Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model

See Message 13 of this thread for a more detailed, yet concise, summary of the Recolonization Model:http://EvC Forum: Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model -->EvC Forum: Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood modelThe Recolonization Model (promoted by British/German creationists including Robinson, Scheven, Garton, Garner, Johnston and Tyler) proposes a recent global Noahic Flood that generated the Cambrian and Ordovician beds as well as some pre-Cambiran beds. Then the rest of Paleozoic/Mesozoic/Tertiary is generated via tectonically induced marine innundations associated with the break up of Pangea.The key feature is improved fossil record phenomenology - the fossil ordering mechnaism is taxon-specific recolonization from the ark. In particular we see reptiles & dinosaurs before mammals becasue of the relative litter sizes and maturation rates.Additionally habitation evidence is accomodated as we assign this event to the 500 years from Noah to Abraham (which is possibly indicated in Scripture via the Days of Peleg 'earth divided' reference).And . . it's nice to be back - long time no see all. It seems as if some of my old buddies are still here. Percy, Moose, Schraf, WmScott, Mark24 and more (to name a few). . Are Edge, TC and Brad still around? And who was that other geologist I used to arg . . discuss things with? Joe? I left rather quickly last time my computer broke and then had some other hassles . . and I'm afraid that the forum was the last thing on my mind for a while. But it's nice to be back to see that things are going strong as ever.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-20-2005 01:28 AM

Welcome back!There doesn't seem much information on the web about the recolonization model. Could you include some information about the evidentiary support for this model?.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The best material on the web is the introduction by Paul Garner:genesisagendum.org.uk
http://www.amen.org.uk/eh/science/flodpg/flodpg3.htmThe evidentary support should be looked at in two ways:1. Distinguishing the Recolonization Flood (Pre-Permian) from the standard Morris et al FloodThe same evidence that mainstream geology cites, namely (i) evidence of significant non-marine habitation at many multiple points in the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Tertiary fossil records (ie paleosoils, nests, trackways etc.) and (ii) taxon-specific fossil ordering (ie why reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals and then birds).Additionally the post-Cambrian geo-column is probably not reconciliable with a global covering, even using the sorts of arguemnts I used to make here in the past (ie that the top layers would have been the first eroded so the sea-level curves are underestimates in maximum height).2. Distinguishing the Recolonization Flood (Pre-Permian) from mainstream geology's long-ages In terms of fossil ordering it's early days. Recolonizers see the 'in-kind' diversity (such as the horse series, or dozens of triceratops-like dinosaurs for example) as real transformational series in time which is a significant gain of common ground.But will differential breeding rates be sufficent to explain why we have reptiles dominating the early post-Flood geo-column? That’s a wait and see. All I can personally say at this point is that I find it plausible (and much more so than the conventional Flood scenario). The proposal relies on the fact that differential-breeding (and thus recolonizaiton) rates lead to exponentially differing likelihood of fossil finds in any particular strata.The Recolonization Model accomodates non-marine habitation at multiple levels within the geo-column due to the multiplicity of sea-level incursions, ie in precisely the same way as the long-age model (expect with a time scale on the order of hundreds of years).At the formation level, the Recolonization Model has the same vastly improved geo-column phenomonology as the conventional Morris Flood: the geo-column was generated via vast catastrophic marine incursions! In the Recolonization Model it is these multiple marine incursions which are responsible for the vast sheet-layered, essentially unconformity-free (ie erosion surface-free) marine innundation terrestial formations. As with the conventional Flood (as discussed in great detail on this site by me elsewhere), a catastrophic flooding over days and weeks for many of the vast, supposedly multi-million year duration, formations - is a better explanation to the mainstream one.The Recolonization model, from a geo-column point-of-view is a best of both worlds, explaining the sheet-stacked, unconformity-free formations catastrophically, but with habitation for up to hundreds of years in-between formations.So this thread should probably focus on the differences between Recolonization and both the Morris Flood and mainstream geology? What I am most interested in personally, is:1. Getting a better handle on the locations and quantitites of 'undeniable' non-marine habitation hozizons in the Paleozoic to Tertiary and2. Hearing from biologists on breeding rates and recolonization behaviour (eg like after Krakatoa).but I think any issues related to the model should be discussed here.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-14-2005 03:02 AM

