"The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")

It would be a great help to Faith if someone could provide valid arguments for her views. Faith believes that a flood incursion onto land would deposit sedimentary layers identical to those deposited by a gradually transgressing or regressing shoreline following Walther's Law, indeed, that a flood incursion *is* a demonstration of Walther's Law.My own understanding of Walther's Law is that it plays out over a great deal of time, and that flood deposits are distinctively different from normal shoreline-related deposits. That's not to say that floods don't occur while shoreline-related sedimentary deposits are forming, they of course do, but if big enough to leave a sedimentary record they are recognizable as flood deposits.--PercyEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed original topic title from ""The Flood" and Walther's Law" to "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")

Message 1 is a copy of message 923 from the "Continuation of Flood Discussion" topic (in summation mode), which in turn was a copy and continuation of the " Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law" topic (also in summation mode).PLEASE DO NOT PROMOTE THIS OUT OF THE PNT FORUM YET!I intend to do more here before the topic is released. But it's going to take a while for me to get that done.Minnemooseus/AdminnemooseusNote: Per internet search, the greatest 24 hour rainfall ever was 72 inches.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note.

For related discussion, I also recommend reading upthread and/or downthread at the message 1 original source topic (link in message 1). Actually, Walther's Law is not a sedimentation model - It's a statement of the lateral vs vertical relationships of sediments deposited in a migrating environment (OSLT).But I do think that some variation of the sea transgressing/regressing depositional model is valid for what would be expected to be found as a result of "THE FLOOD".If the Young Earth flood geology actually had happened, I would expect to see a basement geology of the original created Earth, covered by some variation of a single transgressive/regressive sequence. The FLOOD deposit stratigraphy would be very simple, not that vast complexity of sediments (and other geologic process affects) that we actually see.MooseNote: This message originally posted using the Adminnemooseus ID, in the Proposed New Topics forum. I am going to try to edit things back to the Minnemooseus ID, after I promote the topic.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change message ID to being by Minnemooseus.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Tweak.

Thread copied here from the "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law") thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Strictly speaking you are right but the sequences associated with transgresssion and regression are a paradigmatic example, and the terminology has been used loosely in past discussions.My understanding of those sequences is that they are primarily produced by the sediments typically available in the environment - it is essentially a gradual process. This would not apply in a model of rapid deposition produced by a flood. Especially when we take the fact that the boundary moves with time - and does so for both cases.In the case of rapid deposition by flood the sediment carried by the water should only change due to larger and heavier material dropping out - and even that would probably need to be associated with a loss of energy to permit finer material to be deposited.I don't doubt that an ad hoc scenario could be invented to explain it - at the usual level of discussion here (I am far from certain that it would hold up to a detailed examination) and I have severe doubts about the idea that such a scenario should be a common event in the geological record.

The nature of the precise erosion and deposition model of THE FLOOD is dependent on the nature of the "created kind" Earth.Presumably, there can be an element of apparent age in God's creating of an Earth complete with all the various mineral resources included. A complete ecosystem of earth ("rock and dirt") and water and vegetation and animals. I guess the question is, would an intelligent design and creation of the Earth's crust include the impression of long and complex processes? After all, the mark of quality design and construction is simplicity and functionality, not a "Rube Goldberg" complexity and dubious functionality. The Earth's crust sure seems like bad design to me?What would be a quality design and construction of a planet be, to support life?Or could there be a deliberate complexity designed it, just for the geologist to have fun with?Moose

Omphalism is a whole different question from what the Flood would be expected to do. The first presumes ex nihilo creation, or something close to it, while the second assumes the natural consequences of the Flood. So that is really a new topic altogether.To try to keep to the topic I cannot see any reason why the specific sequences associated with transgression and regression need to be seen at all if the rocks were created rather than forming naturally.

The YEC case is very muddled here. On the one hand, they want sediments washed up from the ocean to be deposited on the continents, and yet the continents are also being eroded severely by torrential rain.The question asked here seems to be, 'would Walthers' Law be applicable to a flood deposit'? In a superficial and simplified way, I suppose so, but it leaves a lot of questions in the minds of people who observe nature.I would say that, first of all, there are a lot of other things happening on earth than just rising sea level. We do have mountains eroding and volcanoes erupting, etc. To me, this is where Faith's scenario really breaks down. The eroding Appalachians proveded detritus to create the Mesozoic erg deposits whether you believe in an eolian origin or not.The next problem is time. There is simply not enough time to erode all of the material to produce the various advancing seashore deposits for 6 megasequences in the sedimentary record.

