Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 252 (223493)
07-12-2005 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by edge
07-12-2005 8:04 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by edge, posted 07-12-2005 8:04 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by roxrkool, posted 07-12-2005 9:39 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 199 by edge, posted 07-13-2005 8:00 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 252 (223498)
07-12-2005 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by edge
07-12-2005 8:17 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by edge, posted 07-12-2005 8:17 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by edge, posted 07-13-2005 8:10 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 183 of 252 (223499)
07-12-2005 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Tranquility Base
07-12-2005 8:00 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-12-2005 8:00 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-12-2005 8:44 PM ringo has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 252 (223501)
07-12-2005 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by ringo
07-12-2005 8:41 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by ringo, posted 07-12-2005 8:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by ringo, posted 07-12-2005 9:01 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 186 by roxrkool, posted 07-12-2005 9:04 PM Tranquility Base has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 185 of 252 (223510)
07-12-2005 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Tranquility Base
07-12-2005 8:44 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-12-2005 8:44 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-12-2005 9:21 PM ringo has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 186 of 252 (223512)
07-12-2005 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Tranquility Base
07-12-2005 8:44 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-12-2005 8:44 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-12-2005 9:11 PM roxrkool has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 252 (223513)
07-12-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by roxrkool
07-12-2005 9:04 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by roxrkool, posted 07-12-2005 9:04 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by roxrkool, posted 07-12-2005 9:41 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 252 (223514)
07-12-2005 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by ringo
07-12-2005 9:01 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by ringo, posted 07-12-2005 9:01 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by ringo, posted 07-13-2005 12:15 AM Tranquility Base has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 189 of 252 (223515)
07-12-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Tranquility Base
07-12-2005 8:24 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
If the peak of the flood was in the Ordovician, what happened in the Silurian, Mississippian, and Cretaceous? Are those other 'floods?'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-12-2005 8:24 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-12-2005 10:05 PM roxrkool has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 190 of 252 (223516)
07-12-2005 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Tranquility Base
07-12-2005 9:11 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
Well seeing as I can't examine the geologic column anywhere BUT on the continent, I thought that was a given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-12-2005 9:11 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-12-2005 9:49 PM roxrkool has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 252 (223518)
07-12-2005 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by roxrkool
07-12-2005 9:41 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by roxrkool, posted 07-12-2005 9:41 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by roxrkool, posted 07-12-2005 10:21 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 252 (223520)
07-12-2005 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by roxrkool
07-12-2005 9:39 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by roxrkool, posted 07-12-2005 9:39 PM roxrkool has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 193 of 252 (223522)
07-12-2005 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Tranquility Base
07-12-2005 9:49 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
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:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-12-2005 9:49 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-12-2005 10:48 PM roxrkool has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 252 (223524)
07-12-2005 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by roxrkool
07-12-2005 10:21 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by roxrkool, posted 07-12-2005 10:21 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by edge, posted 07-13-2005 8:16 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 195 of 252 (223533)
07-13-2005 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Tranquility Base
07-12-2005 9:21 PM


Re: My intentions at this stage . .
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-12-2005 9:21 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-13-2005 1:01 AM ringo has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024