Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model

^ I'm going back and forth with Edge, Percy and Roxrcool to clarify details about the nature of the geological column! I've stopped to explain all sorts of details about tectonics and stratigraphy. I don't mind one bit.If I was pressing ahead with my agenda I would have moved on to biological recolonization and the initial Flood event beasue most of this - despite its usefulness - is a rehash of discussions in 2002/2003.It is not well known amongst scientists - and I would venture even among geologists (or maybe they're just hard to pin down) - that most of the continental geological column is epeiric sea deposits. That in itself is fascinating.Why am I so confident that there's something intriguing - and yet obvious - with epeiric seas? Sloss, Vail's, Greenlee's and Miall's statments in the light of all my earlier reading. I have worked through probably a dozen stratigraphy and sedimentology books and even they frequently do not state this point. They frequently leave out the big picture. They talk about hundreds of examples of environoments and often don't mention that a single environment is responsible for most of the layers!Nevertheless, there are clear recent mainstream statements of the dominating contribution of epeiric seas in my Evidence #1 post (as well as the occasional older text). It has only really come to light since Vail's stratigraphical analysis of seismological data for Exxon. Sure, that was in 1977, but it's taken a while for it to all filter through while the issues were debated.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-13-2005 03:43 AM

TB, we know the visible geologic record is dominated by marine deposits. That's a given. However, you have not supported your assertion that 'epeiric seas' are the dominant depositional environment.It's possible the term 'epeiric' is more loosely used than I'm doing and it's entirely possible that shallow marine environments (and not JUST epeiric) dominate the marine record.You may be right. I'm not saying you're not. I've spent a little time researching whether you are correct or not and have not been able to find an answer.However, I stand by my position that you have not supported the assertion that either epeiric or shallow marine environments dominate the marine record. All you've shown us is that seas have transgressed and regressed across the continents. We already knew that.You need to dig around a little more, in my opinion.Edited to add the word "visible."This message has been edited by roxrkool, 07-13-2005 11:11 AM

roxrcoolOK, let's carefully and calmly have a close look at some of the refs that *particularly* refer to the dominance of epeiric seas I've posted: In the Ottawa region - yes it's just one region - the local geoscience center says that the epeiric seas resulted in the sedimentary formations 'visible today'. This mkaes it clear - that at least in that region - epeiric seas dominate the local sedimentary rock! It's a blanket statement for the Ottawa region.When you factor in that we know these seas covered almost the entire continent during the Ordovician then it's clear how the sediment arrived. Epeiric seas. They were shallow because the relief of continets is mostly shallow.There is little evidence - or expectation - of deep marine environments on the continents. At the present coasts, sure, the epeiric environment would morph into a deeper environment near to the peak covering but by that stage it would not be depositing much sediment *there* since it's no longetr near the source of sediment (the continent). So Penn State's researchers (one of them known by Edge) makes it clear that, for much of the geolgoical column, marine deposits (which dominate it) are *only* deposited by epeiric seas.The reason is quite clear as I explained above. Once you get deeper environments you don't get much sediment due to distance from the sediment source. These notes make it clear in black-and-white: 'When rocks are present . . it indicates that sea-level was high'. To make it even more clear they state the converse as well: 'at low sea level . . little or no rock record accumulates in the midcontinent'.You can debate whether this reference is talking about an epeiric environment or some other marine-on-continent environment but one simply does not get deep sea environemtns on continents!Truth be told, it does not matter to me whether they are epeiric or any sort of marine deposit. The point is we are talking about the *continental* geological column. Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that these marine-on-continent environments were primarily epeiric largely by definition.

Ooops! Another blunder. Of course, there's erosion of the Ordovician System. I'm saying there was erosion DURING the Ordovician Period. Another blunder. No. If Silurian rests directly upon Cambrian, there is an excellent chance that erosion occurred during the Ordovician. I understand that we are working with very long periods of time here, so there is some uncertainty, but the implication is clear.

Well, then, you didn't make it clear that when you are talking about epeiric seas being dominant that you weren't considering the rest of the planet. Good, you've corrected that blunder. Now, riddle me this: if there is sediment being shed from emergent land masses, how can you call this a global flood in the biblical sense? Aha! A prediction! Now please show us some charts that this prediction is true! You might get the hang of this yet! Very good. I will counter by saying that rocks dominate the stratigraphic record. So there! Well, apparently, you didn't understand the concept of provenance. So, your point is irrelevant. If there is deposition going on, there is evidently erosion as well. Good. I hope you will get to your point some day. THis has been way to tedious. I also hope you will provide some evidence for whatever your point is.

