The TRVE history of the Flood...

The question was why sand was deposited on top of silt, since it would normally precipitate to the bottom and leave the silt at the top. I speculated that perhaps the silt WAS at the top and the sand above part of a deposit that came later so it sat on top of the silt. For that to happen I figure the silt had to be somewhat dry or compacted, which the tide scenario might be enough to account for. Tide goes out taking away a lot of the silt, leaving a pretty dry surface, damp, not wet. Dry enough for animal tracks to be preserved in. High tides are about twelve hours apart. The compaction of the previous layers that got eroded away plus the drag of the receding tide plus the drying of the surface to some extent might be anough to solve the problem.But again the time periods are REALLY fantasies and IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile with sedimentary deposits even if there are also problems for the Flood. .

I'll take a guess while I'm waiting:
The Jurassic layer happens to be the uppermost in the region, no layers above it?

it shows the results of the Flood. But mostly it shows no time period fantasy landscapes with strange beasts.

What I'm asking is how you know, aside from radiometric dating, in what period something occurred. My guess in relation to Pressie's Jurassic volcanic mountain, is that it happens to be on a Jurassic sediment layer, and that there are no others above it in that region.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, I got the idea and was agreeing that it would explain how you could get a deep stack of sediments without the water's having to rise to cover the whole accumulated depth of them. It works fine-- IF that happened, and as a matter of fact nobody has confirmed that it happened on the scale I was thinking of.Someone mentioned that the Grand Canyon is in a basin, or subsided or something? But the entire canyon is above sea level so if it subsided it didn't go very deep, and it's also obviously not shaped like a basin, the strata are flat, horizontal and straight - relatively so anyway for those of a perfectionistic pedantic turn of mind.So I'm thinking of the strata that are spread flat across large areas, whole continents etc. and not basins, because the former would be consistent with the Flood. Edge seems to be saying that the craton changes things for that argument but I don't see what. I'm aware that there ARE large areas where the strata were simply piled up flat one on top of another, and the sea transgressions called the Cratonic Sequences should apply to ALL the strata, not just on or around the craton or in basins. Edge may have explained that, he says he did, but I can't keep up with everything that's said, I have to focus on the parts that make sense to me. Basins obviously can't explain the Flood scenario I have in mind, being confined to limited local areas. I don't have any reason to object to the interpretation of subsidence in the basins otherwise -- except that I had understood at one time that it was the salt layer that was the cause, so that gives me pause. The main thing is that basins don't speak to the Flood scenario, and that's why I got so angry when he first brought them up, it seemed like an intentional evasion of the scenario I was pursuing.And I still don't understand where the craton fits in. Again, he may have said and I just can't process the information. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

During the Flood animals would be dying but not all dead until the full height of the Flood had been reached. If it rose tide by tide, which is my main hypothesis now, there would have been time between tides for animals to try to run away from it.

Here's how I answered Tanypteryx about the tracks in Message 676: The tides being about twelve hours apart.

Waves would erase tracks on a beach soon after they were created, but there wouldn't have been waves if the Flood built up tide by tide. The tide would come far up on to the land, and withdraw just as far back to the current level of the sea, eroding away a lot of what it just deposited, leaving the land damp with twelve hours to sit and dry some. This would be the case during the rising phase of the Flood. Once it covered all the land of course this wouldn't be happening any more.(Something similar possibly occurred during the receding phase but I'm not completely sure about that -- it seems more like a gigantic rapid draining of the water taking tons and tons of deposited sediments with it).

It would have been the only land to run onto, the rest being the Flood itself. In that particular area anyway. Higher up in the early stages I suppose there would have still been some dry land. So our particular animal friend here just happened to get caught in the latest tide.

