TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV?

quote:

---

My thought that you also commented on that I called 'delayed subduction' was just me trying to work out what caused the regressions. I'm now aware that mountain building on continents could lead to sea level drops.

---

JM: So does glaciation.

quote:

---

Having said that, now that I've seen the graphs of actaul sea-level vs time over the last 500 million years (see Hamblin, Christiansen & Hamblin for example)

---

JM: you mean 1st order sea level curves.

quote:

---

I am really wondering whether the idea of 'delayed' subduction is not a bad one (and might be a mainstream one). The graphs vs time (extracted from the geological record) show gradually increasing sea levels (transgression) with a rapid initial gradient that then decreases and levels of. Then the sea-level suddenly drops (regression).

---

JM: Again, I am not sure why you would call it 'delayed subduction' since oceanic crust (all other things being equal) will subduct when it becomes negatively buoyant. In one sense, subduction is ALWAYS delayed until such time as it becomes subductable. I must admit that I am not sure what your point is here at all!

quote:

---

Anyway, so the idea is that the sea-floor spreading is limited by the mass of the build up of magma sitting on top. Because it hardens it can then also exert pressure transversely on the oceanic plates at the mid-oceanic ridge directed along the plates. This transverse pressure ultimately is transmitted to the oceanic/continental plate boundaries, builds up and is released as the oceanic plates overcome a frictional threshold and subduct under the continental plates 'rapidly', relative to the initial build up, allowing the sea-floor to properly spread and so you get the sea-level drop. And hence you get the classic sea-level curve. That's my theory coming as an outsider anyway.

---

JM: Sea level fluctuations are not all that simple. As I said, there are many orders of sea level fluctuations and they are due to different effects (glaciation, orogeny, seafloor spreading, the geoid, subduction) and to try and simplistically attribute them all to a single cause is dangerous (if not totally wrong). By the way, I would call your idea a hypothesis (it's not quite to the level of theory yet).

quote:

---

I have checked the literature now on transgressions/regressions and have note a paucity of explanations for the 'sudden' sea-level drops (other than mountain building

---

JM: Then you've not looked very far. try searching glaciations and sea level. Try searching geoid and sea-level. Have a look at here
CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

PS - I've read quite a lot on the early geolgoists. It is fascinating stuff and I'm not just in it for the flood geolgoy. I like the science of it too. I'm a fan of Hutton, Smith, Lyell, Cuvier, Mantell and Buckland etc. I have my own ideas of why the 'creationist' geologists failed to see the flood in the strata. The main reason IMO was that no-one expected that you could get layering from rapid deposition - they all thought it only happened due to cyclical seasonal events.

---

JM: Well, then I suggest you look again. Try reading some of Agassiz's material. I am still swamped with other work, but I will say that this whole discussion reminds me of words i read most recently in Pennock's "Tower of Babel". Namely that flood geology makes sense as long as the details are ignored. Now, I know that's not fair to say without providing those details, but neither have you (or your side) provided details to support the Noachian flood. I will get back to this, but June 1 is a big deadline here.CheersJoe Meert

No, but this one does: http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htmCheersJoe Meert

I am still short of time for this sort of discussion, but I am going to revisit this area and take some photos of erosional contacts in June. This region has epeiric sea deposits and other wonderful geologic relationships. I should be back to normal in another day or two.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
The above is message 27 of this topic. It was posted less than 24 hours ago. A lot has been posted since, too much to fast for me to digest yet.

​

TB, in message 27, I was trying to stress the large significance of non-marine sedimentary processes. In message 28 you stated that you agreed with what I said in message 27.

​

Still, the main point you seem to be trying to make, is that the marine sedimention is of vast significance, and the non-marine sedimentation is of minor significance.

​

Comments?

---

JM: We're skirting the main issues here. The simple observation is that there is no 'flood model'. There is merely conjecture based on this outcrop or that. There is no globally correlatable strata marking the onset, peak and post flood. Both TC and TB claim it's Cambrian through Tertiary, but this is not detail. The idea here is to say something like:The onset of the flood is marked by the Weaverton formation in the eastern US, the Fish River Formation in southern Africa, the Tapeats sandstone in the western US, the Todd River Formation in Asutralia etc.. The features in these units are consistent with the onset of the Noachian flood due to (A) fill it in (B) and so on. HEre are photos of these correlative features and a clear explanation as to why ONLY a Noachian type flood can explain ALL THESE FEATURES. All the rest of the arguments are smoke and mirrors to avoid issues such as paleosols and glacial deposits found within the sequence that is supposedly flood related. I would like to demand that the creationist start by taking two Paleozoic sequences (say Africa and the Eastern US) and show using photos, detailed analysis and correlation how the two sequences fit perfectly into the Noachian flood scenario at the expense of modern geology. If you are not willing to partake in such an exercise, then I suggest you re-examine your model.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]I claimed Cambrian to Cretaceous Joe. I suspect the tertiary was due to flow from recent catastrophic glacial melting and associated sea level rise. I am fully aware that this is under fierce creationist debate.[/QUOTE]JM: Do you know that fellow OZzie creationist Barry Setterfield claims the flood is entirely Precambrian? You guys have to get together on this. Seems to me that something as catastrophic as a global flood would be more easily indentifiable. Your two models, for example, aren't even close. Your Noachian flood starts when he says it ends!

quote:

---

For now I am happy to put forward a qualitative flood model as follows:

---

JM: Of course you are happy with a qualitative model because such models are full of wriggle room and they allow you to talk in vague sweeping terms. Surely a scientist understands the terminal futility of constant hand-waving.

quote:

---

I wont lay that down in stone but I doubt my view on the above will change an awful lot.

---

JM: Don't worry, every other creationist I know won't either. That's the problem though!

quote:

---

I'm convinced this scenario is consistent enough to qualitatively explain a lot of the data. I'd be the first one to agree that I wouldn't expect everything to intuitively pop out of such a model.

---

JM: Of course you are, but you started with the conclusion and are searching only for generalities that fit your conclusion. Do you know how dangerous that is both scientifically AND apologetically?

quote:

---

PS - I awould love to see the sort of analysis you are talking about Joe, from both the long-age and flood point of views. If anyone does have links/refs showing world wide correlations of local geological columns (ie including many multiple epochs), eg showing which cusps on the sea level curves correspond to which local eperic sea I would be fascinated. Otherwise I'll have to piece it together myself.

---

JM: I'm sure you would. My father always said "If you want the job done to your satisfaction, do it yourself". I think these words are quite appropos.CheersJoe Meert