Paradox Basin where the ocean would be to the left and the basement rocks have been uplifted along a fault and shed coarse debris (conglomerate) into the basin on the right side and more fine grained sediments out into the sea. Again, I don't see how to get this pattern without some kind of relative subsidence of the basin.Here is a schematic diagram of the moat around the Hawaiian Islands caused by loading of the oceanic crust. Note that as the asthenosphere is displaced, it flows outward to form a 'wave' beyond the moat. This is evidence for crustal rocks subsiding into the asthenosphere to form basins that can accept thicker sequences of sediments.IIRC, Tertiary muds reach depths of almost 50,000 feet in the Gulf of Mexico (that we know of). Of course that includes some water, but it shows how thick sedimentary sections can grow.

You are somehow absolutely missing the point. What? A basin here and there answers this question? Hardly!The subsidence of BASINS does not explain one thing about how the LEVEL OF THE LAND had to rise with each transgression of the Cratonic sequences. The water would have had to rise to cover each new level of strata in turn. The uppermost level of your basins, i.e. the rims, would have to have been surmounted by the water at the very least, but this is all a distration anyway. Basins are NOT characteristic of the ENTIRE SPAN OF THE STRATA across the continent. AND they would have formed after the strata were all laid down anyway, and not during the transgressions which is what the question is about.The subsidence required to make the rise of the water unnecessary would have to have sunk the entire continent to admit the next transgression without a rise in sea level. I gather from the utterly inadequate answer about basins that there was no such subsidence that would have made extreme sea level rise unnecessary from transgression to transgression. I refer you back to Message 477 for a complete presentation of the original question you were supposed to be answering but didn't. I'll try to track down subsequent posts that addressed subsidence.There is no other conclusion but that the necessary subsidence did not happen. In other words the water WOULD have had to rise just about to the level of Noah's Flood by the time the entire stack was laid down.In fact I'm going to declare that this fraud of an answer to my questions means that the water DID rise to the level of Noah's Flood. It had to. There was no sinking of the entire continent, the strata kept building higher with each transgression. The transgressions were phases of the Flood. The timing given by Geology is a big fat delusion.The Cratonic Sequences are explained by the Flood and the rest of this discussion is obfuscation.Edited by Faith, : Add underlining

Here's a subtopic I'm not really up on that could maybe inspire me to find out more if it turns out to be interesting enough as well as something I can understand, which I don't know. A muddled bunch of thoughts about how air conditioning/refrigeration works, in response to the claims that Floodist speeds for the movement of the plates would produce enough heat to vaporize the planet. How about enough to vaporize enough ocean water to bring on the ice age?This would involve less catastrophic ideas about the heat generated by continental movement but still assume quite a bit of heat.Just how much energy is needed to move the continents? I get the basic idea about the application of E=mc2 but keep thinking of factors such as that1) momentum after launch can't possibly require all that much energy: give a ball a push to get it rolling down a slight slope and how much energy is required after the initial push? The continents ride on a molten base? Once moving how much energy would that take to keep moving? (Seems to me it would take a lot more energy to stop the movement).And 2) The movement of the plates occurs deep in the ocean beneath some enormous volume of cold water. Is that as negligible a factor as everyone seems to be implying? (How much heat is being generated by subduction? By the spreading sea floor? By the rising of the magma at the Atlantic ridge? How much by a volcano? How about a whole phalanx of volcanoes erupting at once?Just some ponderings. Hit me with your answers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The question wasn't about how deep the sediments can get here or there, which certainly could get very deep in basins, but about how deep the water had to get across the entire continent in order to lay down one block or "package" of sedimentary layers after another, each to as much as 1000 feet deep. This would require each subsequent transgression to surmount the previous depth with a similar depth of water in order to lay down the next block of sediments. With six of these transgressions each adding a similar amount of sediment to the growing column of layers, the sea level would have had to rise as much as two miles or so by the time it was all laid down (this amount takes into account "unconformities" or layers that were laid down in the transgression but removed in the regression). And that amounts to a depth of water approaching that of Noah's Flood. (Again, I raised the questions in more detail in Message 477If you look at the cross sections of the basins that edge posted you can see that the entire column of layers sank all as one block in each case, meaning AFTER it was all laid down. The thinning of the edges with thickening of the lower part shows the layers were not deposited into the basin -- which would have produced an even thickness as shown in various experiments -- but were originally laid down horizontally, and then the whole area sank to form the basin) It is therefore completely unrelated to the questions I've been asking. The suggestion that subsidence of the land would allow for the lowering of the sea level required to cover all the layers laid down in six SHALLOW transgressive sequences, could only work if the subsidence was continent-wide and occurred to the depth of each transgression at the time of the transgression. Basins certainly don't meet that requirement.Side point: Since the layers in many cases extend completely across the continent (described in the following article for instance) this certainly implies a completely denuded landscape, nothing where creatures of any time period would ever have roamed, (see thread on this subject) but in fact describes what would be expected of the worldwide Flood. What the Cratonic Sequences contribute to the Flood picture is the idea that it occurred in periodic transgressions and regressions, perhaps caused by tides.The following article is from ICR on the by John D. Morris on the Cratonic sequences (or megasequences as he calls them). He explains the unconformities that mark each sequence as erosion during the regressive phase of each transgressive sequence: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think that if you and Edge discuss his Michigan Basin diagram it will help explain how sediment layers form that are far thicker than the depth of water:

Basins have NOTHING to do with the layers of the Cratonic Sequences.

Maybe you have answered this in the past, but I don't remember it; where did this block or "package" of sediment come from? When I look at exposures of some huge expanses of sedimentary layers I am struck by the massive volume of sand in the sandstone, limestone in the limestone, clay in the shale, and all the other sediments involved in these deposits.This material had to be eroded from somewhere and it must have taken a lot of time. It takes time to turn mountains or rock layers into sand and mud and clay, etc. Surely you are not suggesting that this erosion was a result of just the rising stages of "the flood?"How much sediment can stay suspended in water over time do you figure? When I try to visualize your "package" of sediment being suspended in water my imagination breaks down. The amount of water would have to be incredibly large, otherwise it would be like a mud-flow, thick and viscus.One thing I notice, is when you pour sand into water it immediately sinks to the bottom. If you pour it in flowing water it sinks and then is washed along the bottom where there is a current.It seems to me that physics and hydraulics would not allow the volume of your "package" of sediments to be suspended in your "flood" waters long enough to be deposited all at once in a block. And this doesn't even address the obvious problems that we do not see the obvious sorting by size and density that we should expect to see in flood deposits.

So Admin has informed me that your basin images are apparently intended to demonstrate how thick sediments can form without water?May I ask what would be the point of that? And what does it have to do with my questions? I have no idea what you are trying to prove, or why "stack[ing] a very thick package of sediments" is what you want to prove. This cross section shows an area where the whole geological column has already been laid down and was afterward deformed by that major slope to the right or South. What this has to do with deposition with or without water totally escapes me, as well as how any of it relates to the problem of laying down a couple miles deep of sedimentary layers across a whole FLAT continent without requiring that high a rise in sea level. Which means what? Seems to me that the strata were first laid down to their complete depth, and then something caused them to tilt to the right/South, subsidence beneath the area I suppose, and if this occurred while they were still wet then those on the left would have drained, or run, to the right, as apparently they all did, which is what caused them to thin at the left and thicken at the right.Of course your timing will be very different from mine, as will your explanation of what happened. However, nothing in this or any of the other images relates at all to my questions about the necessary level of sea level rise in order to lay down ALL the layers in ALL the sea transgressions of the Cratonic Sequences. But the subsidence that has to occur in order to lay down all the layers in all the cratonic sequences across the entire continent which was a flat featureless explanse, would have to be the subsidence of the entire continent, and to depths and in timing phases that correspond with each of the depositions of each of the "packages" of sedimentary layers. Subsidence in a basin that occurred after all the layers were laid down is utterly irrelevant. I'm not sure what "pattern" you are talking about, but in any case none of this has to do with the fact that sea level had to rise a couple of miles to cover all sediment deposited by the sequences from the Sauk through the Tejas.Then Hawaii: But unless the entire North American continent subsided to accommodate each transgression with its sedimentary deposits in turn, all this doesn't address the problem I've raised.