Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model

Hi TB,I decided to investigate your quotes a bit. Here's what I found. Since I found this on the web, I assume you also found it on the web. It's present at a large number of Creationist websites. I strongly advise you to avoid forming impressions of mainstream geology by reading Creationist websites. They are notoriously unreliable. One of the Creationist sites with this quote supports Carl Baugh, who even ICR, CRS and AIG distance themselves from. I found this at only two sites. One was a Creationist website. The other was...EvC Forum. Apparently you used the same quote three years ago, and you were informed at that time (by Edge), just as I did in my previous post, that yes, some sedimentation can be rapid, but that doesn't mean that all or even most sedimentation is rapid. The evidence within most marine strata indicates very gradual deposition. This quote was found in only one place on the web: EvC Forum. Again, you made the same argument three years ago. At the time Coragyps in Message 17 told you precisely what I've already told you: Moving on: These quotes appear only at Creationist sites. Once again, you should not rely upon Creationist sites to accurately characterize mainstream geological views. No wonder you think mainstream geology agrees with you. Why don't you buy a mainstream geology book and keep it on your reference shelf. Then every time you feel yourself moved to begin a sentence with "Mainstream geologists believe...", you can catch yourself and make sure what they actually believe first.--Percy

Jar's already said it (and I've been asleep!) but if you can find something from a non-creationist site (or a journal) it would be easier to accept.Although (having slept on it), I'm not sure how vast quantities of spontaneously buried fish counts one way or the other for a great flood. Could you expand the reasoning a little on this one?Cheers...

The only place where marine deposition/layering is disrupted is where burrowing life is located and that happens to be in the near shore or shallower water environments.Deeper water regions, which I believe make up most of the marine sedimentary record (correct me if I'm wrong), are almost devoid of bottom-dwelling life due to lack of plants and oxygen and other forms of sustenance. Therefore, those layers would not be disrupted.The Benthic Zone: What? Please explain again. Your reply made no sense to me. Out of context quotes don't mean squat when it comes to science.Additionally, slow/gradual deposition of chalk, limestone, shale, etc. is not "only one mainstream interpretation" as you put it, but a scientific consensus supported by years and years of geologic research. This does not mean that sedimentation can never be rapid on occasion. It can. But research indicates slow deposition rates for many marine rocks. Wrong.First, you are not thinking in terms of geologic time (which of course you can't if you are a YEC!). The gullies and rivers and drainage systems of today are tomorrow's large unconformities.Second, water does not stay in static channels. Over time, channels migrate and there are several to many things that can affect channel migration as well as control channel depth - bedrock and structures, for example. These migrating erosional systems can most certainly result in extensive FLAT, or relatively flat, erosional surfaces.In addition, gradual marine incursions are also quite capable of eroding extensive areas. Waves carry a huge amount of suspended sediment (usually quartz grains) and they most certainly can scour away most anything that gets in their way.And lets not forget glacial erosion, peneplanation, and the formation and erosion of soils.Soil formation tends to be very consistent with respect to depth and it also much more easily erodable under certain conditions. Erode or wash away the soil and what are you left with?This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-30-2005 06:44 PM

That's right - and we would argue that that is evidence tha tthe next layer came quickly. These were escape burrows!If you have burrowing organisms present and neat layering that is diagnostic of rapid sedimentation. How could you have burrowing organisms present and non-catastrophic mainstream sedimentation tates and expect to see neat layering? The same burrows get reused? On mainstream timescales it would be impossible for the burrows to not gradually use up the entire surface area. Ah yes, Wikipedia, that wonderfully unbiased (ultra-left wing) source! I just caught you in the act of *assuming* fossils represent genuine in-situ habitation. You should be presenting data and then presenting your interpretation, Not mixing the two into a single thought (a single sentence is fine, but we should keep the thoughts separate). See my points above regarding burrowing.And please remember that - especially in the Recolnmization Model - we're not saying there's no habitaiton. But much of the layering is consistent with little or no habitation. Most of the formation interfaces in Grand Canyon display gullys measured in only metres. Yes but these flood-plains of yours should be unevenly eroded in-between floods. . . and is heavily dependent on water volume. If it's a river sized flow gushing down a mountain gully it will create a river gully and not a flood-plain - even on a flat plain. Fine. I already conceeded that. But what he said there was completely accurate which everyone seems to be ignoring. I posted creationist linmestone formation environments already. Not true, if there is no evidence of habitaiton in that layer then the next one must have come shortly afterwards. Really? Evidence? I've done this in many places. Flows automaatically sort material to high purity as I'm sure you're aware. If they're maine layers I do not *expect* terrestial animal burrows. I'm talking here marine organisms.I was simply pointing out that niether I, nor mainstream geology, would *necessarily* explain continuous exposure of coastal plains to air as local tectonics. Global tectonics can do it via global sea-level changes. I agree the answer is a mix of these two. I think the point your missing is that the vast Mesozoic formations of North America, for example, are marine inundations whihc have recorded your beautiful dinosaur trackways. If you're imagining these as huge flood plains unrelated to marine inundation then you need to read up on epieric sea environments. Sorry Percy. You need to read about how most of the Mesozoic arrived - it's not non-marine flood plains. The epieric seas covered 50% of North America during the Cretaceous (and smaller amounts earlier). That's where your layers came from. I'm really not trying to trick you Percy. I don't quite agree with your semantics (and I'm not sure Edge would either) but even using your definition the point is WHEN do we get these 'wethering' environments?The truth of the matter is it's either floods or marine inundations. Floods simply did not produce much of the geological column. We know that mainstream because we'd see it in the record if it was (becasue each flood has gully erosion in-between the next one!). Agreed. But the layering there although neat during the deposition event will later become even during erosion by smaller volumes of water. Sure, but this is still somehwat irrlevant since we know mainstream that the geo-column largely arrived via marine inundation!This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2005 08:30 PM