I'm picturing the way the wet ground looks after a tide has gone out, it's not like erosion on land, it's a flat wet area. It would just become the surface of a rock in the Geological Column. Waves would occur at the encroaching edge of the water, but if the receding tide keeps pulling it all back out to sea there wouldn't be any waves while it's out. While it's in there would have been, at the farthest reach of the water, but what we're discussing is how tracks could have been formed in the sediment after the tide went out. Yes, well perhaps your imagination is better than mine. I'm open to adjusting my scenario if necessary. Yes I figure as the sea was rising with the Flood the tides would have to have reached very far onto the land. How far? I dunno. A long distance, reaching farther with each tide because of the rising of the sea. .As for dinosaur nests, I have to figure they were already there, got overtaken by the Flood and covered by sediment-heavy water. What were their nests made of by the way? If plant stems and that sort of thing they might have floated on the water for a while before being buried. But your sand is formed into a layer, sometimes a huge deep layer. That implies the Flood picking it up off an antediluvian beach and dumping it as a layer somewhere. Sand is the first sediment to be deposited according to Walther's Law, which may have something to do with the order of these things. But that's another subject I guess. But your trees are fossilized. That implies that antediluvian forests were overtaken by the Flood which buried lots of trees which got fossilized in the wet sediments which were the perfect condition for fossilization. Well there WAS land, before the Flood. Dinosaur nests would have been on that land as the Flood rose and buried them. Raindrops were probably preserved the way I suggested tracks would have been -- in damp sediment between tides then covered and filled in by sediment-laden Flood water. Birds of a feather getting buried together rather than mixed. I don't know how to explain the order but I'd bet it isn't quite as neat as you all think. We're talking sediments deposited in layers to a depth of as much as three miles. They probably sat under the Flood water for some time before it receded. Then it would have taken the uppermost layers with it, but that would still have left layers a mile deep in the Grand Canyon area and two miles deep to the north in the Grand Staircase. the ones left behind would have been the most compacted of course, not as easy to break up and wash away as the upper layers. What do you mean by a "cycle?" Or "similar erosional effects?" Yes, I think they are "new" canyons formed IN the strata by the receding Flood water entering gaps created above, carving out big canyons and then filling them in. Holding together pretty well I'd say.And once again I must add that the very existence of all the strata, the layers of formerly wet sediments, is far better evidence for the Flood than for the scenarios of the Geological Time Scale, those separate time periods populated by a very specific collection of living things. The Flood explanation is far more reasonable: rising sea water carrying all kinds of sediments, dumping them according to various laws of deposition that layer them, along with all kinds of living things. The purpose of the Flood was to kill all living things on the land; that purpose is well evidenced to have been fulfilled, by the sheer number of fossilized living things buried in sediments that had to have been deposited by water. It took out a lot of marine life along with it but that couldn't have been preserved on the Ark. And the creatures in some cases are very different from those living today, even when clearly part of the same family or species, and that is easily explained by their earlier stage of microevolution. And maybe I'll also mention here that the fact that trilobites and coelecanths of different varieties are found in many strata, different vraieties but still undeniably trilobites and coelecanths that according to the Geo Time Scale would have to have persisted through hundreds of millions of years with very little genetic change. It's really already an argument against fossils as proof of evolution that ech batch is considered to have lived during a time period of millions of years. Change occurs far more frequently and rapidly than that in our own observable world. Millions of years is really an impossible idea.

Oh drat, I'm actually having fun with this and look forward to the other posts waiting to be answered, but I didn't sleep much last night and I'm about to nod off. So the next round of fun will have to wait until later.

