The TRVE history of the Flood...

I called YOU that, not the Geologists. I never said they know NOTHING about Geology. I get what I know from them, after all, when they are able and willing to be articulate and communicative, which is not always. But they know a lot, just not the crucially most important things, so their information needs adjustment. But I get my main information from a better source you see.

The evidence is there, ringo, even if you haven't bothered to grasp any of it.

Too bad what you learned is wrong.abe: Welllll, maybe not so much wrong as contextually misplaced and therefore irrelevant.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's called brain cramp from paradigmosis.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just the usual semantic miscommunication. If I get even 25% of what you say I consider that good. My fault of course, no matter. I've reached the point where I don't even want to ask you to clarify because I know it will only get worse.Not to worry, once it's clear the Flood Did it, I know eventually things will fall into place. I thought it interesting that the only ones shown in the GC area were one confined beneath the canyon as far as the cross section shows, and two others after the strata were all laid down, shown by their penetrating upward all the way through all the strata to the very top. Just an observation to be compared to other observations when needed. Ooo another little snarky snark. Actually I have quite a bit considering that I'm confined to the internet, a few books and a hostile geologist plus the usual band of hecklers. Semantic evasion is SUCH fun. What shall I call it then? You know, those layers of lithified sediments to which such weighty lore is attached by Geology? Not rock? What then? Not a slab? What then? Those sedimentary deposits, you know, that sometimes stretch many miles hundreds of feet deep in some cases. You know, THOSE things. Whaddayacallem? Fossils n dirt? How can that be wrong? Oh not IGNORE it, just don't build imaginary time periods out of it. Ooo, now THAT is some fancy snark there! But I agree, Fossils n dirt is far less interesting than imaginary time periods with odd flora and fauna cavorting therein. Snark of a lesser quality, but still snark. Honesty doesn't pay of course.

But it is clearly true. The only kind of contact that would be consistent with time periods would be something on the order of erosion down through many strata as a block, to the depth of the Grand Canyon perhaps, or a surface with hills and valleys on a scale such as we see on the surface today. You know, something that really LOOKS like it could have been a time period instead of a layer of wet sediment. Any at all is sufficient. But all the other actual contacts are evidence for the Flood too, as suggested above, it's just that the razor-sharp ones are the best. A few inches of rubble doesn't suggest surface time either but it's claimed for that purpose so pointing to the really neat tight ones makes the case better. But those represent time periods. As lithologies they make good evidence for the Flood anyway. Yes, I think so, yes. There is simply nothing about the appearance of ANY strata ANYWHERE that makes sense in terms of the Geological Time Scale.

The stories may fit together well but the physical reality of the strata is a glaring contradiction to the whole idea. I'm drawing a blank, can't think of one. It's a nice story I guess. But I find that the details contradict it myself, the details and the physical fact of the strata themselves.

The glaring contradiction is in what meets the eye, not in all your painstaking details. That level of things is open to all kinds of variables beyond anyone's ability to imagine. Nothing but a flood COULD explain how any sediments got layered at all. How on earth does the Old Earth fantasy of time periods explain these things? A guess: Settling out of the coarser grains would occur in a single deposit, but if the coarser grains are sitting on top of a former deposit they would be at the bottom of a second deposit on top of the silt at the top of the earlier deposit. But again the whole picture is of flood deposition; such anomalies need an explanation from flood deposition. You give up too easily. All that stuff had to get there somehow. You really think such a thick deposit would have accumulated over millions of years? That's actually rather funny. Most problems people put the Flood are actually harder to explain on the standard OE model. And this idea of dry dunes that somehow got sandwiched down into a layer between layers is also pretty strange. It's a layer like any other, deposited just like the others, in deep water. Nothing else would account for the flat top and bottom like any other layer. Crossbedding occurs in water too. Yes I know about the angle of repose. It's been clear for some time that the Flood came in tides or long waves with time gaps between them. I'm even more convinced of this after the bumpy weird Cratonic Sequences discussion. After the tide deposits its sediments and goes out, eroding much of what it just deposited, anything still living runs across the wet surface left behind. It's probably more like damp than wet after the scouring of the receding tide. Tracks stay formed in it, they even dry out some, then get filled in by the next tide. Perhaps so, but all these things make more sense on the Flood scenario than the OE scenario even if they're hard to explain. The idea that they are somehow killer objections to the Flood is just based on a failure of imagination about something nobody witnessed. All anyone can do is guess. The objections themselves are just guesses about what would have happened.Back to the strata: Just their physical reality to the naked eye is enough to show they are a glaring contradiction with the OE scenarios supposedly based on them.

Yes but the Jurassic comes after the Triassic, and this appears to penetrate from the bottom up through the Triassic; isn't that the wrong order? How did the Jurassic get beneath the Triassic? This ought to be fairly simple so I don't know what I'm missing. The GC examples I mentioned penetrate from beneath the canyon area all the way up through the uppermost level of the Grand Staircase on the north and the canyon on the south, so the volcanoes were clearly younger than all of it. That's clear, but the current example is hard to interpret for some reason since the Jurassic should be above the Triassic yet pushes up through the Triassic from below. How does a volcano originate in a layer of sediment? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What I was thinking of was that the silt was the top layer in a deposit that got compacted as the water receded, especially if a lot of sediment above it was eroded away; and that the sand was deposited after the silt had sat there for a while in its compacted state. No floating involved. Compacted silt became the surface the sand was deposited on. In fact I suggest that the sand could have precipitated out of a block of layers above it that got deposited later. The information given wasn't enough to speculate about really, but this is what I thought might have happened.

I get the idea better now, thanks, but ... ...what makes the flows Jurassic?

I said it got compacted by the removal of stuff above it, or the stuff itself for that matter, as the tide went out. Then it would have sat between tides before the next layer was deposited.My point about the Flood being the only reasonable explanation is that this is all about deposited sediments, which suggests deposition by the Flood rather than the time periods of standard Geology. Yes, just in daring to think about the Flood as an alternative to standard Geology I insult a bunch of geologists. Can't avoid it, might as well go for it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well it was. I hadn't seen evidence for it but I was entertaining the idea accurately enough. I speculated that it could even explain some problems for the Flood.

Silt was dry enough in my scenario.

About 12 hours.The true fantasy is the time period scenarios with odd species running around for millions of years. Absolute fantasy, totally imagined. On the other hand I have some speculations on this particular subject which could be wrong, unimportant. The sedimentary depositions are far better evidence for the Flood than for the fantasy of a Permian world or a Jurassic world or a Devonian world.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.