Damn. You figured us out! We're a bunch of incompetent non-professionals who can't tell one rock from another, can't tell where they came from or what environment they were deposited in! We've wasted our educations, our empolyer's money and countless years in the field. You are one clever guy.

Look TB, I understand perfectly that marine sediments AS A WHOLE dominate the geologic record. I am also quite aware of the fact that the continents were flooded periodically throughout geologic time and that these shallow marine/platform/epeiric deposits comprise a 'major' portion of the continental sedimentological geologic record. I get that.What I don't see evidence for is your assertion that these shallow marine deposits form the majority (i.e., >50%) of the continental geologic record. While that may be the case, you've shown us nothing that supports that proposition. Either way, I have no problem with marine deposits dominating the continental record.However, I'd like to point out there are various reasons why marine rocks dominate the geologic record. Two of which are:-- Anything above sea level is subject to erosion, which results in a decrease in the amount of terrestrial rocks (and by default, and increase in marine rocks); and-- Igneous and metamorphic rocks, and to a lesser extent sedimentary rocks, contain silicate minerals which are unstable on the surface of the earth. These minerals break down into clays, which are easily transportable and redeposited - often carried by streams to the ocean. This too results in a decrease in the amount of ig/met rocks in the geologic record, again resulting in the 'increase' of marine rocks.So basically, the dominance of marine rocks in the extant geologic record may in fact be an artifact of various other physical and chemical geologic processes and not necessarily the result of the dominance of marine events - as you seem to be suggesting.Now, since you are suggesting these Early Paleozoic inundations represent the flood, and you've provided a diagram showing just how numerous those incursions were, you need to explain why there were so many and why they still occurred after the 'flood' (post-Ordovician). Didn't God promise not to flood the world again?

Hi all,I'm back from vacation, and the first item on my agenda is to return this thread to constructive discussion. It's unfortunate that my vacation came when it did, because I fear, before reading the new posts since last Sunday, that the nonsense level has been high.Though this message is being posted as a reply to Tranquility Base's Message 166, I'm actually addressing this to everyone except Tranquility Base. Tranquility Base presents us the contradiction of a theoretical physicist working in the field of genetic numerical modelling (by his own description) who does not understand how to formulate a scientific model or even engage in scientific thinking.I'm writing this not to convince TB how to do science, because I think he is a lost cause in this respect, but to help others understand how I believe scientific discussion and exploration should be carried out. These are the standards of EvC Forum. Those who cannot or will not strive to meet them can go elsewhere.I want to start by stressing that there is nothing wrong with free spirited speculation, and in fact it's often necessary to doing good science. But at the end of the day scientists have to separate the wheat from the chaff and choose those ideas most worthy of exploration. It is often said that the best scientists are those who are best at identifying worthy avenues of investigation.When developing new scientific ideas there are a couple obvious questions one can ask right at the outset that help determine if an idea is worthy of further investigation:

1. Is the idea consistent with the well known physical laws, those like the physics of motion, relativity, thermodynamics and so forth.
   ​
2. Is the idea consistent with the well known evidence.

The answer to one or both of the questions can be "no", but then the demands increase dramatically. If the proposal violates known physical laws, then not only is new theory required, but in many cases so is new supporting evidence. Of course, new theory requires no new evidence if it is proposed to explain an anomaly, i.e., evidence that is not explained by current theory.TB proposes a scenario that violates known physical laws and is inconsistent with the evidence, and he has made little to no effort to address these problems. Even his opening post was woefully inadequate, as he has to continually introduce new "rabbits out of hats". As Ringo316 says in Message 183, "Over 180 posts and I still have no idea what you're trying to say." From his opening post till now, TB has been unable to present a scenario consistent with the evidence of physical laws. In fact, most of his explanations read like an evasion. Much of the time my reaction is, "I can't tell what he's trying to say, I don't see why he thinks this makes any sense, and this is all such a jumble that I could never explain it to anyone."A couple messages later in Message 185 Ringo316 says more pithily, "For a start: In two or three sentences, what the @#$% is the 'Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood Model'?" This was my entire problem with TB's attempts at an opening post. No one can actually tell what he's proposing. This thread was released only because I finally realized that, poor as it was, it was the best TB could do.TB's scenario makes sense only if much of what we already know about science and the way the world works is thrown out. In TB's world, everything happens at least thousands of times faster than normal, but the evidence left behind looks just like it happened at the normal rate. TB has no satisfactory explanation for this, no theoretical model, no evidence. I will now clarify using the three examples that TB inquired about: Treating these briefly one at a time:Rapid SedimentationThe fine-grained structure of much of most marine layers indicates that they were deposited very gradually over long periods of time. TB proposes that the layers were actually deposited very rapidly, but provides no satisfactory explanation of how this could occur. This is not to say that TB does not attempt an explanation, but the attempt only makes clear his depth of scientific ineptitude. For example, this is from Message 111: To those unfamiliar with the actual geological evidence this might look like a strong point, but let me highlight its profound problems:

