Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by YEC:
Different portions of the globe were covered and un covered many times prior to finally being covered by the flood.

---

​

Can I get a precise chronology of events?

​

---

JM: Could you also let me know which strata mark the onset of, peak period of, and end of the flood?ThanksJoe Meert

quote:

---

The only models I would believe in detail would be ones that reproduce the known sea-level curves and hence the global innundation geo-col data. Any other model is extremely low resolution.

---

JM: You have no such model occurring at time scales needed to rescue a young earth

quote:

---

My personal theory, irrespective of E vs C incidentally, is that plate subduction events are 'delayed' relative to the build up of pressure at the trenches by subduction friction. The swelling of the newly created sea-floor causes sea-level rises. When a frictional threshold is overcome at the plate-plate boundary subduction occurs releaving presure at both the subduction zone and the mid-oceanic trench thus lowering sea-level again. In this way the sea-saw 'first order' sea-level curves are qualitatively reproduced.

​

This may or may not be news to anyone involved in plate tectonics although I haven't found this simple explanation in the geo-literature yet. If it isn't there I plan to publish it and I will call it 'delayed subduction' . The first order sea-level curves call for such a systematic, cyclical process because the sea-levels repeatedly rise with an exponentially decreasing RATE and then suddenly drop (just like a capacitor charging/discharging). The drop is significantly quicker than the rise. This is exactly the dynamics one gets when fighting a frictional threshold with a fleixible medium.

---

JM: You really need to read the literature before re-inventing the wheel. There are several key points. One is that faster spreading alone will raise sea level. This is not per 'delayed subduction' due to frictional force per se, but rather due to the fact that subduction is occurring at a slightly slower rate than spreading (see the Cretaceous for example and papers by Larson in the 1990's). Second, all subduction and all spreading and any motion on the globe is subject to frictional forces. I fail to see the 'great TB revelation' unless stating the obvious is a revelation? I thought you had a Ph.D. in physics and you just now seemed to realize that frictional forces occur within the earth lol! Finally, whose sea level curves are you looking at?

quote:

---

Anyway, regaredless of this mechanism or not, the major sea-level innundaitons were global of course and that is not debatable - it can be correlated across the globe.

---

Eustatic sea level curves are global, yes. Not all sea-level curves are eustasy curves and global does not mean 'covering all land'. This is important to point out so that the unasuming reader sees the word 'global' and thinks aha!

quote:

---

In terms of the flood I put down the '1st order' surges to this process and the lower order surges to tidal processes which have bee nshown by simulaitons to generate high amplitude tides on an earth 90% covered by water (as more or less agreed by the mainstream discoveries).

---

JM: Sadly, there is no global flood and there certainly is no global flood as you want it to happen described in the Bible. Once again, you have to compromise the very book you deem infallible to fit your worldview.

quote:

---

So I quite reasonably see the potential for major global cycles of marine/non-marine exposures due to tectonic events as well as hundreds of smaller tidal cycles during the flood year. There is plenty of opportunity for tracks, nests and evaporites.

---

JM: No doubt it seems 'quite reasonable' to you because you've rationalized your faith, your science and the bible to make it so. Blissful ignorance is not good science.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
With accelerated decay and runaway subduction a rapid drift is conceivable whether any particular early model has major problems or not. Early QM could not handle anything but the H-atom and yet they knew they were on the right track.

---

JM: Of course, you completely ignore the boiling problem, the shallow sea problem and many others when you assume such an event. Runaway subduction and rapid drift finds no support in the geologic record (sorry). For example, paleobiogeography gives us information on how certain species are related to each other and the paleogeography at the time. The close association of trilobites (for example) would not be possible in a rapidly changing geography.

quote:

---

I'd love to see refs that try and account for the first order sea-level curves deterministically. I am trying to account for (i) the cyclicity of the 1st order effect and (ii) the detailed shape of that curve. From my views of these curves it nicely fits the scenario I outline in detail, better than a 'subduciton is slower' idea which simply accounts only for sea-level rises. A slippage threshold accounts for the rapid sea-level drops and the exponetially falling rate during sea-level rises is consistent with a restriction due to increasing 'plugging' at the trenches. I agree I may be reinventing something but I am yet to see that (after searching georef etc). I may be clarifying and extending something too. Nice simple models like this can account for essential dynamics in complex systems.

