Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model

So, were dinosaur carnivores allergic to mammals, or something? Seems to me that the abundant mammal populations of the late Tertiary would have been a regular smorgasbord for dinos. What you are going to come up with here, TB, is a bunch of ad hoc explanations that will conflict and give you a severe headache. Please do. But, TB, we don't see ANY resembling modern mammals prior to the Late Cretaceous. Not just that they are rare... they are nonexisent. Somewhere in the world, there must be a Cambrian or Silurian (or whatever) rabbit. You need to find it. And why aren't there some compounding factors, somewhere in the world, that would magnify trout over trilobites? Well, I hope that the other things are a bit more compelling than a 'lack of data'.

roxrkool That's simply an assumption that does not actually sit well with the data. Paleocurrents demonstrate that most formations were depostied under consistent, often large, currents. Mainstream researchers assume currents were 'normal' in the sense that the shore line was constant. We suggest that in many cases the current itself *was* the inundation (or retreat). As I said: An excellent study tying these types of evidence with the rapid deposition of an entire formation is Austin's analysis of Grand Canyon's Coconino Sandstone (300 foot thick) which has huge sand waves present in it. Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood | Answers in Genesis

PercyI'll answer these three at a time! You already know that we claim many such major problems with mainstream geology.Let's take the relative lack of unconformities (breaks in layering) for example. Most formations display very few unconformities where there has been a break in layering and genunine habitaiton. Even the unconfornities between some formations do not look like anything more than a few years of weathering.The point is that mainstream researchers have become limited catastrophists. They agree that most sedimentation occurs rapidly!The time is in the gaps they say. That's fine to say but the evidence doesn't back that up. Marine layers should be disturbed by habitaiton - they're mostly not. Non-marine layers should be unevenly eroded - they're mostly not.That's just one example which in itself suggests the geological column was rapidly laid. Recolonization is the only scenario I am aware of which has a good chance of mechanistly generating the observed fossil record rapidly (as required by my observations on rapidity above). We already know that recolonization will be dictated by breeding rates and ecological considerations. Intuitively it has the potential to do the job. That's how every theory starts. (a) In terms of fossilization we certainly expect the following well-known observed features naturally:* Fossil graveyards
* Vast, flat continental coastal plains
* Vast stretches of layering (vertically) undisturbed by habitation
* Frequent inability to define beds neatly as marine or non-marine
* Vast burial of terrestial plants with no evidence of nearby shorelinesMainstream geology can accomodate this only via fine-tuning (just-so stories) but these are natural features of catastrophic inundation.(b) In terms of sediment material we are in the same boat as mainstream geology. We are working with the same inundations and the same source of sediment. So we either have the same problems or the same consistencies.More coming . .This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-27-2005 11:48 PM

Reply to Percy's next three points Mainstram sceince already acknolwledges that in most cases the vast majority of the fossil record was laid as epieric seas (inundations and retreats of sea-level). There's simply no debate on that one.Non-marine beds represent the vast minority of the geo-column. We would re-interperet many of these as marine inundations that simply are dominated by terrestial fossils due to rapidity. Not necessarily (see answer to point above). Beds are nomninated as marine or non-marine often on the basis of fossils. That is clearly problematic if we are talking rapid inundations. Non-marine terrestial beds would be* less extensive horizontally and vertically
* more evidence of habitation and gully erosion
* far fewer in quantityAs I said the geo-column is dominated by marine inundations and the mainstream proportion is an underestimate because if you assume gradulaism you will mistake some marine inundation beds as non-marine becasue of the terrestial fossils. We're working with the same sea-level curves you are so there are lulls which would generate land bridges.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-27-2005 11:47 PM

TB,You may be interested in reading my analyses and discussions regarding the Eocene Yellowstone Fossil Forests, William Fritz himself was intrigued by my interpretation of the data: Yellowstone Fossil Forests(Edited by AN to shorten overly long URL -- please use peek to see how).(edited) It probably can also be used as one of the best methods of simultaneously potentially falsifying mainstream geology and supporting YEC geology (and vice versa) I can think of: Yet another long link-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-27-2005 11:22 PMThis message has been edited by AdminNosy, 06-27-2005 11:26 PMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 06-27-2005 11:21 PM

^ Thanks - I'll check it out.

Reply to another three of Percy's points: Yes that's an important point. But you didn't mention breeding rate specifically. I think tha tone is the key and in favor of the sceanrio. Sure there are potetntial anomilies (mice and rabbits). I am actively reading through mainstream and creationist recolonization material and will report back. True. But we only dig up a small proportion of the geo-column. And of course I already pointed out to PaulK that the stratigraphic extent of every organism type is growing as we dig more. Large mamamlas in the triassic would have been a huge shock twenty years ago. But we've become accustom to stratigraphic range extension. Plants still compete with each other in an environemnt dependent manner. It never ceases to amaze me how territorial plants are. You can turn a bend in a Snowy Mountains road and suddenly it's all snow gums. Or walk into a clearing and find copletely differnt species than in under the canopy.The model accomodates and to a large extent expects vast, wet, frequently flooded continental flats (and this type of environment dominates much of the Mesozoic and Paleozoic). This may have been unfavorable to 'modern' plant recolonization.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-27-2005 11:47 PM

