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

I've given as much of an idea of what I think must have happened in the Flood as I happen to have, and when I learn something new and relevant I'll take that into account.It doesn't matter whether the rising sea water eroded the land or not since the rain and mudslides would have done quite enough, but since Percy seems to think I insisted that the sea water eroded the land it's good to know that it normally would erode the land.What would you all expect except imagining the possibilities as well as one can? I start from the fact that a worldwide flood as described in the Bible couldn't possibly act like any local flood except in very brief temporary episodes at the very beginning. Mudslides are inevitable from rain-saturated hillsides. In a local situation they may take out a town, but on a worldwide scale they are going to combine to take out millions of towns. Any accumulated lakes such as Percy illustrated are going to merge with millions of others very soon, be filled with mud etc etc etc. It's all going to flow downhill wherever there is a downhill incline. That's all pretty obvious isn't it?Then because we know the water covered all the land we know the sea is rising and will eventually mix with all the land sediments, how soon no idea but the whole time of its rising to its height is about five months. It should be depositing its sediment loads during that whole period shouldn't it? Including the enormous sand and limestone deposits which would probably have originated in the sea water. Picking up more as it goes too. It covers the entire land mass so should deposit its layers across the whole geography.Then it sits for a while at its height, a couple months IIRC, continuing to deposit whatever there is to deposit. I'm just trying to describe some obvious things that should have happened in such an event.Then it drained, taking another five months or so for that process. It's from looking at such things as the GC-GS cross section that I conclude it eroded away an immense amount of the strata it just got through depositing, leaving the most compacted lower layers intact. There is also evidence on that cross section that there was no tectonic or volcanic activity during the entire Phanerozoic era, and I've been arguing that there was none before that either, but it is quite apparent after all the sediments were in place up to the uppermost layer of the Grand Staircase.Any time I write this I may leave out something of course. What more of a line do you need? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Faith,In my moderator role I'm trying to bring resolution to some simple issues in order to help discussion move forward, but horizontality led to dropstones led to your claim that the Flood didn't rush across the landscape led to Walther's law led to your claim that all the worlds material down to bedrock turned to mudslides. All these different topics are turning me into a participant instead of a moderator, and it's contributed to diffusing the thread's attention to the primary topic, so I'm going to have to deem this mix of topics beyond the threshold of simplicity for a moderator to appropriately try to resolve.I'll continue to focus on moderator issues and trying to help bring clarity to simple issues like horizontality and dropstone behavior.

I'm sure no one here has trouble imagining worldwide mudslides or any of your other proposals. Most people have no trouble imagining things they've never seen before. But plausibility depends not upon imagination but upon consistency with evidence, with known physical laws, and with existing knowledge.So when plausibility issues are pointed out, accusations of a lack of imagination should be eschewed and responses that include evidence and knowledge emphasized.Just as a specific example, I have no problem imagining worldwide mudslides, but most of the world today is not vulnerable to mudslides. Are you imagining a pre-flood world that everywhere resembled those parts of the western US that is vulnerable to mudslides? If you are then I can say that I can imagine it, too, but there needs to be evidence that this is what the pre-flood world looked like.But if you're instead saying that sufficient water turns any land covering into mud then I can also imagine a prairie the size of Kansas turning to mud and sliding into the sea, but again there needs to be evidence and consistency with knowledge and physical laws that such a thing could ever happen. Great ideas require imagination, but for ideas to enter the realm of scientific knowledge requires evidence. Tolkein had a great imagination, but his ideas were not science.

I'm not surprised that you think Faith and I are talking about completely different things. Each response seemed to prompt an introduction of a new topic. I'm no longer going to address any issues regarding transgressing seas and Walther's Law, but I will try to clarify Faith's position on this just a bit in case anyone else is interested in taking it up.Faith imagines that excessive rain turned all the land into mud, which then slipped into very active seas where it was held in suspension. The sea then rolled across the land and, following Wather's Law, redeposited the mud into the characteristic patterns of sedimentary layers we see today.

I'm surprised that nobody's pointed out that mudslides consist of previously eroded material. There's no creation of sedimentary material in a mudslide.

I understand. It could take some considerable trial-and-error to get the viscosity just right. Keep in mind that sufficient velocity of your falling rock could create a cratering effect where some material is blasted from the point of impact to form a mound of material around it. Take a beach pebble and throw it hard at a stretch of loose, flat beach sand and this is precisely what you will see. You want to find a viscosity and a speed of impact that avoids cratering.Interestingly, I think sediments being blown away from the point of impact explains the dark colored layer that folds back on itself a couple times to the right of the upper portion of the dropstone in this image. There's an arrow pointing to it. It must have been thrown upward, but maybe because of some claylike properties maintained itself and fell back down: I stil think sand is the best medium, and rangoli sand (comes in many colors) would be best at producing visible layers.

