|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: OK
quote: 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: 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: No mention of a flood here, either.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Is it ? Just how much water is needed ? And how far does the area actually extend ? It certainly isn't found everywhere.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I've already done that with the Sphinx.
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Aren't pigs unclean ? Wouldn't that mean only two pigs and a maximum of FOUR alleles ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024