It's depressing that you don't understand my argument at all, but then everything at EvC is depressing so no big deal. The rain came first, forty days and nights of it, and did the severe erosion of the land, which I would suppose even you would acknowledge as a very likely consequence of such an event. Then we have the sediments washing into the ocean water, killing all the marine life we now find fossilized; and then the sediments both from the land and whatever was also in the ocean water, the calcareous ooze etc, started getting deposited onto the land at some point as the water rose or after it fully covered the land or both. The Flood would have been basically the ocean rising over the land, the rising of which is the cause of the sedimentary deposits according to Walther's Law, although in a different time frame. The question is WHEN things happened. I think there is evidence that volcanic activity began about the same time as the tectonic movements divided the continents, concurrent with the Flood's starting to recede. So all those events including the erosion of mountains, are post-Flood in my scenario. Well, forty days and nights of WORLDWIDE pounding rain ought to be enough time to erode most of the land mass, wouldn't you think? Then we have the limestones that originated in the ocean itself, which seems to be pictured by Walther's Law -- they also get deposited as the water rises in that scenario so why not also in the rising ocean water of the Flood? Of course I don't believe there were any megasequences, and whatever the evidence is that is interpreted in those terms had to be the result of the Flood itself. The theory that the eroding Appalachians provided the detritus for any of the strata needs some reexamination.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are probably confusing the condition of the Earth at Creation with its condition as a result of the Fall and the Flood, which had to have rearranged things tremendously. Nobody knows what the original Created Earth looked like beyond a few conjectures based on hints in the Bible, but something far more orderly than its tumble-down appearance now would be a good guess. It's probably the disorderliness that is being interpreted as "long and complex processes" and the "Rube Goldberg" effect. There shouldn't have been any uninhabitable places at the Creation such as we see now in deserts and high mountains and frozen wastelands. All that has to have been the result of the Fall and the Flood. Somehow it supported an unimaginably lush vegetation on just about every square inch of soil. But everything has been disrupted since the Fall which brought death into the Creation that had not existed before, caused "thorns and thistles" to thrive where only fertile soil had existed before, all followed by the Flood that further compromised whatever was formerly congenial to life in ways that redued the former longevity enormously, made all things subject to deformities, diseases and death and so on.What we see now on the planet and in living things can only be a severely ruined version of what God originally created. My guess is that there is no appearance of age OR created complexity, it's all the effect of the destruction since the Fall and the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, that's the question indeed.And you, long with most YECs, have nothing but a priori religious belief to bring to the discussion.Scientists, of all sorts, have solid evidence from many different lines of reasoning to back their conclusions. No belief needed, just solid evidence.And that evidence shows the YEC belief is wrong. RAZD has done a number of threads showing this evidence and there has been no refutation of what he has posted--just firmly-planted religious belief that says, "Not so! Can't prove it but not so!"

I believe I have shown a great deal of evidence for the Young Earth, especially for rapid deposition of the strata, the absence of any actual evidence for the time periods in those strata and in fact the logical impossibility of the whole Old Earth Geological Time Scale.The hardest argument I've had to make is for the formation of angular unconformities after all the strata were laid down, but I think it holds together. It certainly supports all the rest of my arguments.I also believe I've shown evidence for rapid evolution within the Kind that is genetically limited to the Kind.Showing evidence for the Young Earth has been the aim of many of my threads, and posts on both the geological and biological situation over many years, and I believe I've made the case. I know there is evidence on the other side too; I just expect it to eventually be accounted for in other ways than it is now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The evidence on the "other side" is overwhelming and nobody but those with a priori religious beliefs think otherwise.The arguments you have presented have all been refuted, most many times over.In order to overturn scientific evidence, you need to understand the scientific issues and methods, and to bring contradictory evidence. So far you have not been able to do so.As an example, radiocarbon dating--you have to rely on a change in decay constants before and after the flood or the fall. There is no evidence for any such change. Further, there is no convincing evidence for either the flood or the fall. You can't explain one myth based on another myth--you need solid evidence.

None of my arguments has been refuted. All kinds of conjectures are brought against them, but no, they are not refuted. Besides, my arguments are all refutations to begin with and show the logical impossibility of the ancient earth, the time periods and the Geological Time Scale.The scenario I present hangs together and accounts for what we see. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Problem is that you have less and less sediment available for erosion on to the continents because the continents are both eroded and inundated by the sea. Your source of sediments simply disappears.And now you have to move sediment from the sea onto the continents. How does that happen? Why would sediments move up onto the land? And how would they do that while making nice neat layers that you refer to?This simply isn't making sense. Okay, so you've got a declining source of material creating thick, continental scale deposits. Sorry, not buying. That does not follow.Why could you not have multiple tectonic movements such as what we see in the geological record? Why is that? What is the problem?