The TRVE history of the Flood...

Coyote, they will never discuss your research, because they can't find anything about it on some creationist website. The so-called "scientific" creationists deliberately ignore you while their sheep don't want to know anything about you or your reseach.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Unconformities are really easy to identify in all those rocks I've studied. I'm not too sure why you think there's only six unconformities in the rocks I've studied deposited on the Kaapvaal Craton. I found many, many more. Sure. It involves the Barberton, Wits, Transvaal, Gravelotte, Dwyka, Witteberg, Vryheid, Bokkeveld, Table Mountain, Vanrhynsdorp, Malmesbury, Vaalkoppies, etc. etc. All in South Africa.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This would be very interesting. I take it that CRR is going to unearth a fossil.

From my Message 433:

quote:

---

Please from this point on discuss the history of the flood, i.e., what happened during the flood and when, and how we know. The Bible can be used as a starting point, but corroborating real world evidence must also be supplied.

---

I've read this as meaning corroborating evidence for claims about the Flood -- although these may have originated in the Bible -- but not for the Bible itself. Edited by Faith, : ATTEMPT AT GREATER CLARITY

In this thread you can't argue that something is true because the Bible is true. You have to supply corroborating real world evidence.

So, you assert. You have been given the facts of paleosoils, plant root horizons, trackways, etc., etc. If you deny that they exist, that is another problem. Well, the Grand Canyon has several of them. It is even more unlikely that any geologists would expect them to exist in one location. Do you not understand the term 'emergent'? Sure, all of the strata present in the area were affected.While you are thinking, think up a reason why younger sediments in the Rocky Mountains are unaffected. Again, you base this on an assertion that is not in evidence. It is not clear what you mean here. If you have a better explanation for the evidence, this would be a good time to present it. Sorry, I missed it. All I've seen is wishful thinking on your part, an attempt to prop up your religious mythology. You do not explain evaporites, or dinosaur nests forming in the middle of a flood. In fact, there are a lot of things you have failed to explain, but we can start with some of the things that have been mentioned on this thread. I know that Coyote is waiting on you.

Well, I am familiar with some of them having worked in the areas; and I have mentioned some to you already in different context.One is the Zuni sequence which ended with the formation of an unconformity on which dinosaurs walked and the coal fields of the eastern Rocky Mountains and the high plains.Another is your favorite, the Sauk Sequence which started with inundation of the unconformity at the base of the Tapeats Sandstone. This one is not called the 'Great Unconformity' for nothing. It is truly continental in scale.Another that I am familiar with is the Absarokan Sequence which started during the Pennsylvanian Period, in 'guess where.' Do you remember what I said about that?If you click on the links for each sequence located on the Wikipedia page that I posted earlier, you can go to a description of each sequence with more detail. I may try to do that again later when I have some time.Once again, I refer you to Coyote's questions. What you see here is personal experience with actual data and it is all being presented to you by Pressie, Coyote and myself. With what can you match that experience?

Your posts are too cryptic for me to follow, and I think you should post the link again instead of asking me to go find it.

Okay, it's going to take more work than I thought. I had thought that there were direct links, but I've been to too many Wiki sites to remember properlyHere is an example:Lets talk about the Tippecanoe Sequence, mid-Ordovician to early Devonian in age.Here is a quote from John Morris, of all people:

quote:

---

"Each sequence begins with a basal sandstone containing sand grains of lessening diameter as one moves upward through the layer. This is typically covered by shale or siltstone composed of tiny particles, which in turn is covered by extremely tiny, precipitated particles. The lowest megasequence is the Sauk Megasequence, which was followed by an erosional unconformity. The overlying megasequence is called the Tippecanoe Megasequence. The pure quartz sandstone at its base is called the St. Peter Sandstone, and above that lie shale and limestone beds, also followed by an unconformity.
(bold added for emphasis) The St. Peter Sandstone | The Institute for Creation Research

---

So, the Tippecanoe Sequence, as described by Morris is bound at top and bottom by unconformities. The basal unit, overlying the lower boundary is the Saint Peter Sandstone.In that case, where ever we see the Saint Peter Sandstone, it should overlie an unconformity which is the lower bound to the Tippecanoe Sequence.Here is a diagram showing the Saint Peter Sandstone and equivalent sandstone formations across North America.http://www.icr.org/i/articles/af/st_peter_sandstone_wide.jpgSo, if you want to find that unconformity, just go to any location within the brown-colored area on the map. Drill a borehole if necessary. You will find the unconformity.I'm not sure, but the basal Tippecanoe (St. Peter Sandstone) may correlate with parts of the Old Red Sandstone in northern Europe, attesting to the intercontinental status of the Tippecanoe Sequence.Now, do you really want me to do this for each sequence and each boundary in the chart that you presented?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

OK, what do these unconformities look like? How would I recognize it?And tell me again what the significance of these unconformities is understood to be? Not if there is reason to think they all follow pretty much the same pattern Morris described.ABE: By the way, the link to the St Peter Sandstone article only goes to a tiny map of the US.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You mention Coyote's questions. I can't find them. Please keep in mind that sometimes I can't digest everything in your posts; probably often. Sometimes it's a big accomplishment to get any of it and the rest has to be ignored. I'm used to Coyote mostly making remarks about radiometric timing and may not have read the post you are talking about in the first place. And I usually regret having any conversation at all with Pressie so I wouldn't get that reference either. You're hard enough to deal with hut there are others who are actually harder.AND: I don't expect to match anybody's experience. If it's clearly articulated it can be very helpful to hear about it, but sometimes people are good workers in their field but not good with words. If I get a clear picture of what someone is talking about then it may raise questions that help organize my Flood point of view, not that such a result would please you of course.

You have been shown a number of unconformities, mostly denied by yourself. Some are only known by mapping large areas, others by age dates. I have already explained to you about erosional surfaces, paleosoils and trace fossils. They represent missing geological record and are boundaries between major geological events. Eventually they would. This one was relatively easy, however. I believe there are two links in the post.

Well, like with so many disciplines, people spend years studying these things at university. I can't apologize for it being a complex science. Well, Pressie is a bit impatient, but it wouldn't hurt to learn something from his posts. Coyote has a different approach being an archaeologist, but the tools and reasoning are very similar to geology. I understand both. The impression is that you are not learning anything; in fact it seems more that you refuse to learn anything. That is frustrating to people who have spent their careers studying a scientific profession. In fact, in many cases, it is insulting.

People learn easier if they are taught rather than abused for being ignorant.