Hi TB,This reads more like an obfuscation than an explanation. Can you describe your model more clearly? All I can make out from your post is that you believe multiple marine inundations separated by as much as hundreds of years explain the geological layers, and that between the inundations the once-again dry land was recolonized in patterns that produced the fossil distribution in the geologic column that we see today. You also appear to believe that the geologic evidence is consistent with this model, but don't explain how.About your two specific proposals for discussion: I would paraphrase this as, "Let's move past the obvious conflicts with known evidence, assume my model as a given, and consider less relevant details that my model has fewer problems with." And I would paraphrase this similarly as, "Let's move right past consideration of how well recolonization explains fossil distributions in geologic layers to instead explore details that present my model with fewer problems."This is the same behavior you exhibited the first time you were here. You want to move past the glaring contradictions your models have with existing evidence (you're even still using your old excuse of "early days" - I guess if you keep changing models it will always be "early days") to instead consider less important details. It's like science fiction or fantasy to you. Science fiction does things like, "Let's pretend faster-than-light travel is possible, what would the universe be like?" Fanstasy does things like, "Let's pretend witches and warlocks really exist, what would the world be like?" You do things like, "Let's pretend radiometric dating evidence and sedimentation evidence and fossil distribution evidence and so forth don't exist, what new theories are possible?"I'm not inclined to release this proposal unless I see an indication that the most significant and important lines of evidence will be seriously addressed.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'm really happy to discuss any aspects of the Recolonization Model. Two starting points
But don't you agree that my two points address its distinguishing features? The other potential distinguishing points (eg radiodating, rapidity of layering or accelerated plate-tectonics) are not unique to the Recolonization Model. I presumed that you would not want to rehash this again here in this thread?Can I take you through a re-assessment of my two starting points? I think they address prediction and falsifiability - and are the heart of the proposal:1. Getting a better handle on the locations and quantitites of 'undeniable' non-marine habitation horizons in the Paleozoic to TertiaryThis gives us all the opportunity to discuss the nature and quantity of horizons we have at any region on the surface of the earth. There's no hidden agenda. I propose we do exactly what you would expect - see to what extent we can track down what the pattern of habitation interfaces are in the geo-column at various regions around the world.This surely is a distinguishing point between the three models (Recol, Morris & Mainstream)? This is the critical distinguishing point, it's not some 'easy road' surely?2. Hearing from biologists on breeding rates and recolonization behaviour (eg like after Krakatoa).This one gives us the opportunity to see whether the proposal has merit in terms of explaining fossil ordering. There's opportunity to list basic starting data and even do some simple calculations.I believe these are the two critical issues. Radiodating, rapidity of layering and the possibility of accelerated plate tectonics are the only other ones that comes to mind at present and they are clearly not new to this model. For the record, yes they are improtant issues for this issue. I had to exert significant self-control to keep them out of this thread actaully!. There are more appropriate threads for the discussion of these issues I think?I personally believe the Recolonization Model is the only viable creationist model for the geo-column and fossil record. It should be discussed here. It's a paradigm shift and it's happening right now.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-14-2005 07:56 PM

Perhaps another moderator will release this. It won't be me.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Let's begin with sea-levels. In the recolonization model the following four events generated most of the geo-column and fossil record:1. Creation day 3: Pre-Cambrian
2. The Flood (~2500BC): Pre-Cambrian -> Ordovician/Silurian
3. Break-up of Pangea ()2500BC-2000BC): Silurian/Devonian -> Tertiary/Quaternary
4. Ice-ages (~2000BC) -> QuaternaryHere let's concentrate on 2. and 3.The sea-level curves - derived from stratigraphy (and discussed elsewhere in this forum) - depict sea-level peaks during the Silurian and Cretaceous. Here are the famous sea-leve curves: The Silurian covering is descibed by Cambridge University geologist van Andel in New Views on an Old Planet (1994) :"Regarding the early Palaeozoic in this bright light, we find a wet world, its continents inundated far more than they have ever been since then, and the rise of the sea continuing. Before this
rise ended, very little land remained above water." (p 179)This is why the Recolnization group including Robinson and Garner place the Flood in the early Paleozoic. Additionally terristial hardgrounds appear in the Silurian/Devonian. We find footprints of amphibians and reptiles.The Cretaceous sea-level coverings only cover the Earth to about 50% (so God kept his promise - and did not destroy the Earth with a Flood again).This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-14-2005 08:52 PM

Really? I just finished the post where I'm starting to input the data I personally have (see above).

