Summations Only

No need.This picture from your own link, shows cross bedding in the Coconino being cut and planed off by the Toroweap contact.http://www.earthmagazine.org/...creationist-geologist-battle

I'm not sure what you are saying. The actual angle of repose has little to do with the erosion of the top layer of eolian dunes. Why is that? We are only talking about the uppermost visible layer. As a pile of sand dunes is cut by wave action, the tops are simply cut off. Actually both. They formed subaerially and the were planed of in an erosional event at the base of the Toroweap. Why do you say this? Do you have some documentation?Everytime the upper part of a crossbed is truncated, that is an erosional event. Why would we lose the angle of repose? Does the layering of a cake change when you cut it? Who is talking about flattening? I am saying it was cut.And just how can you say things like this anyway? Who said that? I'm not sure what the problem is here. When we point out erosion (unconfomrities) between different units, you deny such features, and yet now, you claim they are all highly irregular contacts...I have little doubt that there is some compaction of the different units and an apparent evening up of the contacts, but basically, there is not much original relief on most of these contacts. Your own reference belies this. See my previous post for a picture that you provided to us.And, please, tell us why this process is random.

And yet the surface is erosional. You do realize that being deposited and being saturated are different, don't you?

Evidently.One thing to keep in mind is that all sand dunes are eroded at the top. You do not see an intact dune in any section of eolian sand deposits that I know of.

What is more, why do the products of such processes look exactly like the products of processes occurring today?

Or you could just read a textbook on the subject. You might even find something online, so you won't need to suffer the inconvenience of going to the library.On the other hand, you could continue to reinvent the wheel by getting a grant from the DI, maybe get a new table and a light...When you're done with that, we will send you an airplane kit so that you can prove heavier than air flight. Or not. You may think I'm terribly insensitive and rude, but the purpose here is to show you where extreme skepticism leads ... you.

Never mind that your entire argument has been flayed and hung out to dry.Okay, so what is your drop-dead best stratgraphic evidence the Fludde? And please, be a little more specific than 'fossils' or some such evasion. Wow...So how many floods have you got? And why are they all at different times? And where do you get siliciclastic sediments from during the flood? How do you get limestone formed in a flood?

Then you should provide us with a model to explain various regional and local transgressions.

quote:

---

Siliclastic sediments would have been scoured off the land mass and redeposited; ...

---

So, how do you scour land masses when there is no land? How can you have a beach with no land masses available? How do you get conglomerates when there is no land to erode the cobbles from? "Coughed up"? Please describe.How do you form coral reefs in one year? How do you form limestones in deep, turbulent waters? How do the calcareous skeletons form, survive and then become deposited without significant contamination? ?? As far as we know, it still is.So where's the global fludde?

This is an important observation. I would like to point out also that since the limestones and siliclastics are found together interbedded, in multiple layers, in most stratigraphic columns; the 'scouring' and 'coughig up' are completely incompatible with both the record and each other.The situation is impossible, a desperate, ad hoc position.Unless one just wants to declare a miracle and go home...

I don't think it would make much difference to Faith. She cannot even get a simple situation to make sense.If we started throwing volcanic rocks around and complex faulting, it might a true catastrophe, right here at EvC.I'm not going to be responsible for that.I will aver, just for the record, that global geology is a lot more complex than Faith thinks, and way beyond anything we can possibly discuss here. I'd think that would have become apparent by now, but you just can't predict with these people.

Based on what? Heh, heh...You can? You really think you comprehend? Why do you think that there are two regional transgressions at the GC along with several minor ones? And that's just the Paleozoic...Sorry, Faith, not buying.

You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath. And that bedrock would be... land? So, you agree that there were land masses during the global fludde? Well, thats kind of like ...what we have ...ummm... now....What happened to ye global fludde? Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Ah, but some occurred before. I differ. Your language clearly shows that you have no background in science, much less geology. Heh, heh...And this is just the watered down stuff. You really have no idea. Well, I do kind of have to guess what you are saying.But more basically, I'm not buying anything you say about geology or your interpretations, like "It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down."I've explained this all before, but I'm not going to bother again.

So, it appears you agree that there was emergent land during the fludde.I repeat my question: what happened to the global nature of the fludde?And actually, we know that some 'foundational rock' eroded anyway. We can see the results.

How did beaches form with all of the land underwater, then? Just pointing out your lack of knowledge in the subject material.