Three more: In this model the early inundations fossilized not only the fastest recolonizers but the ones that had had little time to speciate. 500 years of equilibration on unequiilbrated gene pools in a chanllenging environment will do a lot as we know from only hundreds of years of dog, pigeon and vegetable breeding. Did none of the early forms survive? I don't think that's true. But the answer for the rest is as per the previous point (breeding rates and extra teim for speciation). The extinction of dinosaurs needs a special answer for both our model and mainstream science as we all know. We breed slower than almost all animals, including most (all?) other primates, and are less nomadic. We postulate that early Post-Flood man had already invented agriculture.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-28-2005 12:01 AM

Three more: You're going to have to paint that one for me. It seems to me that your overestimating the extent to which the fossil record has been studied. Flood geologists have proposed alternative envionemnets for most problematic beds. For example, limestone beds in the geo-column are typically different in character to those forming slowly today: Grand Canyon LimestoneFast or Slow Deposits? | Answers in Genesis If accelerated radiodecay is occuring continuously during this period then it works pretty much the same as the mainstream sceanrio. As the magma cools it resets the radioisotpoic clock. Then it decays at an acclerated rate for a time determined by its startigraphic position (since earlier and later volcanic layers experience more and less accelerated decay respectively).

The last two: Precisely the same way as mainstream geophysics. It's just a differnet time scale. Radiodating aside, little or no work is done by anyone from either camp to determine whether the empirical data matches their time scale or not. Both camps use the magnetic reversal data as a global chrono-marker in exactly the same way. The post-Flood division is probably the Devonian where track ways first occur in the fossil record: A variant of the model accomodates a later division if these amphibians and even small reptiles survived the Flood on floating mats.The pre-Flood division is in the Pre-Cambrian. I'll track down some material on that. I think Recolonizers interperet global metamorphism as the boudnary.***********************Of course I don't pretend that these points are answered completely. Many of these questions require the equivalent of a PhD project if not an entire research group to answer. These are our, and my, initial expectations and evidences. More will come over time.

Yes but they can fly of course. Why we don't see a lot of birds until the Creataceous is a puzzle. Of course the Triassic/Jurassic gap between bird footprints and bird fossils is a puzzle too. The model proposes as a postlate no fossilization of terrestial organisms from these phases due to hydrological/tectonic violence that underpins the beginning of the Flood. I agree. The model needs to account for the early lack of birds and bunnies. They survived the Flood.

I worked my way through the first link. From my reading the argument relies on exempting the YEC explanation from criticism, and assuming it as a default. Worse it seems that to actually refute mainstream geology would require expanding this strategy. While it may be the only way YEC could win, it is hardly going to work in a scientific context

clpMINI We shouldn't get too Biblical here - we're in the Science forums. Suffice to say it's a good point with only guesses for answers. Survive without flourishing. True but for tetrapods they reproduce prolifically. So it's a multi-competing variable issue. Yes but they can fly away too.One thing we have to remember is that mainstream science sub-consciously believes in fossilization under 'normal' circumstances (in reality mainstream science realises that fossilization occurs as localized catastrophes). We're saying that given the short time scale you'll in effect ONLY get catastrophic burial. So howmany more land animals are we going to see over birds? A factor of 100,000, a million or 10 million? Homany non-marine fossil have been studied? Possibly not enough tpo find the anomalies.Like I mentioned, in 2003 birds dropped 2 periods in the geo-column down into the Triassic via trackways. What if we found some in the Permian (which is getting pretty close to the Flood boundary of some recolonization model variants)? That's only one period lower than the present first bird (track).This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-28-2005 03:19 AM

I'd need more context on the bird footprints to say if they were much of a puzzle. Simply saying that they look like bird footprints doesn't even rule out non-avian dinosaurs as a reasonable possiblity.And why are you answering my expectations for marine fossils based on the recolonisation model with it's assumptions for terrestrial fossils ? The whole point is that the model has different views of what happened to marine life.And since you assume that marine "reptiles" and mammals survived the Flood it seems that there is a real problem with the marine record. Surey we sould find some evidence of large marine mammals with icthyosaurs ? Surely we should find some evidence for the mosasaurs or plesiosaurs in the earlier eras ? And why do we find fossil evidence of the whale's evolution from land mammals if they didn't evolve then ?As I said the marine fossil record - and its relationship to the terrestrial record is a big problem for "recolonisation".

quote:

---

I worked my way through the first link. From my reading the argument relies on exempting the YEC explanation from criticism, and assuming it as a default.

---

Not really, however I see why you think that. Indeed the YECist method of anochthonous burrial needs further work. I am also applying the same method used to describe evolutionary theory--"the evidence does not dispute evolution, however the processes by which evolution occurs is disputed." Similarily, to me it appears clear that the evidence at yellowstone strongly suggests a very different process seemingly incompatible with mainstream uniformitarian geology, however the processes by which deposition occured can be more readily disputed.

quote:

---

Worse it seems that to actually refute mainstream geology would require expanding this strategy. While it may be the only way YEC could win, it is hardly going to work in a scientific context

---

elaborate? It sounds like you are refering to my argument in the second link here?(also, if we don't resolve this quickly, lets open another thread)-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.