Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 100 (19473)
10-10-2002 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by edge
10-09-2002 11:47 PM


Edge
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.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by edge, posted 10-09-2002 11:47 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by edge, posted 10-11-2002 11:28 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 21 by wehappyfew, posted 10-12-2002 12:42 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 17 of 100 (19492)
10-10-2002 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tranquility Base
10-10-2002 1:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy
You 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 processes
The 300 ft deep environment of formation doesn't have to be at the same time as the footprints with surging.

No I am painting the ONLY possible picture and you are painting a totally impossible picture. The footprints could not have been deposited before the sand was there. The sand could not have been there until all the other deposits were laid down. Even a creationist must admit to those obvious facts. The surging has to produce surges at least 300 feet high over the whole huge area to make anything like these sand waves so there is really no place for the animals to be safely hid out during these surges and in fact no place for them to have been while all those other strata were deposited.
Many of the tracks had to have been made in dry sand so after all those other deposits are formed you need have long enough periods between each of the "surges" for
1 The sand to dry out completely.
2. Some animals to come into the area from somewhere high up and far away and make tracks
3. The tracks to get preserved somehow before the next massive surge moves over the area with 300 foot deep moving water wiping everything out over the 200,000 square mile area.
As far as I know the only person who has suggested that the tracks were all formed in water is Brand who is a creationist and not mainstream at all and he has even backed off from this somewhat(see below).
Look at the tracks
http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/cocotr.html
Here is a quote or two
This is one of the most spectacular combinational fossil slabs we have found yet. Along the top and decreasing toward the bottom we find raindrop impressions seen as round bowl shaped pits. In the center, a surface impression of the bark from a tree is seen crossing the slab from left to right. And along the bottom a spider trackway proceeds across the slab. The story this slab tells is interesting, perhaps 280 million years ago, a large tarantula like spider (Octopodichnus) crossed a sand flat between the dunes near a fallen tree in a large desert perhaps running for cover from the large raindrops that began to fall. Found near Ashfork.
(Octopodichnus) Spider Trackway - One of the better trackway slabs found by us up near Ashfork. Such small animals can ONLY leave their trackways on completely dry sand. This represents an inter-dunal sand flat that was wetted by a morning dew after the animal passed to solidify the surface of the sand and preserve the layer before the next sand storm buried it. Ashfork area.
Another fine impression of a spider trackway (Octopodichnus) from Ashfork. This marks the passage of the animal across an interdunal flat, perhaps dry sand near the shoreline, but NOT in the wet tidal zone. From Ashfork.
The Coconinos are not the result of huge water deposited sand waves but eolian sand dunes formed at a seashore similar to the Oregon dunes that exist today. It may make sense to a YEC that water could pick up thousand of cubic miles of sand from somewhere to the north, carry it 200-300 miles without dumping it and then spread it out over 200,000 square miles in formation that look just like sand dunes while preserving animal and insect tracks and raindrop impression but I don’t think it can make sense to anyone who thinks about it rationally. Do you really think that water moving slower than you can walk could carry sand 200 miles without dumping it and then spread it more or less evenly over 200,000 square miles? Even if you believe this absurd scenario you still have all the other problems with the tracks that I have discussed.
Look at this site
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm
"Interestingly enough, Brand (1996) himself wrote in the conclusion of a 1996 paper that: "The data do suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil trackways may have been produced in either subaqueous sand or subaerial damp sand" (Variations in salamander trackways resulting from substrate differences. Journal of Paleontology 70, 1004-1010). So, Brand's work, even taken at face value, does not necessarily indicate that the substrate was deposited subaqeously, as flood geologist frequently claim. "
