Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it

What form do you imagine all these sediments were in prior to the flood?Keep in mind that we assume that all the sediment existed before the flood, but you have deep, deep layers of unconsolidated (or at least, unlithified) sediment piled up on the earth. DEEP! Like miles deep of what? sand? coccolithophores? Foraminifera? "Basement" would probably be a better term, since that refers to the metamorphic base which all the sedimentary rock sits on. Well that explains one continuous transgression. The problem is we see not only multiple transgression events, but also regressions. I think this is where your "wave idea" came in.The other problem is that in order for there to be a transgression, there needs to be a land mass. The water first has to rise enough to strip all of the land of its sediment and then at the same time lay down a transgression sequence. Once you strip all the land off the basement, you have no land left with which to begin a sea-level transgression.Or to put it another way, why would you think the energy level of the water would be low enough to begin deposition during the first 40 days? That would be the most violent part of the flood. This would be your stage 1 erosion. Once the 40 days are over, the water settles down and THEN deposition begins. But there is no land mass except deep underwater with which to invoke Walther's Law on.What you might get is Walther's Law sequencing as the water regresses, but then you need it to also be eroding.Darn , so much to do - such a short time to do it in.HBD

There is yet another big problem which is that if there is non-basement rocks that could be scoured away by the 40day and 40 nights of rain in sufficient quantity to account for the existing sedimentary rock formations the basic materials; sand, pebbles, boulders, minerals, dirt, loam, limestone, calcium, ... all need to already exist even before the rain starts. That requires erosion, weathering, transportation and deposition.

I thought about that, but figured it could be explain away as having been created that way without the need for erosion. But really that doesn't make a lot of sense, that God would have created the earth with a mile deep, uhh ... whatever (dirt, sand, loose gravel).Well, then there is the scripture in Matt 7 where the wise man built his house on the rock and the fool built his house on the sand ... I don't think we want God building on sand... The earth was probably rock... just sayin'HBD

If we are gonna jess pick up the material needed to explain the layers above the Vishnu Schist would we only need a mile of material?

Not sure, probably rock though not in layers. Doesn't seem important to know this. [abe: Oops, I see I said no sedimentary ROCKS yet existed. Now there's a recipe for a few days' worth of confusion. I should have said no sedimentary STRATA. /abe]Whatever normally originates in the ocean would have been in the ocean and not on land. Limestones would have originated in the ocean, though some may have been on land, but I'd guess that most had a sea origin that ended up in the strata. Again, the sediments were probably lithified but not in layers. Anyway, if the land can accommodate it all now there's no reason it couldn't have done so pre-Flood, no need I can see to know about all that. Problem is that implies volcanism, which in this scenario didn't exist pre-Flood. Yes, I haven't put all this together yet but Walther's Law now seems to be the most likely explanation for most, and even possibly all, of the strata.There would have been waves and tides in any case throughout the rising and falling of the Flood water, probably contributing both transgressive and regressive deposits. No, not at the same time. Most of the sediments that were carried suspended in the water in its rising phase had been soaked in the heavy rain, and then had flowed downhill in mudslides to meet the rising water, and the deposition occurred as the water rose up on the land over a period of months, continuing to accumulate sediments that hadn't washed down already. You always have the "bedrock" or "basement" rocks, that's not *no* land, but as I say above the total stripping was probably not completed in the early phase. I don't know where you are getting that idea. The settling out of sediments occurs during the rising of the water not in the first forty days when the rain was breaking up all the erodible sediments. If shallow water is necessary, and how do you know it is?, the rising water would have a shallow forward edge throughout its rising. Yes deposition would begin with its rising, after the forty days. Yes, that's why I figured it occurred during the rising phase.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course there is absolutely no mention of volcanism in either of the Biblical flood myths and no mechanism for flooding causing volcanoes.

And the Egyptians, whose civilization and form of writing date back at least 5400 years, failed to mention all of that volcanism.Come to think of it, they didn't mention the flood either.And somehow they lived through all of it, as biblical scholars place the flood at about 4350 years ago. Hmmmm.

