...the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column
So what is this "hypothetical geologic column"?
My understanding of the creationist "hypothetical geologic column" is that they find the thickest sediment layer they can, of each Phanerozoic period, regardless of where on Earth such is found. Then they pile all these into some sort of grand (and very thick) column of rock, which becomes their "geologic column". Then the creationists complain that such a column is found nowhere in the world. Of course it isn't - Their column is pieced together from strata from all over the world.
Added by edit:
OK, I just looked at Mike's source. It contains:
quote:The column to the left represents the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period (100 miles).
That page or similar must have been where I got my understanding.
I looked through the Wikipedia article on the Norian stage and fail to see what makes it a stage. That is, I don't see any particular order to the fossil creatures characteristic of the time period allotted to them.
But that is exactly what the article explains. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer.
The Wiki article gives examples of creatures of the Norian stage, both marine and land. Maybe Faith is thinking that all these creatures should be found in any given Norian aged deposit.
Not a paleontologist, but I think that such relatively fine divisions in the geologic time scale ("geologic column") is based on marine life studies (as per your message 298). How they extended such to land deposits, I don't know.
Re: Baumgardner's try - New wrinkle in catastrophic plate tectonics?
In essence, he postulates rapid plate tectonics of 2 metre per second causing massive tsunamis which wash over the continents and erode them. There are fast ocean currents to carry the sediment load required, which gradually slow as the plate speed drops off, and the sediment is deposited.
I am aware that Baumgardner had proposed extra rapid sea floor spreading, but I had never encountered the tsunami term being used.
Just to refresh the reality record, increased sea floor spreading rates are indeed thought to be the major cause of the major sea transgressions onto the continents. The idea is that increased rates cause the oceanic crust as a whole to be warmer, less dense, and more buoyant in floating on the mantle. Thus the sea floor rises significantly and displaces water onto the continents (and I would think that the continents would also have to subside to some degree).
Somewhere in the past, I calculated that if the sea floors were brought up to what is currently sea level, the water level on the continents would (IIRC) rise several thousand feet. This is considerably more that what is found in the geologic record, which I believe to be in the ballpark of (maybe) 2000 feet maximum.
There is also the consideration, that the biosphere heating by this extreme spreading rate would truly cook the planet. Which would get the largely sterilizing the planet job done. Even more extreme than the standard "flood story".
Critiquing by other geologists (and non-geologists) welcome. Although this would thrash the "state of the on-topic" even worse than currently.