The TRVE history of the Flood...

1) So, since you are not addressing Percy's idea that miles-thick sedimentary deposits are possible from a shallow sea I gather you are saying no, that is not possible, which of course it isn't.2) Your claim is that the craton was never covered by water to any depth because it is too high, but you don't say anything about its actual height. Please provide that information. Of course I would expect the layering to be deeper where the water is deeper.3) There were apparently no high mountains during the Flood, the continents were pretty flat, evidenced by those sediments that were laid down from sea to shining sea. The mountains that have strata obviously formed after the Flood. I discussed this possibility in great detail in Message 514 which you ignored until now, instead talking about the utterly irrelevant basins as the only areas of subsidence. I pointed out in that post that the subsidence would have to be enough to lower the level to the point that you'd get shallow water with each subsequent transgression. So you have to say more than that it happened, you have to say to what depth it happened after each deposition. You especially have to consider to what level the whole stack had sunk by the time of the sixth transgression and give an estimate of how deep the water was at that point.Two considerations:a) In the Flood scenario deposits on the craton would be easily eroded away as each transgression receded, because it's higher ground, so that the claim that the water didn't get high over the craton is not necessarily correct.b) Also, it is clear, to me anyway, that the thinner layers at the rims of the basins with the thicker at the bottom, would have been the result of the wet sediments running downslope into the basin. Oddly enough, sediments deposited on a slope, even a very steep slope as seen in the Berthault sedimentology film I posted a while back, deposit evenly, all the same thickness even on the slope. So if sediments deposited INTO the basin that's what we should expect, and not this pooling at the bottomc) The Bible doesn't describe the water getting miles deep over the land so I've wondered why it seems to have done so in reality. Perhaps subsidence that kept pace with each transgression/tide explains that. Or even if it didn't exactly keep pace. Nevertheless the water had to rise at least 1250 feet to lay down the sediments in the Sauk Sequence, and in reality quite a bit higher because so much would be eroded away as the tide went out. That's the minimum level possible.

What on earth is your obsession with "compaction?" Of course they were compacted. So what? I've discussed compaction in many contexts before. You're just babbling.

The fact is they were. You should stay out of discussions you haven't been following.

But of course a bunch of rocks is all it is, named "Ordovician," so you can drill in the rocks called Ordovician and do just fine.

I believe I already explained what would have to happen for the water not to have to rise miles to cover miles of sediment in Message 514. Each deposit sinks so that the next can be deposited in shallow water. That explanation seems to cover it. Since there are extremely deep areas of the Geological Column, flat across the country, and some of it DOES extend into the UK and Europe, as Morris says, those parts had to all sink together. A basin explains absolutely nothing about that. And as evidence it's useless. You need evidence for the large flat areas and so far I haven't seen any. But hey maybe I missed it. If so I'll come back to it eventually. Yes, I don't get what the cratons have to do with any of it since presumably the sequences covered the entire continent.I've had enough. Communication with you is impossible. I'm not interested in your little snarky remarks or any of the rest of it. Far as I can see the Flood explains it all just fine.And Pressie's volcanoes won't fit in the Jurassic strata. You might tell him that.

Seems to me you never even looked at Message 514 let alone refuted it.You say YECs don't consider that sediment could cause subsidence into the asthenosphere but that's what I was thinking about in 514. What degree of subsidence would be necessary to prevent the water from having to rise miles.Since there were no time periods, the idea that there were time periods of mountain building is just a mystification to me.If the continents were all one supercontinent it's hard to understand how all wouldn't have undergone the same effects at the same time.You may have gone out of your way to explain things that I nevertheless didn't get. Perhaps you're happy leaving it at that.Your snark has far outstripped any offenses on my part. And I apologized for the recent one. I don't recall you ever apologizing for anyting.Comments about the craton and continental margines are utterly totally meaningless to me. I don't know what point you're trying to make, so it doesn't become part of the discussion. One of those things you explain without getting anything across. Happens a lot in conversations with you.Volcanic rocks in Jurassic strata is qujite possible. Volcanoes are not. Because there is no such thing as a Jurassic period, it's a fiction. The evidence is of slabs of rock, flat slabs of rock, not a hint of their ever having been a time period at all. Most amazing piece of delusion ever invented. Even more amazing than macroevolution. .Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The same way you get dead dinosaurs or dead trilobites in various strata. They were carried in the Flood and deposited in that particular layer. It's not a time period. The fact that it's a flat slab of rock found among other flat slabs of rock all over the world is the proof that it's not a time period, it's a slab of rock that was originally a layer of wet sediment laid down in the Flood. A volcano won't fit there.Yeah this thread is done, I just had some mopping-up thoughts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nonsense. The mountains formed after the Flood. Perhaps it was mostly a bunch of rocks called Jurassic that got pushed up into the form of mountains of course. Isn't it dike, not dyke? Anyway so you have a dike called Jurassic that penetrated into a bunch of rocks called Triassic. So?Come to think of it how is that possible since the Jurassic followed the Triassic? I know it's not impossible but I don't see a clue in the picture that the rock positions were reversed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Now, of course, you aren't just talking about some volcanic rocks, you are talking about lava flows which is something else. My guess would be that they are sills that pushed into the Jurassic strata at the end of the Flood, but just a guess of course. There's evidence of post-Flood volcanoes, in the Grand Canyon, Grand Staircase area in particular, which was part of earlier arguments on this subject. And I'm sure you will agree that whether or not I can offer the evidence you want proves nothing about the Flood. Do take it to heart, it will change your life for the better. Which is nowhere in a flat slab of rock. With about the same degree of objective value as reading tea leaves. The human mind is marvelous when it comes to putting together disparate objects to create meaning. A fossilized bone buried in a slab of rock among fossilized plants becomes evidence of a creature that roamed around in a world that contained those plants instead of evidence of a dead animal and dead plants buried in mud. Ripples caused by wind on a still-wet deposit of the Flood become a beach. Marvelous imagination. My attention span isn't too good at the moment.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I recall, a British team of creationists were studying just this phenomenon a few years ago. I forget their purpose, something to do with earthquakes as I vaguely recall, but all such communications between "time periods" are much better evidence for the Flood. But in any case if you are implying that I say that the contacts between layers are ALWAYS tight, you're wrong. Just that their existence at all is evidence against time periods and for the Flood. The very existence of such a contact that intersperses the sediments of different "time periods' is evidence against them. Tight contacts, muddy eroded contacts, interspersed sedimentary layered contacts -- none of it is evidence for time periods, but good for the Flood. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not if you had half a clue to the whole context, but I'm not going to take the time to fill you in right now.

That's one of the rudest stupidest posts I've ever read.

It fits the geological evidence and it doesn't contradict the Bible.

It fits the geological evidence which has been argued on other threads It's all about the timing of the continental split and tectonic pressures. You speak from arrogant ignorance.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've proved the Flood over and over and over. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.