Summations Only

NO, IT COULD NOT HAVE!!!!!Three words, Faith: angle of repose.
My three-year-old offer of a Pyrex loaf pan, a protractor, and a cup of sand is still open to you. You can measure, in your own kitchen, the maximum angle of repose that you can get with 1) dry and 2) submerged sand.I will even send water if you need it - I have a sample of sea water from Romania, if you feel that is closer to Fludde water than fresh from the Ogallala aquifer.

You don't say HOW it would be affected by being submerged, and cross bedding does occur in water:Here's that BLOG where he says: Atheos said the angle of repose in water versus air is different and supposedly the Coconino's is the dry kind.

But of course this would get the sand WET, which changes the angle of repose. So this isn't going to work as an explanation of how the dry "dunes" got packed, flattened and lithified. But of course if it's the only way it could be done, it supports the FLOOD.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In a dry environment such as a sand dune the predominate erosive force is wind. Wind sweeps across dunes in a wide linear pattern. Winds tend to deposit material near the tops of the dunes on the leeward side, and the large particles tend to roll and end up at the bottom while fine material tends to accumulate near the top (per the link experiment). The very bottom would tend to be all large grain that is overlain by later deposits (look at the experiment pictures).In a wet environment such as an alluvial fan, the predominant erosive force is water carrying sediment, and wave action at different tide levels and it spreads out in a radial fan rather than a linear pattern. As it spreads out water velocity drops and deposition starts with large particles settle out first, and tend to deposit at the tops while finer particles settle out later and tend to deposit at the bottoms. The very bottom would tend to be all fine material that is overlain by later deposits.Angle of repose - Wikipedia So if it is sand at 34° then it was dry deposition. If it is clay at 15° then it is wet excavated (water filled).These are measurable differences. By the nature of cross-bed formation these deposits on the backside will always be at the angle of repose for each material, because the material is deposited at (or very near) the tops of the backside.Notice how if we had a mixture of sand and gravel in a dry environment that the gravel would tend to build a flatter slope than the sand, so the gravel would always run down the sand slope to spread out at the bottom at its angle of repose and be covered by later deposits, making a coarse base to the formation.Notice how if we had a mixture of clay and sand in a water filled deposition environment that the sand would want to build a steeper slope than the clay, so the clay would always run down the sand to spread out at the bottom at its angle of repose and be covered by later deposits, making a fine base to the formation.Notice how going from a dry environment to a water filled one changes the stability of the formation and it would cause collapse down the backside and filling of the valleys -- another behavior that could be observed. And he also said the dry sand angle was 34° and that in water it was less.And you still don't have an explanation for the fine shale sediment below the coarser dense sandstone formation in horizontal layers.

No Faith, flooding with encroaching seas would not affect the internal structure deep inside the dunes, it would cause slumping of the back side until the new angle of repose was developed and the wave action would erode the peaks and deposit them in the remaining valleys. Sections of the dunes not affected by either of these actions would remain in their relative orientations.Packed in dry orientation, then the surface is eroded, averaged out to flatten it, then it is compacted.Edited by RAZD, : ..

Oh I get it, it gets wet but it doesn't get wet. Of course.

No, it gets wet, but the sand down below the surface a ways is constrained to staying like it's already stacked by the sand packed all around it.My offer is raised to a QUART of sand, a Pyrex loaf pan, and a protractor. Two colors of sand, if you wish, so that you can see your angles of repose within the sand bed. And I still can supple the water.If you have to go to a ten-gallon aquarium, I might call it off though.....

It gets wet but (a) it is not saturated water filled sand and (b) it doesn't have anywhere to go, there is no density distribution or mechanical perturbation to cause the sand to move so there is no cause for it to move. It is the same density as the sand next to it so it stays put. The sands at the surface and on the downslopes ARE affected and they DO have somewhere to go -- the valleys.And (c) damp sand has a higher angle of repose ( 45° ) than dry sand because the surface tension of the water holds the sand together. This is why you can build sand-castles and why they crumble as the sand dries or as even a calm tide fills around it. With already compacted sand you can't get enough water into the formation to cause it to slump ... without mechanical action.If, however, you vibrate the sand (mechanical perturbation) it will "liquefy" (behave like a liquid) and slump (think quicksand). So if you had an earthquake you could have internal liquefaction failure. The existence of the sand layers at 34° is evidence not only of dry formation and compaction but of the absence of earthquakes before lithification.In other words it was already converted to rock before you could have your rapid violent tectonic action to create all the uplift in one big eruption of tectonic movement.Edited by RAZD, : .

How about a blow up pool and a 5-gallon bucket of sand and a plastic bucket and shovel ... and a sunhat, gotta have a sunhat ...

Now that you've been give the explanation twice did you not feel the need for a forehead palm?I find it more fun when I think of the explanation behind something myself. When I can't then I ask the question. If the answer should have been obvious, like this one, then I try harder next time. And feel just a tad sheepish.

It would be more fun with many different kinds of granular things, but two colors of sand is probably good enough.By the way, although Wikipedia gives a flat 34 degrees for dry sand and 45 for wet sand, it does say all the numbers are approximate, and I've found other sources that say there's quite a bit of variation. Here for instance is one table in a paper that has identical numbers for dry and wet sand, though "moist" is higher. However. "submerged" is lower!It's very old, 1949, but I'm sure they knew how to measure angles then: ABE: I thought that Table was at the end of the paper but I must be having computer problems because now there's a lot more after that particular table, and it's only about halfway down the page. That table is "Cain" "angle of repose" There's also a Table 4 that is about internal friction that gives the same angle for both dry and immersed sand. Haven't read the rest yet.ABE: Also found this discussion of the Coconino. Creationist apparently, but gives lots of facts, such as .
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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, I told you that. I also pointed out that if it's formed by water it still doesn't have a flat top. As you quote: However it was formed, the upper surface was destroyed by erosion.---So yes, cross-bedding alone is not sufficient to diagnose terrestrial deposition We'd want to ask other questions such as does it have footprints in it?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The fact that the sand naturally makes ripples has nothing to do with the kind of CONNECTION it makes with the next layer, and that is FLAT. Sheesh.Also, surely the sand would have to be WET for a footprint to be preserved in it.

Submerged is lower?!! Have I not been telling you that for a Long While?!

Not sure she understands the difference between "wet" and "submerged"That paper (1950) was also a review of other papers where descriptions of the materials were inconsistent. Since then descriptions have been formalized to more accurately describe different materials.