Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 153 of 503 (676758)
10-25-2012 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by mindspawn
10-25-2012 8:36 AM


Re: WTF?
quote:
Lol, regarding current depictions of dinosaurs, i walked straight into this one, I should have rather referred to recent civilizations not current ones (before the fascination with evolution over the last few hundred years.)
You mean like the Crystal Palace Dinosaurs? Crystal Palace Dinosaurs - more than 150 years old, commissioned before Darwin published.
And these, unlike your examples, definitely are dinosaurs and other extinct species (even if the iguanodon reconstruction is famously inaccurate)
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by mindspawn, posted 10-25-2012 8:36 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 184 of 503 (676917)
10-25-2012 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by mindspawn
10-23-2012 6:26 PM


Age and time...
Mindspawn, you place the Flood, and the Permian Triassic boundary at about 4500 years ago. This is the conventional dating for the building of the Great Sphinx.
When do you think that the Sphinx was built, and what geological era does that date correspond to ?
[Given the moderator warning below I would like to add that there is a geological issue here. But sorting out the chronology is a necessary preliminary. We DO need to understand a view before criticising it]
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2012 6:26 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 10-25-2012 6:14 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 186 by Coragyps, posted 10-25-2012 6:26 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 193 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 3:43 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 194 of 503 (676966)
10-26-2012 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 3:43 AM


Re: Age and time...
And what geological era did this correspond to ? Triassic ? Jurassic ? If it's only a few hundred years after the start of the Triassic it'd be one of those, right ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 3:43 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 6:18 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 197 of 503 (676973)
10-26-2012 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 6:18 AM


Re: Age and time...
Well you've got a bit of a problem there. The Sphinx is built around an outcrop of rock- laid down in the Eocene. And it's limestone, so you've got the whole issue of how it formed, and how the Giza plateau formed, too. The point is that there is a lot more to geology than you've considered, and it is going to be very, very hard to fit it to your timeframe (I'd say impossible, but we'll see).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 6:18 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 222 of 503 (677086)
10-26-2012 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 4:39 PM


Can I ask why you think that a change from thick floodplain deposits to sparse floodplain deposits at a single location identifies a global flood? Surely the fact that this region experiences less flooding in the Triassic than in the Permian, if anything, would tend to suggest that there was no unusual flooding here at all.
I also note that your quotes are out of order and that your presentation of then is potentially misleading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 4:39 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 4:57 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 226 of 503 (677091)
10-26-2012 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 4:57 PM


quote:
It doesn't identify the flood. There were other factors that identified the flood. And I listed them in my post, I will list them again , and then you can respond to those points:
OK
quote:
"Fluvial stacking patterns change across the Permian-Triassic (P/T) boundary in CTM from sparse channels contained within thick floodplain deposits in the Permian Buckley Formation to STACKED CHANNELS with sparse floodplain deposits in the Lower Triassic Fremouw Formation."
I already dealt with this one. I have no idea why you think that the stacked channels are important but the fact that they are associated with sparse floodplain deposits indicates that the area experienced relatively little flooding at that time.
quote:
"We hypothesize that the change in accommodation across the P/T boundary was the result of tectonism and differential subsidence in an under-filled Permian foreland basin changing to an OVER-FILLED basin during the Triassic"
Nothing to do with flooding here so far as I can tell. The basin became filled with sediment, but this seems to be attributed to tectonic events. Given that the basin would be accumulating sediment anyway, I don't see anything that even suggests a local flood here.
quote:
"For Upper Permian and Lower Triassic strata, a number of studies have identified this change as the result of the loss of plants and INCREASED EROSION associated with the end-Permian Mass extinction. Such relationships have been identified in South Africa, Spain, eastern Australia, Russia, and Antarctica."
No mention of a flood here, either.
quote:
this was not standard flooding detected across earth at the PT boundary. At the boundary the erosion increased. Sparse channels became stacked channels. Underfilled basins became overfilled basins.
It doesn't seem to be flooding at all. The only clear mention of floods is the reduction in flood deposits in the Triassic, which hardly helps your case. Even worse, only the increased erosion is said to be global - everything else comes from a report about a single location

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 4:57 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2012 12:54 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 243 of 503 (677344)
10-29-2012 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Percy
10-29-2012 9:37 AM


