Summations Only

So what?

Well, we aren't, so you're wrong.

t's clearly not as simple as some here keep trying to claim, that there is ALWAYS such and so sorting.

I have a suspicion that some of the information in all these links would explain the way the strata sorted themselves in the Flood. Not that YOU would be looking for such an effect, of course ...

Just you. Reality and I get along just fine.

No, I'd die happy.

and cross bedding does occur in water:

Cross-bedding [...] is found in ripples, river sand banks, marine bars, and dunes

SOME people on the thread have said HOW water sorts things, OTHERS have said it doesn't sort things, period.

First, you show that I'm wrong about my arguments on this thread.

I guess there's two different factors that aren't fitting together for me, no matter whether a scientist or a creationist did the research. If the Coconino layer is made of what used to be very fine sand that flowed freely (hence the claims about the maximum angle of repose of sand dunes), how could there ever be any footprints, or even any recognizable depressions that could be reliably identified as footprints?

Ah, Ad hockery rocks on within the OE camp.

However, you still have to explain the fact that the footprints appear suddenly from nowhere and disappear into nowhere. What's your adhockerism on that one?

Well of course I have no idea how much it rained that many millions of years ago, but if you have the typical rainfall of the Grand Canyon area in mind that's less than two and a half inches in the rainy month of August. Not that it couldn't catch a footprint or two I suppose but the chances do seem to be rather small of actually catching and preserving them

I thought ad hoc merely meant an explanation made up to explain a particular phenomenon and only that phenomenon

Subduction occurs on the west coast, not the east coast, right? The east coast is moving away from Europe by the separation of the continental plates at the Atlantic ridge, it's a different scenario is it not? Rather less violent than subduction? Enough force to gently buckle the Appalachians ...

NOW it's a passive margin, but when the separation began at the Atlantic ridge there was most probably some degree of jolting, what with the rising magma and the overcoming of the inertia that got the continents moving. I don't know if that jolting is what buckled the Appalachians or it was caused by the same violent jolting that raised the Rockies, and continued on across the continent in a milder form. I'd guess it was the initial jolt as the continents ripped apart. Since the main action was not a collision but a pulling away I wouldn't expect the same degree of violence as from a collision, but nevertheless some, perhaps an initial rebound effect before the whole shebang got moving along.

And of course they would not NOW be continuing to buckle, that was a one-time thing that made the mountains in the first place. It's been quieter since.