Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 226 of 503 (677091)
10-26-2012 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 4:57 PM


quote:
It doesn't identify the flood. There were other factors that identified the flood. And I listed them in my post, I will list them again , and then you can respond to those points:
OK
quote:
"Fluvial stacking patterns change across the Permian-Triassic (P/T) boundary in CTM from sparse channels contained within thick floodplain deposits in the Permian Buckley Formation to STACKED CHANNELS with sparse floodplain deposits in the Lower Triassic Fremouw Formation."
I already dealt with this one. I have no idea why you think that the stacked channels are important but the fact that they are associated with sparse floodplain deposits indicates that the area experienced relatively little flooding at that time.
quote:
"We hypothesize that the change in accommodation across the P/T boundary was the result of tectonism and differential subsidence in an under-filled Permian foreland basin changing to an OVER-FILLED basin during the Triassic"
Nothing to do with flooding here so far as I can tell. The basin became filled with sediment, but this seems to be attributed to tectonic events. Given that the basin would be accumulating sediment anyway, I don't see anything that even suggests a local flood here.
quote:
"For Upper Permian and Lower Triassic strata, a number of studies have identified this change as the result of the loss of plants and INCREASED EROSION associated with the end-Permian Mass extinction. Such relationships have been identified in South Africa, Spain, eastern Australia, Russia, and Antarctica."
No mention of a flood here, either.
quote:
this was not standard flooding detected across earth at the PT boundary. At the boundary the erosion increased. Sparse channels became stacked channels. Underfilled basins became overfilled basins.
It doesn't seem to be flooding at all. The only clear mention of floods is the reduction in flood deposits in the Triassic, which hardly helps your case. Even worse, only the increased erosion is said to be global - everything else comes from a report about a single location

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 4:57 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2012 12:54 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 227 of 503 (677096)
10-26-2012 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 3:32 PM


mindspawn writes:
Percy, you seem to disregard the evidence I showed of a major marine transgression...
No, I don't think that I am disregarding your evidence. You said:
mindspawn in Message 195 writes:
I thought it was common knowledge that there was a marine transgression at the PT boundary:
http://work.geobiology.cn/...iscussion%20and%20proposals.pdf
And I replied:
Percy in Message 203 writes:
As I said in Message 165, there are marine transgressions in all eras. Your one-page link is referring to a transgression "in one section in the Canadian Arctic where it occurs some distance above the base of the Griesbachian Formation..." When he talks about marine transgressions and regressions in the next paragraph he's still talking about the P-T boundary sequence in that same formation. You need evidence of a world-wide marine transgression.
Googling the Internet for text to misinterpret will not be successful for you. When you encounter a passage that appears to be saying there was a world-wide marine transgression at the P-T boundary then you need to find the evidence used to reach this conclusion. Just telling us that someone somewhere said something isn't going to convince anyone, it certainly isn't evidence, and it's especially worthless if you've misinterpreted the text.
So you see, I did not disregard your evidence. I examined it and I explained how you had misinterpreted it. You can perhaps try to argue that you did too interpret it correctly, but you can't accuse me of ignoring it.
Explaining this once again, you misinterpreted the text. What you erroneously interpreted as a description of events on a global scale was just referring to a tiny region of the Canadian Arctic.
If the technical literature were filled with descriptions of global marine transgressions at the P-T boundary then everyone here in this thread would agree that there was a global flood at the P-T boundary, but the technical literature describes no such thing. As in all geologic eras there were marine transgressions and regressions, tectonic uplifts and subsidences, seafloor spreadings and subductions, volcanic eruptions, erosions and depositions.
What's unusual at the P-T boundary are the Siberian Traps (extended and excessive volcanic eruptions) and an increase in depositions on floodplains.
Concerning the Siberian Traps, volcanic eruptions in Siberia did not cause global flooding.
Concerning increased depositions on floodplains (floodplains are flat landscapes split by rivers that frequently overflow), your references are describing increased deposits typical of floodplains carried there by wind, rain and rivers from upland regions denuded of vegetation. If the landscape were submerged then the deposits wouldn't resemble those of a floodplain.
...and major worldwide flooding in flood plains at the PT boundary.
None of your references (just for clarity, that would be zero, zilch, nada) describe "major worldwide flooding in flood plains at the PT boundary." They talk about increased deposits of erosion products from upland regions denuded of vegetation. Just as chopping down a forest on a hillside today increases runoff and erosion of that hillside, loss of vegetation during the P-T boundary period caused increased erosion and runoff of upland regions. That's all they're saying. They aren't saying anything about floods. If they were describing floods then they might use words like, oh, I don't know, maybe "FLOOD"? Ya think?
What your link (https://gsa.confex.com/...M/finalprogram/abstract_194904.htm) actually says is this:
We hypothesize that the change in accommodation across the P/T boundary was the result of tectonism and differential subsidence in an under-filled Permian foreland basin changing to an over-filled basin during the Triassic.
Did you read and understand that? The increased deposits were due to "tectonism and differntial subsidence", not a global flood.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 3:32 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 6:02 PM Percy has replied
 Message 232 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 7:51 PM Percy has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 228 of 503 (677099)
10-26-2012 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Percy
10-26-2012 5:49 PM