The subaqeous sand-wave theory promoted by Austin (1994) is rendered dubious on other sedimentologic grounds as well, which overwhelmingly support the eolian interpretation. For instance, whereas the angles of cross-beds in subarial dunes frequently exceed 25-30 degrees, sand waves possess very low angle cross-beds, deviating from the horizontal by about 1-10 degrees. One of Austin's own sources, Allen, writes:
"We cannot emphasize too strongly that sand waves possess low to mild slopes ... it is clear that the sides of the waves rarely dip more steeply than 10 degress overall and can slope as little as 1 degree ..."
The bedforms are also inconsistent with subaqeous deposition. Middleton et al. (p. 195) write:
The low height-to-wavelength ratio of the wind ripples as measured in plan view exposures of many foresets is consistent with those recorded from modern coastal and inland dunes.
There is simply no way that the tracks could have been formed according to the creationst scenario. As I said before it is totally absurd.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 1:31 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 100 (19633)
10-11-2002 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tranquility Base
10-10-2002 1:25 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 1:25 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 19 of 100 (19637)
10-11-2002 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tranquility Base
10-10-2002 1:36 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 1:36 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 20 of 100 (19719)
10-12-2002 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tranquility Base
10-09-2002 9:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
With 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.
JM: Of course, you completely ignore the boiling problem, the shallow sea problem and many others when you assume such an event. Runaway subduction and rapid drift finds no support in the geologic record (sorry). For example, paleobiogeography gives us information on how certain species are related to each other and the paleogeography at the time. The close association of trilobites (for example) would not be possible in a rapidly changing geography.
quote:
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.
JM: You're full of ideas you consider novel. Most of them have been discussed (some dismissed) many years ago. As a source, you cite introductory textbooks. I say, go ahead and try to publish your ideas without proper background research. You'll be surprised at the response. Tell you what, if you can somehow focus on sea-level changes in the southern continents, you can submit it to the journal Gondwana Research. I am the editor and will send it out for review.
quote:
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.
JM: Well, if you are so sure based on the intro textbooks that you've read, then please submit your manuscript.
quote:
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?
JM: Oh, I see you're willing to spout off a 'new hypothesis' before examining the relevant literature or trying to figure out what work on sea-level has been conducted in the past? I swear TB, sometimes I think you're pulling our leg about being a Ph.D.'ed' scientist. If a graduate student came to you with a brand new hypothesis and had never bothered to examine the literature (beyond an intro text)--or bothered to find original sources and explanations on the subject--would you encourage him/her to publish the idea?
quote:
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.
JM: However, in the Cretaceous the reason for elevated sea level is due to increased spreading rates (see Larson, 1991) for example. Furthermore, 85% (an incorrect number anyway! the real value is ~40%) is not 100% that you require for the flood of Noah. The bible said the water covered ALL the EARTH not 85% (or 40%).
quote:
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.
JM: This is a fantasy and easily countered. Why is there marine strata located at one of the highest elevations in the world? It IS being eroded, but it is still there. You also need to learn about how sea-level curves are generated as your post demonstrates a certain naivete about the caveats and issues related to generating sea level curves.
quote:
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.
JM: Or look in the Himalayas and the Tethyan-age marine strata that must be traversed as one climbs Mt. Everest. Why were these not eroded first?
quote:
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.
JM: Actually, it's an accurate statement based on 150+ years of work by creationist geologists and modern geologists alike. To say that it is misleading is downright dishonest.
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 10-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-09-2002 9:40 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-14-2002 2:12 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 100 (19732)
10-12-2002 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tranquility Base
10-10-2002 1:36 AM