---

JM: You're full of ideas you consider novel. Most of them have been discussed (some dismissed) many years ago. As a source, you cite introductory textbooks. I say, go ahead and try to publish your ideas without proper background research. You'll be surprised at the response. Tell you what, if you can somehow focus on sea-level changes in the southern continents, you can submit it to the journal Gondwana Research. I am the editor and will send it out for review.

quote:

---

So we all understand the sea-levlel riss, but why the cyclicity of falls and rises? I think it is slippage and I know I can qualitatively account for the shape of the curve because it looks diagnostically like a cycling charging/discharging capacitor plot. So I immediately know the driving force is approximately constant, that there is a threshold event and that there is a plugging event.

---

JM: Well, if you are so sure based on the intro textbooks that you've read, then please submit your manuscript.

quote:

---

Which sea-level curves? I'm not sure becasue I've only seen it in three places (but do not have it in my hands) including the introductory Hamblin and Chamberlain (?) as well as a modern book on oceanography. In both cases I don't think a primary ref was cited. Can you direct me to the primary source for this 'standard' curve, and other, sea-level curves?

---

JM: Oh, I see you're willing to spout off a 'new hypothesis' before examining the relevant literature or trying to figure out what work on sea-level has been conducted in the past? I swear TB, sometimes I think you're pulling our leg about being a Ph.D.'ed' scientist. If a graduate student came to you with a brand new hypothesis and had never bothered to examine the literature (beyond an intro text)--or bothered to find original sources and explanations on the subject--would you encourage him/her to publish the idea?

quote:

---

I'm fully aware that not all sea-level curves are eustasy curves and that global dos not mean all earth. But in the Cretaceous it means about 85% or so of the earth. Good point about the casual reader.

---

JM: However, in the Cretaceous the reason for elevated sea level is due to increased spreading rates (see Larson, 1991) for example. Furthermore, 85% (an incorrect number anyway! the real value is ~40%) is not 100% that you require for the flood of Noah. The bible said the water covered ALL the EARTH not 85% (or 40%).

quote:

---

We've talked about this before and can you argue against this: the largest covereing (in the Cretaceous I'm pretty sure) determined from the extent of marine beds has to be a lower limit. Weathering would have eroded marine strata in the highlands first. There could even have been a global covering at some point in the geological column since we are not sure of the height of all mountain ranges at all points during the formation of the geological column.

---

JM: This is a fantasy and easily countered. Why is there marine strata located at one of the highest elevations in the world? It IS being eroded, but it is still there. You also need to learn about how sea-level curves are generated as your post demonstrates a certain naivete about the caveats and issues related to generating sea level curves.

quote:

---

For the uninitiated: Looking at a map of North America we see that the Rockys and the Appalcians don't display marine strata at the same time that most of the rest of North America does. But of course marine strata in the highlands would be erorded first if ther had been a global covering! The source of sediment is the highlands and basins collect sediments.

---

JM: Or look in the Himalayas and the Tethyan-age marine strata that must be traversed as one climbs Mt. Everest. Why were these not eroded first?

quote:

---

The typical 'there is no evidence of a glopbal flood' is extremely misleading. There is evidence of a very high global lower limit of marine covering of the earth.

---

JM: Actually, it's an accurate statement based on 150+ years of work by creationist geologists and modern geologists alike. To say that it is misleading is downright dishonest.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 10-12-2002]

quote:

---

Yes I completely ignore the boiling problem just as physicists ignored atoms with Z > 1 for years.

---

JM: You also completely ignore the shallow sea problem, the mechanism for generating rapid drift and it's effects on biogeography.

quote:

---

You said 'The close association of trilobites (for example) would not be possible in a rapidly changing geography.' Their close association with what? A fixed set of strata? In our model there is obviously something that triggerred trilobite extinciton during the flood and it is no surprise that it occurred at approximately the same time worldwide.

---

JM: No, I am talking about being able to correlate global trilobite distribution with paleogeography during the Neoproterozoic and Early Cambrian. Rapidly changing geography would not allow such high resolution paleogeography to be obtained in the rapid drift scenario.

quote:

---

My half-baked ideas?

---

JM: You're right, you have not yet even managed to get the ingredients together.

quote:

---

I'm simply bouncing ideas of, e.g., you. I'm aware you're not primarily a plate tectonics guy but you know more about it than I do.

---

JM: LOL! I'm not??? Guess you don't bother to read the literature. I am almost exclusively a plate tectonics guy.

quote:

---

So of course if I was really going to publish I would want to do a lot more ground work. I have read a lot of higher level texts in the geo-library here and a lot of abstracts. I woulddn't be surprised if my idea isn't novel but the longer I go and don't find anything the more I think it may be novel.

