Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood

Mark24The 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.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.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. 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).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.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-09-2002]

Hi JoeWith 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.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.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.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?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.Q: So how do you justify your pronouncement of "Sadly, there is no global flood and there certainly is no global flood as you want it to happen described in the Bible".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.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.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.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-09-2002]

RandyThere 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.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).I would never publish an accelerated decay version of 'delayed subduction' mainstream! I'm quite interested in the essential dynamics regardless of E vs C.The earth was about 85% covered during the Cretaceous (mainstream). The land surfaces were approximately 50% covered (and this is a lower limit). That is why you can find marine fossils almost everywhere on land!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. In our model some evaporates may be genuine and others may be precipatative due to tectonic expulsions of brine etc.

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

quote:

---

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.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.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?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.Your paleosoils are typically assumed. These envronemtns could be due to deposition from floating mats for example.I'm no expert on the expulsion of brines. One of the well known creationists has cited evidence of this.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-10-2002]

RandyYou are simply painting the worst possible picture. We paint the best possible picture but empirically:* there are huge sand waves
* even mainstreamers have reinterpreted these as water laid
* there are footprints
* in other GC strata there are oriented fosils suggestive of catalcysmic processesThe 300 ft deep environment of formation doesn't have to be at the same time as the footprints with surging.

EdgeYour 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.What was the source if everywhere was being covered? 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.We simply don't expect to see a completely global covering for these two reasons.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-10-2002]

WehappyIt is very clear that I do not need highlands to never collect sediment!I simply need to use the utter fact that highlands are less likely to collect sediment than lowlands!Track my arguement and you will see that I do not need highlands to always abhor sediment! Maybe you should stop arguing against me simply on principle.I stand by my statement, and detailed arguement, that, even in a mainstream context, there could have been a near total covering.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-14-2002]

JoeYes I completely ignore the boiling problem just as physicists ignored atoms with Z > 1 for years.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.My half-baked ideas? 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. 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.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. 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. 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.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!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.I know that sea-level curves are generated from the global correlation of marine strata but, yes, I'm interested in learning much more.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!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.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-14-2002]

JoeSo 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. Most of my reading has been textbooks and abstracts on paleocurrents and sea-level curves so unless your work features there I would be as familiar with your work as you are of mine.I can't find the well known sea-level curves in the primary literature using geo-ref. I'll admit that. It should be a piece of cake for you. Why not post it here? I have seen the same sea-level curves in at least three textbooks none of which cite the reference so I have assumed that it must be an incredibly standard seminal pieced of work that almost nobody cites anymore. Of course I am dying to see the primary ref.I presume that the sea-level surves come from a workld-wide analysis of marine strata on land and estimates of the timing of uplifts and subsidences. If there is some other trick to it I will be fascinated to find out.I said "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."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.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. 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.You ask when, how and why regarding a global covering?
When: probably the Cretaceous during which we have the most extensive marine strata.
How: Empirically: the sea-level peak was higher than previous peaks and the major mountain ranges were considerably lower. Mechanistically: see below.
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. Of course the global level would have been an integration over the entire planet. None of this is very controversial surely. My addition may or may not be new/sensible.

JoeI 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.

^ I'll check out that stuff.Looking even at the Haq et al Science paper seems already to change the shape of the sea-level curves. It is strange that the recent texts still use Vail's original plot. I'm still studying the Haq paper. So maybe it's down the tube for my brief communication but I'll check out your sources.

EdgeI 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 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.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).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.So what is the 'ample evidence' that some areas did NOT have marine strata at any time during the Cretaceous.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. 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.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-15-2002]

EdgeI 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. 'Sudden' does not necessarily have to mean on YEC time scales, it's just sudden relative to the sea-level rises.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.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.Your "constant supply of coarse terrigenous sediment then there is a constant landmass above sea level" does not rule out a brief global covering.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?I agree with your buddy but every once in a while . . .[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-16-2002]

EdgeRegardless 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. 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.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.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.Brief flood? I referred to the ultimate covering as brief.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.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. 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).[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-16-2002]

^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?