Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
There is proof of an 85% covering of the earth's surface and see my above post where I demonstrate that this is undoubtedly a lower limit.

---

If you have proof, we would be glad to see it. If any creationists are reading this you'd have to wonder how TB knows this. Was he actually there? How do you 'prove' such a thing?And actually, you did no such thing. You simply stated that this was a lower limit. This is also wrong because there are plenty of times in the geologic record where the amount of land covered by water was less than 85%.

quote:

---

My model, which may be a reinvention of the wheel, or wrong for that matter, transcends E vs C. To accelrate for YECs of course the model would be mixed with accerlated decay and runaway subduction. But the essential dynamics would genrate the typical sea-level curve cyclicity and shape irrespective. A large proportion of the sea-level curves occurred near and including the flood year after which it exponentially decreased in rate presumably (eg due to accelrated decay falling of).

---

Can you explain to us then, why accelerated decay happened only during the flood?

quote:

---

The earth was about 85% covered during the Cretaceous (mainstream). The land surfaces were approximately 50% covered (and this is a lower limit).

---

There you go again! You offer no evidence except your statement that this is a lower limit.

quote:

---

That is why you can find marine fossils almost everywhere on land!

---

So, explain how we get terrestrial fossils and sedimentary facies in the Cretaceous for example, then.

quote:

---

The super high tides wont kill the animals in the 50% of the land surface not yet innundated of course. With the first order and lower order sea-level curves there is plenty of opportunity for animlas to tread and settle on newly created strata during the flood year.

---

So, your tidal surges just happen to coincide in time with the runaway subduction surges... Why is that? And how many times are you going to do this in a year? And how are you going to develope paleosoils, etc. in the several days between flood surges? You have diligently avoided this question. How about an answer now.

quote:

---

In our model some evaporates may be genuine and others may be precipatative due to tectonic expulsions of brine etc.

---

Hunh? How do you expel brines into the ocean and end up precipitating salts on the scale that we are talking about? Can you point out where these expulsions have observed or occur in the geological record?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.

---

Except for the fact that we have very good information as to the fact that there were source areas for Cretaceous deposits such as the Mesa Verde Group. We can see that they came from an eroding land mass, not that they were deposited everywhere and then eroded away in uplifted areas. In fact, if it were deposited everywhere, as in your flood scenario, then exactly was was the source? Your data is, as usual, limited. You really need to take your first geology course someday.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It is a mainstream result that around an 85% covering of the earth's surface has occurred. It is easy to see from the distribution of marine strata.

---

And? I do not see this as evidence for a biblical flood. At present 67% of the earth is covered by water. If we raise sea level by even a few hundred feet that could easily go up to 85% in a very short time. The problem is that to get the last 15% of the earth covered by water, you need unbelievable amounts of water. This is a common misperception among non-scientists that the relationship is linear. In other words, to gain the last 1% of coverage would not be the same as going from 67% to 68%.

quote:

---

Thre is no data processing involved let alone interpretaiton. But this figure must be a lower limit becasue the highlands, which incidnetally would have got the thinnest deposits due to being covered for the least time, would be preferentially eroded.

---

Actually, there is. As any true creationist can tell you, there are some fairly broad generalizations in the data that you use. Are these reasonable? Sure, but for an absolutist, such as most creationists are, this is not an adequate assurance.

quote:

---

I did not just state it would be a lower limit - I explained why as I have repeated here. Here is what I said:

​

Weathering would have eroded marine strata in the highlands first.

​

The marine distribution clearly identifies a lower limit of the extent of epeiric seas. This is kindergarten level geology.

---

But the point is that some erosion was occurring when you apparently want to have complete innundation. There were clearly source areas for sediments in the late Cretaceous. Why is this?

quote:

---

The envelop of accelerated decay could be due to a fundamntal evoltuionary process of the universe or due to the hand of God or both as I have mentioned to you before.

---

In other words you cannot explain this. Just blow off my question with a 'goddidit' explanation. Sorry, TB, but this can hardly be considered evidence.

quote:

---

You ask "how [do] we get terrestrial fossils and sedimentary facies in the Cretaceous for example [if we have marine innundations]"? Answer: becasue the marine innundations were cyclical as we know empirically giving time for temporary terrestial habitaiton. You know this is our answer. Why ask again?

---

Because you only have half a week (actually less) between innundations for this rehabitation to occur. And that only accounts for the Pennsylvanian System.

quote:

---

The tidal surges deterimnisticlly turn up at high sea-level as seen in global hydrodynamic simulations where you simply remove much of the earth's land surface! Baumgardner I think. No mystery at all.

