Summations Only

So, you think that fresh tracks would be preserved as waves washed over them with each surge of the ocean.And you disregard the fact that these animals were scurrying across a landscape that was in existence at the time, albeit a shoreline. Where did they think they were going? Well, certainly there were some tracks in the higher units, but what about dinosaurs in the Mesozoic? And how about forests and ferns, etc. in the Carboniferous? How were they able to flourish and grow in between tidal surges?Again, you talk about 'unflooded ground'. Does that not constitute a landscape in existence at the time?It would seem to me that you are running out of time for a global flood to be global if there is almost always 'unflooded ground'.And I haven't even asked about the trilobite tracks yet. That would ostensibly be in the beginning of the flood as you describe it.

I do not merely "disregard" the idea, I absolutely dispute it. The only landscape was the original one being buried by the Flood layer by layer. They were running across one of the layers. I deny the whole thing about different landscapes during different time periods, determined by "depositional environments" supposedly discovered in each layer by peculiarities in the rock along with its fossils that areidentified with each time period. There was nothing but sediments being laid down by ocean water one after the other, there were no landscapes other than the original created world which was almost completely buried in the Flood by the time we get to the upper strata. I'm picturing the sediments being laid down with time between them which is the only thing that allows for the tracks. How long is a guess, and it's possible not all the strata were deposited in the same way. That's all a guess about HOW it all happened. They didn't, that's just the false idea based on the Geo Timescale I keep talking about, the fiction in the title of this thread, that there were any landscapes between the strata. It's a big illusion. The forests and ferns were part of the original Creation, that just happened to get buried by the Flood in the layer that got named the "Carboniferous." Only the original landscape of the created world that hadn't yet been completely buried in the Flood waters. It's the imaginary landscapes supposed to represent particular time periods with very particular life forms that I deny existed. ALL the life forms found fossilized in ALL the strata were present in the original Created world, that was overrun by the Flood. There would of course have been unflooded ground as the water rose until it completely covered it all. Ground of the original Created world. Strange idea. The Flood took about five months to rise to its height, and then a couple months standing at its height, during which time I'm assuming all the strata were laid down. Which would mean that as the sediments were not yet all laid down there should have been unflooded land remaining, but it depends on the location -- some locations could have been completely covered by the earlier layers. But it's not important. The Flood wasn't over until all the unflooded land was flooded, which took about five months, and then the Flood waters stayed at the height for a couple months before receding, which took about another five months. It all hangs together. Probably. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Can you point to this original landscape on some cross sections? At what stage is the sediment being stripped form the land? Where is all this sediment coming from?Also, I don't think 150 days of rising water jives with a clear reading of the text.

quote:

---

Gen 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

​

Gen 7:17 - 19 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

​

... all living things are dead...

​

Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days

---

Waters rose in 40 days and stayed covering the earth for 150 days is a more clear reading of the text. And in support of that reading, the first verses in Gen 8:

quote:

---

Gen 8:1 - 3 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

---

The inputs of water (ie. the fountains of the deep and the window of heaven) stopped after 40 days. How would the water continue to rise so significantly?This still creates the problem of stripping off all the land and depositing miles deep of sediment in 150 days! Your scenario doesn't even allow for an entire year of deposition. It would make more sense to have all the sediments being stripped off in the first 150 days and then deposited in the remaining time of the flood, but then that creates other problems right? Yeah. No it doesn't.HBD

So, what were those animals walking on? Are you saying that dinosaurs were all marine creatures, walking on the bottom of the ocean? Are you saying that forests grew in the sediments at the bottom of a surging sea?I'm not getting your description of events here. How do you know that they were running? Or that they were running from a flood? Hmmm, I guess you don't subscribe to the old 'same data, different interpretation' YEC argument, do you? You simply deny that there is data or evidence in the rocks that tell us how they were deposited.Is that correct? I'm not seeing where those sediments came from, or how you could have shorelines without any landscape. So, the flood was intermittent? Or maybe incomplete? How long were the dry periods during the flood? Can dinosaurs build nests and lay eggs in between tides? How did forests grow on the sediments that you say were all deposited in one year? Maybe you should look at the rocks and see what their characteristics tell you.

Good question.One would think that it was pre-flood, perhaps at the base of the Cambrian. The only problem with that is that Faith does not recognize the Great Unconformity as an erosional surface. She is on record as saying that it was a shear plane.

So, the water kept rising after it quit raining? Where did it recede to? A plug got pulled somewhere?

I'm thinking that Faith believes there was one major transgression (ye fludde), lasting in one year, during which Carboniferous rocks were deposited in one place and Cambrian in another and Cretaceous in yet another. Every other geological event, except for formation of the earth, happened afterward.Consequently, the time divisions that we are accustomed to are completely meaningless. It was one year. All rocks are the same age.Only some sea creatures would be found in the encroaching sedimentary deposits which she also unexplainably calls 'unlivable'.As the waters rose, the terrestrial critters walked around on the primordial surface of the earth as it became smaller and smaller.This is Faith's world and it has a number of problems, of course.To me, it is wondrous that some of the tracks and other trace fossils such as nests, and rooted plants and stream channels, are actually in the fludde sediments rather than on the land surface. That would requite an extensive period of regression and drying out of the land along with the growth of vegetation, etc., etc. .... I suppose she thinks that those fossils were somehow transported from the 'unflooded' areas into the shallow seas.This, of course, also explains the presence of salt formations and deserts in Faith's geological record. I'm still not sure about coral reefs formed under these conditions of turbidity, occasional dessication and furious erosion.Another problem is that we always find Devonian fossils beneath Carboniferous fossils. If these all happened in the same year, then I'd expect them to be all mixed up with some at the same level and sometimes reversed.If Faith is right then there should be a two-month deposit of mud and clay spanning the entire earth, somewhere in the geological record, presumably in the middle of the record. And, of course, we do not see that.