Now, the break-up of Pangea occurred during the Permian or shortly thereafter (see Figure below). Comparison with the sea-level curves demonstrates that this was when the sea-level began rising again. This was due to the tectonic rearrangements - upwelling magma at the sea-floor spreading rifts etc.Although not all the Recolonizer's think that the Gen 10:25 refernece to Peleg and 'in his time the earth was divided' indicate the break-up of Pangea, I certainly do. We have the Flood during the early Paleozoic (when maximum covering occurs as far as mainstream geology is concerned) and then the breakup of Pangea after that lining up with Gen 10:25. This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-14-2005 10:29 PM

So now the question is, what are the nature, quantity and extent, of habitaiton horizons wihtin the Devonian to Tertiary region by region?We need to distinguish between fossil (body) finds and evidence of habitation (nests, trackways etc). Here is an overall summary of where these are found in the geo-column (now we need to get to the details): This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-14-2005 10:41 PM

When you get ready to discuss the radiometric data and other physical evidence you can try again.

---

TB has requested via email that this thread be released. I informed him that I would reopen his thread proposal, but that I required a clear description of what he's proposing before I would release it.In my view this recolonization topic is haphazardly and poorly described. As is his habit, TB has tried to jump past all the introductory details where people would be saying, "Whoa, wait a minute, what about...?" He prefers to avoid the larger picture to focus on lower-level details without an interpretive context, as can be seen by his jumping right into the middle of things in Message 7, Message 9 and Message 10. He likes to look at certain specific facts in isolation while avoiding other facts that are far more relevant.All I want is a simple and easily understandable description of what he's proposing. This shouldn't be that hard for him.TB, you're probably thinking, "Gee, things have changed since I was last here." Well, you're right. We had begun to become a playground for the wacky and loony, so we tightened up the standards quite a bit. You're getting a far better explanation than most people get these days. Experience has shown that people can either contribute as required here or they can't. Explaining and coaching almost never produces an improvement, plus it wastes much time and causes much frustration on both sides. So this is the last detailed interaction you'll get. What I'm asking for isn't rocket science. If I don't see what I want, I'll just say no.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Setting the sceneOver the next *several* posts I will summarize the model's basics, motivation, evidence and predictions. We do need to bare in mind that this is a new creationist model that has only just begun to attract *full-time* creation research activity. However, it is the preferred model of many British creationists and some individual German and Australian creationists. These creationists have mainstream, typically PhD, qualifications and are also firm believers in recent creation. As far as I know there are no present ICR or AIG convertees.Quick summary of the Recolonization Flood/post-Flood ModelThe Recolnization Model displays a more mainstream-like pattern of strata and fossils, as compared to the Ecological-zoning model (ie Morris et al's standard proposal), whilst being rooted in a young-earth creationist framework. In particular, many-multiple significant habitation levels (ie, strata displaying evidence of a break in layering and terristial animal and/or plant habitation) are accomodated and the fossil ordering mechanism is based on taxon-specific recolonization of the earth from the ark dictated by breeding rates and ecological requirements.The Recolonization Model porposes that the Noahic Flood (2500BC) was followed by a turbulent, approximately 500-year, period during which the super-continent Pangea broke-up (as suggested by post-Flood Gen 10 'In the days of Peleg the earth was divided'). The tectonic activity of Pangea break-up and sea-floor spreading caused wide-spread marine innundations that - vertically - generated more of the geological column than the Flood did, but covered less of the Earth's surface area with water and sediment. [Tentative Flood extent is Pre-cambrian to Silurian/Devonian, with the reaminder of teh Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Tertiary occurring as the Pangea-break-up tectonically induced marine inundations].It was during this post-Flood 500 years that the animals - and people - on the ark dispersed and recolonized the earth. Animals with rapid breeding rates - like reptiles and dinosaurs - recolonized faster than mammals. Exponentially growing populations of these fast breeders ensure that the first appearences of these animals in the fossil record is lower than slow breeders, or animals ecologically dependent on other slow breeders. In a significant gain of common ground with mainstream paleontology, the Recolonization Model is compatible with many proposed evolutioanry transformations through time such as the horse series.A key 'postulate' of the Recolonization Model is that we don't see the pre-Flood world's land animals fossilized (ie in the pre-Devonian) because the 'Mabul', (Hebrew, Gen 6) meaning 'utter destruction' of the Flood was total. The break-up of the 'fountains of the deep' hydrologically and tectonically metamorphasized these Pre-cambrian strata. [In fact the Bible's use of 'Mabul' here is the same word used to describe the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah a few chapters later].This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-18-2005 08:55 PM

Please, no overkill. Your "quick summary" will suffice if augmented by *one* additional paragraph describing recolonization's role in the model.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

^ OK Percy . . I think that was it for the Quick Summary although there is a very brief additional point nagging me that I need to add . . Hmm .. Got it (common ground with mainstream paleontology). Motivation
Evidence
Predictions Coming here soon . .This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-18-2005 08:58 PM