The TRVE history of the Flood...

Your drawing doesn't make any sense.This is what it actually looks like.Today:Processes similar to this and this and this and this and this and millions of other different processes happening simultaneously around the world.End of the Cambrian:Processes similar to this and this and this and this and this and millions of other different processes happening simultaneously around the world.End of Jurassic:Processes similar to this and this and this and this and this and millions of other different processes happening simultaneously around the world.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Okay, to clarify (and I'm not much of a stickler on things like this) the official terminology as I learned it is this, from Wikipedia: In other words Ordovician Period (notice capitalization) refers to a period of time, and Ordovician System refers to the rocks that formed during that time period. Okay, so the Precambrian is another time period that includes time before the Cambrian Period. It is huge, consisting of 90% of the existence of the planet. As we learn more about this deepest part of time, it becomes increasingly complex and is more and more subdivided.But yes, in your area, most of the rocks are Precambrian in age.Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

If you say so. Not really. The craton (the basement rock, if you will) could subside and allow more sediments to be deposited in a later event. We know that this happens, so I'm not sure what your complaint is. Actually, the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase rocks were not deposited on the higher part of the craton. It actually occurs on the edge of the craton where subsidence is frequently observed. There are a few problems with Morris' story. For instance, if this was a transgressive sand, that means that there was a source for the sand. That means a land mass and erosion of a quartz-rich source rock. Where do you think that was?In fact, much of North America was underwater in the Ordovician. However, Morris forgets that there are other continents and does not recognize that most of those were not inundated. Remember the differences reported by Pressie? Except for the obvious (to most of us) time range and the fact that the sequences do not cover entire continents or mountain belts. Some of them perhaps. However, it isn't to difficult to tell the age of a basin from its filling material. There are modern basins, for instance that oil companies drill completely through to find pre-basin rocks as source rocks or as reservoirs.If that is the case, we would know it. I have seen the effects of salt tectonics here in Colorado. It's pretty obvious. That and the fact that they rocks vary laterally in many ways, including thickness and number of units. This was one of the early puzzles for geologists as to why there were some rock sequences that are so thick and why they often occur in mountain ranges. Sure over millions of years there were many transgressions. Some major and some minor. That makes it kind of hard to explain evaporites and trace fossils, doesn't it? So in between these 'tides', you had time for dinosaurs to populate the planet and build nests and raise young, all the while changing the community of species. The problem being that the sediments are significantly thicker in the centers of the basin. I would imagine so.I mean the fact that they are called 'cratonic sequences' doesn't mean the the craton has anything to do with them, yes?(Balance of text snipped for brevity)Your little story is nice, but it is contrafactual. There is nothing to support it. I'm not going to sit here and take it apart point by point as I/we have in the past. You can believe what you want, but it makes no sense with respect to the data in the field. You are alone on this.

How this could have happened after deposition of strata across a continent is not clear. I would ask Faith how that might have happened.In answer to your suggestion, yes, I believe it can and does happen.When you look at the depth of sediments in the Mississippi Delta, you have to ask how 15km of Tertiary sediment can fit into a body of water only 4km deep, at the most. This stuff has to be sinking into the asthenosphere. Right now.

I believe I already explained what would have to happen for the water not to have to rise miles to cover miles of sediment in Message 514. Each deposit sinks so that the next can be deposited in shallow water. That explanation seems to cover it. Since there are extremely deep areas of the Geological Column, flat across the country, and some of it DOES extend into the UK and Europe, as Morris says, those parts had to all sink together. A basin explains absolutely nothing about that. And as evidence it's useless. You need evidence for the large flat areas and so far I haven't seen any. But hey maybe I missed it. If so I'll come back to it eventually. Yes, I don't get what the cratons have to do with any of it since presumably the sequences covered the entire continent.I've had enough. Communication with you is impossible. I'm not interested in your little snarky remarks or any of the rest of it. Far as I can see the Flood explains it all just fine.And Pressie's volcanoes won't fit in the Jurassic strata. You might tell him that.

And that explanation has been refuted.But basically yes a portion of the cration subsides under the weight of new sediment.You know, it wonders me that YECs can easily accept that water will displace the asthenosphere to form the ocean basins, but cannot accept that sediments are actually shown to do so. Very possible. At the particular time of the Saint Peter sandstone both the North American continent and Eurasia were not undergoing mountain building, so the were at a relatively low elevation, so yeah, they had a similar history. That changed in the late Ordovician. No. That has never been stated. I went out of may way to explain this part of the story. And I'm not thrilled with you calling my arguments fraudulent. So we are even. As I have said repeatedly, the craton does not necessarily include the continental margins where volcanoes and mountain occur. The cratonic sequences only explain the inter-regional transgressions across certain northern continents.And I'm sorry, but if there are volcanic rocks in the Jurassic, they HAVE to fit in somehow.