Wouldn't all the violent rushing water that is stripping the surface of the earth off mix those things up? Land and ocean originates all mixed into one big slurry? Right. Your model can't explain huge amounts of deposits (limestone), so just ignore that detail. Not necessarily. Waves laying down hundreds of feet of sediment like a paint brush? Think about what it would take for a wave to deposit sediment as rapid as this. Ok. So you are saying that it rained for forty days but the waters continued to rise for the full 150 days. I guess you could read the story that way. So it was during that continued rising ~ 110 days worth that the depositing was happening. Walther's Law requires a variation in depth, from deep to shallow. That is what causes that pattern of deposition. The rising water would not have an edge if there was no land deposited to create a shore.So how deep was the water after 40 days? It had to be at least as deep and the highest land mass - remember it has all the sediment from the land suspended in it. Material in suspension takes up more volume than material that has settled, so it needs to way higher than the land.So let's say there was 1000 feet of rock pre-flood (above bedrock). In order to erode that all away, the water would need to rise to 1000 feet above the "bedrock". Now the water keeps rising and sediment begins falling out of suspension. But there is only 1000 feet of sediment available, so the water will always be higher than that, so how does it have a "shallow forward edge."Now we need to go back to the sorting problem. All this stuff is mixed together. How does it deposit in nice neat layers. Previously your answer was something like "the flood water picked up a type of sediment and deposited it somewhere else" but now the sediments are not even in neat layers when you start. How could they possibly get sorted?It's just hard to get my head around what you are envisioning here.HBD

Well, exactly where in the geological record the beginning of the flood would be is kind of a moving target, so I'm not sure how to handle this issue. However, I have personally seen an 3.1ga intrusive into older volcanic rocks, and all set beneath a 2.9ga erosional unconformity with stromatolites above it.So, how far back do we have to go to find primordial rocks? There is no evidence to support this. There is no evidence to support this, and AFAIK, the way we get soil, regolith, sediments and weathered rock all involved erosion of bedrock. Therefor, the must be an erosional event prior to the alleged flood.This defies Faith's scenario. There is no evidence to support this. There is no evidence to support this ad hoc explanation. Still nonsense without evidence, of course. The faults that bound the GC Supergroup are demonstrably older than the Cambrian. And the GC Supergroup is older than that... No evidence to support this, of course.

Perhaps Percy should interpret this post also. However, understanding your posts does not necessarily mean that they make geological sense.

Somebody's dates are wrong.Many things are not stated in the Bible that are nevertheless implied or consistent with a working-out of biblical events. Such as volcanism.However, Mizraim was the name of one of Noah's grandsons (Genesis 10:6), who is considered to have been the founder of Egypt. After the Flood of course. The name Mizraim is the name for Egypt identified by ancient Babylon as well, written on the Ishtar Gate.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Certainly don't expect you to consider it geologically sound, but you weren't even getting what I meant so it needed explaining.

The applicability of Walther's Law is in how it sorts the sediments during deposition. Of course it can explain the limestone, or the huge amounts of any of the deposits. All I meant was that it originates in the sea so that would have been the source of its deposition as per Walther's Law. You misunderstood something. They were never in neat layers at the start, I thought the ocean water sorted them the way it seems to sort beach sand. Now I understand that Walther's Law explains the sorting.

The point is only that tides and waves would extend the reach of the water, and if the water is heavy with sediments provide more reach for deposition. Not sure what practical effect this would have but it's part of the picture to think about. Tides last a while and should have some effect though. Apparently you are picturing a situation where there is nothing left but bedrock/basement rocks and these would be below sea level so as soon as all erodible land is suspended in the water it's already covering the foundation rocks to some depth.That's not necessarily so but even if it was, with every rise in the water it wiould be depositing some sediment and it shouldn't be long before the layering sediments themselves form a new surface so that each new rise of the water could be quite shallow over what has already been deposited. I don't know exactly what timing we're talking about but a few months at least until the water is at its height, and that's a slow enough rise for sediments to settle out one after another. Thinking of it this way has the water's level keeping somewhat above the deposited sediments at each increment of rise. I'd wondered about this before, now I think I'm getting it better. Not quite understanding but maybe previous thought is pertinent. You keep thinking of the sea water doing the eroding, but I think of the heavy rain as having done most of that before the water has even begun to rise. It doesn't take a lot of rain to turn a hill into mud, and forty days and nights of it should break up thousands of hills and send them down hill in muddy rivers and avalanches. Consider what I described above. I think it is probably closer to the actual situation.

Some clarification from Faith of her position on the basement rocks might be helpful. My understanding of Faith's position is that she considers the Vishnu Schist to be the basement rocks underlying the Grand Canyon sedimentary layers, including those of the Grand Canyon Supergroup.But since some significant portions of the Vishnu Schist are metamorphic sedimentary rock, and since Faith's position is that no sedimentary rock existed prior to the flood, they too, must have formed as a result of the flood. This would seem to imply that Faith's basement rocks must lie beneath the Vishnu Schist, but Faith would have to confirm whether she thinks that's true.