• The quote is out of context. We have no idea what layers or lamina the authors are referring to. Again referring to the Grand Canyon as an example, the evidence of these layers is that they were deposited gradually over millions of years. The authors of the above quote could not possibly by any stretch of the imagination be talking about the marine layers in the Grand Canyon, and most marine layers of all ages around the world give evidence of very slow deposition, on average on the order of at most only a few feet every thousand years.
  ​
  So what layers and lamina are the authors talking about? To someone aware of the existing geological evidence and attempting to think scientifically, this would be the first question to occur to him. "How," he would ask himself, "could this possibly square with all the evidence of slow deposition, which is ubiquitous?" To conclude from this quote that all layers around the world were deposited rapidly is a scientific blunder of the first order. Since TB claims to be a scientist and therefore aware of the magnitude of the blunder, I can only conclude that he's lying about being a scientist, or that he's an incredibly poor scientist, or that he believes we're incredibly stupid and will believe anything.
  ​
  Once he had the answer to the question of how marine layers could be explained by rapid deposition, a scientist would feel it necessary to make the answer available along with the quote. TB not only didn't do that, he didn't even see the need for it.
  ​
• TB's lack of comprehension on the topic is further illustrated by this exchange with edge in his Message 168:
  ​
  Tranquility Base writes:

  ​

  Moreover, just where do you think that the sediments to form those epeiric deposits came from? The asteroid belt?

  ​

  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?
  ​
  The depth of TB's lack of comprehension is staggering. He's not even aware there's a problem. One almost doesn't know where to begin.
  ​
  Put simply, fine grained sediment has to come from somewhere. It doesn't just magically appear. Marine deposits usually have a very significant organic component. In the case of limestone layers, usually formed in shallow, warm, quiet seas, the organic component can be extremely dominant. The white cliffs of Dover are a famous exmaple. Layers formed closer to shore contain a higher mud/sand component (shale), and layers formed in the margin of ocean nearest the shore have a very high sand component (sandstone).
  ​
  Limestone forms from the skeletons of tiny deceased sea organisms. It takes millions of years for hundreds of feet of limestone deposits to form, because the creatures have to be born, live and die before their microscopic skeletons can sink slowly to the sea floor and contribute to the sediments. These life cycles take time.
  ​
  The mud and sand in shale and sandstone also take time to form. Mud and sand is the product of the weathering process that takes place on land. Hundreds of feet of mud and sand cannot just magically appear. It takes millions of years of weathering and erosion of mountains and uplands to produce all the sand and mud that form these layers.
  ​
  This represents a completely independent line of reasoning that rapid deposition of marine layers is impossible because there was insufficient time to produce the required amount of calciferous skeletons, mud and sand to create the layers. TB not only doesn't have an answer for this problem, he doesn't even understand it is a problem. Talk about boneheaded blunders!

Violations of Physical LawsI was thinking primarily of TB's proposal of accelerated radioactive decay, but there are others. I'm not really going to spend any time on this. There's no evidence of accelerated radioactive decay, and there's ubiquitous evidence everywhere that physical laws have remained unchanged for billions of years throughout the visible universe. There's also no evidence that continents moved rapidly, that sea floor formed rapidly, that the heat from the new sea floor that forms from magma dissipated rapidly, and that magnetic reversals occurred rapidly (in strict synchronicity with rapid sedimentation and accelerated radioactive decay).Your entire repeated marine inundation scenarioI don't know what's the bigger problem: TB's inundation scenario, or TB's comprehension level, displayed by his inability to perceive its obvious problems, even when described for him.I did have one big, obvious blunder in mind when I included this in my list, and I'll describe it first, but there are many problems:

1. One marine inundation buries only marine life, another marine inundation buries only land life. How is this possible?
   ​
2. Since it takes millions of years to form, where does the raw material for the layers come from?
   ​
3. Why do some marine inundations deposit limestone, some shale, some sandstone, and some non-marine layers?
   ​
4. How can burrows, tracks and trails be transported from marine sea bottom inland to be buried?

