Summations Only

Not necessarily, I try to avoid making such assumptions. That has occurred to me.I don't feel a need to establish a perfect model for the Flood's deposition. Walther's Law seems to provide enough of a general model, what would be the point in trying to be exact about something there's no way to be exact about, at least in the early stages of the discussion and when there are lots of other questions to deal with as well?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your posts have been heavy with jargon lately, HBD, if you want a reason why I generally don't respond to them. In this case I have to ask what is an "energy gradient?"

Your quote in Message 923 is still wrongly attributed to Moose. Never mind, I see you fixed it.The deposition of any of those sediments doesn't necessarily take time although their formation may, and even there probably nowhere near as long as OE thinking assumes. Beach sand is not created on the beach, it's created by tossing in the water and then it's deposited on the beach.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know you put that up to demonstrate that there must have been a variety of depositional environments with all that moving around the globe, and I suppose if we're to take that animation seriously that must be true.But I got more interested in how there's a lot of tectonic bashing going on there. Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous particularly. And when it's not bashing it seems to be twisting and pulling and distorting a lot. Makes one wonder how any of the layers of the Geologic Column managed to survive intact at all. Just to consider the bashing wouldn't you expect the strata from the Silurian to the Carboniferous to look very much bashed around, say in the Grand Canyon? Or anywhere else of course, it's just that the GC displays the strata so well. But that block of strata doesn't look any more bashed than any of the rest of them.

Thank you, that was very helpful. You actually explained WHY the sediments sort in the order they do.

Not sure what you are saying. I know it represents a painfully slow movement in reality, but the whole idea of tectonic effects, such as in the raising of mountains, is based on these movements, and speed doesn't seem to be a factor.ABE: Obviously I'm still thinking about the bashing but never mind, I get that you're talking about compressing all that into the time since the Flood. But I don't. I've watched lots of these animations and many of them start just before the Atlantic ridge forms and separates the Americas from Europe and Africa. That's the movement I generally have in mind and the rest of it in this particular video seems made up to me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thinking more about Walther's Law, not clear how the sediments deposit. As the water rises onto the land are the sediments precipitating out or what?Also it seems they are all being deposited at the same time in their respective locations -- sand, mud, silt, carbonates, foram ooze -- rather than sequentially. At least the horizontal sequence is. Is this correct?This being the case how do we get different depositional environments? And if this model does apply to the Geological Column, how do we get the great separation in age from one sediment to another? I realize this has to have something to do with the difference between the lateral deposition and the vertical that develops as the sea level rises but I can't figure it out. RAZD's Message 39 is very helpful for picturing the model in relation to the Grand Canyon sequence of rocks, but I'm unable to see how we get different time periods from this model.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Seems to me that gnudging should have had more effects on the strata of the Silurian/Devonian/Carboniferous level than seems to be the case in the GC area at least, and I don't know why that area should be an exception when you've got continents gnudging each other.

• Your first bullet is pretty much mine too, the rain eroding the land down to solid rock, sediments as you say heading to lower elevations. I called that solid rock "bedrock" which started some kind of fuss with edge which never made any sense. I see on that old thread that roxrkool called it bedrock too. I guess it's only if I use a word that there's a problem.
  ​
• But I don't see the huge rivers you see. More likely thousands of small rivers or rivulets flowing off hills in a sea of mud that slides down in masses and sheets. So I don't see the delta buildup you see, or the formation of river valleys.
  ​
• Soon rising sea and soaked sediments meet and mingle in a thick soup over the denuded bedrock. This is the ocean so we have tides and waves and currents to move things around.
  ​
• Here's where I figure Walther's Law might enter, as the water is rising over the land, starting the process of building up strata on the naked bedrock according to those sorting principles. That process could start later though, not sure what all has to be taken into account.
  ​
• One way or the other the sediments are redeposited on the land mass in layers by the end of the Flood Three miles deep at least. So when the water recedes and erodes some of it away there's so much of it, and it's already so compacted in the lower layers, the erosion is far from scouring it down to bedrock again.

Since you don't believe in the Flood you don't have to make it fit what we see today, you can just pronounce it impossible and forget about it. But obviously I can't stop where you stop. And besides I think my scenario is more feasible than yours. No way to test it, is there?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Got to pondering this point again. Wonder if those who determine the depositional environments from the rocks, and those who made the animation of the movements of the continents, got their information coordinated. If we find out where, say, the GC was on that animation would it correspond to the kind of environment determined for the rock in that era? Or might it for instance possibly be located near the North Pole when the rock information says Tropical Sea? I kind of have a suspicion there will be discrepancies but maybe I'm wrong and they did do all the work of coordinating such information for the entire planet for all those supposed past eras. Just a thought.