"What's unusual at the P-T boundary are the Siberian Traps (extended and excessive volcanic eruptions) and an increase in depositions on floodplains."
Aren't volcanic eruptions associated with torrential downpours? Wouldn't extended and excessive volcanic eruptions associate in extended and excessive torrential downpours?
Did the ice caps and glaciation melt during the Siberian Traps?
Couldn't the extensive erosion and deposition relate to flooding?
Although there were also marine transgressions, wasn't there also one at the PT boundary?
Wasn't there "boundary clay" widely distributed at the PT boundary?
This isn't proof, but its a lot of evidence.
I noticed that you keep referring to the Canadian link, and not the other links that do show worldwide changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 10-26-2012 5:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Percy, posted 10-26-2012 6:38 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 229 of 503 (677102)
10-26-2012 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 6:02 PM


mindspawn writes:
Aren't volcanic eruptions associated with torrential downpours? Wouldn't extended and excessive volcanic eruptions associate in extended and excessive torrential downpours?
Not that I've ever heard. The Wikipedia article on the Siberian Traps doesn't mention rain. The Wikipedia article on volcanic eruptions doesn't mention rain, except of volcanic ash. The Wikipedia article on Mount St. Helens doesn't mention rain. Articles on the aftermath of the Mount St. Helens eruption in Portland don't mention rain. Even if the Siberian Traps caused every ounce of water vapor in the atmosphere to fall as rain, that's only .01% of the amount of water in the ocean - it wouldn't have any impact.
Did the ice caps and glaciation melt during the Siberian Traps?
I don't think so. The Wikipedia article on the Siberian Traps doesn't mention glaciers melting. The Wikipedia article on the the 1883 Krakatoa eruption says that its release of dust into the atmosphere had a substantial cooling effect:
Average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius in the year following the eruption. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.
So I would surmise that the amount of dust thrown into the atmosphere by the Siberian Traps could have caused extreme global cooling for at least thousands of years. Given that life on land didn't recover for millions of years, whatever happened was pretty extreme. I can imagine the icecaps reaching the equator and the oceans freezing over. Remember, 96% of marine life went extinct at the P-T boundary, and a global flood seems a bit too friendly to marine life to have caused that.
Although there were also marine transgressions, wasn't there also one at the PT boundary?
You're asking whether there was a marine transgression at the P-T boundary? Why would you ask such a question? Marine transgressions appear throughout the geological record, and I'm sure many marine transgressions can be found at the P-T boundary. What would have been extremely unusual would be if there had been no marine transgressions at all.
Wasn't there "boundary clay" widely distributed at the PT boundary?
No. Were there a global clay layer at the P-T boundary it would be as unusual as the iridium layer at the K-T boundary. If you look up clay you'll find that it apparently usually forms in (quoting Wikipedia) "very low energy depositional environments such as large lakes and marine basins." It would take thousands and thousands of years to deposit significant clay layers, and your supposed flood lasted only a single year.
This isn't proof, but its a lot of evidence.
I'll go as far as saying it's a lot, but not of evidence. A lot of misconceptions, perhaps.
I noticed that you keep referring to the Canadian link, and not the other links that do show worldwide changes.
I referred to it once, and it was the only link in your message that I replied to, Message 209. By the way, you screwed up that link, you cut-n-pasted it from a previous message, so you included the "..." that the software includes when it abbreviates the text of a long link. I fixed it in my own post when I quoted you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 6:02 PM mindspawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by jar, posted 10-26-2012 7:01 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 230 of 503 (677103)
10-26-2012 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Taq
10-26-2012 5:10 PM


