The TRVE history of the Flood...

The thing is, if Berthault's experiments show the way strata are laid down in rising water then that is no doubt how they were laid down during the rising Flood water, and if that is what happened then the claims of radiometric dating are simply wrong. I don't think all the strata had to be laid down at once, maybe in phases a block of strata at a time, but all of it during the Flood. There is no "obviously wasn't" to this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I was about to post that same image myself. The ultimate point for me, of course, is that moving water lays down strata at whatever rate it is moving. So I'd see the flume experiments applying to rising sea water too since layers are being deposited with its movement. It could be that the sea water doesn't deposit the layers simultaneously as we see in the flume (but I'm not sure). But if the water is rising fast enough to cover the earth to some depth within five months then we are certainly talking about rapid deposition and not millions of years.The point about superposition is about timing: if the layers are being deposited pretty much simultaneously then the upper is not younger than the lower which is the usual understanding of the principle of superposition. In any case, in either model, this is very rapid deposition and not slow formation of strata that mark long time periods.(I'm not really getting your point about regressive movement)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Google:And here's Wikipedia:

Since edge the swashbuckling geologist is back, smiting creationists right and left and giving no quarter, I thought I'd bring up another subject that I don't think ever got fully discussed. I could be wrong but anyway we can always have a review. I need an explanation. This is about the "cratonic sequences" of six seas that came and went during the Phanerozoic Era, one after another, usually illustrated something like this: I'm unable to decipher those charts but I can figure out at least that they describe six different transgressions of the sea over North America one after another during the periods indicated.We start with the shallow Sauk Sea. It comes and goes from the pre-Cambrian into the Ordovician,over about 100 million years, then the Absaroka starts and comes and goes for another 100 million years or so and so on up the Geological Time Scale.I think these are all shallow seas? And periods of erosion are indicated on the chart, but I really can't grasp exactly what the chart represents, what is supposed to be going on. Perhaps someone can explain that for starters. ANYWAY:
Observation: Each of these seas lays down strata. The transgressions may be limited to one area in particular. The sea stays for a while and then regresses and eventually along comes another transgression. Observation: The strata are being built up one on top of another in each of these periods. Deduction: That means the depth/height of the stack of strata is growing with each transgression. (Using the Grand Canyon area as the model, the strata ultimately reach a height of three miles or more.) Deduction: If the strata are continuing to grow higher and higher that means each new transgression has to rise higher than the previous to cover the previous sedimentary deposits and lay down new deposits. Observation: By the time the Tejas sequence has regressed in recent time the six seas have come and gone over some 540 million years, and the strata have climbed to over two miles.I skimmed Wikipedia entries for each of the transgressions but somehow missed answers to my question: Question: Which is basically this: By the time the whole stack of strata has built up to the Cenozoic level the sea would have to have risen almost as much as it would have in Noah's Flood, only in large increments at a time, and over a hundred or two million years in most cases. Rise to that level, deposit sediments over those millions of years, and then recede, and then return again to a yet higher level. If Noah's Flood is supposedly impossible, why are all these sea transgressions possible? Almost as much water would have been involved, rising and falling six times and each time to a greater depth/height. If it's hard to imagine the mechanics to explain the Flood it is just as hard to explain these sea transgressions at higher and higher levels. Yes?I eagerly await the complex rationalizations laced with snarky insults.My suspicion: This is all evidence for the Flood in reality. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : Correct grammarEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But do you have a series of sea transgressions over the period of the Phanerozoic?To answer your second question, the water would have risen high enough to swamp every other continent, no? abe: Note that although the sea transgressions are all shallow or very limited in extent, they ARE sea transgressions, which don't happen only to one continent but have to affect all; and each occurs at a higher level than the previous until the uppermost has to rise over two miles to lay down the Cenozoic sediments. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, well I stated that conclusion I've come to in a brief answer to some other point that came up. I've argued it elsewhere.Instead of changing the subject how about reconsidering the post I just made? The water would have to have risen high enough to swamp South Africa too.

