|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Ah, so you are committing yourself to a Noachian flood in the Ordovician! Very good. Few YECs will do that. That's when the Flood PEAK was.
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! No blunders at all Edge. The argument that the percentage covering data is an underestimate applies whether or not there was a 100% covering! There was undoubtedly some erosion of the Ordovician. Finding examples of unconformable Ordovician-Silurian interfaces doesn't help your argument! There are undoubtedly examples where the Ordovician HAS been eroded away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
THere is much more surface area of the earth being covered by pelagic sediments. We're talking flooding of the continents here.
Therefor, ocean basins could be said to be the dominant type of sedimentary basin. Yes. I'll agree with you 100% in terms of surface area. IN terms of amount of sediment it would be epeiric.
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! As I said above. And it's in my origina lEvidence #1 post. I'm fully aware of this Edge. I agree with you on where the sediment comes from!
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! The amount of Orodvician covering in the highlands in a 100% sceanrio would be trivial becasue of a lack of sediment at that stage.
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. In the discussed post, I'm simply deonstrating the dominance of epeiric seas in the continental geological column.
And I was referring to the provenance of sediments. But clearly, you didn't understand that, either. Really? Why do you think I highlighted the term *depositional*? Is it possible I was trying to distinguish it from *erosional*?
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. I'm simply demonstrating the dominance of epeiric seas in the continental geological column. I've done that and I'll move on now. This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-12-2005 08:44 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
TranquilityBase writes: The readers of our posts can determine our relative abilities to conduct a useful discussion. As one of those readers, I don't think you've contributed anything of value to this thread. Over 180 posts and I still have no idea what you're trying to say. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Ringo
Do you think it might be becasue I'm waiting for my opponents to say. OK, epeiric seas dominate the continental geolgoical column? Edge said epeiric seas dominate becasue they are 'easy to see'. I'll interperet that to mean that they dominate in the amount of sediment deposited continentally. Now I'll move on. This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-12-2005 08:45 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
TranquilityBase writes: Do you think it might be becasue I'm waiting for my opponents to say. OK, epeiric seas dominate the continental geolgoical column? No, I don't think that's it at all. Read my lips: I have no idea what you're talking about. It isn't about moving forward. It's about moving back to cover all the areas you've been ignoring. For a start: In two or three sentences, what the @#$% is the "Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood Model"? People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
I'm willing to 'concede' marine deposits dominate the geologic record.
Is that the same? This message has been edited by roxrkool, 07-12-2005 09:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
roxrkool
I'm willing to 'concede' marine deposits dominate the geologic record. That's certainly helpful. It would be more helpful to concede that for the continental geolgocial column.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Ringo
The Recolonization Model proposes an early Paleozoic Flood that was tectonically violent and metamorphasized the land animal remains. After the Flood, animals recolonized the earth and were caught in the global (and local) tectonic surges of sea-level that generated much of the post-Flood continental fossil record. I will continue to expand upon this. However, most of the posters here wnat me to substantiate the claims concerning the nature of these inundations and the precise amont of covering and that is what I am doing. Next I will move on to the evidence for rapidity and brevity of hiatuses in the laying down of these epeiric sediments. After that I will move on to the evidence for biological recolonization as a mechanism for fossil ordering. Lastly I will go back in time to look at the evidence for the initial Flood event. I posted this thread to discuss the last two poitns (biologica lrecolonization and the metamorphic Flood event). I am also equally interested in the present center stage of strigraphy, namely the epeiric dominance of the continental geological column. However, when I first began this thread I took this as a given but found I needed to substantiate it for posters here who were either unaware of this or not prepared to concede it. This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-12-2005 09:24 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
If the peak of the flood was in the Ordovician, what happened in the Silurian, Mississippian, and Cretaceous? Are those other 'floods?'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Well seeing as I can't examine the geologic column anywhere BUT on the continent, I thought that was a given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
roxrcool
Well seeing as I can't examine the geologic column anywhere BUT on the continent, I thought that was a given. Great. I normally thought so too - but you'll notice Edge talking about the dominance of the Pelagic oceanic deposits before (which cover much of the 2/3rds of the surface of the earth) - so you can't leave anything to chance around here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
roxrcool
If the peak of the flood was in the Ordovician, what happened in the Silurian, Mississippian, and Cretaceous? Are those other 'floods?' These are post-Flood inundations. The Flood is assigned to the Ordovician (and neighboring periods - Siluiian/Devonian) inundations. Then we begin to see trackways and land animal fossils in the fossil record which we interperet as the beginnins of recolonization. The later epeiric deposits are inundations - mostly related to the break-up of Pangea. It's essentially the mainstream events except on a diffferent timescale. These mostly covered the earth much less than 50% and the Cretaceous yields the maximum post-Ordovician covering of approximately 50% of the land surface.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
TB, it's a well known fact that marine deposits dominate the geologic record - even deep marine sediments. What I had an issue with is your use of the term 'epeiric.' Epeiric does not equal marine.
All epeiric deposits are marine, but not all marine deposits are epeiric. 'Inundation'-related deposits on the continents during the Ordovician are not best described as epeiric. In fact, it appears to me (see image below) that in the Ordovician, epeiric deposition is rare compared to shallow marine and shelf/platform deposition - not to mention deep marine deposition.
Compare this to the Cretaceous, which has several epeiric seas, notably the Western Interior Seaway in North America:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
roxrcool
What makes you think you can determine which continental deposits are specifically epeiric (as opposed to some other sort of marine deposit) from those diagrams? This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-12-2005 10:50 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
TranquilityBase,
Thanks for the effort, anyway. I only brought it up because you left it to the readers in Message 178. This reader is not impressed with your performance. You assume too much and you expect too many concessions. Instead of providing evidence when asked for it, you keep pushing ahead with your adgenda. That's no way to convince anybody or educate anybody. The smart move would be to consolidate what you've already established and give up the steam-roller tactics. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024