The TRVE history of the Flood...

Or the Bay of Fundy. I was there last fall and it struck me what a good place that would be to model creationist flood behavior.or Faith's contention that footprints would be left in one layer as the tide came in.It does look like mudflats with erosion channels that resemble the u-shaped channels seen at Palouse River, Mt St Helens, channeled scablands, and other places that have been discussed (Catastrophic Cascade U-channels vs V-channel Grand Canyon, Message 432 on the Why the Flood Never Happened for example. The whole bay was a U-channel. There were some rock spires, but they were totally different from the ones in the Grand Canyon: and they were only in one section near the shore, not out in the middle. You can see the scouring effect of the water laden with silt (think sandpaper). I walked out on the mudflat and rock outcroppings at low tide around some of these, and the only footprints I saw were the ones just made since the tide receded, they were fresh and showed raised edges typical of fresh new footprints.Except near the rocky shore, when the tide recedes the surface is soft wet mud that would flow into footprints, the incoming water picks up the surface, eradicating any vestige of footprints, and turning the water brown with fine sediment particles, which are still suspended when the ebb tide begins. Coarser particles are deposited, but the mud remains soft, wet and sticky. Part of the reason the tide can come in faster than a person can run, is that the muddy bottom is soft, you sink in, it clings to you (They had hose stations to wash your feet/shoes after walking on the exposed bottom).Enjoy

Spent years near the California coasts both north and south. No idea what your cryptic comment is about. Don't know where you are getting the six hours since tides are twelve hours apart. And yes I think they would leave something like mudflats behind, yes indeed, especially if they are moving fast. I'm also not sure where you are getting the hundreds of miles since how far the tide reaches depends on how high the sea has risen. If hundreds of miles then hundreds of miles but I haven't tried to figure it out. The waves during rising and falling and at low tide are irrelevant to what we are talking about. I only mentioned that of course there would be waves on the encroaching edge because somebody brought it up as a question. It's the tides that do the work I'm talking about, not waves. No. And it's twelve. Says who? The water is RISING, remember, each tide would be higher because this is a Flood and the sea water is continuously rising. The tide will reach the nest when it reaches it, not before. Are you talking about the dinosaur nests or something else now? Not in my scenario, don't know where you are getting this. [qs][qs] 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. I haven't considered yet how this fits into the cratonic sequences, if at all, so you are just imposing some idea of your own on me. I never said I accept that chart as given either. It suggests to me the Flood separated into phases, but I haven't figured out what that would mean in reality.The idea of the tides is one I've had for some time. It gives a way of explaining the tracks and other impressions in the rocks. Mostly it just makes sense that tides would be very long as the sea rose, not mere waves lapping at a beach but now the tides extending across quite a stretch of land. This should be true of rising sea water no matter what else is also going on.Again, I don't know what to make of the six seas on that chart. Again, they suggest to me the Flood rising in phases, but it obviously couldn't be about tides, I never said that. I couldn't accept the chart in any case because it's got periods of erosion between transgressions, which wouldn't happen in the Flood.If you recall I was speculating about continuously rising water, which does not reflect that chart. Subsidence of the land came up as a way of saying why it wouldn't have had to rise as high as the sum total of all the deposits of all six transgressions, but there hasn't been any clear reason to think that's what happened. I certainly was not taking much on the chart as factual.My point was that a series of such transgressions, added one on top of the other, would require the sea to rise as much as 1000 feet or more for each deposit of sedimentary layers, which would ultimately get to a level approaching Noah's Flood. That doesn't exactly reflect the idea of the chart. It was an honest answer to a question. Again, I never ACCEPTED the cratonic sequences theory. See above. It suggested water rising to the level of Noah's Flood and that's mostly what I got out of it. Don't have an explanation for the six cycles, haven't ventured a guess about that, this is all your own stuff not mine. I'm sure I haven't got this all worked out perfectly, but it's also not as confusing as you are pretending it is.I think I should have answered one of your earlier posts first because it dawned on me you are referring to something in this one I haven't yet read. Oh well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here's where it becomes clear that I don't accept the chart of the six transgressions as understood by standard Geology. To me it suggested the one Flood in stages of rising, rather than a series of transgressions that covered all or most of the continent. The Flood wouldn't have completely covered the land in the early phases as the transgressions supposedly did, it would have taken time to get to the level where the land was completely covered. Tides would leave flat damp areas when they went out.I'm really unable to picture what the chart supposedly represents. I get that unconformities would be caused by receding water eroding away previous deposits, but that's about it for my ability to interpret the idea. Nothing grew during the year of the Flood. {abe: except I suppose in areas where the water had receding though it was still receding}. You are apparently conflating something from your model with something from mine. No idea where you are getting such a notion. Seems more like a problem of mixed models and trying to have a conversation with a hostile geologist who isn't interested in making sense of what a Floodist has to say. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Posted here because it was getting too far off topic in "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Yes. If you visit Creation | Creation Ministries International you will find that is what YEC's say. If you are surprised at that then you don't really understand our position.We accept speciation within the kind. That we can get hybrids between species and even between genera supports this view.The initial radiation from the Ark into different environments would have encouraged rapid speciation within the kinds. Each new species would have reduced genetic diversity compared to the original population so speciation would slow down. Also today most ecological niches are filled, reducing opportunity for speciation.However even today speciation can be quite rapid in the right circumstances. "The rapid appearance today, of new varieties of fish, lizards, and more defies evolutionary expectations but fits perfectly with the Bible." Speedy species surprise - creation.com

John Woodmorappe (a pseudonym for a high school teacher named Jan Peczkis), in his article titled The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’—on evolutionists’ terms, posted on the answersingenesis.org website, has argued this very thing. He writes:

The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man—all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.

