The TRVE history of the Flood...

One little problem with your "exact" math -- real world evidence shows that the global flood never happened in spite of all the math you can conjure up.

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.

Another location we can look at (other than the Bay of Fundy previously noted) is Qualicum Beach in BC. Because of the tide pattern being a mix from one end of Vancouver Island and the other end, it varies from two intermediate high tides a day to one large high tide a day (like nearly same wave patterns added together):See Qualicum Beach Airport for one week forecast of heights.

quote:

---

Why Low Tides Matter in Parksville BC & Qualicum Beach, BC — 2013 Road Trip Series

​

​

Did you know that Parksville and Qualicum Beach on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada are the home to some of the island’s best wide open sprawling white sandy beaches thanks to the low tides.

​

We will go as far to say that the low tides in Parksville and Qualicum Beach create some of the best sandboxes your children will ever play in!

---

Sand castles, footprints of children running up and down the beach ... all eradicated by the high tides so that the beach is once again pristine at the next low tide. Even with 24 hours between peak high tides there is no preservation, nor lithification, of sandcastles and footprints.EnjoyEdited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

Your first post on this thread was Message 548.It is in the Geology and the Great Flood forum.Delusional much? Or just more confused than normal?Have a cup of coffee and relax, it's all good.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

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?

Jay enjoys winning again, so sips slowly his first cup of coffee.... savoring victory and truth... as truth always wins, when aligned to the TRUTH GIVER JESUS...No, as mentioned this was my thread, my topic as in the first postMessage 1 of 741 (804229)
04-05-2017 4:07 PM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Davidjay writes:
Coyote, if you want the true history of the Flood, just start a new thread, on it and I shall answer. You can post your billions and trillions of years, and I can post my immensely smaller exact numbers.Not a problem, just go to Proposed New Topics....As requested, here is a proposed new topic in which Davidjay can enlighten us on the TRVE history of the Flood.From
this beginning post.. EvC Forum: The TRVE history of the Flood...
Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

So, during the history of the flood, how many giraffes were on the Ark? Enlighten us.There are currently 4 species, and ~9 subspecies of giraffe.

Please do not do this to me. I can't be expected to remember anything that's been posted without more description. Again the mention of something "we discussed before" is just mystification and I have to ignore it, knowing that you're a busy man who hates this whole discussion and shouldn't be asked to waste your time clarifying anything for a stubborn creationist who is only going to turn it to purposes of proving the Flood. You don't have a model unless it is based on the data. Why is that a problem? It's what I would expect.ABE: Have you explained the cause of the subsidence of a basin? Why is it confined to that limited local area? You've said the salt has nothing to do with it, but what does? If the basin subsides, why not the land around it? /abe I had in mind subsidence of the huge areas on which the layers are deposited so deep, not basins. As it is those huge areas seem to remain unsubsided. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

One commentary says:I do get confused about this because in Genesis 7:24 it says it prevailed 150 days. So it means the Flood rose for 40 and stayed at its peak for 150 days. Well, it's possible I need to learn more about tides. I figured that since they occur now that they would also occur during the Flood. Something to think about. Maybe someone else can contribute to this thought. Or maybe you could expand on it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, the flood building up tide by tide makes no sense in the first palce - but even if it did, why wouldn't there be waves? Wherever you have water and wind, you're going to have waves. How would the land "dry some" every twelve hours when it was raining the whole time?

So confused then. An obsession with winning doesn't make it so.Enjoy

Exactly. In this case, I was assuming that Faith wanted each cratonic sequence to represent a single 'tidal' event. However, I am not sure now what she means. It just isn't clear. All that and how you would preserve any kind of deposits, fossils, etc., with water rushing around like that.But I don't think anyone is sure what Faith means. So, it's all moot I suppose. But I'm glad that you understood my argument.

Not sure where you get this. There is nothing on the chart to suggest that all of the dry land mass was covered at any single point in time. It only depicts a generalized craton. And I have been trying to interpret your posts in terms of the chart. Evidently, that was a waste of time. Seeing into the deep past is not easy. Demonstrably wrong. Fossilized forests militate against your hypothesis.Even forgetting about the cratonic sequences, you have a lot of questions to answer.

Well, the main cause we've discussed is loading by the sediments themselves, but there are others related to the mantle or temperature differences in the lower continental crust, or failed rifting and probably others. Sometimes there are inherited structures from Precambrian basement that cause basins to form. Yes, but it's not always that simple.And actually, they are basins forming on the thin edges of the craton and on parts of the oceanic crust nearby. This is where basins form, such as the Mississippi Delta basin which has been discussed. That is why I gave you the location of Moose's diagram showing the section I provided but converted to no vertical exaggeration (i.e., a 1:1 scale).

Likely so.I'm not quite seeing how the gravitational attraction of the moon would lift that amount of water and sediment onto the continent. You really need another mechanism that operates with greater force on the period that you want.