The TRVE history of the Flood...

During the Flood animals would be dying but not all dead until the full height of the Flood had been reached. If it rose tide by tide, which is my main hypothesis now, there would have been time between tides for animals to try to run away from it.

How would the tracks be preserved? We can see tracks on beaches every day and we know they're erased by the tide and/or waves.

Here's how I answered Tanypteryx about the tracks in Message 676: The tides being about twelve hours apart.

That doesn't answer the question. Why is your scenario different from what we observe every day?

Waves would erase tracks on a beach soon after they were created, but there wouldn't have been waves if the Flood built up tide by tide. The tide would come far up on to the land, and withdraw just as far back to the current level of the sea, eroding away a lot of what it just deposited, leaving the land damp with twelve hours to sit and dry some. This would be the case during the rising phase of the Flood. Once it covered all the land of course this wouldn't be happening any more.(Something similar possibly occurred during the receding phase but I'm not completely sure about that -- it seems more like a gigantic rapid draining of the water taking tons and tons of deposited sediments with it).

It's a strange tide the brings in coarse sediments from the sea.It's also a strange tide that happens only six times in a year.It's a very strange tide that deposits limestone. Only that it happens.There is complete disagreement how it happens and how much land is covered and how sediment is transported. And that's just a start. Or the fact that there are edges to the basin and sediments eroding into the basin. Or the fact that this surge seems only to apply to certain continents and that there were other land masses with mountains and erosion at the time.Basically, Faith requires (and so does faith, by the way) a bunch of ad hoc explanations that get in the way of other facts.

You do realize that this would describe erosion which, IIRC, you reject as occurring in places like the Grand Canyon Paleozoic sequence, right? Why not? Please explain. You seem to be describing a pond. And during those 12 hours, dinosaur would rush out into the flats and make nests, lay eggs, raise their young and eat exactly what? You realize that your tide is moving hundreds of kilometers, if not thousands, with each cycle. Problem being that there is no evidence this ever happened. The presence of a beach sand imply that there was land. The presence of fossil trees implies forests. The presence of dinosaur nests, raindrop impressions and myriad other trace fossils implies land.The kind of deposition you talk about would reasonably cause mixing of fossils. How does this explain the fossil record? Then, essentially, you moved the sediments out one last time. I imagine they would be quite worn out by then. Sorry but each cycle should have similar erosional effects. IIRC, you deny that there are old canyons buried in the Paleozoic rocks.This isn't holding together.

But why would they run back out on the mudflats in between floodings? Death wish?

It would have been the only land to run onto, the rest being the Flood itself. In that particular area anyway. Higher up in the early stages I suppose there would have still been some dry land. So our particular animal friend here just happened to get caught in the latest tide.

Remember the to-scale diagram that Moose presented in post 613? {Adminnemooseus note added by edit - On May 8, 2017 I added the link to the "post 613" above. On May 6, 2017 I had redone the graphics to be sourced from the Google cached versions, as the original source was no longer functional.}The GC sedimentary rocks were deposited on the western edge of the North American continent. As such, the craton there was thinner and probably younger than more interior craton such as in Wyoming.And, due to the tectonics that we discussed before, we do not have a problem with the current elevation of the Colorado Plateau. It is not the data that explains the model. The model should explain the data. You can pause no more. Salt tectonics is a very unique and recognizable geological process. If it were standard process to become angry at evasions, every scientifically inclined person in the forum would be subject to cardiac arrest.The problem here is that the Michigan Basin shows some of the same transgressions as the rest of the continent. It also demonstrates subsidence to which you strenuously objected and now accept. IIRC, you even asked for examples of subsidence and I provided you with three examples.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link for message 613, and also comments in red.