Spent years near the California coasts both north and south. No idea what your cryptic comment is about. Don't know where you are getting the six hours since tides are twelve hours apart. And yes I think they would leave something like mudflats behind, yes indeed, especially if they are moving fast. I'm also not sure where you are getting the hundreds of miles since how far the tide reaches depends on how high the sea has risen. If hundreds of miles then hundreds of miles but I haven't tried to figure it out. The waves during rising and falling and at low tide are irrelevant to what we are talking about. I only mentioned that of course there would be waves on the encroaching edge because somebody brought it up as a question. It's the tides that do the work I'm talking about, not waves. No. And it's twelve. Says who? The water is RISING, remember, each tide would be higher because this is a Flood and the sea water is continuously rising. The tide will reach the nest when it reaches it, not before. Are you talking about the dinosaur nests or something else now? Not in my scenario, don't know where you are getting this. [qs][qs] Well there WAS land, before the Flood. Dinosaur nests would have been on that land as the Flood rose and buried them. Raindrops were probably preserved the way I suggested tracks would have been -- in damp sediment between tides then covered and filled in by sediment-laden Flood water. I haven't considered yet how this fits into the cratonic sequences, if at all, so you are just imposing some idea of your own on me. I never said I accept that chart as given either. It suggests to me the Flood separated into phases, but I haven't figured out what that would mean in reality.The idea of the tides is one I've had for some time. It gives a way of explaining the tracks and other impressions in the rocks. Mostly it just makes sense that tides would be very long as the sea rose, not mere waves lapping at a beach but now the tides extending across quite a stretch of land. This should be true of rising sea water no matter what else is also going on.Again, I don't know what to make of the six seas on that chart. Again, they suggest to me the Flood rising in phases, but it obviously couldn't be about tides, I never said that. I couldn't accept the chart in any case because it's got periods of erosion between transgressions, which wouldn't happen in the Flood.If you recall I was speculating about continuously rising water, which does not reflect that chart. Subsidence of the land came up as a way of saying why it wouldn't have had to rise as high as the sum total of all the deposits of all six transgressions, but there hasn't been any clear reason to think that's what happened. I certainly was not taking much on the chart as factual.My point was that a series of such transgressions, added one on top of the other, would require the sea to rise as much as 1000 feet or more for each deposit of sedimentary layers, which would ultimately get to a level approaching Noah's Flood. That doesn't exactly reflect the idea of the chart. It was an honest answer to a question. Again, I never ACCEPTED the cratonic sequences theory. See above. It suggested water rising to the level of Noah's Flood and that's mostly what I got out of it. Don't have an explanation for the six cycles, haven't ventured a guess about that, this is all your own stuff not mine. I'm sure I haven't got this all worked out perfectly, but it's also not as confusing as you are pretending it is.I think I should have answered one of your earlier posts first because it dawned on me you are referring to something in this one I haven't yet read. Oh well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here's where it becomes clear that I don't accept the chart of the six transgressions as understood by standard Geology. To me it suggested the one Flood in stages of rising, rather than a series of transgressions that covered all or most of the continent. The Flood wouldn't have completely covered the land in the early phases as the transgressions supposedly did, it would have taken time to get to the level where the land was completely covered. Tides would leave flat damp areas when they went out.I'm really unable to picture what the chart supposedly represents. I get that unconformities would be caused by receding water eroding away previous deposits, but that's about it for my ability to interpret the idea. Nothing grew during the year of the Flood. {abe: except I suppose in areas where the water had receding though it was still receding}. You are apparently conflating something from your model with something from mine. No idea where you are getting such a notion. Seems more like a problem of mixed models and trying to have a conversation with a hostile geologist who isn't interested in making sense of what a Floodist has to say. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think there's much comparison between the Bay of Fundy and the tides I'm thinking would have occurred in the Flood. Each tide would have been a one-time thing for starters, as sea level was continuously rising, causing each tide to reach farther inland by some unknown amount. (It took five months to reach its height so I guess some computations could start with that). And there wouldn't have been any rocks, not that that would have made a big difference I suppose) and I'd guess that the surface wouldn't have been so deep and sticky to feet, having been freshly deposited. Your description of the sandpaper-scouring sounds like what I've had in mind though.The question is how to get footprints preserved enough to end up in rock, on the surface of layers where they are found today. The standard assumption is that they are evidence that there were living creatures in that "time period," but that raises questions such as: how come there aren't dozens or hundreds of such creatures leaving their footprints there? That is, how come it's always a loner? How come it usually looks like it's running too, those long strides? (This is just my impression from the few I've seen, I suppose there could be different ones). On the usual interpretation there's the advantage of being able to assume they just dried out (although the sedimentary surface was no doubt wet implying it could get wet again), while the Flood has to allow for time for the prints to harden enough to be preserved. That's where the twelve hours between tides comes in, plus the scouring effect of the receding tide, and the heavy sediment load that the next tide would bring in. I think it holds together myself.