I said over the PERIOD of the Phanerozoic, Pressie. During that TIME FRAME were there sea transgressions in South Africa or other parts of the world to match those in North America?Instead of evading the question would you please consider that periodic transgressions over higher and higher strata on one continent would have to flood other continents as well?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sigh.
Try one more time:DURING THE 542 million years that are said to span the Phanerozoic Era from the Cambrian to the Cenozoic, was there or was there not a series of sea transgressions over South Africa or any other continent?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not the SOLE responsible mechanism?But surely it is indisputable that if the sea transgresses one continent it must transgress all others, yes?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Now wait a minute. You just found it very funny that I said the high mountains were pushed up by tectonic activity after the Flood. Except for the time difference I'm saying the same thing you are saying. In my system of thought the strata were all laid down in the Flood waters, and of course that would have deposited a lot of marine life in those strata, and after the Flood the mountains were raised, containing a lot of marine life, and the continents split apart under tectonic pressure and have drifted since then to their present locations. The continents are now drifting at a very very slow rate but they are still drifting; and likewise the Himalayas are still being pushed up by the same tectonic force also at a much slower rate than they started out.You have a much longer period of time in mind, but the mechanics of how the mountains formed are the same for both of us. CRR didn't say anything to deserve that, Pressie. YOU should learn some manners.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They are called SEA TRANSGRESSIONS, Paul. That is what...they...are...called.So somebody noticed that golly gee we don't see this elsewhere so there MUST be some other reason than rising sea etc.But my Message 477 nevertheless brings up difficult issues for any explanation other than Noah's Flood because the last transgression had to rise a couple of miles to cover the uppermost strata, and there is no way that could possibly have happened without transgressing all the other continents.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The other continents had to be affected, Paul. If they don't have those identifiable transgressions, that says a lot about some scientific errors in North America, but as far as the general point goes there is no way all the continents would have escaped being covered in water.ABE: And that's not evidence, Paul, the fact that other continents don't show the same transgressions shows an error somewhere, it's not evidence of anything but error.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is a conclusion from the evidence given in Message 477 and discussed later. You do believe in evidence don't you? That evidence shows that if what they are claiming about those six transgressions is true then all the other continents had to be flooded probably by the second or third transgression but certainly by the last.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

`My eyes can't handle that whole page. Let me guess: Leonardo was thinking only of the water covering the current mountain heights?If so that's a straw man, as creationists today accept that the strata were first laid down and then after the Flood tectonic force pushed the mountains up. Since they are continuing to rise very slowly this explanation is quite probable.

You kept saying you'd mentioned evidence and I saw no evidence. Now I see that Percy has mentioned that in one post you suggested subsidence. I hadn't seen it, and for some reason you never saw fit to repeat it.A couple of thoughts:First, shouldn't there be some evidence of subsidence?Subsidence would be a pretty violent physical event wouldn't it? On the order of tectonic violence at least? And if it occurred with each transgression then there ought to be evidence of the most recent, which reaches into the present. Is there any?If the cause was subsidence then presumably the land would have subsided because of each deposition of strata or something like that? The weight being the cause? So each time the water transgresses it lays down new strata AND the land subsides again? So that the next transgression doesn't have to rise any higher than the first? Well, it works on paper, but you do have to assume an unlikely perfection of balance between weight and subsidence, and also such large-scale physical movement should show more effects than there seem to be, IMO: Such as for instance the fact that the Grand Canyon walls remain relatively intact. Or some clear disturbance in the Geological Column with every transgressive event. I dunno, those strata in the GC look pretty intact for most of its length.AND, in the end wouldn't we have three miles of strata all sunk below sea level? But that obviously is not the case.Also don't other continents demonstrate the same original depth of strata, Europe at least, and Asia too? So they too should have experienced something like the same sequence of transgressions and the same degree of subsidence. But where is the evidence of either?