That won't work.The Zuni transgression, one of the later ones, has trees and dinosaur tracks in the Mesa Verde Group which was in an area previously flooded by earlier transgressions. How did those trees grow in coal swamps in less than a year? Why and how did dinosaurs repopulate the area in one year only to be run off again by a rising 'tide'?ETA: This is the problem with ad hoc explanations. They eventually run into reality of contrary facts. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I'm picturing the way the wet ground looks after a tide has gone out, it's not like erosion on land, it's a flat wet area. It would just become the surface of a rock in the Geological Column. Waves would occur at the encroaching edge of the water, but if the receding tide keeps pulling it all back out to sea there wouldn't be any waves while it's out. While it's in there would have been, at the farthest reach of the water, but what we're discussing is how tracks could have been formed in the sediment after the tide went out. Yes, well perhaps your imagination is better than mine. I'm open to adjusting my scenario if necessary. Yes I figure as the sea was rising with the Flood the tides would have to have reached very far onto the land. How far? I dunno. A long distance, reaching farther with each tide because of the rising of the sea. .As for dinosaur nests, I have to figure they were already there, got overtaken by the Flood and covered by sediment-heavy water. What were their nests made of by the way? If plant stems and that sort of thing they might have floated on the water for a while before being buried. But your sand is formed into a layer, sometimes a huge deep layer. That implies the Flood picking it up off an antediluvian beach and dumping it as a layer somewhere. Sand is the first sediment to be deposited according to Walther's Law, which may have something to do with the order of these things. But that's another subject I guess. But your trees are fossilized. That implies that antediluvian forests were overtaken by the Flood which buried lots of trees which got fossilized in the wet sediments which were the perfect condition for fossilization. Well there WAS land, before the Flood. Dinosaur nests would have been on that land as the Flood rose and buried them. Raindrops were probably preserved the way I suggested tracks would have been -- in damp sediment between tides then covered and filled in by sediment-laden Flood water. Birds of a feather getting buried together rather than mixed. I don't know how to explain the order but I'd bet it isn't quite as neat as you all think. We're talking sediments deposited in layers to a depth of as much as three miles. They probably sat under the Flood water for some time before it receded. Then it would have taken the uppermost layers with it, but that would still have left layers a mile deep in the Grand Canyon area and two miles deep to the north in the Grand Staircase. the ones left behind would have been the most compacted of course, not as easy to break up and wash away as the upper layers. What do you mean by a "cycle?" Or "similar erosional effects?" Yes, I think they are "new" canyons formed IN the strata by the receding Flood water entering gaps created above, carving out big canyons and then filling them in. Holding together pretty well I'd say.And once again I must add that the very existence of all the strata, the layers of formerly wet sediments, is far better evidence for the Flood than for the scenarios of the Geological Time Scale, those separate time periods populated by a very specific collection of living things. The Flood explanation is far more reasonable: rising sea water carrying all kinds of sediments, dumping them according to various laws of deposition that layer them, along with all kinds of living things. The purpose of the Flood was to kill all living things on the land; that purpose is well evidenced to have been fulfilled, by the sheer number of fossilized living things buried in sediments that had to have been deposited by water. It took out a lot of marine life along with it but that couldn't have been preserved on the Ark. And the creatures in some cases are very different from those living today, even when clearly part of the same family or species, and that is easily explained by their earlier stage of microevolution. And maybe I'll also mention here that the fact that trilobites and coelecanths of different varieties are found in many strata, different vraieties but still undeniably trilobites and coelecanths that according to the Geo Time Scale would have to have persisted through hundreds of millions of years with very little genetic change. It's really already an argument against fossils as proof of evolution that ech batch is considered to have lived during a time period of millions of years. Change occurs far more frequently and rapidly than that in our own observable world. Millions of years is really an impossible idea.

Oh drat, I'm actually having fun with this and look forward to the other posts waiting to be answered, but I didn't sleep much last night and I'm about to nod off. So the next round of fun will have to wait until later.

So, you've never been to the California coast ...But remember, your tides have to move hundreds of miles every 6 hours. Do you really think the sediments they leave behind would look like mudflats? That's silly. You realize that waves are not actually moving water very far, don't you? Receding water would still produce waves. Certainly everywhere I've been, they do. There are some places where shallow shorelines eliminate waves, but I'd say that's not the rule. And you don't see that as a problem. Hundreds of kilometers would not be a problem? Every 6 hours? But they were in areas already overrun by your tides 12 hours previously. These are not stems. They are rooted trees. The formed in swamps with rivers running through them. Once again, they are rooted in areas already overrun by the flood and then eroded. See above. You are just saying the same thing over and over. Look at the chart of cratonic sequences which you call tides. This isn't working. THat's it?You don't know, but it must be so?And it must be less orderly?That's an argument? So now you reject the cratonic sequence theory. So, there weren't 6 cycles with tides rushing across the continent. Faith, it's hard to discuss this when you keep changing your story. What happened to the tides and the unconformities?Please get your story straight.

I'm trying to work out in my head how your scenario would work.Remember, the Flood rose for forty days (Genesis 7:17) and according to you the Grand Staircase has two miles of Flood sediment. So 10,000 ft of sediment (rounded off) would have to be under water at least 10,000 ft deeper than the start of the flood. That means 10,000 ft water / 40 days = 250 ft of water per day.Would there be any tides as we know them? Tide heights are due to the interference of continents on the travel of the tidal bulge. Mid-ocean islands have much smaller tides than continental shores. As the Flood deepened and more of the continents were flooded, the tidal range would shrink.Between the two affects of tide and rising Flood, I would think that rather than tides flowing in & out, the rising Flood would slow during the falling tide and surge faster during the rising tide. More like stairsteps than cycles.