Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood

JoeI wont bother answering your accusations.Instead I'll concnetrate on science.Q: Are you seriously debating that spreading via some sort of bulging increases sea-levels?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.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-17-2002]

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.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-17-2002]

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.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-17-2002]

JoeI'm quite happy to completely drop any pretense of having any original thought on the isuue here and now for the record. I am far more interested in understanding what's going on in these processes than any claim to originality. Hence I hereby wish to be considered a complete ignoramous on geology matters.So from that perspective I make the following statements based on extensive reading as a layman:1. The 2nd order sea-level curves were primarily generated tectonically
2. Specifically via sea-floor spreading and subduction processes which varied the volume of ocean basins.
3. The cyclic nature of the 2nd order sea-level curves could be due to variation of sea-floor spreading rates, subduction rates or something more subtle. Obviously mountain building factors in here.
4. I recently read that variable sea-floor spreading is out of vouge as an explantion of the cycles (presumably due to some data) and I wonder to what extent variable subduction rates could be responsible.

EdgeAs everyone who has ever studied geology at any level knows there is a bluging on either side of a sea-floor spreading trench and we do not need to get overly technical about it with jagon and flowery words.Here is a diagram typical of any plate tectonics chapter:http://www.geo.vu.nl/...ology/2-biogeochem-cycles/plate2.GIFAs is plain to see the trench introduces bulging on both sides of the trench. It is well known and I can't believe you found my writing that ambiguous but I'll leave it as a possibility.So from my reading on the matter it seems that this bulging is a primary source of raised sea-levels! No need for any accusations of bias, grandstanding, ignorance, misrepresentaiton etc etc etc. No need becasue what I am saying is well known. I simply am trying to bring a clarity to it and get a confirmation form some professional geologists that I have got it right.EDITOK, Edge. I am using the wrong word. I should be talking sea-floor rift valleys or ridges. It seems like 'trench' is the wrong word and could be leading to our missing each other? I was sure the sea-floor spreading happens at 'trenches' (and I've said it many times here without correction). But it's at rift valleys or 'ridges' it seems. So my misuse of jargon may have caused us to miss each other??[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-20-2002]

EdgeI'll do some searching for that ref.See my post to you today.I agree that on average the spreading and subduciton rates are the same but at any one time both could vary thus leading to changes in sea-level which we empirically know happened. I am imagining that a decreased subduciton rate could lead to increased bulging at the ridges via releasing presusre transmitted through the oceanic plates. This may be baloni but it made sense to me at empirical and mechanistic levels. If we for a second imagine that sea-floor spreading is constant but subduciton gets 'held up'. There will be bulging somewhere right and sea-level increases. All I'm trying to do is get a handle on some essential dynamic possibilities Edge.

EdgeDid you read my edit and Moose's comment?PS - I'm starting a new topic for these discussions.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-20-2002]

RandyHow can we possibly have such a discussion without a geo-map sitting in front of us. Without that it is too easy for me to come up with hypotheses. Of course both of us need to answer where the sandstone came from.And where were the animals while the sand was laid down? At high ground of course.

^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]

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.

^ While I am interested in researching some of these questions myself I am also a realist and I am prepared to quote sources I have read and bounce them of you guys.Others can judge whether you are simply responding negatively on principle or actually commenting usefully. IMO you do both but more of the former. I am not on such a mission that I feel I have to prove to everyone that I am right and you are wrong. I am also not simply trying to sow doubt. I am in a middle ground where I am prepared to share what I have learned so far and let others judge your responses for themselves.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-21-2002]

RandyYou've provided no data on the 3D topography of the entire region during the Paleozoic depositions.You are simply stating how you think it will turn out - just as I am. Our biases are obvious.

RandyWhy should the high ground 'still be there'? The Mesozoic and possible Cenozoic stages of the flood were still to come. Lots of opporuntity for catastrophic erosion. Mountains have eroded away in that 'time'. I'm sure that even in a mainstream context no-one could credibly claim to know the precise 3D topography of that region. And you're two steps away. You don't even have the maps sitting in front of you.You're claiming stuff from bias just as I am. But you're claiming proof of my being wrong whereas I'm simply arguing feasibility.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-22-2002]

^ The animals only needed to be high enough to not get caught up in the current surge. This continued until the highest mountins were covered. As simple as that. Completely consistent and a priori plausible unless one doesn't want to consider the possibility.Your trying to morph our scenario into impossibility. We're not allowed to have surges of limited extent even though the geo-column talks of cyclical innundations of limited and changing extent. Why not? Simply becasue you want to make our scenario sound ridiculous. You wont let us have a middle ground. When we talk of a global flood we're not allowed to have surges, when we have surges we can't have a global flood. We'll have the flood of our own choosing thank-you - one that explains the data and is consistent with Scripture. You can play with strawmen if you like.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-22-2002]

RandyYou have made no attempt to demonstrate from Paleozoic 3D topographical maps that there was no high ground in the region. We all know that these formations are continuous and flat but that does not have to mean absolutely everywhere! You are simply assuming it.