The TRVE history of the Flood...

The glaring contradiction is in what meets the eye, not in all your painstaking details. That level of things is open to all kinds of variables beyond anyone's ability to imagine. Nothing but a flood COULD explain how any sediments got layered at all. How on earth does the Old Earth fantasy of time periods explain these things? A guess: Settling out of the coarser grains would occur in a single deposit, but if the coarser grains are sitting on top of a former deposit they would be at the bottom of a second deposit on top of the silt at the top of the earlier deposit. But again the whole picture is of flood deposition; such anomalies need an explanation from flood deposition. You give up too easily. All that stuff had to get there somehow. You really think such a thick deposit would have accumulated over millions of years? That's actually rather funny. Most problems people put the Flood are actually harder to explain on the standard OE model. And this idea of dry dunes that somehow got sandwiched down into a layer between layers is also pretty strange. It's a layer like any other, deposited just like the others, in deep water. Nothing else would account for the flat top and bottom like any other layer. Crossbedding occurs in water too. Yes I know about the angle of repose. It's been clear for some time that the Flood came in tides or long waves with time gaps between them. I'm even more convinced of this after the bumpy weird Cratonic Sequences discussion. After the tide deposits its sediments and goes out, eroding much of what it just deposited, anything still living runs across the wet surface left behind. It's probably more like damp than wet after the scouring of the receding tide. Tracks stay formed in it, they even dry out some, then get filled in by the next tide. Perhaps so, but all these things make more sense on the Flood scenario than the OE scenario even if they're hard to explain. The idea that they are somehow killer objections to the Flood is just based on a failure of imagination about something nobody witnessed. All anyone can do is guess. The objections themselves are just guesses about what would have happened.Back to the strata: Just their physical reality to the naked eye is enough to show they are a glaring contradiction with the OE scenarios supposedly based on them.

Nope. Those are basalts. Jurassic basalts. Volcanic action. Are you familiar with volcanoes? Both You've never heard of igneous intrusions?

It's a little ambiguous which parts of the explanation have been refuted. If it includes the "Each deposit sinks so that the next can be deposited in shallow water" portion then I think some additional explanation could be helpful.

Yes but the Jurassic comes after the Triassic, and this appears to penetrate from the bottom up through the Triassic; isn't that the wrong order? How did the Jurassic get beneath the Triassic? This ought to be fairly simple so I don't know what I'm missing. The GC examples I mentioned penetrate from beneath the canyon area all the way up through the uppermost level of the Grand Staircase on the north and the canyon on the south, so the volcanoes were clearly younger than all of it. That's clear, but the current example is hard to interpret for some reason since the Jurassic should be above the Triassic yet pushes up through the Triassic from below. How does a volcano originate in a layer of sediment? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

How does a flood explain heavy sand floating on top of light silt long enough to lithify?

What I was thinking of was that the silt was the top layer in a deposit that got compacted as the water receded, especially if a lot of sediment above it was eroded away; and that the sand was deposited after the silt had sat there for a while in its compacted state. No floating involved. Compacted silt became the surface the sand was deposited on. In fact I suggest that the sand could have precipitated out of a block of layers above it that got deposited later. The information given wasn't enough to speculate about really, but this is what I thought might have happened.

I get the idea better now, thanks, but ... ...what makes the flows Jurassic?

How did it become compacted? And how long would that take?You said that, "Nothing but a flood COULD explain how any sediments got layered at all," but in fact it's geologists who DO have an explanation and it's you who don't. You admit you don't even have enough information to speculate, yet you reject the people who DO have the information.

I said it got compacted by the removal of stuff above it, or the stuff itself for that matter, as the tide went out. Then it would have sat between tides before the next layer was deposited.My point about the Flood being the only reasonable explanation is that this is all about deposited sediments, which suggests deposition by the Flood rather than the time periods of standard Geology. Yes, just in daring to think about the Flood as an alternative to standard Geology I insult a bunch of geologists. Can't avoid it, might as well go for it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well it was. I hadn't seen evidence for it but I was entertaining the idea accurately enough. I speculated that it could even explain some problems for the Flood.

But it doesn't. Getting sand above silt requires time.Remember the peanut-butter jar experiment? The sand goes to the bottom and the silt stays on top. The only way to get more sand on top of the silt is to let the silt dry thoroughly first. So sand on top of silt definitely DOES NOT point to a single event.Not only is a flood not the "only reasonable explanation", it isn't even possible.

Silt was dry enough in my scenario.

How long did it take to dry? If you don't know, you don't even have a scenario. All you have is a fantasy.