Summations Only

First I want to say thanks, thanks very much, for being willing, at least at times, to communicate a lot more than you used to do. That was a very informative post and you didn't talk to me like what I say is not worth your time either. That could change any second I know, including in the first words you say in response to this, but I appreciate any bit of good will I encounter here.I still think the way the terrestrial sediments are shown to have been laid out continuously above the marine sediments in that cross section indicates a continuing mode of deposition and not some major change. I understand your point that the areal extent of the depositions changed enormously, but I don't see why that indicates a great turning point in earth's history.But of course I always think in terms of the Flood and to me what happened must have to do with the fact that the Flood is reaching its zenith and has less sediment to deposit. The earlier depositions spanned the continent, many continents but now the water is much higher, covering all the lower levels of the land, and there isn't that much continental land still exposed.In any case, for some reason, Navajo Sand(stone) is continuously deposited for shorter distances than earlier depositions like the Tapeats, and from what you are saying so are other Mesozoic layers as well, though clearly for sufficient distances to build the strata above the Permian/Kaibab level in the GC area to a great height over many thousands of square miles. Then blobs of Navajo Sand are deposited here and there, without succeeding depositions to keep them flattened in layers.In any case if the strata continue to build in the same way at all, as flat layers one on top of another, I don't see a change in depositional environment, don't see a lake or a delta or a river, just the usual laying out of sediment in the usual way, with less sediment to work with. Where's a delta-shaped layer for instance? Is there such a thing? A river-shaped layer? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Before I try to grapple with your information here, I have to report that I don't see that you've answered my question. Where's the delta-shaped or the river-shaped layer?

OK, on the Old Earth/Evolutionary assumptions/theory, this would be true.But if it's all just a result of the Flood then there is nothing special about a change from marine to terrestrial deposits, it would be the natural sequence expected from the rising of the water.

Sorry, I have it on my mental to-do list to go back and answer old posts, I just always get bogged down in the more recent ones.Anyway, I thought I'd given my best shot at this question a number of times already. I don't think in terms of a time-period landscape of course, where the creatures were living between time periods, but in terms of the surface of a newly deposited sediment that is one of a series overtaking their living environment as the water is inexorably rising. I figure creatures were frantically trying to avoid the next surge of sediment-laden water, and running for their lives each time the water receded temporarily, which I have to suppose happened with the tides as the water was rising.I saw one illustration that showed the tracks mostly occurring in the very highest strata in the Grand Staircase, or was that only dinosaur tracks? Anyway it seemed to make sense somehow that it would be in the higher levels or the last stages of the rising Flood waters that the tracks would be found. Just a supposition though. Maybe in some places there was still unflooded ground higher up so they could temporarily escape the rising water, or maybe the next surge overcame them.That's the best I can do. I don't think such isolated instances of tracks supports any idea of a temporary time-defined landscape with lots of life forms running around that are peculiar to that time period; at least I would expect in that case a lot more tracks and different kinds of tracks, and SOME other signs of a living environment, bits of plants or something I suppose -- and I'd also expect that the preservation of those tracks we see is the very special product of the very special conditions that occurred during the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You may be right of course, but I'm imagining something like this: Walther's Law governs the marine depositions as the water rises, but the higher it rises the less marine sediments it carries, though never none, and the more it picks up the land sediments and redeposits them --or something like that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The ocean. Waltheer's Law. But during the rain I assume the land would have been stripped, or somewhat stripped. I don't see why this is a problem. Where would it come from on the OE theory? Out of the sky? I don't know, forty days of extremely heavy rain plus the fountains of the deep sending sea level over the land seems like plenty of scouring to me. But Walther's Law deposits sediments from the ocean itself. There's plenty of stuff to get deposited in a Flood that covered the earth.I've been trying to get a grip on what the Flood passage actually says. It may be a while before I have a settled idea about it.Actually , since Moose called jar off topic I've realized this whole discussion of specifics about the Flood is off topic. You don't even get what I mean by the landscapes I say are fiction. I think it's time to get back to that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't know yet if I accept the interpretation of forty days to accomplish the whole Flood; I just discovered that's how some people read it.

It lifted the ark up rather gently from the sound of it. No reason in some phases it couldn't have been gentle. No, I did not say, and of COURSE you have to get that wrong too no matter how many millions of times I've said it.The RECEDING WATERS OF THE FLOOD, after the Flood had reached its height and was starting to abate, after all the strata were stacked to their fullest height, THEN the water cut through the upper strata, broke it up, washed it away, eroded the Grand Staircase and the Kaibab Plateau, and cut the canyon, probably picking up velocity as things opened up.Pay attention, think.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.