The TRVE history of the Flood...

Well, I am familiar with some of them having worked in the areas; and I have mentioned some to you already in different context.One is the Zuni sequence which ended with the formation of an unconformity on which dinosaurs walked and the coal fields of the eastern Rocky Mountains and the high plains.Another is your favorite, the Sauk Sequence which started with inundation of the unconformity at the base of the Tapeats Sandstone. This one is not called the 'Great Unconformity' for nothing. It is truly continental in scale.Another that I am familiar with is the Absarokan Sequence which started during the Pennsylvanian Period, in 'guess where.' Do you remember what I said about that?If you click on the links for each sequence located on the Wikipedia page that I posted earlier, you can go to a description of each sequence with more detail. I may try to do that again later when I have some time.Once again, I refer you to Coyote's questions. What you see here is personal experience with actual data and it is all being presented to you by Pressie, Coyote and myself. With what can you match that experience?

Okay, it's going to take more work than I thought. I had thought that there were direct links, but I've been to too many Wiki sites to remember properlyHere is an example:Lets talk about the Tippecanoe Sequence, mid-Ordovician to early Devonian in age.Here is a quote from John Morris, of all people:

quote:

---

"Each sequence begins with a basal sandstone containing sand grains of lessening diameter as one moves upward through the layer. This is typically covered by shale or siltstone composed of tiny particles, which in turn is covered by extremely tiny, precipitated particles. The lowest megasequence is the Sauk Megasequence, which was followed by an erosional unconformity. The overlying megasequence is called the Tippecanoe Megasequence. The pure quartz sandstone at its base is called the St. Peter Sandstone, and above that lie shale and limestone beds, also followed by an unconformity.
(bold added for emphasis) The St. Peter Sandstone | The Institute for Creation Research

---

So, the Tippecanoe Sequence, as described by Morris is bound at top and bottom by unconformities. The basal unit, overlying the lower boundary is the Saint Peter Sandstone.In that case, where ever we see the Saint Peter Sandstone, it should overlie an unconformity which is the lower bound to the Tippecanoe Sequence.Here is a diagram showing the Saint Peter Sandstone and equivalent sandstone formations across North America.http://www.icr.org/i/articles/af/st_peter_sandstone_wide.jpgSo, if you want to find that unconformity, just go to any location within the brown-colored area on the map. Drill a borehole if necessary. You will find the unconformity.I'm not sure, but the basal Tippecanoe (St. Peter Sandstone) may correlate with parts of the Old Red Sandstone in northern Europe, attesting to the intercontinental status of the Tippecanoe Sequence.Now, do you really want me to do this for each sequence and each boundary in the chart that you presented?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

You have been shown a number of unconformities, mostly denied by yourself. Some are only known by mapping large areas, others by age dates. I have already explained to you about erosional surfaces, paleosoils and trace fossils. They represent missing geological record and are boundaries between major geological events. Eventually they would. This one was relatively easy, however. I believe there are two links in the post.

Well, like with so many disciplines, people spend years studying these things at university. I can't apologize for it being a complex science. Well, Pressie is a bit impatient, but it wouldn't hurt to learn something from his posts. Coyote has a different approach being an archaeologist, but the tools and reasoning are very similar to geology. I understand both. The impression is that you are not learning anything; in fact it seems more that you refuse to learn anything. That is frustrating to people who have spent their careers studying a scientific profession. In fact, in many cases, it is insulting.

There were a couple of people who provided information about subsidence. We can elaborate on that all you want. However, there is another phenomenon going on.As this diagram shows, sedimentary formations of the Phanerozoic can be very thick on the edges of the continents or basins, and thin toward the center of the continental landmass. So that the oceans do not have to be as deep as you seem to think they should be to stack a very thick package of sediments. As you go to the left, the formations become fewer and they become thinner; and in some cases can pinch out completely. Part of this effect is due to later erosion, but I think it's pretty clear that thicker sections are outbound from the continental core. Here is a cross section of the Michigan Basin. I'm not sure how to get this situation without subsidence of the basin. Sometimes the subsidence is accompanied by uplift along fault zones. Here is a cross section of the Paradox Basin where the ocean would be to the left and the basement rocks have been uplifted along a fault and shed coarse debris (conglomerate) into the basin on the right side and more fine grained sediments out into the sea. Again, I don't see how to get this pattern without some kind of relative subsidence of the basin.Here is a schematic diagram of the moat around the Hawaiian Islands caused by loading of the oceanic crust. Note that as the asthenosphere is displaced, it flows outward to form a 'wave' beyond the moat. This is evidence for crustal rocks subsiding into the asthenosphere to form basins that can accept thicker sequences of sediments.IIRC, Tertiary muds reach depths of almost 50,000 feet in the Gulf of Mexico (that we know of). Of course that includes some water, but it shows how thick sedimentary sections can grow.

Another bombastic statement from you.The cross sections clearly show that the cratonic sequences are thicker and the formations more numerous in the basins (by which I am including the ocean basins).