---

Please explain the source of tides as you understand them. I do not see what caused such huge tidal forces. Was it the moon? Was the earth rotating more slowly or was the moon larger? I see no mechanism for such tides. And remember, if such tides contributed to the surges, then you have even less time for rehabitation of the land surface between floods. How did those forests magically appear in 12 hours? How did dinosaurs inhabit broad flood plains hundreds of miles across in such a short period and even build nests?

quote:

---

Your paleosoils are typically assumed. These envronemtns could be due to deposition from floating mats for example.

---

And you assume nothing? LOLLLLLLLL! Sorry, but this is getting more and more fantastic all the time. Can you show me floating mats upon which trees grow? Can you show us where we can find worm burrows and animal tracks in floating mats? And just how did these floating mats maintain any integrity with the turbulence that such flood surges must have generated?

quote:

---

I'm no expert on the expulsion of brines. One of the well known creationists has cited evidence of this.

---

Good. Then you can cite this person. I cannot see brines of greater salinity than the ocean being expelled into the ocean and suddenly precipitating salts in the same order as one would expect from evaporation and also develop syneresis cracks and other dessication features. Please enlighten us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Your Mesa Verde sources? Regardless of potential source areas highlands get preferntially eroded for the simple reason that they are higher and will not collect protecting sediment as do basins! This is kindergarten level geology that is impossible to sensibly debate.

---

Just my point. The source areas were still above sea level. There was no point in time where all source areas were submerged. This would have resulted in a single, mappable and well defined 'flood deposit' that we do not see in the geological record.

quote:

---

What was the source if everywhere was being covered?

---

Thank you for supporting my argument.

quote:

---

The source would have diminished as the innundaiton covered the planet. The highlands would have received only a sprinkling of sediment quite consistent with what is found.

---

This argument is a bit general. Can you use specific data?

quote:

---

We simply don't expect to see a completely global covering for these two reasons.

---

Or perhaps the formations were never deposited in the highlands at all. I don't think that you quite understand provenance of sediments. Frequently, we can tell where the sediments came from. Now, if those areas were being weathered and eroded at the time as your innundation, they cannot have been submerged. Therefore there was always some land surface that was above sea level.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe

​

So what's the shallow sea problem? I can imagine some possibilities.

​

In our scenario the proterozoic is approximately the pre-flood surface. Why wouldn't we get bottom dwellers found from there and up until extinction? If I am still misunderstanding you I apologize.

​

I presumed you weren't primarily a plate tectonics guy becasue, if I remember correctly, you were unable to tell me that tectonics were primarily responsible for the first order sea-level curves and you instead suggested glacial melting. If I am mixing you up with Edge or someone else then I apologize.

---

I don't remember anyone saying this. It seems likely that glacial fluctuations would be on a much shorter time scale than sea floor spreading. Perhaps you didn't read our posts very carefully.

quote:

---

How does your response make sense: "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."

​

Please explain. I added that we have no problem with uplifted marine strata - exactly what your example illustrates. I then added that we don't expect all highlands to have marine strata due to previously outlined reasons (including the statistical fact that some highlands would have been only covered briefly due to already being highlands).

​

Why argue against something that is impossible to argue against? What I am saying is the only possible expectation. If not tell me why not.

---

If I understand you correctly, there is another possibility: non-deposition. In other words, the rocks were never deposited in what you call highlands. This appears to be the case as I was trying to explain with source areas. We know that there are source areas for terrigenous sediments at all times in the geological record, including the entire Cretaceous. That means that there was some emergent land at all times. It is also true that there were eroded areas (unconformities) that are not at high elevations.

quote:

---

Uplifted rocks should not be 'all eroded'. It all depends on timing as you know. What I am saying does not distinguish flood vs gradual. We both explain exisitng marine sediments in highlands exactly the same way.

---

Not really. See above.

quote:

---

My onlt addition is that highlands without marine strata may have had marine strata. Out of the context of a Genesis flood discussion no-one would argue with me.

---

Even here this is not arguable. The point however is that 'may have had' is not the same as 'must have had' marine strata. There is ample evidence that some areas did NOT have marine strata at any time during the Cretaceous.

quote:

---

You ask when, how and why regarding a global covering?
When: probably the Cretaceous during which we have the most extensive marine strata.

---

A good guess, but completely irrelevant because we know that this did not happen.

quote:

---

How: Empirically: the sea-level peak was higher than previous peaks and the major mountain ranges were considerably lower. Mechanistically: see below.

