Summations Only

I don't expect a geologist to find proof of the Flood, it would have to be found in his work in spite of him.At one point he says something about how sand grains take a certain shape whether in water or not, for instance, which I'd have to go back and study, but which could support the idea that the Coconino deposited in water after all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Comparing typical floods today with THE Flood is absolutely ridiculous, RAZD, which really ought to be obvious, I don't know why you persist in it. A flooding river is NOT to be compared with a worldwide rise in the ocean which carried in it every kind of sediment imaginable.

Do you realize how thick the continental crust is? 20 - 40 miles thick! Raising and sinking a mile is not really that much compared to the overall thickness.Also, why is the oceanic crust only 4 - 6 miles thick instead of a thickness similar to continental crust?HBDABE: As far as sea levels raising and lowering, do you have any idea how much water is locked up in polar ice caps? As the ice caps grow or melt, sea levels will lower or raise respectively.You acknowledged the uplift occurred after the Kaibab was laid down, so the sea level did not have to raise a mile to get that under water. You are the positing that sea levels rose much higher than that (I don't know how tall you claim the mountains to be at that time, but the sea had to get over them)Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Who would you expect to find proof of the flood ... theologians? And we look to geologists to develop theology?Doesn't make any senseHBD

Not sure what you're saying. The sea level has to keep rising and falling to account for the different kinds of sediments and fossils in the strata. To raise the sea level even a thousand feet would be an enormous increase in the volume of water worldwide, then to raise it so that the Kaibab is at the BOTTOM of the ocean suggests an increase in the volume that is truly impossible. Or perhaps you can show me how it's possible. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The key word there is "imaginable" - because all you can do is imagine a worldwide flood. You're right that a real flood can not necessarily be compared with an imaginary flood. An imaginary flood can do all sorts of things that a real flood can't do, just like an imaginary superhero can do all kinds of things tha a real person can't do.

Relative to what frame of reference, though, that is an important question.Certainly in a marine environment deposition of sediment and the debris from marine life (shells etc) on the sea bed can continue to occur as long as water covers the sediment. This is of course how the marine layers were deposited, whether in shallow or deep seas in an environment where water covered the seabeds. Actually they were lifted, buckled and tilted. Some layers are horizontal. some are at angles and some are wrinkled as a result.Getting back to the Grand Canyon marine layers, however, either the sea level can drop or the seabed (bottom) rise to expose the seabed so it becomes a land surface environment. This would be caused by tectonic action as well (more later).The exposed surface can then be eroded (wind, rivers etc), lived on, and deposited on (sand, alluvial soils etc). This does not need to be high, it could be a low swampy area, (which would also be a relatively flat environment) and it could be an alluvial plain that would form a long wedge shape, over such a long distance that they appear flat and level.If the sea recedes there is no reason for the orientation of the marine sediment to change. Spreading of sea floors and pushing up mountains between distant plates would cause the sea level to fall in other areas distant from the colliding plates.Taking the Himalayas as an example: as the mountains are pushed up high above sea level there is a net reduction of land mass around the seas -- it's all being piled up in one place -- so the sea level in the area of the Grand Canyon (and elsewhere) would fall.Erosion of mountains and land formations would then deposit material back in the seas over time. This sedimentation on ocean bottoms all over the earth would tend to make seas rise as the bottoms of the ocean basins were gradually filled\raised by the sediment (same process as our previous marine layer formation).When these seas then rose to cover what had been exposed previously, new marine type sedimentation would begin to occur on this area, and it would still be relatively flat and horizontal.This new layer would differ from the previous marine deposit by the age of the materials being deposited and by the make-up of the materials being deposited, different elements, different minerals, different life-form debris. Thus even if it is basically the same material, a limestone (there are many types of limestone), it is specifically different and this difference can be measured and quantified.This process can be repeated several times, as tectonic action has been a common factor in the natural history of this planet. The shape of the planet as a whole affects the level of the seas and the exposure of land masses to erosion, they don't have to be local to the Grand Canyon area to change the area from shallow seas to low level swamps and alluvial plains to shallow seas to low level swamps and alluvial plains, etc etc etc.We would expect this to leave evidence of meandering streams through the swamps and alluvial plains from surface exposure, and fill those in with marine sediment when they are shallow seas.This matches the evidence we see with the Temple Butte formation and the Surprise Canyon formation and the layers above and below them. Again, relative to what frame of reference? As noted above this is an important question, as you can use sea level and observe that the land rises and falls or you can use the land and observe that the sea rises and falls. A better frame of reference would be something not affected by tectonic action (as land level and sea level are), such as mean distance from the center of the earth (but this is difficult to determine for ancient deposits).And the Kaibab is also a limestone, so it was deposited in a marine environment.Kaibab

quote:

---

General Lithology

​

The Kaibab Formation is commonly a medium to very coarse-grained, massive, organic detrital, cliff-forming limestone which varies from light gray to yellowish gray or blue-gray in color. ...