So Woodmorappe sees the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man taking place since the Babel incident, which occurred after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago.Homo ergaster is dated by scientists to between about 1.8 million and 1.3 million years ago, so the change from that critter to modern man took at least 1.1 million years. Now creationists propose a change from modern man to Homo ergaster in about 4,500 years (with instant fossilization and burial, along with a return to normal evolutionary rates). This post-Babel change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of 250 times as rapid as scientists see for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man!Most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all. Now creationists have not only proposed such a change themselves, but they see it operating 250 times faster and in reverse!No wonder creation "science" is considered joke!

Apart from the YECs who denounce speciation as an evil-utionist lie. It really is necessary to ask each separate YEC what they think and find out what tradition they belong to.Your post is like we asked if you believed in transubstantiation and you answered "This is what Christians believe, don't you know anything about Christianity?" To which we would reply: "Apparently we know more about it than you, because we know that it is divided into sects with conflicting views, and you do not." So, was the person who wrote this lying, ignorant, or insane?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Do you mean that the two giraffes on the Ark had more genetic diversity than the modern population? Are you trying to make us laugh?Actually, to get the modern divergence from a single ancestral population (of more than two) would take about 2 million years. At your YEC necessary mutation rate, from 4,500 years, every single giraffe that was born would have been genetically dead (too many detrimental mutations). Those rapid adaptations will be, genetically, virtually identical to the parent populations, and they don't "defy" evolutionary expectations.The 4 giraffe species show up to 2 million years worth of neutral divergence on their genomes. Even closely related subspecies within the 4 species show a minimum of 100,000 years worth of divergence from each other.As for speciation slowing down, the subspecies observed (possibly nine) seem to indicate that it's ongoing.And what about the Samotherium? Were they on the Ark?

No negative comments should be posted HERE on this thread because it was moved to the biological evolution sub board so that only geological evolutionaries could comment on the Worldwide Flood.If you want to talk about the Flood, I would assume you have to go to a MYTH BOARD where comments on evolution theory and biblical truths can be talked about.Thanks.The size and selection on the ARK and how many animals were inside I would assume is not allowed HEREIN on this board.

Just a word of explanation: High tides are twelve hours apart, and low tides are twelve hours part, but each tidal cycle consists of a high tide and a low tide 6 hours apart. The water rushes in for six hours to reach high tide, then it rushes out again for six hours to reach low tide, a total of twelve hours. Then the process repeats.Clarifying Edge's point, he's questioning your scenario because it requires a tide to rush in hundreds of miles in only six hours, and then to rush out again in only six hours. To pick a simple example, if the tide was rushing inland a distance of six hundred miles then it would require the tide to flow in and later flow out at the rate of one hundred miles per hour. This is why Edge is questioning how animals could have time to run in any distance to leave tracks, and how the tracks and nests with eggs could be left behind in such violent water, and how fine sediments could have been deposited, and so forth. Edge will have to confirm whether I've stated his concerns accurately.Edited by Admin, : Clarify writing.

This point of agreement might serve as the beginning of an expanding area of agreement.

I tried Google translate, but it blew up in confusion. Does anyone speak enough Jayish to have an idea what he's on about here?

In his own inimitable fashion, he's moderating the thread for us.

Jayish, is just History ..blue.This is my thread, proposed by me, but put in this 'biological evolution' sub-board, so that I could no longer discuss the true history of the Worldwide Flood via the true hostorical record in the Bible. This even though it has been confirmed that my math and exact dating does comply exactly to the biblical record. I then went on to show the exact dating via the distances of the prophetic marker called the Great Pyramid, and via the dating from Creation.Thats not double speak thats plain English, if you know the history of this thread. and TRUE HISTORY.Sadly the History of Evolution is not being allowed as a NEW TOPIC. How sad.

I don't think there's much comparison between the Bay of Fundy and the tides I'm thinking would have occurred in the Flood. Each tide would have been a one-time thing for starters, as sea level was continuously rising, causing each tide to reach farther inland by some unknown amount. (It took five months to reach its height so I guess some computations could start with that). And there wouldn't have been any rocks, not that that would have made a big difference I suppose) and I'd guess that the surface wouldn't have been so deep and sticky to feet, having been freshly deposited. Your description of the sandpaper-scouring sounds like what I've had in mind though.The question is how to get footprints preserved enough to end up in rock, on the surface of layers where they are found today. The standard assumption is that they are evidence that there were living creatures in that "time period," but that raises questions such as: how come there aren't dozens or hundreds of such creatures leaving their footprints there? That is, how come it's always a loner? How come it usually looks like it's running too, those long strides? (This is just my impression from the few I've seen, I suppose there could be different ones). On the usual interpretation there's the advantage of being able to assume they just dried out (although the sedimentary surface was no doubt wet implying it could get wet again), while the Flood has to allow for time for the prints to harden enough to be preserved. That's where the twelve hours between tides comes in, plus the scouring effect of the receding tide, and the heavy sediment load that the next tide would bring in. I think it holds together myself.

Sure. He is now moderating this thread (and others as well) to try and keep the confusion and goobly-gook nonsense of legitimate discussion from ruining his sermons.HBD