The TRVE history of the Flood...

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.

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.

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

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.

An uninformed guess, of course.Do you really think that we cannot tell sills from flows? Of course there are volcanic flows and volcanoes of different ages. Yes, I would say that your arguments are irrelevant. Primarily because you have no knowledge or experience. Considering that it is not a slab, nor a flat slap of 'rock', your post is meaningless. In your case a wrong meaning. Sure. We should just ignore the evidence left behind in the rock record.What a dreary, intellectually vacuous life you must lead. At the moment?

Well, as I recall, they had to reach pretty far up into dark places to come to that conclusion.Anything to maintain that tiny little doubt in your mind, eh? Just another baseless assertion ... So, how many 'non-tight' contacts do you need to contradict your preconceived notion? Another baseless assertion.I am not talking about time periods, I'm talking about transitional contacts between lithologies.It appears that tight contacts or transitional contacts, or any contact at all is 'evidence for the flood'.

Frankly, I'm not sure what Faith was trying to say here. It sounds like Faith was agreeing, but that couldn't be the case.

Pressie's first image is of Jurassic aged basalt flows, while the second one is a basaltic dike thought to be the intrusive source of those flows.The dike cuts through the older rocks to reach the surface and form the lava flows. Some volcanoes, sure. Others are clearly older and do not penetrate the entire section. That is because the volcanic rock is partly intrusive and partly extrusive.While it was still magma, the basalt flowed upward through cracks in the Triassic rocks and then erupted onto the surface. It doesn't. It originates in the lower crust and then migrates upward. Sometimes it reaches the surface and sometimes it doesn't.

Except for the fact that it shows no flood.

It's a strange tide the brings in coarse sediments from the sea.It's also a strange tide that happens only six times in a year.It's a very strange tide that deposits limestone. Only that it happens.There is complete disagreement how it happens and how much land is covered and how sediment is transported. And that's just a start. Or the fact that there are edges to the basin and sediments eroding into the basin. Or the fact that this surge seems only to apply to certain continents and that there were other land masses with mountains and erosion at the time.Basically, Faith requires (and so does faith, by the way) a bunch of ad hoc explanations that get in the way of other facts.

You do realize that this would describe erosion which, IIRC, you reject as occurring in places like the Grand Canyon Paleozoic sequence, right? Why not? Please explain. You seem to be describing a pond. And during those 12 hours, dinosaur would rush out into the flats and make nests, lay eggs, raise their young and eat exactly what? You realize that your tide is moving hundreds of kilometers, if not thousands, with each cycle. Problem being that there is no evidence this ever happened. The presence of a beach sand imply that there was land. The presence of fossil trees implies forests. The presence of dinosaur nests, raindrop impressions and myriad other trace fossils implies land.The kind of deposition you talk about would reasonably cause mixing of fossils. How does this explain the fossil record? Then, essentially, you moved the sediments out one last time. I imagine they would be quite worn out by then. Sorry but each cycle should have similar erosional effects. IIRC, you deny that there are old canyons buried in the Paleozoic rocks.This isn't holding together.

But why would they run back out on the mudflats in between floodings? Death wish?

Remember the to-scale diagram that Moose presented in post 613? {Adminnemooseus note added by edit - On May 8, 2017 I added the link to the "post 613" above. On May 6, 2017 I had redone the graphics to be sourced from the Google cached versions, as the original source was no longer functional.}The GC sedimentary rocks were deposited on the western edge of the North American continent. As such, the craton there was thinner and probably younger than more interior craton such as in Wyoming.And, due to the tectonics that we discussed before, we do not have a problem with the current elevation of the Colorado Plateau. It is not the data that explains the model. The model should explain the data. You can pause no more. Salt tectonics is a very unique and recognizable geological process. If it were standard process to become angry at evasions, every scientifically inclined person in the forum would be subject to cardiac arrest.The problem here is that the Michigan Basin shows some of the same transgressions as the rest of the continent. It also demonstrates subsidence to which you strenuously objected and now accept. IIRC, you even asked for examples of subsidence and I provided you with three examples.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link for message 613, and also comments in red.