​

Average Thickness

​

In the Egan Range near Ely about 150 to 400 feet of Kaibab is present (Brokaw and Heidrick, 1967; Brokaw, 1967), and 261 feet thick at Radar Ridge (Bissell, 1964). Hose and Blake (1976) estimated the thickness of the Kaibab in the Mount Grafton area of the southern Schell Creek Range to be from 50 to 200 feet, ...

​

Areal Distribution

​

The Kaibab is widely distributed in Clark County Nevada, northwestern Arizona and southwestern Utah, but occurs only sporadically in the eastern portion of the evaluation area. ...

​

Depositional Setting

​

The Kaibab represents shallow subtidal to supratidal environments along the outer shelf. Water depths were probably less than 100 meters (Roberts and others, 1965).

---

also see USGS URL Resolution Error PageSo this too is consistent with the pattern of rising and falling seas relative to the land. As noted the effects of tectonic activity in the rest of the earth would be changing sea levels relative to the land in this area, and there is no cause for it to change from relatively level, flat depositions, either marine or terrestrial at this point.Another drop in sea level the exposes the surface to erosion again, by wind and water, and the formation of an alluvial plain with a meandering river ... the ancient Colorado.Then the behavior of the tectonic plates shifts and this area is affected, uplift occurs and the whole plain is lifted and erosion increases, being most affected where there is a difference in grade between the lifted area and the non-lifted area, the "base" level for the river (the bottom end) and proceeding upstream (see comments by Percy on this headward progress).Once the river has become incised to the point where spring floods remain within the walls its pattern is set, including all the meanders. Continued uplift continues this process.This image is from that slide show I reference a while ago (with the hydrological information): Notice how different stages of uplift and subsequent headcutting develops different flat levels within the canyon.This uplift is still continuing, it can be measured and compared to the ages for the speleothems that record the stages of canyon development over time and see that the uplift rates observed today are sufficient to explain the canyon development by this process.SimpleEdited by RAZD, : example

You're not looking at the big picture, you are just focusing on one tiny little piece of the puzzle that you think supports your idea. That's what I'm saying.HBD

That's even more confusing. To deposit a layer at the bottom of the ocean on top of a LOCAL stack that is already a mile or two deep requires a worldwide increase in the volume of ocean water.

These experiments all are done with dry materials, and the interactions of particles when the angle of repose is developed, which is affected by particle size and angularity, and thus would be indicative of the behavior of dry sands in dune formation.And it shows what we see in sand dune formation.This behavior would be affected by being submerged, so once again this shows that the sandstones showing the patterns of sand dune formation would have occurred in a dry environment.

Right, you apparently overlooked the mention of how it's no different in water.But now you need to answer the question I've asked before: how did that enormous deposition of dry dune sand get packed down and flattened out in its current form as the Coconino sandstone layer which fits right in as far as its form goes, a huge rock pancake that is, along with the limestone and the shale and all the rest of it.

Water is water, sediment is sediment, gravity is gravity. Your fludde would no do any sorting that isn't done by observed mechanisms.

Or a lowering of the entire local stack or a rise on ocean levels due to displacement by other rising land or a combination of all of those.It is truly fascinating how you can make up and seemingly seriously present such illogical imaginary violation of the laws of physics in defending your claims, but in evaluating ours you have no imagination whatsoever.

Why? How does the behavior of water change? So then you should have plenty of objective empirical evidence and known processes that you can point out and show why it is obvious.If you can't do that then it is NOT obvious. .Because a flooding river does carry sediment and it deposits sediment in the flood plain when the velocity of the water slows enough for sedimentation to occur.And because the size and shape of the particles affect how long they are carried by flows of different energy.A rise in sea level does not cause much erosion other than the wave action at the shoreline boundary, with deposition close to that shoreline. Well I can imagine sediment the size of the moon and consider that such particles would be difficult to move by rising water levels.Thus we can obviously qualify your statement to what we can reasonably imagine.Then we get to the different opinions of what is reasonable.Certainly the behavior we see in floods that can be observed is behavior we can reasonably imagine, but floods we cannot observe not so much.We can extrapolate rather than demonstrate, but we would need to have a model of behavior of the water that is different in order to have a basis for any such extrapolation to be reasonably imagined.To deposit small dense particles of clay below large dense particles of rock and sand is not something that can be reasonably imagined within a continuous water environment.And no, the behavior of dry materials in cross-bedding deposition like sand dunes is not a model for behavior of those same materials in a water environment. In a water environment an alluvial fan is developed with deposition of the large dense particles near the mouth and the finer particles deposited further out, because the water slows down as it spreads out. You do get a cross-bedding near the mouth as the alluvial fan develops, but the pattern is slightly different from the dry material pattern and the angle of repose is different in the marine environment, and these differences can be used to distinguish one from the other.And you can observe this behavior, so it can be reasonably imagined.

Incorrect. The angle of repose is different and the particle distribution pattern is different and this shows up in details at the top and bottom of the depositions process. These differences are discernible. This also creates layers at an angle and not in a horizontal pattern, so no matter how you misunderstand the process it doesn't explain your problem with sorting of deposits. Erosion. Encroaching seas as the water levels rise would mean wave action eroding high dunes and filling valleys.