Summations Only

The flood rose constantly and stayed 15 cubits above the mountains for 150 days, are you seriously saying that some footprints survived because, well because what???

Sure you find it easier to worship the words that men have put into God's mouth than follow Christ.

Hi again, HBD,
I would just like to point out that your "scientific" argument (being that you are the scientific minded sort as you said) would be put down if I'd made it, as an argument from incredulity, not a scientific argument. You just can't believe that that much sediment ....etc...Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're talking about FOOTPRINTS surviving now? Not the animals themselves? Just another typical change of subject I guess. Now you want to know how the footprints were preserved, is that your question? If so, the answer has to be that the sediment that deposited on top of that surface preserved them.

Then why do so many Christians disagree about the timing or the existence of a global flood? ("They aren't TROO™ Christians" is not an acceptable answer)Is your Biblical interpretation infallible?Do you think that God doe not want us to study and learn from His creation?

For there to be footprints, there need to be living creatures to make them. The flood killed all animals as the waters rose. The same flood would would wash away all footprints.You don't see the footprints on a the beach when the tide recedes do you?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Tangle is also discussing trackways in sand, so I expect he has the same problem with tracks in sand that I do. Tangle recently pointed out that water obliterates tracks and that you don't see tracks at the beach after the tide goes out. Similarly, I know that when I'm walking on a sandy bottom beneath still shallow water at low tide that I'm not leaving any tracks behind. I also recall seeing documentaries of life on the seafloor where creatures stir up sand on the bottom that records no clear tracks of any kind.So this paper about leaving tracks in sand underwater seems a bit strange. It can't really be talking about just plain sand, right? It must be some kind of sand/muck combination, in which case any angle of repose issue is moot.Same on land. If we've got a desert sand environment where all the sand crystals are free and loose so that there can meaningfully be a maximum angle of the slope of a sand dune, then there can't be any tracks. There can be a depression where a foot sank into the sand and then lifted out, but there can't be tracks. Right?--Percy

Hi Faith,
If you wouldn't mind. Please provide your source(s). Thank you.Like this:

quote:

---

The lakes that Austin proposed as the source for the carving floodwaters are not large compared with the Grand Canyon itself. The flood would have to remove more material than the floodwaters themselves.

---

CH581: Carving the Grand Canyon

Now you're back to the living creatures. Keep shifting, I wonder what you'll come up with next.It does not say "as the waters rose," it simply says that everything had died by the time the Flood was at its height. Your own quote. Well, I would have expected that of the Flood too, but there they are, and actually there should be far more of a problem explaining how they got preserved in dry dune sand than wet sand. The only possible explanation I can think of is that they got rapidly filled in with the next deposit of wet sediment. And that would not have happened on the dry sand dune theory, but could have on the Flood theory.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What are you arguing, that the waters didn't rise? So you, I and Percy all have a problem working out how footprints of (dead) animals are left behind by a cataclysmic and global flood, where it rained on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights and the fountains of the deep opened up and the waters covered the mountains, then receded with such violence that it gouged the rocks themselves to massive depths and created monolithic landscapes such as the Grand Canyon.Yet soft, wet, muddy footprints survived? Minor problem for you perhaps?

NO, I'M ARGUING THAT THE GENESIS 7 PASSAGE ONLY SAYS THAT THEY WERE ALL DEAD AFTER THE FLOOD WAS AT ITS PEAK, WHICH MEANS THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH SOME ANIMALS SURVIVING DURING VARIOUS PHASES OF THE FLOOD BEFORE THAT. SHEESH, LEARN TO READ!Obviously the footprints were IN the strata, the unexcavated part of the strata where the canyon was NOT cut. You might learn to THINK while you're at it too.And as I said, the footprints are far more of a problem for the DRY SAND theory than for the Flood theory. You might try making up something to explain THAT as well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You mean "one million cubic miles," not "one cubic million miles", though I suppose it's the same thing.According to the article Rapid erosion in Grand Canyon, the current erosion rate is about .5 million tons/day. Using the density of sandstone just to get a ballpark figure for what that equates to in volume/day, the density of sandstone is around 2.5 grams per cubic centimeter, which is about 10 billion tons per cubic mile. Doing the math, this comes out to .00005 cubic miles per day. Over the course of 70 million years, which is about 25 billion days, that would be about 1.25 million cubic miles, which is almost exactly what you said. And its far more than the volume of the Grand Canyon, which we can approximate at 100 miles long, a mile deep and 10 miles wide, which is only 1000 cubic miles of material.But it's even worse than you say, because the erosion rate in the past used to be far greater. The river is mostly running over bedrock right now and has a very slow erosion rate. Mostly what is eroded is coming off the canyon sides. But in the past when it was still eroding through soft layers the erosion rate must have been enormous, 55 million tons/day as estimated by the website I mentioned earlier.But of course, the Grand Canyon is not 70 million years old. This great age has received a lot of attention lately but is unlikely. If you read my Message 1216, the Colorado River is estimated to have eroded through the Redwall limestone about 3.7 million years ago, and the Redwall is near the base of the canyon. Using an age of 4 million years we get 200,000 cubic miles, which is still much greater than the volume of the canyon.Of course, the discrepancy is because sediment from the entire region drains into the canyon. Contributions to the Colorado's sediment load while it flows through the canyon are drawn from a region of 10,000 square miles.Usually I proof my messages, but I have an appointment and can't be late. Apologies for any errors.--Percy

The waters rose constantly for 40 days. Are you saying that the animals under water whilst the flood was still rising were alive until the tops of the mountains were covered at the end of 40 days? I suspect not. I suspect you will agree that the flood killed the animals as it rose.There are no phases of the flood, the fountains of the deep opened and it rained for 40 days and nights. This is your book faith, not mine: I really think we can assume that as the waters rose, the animals were killed and their footprints eradicated, don't you?

Yup. there they are, and no matter what you think of the mainstream explanation they contradict your fantasy.

So Faith.Did I answer your questions about cross-bedding and angles of repose?I spent a fair bit of time on Message 1194, so I would like some feedback.If you understand the post then you should be able to fill in two of the things that affect the angle of repose: Tell me what two of them are and I will tell you the third.