Summations Only

I don't think this discussion line belongs in this topic, but I felt I needed to comment on the above. I'm not going to be citing evidence in this topic.The short version is, the mainstream old Earth geologic theory does a pretty fine job of explaining the geology we see. All kinds of processes (see Introduction to Geology topic) in all kinds of sequences happened.The young Earth creationist explanation for large (but vaguely defined) portions of the Earth's geology is "the flood did it". I have never seen any sort of coherent explanation for how "the flood did it", and I'm quite confident that I never will.The summary of Walt Brown's hydroplate theory is actually (perhaps) the best "flood geology" exposition that I've seen. And by that I mean "moderately good science fiction" as opposed to the more common "bad science fiction".Perhaps you would like to try a one-on-one "Great Debate" discussion with me, on this matter. I think such would largely be too far off-topic to properly happen in this topic.Moose

Per the graph on page 4 of http://geotest.tamu.edu/...OL106/LatePaleozoicEndPermian.pdf, sea level was at or near at an all Paleozoic low at the end of the Paleozoic (the purple box is the late Paleozoic, although the right edge seems to be plotted a little too young). See also some of the earlier pages.On the other hand, sea level was at a Phanerozoic (post pre-Cambrian) high at about 100 million years ago. But even then, not all of the continents were submerged.That's the conventional old Earth version. Even if you somehow translate this to YEC, at best the great flood happened later than your position.I leave it to someone else, to explain what the 35m "secular increase" is.MooseAdded by edit: SourceEdited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Call it a typo.

Your graphic is a nice representation of Walther's law. For a transgression, the sediments fine seaward and up-column. For a regression, the sediments would coarsen up-column. But this is REALLY getting WAY off-topic. I think a transgression could be purely because of land subsidence, but I think most, especially the major ones, are real sea level rises. Here's where the real bogusity kicks in. Not that any such transgression has ever happened (maybe WAY back in the pre-Cambrian???), but there is nothing in the transgression definition that says all the land couldn't have been covered by the sea. Sure, a transgression does move shorelines to higher elevations, but if it ended up covering all the land, it would still be a transgression. In the present, we have low lying islands that are being transgressed and are probably destined to be totally under water.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Typo.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Add island sentence at end.

Looking (or re-looking) at some links :Mindspawn's Permian end transgression is apparently based on this link. I got the link from another topic, but I think it is somewhere in this topic also. From pdf page 19 (journal page 235):

quote:

---

4.2. End Permian

​

Although often still regarded as an interval of lowstand (see above), much recent work has shown that the end Permian mass extinction occurs during a phase of rapid onlap and spread of oxygen-poor bottom waters.

---

Another article covering similar ground is here (note: Would not display in my Firefox tab, but will display in the Adobe Reader). From the first page:

quote:

---

The mass extinction at the end of the Permian marks a serious biotic crisis: both the marine and terrestrial biota suffered near annihilation (1). The timing and causes of this event have been uncertain: Sequence stratigraphic analysis of numerous sections have shown that the Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) boundary straddles an interval of rapid, global sea-level rise (2, 3).

---

In the "another topic" (link above) Mindspawn message, he stated (again probably also somewhere in this topic): OK - Also found it in this topic (message 406): While the articles do indicate a rapid transgression, my impression is that it was not "extensive" or "major", at least relative to transgressions of other geologic times. The sea levels of end-Permian were still quite low, and I pointed out in message 402, to which message 406 is a reply.: SourceWell, there's a fine mess of a message.Mooseps: Even further off topic - Being that Mindspawn is not trying to credit vast amounts of stratigraphy as being "the flood deposits" (the common YEC perspective), I must wonder what is his alternative explanation of said stratigraphy. He claims to be a young Earth creationist, but (to me) comes off as being old Earth.

Focusing in on: When I saw this, I was boggled by what he meant. So, thinking it was a pretty minor point, I PMed Granny Magda about that sentence. I will take the liberty of quoting his PM response: I think you are mostly wrong. I suspect the "near to the sea" water tables may well rise. More inland, I doubt there is a simple sea level/water table elevation relationship.This message, in part, posted because of a message in another topic: So here I am, "policing" the evo side.Moose