I have to laugh at the absurdities people come up with for what they think I'm saying when I think it's all so simple.They were walking/running on the surface of the earth that was completely covered possibly for thousands of square miles, with the latest sediment deposited on it. Wave came in, dropped sediment, wave went out, no doubt dragging some back with it. Wherever there had been forests they had probably been uprooted by the late stages of the Flood, and buried in the strata somewhere or floating around waiting to be buried, or carried out to sea.No bottom of any sea, just a rising stack of sediments one on top of another, containing fossils, the last layer of which these animals skittered across hoping to escape the next wave of sediment. By the Mesozoic level we've got some more layers yet to come, the Flood isn't yet at its height but getting there. So I gather. Wish I could make it clearer. The footprints I've seen,dinosaur tracks anyway, look like they were running: long strides, one in front of another. It's the middle of the Flood, the water is rising wave by wave, layer by layer, seems logical they are trying to get to higher ground, dryer ground. No. I don't deny the evidence, I deny your interpretation of it. I think it's coincidental, or accidental, says nothing at all about how they were deposited, only perhaps where they came from originally, and that geology is making much ado about nothing. Why would you need a landscape for a shoreline? Rising Flood waters could make such a shoreline at the edge of an expanse of sediment, the forward edge of the latest wave; or receding Flood waters. The only "landscape" would be the layer of sediment it was depositing on.Sediments deposited a la Walther's Law I figure. I simply suppose time between waves, or between tides. The waves are of course shorter as the water rises but still covering long distances. I'm supposing a few hours, but maybe longer. I would suppose they had laid the eggs before the Flood came or in the early months at least, before it rose enough to threaten them. They would have been seriously rained on but I suppose mom protected them. The nests are normally found in the Mesozoic strata, right?, which is pretty high, would have taken the Flood probably four months to get that high. There are no forests growing on the sediments. Reading about them is the best I can do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's how I've been picturing it. Fountains of the deep. But I see this is being questioned by HBD so I'll have to rethink it. Sea floor dropping according to some creationists. But you have the same question for all the many sea transgressions and regressions standard geology affirms, so however they did it the flood could have done it.

{It's pretty hard to tell what is and isn't on topic here, but the olive tree theme is a major part of another currently active topic. I'm declaring it "OFF-TOPIC" here. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide message and add admin comment.

No. One on top of another, Cambrian first then Silurian and Ordovician and Carboniferous etc etc and higher up Cretaceous. We're talking STRATA, right, LAYERS, right, SEDIMENTARY ROCKS, right? Not different places, a STACK OF THEM one on top of another. Yes, I think tectonic activity and volcanoes happened afterward, but I'm open to rethinking the timing of these. All sedimentary rocks are, all the rocks of the strata are. Very strange misreading but I don't get what you are saying well enough to know what you are thinking. What's "unlivable" is the surface of a stratum, a flat rock, to which geology imputes a landscape the fossilized creatures had lived in during their particular time period as defined by that rock, that I see as only a rock, not a landscape. A landscape would be a livable environment, a rock is not. Another bizarre straw man. The tracks are found on the surface of various layers of rock, of strata, that were building up during the Flood. Starting with the fact that it's not Faith's world, it's a strange straw man. Whatever shallow seas there were were simply the encroaching edge of the Flood as it rose. Stream channels could easily occur on top of a layer, what's the problem? We've got a lot of water running in every which direction here. The nests I accounted for in the previous post. Rooted plants such as what and where? But root balls can be picked up and transported too, no problem there either. Salt layers formed after the strata were all laid down, sinking beneath them for starters. That's apparent on all the cross sections. Coral reefs would have been carried from their place of origin to their place of deposition on the Flood waters. No problem there either. I don't picture a lot of violence except in the earliest stage when there should have been mudslides. Dessication is something to discuss. My guess is it all occurred after the Flood wherever the surface was exposed. Yeah but they weren't and that is that. What you expect to see has to be taken with a big grain of salt.

Kind of interesting how dinosaurs only walked out onto the newly deposited sediments during the Mesozoic.And if their nests were built before the flood, how did they get transported up into the sedimentary section?And why would dinosaurs walk out on to an unlivable place anyway? Must have been kind of icky with all of that mud.Sorry, Faith, this isn't passing the giggle test.

You are right that I seem to have misread something so I'm going to have to take the time to figure it out.It seems to come down to the meaning of "prevailed." "...the waters prevailed and were increased greatly" suggests they continue to rise, especially when it goes on to say the high hills and mountains were covered, apparently describing the process of the water's continuing to increase.Later.

It's your straw man misreading that isn't passing the giggle test.

Good question. Perhaps it implies that where they were buried had nothing to do with where they lived, but suggests why there would be tracks of frantically running dinosaurs where they ended up buried. They probably floated to their burial place on the rising water. abe: Picture a lot of dinosaur corpses floating in the water along with a lot of dinosaur eggs in nests. Walk out from where? This is the middle of the Flood, there isn't any place that is livable, it's all encroaching water, or water that's already drowned a bunch of them.However, it appears I misread the timing of the Flood. Or at least I may have, I'm not completely sure yet. It's hard to believe but it seems to be saying it only took the forty days and nights of rain for the Flood to arrive at its highest point. Some read it that way anyway. There are other phrases that imply to me that the water continued to increase after the initial rain stopped, covering the hills and then the mountains in turn; so nothing's definite yet. But if it rapidly reached its height and then remained at that height for the rest of the 150 days then there was hardly enough time for it to rise by stages, at least as slowly as I was envisioning. The dinosaur tracks would have to have occurred during the forty days, a mad dash for sure.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.