---

How do you know that mountains were considerably lower? In fact I dare say that the mountains were at least as high as they are today, judging by mapping of Cretaceous volcanic fields and the presence of certain metamorphic assemblages. And what do you mean by 'empirically' in this statement?

quote:

---

Why: Mechanistically the first order curves are primarily due to tectonics. As the sea-floor spread, the sea-level rose, as subduction occurred the sea-level fell.

---

Are you saying that these occurred at significantly different times? Then you think that the volume of the earth fluctuated? What is your evidence for this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I checked out the old 'So how did the GC . . .' threads. Glaciation came up as an explanation before sea-floor spreading. Of course it depends on the time scale. The thing that always puzzled me was what the explanation was for the sea-level drops and the cyclicity of it all. It seemed to me that subduction was 'behind' or delayed with respect to spreading perhpas due to a frictional threshold needed to be overcome.

---

I think you overestimate the importance of this friction. After all, some form friction plays a role in all earthquakes on established faults. It is exactly the kind of thing you are talking about, but you didn't recognize it because of your lack of background in geology. The point here is that earthquakes are the mechanism of energy release on the Benioff Zone. While the energy build up and release is similar to what you describe, it is on a much shorter time scale and there is no evidence or reason why all of the subduction should occur at once.

quote:

---

I do not recant on that as a hypothesis but I agree that the sea-level curves in Haq et al do not look as much like charging/dicharging curves. It is a very sensible idea but not necessarily correct.

---

It lacks an empirical basis, and a basic understanding.

quote:

---

I recently read somewhere that the changing sea-floor rates is out of vouge as an explanation for the cycles (at least with some mainstream researchers).

---

Again, this depends upon the scale of your observation. The gross fluctuations are well explained by plate tectonics.

quote:

---

Edge, I 100% agree with you that it is possible that there was either no global covering or not even any more covering than we see. The latter is unlikely since erosion will not preferentially erode non-marine ahead of marine strata. So my point is simply that the marine covering is a lower limiit meaning the covering could possibly have been higher.

---

Then you agree that there is no real evidence for a global flood in the Noachian sense?

quote:

---

So what is the 'ample evidence' that some areas did NOT have marine strata at any time during the Cretaceous.

---

I have been over this before. If there is a constant supply of coarse terrigenous sediment then there is a constant landmass above sea level.

quote:

---

I don't think the volume of the earth expanded. My pet theory of 'delayed subduction' simply suggests a build up of new sea-floor at the trenches via a buldge generating pressure at the subdiuction zones.

---

What is the evidence for such 'bulging.' This is new, is it not? Your theory becomes more complex and fantastic all the time.

quote:

---

Please: my pet theory is just a speculation from left field! My speculation is that there were cyclical delays in subduction which caused the rises. 'Sudden' slippages of subduction generated the falls in sea-level. If we find that this is completely ruled out that is fine with me. It just seemed like an obvious idea that wasn't getting raised as a possibility.

---

I seriously doubt that it has never before been thought of. I know a USGS retiree who says that if you haven't found something, you simply haven't gone far enough back in the literature. I think you would find that it's usually there someplace, and there is usually a reason it has been discounted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I got my idea of a frictional threshold precisely from my vauge knowledge about earthquakes. In my proposal, due to the uneven shape of the subducting plate, there will be a frictional threshold which cyclicly yields and releases the pressure via subduction and hence sudden sea-level drops.

---

So, how do you manage to get this effect a hundred times in a year? Do earthquakes happen that often along an active fault?

quote:

---

'Sudden' does not necessarily have to mean on YEC time scales, it's just sudden relative to the sea-level rises.

---

Right, over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Just as the geological record indicates.

quote:

---

When I said "I recently read somewhere that the changing sea-floor rates is out of vouge as an explanation for the cycles (at least with some mainstream researchers)" I was not suggesting that plate tectonics was not responsible for the cycles but that variable spreading rates per se were out of vouge. I see this as evidence for variable subduction as the answer - precisely along my way of thinking.

---

Please document this. I cannot believe that this idea has been offered without some kind of alternative.

quote:

---

Do I "agree that there is no real evidence for a global flood in the Noachian sense". Absolutely not. There is no proof but there is lots of evidence.

---

Sure. Evidence that must be taken in a vacuum of other evidence. You have to ignore substantial amounts of contradictory evidence.

quote:

---

Your "constant supply of coarse terrigenous sediment then there is a constant landmass above sea level" does not rule out a brief global covering.

