Coastal dominance & catastrophic geology

In a related 2005 thread:http://EvC Forum: Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model -->EvC Forum: Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood modelwe attempted to discuss a post-Flood Mesozoic model I raised but ended up getting caught up on whether the sedimentary geological column was generated primarily at the coasts or not. Here, I'd like to re-visit that issue & also see what it could mean for catastrophic geology if that is indeed true.Firstly why is this interesting? Simply, if the (sedimentary) geological column was primarily generated at the coasts then it raises fascinating questions within both mainstream and catastrophic geology. Like: if the deposition really occurred primarily at the coasts then could that mean that so-called non-marine beds might not be in fact marine catastrophes (e.g. mega-tsunami) that just happen to bury non-marine habitats? It doesn't (otherwise) make sense to find all of these non-marine 'environments' but only near the coast! From a creationist point of view that is interesting because it could lead to a post-Flood understanding of generation of the post-Permian or more of the geological column as well as a post-Flood understanding of fossil successions including recolonization, refuge and in-kind evolutionary snapshot mechanisms of stratigraphic segregation.Secondly, what material do I have to demonstrate that the sedimentary geological record was generated primarily at the coasts? (1) In the previous thread I used 'sequence stratigraphy', and it's observation of continental-level unconformities to indicate that ”when the seas retreat’ there is ”little or no deposition’. I'll briefly summarize those findings/quotes. (2) But here's a quote from the famed paleontologist ”Jack’ Horner that really makes it quite clear:

quote:

---

“The duckbills [dinosaurs] appeared in the late Cretaceous.... In whatever part of the globe they were, they lived on the coastal plains of one sea or another. (As did all the dinosaurs.) We don’t know whether they, or any other dinosaurs, also lived in inland areas, because there are no geological formations that preserve inland habitats from the dinosaurs’ time.” Horner, John R. and James Gorman. (1990) Digging dinosaurs. Harper and Row, New York., p72,196

---

The ”dinosaurs time’, the Mesozoic, represents the part of the geological column I am most interested in and (mainstream) went on for 180 million of the 550 million year Phanerozoic record.Hopefully, we can accept that most of the sedimentary geological column really was generated at ancient (shifting) coasts and then discuss the consequences this has for catastrophic geology and geology in general for that matter.Edited by Tranquility Base, : Added 'otherwise' to clarify.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

quote:

---

Simply, if the (sedimentary) geological column was primarily generated at the coasts then it raises fascinating questions within both mainstream and catastrophic geology. Like: if the deposition really occurred primarily at the coasts then could that mean that so-called non-marine beds might not be in fact marine catastrophes (e.g. mega-tsunami) that just happen to bury non-marine habitats? It doesn't (otherwise) make sense to find all of these non-marine 'environments' but only near the coast!

---

This is very superficial thinking. The determination of the origin should be based on an examination of the actual deposits. We can't assume that the origin is catastrophic just because the deposits occurred near the coast.

Deposits seem to accumulate in lower spots. Since water runs downhill, and water is one of the major movers of sediment, it is only reasonable that coastal areas would be the destination of eroded material.Coastal areas are also dynamic and many areas that today are inland were once coastal and many coastal areas today were originally inland.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

PaulKI agree we can't just assume that coastal -> catastrophic.But I will now proceed to make that case now that I think we're agreed on the large extent of coastal domination in generation of at least the Mesozoic.

JarAgreed about basins. But my starting point is to get participants to agree about coastal domination despite it's obviousness. Last time we never even got that far patly because I never found it stated in black and white previously as clearly as Horner. But sequence stratigraphy is pretty much based on the fact of coastal domination.Agreed that sea-levels have changed over geo-time due to climate/tectonics. That's why I said 'shifting' coastlines.The way I like to put it, at any one time the geo-col is only forming as a thin coastal strip but over time it sweeps over the continents.Now we can move on to coastal catastrophy and the true nature of non-marine deposition IMO.Edited by Tranquility Base, : missing words

You can. But so far I see nothing that implies coastal domination.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

JarWhat? Are you saying you don't see any evidence that coastal processes/geography dominated the origin of the geo-col despite arguing for it yourself (your lowspot/basin arguement) only 20 minutes ago?

Correct. What I argued for is lower spot deposition, not coastal dominance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

OK, what about Horner's quote:

quote:

---

“The duckbills [dinosaurs] appeared in the late Cretaceous.... In whatever part of the globe they were, they lived on the coastal plains of one sea or another. (As did all the dinosaurs.) We don’t know whether they, or any other dinosaurs, also lived in inland areas, because there are no geological formations that preserve inland habitats from the dinosaurs’ time.” Horner, John R. and James Gorman. (1990) Digging dinosaurs. Harper and Row, New York., p72,196

---

The quote has absolutely NOTHING to do with the thread. I never did understand why you even brought it up. It is also one of Honers comments that was shown to be wrong very shortly after he made it. The quote is one from a 1990 commercial book. If you look though at the literature you can finds things such as this Judith River study from 1998 that showed distribution of fossils to be far more dependant on species than on geography.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

JarIn what way does your post/quote contradict Horner's earlier quote regarding the complete absense of in-land fossilization? Are you arguing that these other locations were inland or what?

I have rwo questions about that quote.Firstly did you take it directly from the book or copy it from another source without acknowledging it ?The citation gives two page numbers - more than 120 pages apart! The obvious place for this gap would be the ellipses but I really see no reason why the first part appears at all - it certainly isn't relevant to your point and I see no good reason to combine material so far apart into a single quote. So where does the material form p72 stop and the material from p196 start ?

Did you read the link provided? It shows that some species were more abundant in the coastal areas where other species were more abundant in the inland areas.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

JarOK, the ref states that they studied the 'paleogeographically more inland Dinosaur Provincial Park area (Alberta)'. How inland? What distance?And we are talking extents here. Not 100%-0%!How could Horner make his earlier statement if coastal dominance of deposition/fossilization wasn't true to a large extent?