The TRVE history of the Flood...

I've read up through Faith's Message 615, and I think the most important part of your explanation that still hasn't gotten across is how a shallow sea can leave behind miles-thick sedimentary deposits. Once this point is clear then sedimentary deposits across the craton can be explained. Surprised me also.

Edge hasn't responded yet and will have to confirm, but when you say this: Edge's response was actually in his next paragraph, which you quoted: As I said, Edge will have to confirm, but I believe he's agreeing that miles-thick sedimentary deposits are possible from a shallow sea. That's how the Michigan Basin formed. Here's that image again. Note that the depth of sediments grows to over a couple miles, and the water depth was never near that great. It was a shallow sea, the lowest point in the region, and it accumulated sediments over time that with the weight of increasing thickness gradually subsided into the continent: This is from the Wikipedia article on the Michigan Basin:

quote:

---

The basin appears to have subsided concurrently with basin filling as the sediments within the basin are all relatively shallow-water sediments, many of which are richly fossiliferous.

---

The same process of accumulation of sediments and subsidence took place all across the craton wherever there was net accumulation of sediments. Higher and more mountainous regions were areas of net erosion and served as a source for the sediments.I'm not trying to participate in the discussion, just trying to keep the discussion moving forward. As I said, Edge will have to confirm.

It's a little ambiguous which parts of the explanation have been refuted. If it includes the "Each deposit sinks so that the next can be deposited in shallow water" portion then I think some additional explanation could be helpful.

Faith will have to confirm, but I think her scenario was that each tide left behind sedimentary deposits that due to weight subsided downward, then the next tide would come in and the process would repeat. I think there is agreement about sedimentary layers subsiding.What needs to be understood is why Faith doesn't accept subsidence in the context of the Michigan basin that formed through subsidence of accumulating sedimentary layers beneath a shallow sea: As always, I'm seeking to confirm my own understanding, so please provide any corrections or missing information.

Just a word of explanation: High tides are twelve hours apart, and low tides are twelve hours part, but each tidal cycle consists of a high tide and a low tide 6 hours apart. The water rushes in for six hours to reach high tide, then it rushes out again for six hours to reach low tide, a total of twelve hours. Then the process repeats.Clarifying Edge's point, he's questioning your scenario because it requires a tide to rush in hundreds of miles in only six hours, and then to rush out again in only six hours. To pick a simple example, if the tide was rushing inland a distance of six hundred miles then it would require the tide to flow in and later flow out at the rate of one hundred miles per hour. This is why Edge is questioning how animals could have time to run in any distance to leave tracks, and how the tracks and nests with eggs could be left behind in such violent water, and how fine sediments could have been deposited, and so forth. Edge will have to confirm whether I've stated his concerns accurately.Edited by Admin, : Clarify writing.

This point of agreement might serve as the beginning of an expanding area of agreement.

This thread is in the Geology and the Great Flood forum, it was proposed by Coyote to discuss your ideas, and it has long since moved on. Please do not post to this thread unless it contributes to the current discussion.

To make sure there's a clear understanding of your scenario, let me restate this back to you: The geologic layers we see across most parts of all continents were formed gradually by repeated high tides of slightly greater than normal proportions over a couple hundred days. Rising flood waters caused the tides to encroach further and further onto the continent, and subsidence of the deposited layers allowed more layers to be deposited on top. Just a quick correction: being buried in mud only describes a subset of fossils. Another quick correction: nests and burrows and rivers and canyons and so forth are surface effects that are observed in buried layers.

Again, let me try to restate your scenario: Tides occurred while flood waters rose. Animals would leave behind tracks and burrows and nests at low tide that would become buried by sediment brought in by the next high tide. You haven't yet worked out how tides interact with rising flood waters to create a series of layers containing tracks/burrows/nests. What about fossils in sandstone and limestone?

Stating this another way, you're starting with a hypothesis that a global flood event around 4500 years ago is responsible for the geology of the Earth we observe today, and this thread is assessing how well this hypothesis measures up against facts and observations.Several people have questioned the way you think a global flood would behave, and I think this deserves more attention.

Just a quick correction, since no one else caught this: The geologic column also exists beneath the oceans. Most of the sea floor has a maximum age of only a couple hundred million years because the ultimate fate of most sea floor is subduction into the mantle.

Hi Davidjay,Please take problems with moderation to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread, not your signature. I have deleted your signature.

I would strongly recommend against going off topic.