Percy, I have read, purchased and photcopied numerous mainstream books and articles on geology and paleontology. Yes I *also* use other peoples extractions but I have checked many of them. Yes, I transcribed that one myself from my library's copy! I and Moose discussed all of this years ago and were reading the same passages of some of these texts together. I'm fully aware of this!! That's just Coragyp' mainstream opinion. Creationist have alternative environments for chalk and limestone. Argument by patronization? I have numerous geology books, monographs and papers in my possession. You're simply assuming I'm a cut-and-paster. Ask my wife - I've spent much of the last 5 years reading and theorising mainstream on these issues! Some of those quotes that are 'on the web' I found independently myself.

On the contrary, I said that I noticed the Velikovsky quote because it was hilarious, not accurate. I also said that finding multiple fish fossils in an area does not necessarily indicate a catastrophic one-time burial.Did you look at this site, as I suggested?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

That would be a good guess if most ichnofossils throughout the geologic record were normal to bedding planes. Are they?Ichnofossils are not solely composed of vertical burrows, there are many trails, tracks, etc. located on bedding planes. In addition, scientists have determined that ichnofossils represent such things as:-- dwellings
-- grazing
-- farming
-- resting
-- feeding
-- predationThese conclusions are based on the geometries of ancient trace fossils and correlation/comparison to modern traces.Besides, if all the burrows or most of the burrows are escape burrows, then I would expect to find the organism that did the burrowing at the top of the burrow. Especially at the rate of deposition required in a YEC scenario. Fact is, the original organism is rarely found.Now, based on this, I suspect you will say that vertical burrows are escape burrows made during rapid sedimentation and tracks/trails/ect. on bedding planes are made during slower depositional episodes. Unfortunately, that won't work. They all occur together along chronostratigraphic horizons.Additionally, certain fossils only occur in certain sediments tied to very specific depositional environments (beach, shallow marine, shelf, deep marine, etc.)See HERE for an explanation of ichnofacies. Notice the following from the preceding link:

quote:

---

Nereites Ichnofacies (deep marine basin)

​

The Nereites Ichnofacies is recognized by the presence of meandering pascichnia (Nereites, Neonereites and Helminthoide), spiral pascichnia (Spirorhaphe), and agrichnia (Paleodictyon and Spirodesmos). Vertical burrows are almost entirely absent.

---

You are making a whole lot of assumptions and they are based on nothing more than your personal opinion or incredulity.I've been to a beach enough times to see that nice layering + burrows does not require catastropic conditions.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-30-2005 09:50 PM

I thought I had responded to this post earlier but I guess not.

quote:

---

From the first link it seems clear that the YEC model can't stand up to the level of criticism directed at more mainstream models. Although repeatedly challenged to show evidence that your explanation was possible I didn't see any attempt to answer the difficulties raised.

---

Well that isn't necessarily the case because it really wasn't my intention in that thread to defend a YECist allocthonous model, althought that was repeatedly thrown in my face as if it was even relevant to the point I was trying to substantiate--that whatever that model be, it appears very evident to me that the data fit an allochthonous model on a YE geology timeline better than that implied by uniformitarian geology. Ultimately you and everyone in that thread is right that YE geology needs a good model of deposition that can explain all the data pretty well, but that just wasn't where I wanted to begin in that thread.Evolutionary theory itself may be a good analogy. The evidence strongly suggests that it is true, however the mechanism of evolution is still under dispute. Similarily, I argued that the evidence strongly suggests an allochthonous YE geology model, however the mechanism of deposition is underdeveloped.

quote:

---

I will add that the post was written before I examined the second link. But I couldn't find an argument for YEC there at all. So far as I can tell, it proposed a test for CPT and when it failed asserted that there must be an explanation consistent with CPT anyway.