So what observations would falsify a flood at the P/T boundary? Or does it even matter what the evidence is?"
If there were no unique worldwide conditions relating to increased sedimentation and/or clays and no unique triggering events, this would nullify any preference for the flood at the PT boundary.
Edited by mindspawn, : putting in quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Taq, posted 10-26-2012 5:10 PM Taq has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 231 of 503 (677107)
10-26-2012 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Percy
10-26-2012 6:38 PM


one year flood, a million year erruption.
The Siberian Traps were a whole series of events that went on for over a million years, the Biblical Flood supposedly lasted only about one year.
Which of the numerous Siberian Trap events correspond to the supposed Biblical Flood?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Percy, posted 10-26-2012 6:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 7:53 PM jar has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


(1)
Message 232 of 503 (677110)
10-26-2012 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Percy
10-26-2012 5:49 PM


Did you read and understand that? The increased deposits were due to "tectonism and differntial subsidence", not a global flood
You misquoted that article Percy. The facts were increased sedimentation across earth. the interpretation of the facts was "hypothesized" as due to tectonism and differential subsidence. It was not concluded, merely hypothesized.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 10-26-2012 5:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 10-27-2012 8:17 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


(1)
Message 233 of 503 (677111)
10-26-2012 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by jar
10-26-2012 7:01 PM


Re: one year flood, a million year erruption.
The Siberian Traps were a whole series of events that went on for over a million years, the Biblical Flood supposedly lasted only about one year.
Which of the numerous Siberian Trap events correspond to the supposed Biblical Flood?
I don't agree with evolutionary timeframes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by jar, posted 10-26-2012 7:01 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by jar, posted 10-26-2012 8:16 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 234 of 503 (677114)
10-26-2012 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 7:53 PM


Re: one year flood, a million year erruption.
What timelines you agree with or don't agree with are irrelevant.
It's your chance to try to create an explanation that might explain what is found at any era you say is the right time for the Biblical Flood. How do you explain the geology that is present in the Siberian Traps and the layers and layers of lava flow? How do you compress the evidence into a one year period?
All you need to do is present the evidence of a mechanism that can cover over two million square kilometers in lava and produce over a million cubic kilometers of lava in a year.
But wait; there's more.
How do you explain there not being any pillow lava in the Siberian Traps?
The Biblical Flood has been totally refuted and simply never happened. But this thread is designed to let people try to explain what is seen based on the accounts in the different Biblical Flood stories. It's a chance to play "what if" and so here is another opportunity to see if you can make up someway for the Biblical Flood to create the evidence.
So here's your chance to step up to the plate.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 7:53 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 235 of 503 (677141)
10-27-2012 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 7:51 PM