---

So, then, how does such a brief flood deposit all of those sediments? Why was this brief flood not described in the bible? And maybe you don't get it but if there are substantial tracts of land above sea level, there is no global flood. Are you assuming a completely different hypsographic chart for the flood year?

quote:

---

The 'buldge' is not new. It is the normal explanation of why sea-levels rise due to spreading at all surely? If there is no buldging then why the sea-level rise?

---

You were not clear about what was bulging.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Regardless of timescales the slipping idea has merit. In a YEC framework the slipping would be more like earethquales than in a mainstream framework obviously. The second order sea-level curve suggests about six to eight major slipping events which for us would have occurred over the flood year and surrounding decade/s.

---

Sure, let's just ignore the time scale of KNOWN events. Makes sense to me. The point is that none of what you are suggesting has ever been observed. However, we do see other features that you seem to ignore.

quote:

---

There are also many more higher order events which may or may not be tectonic related. Of course it is only possible in a YEC context via something like runaway subduction/accelerated decay heating.

---

We have already eliminated the possibility of runaway subduction based on the physics of the earth and the lack of a geological record of such an event. Why do you retreat to this old, worn out idea? You have also not given us a mechanism for accelerated radioactive decay. You are building a house of cards. No such thing is possible in a YEC context or any other.

quote:

---

I'll try and track down the statmeents that variable spreading is out of vouge. I have seen it twice recently. I would have noticed if variable subduction rates were suggested as an alternaitve but it may have been too jaron-full for me.

---

A distinct possibility.

quote:

---

Your supposed vacuum of ours is full of evidence of rapidity and globality. The higher order sea-level curves are global, turbidites dominate the geo-column beds and fossil graveyards are common.

---

You ignore the heat generated by such a model. You ignore radiometric dates. You ignore OBSERVED and documented processes that can produce the same effects in favor of some fantastic notions. YOu have created a knowledge vacuum in which your scenario works perfectly.

quote:

---

Brief flood? I referred to the ultimate covering as brief.

---

This is, of course, purely extra-biblical. Doesn't this bother you?

quote:

---

Why doesn't the Bible descibe the brief coveing? it does. The Bible descibes step by step the covering and subsidence in days from Noah's birth. The total covering was Biblically brief.

---

It is a year long as far as I know the myth.

quote:

---

I was not clear about what was bulging? I explained it was the proximity of the trenches that was bulging although I can see some potential for ambiguity.

---

Wrong. According to modern observations and geophysical models, this is not where the bulging occurs.

quote:

---

The buldging is at the trenches and may or may not have exterted pressure at the subduciton zones (depending on the exstent of transmission of this stress through the sea-floor plates).

---

Where do you see such bulging today?

quote:

---

Originally posted by JediKnight1985:
I know I'm a newcomer here, but there's one thing I've noticed. You, Randy, have a propensity to point out the flaws in other people's theories, ...

---

Well, that IS one method of debating...

quote:

---

...while ignoring attacks on your own. For example: as you so deftly pointed out many times, sand is transported from one location to another quite readily, by either water or wind. How would sand become hardened if it was not above water, or another layer of sediments?

---

Is this an attack? I'm not sure you have done anything here but muddled through some distorted logic. This 'attack' cannot be answered.

quote:

---

Wouldn't it just blow away?

---

Indeed, much sand does blow away. In fact you need to discuss this with your fellow creationists, because MOST of the time eolian sands blow away. They are a lost part of an already LONG geological record. Nevertheless, not all sand blows away or else we would have NO windblown sand in the geological record. Some is buried and eventually lithified.

quote:

---

No tracks would remain, if they were made above water!

---

If you were correct, yes.

quote:

---

On the other hand, water pressure pressing directly down on sediments the size of sand could compress them in a very short amount of time, leaving tracks.

---

This is actually a silly statement. It is not the weight of the water that compacts sediments, but the weight of overlying sediments. And what do you mean by a 'short amount of time'? There are sediments in the Mississippi delta that are thousands of years old but hardly lithified.

quote:

---

There is also something else I would like to point out.

---

Hope you have better luck with this one.

quote:

---

When you make a footprint in sand, it looks roughly like a footprint, right? Look at it again when it's exposed to a moderate wind for even a few minutes. It doesn't look anything like it did before, does it?

---

No, not all the time. Depends on a lot of parameters. You are choosing yours quite carefully.

quote:

---

Couldn't we be mistaking these footprints of spiders, etc. for tracks of other animals, or even plant fossils? I hate to say it (well, actually, I'm rather enjoying it), but those spider tracks could be nothing more than the tiny imprints left by the sori on the underside of a fern frond!