I think of it as basically what rising sea level does normally, though in shorter bursts; that is, it deposits sediments along the lines of Walther's Law, which include sand, mud and calcareous ooze.I know things got confused between the cratonic transgressions and my tide picture, but I was mostly just trying to comprehend the cratonic sequences chart and didn't get very far with it. As I've said it just keeps suggesting some version of the Flood to me. And when I thought through the idea of successive shallow transgressions, each laying down quite a depth of sedimentary layers, which had to be the case because those layers are there and they are quite thick in many cases, I realized that each subsequent transgression would have to rise higher than the previous until it might have been Noah's Flood in the end -- just because of how high the sea level had to rise to accomplish all that. Then came the discussion of subsidence, which I can see would make it possible to allow for lower rises of the water if the land subsided as described. Only nobody ever said that it did, at least not along the lines of what I was envisioning of sedimentary deposits over such huge areas as actually exist. Instead edge responded with something about the craton and basins and I still have no idea how any of that relates to what I was talking about. But I did grasp the concept, just didn't see any evidence that it actually explains the sedimentary picture I had in mind. In fact since it didn't I still think the chart shows a series of transgressions that HAD to ultimately rise to the level of Noah's Flood. As for how much land is covered, I keep recalling a post by HBD from a few years ago with images of how much of the North American continent was covered by sedimentary rock identified with a particular time period. There are only four older rocks illustrated; it would be nice to see all the layers illustrated in the same way. But anyway, some of these completely cover the craton and NOT the lower area to the west, interestingly. But my point of course is that a huge area IS covered by any given sedimentary deposit, and I don't know how to put that together with the transgressions indicated on the cratonic sequences chart. Along with John Morris' saying that the St Peter Sandstone covers the entire continent plus some of Europe as well, I don't see anything to account for the extent of this coverage except the Flood itself. I suppose the six shallow transgressions are supposed to account for it? None of this is about basins.But what the huge extent of sedimentary deposition always suggests is that there could not possibly have been any "time periods" in which living things abounded, wherever all that sedimentary stuff was laid down, which is usually quite thick too. It could only form a flat barren surface on which nothing could live, which later became the rock in the Geological Column which is labeled by the name of the time period.Over and over the facts support the Flood and not the Geological Time Scale. Over and over. I see it, why don't you? Some of this is our usual communication problem: I just don't know what you are talking about, and if I'm pursuing a different line of thought I end up just not trying to deal with whatever I don't get of what you are saying.But whenever you identify anything as happening "at the time" meaning in some particular time period or other, I always have to retranslate that into Flood terms in which NOTHING happened during any "time period" except that some sedimentary layers got deposited to some particular depth over some extent of land, perhaps containing some particular collection of fossilized creatures. Whatever event is being identified with a time period had to have happened after all the layers were already in place, as I keep showing whenever I get the opportunity.And the evidence for things happening in a certain time period seems to amount to that time period/sedimentary layer being exposed at the top of a formation instead of beneath "more recent" layers, which was my guess about Pressie's "Jurassic" volcanic mountains. That was not confirmed about Pressie's mountains. If this is how things are identified with a particular time period, it's pretty easy to answer. Nothing "happens" in a "time period" that is sandwiched between other "time periods." Strangely, although you keep saying this, I don't know what you have in mind. Am I simply reinterpreting those facts, or ignoring them or what?