The intent was to show two things.1. Evidence for subsidence.
2. Thinning of the cratonic sequence over the continental crust.The latter is another concept that I'd like to introduce because Faith has complained the the water has to get exceptionally deep in order to deposit the cratonic sequences on higher parts of the craton; and therefor must have been due to the flood. My point is that, no, it doesn't need to be all that deep.My last diagram was to show how the crust (continental or oceanic) can sink into the asthenosphere during subsidence.I didn't expect such a agressively disagreeable reaction.

Your assumptions are a case in point.Clearly, the sediments are not uniform across the continent. These diagrams, based on oil exploration are pretty conclusive. But they weren't already formed. The layers show the same transgressive sequence as the crattonic sequences. They show that the layers thin and pinch out as higher levels of the craton are approached. Therefor sea level did not reach the deep-water proportions that you surmise. But they are not as thick over the craton. In fact, there is ample evidence that the sediments pinched out against an emergent land mass. Except for the simple fact that we know subsidence occurs. That is indisputable from the diagrams (and many more, if you want) that I presented.We also know that there is a mechanism for subsidence which includes loading by sediments. Except that there is not nearly the thickness on the craton, so the water was simply not that deep. And, in fact, there were shorelines preserved in those sediments which means that there was an emergent, actively eroding land mass. Well, for one it occurs in volcanic fields and sand ergs. But, wrt to the cratonic sequences they are irrelevant. I don't know where you came up with that.

In fact, without basin formation, the geological record would look very different and we wouldn't have an accurate understanding of sedimentation.Interestingly, prior to plate tectonic theory, the formation of huge, deep sedimentary basins was though to be an early phase of mountain building. It was the only explanation available. Maybe someone older than I (heh, heh ...) can remember those days.

The problem is that there was active erosion occurring throughout the deposition of all of the cratonic sequences.If you don't know what emergent means, I haven't the words to help you. Of course not. You are a YEC.And of course it's hard to follow. It's not as simple as YECs imagine. In a way, this is correct. Mountain ranges are not necessarily considered part of the craton. However, it is clear that they existed and that the shed debris into the shallow cratonic seas. It is relevant to the degree that is shows how the sedimentary units vary across the continent. In other words, is shows how cratonic sequences vary in thickness. It shows the reasoning regarding 'shallow epeiric seas'. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the depth need not have been all that great.And more to the point, it need not have covered the higher parts of the continent composed of mountainous areas. Of course.The problem you have is that there are unconformities throughout the period of your flood. Almost certainly a misunderstanding on your part. I have reviewed the exchange and I see nothing to that effect. Ummm ....Because in a rising sea, it would take longer to cover higher areas? I never said that it did. Well, exactly. The higher parts of the craton were not under water and receiving sediments for the same amount of time.The problem with your scenario is that each sedimentary unit is thicker in the basin, so it had to have been some effect that was present at the time of sedimentation, i.e. subsidence. Don't know what you mean here. Of course the craton is on the side of the diagram. But not everywhere. You realize that the GC sequence is part of a basin, do you not?Many of the formations do not exist across the continent, and if they do they thin to the east.

Over short distances, the contacts can look quite 'flat'. However, in detail they are not flat and regionally they can thicken and thin and even disappear entirely.For instance, in the Grand Canyon area, the Coconino sandstone varies from about 60 feet to over 600 and back to 60 going from east to west across the GC area. This can hardly be called 'flat'.There is no equivalent formation in Kansas, so we cannot consider it to be continental in scale.And yet, we see Faith say the same thing over and over again, that these sedimentary units are 'flat' with parallel top and bottom, and are continentally extensive.The point is that these deposits are quite thick at the margins of the cratons or in the interior basins, and thin across the craton if they even exist there.

Heh,heh ... Yes. The layers appear to be 'flat', even perhaps, in the sense that Faith writes.However, the point is that the cumulative layers are thicker in the center of the basin and some of them do not exist at the margins. So, if you were budgeting to drill an oil field in the Ordovician, you'd better plan accordingly.Vertical exaggeration accentuates this observation. But it does have its disadvantages too. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : {Note - ... - Adminnemooseus}Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Edge fixed his error, which eliminated the need for my previous edit material, which I have now removed.

Well, the first point is that the sedimentary rocks are not as thick on th higher parts of th craton. In fact, some of the formations were never deposited because the seas never rose high enough to cover the craton or the mountain belts built on continental crust. The thickest sections are on the craton margins or in intracratonic basins. This includes the Grand Canyon area.The second point is that both continental and oceanic crust will subside due to loading by sediment and other tectonic factors. This means that sediment can continue to stack up without increasing the water depth.Hope this helps.

I got nice flat wrinkles.

Okay, to clarify (and I'm not much of a stickler on things like this) the official terminology as I learned it is this, from Wikipedia: In other words Ordovician Period (notice capitalization) refers to a period of time, and Ordovician System refers to the rocks that formed during that time period. Okay, so the Precambrian is another time period that includes time before the Cambrian Period. It is huge, consisting of 90% of the existence of the planet. As we learn more about this deepest part of time, it becomes increasingly complex and is more and more subdivided.But yes, in your area, most of the rocks are Precambrian in age.Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.