Wrong paper?
It doesn't match the description in location or period. It's more likely to be:
Wignall, P. B., A. Hallam, X. L. Lai, and F. Q. Yang. 1995. "Palaeoenvironmental changes across the Permian/Triassic boundary at Shangsi (N. Sichuan, China).
However, it's not the only possibility, and it doesn't seem to be an exact match (only two of the four authors are Chinese).
Of course, the fact that the web page doesn't include the references is a count against it. It's almost as if the author doesn't want anyone to find out what the paper really says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Percy, posted 10-29-2012 9:37 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 256 of 503 (677391)
10-29-2012 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by mindspawn
10-29-2012 1:12 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
quote:
What more do you need? Worldwide layer of clay, plus sedimentary filling in many of the major flood-basins of earth. A PT boundary loss of vegetation across flood basins on many continents. A simultaneous eroding across many flood-basins across earth. Something major happened, and waterborne sediments filled up flood-basins across earth.
This widespread layer of clay seems to be more to do with the massive volcanic eruptions that formed the Siberian Traps. It's eroded volcanic ash.
Sedimentary basins fill in in the normal course of events, and the one we have a detailed report on seems to have changed state more due to subsidence than additional sediments.
The loss of vegetation is hardly sufficient as evidence of a flood. The effects of the volcanic eruptions - including increased temperatures due to the greenhouse effect may well have been enough to do the job. Too hot to handle
And the loss of vegetation would lead to an increase in erosion itself. Plants help bind the soil with their roots.
So there really doesn't seem to be any significant evidence of a worldwide flood at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2012 1:12 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:15 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 267 of 503 (677502)
10-30-2012 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 7:15 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
quote:
PaulK, yes you are definitely correct here about the worldwide layer of clay relating to the volcanic eruptions. But that volcanic ash needs water to turn the fine sediment into clay. It indicative that the Siberian traps were active during the time that vast regions around the world were covered in water.
Is it ? Just how much water is needed ? And how far does the area actually extend ? It certainly isn't found everywhere.
quote:
You say sedimentary basins normally fill. this is true, yet at this point in earths history large flood-basins all around earth show the same rapid overfill situation. the extent of the phenomenon is not common, its unique.
I don't believe I've seen evidence of this, except for the one basin where the filling was explained by differential subsidence, due to tectonic events. Where do you find evidence for such events happening worldwide ?
quote:
Yes the loss of vegetation is not sufficient evidence on its own, and there are other quite good alternative explanations for this, however combined with the huge movements of water-borne sediment at that time, a flood becomes a possible theory.
I haven't seen any evidence for these "huge movements of water-borne sediment" on a worldwide scale.
On the other hand I don,t believe you've addressed the evidence of the Sphinx. How can the Sphinx be built only a few hundred years after the start of the Triassic, if the Giza Plateau was underwater in the Eocene, and on top of the time from the Triassic to the Eocene we also need time for the rock the Sphinx is built around to lithify, the plateau to be cleared of water and the overburden to be cleared off ? Surely the timescales of mainstream geology make much more sense of the Sphinx.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:15 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2012 5:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 279 of 503 (678101)
11-05-2012 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by mindspawn
11-05-2012 5:17 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
quote:
The worldwide layer of boundary clay is found in China, Iran , Canada, Europe, Caucasus, and elsewhere according to the link in post 235.
I think you mean post 236. The link in question also claims a "boundary clay" layer at the end of the Cretaceous, which can't be due to a global flood given your ideas.
And then there is the question of whether these deposits are sufficient to infer a worldwide distribution. That isn't clear to me either - we'd need to plot them on a map of Triassic Earth to conclude that.
quote:
Please read the links in post 249 for confirmation of a worldwide sedimentary overfill situation. The links relate to Russia, Africa (Karoo) , Australia, and the original Antarctica has been discussed repeatedly.
Having read them, I have to say that they contradict your idea of a sudden overfilling at the Permian-Triassic boundary.
The main Karoo basin overfilled in the late Permian. It is hard to find details of the other basins, but I can't see anything that indicates that they all overfilled at the same time.
The Australian paper refers to repeated changes in the supply of sediment, which hardly sounds like a singular event. The final pulse of oversupply preceded the formation of the final coal beds, themselves Permian in age
I can't see anything in the abstract of the Russian paper which indicates overfilling at the Permian-Triassic boundary, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2012 5:17 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 339 of 503 (680221)
11-18-2012 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by mindspawn
11-18-2012 2:27 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
quote:
Hey if you have any evidence against my particular view of the PT boundary flood please post it
I've already done that with the Sphinx.
quote:
All I've had so far is ONE alternative explanation for the massive movements of sediment then. But a flood can fit in then as well. It takes water to move sediments to create a simultaneous worldwide overfill situation. So we have two explanations, I don't see how that disproves the flood.
Her's an alternative explanation for your "simultaneous overfill". It's a figment of your imagination. I looked at the links which you said supported it and couldn't find any support at all.
Oh and the boulder clay layer ? Apparently boulder clay is formed be glaciers, so that doesn't sound like evidence of a flood either.
So where IS the evidence for this hypothetical flood ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by mindspawn, posted 11-18-2012 2:27 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2012 12:17 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 356 of 503 (680401)
11-19-2012 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by mindspawn
11-19-2012 12:17 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
quote:
The early iocene was also a warm ocean period, much like the early Triassic. Because of my compressed timeframes, the same fauna/flora were more consistent than current consensus. So that limestone could have been early Triassic marine deposition. Its only evolutionary assumptions that place them millions of years apart.
Your whole argument relies on geologists correctly identifying the PT boundary. So what evidence do you have that they have gone horribly wrong here ?
I note also that you still haven't offered any evidence for your claim of simultaneous overfilling of basins.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2012 12:17 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 397 of 503 (680566)
11-20-2012 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 5:20 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Why did you post an unsourced quote that directly contradicted your claim ?
I suppose that it is at least a small advance, in that we can see immediately that you are wrong, rather than having to trawl through a paper trying to find the bit that you think supports your claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 5:20 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 5:44 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 400 of 503 (680569)
11-20-2012 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 399 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 5:44 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
quote:
Its the wikipedia article, and it clearly says that Ichthyopterygia are the same thing as ichthyosaurs.
You have a strange idea of what it means to clearly say something.
Here's the quote again with the important part in bold
Ichthyopterygia ("fish flippers") was a designation introduced by Sir Richard Owen in 1840 to designate the Jurassic ichthyosaurs that were known at the time, but the term is now used more often for both true Ichthyosauria and their more primitive early and middle Triassic ancestors.[1][2]
It clearly states that the term includes creatures which are NOT true ichthyosaurs, but are instead the "more primitive early and middle Triassic ancestors" of the true ichthyosaurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 5:44 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 427 of 503 (680751)
11-21-2012 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by mindspawn
11-21-2012 4:14 AM


Aren't pigs unclean ? Wouldn't that mean only two pigs and a maximum of FOUR alleles ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by mindspawn, posted 11-21-2012 4:14 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by mindspawn, posted 01-15-2013 7:12 AM PaulK 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