Hi Edge,I'm posting another reply to this message because I see that in Message 1276 Faith thinks you contradicted something I said. What you said was: And what Faith replied in Message 1276 was: I didn't say anything about what tsunamis do or don't do regarding deposition and erosion. Faith said the flood waters did not rush across the landscape, and so I used the example of water from the Japanese tsunami of 2011 rushing across the landscape at at least 30 mph to show that it did not cause any apparent erosion of the land. (Faith later pointed out that she does not believe water moving onto the land caused any erosion.)About Lituya Bay, I can imagine something as extreme as the tsunami at Lituya Bay having a significant erosion impact, but I'm having trouble seeing it. Supposedly the wave reached a height of 100 feet because of the constraining harbor, but before and after pictures don't show any significant erosion: The missing trees are apparent, but the shape of the coastline seems little changed.

I must be jumping around a lot and not noticing it. I'll have to try to avoid it.

I put up videos of a variety of reports of mudslides from many different places. California is extremely susceptible because of their yearly fires which removes foliage and their protective root systems, but for that reason I chose some videos of mudslides in heavily forested areas to show it happens there too. And forty days of continuous rain absolutely everywhere shouldn't stretch credulity too far in imagining that even the areas least prone to mudslides would get saturated. Not ALL areas have to become mudslides for that much rain to soak them through and turn them into suspended sediments in the flood water.

I guess I'm thinking of erosion in the sense that Jon F suggested in a previous post. I'm only moving some soil and some trees. This is in opposition to the other tsunami which redeposited a bunch of cars and refrigerators and such.But Jon has a point here. Most mudslides, and the kind of erosion that Faith is talking about, do not erode the amount of material (including rock) that would end up forming the geological record. I just can't see it. The pre-flood soil would have to be monstrously thick for a young earth that (some people say) never experienced rainfall.ABE: As this image shows, the soil has been stripped off the bedrock but the hillside itself is still intact. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Even fifty days of continuous Noachic rain on a flat plain is not going to lead to mudslides. A slope is pretty much a requirement for the mud to slide down. It just ain't gonna slide at Levelland, Texas.

Why not?Do you understand that modern floods and marine trangressions in the geological record are actual evidence, whereas you have nothing but ignorance about your flood?Why should we base our 'imaginings' on ignorance rather than data? This mudslide business is a wild goose chase. You have to imagine all kinds of things that are not plausible and would have all of the problems of an ad hoc explanation with conflicting data.As the rest of your post shows, you really only have a just-so story ... no supporting evidence.For instance, if wild fires are an element of mudslides, show us evidence of forest fires at the beginning of the flood. But then you have the problem with the fact that there are not even any trees at the time, and in fact, no terrestrial life. So forest fires are out. This is the problem 'imagining' things. What you are actually doing is 'making things up' to support a ancient myth.

"Shaken, not stirred."Really? I'd like to see the evidence for that.

The thing is nobody knows exactly what the pre-Flood terrain was like. The likelihood is that there were no deserts because it should have been very lush with plants. There wouldn't have been high mountains like the Rockies and Himalayas, but probably would have been lots of hilly country. As someone on one of the videos said, anywhere in the world there is an elevation of any height there is the possibility of mudslides, and that's now.There may have been plains here and there but probably not all that many and not as extensive as Texas or the prairies of the Midwest. However, if all the elevations everywhere were getting saturated to mudslide condition, and the sea water is rising everywhere, plains are soon going to be mud lakes anyway, or twenty feet underwater.

Whatever the geological record says needs to be interpreted in relation to the Flood which we know occurred. Marine transgressions should be good evidence for that. However, the guesses I've made are perfectly reasonable. I did not say fires had anything to do with it. In California today they do, which I mentioned in agreement with Percy who said California is an unusual situation, but as one of the videos said, mudslides can happen anywhere there's an elevation (might have been the NOVA program on mudslides), and it just makes sense that the amount of rain happening all over the planet at one time would turn all the elevated areas into mudslides. But I did not say there were any forest fires, you got that out of your own head, and there WERE trees, bazillions of trees, and every kind of life in huge numbers because the world was so lush. I'm making things up based on the likelihood of the situation that both God Himself and Nature suggest had to be the case. Speaking of making things up, Old Earthism is the champ at that.