mindspawn writes:
You misquoted that article Percy.
You're pretty free with your accusations, MindSpawn. First you accuse me of disregarding your evidence when I didn't, and now you're accusing me of misquoting the article when I didn't. Maybe you could just keep your focus on the topic and not worry so much about what misdeeds other participants might be committing against you.
Or perhaps you meant I misinterpreted the article? Possibly. But just declaring I'm wrong with no evidence or argument is merely a statement of opinion.
If you're only trying to explain what it is you believe then you're doing a good job, but you'll never convince anyone if you can't provide valid explanations for what science led you to those beliefs. And if it wasn't science but religion that led you to them then why are you bothering with scientific arguments at all?
The facts were increased sedimentation across earth.
That article was not about sedimentation across the Earth. The article was REEXAMINATION OF CHANGES IN FLUVIAL STACKING PATTERN ACROSS THE PERMIAN-TRIASSIC BOUNDARY IN THE CENTRAL TRANSANTARCTIC MOUNTAINS, ANTARCTICA. Read the last six words of that title again: "In the Central Transantarctic Mountains, Antarctica". Do you understand that this article was about a tiny region of the world? Just as the other article you cited (Comment - The Permian-Triassic Boundary: Recent Developments, Discussion and Proposals) was about a tiny region of the world. By the way, your other misinterpretation about clay being an indicator of the P-T boundary is mentioned in neither.
The interpretation of the facts was "hypothesized" as due to tectonism and differential subsidence. It was not concluded, merely hypothesized.
Hypothesized is a fine word, and what they hypothesized was "tectonism and differential subsidence," not a global flood. Not even a local flood.
Trawling the Internet for text to misinterpret is not going to get you anywhere. The technical literature does not describe a global flood at the P-T boundary. If it did they would use the word "flood", even if it were a local flood. They would use phrases like "flood deposits" instead of "fluvial [river or stream] deposits".
Have you no comments on anything from my Message 229? Nothing about volcanoes not causing "torrential downpours"? Nothing about all the atmospheric moisture being insufficient to contribute significantly to sea levels? Nothing about volcanoes throwing dust into the air and cooling the planet, thereby increasing glaciation and causing drops in sea levels? Nothing about the ubiquity of marine transgressions in all geologic eras? Nothing about the lack of a global clay layer at the P-T boundary?
Your only response was an indirect one, a declaration to Jar that you reject "evolutionary timeframes", but no explanation for why. It's beginning to seem that your criteria for acceptance and rejection has everything to do with whether it agrees with what you already believe and nearly nothing to do with actual evidence. Your judgment is so colored by your own beliefs that you even cite in your support clearly written English that disagrees with you.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Wordsmithing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 7:51 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2012 4:32 AM Percy has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 236 of 503 (677307)
10-29-2012 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Taq
10-26-2012 4:28 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
What evidence led you to that belief?
The fact that there are no signs of flooding in those civilizations as pointed out already. but there's a lot more evidence than that. The fauna and flora associated with those cities are post-Permian. these civilizations often have flood myths. One or two of the earliest known Sumerian cities have recently been discovered as having the same archaeological names corresponding to the biblical descriptions of the first post-flood cities.
Wouldn't the humans present before the flood also leave evidence that we can find in sediments? Shouldn't we be able to find pre-flood arroheads or stone tools at least? Potshards?
Some of these have been found, but disregarded by science. there are many many sites like this, filled with anomalies:
Page Not Found - YecHeadquarters
The internet is full of this stuff as you know, and some are hoaxes and are easy just to write it off, but these anomalies are continuously found and a lot of them come with written statements of where the artifacts are found. It is very disconcerting to creationists when this evidence is written off first without even being examined. This just shows how deep the assumption of evolution is, that scientists do not go rushing out to examine claimed anomalies, therefore the anomalies are not examined scientifically, and not recorded as scientific evidence.
Another point to consider is that the concentration of analysis of the carboniferous is the swamp areas. This is for two reasons, swamps fossilize better and so you are more likely to find swamp fossils than non-swamp fossils. Secondly carboniferous swamp formed coal is extensively mined, therefore these fossils are found more than any other. swamps are the least likely place to find human settlements and artifacts.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Taq, posted 10-26-2012 4:28 PM Taq has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 237 of 503 (677309)
10-29-2012 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Percy
10-27-2012 8:17 AM


