The TRVE history of the Flood...

About 12 hours.The true fantasy is the time period scenarios with odd species running around for millions of years. Absolute fantasy, totally imagined. On the other hand I have some speculations on this particular subject which could be wrong, unimportant. The sedimentary depositions are far better evidence for the Flood than for the fantasy of a Permian world or a Jurassic world or a Devonian world.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm going to call you on that. Even the thin layers in a peanut-butter jar wouldn't dry that fast. We know that by experiment.And don't forget that there are MULTIPLE layers that can not be explained by a single event. You'd need the silt to harden again and again and again and again.

The question was why sand was deposited on top of silt, since it would normally precipitate to the bottom and leave the silt at the top. I speculated that perhaps the silt WAS at the top and the sand above part of a deposit that came later so it sat on top of the silt. For that to happen I figure the silt had to be somewhat dry or compacted, which the tide scenario might be enough to account for. Tide goes out taking away a lot of the silt, leaving a pretty dry surface, damp, not wet. Dry enough for animal tracks to be preserved in. High tides are about twelve hours apart. The compaction of the previous layers that got eroded away plus the drag of the receding tide plus the drying of the surface to some extent might be anough to solve the problem.But again the time periods are REALLY fantasies and IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile with sedimentary deposits even if there are also problems for the Flood. .

When the flows happened. Geological formations created during the Jurassic Era; between around 200 million years ago and 145 million years ago would be Jurassic rocks.Edited by jar, : Fix quotebox

I'll take a guess while I'm waiting:
The Jurassic layer happens to be the uppermost in the region, no layers above it?

You know we all think that's wrong, yes?

Except for the fact that it shows no flood.

it shows the results of the Flood. But mostly it shows no time period fantasy landscapes with strange beasts.

But you know we think it's wrong, right?

No need to wait Faith. The post just before yours answered the question.From Message 694:

quote:

---

Faith writes:

​

...what makes the flows Jurassic?

​

When the flows happened. Geological formations created during the Jurassic Era; between around 200 million years ago and 145 million years ago would be Jurassic rocks.

---

What makes it Jurassic or Triassic or Quarternary (the current era) is the period when it is laid down

What I'm asking is how you know, aside from radiometric dating, in what period something occurred. My guess in relation to Pressie's Jurassic volcanic mountain, is that it happens to be on a Jurassic sediment layer, and that there are no others above it in that region.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The best method is by using multiple forms of absolute dating. There are all of the radiometric methods and also newer methods based on light but there is also position, chemical composition and other tests.The point is that these days dating is done through multiple and unrelated methodologies to increase accuracy and reliability.But what makes a geological or biological specimen Jurassic or Triassic or Cambrian is the time when it was laid down or lived.This is actually an important point because there is a striking and significant difference the geological and biological samples.The geological samples show recurring events, the same processes producing the same end results almost from the earliest to the most recent samples.The biological samples though show a clear evolution in both form and function over time with new form superseding older form. But what makes something Jurassic sediment instead of Triassic sediment or Quarternary sediment is time, not the specific material. When scientists speak of Jurassic they are talking about a period of time.

Faith will have to confirm, but I think her scenario was that each tide left behind sedimentary deposits that due to weight subsided downward, then the next tide would come in and the process would repeat. I think there is agreement about sedimentary layers subsiding.What needs to be understood is why Faith doesn't accept subsidence in the context of the Michigan basin that formed through subsidence of accumulating sedimentary layers beneath a shallow sea: As always, I'm seeking to confirm my own understanding, so please provide any corrections or missing information.

How could you get animal tracks when the only animals alive were in the ark?

Yes, I got the idea and was agreeing that it would explain how you could get a deep stack of sediments without the water's having to rise to cover the whole accumulated depth of them. It works fine-- IF that happened, and as a matter of fact nobody has confirmed that it happened on the scale I was thinking of.Someone mentioned that the Grand Canyon is in a basin, or subsided or something? But the entire canyon is above sea level so if it subsided it didn't go very deep, and it's also obviously not shaped like a basin, the strata are flat, horizontal and straight - relatively so anyway for those of a perfectionistic pedantic turn of mind.So I'm thinking of the strata that are spread flat across large areas, whole continents etc. and not basins, because the former would be consistent with the Flood. Edge seems to be saying that the craton changes things for that argument but I don't see what. I'm aware that there ARE large areas where the strata were simply piled up flat one on top of another, and the sea transgressions called the Cratonic Sequences should apply to ALL the strata, not just on or around the craton or in basins. Edge may have explained that, he says he did, but I can't keep up with everything that's said, I have to focus on the parts that make sense to me. Basins obviously can't explain the Flood scenario I have in mind, being confined to limited local areas. I don't have any reason to object to the interpretation of subsidence in the basins otherwise -- except that I had understood at one time that it was the salt layer that was the cause, so that gives me pause. The main thing is that basins don't speak to the Flood scenario, and that's why I got so angry when he first brought them up, it seemed like an intentional evasion of the scenario I was pursuing.And I still don't understand where the craton fits in. Again, he may have said and I just can't process the information. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.