---

I don't think it failed as it was never tested? What is your reasoning behind your statements here? What has been said that is giving you that impression?-Chris Grose

quote:

---

Well that isn't necessarily the case because it really wasn't my intention in that thread to defend a YECist allocthonous model, althought that was repeatedly thrown in my face as if it was even relevant to the point I was trying to substantiate--that whatever that model be, it appears very evident to me that the data fit an allochthonous model on a YE geology timeline better than that implied by uniformitarian geology.

---

So what you are saying is that if the mainstream explanation has some problems a YEC expanation is automatically better, even if it has equally bad or worse problems ? Surely you can see that that can't work and the difficulties with the sort of model you suggest must be dealt with simply to make a fair comparison.

quote:

---

I don't think it failed as it was never tested?

---

As I read the thread it was mainly making excuses for why crystal size should not follow the predicted pattern.

quote:

---

So what you are saying is that if the mainstream explanation has some problems a YEC expanation is automatically better, even if it has equally bad or worse problems ? Surely you can see that that can't work and the difficulties with the sort of model you suggest must be dealt with simply to make a fair comparison.

---

Its not just that "the mainstream explaination has some problems", its that the evidence indicates some kind of rapid model of allochthonous deposition, not what uniformitarian geology would predict by the in situ growth model. Its a case where the uniformitarian in situ growth model is contradicted by the data (hence an insufficient model) that can't even offer a possible hypothesis to explain most of that data vs. the YEC allocthonous deposition model just having an underdeveloped or insufficient model that explains the data. Im just saying that it appears that the evidence greatly suggests a much more rapid allochthonous model.

quote:

---

As I read the thread it was mainly making excuses for why crystal size should not follow the predicted pattern.

---

I would have to go back and read the thread so I'll admit that I am going to be lazy tonight and read it later on. Its been a while. Although if you have more interest I would be happy to do a little refresher research and discuss it further in another or new thread.-Chris Grose

But there is evidence indicating in-situ growth that you were repeatedly challenged to explain. And didnt. Nor would I say that the mainstream model is so complete that it cannot be adjusted to cope with the data. Yet you seem to think that appealing to a similar idea lets you off the hook when it comes to difficulties with the YEC model.No, the whole argument relied on a double standard.

quote:

---

But there is evidence indicating in-situ growth that you were repeatedly challenged to explain. And didnt.

---

like what?

quote:

---

Nor would I say that the mainstream model is so complete that it cannot be adjusted to cope with the data. Yet you seem to think that appealing to a similar idea lets you off the hook when it comes to difficulties with the YEC model.
No, the whole argument relied on a double standard.

---

Sure maybe the mainstream model could invent something. But what it would have to invent is so outrageous to the uniformitarian framework--volcanism, water transport and rapid successive inunations, trees which have been previously abraded through transport, etc. I am not saying I should be let off the hook. I just want someone to recognize that all of the data I have considered does not point to an in-situ growth model but to a much more rapid allochthonous model. If you want to fit the rapid allochthonous model into a uniformitarian framework, goooooood luck.-Chris Grose

Have you forgotten about the trees which appeared to be rooted ?At the least you need a viable explanation of how they came to be in that state.