You're pretty free with your accusations, MindSpawn. First you accuse me of disregarding your evidence when I didn't, and now you're accusing me of misquoting the article when I didn't. Maybe you could just keep your focus on the topic and not worry so much about what misdeeds other participants might be committing against you.
Percy in your previous post you stated this as fact:
Did you read and understand that? The increased deposits were due to "tectonism and differntial subsidence", not a global flood.
The article claimed
"WE HYPOTHESIZE that the change in accommodation across the P/T boundary was the result of tectonism and differential subsidence in an under-filled Permian foreland basin changing to an over-filled basin during the Triassic."
A hypothesis is not a fact, if I point this out to you, its nothing personal, I'm just making my point :-)
That article was not about sedimentation across the Earth. The article was REEXAMINATION OF CHANGES IN FLUVIAL STACKING PATTERN ACROSS THE PERMIAN-TRIASSIC BOUNDARY IN THE CENTRAL TRANSANTARCTIC MOUNTAINS, ANTARCTICA. Read the last six words of that title again: "In the Central Transantarctic Mountains, Antarctica". Do you understand that this article was about a tiny region of the world? Just as the other article you cited (Comment - The Permian-Triassic Boundary: Recent Developments, Discussion and Proposals) was about a tiny region of the world.
You say the article was not about sedimentation, this wasn't their focus, but they definitely referred to increased sedimentation at the boundary. You already acknowledged this in an earlier post when you pointed out that it was increased erosion due to lack of vegetation, so I thought we were all agreed on the increased erosion and sedimentation as described by the article, and our point of disagreement was whether flooding caused it. Let me repeat some quotes:
https://gsa.confex.com/...M/finalprogram/abstract_194904.htm
"Fluvial stacking patterns change across the Permian-Triassic (P/T) boundary in CTM from sparse channels contained within thick floodplain deposits in the Permian Buckley Formation to STACKED CHANNELS with sparse floodplain deposits in the Lower Triassic Fremouw Formation."
"We hypothesize that the change in accommodation across the P/T boundary was the result of tectonism and differential subsidence in an under-filled Permian foreland basin changing to an OVER-FILLED basin during the Triassic"
"For Upper Permian and Lower Triassic strata, a number of studies have identified this change as the result of the loss of plants and INCREASED EROSION associated with the end-Permian Mass extinction. Such relationships have been identified in South Africa, Spain, eastern Australia, Russia, and Antarctica."
There was loss of vegetation and increased erosion in many places around the world during the PT boundary, the article is clear on that. Yes they were specifically examining a local area to understand what happened to flood plains at that boundary event, the entire article is very focussed on sedimentation:
"This study re-examines the fluvial deposits in the central Transantarctic Mountains (CTM), Antarctica to better understand the controls on sedimentation during the Late Permian and Early Triassic."
. By the way, your other misinterpretation about clay being an indicator of the P-T boundary is mentioned in neither.
It is mentioned, you just have to read the conclusion of the article. He sounds a bit skeptical about all boundary markers but clearly prefers the use of boundary clay as a better method of marking the PT boundary than parvus fossils.
http://work.geobiology.cn/...iscussion%20and%20proposals.pdf
this boundary clay is better mentioned in the following well written article about the PT boundary which covers a wide range of information:Earth before the Flood: Disappeared Continents and Civilizations
Near the Permian-Triassic boundary layers are characteristically borderline clays with micro spherical nodules enriched in siderophile (Fe, Ni, Co, Au), chalkophile (Cu, Zn, S), deep-lithophile (Ti, Cr, V, Sc) elements and PGM in the first place, iridium. According to Yang and other Chinese geologists (Yang et al., 1995), in China, this layer is a bentonite - hydrolyzed tuffite. He traced this layer over a large area within several Chinese provinces. His current stratigraphic analogues are found in the reference sections of Alborz, Caucasus, the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and elsewhere.
There is a widespread clay layer at the PT boundary.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 10-27-2012 8:17 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Percy, posted 10-29-2012 9:37 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 238 of 503 (677312)
10-29-2012 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Coragyps
10-26-2012 3:59 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
There are indications of angiosperms in the carboniferous (Scagel 1965 Spores similar to pollen grains were discovered in the Carboniferous.)
Just a moment...
Due to the sudden appearance of angiosperms in the cretaceous its unlikely that their sudden appearance and diversity was evolved, there being no signs of any intermediates before then in the early cretaceous. Angiosperms are suited to modern conditions of low oxygen, low air pressures and so it is more likely they were in rare enclaves in the highlands during the carboniferous, obviously highlands having lower air pressure and oxygen. Much like the toothwart of Scotland, you wont find any, not even a hint, of them in the jungles of the Congo or Amazon today. the same applies to isolated highlands of high latitudes in the Carnoniferous, even if flood waters flood them, they would sink long before reaching equatorial swamps.
same with mammals, isolated northern high latitudes,, were far away from the carboniferous swamp areas. These areas were covered by the Siberian basalt flooding, very difficult to explore under there to look for rare carboniferous fossils and lost human cities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Coragyps, posted 10-26-2012 3:59 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Coragyps, posted 10-29-2012 9:15 AM mindspawn has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 239 of 503 (677331)
10-29-2012 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by mindspawn
10-29-2012 6:25 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
not even a hint, of them in the jungles of the Congo or Amazon today.
The antecedent for "them" is intended to be "angiosperm" here? Or did you mean "Arctic fox?"
Have you ever heard of palms? Of trees? Orchids?
Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2012 6:25 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2012 11:09 AM Coragyps has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 240 of 503 (677333)
10-29-2012 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by mindspawn
10-29-2012 4:32 AM