---

JM: A LOT MORE? You can't even find basic literature on the subjects you argue (including your statement about me not being a plate tectonics guy)!

quote:

---

Thanks for the Gondwana offer but (a) I need to do more reading and (b) I think it should go somewhere more general since it concerns the first order curves.

---

JM: I should say (a) MOST definitely!! You don't even know the basics yet.

quote:

---

The actual paper would be a very short communicaiton simply to contribute something from left field ( and not YEC ). So if I really did do this I'm intending for it to be very simple and leave it to 'you guys' geo-logists/physcists to fight out its ultimate relevance.

---

JM: There is no relevance that has not already been stated.

quote:

---

I'll simply use the empirical sea-level curves (if I can find the primary publication) and comment on a simple essential dynamics that reproduces the data and implicates a cuyclical threshold slipping event as a crucial feature. The maths is already worked out and is very simple.

---

JM: Once again, I find it most absurd that you are unable to use the library to find the pertinent literature. You come on here and spout off hypothesis after hypothesis and then claim that since you can't find it in an intro text, it must be a revelation to you. Such poor scholarship is atypical of most Ph.D. scientists.

quote:

---

Joe. I've seen the sea-level curves in three places. I simply have assumed they are based on actual data.

​

My near global coverage figure? My 85% includes the oceans of course!

---

JM: Fair enough, but the correct figure would then be ~80%. Having said that, you assumed they are based on actual data. I am asking you what data and how are those data utilized to generate the curves?

quote:

---

Due to uplift there is no problem in our model explaining elevated marine strata. We simply have an extremely good expectaiton that not all highlands will still have marine strata.

---

JM: But, of course you are wrong. For example, the Appalachian mountains do contain marine strata that is correlative with marine strata elsewhere in the midcontinent.

quote:

---

I know that sea-level curves are generated from the global correlation of marine strata but, yes, I'm interested in learning much more.

---

JM: So your hypothesis is based upon an incomplete understanding of how sea level curves are generated and how they might vary? LOL!

quote:

---

Himalayan marine strata? The Himalyan marine strata have simply been uplifted since they were laid down. Indeed that definitely would be the mainstream assumption anyway! Come on Joe. You're trying to tell me they haven't been uplifted - rocks multiple thousands of feet above sea-level with marine strata in them!

---

JM: According to you they should all be eroded.

quote:

---

Joe, you are simply completely unable to look at the data afresh. There is no scientific reason that there couldn't have been a near complete covering.

---

JM: No, I look at the data afresh on a daily basis and spend time generating new data! So, you have no support for such a statement. I also did not say there could not be a complete covering of the continents by the ocean. It is a question of when, how and why. So far, you have not been able to support your 'hypothesis' with workable answers to any of those simple questions. Until you can, you are just blowing smoke.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe

​

I just found the sea-level curves ref quoted in an old copy of Cotillon ('Stratigraphy') I just bought for US$12.

​

It's Vail et al (1977) Mem AAPG 26:49-212. It's his graph I've seen in lots of recent texts. So I was correct about it being an old ref. Haq et al has redone this more recently for post Triassic: Haq et al (1987) Science 253:1156-1167.

​

Cotillon is like a breath of fresh air. He writes so clearly about the epeiric seas. He also discusses the possible origins of the sea-level curves. I now understand that it is the 2nd-order curves (10-100 my cycles) which I am trying to explain by a threshold slippage mechanism. These cycles have the capacitor charging/discharging shape that my three parameter model dictates. I'll see how things got modified by Haq et al because Vail et al were criticised for Atlantic bias.

---

JM: Well, you sure wasted a lot of bandwidth before finding the information. Unfortunately for you, there has been more recent work than Haq and much more detailed studies on sea level falls and rises. I am also amazed at how poorly you've thought about your own ideas with regard to sea level fall and rise. Have you considered the time involved to generate the features you think you see in the sea level curves? We're not talking about draining a tub here.
here is information on the shallow sea problem
THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANS
I've posted this before so your memory must be failing. You also will not generate very good sea level curves during a Baumgardner flood.
as for the paleobiogeography, you might want to look at
Paleogeography & Biogeography in the Neoproterozoic: Some Hints about RodiniaCheersJoe MeertPS: Take your time, try to learn a bit more about the subject before you respond. If you choose not to take your time, you will continue to look silly.

quote:

---

So where is the bulging then? (Why not mention it since you obviously know the answer). The trenches clearly bulge on either side in all schematics I have ever seen.

​

And do you agree that it is via bulging that spreading causes sea-levels to rise?