Seems to me you never even looked at Message 514 let alone refuted it.You say YECs don't consider that sediment could cause subsidence into the asthenosphere but that's what I was thinking about in 514. What degree of subsidence would be necessary to prevent the water from having to rise miles.Since there were no time periods, the idea that there were time periods of mountain building is just a mystification to me.If the continents were all one supercontinent it's hard to understand how all wouldn't have undergone the same effects at the same time.You may have gone out of your way to explain things that I nevertheless didn't get. Perhaps you're happy leaving it at that.Your snark has far outstripped any offenses on my part. And I apologized for the recent one. I don't recall you ever apologizing for anyting.Comments about the craton and continental margines are utterly totally meaningless to me. I don't know what point you're trying to make, so it doesn't become part of the discussion. One of those things you explain without getting anything across. Happens a lot in conversations with you.Volcanic rocks in Jurassic strata is qujite possible. Volcanoes are not. Because there is no such thing as a Jurassic period, it's a fiction. The evidence is of slabs of rock, flat slabs of rock, not a hint of their ever having been a time period at all. Most amazing piece of delusion ever invented. Even more amazing than macroevolution. .Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Really? I beg to differ as those basalts you see here are Jurassic and here you will find a photo of a Jurassic dyke found in a Triassic "bunch of rocks"

I thought this thread was done, but this statement is puzzling. How do you get volcanic rocks without volcanoes of some sort?

You should kiss my ass!

The same way you get dead dinosaurs or dead trilobites in various strata. They were carried in the Flood and deposited in that particular layer. It's not a time period. The fact that it's a flat slab of rock found among other flat slabs of rock all over the world is the proof that it's not a time period, it's a slab of rock that was originally a layer of wet sediment laid down in the Flood. A volcano won't fit there.Yeah this thread is done, I just had some mopping-up thoughts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nonsense. The mountains formed after the Flood. Perhaps it was mostly a bunch of rocks called Jurassic that got pushed up into the form of mountains of course. Isn't it dike, not dyke? Anyway so you have a dike called Jurassic that penetrated into a bunch of rocks called Triassic. So?Come to think of it how is that possible since the Jurassic followed the Triassic? I know it's not impossible but I don't see a clue in the picture that the rock positions were reversed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Except of course for the fact that there has never been a world-wide flood while humans existed and the evidence, including what is actually written in the Bible shows that is a fact.First, as was shown back in Message 120 and again in Message 171 there is not just one Biblical Flood myth but two and they are mutually exclusive. One or both must be false.Second as was shown in Message 169 there are paintings and petroglyphs from before the dates of the imagined Biblical flood that have never been submerged under water.Then there are the facts laid out in Message 175 that also predate the imaginary Biblical Flood and continued right through the period.And the facts that show the Bible is not a good witness were presented in Message 279.Then there are the other things that lived and existed right through the imaginary Biblical flood that were presented in Message 342 and Message 346 and Message 347.The TRUTH of the Biblical flood is that it never happened.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Perhaps then you have evidence that intact lava flows were transported over long distances to their present locations in the strata. Perhaps you have some idea how certain volcanic structures such as calderas and volcanic vents were preserved during transport to the Jurassic System. Whatever you say, Faith. Except where they do fit in.And, perhaps to you, it's just a 'flat slab of rocks', but the observations say differently. There are processes, compositions and textures that have meaning. Yeah, there could be a lot to mop up if one is interested.And just to amplify on an idea that came up earlier about compaction, here is an image of a section through the Hermit/Coconino contact showing mudcracks in the red Hermit Shale filled by sand from the overlying Coconino Sandstone. I've been looking for this image for days now. Notice the 'lightning bolt' shape of the cracks as they were compressed by the weight of overlying sediments.Notice also the wavy nature of the contact as there were slight variations in pressure exerted on the underlying shale.And here is another item that I thought might be of interest to some before the thread dies. This is a schematic of how many lithological contacts occur. While the differing compositions are clear, it is not clear where to draw the contact as it would appear on a map. Would it be at the first shale or at the last sandstone layer? The reason I bring this up is because of all the talk about knife sharp contacts that we have seen. The reality is that contacts are not always clear cut.

Spelling in the English language is not uniform over the world. I guess you are not familiar with the concept of cross-cutting structures...The point is that if a dike cuts across a rock (Triassic in this case), it is younger than that rock. If it does not cross-cut another rock (Jurassic in this example) then it is older than that rock. So, the dike had to form sometime between the older and younger rock.Okay, so if you can find a place where the dike cuts across all sedimentary rocks to the most recent 'flood' rocks, then you could say that it is younger than all of them.