Attention Faith: Geological data and the Flood

I would like to take the opportunity to discuss with Faith about IRH's data if there is room and Faith is so inclined.I am currently taking a course in Earth history at the moment, and am curious how faith interprests the data. I am slightly concerned (I cringe but oh well...) about faiths absolutism but am more than willing to discuss the views faith has on geology. Faiths take on geology should be instructive for everyone, including faith. Perhaps faith (with discussion) in this thread can work out some hypothesis about how she thinks god worked the way he did (ie. how rocks lithify, sedimentation, uniformatism/catastrophism, etc.) Maybe then, when faith puts down her ideas on how things happened, we can expand upon those and put them into other contexts. Understanding her rule of superpostion in regards to IRH's data will allow us to use these ideas toward other data sets.It seems that the idea is to work out faiths ideas on geology and see if they can stand on their own merits.

I thought I would take a moment to put down some thoughts regarding this topic.If we are going to be discussing 'Flood Geology' as faith defines it, it would be nice if faith could provide some dates and a basic timeline of the event. I don't believe we would want this thread to diverge into biblical arguments (ie. how many animals fit into the ark, etc.) but I think a common basis of knowledge would be helpful.Some suggestions,for my benfit, as I am unversed (pardon the pun) in the literal date of the noahdic flood and how long it lasted. How long ago did it happen and how long did it last?

Hello Faith,I see that the flood has come up in general. I thought that this might be the case. I understand your reluctance to continue so far. I felt the same way, as I think we would need more information from IRH if he is able to provide it like you said. I am not sure if I should reply to the general statements in your post as it seems to be too general and slightly off topic as concerns IRH's data. I was under the impression that we would be discussing your views and processes based on the data provided by IRH. It seems to me that defining your processes based on your observations should be done first. Let's crawl before we walk? (I say slightly off-topic only because I thought it more practical to look at IRH's more specific area before delving into the broader arena. I am sure we will be discussing these issues more as the data is presented and your ideas expounded upon.)

Further questions.Are the red conglomerates, red, due to iron or something else?
What particle size are the sandstones? I recently went through a class lab describing igneous, metamorphic, and sediment types. Particle size iirc was an indication of deposition environment.What do you mean by 'tough' sandstone? Larger particle size?When you say 'unconformable', do you mean that there is an unconformity between the two rock types described?Sybill head is described as being faulted. What kind of fault is it? Transform, etc.?I'll have to review my notes on what causes the different colorations of the siltstones (if we have gotten that far). What is their stratigraphy? grey below yellow below green?green xxxxxx
yellow yyyyyy
grey gggggg
?Has the ash been analyzed? Do we have an approximate location for the origin or other information from the chemical composition?

I should clarify what I mean when I say crawl before we walk.I was wondering if you could begin describing some processes and rules that match your observations of certain rock types. In your own words propose a theory on how some rock types formed, such as sediments. Ie. Breccia is created in high energy fluvial environments, it has large, sharp edged clasts surrounded by a matrix. Limestone is created from....Sandstones are created in...
It may get bogged down so if you wish you can describe how you think things are created when you describe IRH's data.I would like your view on some principles. These principles seem important: The principle of superposition, original horizontality, original lateral continuity.Other principles you can define would be nice as well.This way, we can work from a common base of knowledge and create a rational environment. If I tell you Breccia is this and then tell you that a certain mudstone is formed in the same depostional environment, you can then question my position or sanity. If I subsribe to the principle of superposition, but then say that the younger strata is on the bottom of the undisturbed sequence, you can call me on it.