---

JM: TB, what sort of scientist goes around making 'hypothesis' after 'hypothesis' before trying to get a handle on the basic information out there? You never cease to amaze me by both claiming to have a Ph.D. and then conducting sophomoric research on a subject. As one Ph.D. to another, that is very poor scholarship and you should know better. There are many factors that go into changing sea level through time. You have to first learn the many and varied mechanisms for sea level change and then you can speculate on the many and varied forms of sea level curves. You want a global flood and are simply accepting anything that might get you to that point whether you truly understand it or not. Again, very lousy scholarship on the part of a Ph.D. I've offered you a venue for publication, but it requires that you spend some time thinking and learning about the problem before submission. Why not give it a try?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

I wont bother answering your accusations.

---

JM: No accusations made. I made observations. You post many (if not all) of your geologic hypotheses without examining the relevant literature. The fact that you did not even know the reference for the sea level curves that you were yakking about is evidence for my observation.

quote:

---

Instead I'll concnetrate on science.

---

JM: Exactly what I am asking you to do!!

quote:

---

If you only realised that all I'm trying to do is gather the mainstream view (which I respect) into a consensus/(es) and stopped looking for hidden agendas we would have a much more fruitful discussion.

---

JM: you've already stated your bias quite clearly and the fact that you don't bother to look up the relevant literature before spouting off your 'theories' is evidence enough of poor scholarship. BAsically, you want us to do your legwork for you. What would you tell your graduate student if he/she asked you do conduct all the background research for their thesis? We hold you to a higher standard because you claim to be a Ph.D.'ed scientist.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 10-17-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]JoeInteresting how you ignored my science question? My statement that generated this series of posts is actually correct. You are simply introducing red-herrings Joe I have to say.I don't know how you treat these discussions but I treat these just as I treat talking shop at the departmental coffee table. You seem to be treating them like a court case. [/QUOTE]JM: I treat you like the scientist you claim to be. Since you obviously have difficulty researching a topic then you reap what you sow. You have demonstrated poor research scholarship in geology for several months now and hope to deflect that by pretending you are 'just doing coffee talk'. Coffee talk is fine, quit making proclamations. As to your 'scientific questions', try phrasing them scientifically.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You can play word games Joe.

​

If you can't answer the simple question regarding 'spreading' and 'bulging' and 'sea-level rises' without my using some magic words then you have proven your attitude in this discussion.

​

I have been genuinely interested in this issue for months here and I have sorted out a lot of the answers myself but you prefer to play word games. Have fun by yourself.

---

JM: Your questions have been answered here repeatedly and links have been given several times. Are we now also supposed to repeat ourselves in the interest of enhancing your short term memory? Look, TB there are NO word games going on here. You marched into the forum, claimed academic credentials (whilst hiding behind a pseudonym) and have since proceeded to post a series of sophomoric 'hypotheses' without conducting the relevant background research. Many here (Randy, wehappy, edge, myself and others) have played your little games, but you simply move on to another topic and ignore anything that was previously discussed. That's poor scholaship on your part and I have sincere doubts now as to the veracity of your stated academic credentials. I know of no scientist who would make so many absurd statements and have such trouble finding the proper references. Basically, if you want scientific discussion on a topic then for gods sake have the intellectual fortitude to formulate your ideas and questions clearly. I will continue to hold you to a higher standard because of your claims. If you are unwilling to live up to a modest level of scientific rigor, then your posts are not worth discussing.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^I already came up with the easy hypotheses (they were on high ground eg, at a distance if necessary) but it is absolutely ludicrous to try and have a more detailed discussion without the maps sitting in front of us! It's like a planning meeting without a calander so far. Becasue it is such a complex reconstrcution I beleive it would be difficult to prove your point conclusively so I personally feel it is a waste of time. But if you guys want to try and prove that animals could not have migrated inbetween surges go for it but I wont spend time on it until you do since its your point.

​

What I am saying is a priori reasonable. You want to rule it out in detail? Go for it.

​

You see, I never claimed proof. I claimed feasability.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-21-2002]

---

JM: No, you've shown a pipe dream. No data.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe, on the detailed reconstruction of the geo-column via the flood? Yes it's a pipedream at this point.

​

On the systematic hints of catastrophe and globality in the column? That's well established.

​

And your explanations of any bed are also 'just so' as well. You simply find an analogy with a modern system and, hey presto, that's how it got there regardless of how good or bad that analogy is.

---

JM: I am a geologist who has (a) read the relevant literature; (b) looked at a whole bunch of rocks and (c) found your explanations sophomoric. What you need to show, if you want any respect at all, is that you know how to research the subject and that you understand the most basic elements of the theory you wish to depose. So far, not much substance amongst all your rhetoric.CheersJoe Meert