quote:
...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.
Have you ever been to a highlands, TB?
Large areas of the Central Rockies in the U.S. have no outlet to the sea. These intermontane basins collect sediments quite well. Some have tens of thousands of feet of non-marine sediments.
Ever heard of the Basin and Range?
If a global flood covered them, marine fossils, marine sediments and marine evaporites would remain. Instead, we find ONLY terrestrial fossils, non-marine sediments, and fresh-water evaporites.
Back to kindergarten for you, TB... you have a lot of elementary geology to catch up on.
A "sensible debate" can resume when you are sufficiently versed in the basics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 1:36 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-14-2002 1:48 AM wehappyfew has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 100 (19823)
10-14-2002 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by wehappyfew
10-12-2002 12:42 PM


Wehappy
It 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by wehappyfew, posted 10-12-2002 12:42 PM wehappyfew has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 100 (19824)
10-14-2002 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Joe Meert
10-12-2002 10:53 AM


Joe
Yes 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Joe Meert, posted 10-12-2002 10:53 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Joe Meert, posted 10-14-2002 11:29 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 24 of 100 (19853)
10-14-2002 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
10-14-2002 2:12 AM


quote:
Yes I completely ignore the boiling problem just as physicists ignored atoms with Z > 1 for years.
JM: You also completely ignore the shallow sea problem, the mechanism for generating rapid drift and it's effects on biogeography.
quote:
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.
JM: No, I am talking about being able to correlate global trilobite distribution with paleogeography during the Neoproterozoic and Early Cambrian. Rapidly changing geography would not allow such high resolution paleogeography to be obtained in the rapid drift scenario.
quote:
My half-baked ideas?
JM: You're right, you have not yet even managed to get the ingredients together.
quote:
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.
JM: LOL! I'm not??? Guess you don't bother to read the literature. I am almost exclusively a plate tectonics guy.
quote:
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.
JM: A LOT MORE? You can't even find basic literature on the subjects you argue (including your statement about me not being a plate tectonics guy)!
quote:
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.
JM: I should say (a) MOST definitely!! You don't even know the basics yet.
quote:
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.
JM: There is no relevance that has not already been stated.
quote:
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.
JM: Once again, I find it most absurd that you are unable to use the library to find the pertinent literature. You come on here and spout off hypothesis after hypothesis and then claim that since you can't find it in an intro text, it must be a revelation to you. Such poor scholarship is atypical of most Ph.D. scientists.
quote:
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!
JM: Fair enough, but the correct figure would then be ~80%. Having said that, you assumed they are based on actual data. I am asking you what data and how are those data utilized to generate the curves?
quote:
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.
JM: 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.
quote:
I know that sea-level curves are generated from the global correlation of marine strata but, yes, I'm interested in learning much more.
JM: So your hypothesis is based upon an incomplete understanding of how sea level curves are generated and how they might vary? LOL!
quote:
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!
JM: According to you they should all be eroded.
quote:
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.
JM: No, I look at the data afresh on a daily basis and spend time generating new data! So, you have no support for such a statement. I also did not say there could not be a complete covering of the continents by the ocean. It is a question of when, how and why. So far, you have not been able to support your 'hypothesis' with workable answers to any of those simple questions. Until you can, you are just blowing smoke.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-14-2002 2:12 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-14-2002 9:32 PM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 28 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 2:30 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 100 (19888)
10-14-2002 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Joe Meert
10-14-2002 11:29 AM


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. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Joe Meert, posted 10-14-2002 11:29 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Randy, posted 10-14-2002 9:57 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 27 by edge, posted 10-14-2002 10:28 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 26 of 100 (19891)
10-14-2002 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tranquility Base
10-14-2002 9:32 PM


TB on the other thread you wrote
quote:
At the end of creation week we have the created bedrock and oceans with the left over evidence of the land having dynamically come up out of the waters - namely much of the pre-Cambrian continental stata. I don't believe God faked a single stratum.
Earlier on this thread you said
quote:
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.
Are you suggesting that the flood eroded the 10,000 cubic miles of sand in the Coconino sandstones off of some highlands? Do you know how much energy would be required to make 10,000 cubic miles of sand from Genesis rock? Or did God put 10,000 cubic miles of sand on some land that rose up magically between creation and the flood to be these highlands? Wouldn't that be faking in a sense?
You still haven’t answered where the animals and insects that made the tracks in Coconino sandstones were hiding out while the Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale, Muav Limestone, Grand Wash Dolomites, Temple Butte Limestone, Redwall Limestone, Surprise Canyon Formation, Supai Group and the Hermit Shale where deposited and while the 300 foot deep water brought in successive waves of sand to supposedly form the Coconinos. I hope they weren’t on those highlands that the 10,000 cubic miles of sand was washed from. You’d think that would have been a little tough on them.
You do know that the deposition of those all those limestone and dolomite layers in the Grand Canyon sediments would have generated a LOT of heat don’t you? I suspect that heat might be more than enough to boil the flood waters at least locally without the added heat your rapid subduction would add. That might have been a little hard on animals that were hanging out nearby as well.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-14-2002 9:32 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 27 of 100 (19894)
10-14-2002 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tranquility Base
10-14-2002 9:32 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-14-2002 9:32 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 10:33 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 100 (19900)
10-15-2002 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Joe Meert
10-14-2002 11:29 AM


Joe
I 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Joe Meert, posted 10-14-2002 11:29 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Joe Meert, posted 10-15-2002 7:21 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 29 of 100 (19913)
10-15-2002 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tranquility Base
10-15-2002 2:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe
I 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.

JM: Well, you sure wasted a lot of bandwidth before finding the information. Unfortunately for you, there has been more recent work than Haq and much more detailed studies on sea level falls and rises. I am also amazed at how poorly you've thought about your own ideas with regard to sea level fall and rise. Have you considered the time involved to generate the features you think you see in the sea level curves? We're not talking about draining a tub here.
here is information on the shallow sea problem
THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANS
I've posted this before so your memory must be failing. You also will not generate very good sea level curves during a Baumgardner flood.
as for the paleobiogeography, you might want to look at
Paleogeography & Biogeography in the Neoproterozoic: Some Hints about Rodinia
Cheers
Joe Meert
PS: Take your time, try to learn a bit more about the subject before you respond. If you choose not to take your time, you will continue to look silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 2:30 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-15-2002 8:01 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 100 (19958)
10-15-2002 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Joe Meert
10-15-2002 7:21 AM


^ 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Joe Meert, posted 10-15-2002 7:21 AM Joe Meert has 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