OK, but it's nice if I'm going to be wrong to be wrong along with roxrkool, who wouldn't get reprimanded by edge. OK, though I have a feeling if I used "basement rock" he'd object to that too, even if it's correct. I think I'll go with your original "solid rock." That's probably not safe either but at least it doesn't suggest something technical. I know, but you do know a lot and you're a nice guy which is even better. Right. There is no way to be sure of any of this as you say, but I think we'd have mud soup more than anything as solid as loose mud very early on myself. I just don't see big rivers BECAUSE it's going on raining very hard everywhere, not just in the higher areas, and it's all running off the higher areas willy-nilly, most of it mudslides. I suppose small streams would run into big streams here and there but I can't see anything that organized remaining for long BECAUSE it keeps going on raining everywhere and breaking up everything, any river banks trying to form would be eroded away in the overflow before they could even get formed. It's all speculation though. OK to most of that but not sure why not limestone. If it's deposited anywhere according to the Walther's model, being present in the sea water, it should be present in THIS sea water too and deposit in its turn along with all the other sediments. Afraid "sorting process" is clearer to me than "what you get when depositional environments shift" though I'd be happy to use that description if I could understand it. Anyway, thanks for being a big enough guy to say that Faith could ever get anything "basically correct." This I don't get. If the sea water creates layers then it should layer all this too. But the way things are today IS that we have extremely thick deposits of strata in many places and the clear indication that those existed in other places too but were eroded down to much less. Some of the strata span entire continents in very thick slabs. I don't get what you mean about not having enough. And we don't know how much sediment made up the original land mass, all we can do is extrapolate from what we have now anyway. If a depth of three miles of strata were originally laid down on the rock base of the continents, and a great deal of that washed into the sea, that should be enough sediment for my scenario. OK. That's something ponder. If the multiple is correctly interpreted. Again I don't get why not limestone since it normally gets laid down as part of the Walther's sequence simply because it's in the oceans. The Flood would have been the rising of the ocean all over the planet, carrying a lot of marine material of course, but now also carrying the land sediments and creatures. Waves, tides and currents have to be involved in the great distances over which they get distributed too. I don't see why we WOULDN'T get what we see now in the Geologic Column because both should have been abundant in the Flood waters. I know you're the geologically educated one but nobody has seen a worldwide Flood, no creationists, no geologists, nobody, and what we see now WOULD have been the result of such an event if it had occurred. And you all created this same sort of scenario on that old thread you linked too, which was fun to read because it's all exactly the same sort of speculation creationists do, though of course we're going to speculate in the direction of explaining "what we actually see" by it and you aren't. Your speculations don't match up with what we actually see, but creationists' do. As long as it's all speculation, which it is, I don't see that yours have a better claim than ours. I'd be a lot more troubled by any scenario that clashes with what God has revealed than anything that clashes with what mere human beings come up with, no matter how educated or sincere. I see the Bible as giving at least the outline of a worldwide Flood within the last ten thousand years and the attempts others have made to conform the Bible to what geologists have come up with just don't convince me, I worry for those who would do that as a matter of fact. So no, I'm not troubled by contradicting geologists. I'd rather not, of course, it's not fun being at odds with those who do this work, but I don't see that I have any choice. And as along as I'm able to visualize anything that is in the ballpark of supporting the Biblical record without outright contradicting physical laws it's both interesting and fun to do despite all the opprobrium that piles up on my head for it. Not really. The surgeon isn't contradicting God's revelation, nor is any science other than where they insist on an Old Earth and Evolution. And again these are of course the sciences of the prehistoric past, as I keep emphasizing, the ONLY sciences that have little more than speculation to build on. "Little more" i say because there are some things you can prove, just not the essential things, and so many keep trying to prove they are just as testable and provable as the "hard" sciences, but they aren't. That's why we're getting so involved in these posts in constructing speculative scenarios that we can't prove but hope are plausible. That leaves a lot of science that God has no problem with. Modeling the Flood in the lab would be an impossible undertaking. I'm sure certain features of it can be modeled but I wouldn't know where to begin. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : correct quotesEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't know if you're right or not of course, but thanks for understanding what I said. It's SO nice to be understood even if disagreed with. Not that I'm disagreeing in this case, I really don't know if the different sets of data have been coordinated.

Nope, not after a couple decades of reading and hearing the best exegetes thereof, those who are led by God, which a believer CAN usually tell.

Sorry, the rocks do not speak and everything said about them is the work of fallible human minds. That is why God gave us a written revelation, because we DON'T know how to interpret nature. He's in it for sure but if you are contradicting His graciously given written word then you are wrong about what it means.

Sometimes you are talking about real evidence, and it's the same evidence creationists make use of too. But sometimes you are just reciting the Creed or invoking "Evidence" as a dogma, though not really giving such evidence. I am sure the Himalayas are being raised by tectonic force even as we speak.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.