---

Okay, next time I see ferns in growing in a whole desert of sand dunes, I'll check it out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
So where is the bulging then? (Why not mention it since you obviously know the answer).

---

Well, I was hoping that you would try to answer and then realize that you do not really understand plate tectonics all on your own. However if you want, I will tell you right up front that you do not have the background to understand the diagrams that you refer to.

quote:

---

The trenches clearly bulge on either side in all schematics I have ever seen.

---

Either side of what? Your statements are so vague that we have no idea what to tell you.

quote:

---

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

---

I would agree that 'bulging' is the best way to get the volumes of material necessary to cause your first order sea level fluctuations. There are other reasons for sea level to rise as well. The point here is that you have not been able to describe this 'bulging' and its location. I think the level of discussion here has risen to somewhat over your depth. I believe you have been completely innundated...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.]

---

First of all, I would be interested in the reference which suggests that the rate is out of style as an explanation. It would seem to me that increased spreading rates and reduced volume of the ocean basins may be related to another effect, rather than directly to each other.Now, what gives you the idea that subduction rates can be significantly different from spreading rates? Once again, I suggest that both rates are caused by another effect that causes both to rise and fall together. If the rates were significantly different, then the earth must undergo a volume change.Increased subduction rate alone cannot influence the volume of the ocean basins. That would mean that I could pull on one end of the oceanic plate and cause the whole plate to move. That won't happen.Please give us some indication where this 'bulging' that your refer to occurs. That way, perhaps we can figure out where your misunderstanding lies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
As everyone who has ever studied geology atany 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.

---

Heavens no! We wouldn't want to attract any attention to the details! Actually, I know this. I am TRYING to get you to put it into words where they are so that you can see that they are not due to compression, as (I think) you are trying to say.

quote:

---

Here is a diagram typical of any plate tectonics chapter:

​

http://www.geo.vu.nl/...ology/2-biogeochem-cycles/plate2.GIF

---

Hmm, I see no bulging caused by the trench. I see bulging due to convective upwelling of the mantle at the spreading center. I see bulging related to the magmatic axis. But nothing directly related kinematically to the trench. In fact all I see near the trench is a depression. In fact, at some locations, the depression is so intense that the forearc is submerged. Seems to me that faster I don't suppose you could describe this bulging that you see to me.

quote:

---

As 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.

---

Ambiguous would be a generous description.

quote:

---

So from my reading on the matter it seems that this bulging is a primary source of raised sea-levels!

---

Yes. If you are talking about the right location and the right mechanics!

quote:

---

No need for any accusations of bias, grandstanding, ignorance, misrepresentaiton etc etc etc. No need becasue what I am saying is well known.

---

Your new-found humility is refreshing. Grandstanding is an attitude. In the past, your approach was grandstanding and sometimes insulting.

quote:

---

I simply am trying to bring a clarity to it and get a confirmation form some professional geologists that I have got it right.

---

Nonsense. When we tell you that you don't have it right, you simply dismiss us. If you can show that you have an open mind, I will actually put some time into explaining these things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adminnemooseus:
I don't wish to get into this discussion, especially while in the "Admin" mode, but... It seems that the confussion between Edge and TB is from TB's using the term "trench" when the appropriate term would be the "rift valley" of the mid-ocean ridge. The term "trench" is used for the deep basins found at subduction zones.

---

Egad. You're kidding me.

quote:

---

Now, the real "Admin" comments:
Are not these plate tectonic discussions rather far off the topic of this thread. Maybe there's a better place for it.

​

Adminnemooseus

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adminnemooseus:
I don't wish to get into this discussion, especially while in the "Admin" mode, but... It seems that the confussion between Edge and TB is from TB's using the term "trench" when the appropriate term would be the "rift valley" of the mid-ocean ridge. The term "trench" is used for the deep basins found at subduction zones.

---

​

Egad. You're kidding me.

​

Added by edit: This is exactly the reason that I was asking so many questions. This could have been resolved pages ago....

​

quote:

---

Now, the real "Admin" comments:
Are not these plate tectonic discussions rather far off the topic of this thread. Maybe there's a better place for it.

​

Adminnemooseus

---

​

Agreed.

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
How 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.

---

Pardon me for the intrusion, but I cannot tell that you have come up with ANYTHING. If it is so easy, please proceed.

quote:

---

And where were the animals while the sand was laid down? At high ground of course.

---

I believe the question was something like 'where was the high ground?' Oh, I get it. Where the animals were...