As many here already know, I do not believe participants can be coached to better performance. They either get it or they don't. TB isn't getting it. I've given him 24-hour suspensions in the past, but I am now giving him a one-week suspension, but only in this forum, [forum=-7]. He can continue to participate in other forums. He may want to consider beginning a thread in the [forum=-11] forum, for though he claims we agree about what constitutes valid science, obviously we are far apart.Rather than a discussion of a scientific proposal, this thread has become an extended attempt to persuade TB to address the serious problems in his scenario. This is a pretty silly discussion to be having. When TB begins addressing the problems then I'll stop issuing one week suspensions. Fix grammatical hash in 2nd paragraph. --PercyThis message has been edited by Admin, 07-16-2005 08:26 AM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

From what I've seen, vagueness of claims, leaping to universal conclusions based on a paper on a very special situation, and refusal to address problems is typical of recolonization proponents. Certainly Dave Tyler fits that mold (but has a noticably different style than TB, so I doubt TB is Dave).

Hi Percy, Are there fossils in the fine-grained sediments? I think you indicated elsewhere that at least trilobites exist in them. Do other kinds of fossils? If so, does it follow that the fossils in fine-grained sediments would necessarily indicate a "died-and-were-slowly-covered-up (DAWSCU -- pronounced: /daws'-kyoo/) model for any of the fossils? If so, how slowly do you think they were covered up?Or were the fossils catastrophically covered up quickly (I am NOT meaning that the catastrophe MUST be the Flood, btw...any little ol' local catastrophe will do for argument's sake), while the sediments surrounding them were deposited slowly?Or am I incorrect in my idea that fossils necessarily indicate rapid burial? ("rapid" doesn't mean instantly, though...depending on the fossil's characteristics....it could be anywhere from minutes to a few years, I suppose)I actually have done the spoonfuls-of-soil-in-a-little-jar-mixed-with-water experiment. The finest of particles take less than a week to settle out...but the water is completely calm in the little jar, of course.This is off-topic for this thread, but I was hoping maybe you could respond in my "fossilization process" thread (in the Miscellaneous Topics in Evolution forum). I guess fossilization has been done-to-death...based on the total lack of any response to my new thread on that subject.--Jason

I couldn't tell you how fast they were buried, but it seems much more likely to have been quickly than slowly. Dead creatures out in the open tend to become scavanged to the point of nothing left. That's why we're not up to our ears in skeletons. Fossilization requires special circumstances, one of which is protection from scavangers. This is why tar pits contain such a wealth of fossils - creatures that fall in are automatically protected from scavaging. It depends upon what you mean by "catastrophically". For example, the evidence of the Muav Limestone layer of the Grand Canyon is that the sea bottom was often ripped up by the effects of storms. A poor brachiopod could be minding his own business when suddenly, through no fault of his own, he's buried by a foot of sea-bed sediment displaced by undersea currents kicked up by a storm. But I don't think that's what you mean by a catastrophe.Most of the major layers at the Grand Canyon are hundreds of feet thick, and many contain fossils of bottom dwelling creatures like trilobites and brachiopods. In order for a bottom dwelling creature to be buried, there first has to have been a sea-bottom on which the creature lived.Consider the Bright Angel Shale layer of the Grand Canyon. It contains the fossils of trilobites, brachiopods and worms throughout most of its 200-450 foot thickness. These creatures are bottom dwellers and, in the case of worms, sub-bottom dwellers. Let us imagine a simplified view of the sublayers of the Bright Angel Shale: The trilobites, brachiopods and worms of the bottom sublayer, labeled Sublayer A, lived on the sea bottom. For the most part they have no trouble escaping burial by the slow accumulation of sand, mud and organic material which only accumulates at around a couple inches per century. But occasionally some would be buried by sediments churned up by storms, by currents from rapidly flowing rivers flooded by spring waters or inland storms, by collapses of portions of the ridge along coastal margins, and so forth. The point is, somehow they were buried. The trilobites, brachiopods and worms of the next layer up in Sublayer B must have come later. There's no way around this. If this doesn't make sense to you then discussion can't continue.So after the creatures of Sublayer A were somehow buried, a new sea-bottom environment was populated by more creatures to create Sublayer B. They, too, were somehow buried, and above them a new sea-bottom environment formed and was inhabited by the creatures of what eventually became Sublayer C. Then after them came the creatures of Sublayer D in yet a another new sea-bottom environment. And after that came Sublayer E.The point is, any scenario you develop has to explain the succession of sea-bottom environments in which the entombed creatures must have lived. A single catastrophe like a global flood cannot create this effect. It is sometimes proposed that the flood mixed everything up and distributed the creatures uniformly throughout the layer, but this only introduces new problems. For example, where did all the material in the layer come from? Much of the material comprising sandstone, shale and limestone layers is organic (in the case of limestone, almost all of it is organic). Where did miles of organic material wash in from? Keep in the mind that the accumulation rate of layers is at most a couple inches per century, and in the case of limestone about a quarter of that. For limestone layers you would need a huge, stupendous, unimaginably large number of creatures to be alive at the time of the flood (millions of cubic miles of them), then die suddenly.Another problem with the flood scenario is that active waters hold material in suspension, especially fine-grained material. As the waters become less active the heaviest and densest material will fall out of suspension first. For example, take two objects of equal density, one a tiny flake of granite barely visible to the naked eye, the other a granite rock weighing roughly a pound. Even though very dense, the tiny flake can be suspended in water that isn't very active. The rock, on the other hand, needs extremely active water to stay suspended. As the active water calms, the heavy objects like rocks will fall out first. Actual complete creatures the size of trilobites would probably fall out next. The very last to fall out of suspension would be fine-grained sediments. But the bottom layers of the Bright Angel Shale do not consist of rocks (no layer of the Grand Canyon does). And the trilobites are encased in fine-grained sediments, and both trilobites and fine-grained sediments are found throughout the layer. A flood could not do this. A flood would sort the suspended material with rocks at the bottom, creatures above those, and fine-grained sediment above those. And that's another one of the ways you know the layers could not have been deposited by the flood. You have miles of layers. This material had to be transported from somewhere to the place where it is deposited. Only strong currents could do that. While the strong currents are in place, only large material could fall out of suspension. But large material is not found in the bottom layers of the geologic column. The geologic column is a record of repeated types of primarily marine layers. It consists of sandstone layers, shale layers and limestone layers interspersed repeatedly with one another. Here's the order of the types of layers in the Grand Canyon: No single event is capable of producing this succession of layers.--Percy