Roxrkool has already rebutted this in Message 97. Perhaps if you explain the mechanisms you think are at work that would cause burrowing to disrupt "neat layering" (not sure what that is, either) I could better understand what you're getting at. I have a couple vague guesses, but I'd rather respond to something concrete. I suggest you limit yourself to commenting on the accuracy of the material about the Grand Canyon. Uh, okay, thanks for the advice, I'll be sure to keep it in mind when it becomes relevant. In the meantime, back on planet Earth, did I say something controversial in your mind? Are you saying that trilobites and brachiopods are not bottom dwellers? Or that trails aren't left on sea floors?The point of this evidence is that it rebuts your claim about the lack of evidence of habitation. You said there were insufficient indications of habitation in marine layers, and I've shown there is much evidence of habitation. Your points about burrowing remain as obscure as before. I think the best you can do is argue that it's not impossible that some very few layers do not represent in situ habitation. However, the evidence of the vast majority of the layers is that they formed gradually precisely where they're found. I can't identify what you're referring to, you'll have to provide more information. No, TB, they shouldn't. Flood plains can most certainly be cut by streams and rivers, and they are, but the rest of the flood plain remains level, and weathering will only make it more so. Roxrkool additionally explained how wandering river courses level a landscape. You need to focus on weathering, not flooding. The example I provided was of a butte. Buttes and mesas are not formed by floods, especially not in the dry American west, not that some of the sudden rainstorms and temporary rivers can't be impressive. Here's a picture of a butte formed by gradual weathering (which means rain and wind and temperature variation, but not rivers or floods): I have no idea if it was accurate. Once you said "Velikovsky" you lost everyone's attention, except for purposes of comedy. I know that Velikovsky said many things that weren't wrong, but he said many things that were outlandish, so instead of asking us to sort the wheat from the chaff, why not find a reliable and respected source of evidence. Great, so you won't mind tracking it down and posting it here. But I just rebutted your claims of "no evidence of habitation". What is this, debate by head in the sand? You have to stop pretending that the evidence doesn't say that the layers were deposited gradually over very long periods of time, of at least thousands of years per yard. If you have a viable mechanism for depositing fine grained organic sediments rapidly complete with evidence of habitation, then let's hear more than just, "I already posted that somewhere." No, TB, you haven't. This tendency of yours to just gloss over things and evade topics is why I wanted you to be much more clear about your scenario in your opening post than you were. I've read every inch of this thread, and no such explanation appears, at least nothing more detailed than what you offer here: Energetic water does just the opposite. It mixes, not sorts. Sorting requires calm waters. In calm waters the heaviest material falls out of suspension first and the lightest last. Once again, I can't form a concrete enough understanding of this to attempt a reply. I have two answers to this.The first is procedural. If points concerning "epieric sea environments" are relevant to your scenario, then it is your responsibilty it introduce them, describe them, and explain how they fit into your scenario. It is not other people's responsibility to read your mind so they can raise points you haven't mentioned yet so they can avoid being chided by you. By the way, it's spelled "epeiric".The second concerns your explanation. There wasn't one, just a bunch of name dropping about epeiric seas and Mesozoic North America and how much of the deposits of this region are marine. I wasn't able to extract a coherent picture of your scenario from what you say, even when I include the next paragraph: I'm so glad you're not trying to trick me, but you're not trying very hard to explain anything, either. When you've explained your scenario sufficiently then I should be able to explain it to anyone else, whether I agreed with it or not. Your scenario is notable more for what you avoid explaining than anything else. You're kidding, right? Everything exposed to the weather is being weathered. Weathering is a geology 101 concept. Weathering is caused by wind, rain, sun, temperature variations, chemicals in the air, who knows what else. While rain is probably more responsible than anything else for carrying the results of weathering down into valleys and streams, temperature variations above and below freezing combined with the presence of water are probably responsible for most of the breakdown of rocks into smaller and smaller pieces until they eventually become part of the soil or become deposited on river and sea bottoms. Are you saying that only floods and marine inundations erode landscapes? If that's what you're saying then this is definitely *not* a view of mainstream geology. How can you challenge my comments on weathering in one paragraph, then agree with them in the next? If you're trying to be confusing then you're succeeding.I said "wind and rain gradually carry" the results of weathering to the valleys. I can only guess what you mean by your use of the terms "neat" and "even" and "smaller volumes of water". I can't form a clear enough idea of what you mean to respond.The point is that the landscape is eroded toward being smooth and level by weathering. Mountains become plains by weathering, not by floods and marine inundations. Landscapes are etched by rivers and streams, but their changing courses also further level the landscape. Hopefully you're really only trying to say that in the view of mainstream geology, many marine depositional environments took place in regions that were once above sea level.But the strong possibility exists that you meant precisely what you appeared to be saying, and that you are once again misrepresenting the views of mainstream geology. Your history on this issue has me very concerned.I don't want to keep interrupting discussion by dropping into Admin mode, but you're making it very difficult. I'm sensing a depressing tendency in you for playing very fast and loose with the truth concerning the views of mainstream geology. Nobody on the other side is going around making extreme misrepresentations like, "Baumgardner believes geological layers formed gradually over millions of years," and your side shouldn't be saying (sic), "Mainstream geology believes most of the geo-column formed through marine inundation."I expect honesty and forthrightness in discussion. Your other fine qualities do not serve to diminish this expectation. I'm issuing no more warnings. From now on I'll just act. If you don't like your participation being interrupted for 24 hours every other day, you'll rein in your tendency to misrepresent mainstream geology.--Percy

Then you don't know enough about mainstream geology to place these passages in the proper context. As Joe Meert and Edge and others informed you three years ago, you are erroneously jumping to the conclusion that because mainstream geology accepts that some sedimentation is rapid, therefore it believes that all sedimentation is rapid. Yes, TB, Coragyps provided the view of mainstream geology, so you obviously know what that view is. So why are you quote-mining to provide the impression that mainstream geology accepts a view you obviously know it does not accept? I'm asking you to stop doing this. It's beneath you. And if it's not then I'll be suspending you for 24 hours every time it happens.--Percy