Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model

Percy.I apologized to Edge. That was admittedly a very quick and sloppy post. I'm gogin to concentrate on core issues from here on.I still request you tell me what my blunders were on the issues of:1. Rapid sedimentation.
2. Violations of physical laws.
3. Your entire repeated marine inundation scenario.

EdgeDid you notice that roxrcool agreed that his point wasn't relevant? Say hi to Rudy for me.

I'm with you Edge. I understand these issues from both points of view. However, it has been like pulling teeth to get people to acknolweldge this - especially in the 2002/2003 threads.So I felt I had to start out with this evidence. You and I know they came form inundating seas and I hav stated it in black and white. Why not at least agree when there's common ground? We expect as many shore lines as you do. It's a moving shore line so there everywhere. And remember post-Devonion we're not talking Flood anyway. Maybe you should re-read the first post and then also notice that the post we're all talking about was titled: Evidence #1.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-11-2005 11:14 PM

According to your Reco model, what processes/events result in 'high sea levels?' Also, you have not supported the assertion that the rock record is primarily epeiric deposits versus oceanic deposits. Are you sure Sloss is puzzled? Have you read the referenced paper? Knowing Sloss's reputation, I'm tempted to think that last statement is a rhetorical question. Perhaps one that Sloss intends to answer shortly. Umm... maybe you should read that site again. No where on that website do they mention the word 'epeiric' and that diagram does NOT support your assertion that epeiric seas dominate the geologic record.What the diagram shows is the relationshiop between global sea levels,
cratonic sequences, and major regional and global orogenic events. It says nothing about the amount of marine or epeiric deposits in cratonic sequences.

Huh? What I realized was when you say 'inundation,' you mean both transgressive and regressive sequences and not only transgression.The rest still holds, you have not supported the assertion that most of the geologic record is the result of 'epeiric' deposits.I guess maybe we should find out what you mean by epeiric.When I hear 'epeiric sea' I think of a shallow inland sea that is somewhat restricted from the open ocean.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 07-11-2005 10:28 PM

Precisely the same processes of plate tectonics as per the mainstream explanation: sea-flor spreading, ocean basin rearrangements, plate subduction, local uplifts and local subsidences. I'm more than happy to eplxain these processes in more detail if you'd like. I did. The point you've missed is that oceanic deposits are essentailly never on land almost by definition. The basement rock of the continents is granite (with some basalt) and this is lighter than the oceanic crust (basalt) so it floats on it. The oceanic crust subducts away removing much of the oceanic sediment from the record.I'm happy to explain this more if you'd like. I agree he's not puzzled. I was simply reflecting his style there becasue it *was* a puzzle and he's actaully trying to point it out to his collegues who were/are still puzzled.The answer is that the eperic seas are of interregional extent and, in many cases, arguably, of global extent. That is entire point of Sloss et als work. You're right about the terminology. They use the term 'cratonic sequences'. But cratonic sequences are mostly generated by invading seas: It states clearly that 'hiatuses are caused by regression (retreat of the seas)'.Back to you: In the light of my clarification above it is all about epeiric seas.That same Sloss et al site makes it abundently clear: I think you do have to ask yourself - how did these strata of vast extent, that dominate the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, appear in your own paradigm? The point I'm making is that even in your paradigm they are primarily due to invading seas!This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-11-2005 11:32 PM

I mean the same thing as mainstream science. Seas that invaded the continents. More often than not they were not cut-off as far as I know.Here's a web definition: This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-11-2005 11:53 PM

If you need a sample, let me know. THere's a little bit of it out here...

Maybe you weren't very clear, or it simply didn't make sense. YOu know, we've heard a lot of whacky ideas here so they kind of blur. I shall await your explanation. I don't suppose, however, that you might consider that there never was a global flood?

Umm, I don't think so. I'm saying that the importance of epeiric seas is an artifact. I don't recall any evidence... Ooops! Another blunder. Sediments don't come from inundating seas, or any other kind of water. They come from eroding land masses. Oh, good! We're starting to narrow things down a bit aren't we? But why are there shorelines during a global flood? Ah, there's the problem. If you called it 'evidence' then it's well-camouflaged.

EdgeThe reason that we wouldn't find Ordovician sediment EVERYWHERE even if the world was covered 100% at that time is simply that the overlying sediment, namely the Silurian to Quaternary (ie tens of thousands of feet of it in some places) had to be eroded from somewhere! If there was a 100% covering it had to come from the Ordovician. The sea-level curves (in terms of height above sea-level) are an underestimate for precisely this reason.

YOu seem confused here. Geologists have long accepted marine transgressions. Many of them. They also clearly state that there absolutely no evidence for a global flood. For you to say 'yes, but there were marine trangressions,' is completely irrelevant. YOu need to prove or at least provide evidence that there was a flood in the biblical sense. YOu have come nowhere close to doing this. You are basically wasting our time. Do you have evidence? If so, present it.

Edge Explain. YOu simply said it is 'easy to see'. That's becasue it dominates! If you don't think I've posted evidecne that epeiric seas dominate the Paleozoic/Mesozoic continental geological column that's fine with me! The readers of our posts can determine our relative abilities to conduct a useful discussion. Not a blunder. I'm referring to epeiric seas as the *depositional* environment. Global Floods are inundating seas too.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-12-2005 08:01 PM

Ah, so you are committing yourself to a Noachian flood in the Ordovician! Very good. Few YECs will do that.However, your post is completely erroneous. We do NOT have to have 100% exposure of the Ordovician to prove your point. We have various tools to trace the beds under the ground, including drilling and geophysics (this is actually another blunder on your part, but I'll let it slide). Second, it is usually possible to map facies changes in a given system to locate areas of erosion. I don't have my strat charts here, but perhaps someone can find some that show sediments being shed from land masses during the Ordovician. It would also be interesting to find locations where Silurian rocks unconformably overly Cambrian or, say, lower Ordovician rocks. HOwever, I don't feel the need to do this because most paleogeographic reconstructions show some land masses during the Ordovician. THis usually means they have some indication where there was land. So, effectively, you have another blunder by not understanding how geology is done. Two in one post... not bad!

Sure. THere is much more surface area of the earth being covered by pelagic sediments. Therefor, ocean basins could be said to be the dominant type of sedimentary basin. HOwever, there is actually more sediment deposited in marginal seas, including epeiric seas. THat is partly because they are close to the sources of sediments, being emergent land masses! This totallly puts the lie to your assertion that epeiric seas are evidence of global flood. Actually, the truth is just the opposite. Siliciclastic, terrigenous deposits are clear evidence of emergent land masses!Does this make any sense to you? Wrong. You have not presented evidence. I have. I have explained why the shallow seas are important in the geologic record. I have also pointed out how they do not suggest a global flood. And I was referring to the provenance of sediments. But clearly, you didn't understand that, either. And bicycles are vehicles. But are all vehicles bicycles? Do you understand this at all? YOu are committing a logical fallacy. Basically, you are saying that since a bicycle is a vehicle, all vehicles are bicycles. I used to think this was a correctable problem with YECs, but now I'm starting to think it's genetic.