Hi Percy,Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I do believe this to some extent...in the case of disarticulated fossils, in particular. In the case of articulated creatures, I would tend to go with buried-in-place. Whether the fossils are actually that neatly arranged (disarticulated vs. articulated, that is) I don't really know.So, in the case of the trilobites, I would tend to think burial as opposed to deposition. However, those are all Flood-model ideas...I was actually more interested in the evolutionists' perspective of fossilization -- so, burial -- slow or fast -- is required in the evolution model, I think.I am actually trying to see how you resolve what appears/appeared to me to be a contradiction: i.e., quickly buried creatures in slowly-settling deposits. You resolve the "contradiction" with the following: I am fine, btw, with the idea of mini-catastrophes...as I am trying to get YOUR view of the events that make layers and fossils.Your comment brings to mind three questions:

1. Is there evidence in the layers of these mini-catastrophes?
2. Are there any faster-moving sea-creatures fossilized in the fine-grained sediments?
3. Are there any land-dwelling creatures fossilized in the fine-grained sediments?

I mean in fine-grained sediments anywhere...not just those in Grand Canyon...if it makes any difference.--Jason

I agree with you, so this isn't solely a flood model idea. Trilobite fossils must be the result of fairly rapid burial. A trilobite that died (say from old age) would quickly be consumed by scavangers. The reason that geologic layers don't consist of nothing but tightly packed trilobites, brachiopods, corals and so forth, is because fossilization requires special circumstances. Every once in a while some sequence of events occur that protects a dead organism from falling prey to scavangers and the elements, and as it is gradually buried more and more deeply the skeleton becomes fossilized. I don't know. I couldn't tell you which layers, but yes, of course. Fish are well documented in the fossil record. In fine-grained marine sediments? No. One would think that just by chance an occasional land creature would get washed out to sea, sink to the bottom and become somehow preserved, particularly during storms, but I've never heard of any examples. Doesn't mean they don't exist, though.--Percy

Absolutely. Mudflows, storm surges, ash flows all produce recognizable features. I drilled through one last week where a fine, organic shale section was interupted by a coarse sand with rip-ups of the shale in an obvious newly cut channel. Fish fossisl in the Green River Fm. shales are common. This is very uncommon due to the nature of land creatures dying on land and then being destroyed by transport. However, common, mixed-up fossil environments would be a prediction of flood geology. One that we simply do not see.

Pteranodon fossils are are fairly common in the Niobrara and Smoky Hill Chalk formations of Kansas, but also occasionally found in other formations (across several states) related to the Cretaceous Seaway. In fact, last year while mapping in Mancos Shale in western Colorado, we found one as well.Here's a site that discusses the pteranodons: PteranodonsEdited by roxrkool, : clarification