Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

^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?

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

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, 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? Wouldn't it just blow away? No tracks would remain, if they were made above water! 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.There is also something else I would like to point out. 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? 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!Later, guys!------------------
"For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

[QUOTE][B]Wouldn't it just blow away?[/QUOTE][/B]Not if it were in a depositional environment. [QUOTE][B]Look at it again when it's exposed to a moderate wind for even a few minutes.[/QUOTE][/B]You're talking about sand, but since there are spider tracks involved I suspect we're talking about very very fine sand or clay. Coarse grained sediments are much more vulnerable to aeolian erosion than fine grained particles. Big pieces of sand blow away before smaller pieces because they are more exposed to the wind. Also since we are talking about such small fossils we're well within the realm of micrometeorology. A small ridge would be all we need to shelter the tracks. [QUOTE][B]No tracks would remain, if they were made above water! [/QUOTE][/B]That isn't necessarily true, it depends on all sorts of variables such as the size of the sediment, how moist it is, and how rapidly it was filled. And since we need maybe a millimeter of cover (if that much) I hardly would think we need a global Flood to take care of it. [QUOTE][B]How would sand become hardened if it was not above water, or another layer of sediments?....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.[/QUOTE][/B]Why do you need to compress them? You only need to cover them and wait for lithification.

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]

quote:

---

I wont bother answering your accusations.

---

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

quote:

---

Instead I'll concnetrate on science.

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

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]

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

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]