The TRVE history of the Flood...

I've read up through Faith's Message 615, and I think the most important part of your explanation that still hasn't gotten across is how a shallow sea can leave behind miles-thick sedimentary deposits. Once this point is clear then sedimentary deposits across the craton can be explained. Surprised me also.

They also keep harping on this whole "razor sharp" contact lines between the layers, as if it was possible for it to be some other way, or something.Doesn't make any sense.

Well, the first point is that the sedimentary rocks are not as thick on th higher parts of th craton. In fact, some of the formations were never deposited because the seas never rose high enough to cover the craton or the mountain belts built on continental crust. The thickest sections are on the craton margins or in intracratonic basins. This includes the Grand Canyon area.The second point is that both continental and oceanic crust will subside due to loading by sediment and other tectonic factors. This means that sediment can continue to stack up without increasing the water depth.Hope this helps.

I know this is a quote from edge but I'll answer it here. I have never said anything about them being parallel top and bottom to some degree of perfection, but you can look at them and see a GENERAL parallel form and that's all I've ever meant. All I've ever said is that they are originally laid down horizontally or "flat" across the flat continent, which is what water would do. Differences in thickness are certainly possible and irrelevant. I also know that some layers are not continuous all the way across. So what? The point is that they were originally laid down flat, one on top of another. Go look at the walls of the Grand Canyon -- flat, parallel, perfection is not implied but look at them, they are flat and parallel TO THE NAKED EYE. You have obviously not been involved in discussions of these things or you'd know the context in which that is said. The point is that mainstream Geology says that the layers represent time periods, (Cambrian, Devonian, Permian, Jurassic, etc) or groups of layers do, and they will point to minuscule amounts of erosion between some layers to prove it, which is utterly ridiculous if you compare it to erosion as seen on the surface of the earth today. Yet they claim those time periods persisted over millions of years. No, their actual appearance is of sediments laid down in water one on top of another, and sometimes they have those extremely razor tight contacts. That is not what you'd get from a surface that had been on the the surface of the Earth for lmillions of years, or even ten or one, or a month. That is evidence for the Flood, not for the Geological Time Scale.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

1) So, since you are not addressing Percy's idea that miles-thick sedimentary deposits are possible from a shallow sea I gather you are saying no, that is not possible, which of course it isn't.2) Your claim is that the craton was never covered by water to any depth because it is too high, but you don't say anything about its actual height. Please provide that information. Of course I would expect the layering to be deeper where the water is deeper.3) There were apparently no high mountains during the Flood, the continents were pretty flat, evidenced by those sediments that were laid down from sea to shining sea. The mountains that have strata obviously formed after the Flood. I discussed this possibility in great detail in Message 514 which you ignored until now, instead talking about the utterly irrelevant basins as the only areas of subsidence. I pointed out in that post that the subsidence would have to be enough to lower the level to the point that you'd get shallow water with each subsequent transgression. So you have to say more than that it happened, you have to say to what depth it happened after each deposition. You especially have to consider to what level the whole stack had sunk by the time of the sixth transgression and give an estimate of how deep the water was at that point.Two considerations:a) In the Flood scenario deposits on the craton would be easily eroded away as each transgression receded, because it's higher ground, so that the claim that the water didn't get high over the craton is not necessarily correct.b) Also, it is clear, to me anyway, that the thinner layers at the rims of the basins with the thicker at the bottom, would have been the result of the wet sediments running downslope into the basin. Oddly enough, sediments deposited on a slope, even a very steep slope as seen in the Berthault sedimentology film I posted a while back, deposit evenly, all the same thickness even on the slope. So if sediments deposited INTO the basin that's what we should expect, and not this pooling at the bottomc) The Bible doesn't describe the water getting miles deep over the land so I've wondered why it seems to have done so in reality. Perhaps subsidence that kept pace with each transgression/tide explains that. Or even if it didn't exactly keep pace. Nevertheless the water had to rise at least 1250 feet to lay down the sediments in the Sauk Sequence, and in reality quite a bit higher because so much would be eroded away as the tide went out. That's the minimum level possible.

But we can't say that they were originally laid down flat just because they look flat today. They've gone through compaction, and that makes them flatter. They very well may not have been flat when they were laid down. That point is wrong and not supported by the evidence. There is more that proves it than just the amounts of erosion between them... But you don't know what you're looking at, and you're not a geologist. Sorry, but your observation is just wrong. Sure, but after all of the layers have been compacted together, you would expect exactly that.

What on earth is your obsession with "compaction?" Of course they were compacted. So what? I've discussed compaction in many contexts before. You're just babbling.

It means they were not necessarily originally laid down horizontally and flat.

The last time you pressed a heavy hot iron on a wrinkled shirt, did it stay wrinkled?

The fact is they were. You should stay out of discussions you haven't been following.

I got nice flat wrinkles.

What's that time machine going to cost?After all, as the evo side frequently protests, the Ordovician is a time period not a bunch of rocks (OSLT).That said, I do recognize that in geo-talk (slang?), "drilling an oil field in the Ordovician" actually means "drilling an oil field contained in Ordovician aged rocks".Maybe tomorrow, when it gets light, I'll go out and look at some preCambrian.Moose

But of course a bunch of rocks is all it is, named "Ordovician," so you can drill in the rocks called Ordovician and do just fine.

Nope. The Ordovician is not a bunch of rocks. Some "rocks" are Ordovician in age.

Edge hasn't responded yet and will have to confirm, but when you say this: Edge's response was actually in his next paragraph, which you quoted: As I said, Edge will have to confirm, but I believe he's agreeing that miles-thick sedimentary deposits are possible from a shallow sea. That's how the Michigan Basin formed. Here's that image again. Note that the depth of sediments grows to over a couple miles, and the water depth was never near that great. It was a shallow sea, the lowest point in the region, and it accumulated sediments over time that with the weight of increasing thickness gradually subsided into the continent: This is from the Wikipedia article on the Michigan Basin:

quote:

---

The basin appears to have subsided concurrently with basin filling as the sediments within the basin are all relatively shallow-water sediments, many of which are richly fossiliferous.

---

The same process of accumulation of sediments and subsidence took place all across the craton wherever there was net accumulation of sediments. Higher and more mountainous regions were areas of net erosion and served as a source for the sediments.I'm not trying to participate in the discussion, just trying to keep the discussion moving forward. As I said, Edge will have to confirm.