mindspawn writes:
Percy in your previous post you stated this as fact:
Did you read and understand that? The increased deposits were due to "tectonism and differntial subsidence", not a global flood.
The article claimed
"WE HYPOTHESIZE that the change in accommodation across the P/T boundary was the result of tectonism and differential subsidence in an under-filled Permian foreland basin changing to an over-filled basin during the Triassic."
A hypothesis is not a fact, if I point this out to you, its nothing personal, I'm just making my point :-)
Well, then you're making a pretty silly point. I was just directing you to the relevant phrase "tectonism and differential subsidence," not claiming hypothesis is fact. That would be ridiculous. You can trust that I understand the tentative nature of science that is always ready to change in light of new evidence or insight.
Concerning the rest, you're still ignoring the fact that the articles refer to fluvial deposits, not flood deposits. Had the region been submerged then the deposits would not have the appearance of fluvial deposits. You're not going to get anywhere arguing that fluvial deposits are actually flood deposits, because the two are different. It's not like geologists can't tell the difference.
Addressing one specific misunderstanding:
That article was not about sedimentation across the Earth. The article was REEXAMINATION OF CHANGES IN FLUVIAL STACKING PATTERN ACROSS THE PERMIAN-TRIASSIC BOUNDARY IN THE CENTRAL TRANSANTARCTIC MOUNTAINS, ANTARCTICA. Read the last six words of that title again: "In the Central Transantarctic Mountains, Antarctica". Do you understand that this article was about a tiny region of the world? Just as the other article you cited (Comment - The Permian-Triassic Boundary: Recent Developments, Discussion and Proposals) was about a tiny region of the world.
You say the article was not about sedimentation...
Actually I did not say "The article was not about sedimentation."
I said, "The article was not about sedimentation across the Earth."
What happened is that you had claimed that it was about a global event "across the Earth", and I was only pointing out that it wasn't about a global event "across the Earth." It was about a local event in the Central Transantarctic Mountains. It would make no sense to deny that it addressed sedimentation when it obviously did.
In any region that is lower in elevation than surrounding regions there will be sedimentation. Since the entire world has regions like this, there will be regions of sedimentation worldwide. In a global event such as took place at the P-T boundary, with decreased vegetation to hold back erosion there will increased sedimentation worldwide, and of this we have evidence. We have no evidence of a world-wide flood.
By the way, you accidentally included a non-working link again when you included the elipsis, here's a correct version: REEXAMINATION OF CHANGES IN FLUVIAL STACKING PATTERN ACROSS THE PERMIAN-TRIASSIC BOUNDARY IN THE CENTRAL TRANSANTARCTIC MOUNTAINS, ANTARCTICA
this boundary clay is better mentioned in the following well written article about the PT boundary which covers a wide range of information:Earth before the Flood: Disappeared Continents and Civilizations
The title of this webpage is The Earth before the Flood: disappeared continents and civilizations. So this is where you got your idea of a world-wide clay layer at the P-T boundary? I'm not saying it exists or not, I just haven't seen any reliable evidence of it yet. Anyway, the section you quoted about geological layers in China and correspondences to many other regions of the world refers to the paper "Yang et. al. 1995". I tracked this paper down, here's the reference:
YANG, W., HARMSEN, F. and KOMINZ, M., 1995. Depositional cyclicity of the Mideel and Late Devonian Lost Burro Formation, Death Valley, California--a possible record of Milankovitch climatic cycles. Journal of Sedimentary Research, B65: 306-322.
So in reality we see once again global claims based on a paper about a tiny region. In this case the region isn't even in China as your article claims, but in Death Valley in the United States. And interestingly there must have been some problem with the paper, because it has been excised from the journal in which it originally appeared, check it out:
Notice that the article is not listed in the table of contents, and that the pages of the other articles skip over the pages 306-322 of this article. I don't know how we'd ever find out what happened to it, but it doesn't give one any confidence that it contained useful information.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2012 4:32 AM mindspawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Coragyps, posted 10-29-2012 9:41 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 243 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2012 10:19 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024