What does the Great Barrier Reef tell us about both Evolution and the Age of things?

That's not even close to what we're saying. You either know that and are being deliberatly obstuse, or you don't understand what we're saying, at which point I don't understand why you're participating in this thread in the first place.Of course zooplankton need nutrients, and the silty global floodwaters might indeed be a great environment for them.It's not going to matter, though, because the coral will be too dead to eat. It doesn't matter how much food there is for the coral - it'll be dead! So, then, you admit that the global flood never happened? Because that's what we're saying - the coral reef is older than the timeframe of the gloabl flood, and there's no way it would have survived if the flood had happened.

whatever, so far there is only one vote and it's not on your side. I'll leave time for more.You continue to show that you are unable to read what is posted to you and continue to make stuff up and you won't be doing it in this forum.

crashfrog, I didn't think you ignorant of the zooplanktons need for nutrients, but I see the Great Coral Reef had 5,000 years to of grown before the biblical deluge, if one day is as a thousand years, meaning 9,350 years have transpired since the coral reef started growing if one takes 2 peter 3:8 literally, and are not ignorant of 2 peter 3:5-6, etc...Ned, You might benefit from a book on ecology, were all in this together, kill the zooplankton you kill the food source, etc...

My friends and I spent a week in the keys of Florida. We did scuba diving and snorkling. The region was absolutely beautiful. We spotted lots of colorful fish and lots of lemon sharks.The coral reefs were wonderful to look at.How is this relevant to the discussion? I have absolutely no idea.

---

The Laminator

​

if a core was taken all the way back to the layer from 2 million years ago, would it show the evolution of the corals from the beginning to now?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks for being fair, Ned. There's not many of us creos who can cover everything. I droped in to take a look and I vote to lift the censor since Whatever does make some good creo points, one about the Biblical flood and it's effects, that the oceans settled from the flood. It has always been my contention that the thin ocean crusts sank and pushed up the continental mountain ranges because of the flood. Whether whatever's arguments for how the flood would affect the reefs make a lot of sense, I won't get into as I am not qualified to judge on that, but I say let him have his say and let the counterparts explain why he's all wet if he is. It seems there should be less belittling and stick to refuting on the part of his counterparts.

Thumbs down.

I don't think it would show a lot. What really shows an interesting change is the Permian-Triassic extinction, when essentially all the corals disappeared, only to be replaced later by totally different types that filled the same ecological niches. But that's 200-ish million years ago.

Unfortunately, Buz, you might want to read a little closer. whatever has made various unfounded assertions (in fact that is all he does).It has been pointed out to him where the flaws in those are. He gives no hint that he has read the comments (much less understood them).There is a limit to how long he can make unsupported assertions.I guess we have a vote for whatever. However, if you are not participating in this topic I don't see why it should be paid much attention to. This is for those who are in the thread whichever side they are on.

Well, Ned, at least he has said enough to generate a number of refuting responses. How else would all this information have been aired about the reef and it's workings by his counterparts and who else is generating as much discussion on the matter of this interesting topic as Whatever?Whatever Whatever says about whatever the topic is is whatever Whatever's counterparts are responding to Whatever about.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Why shouldn't the vote of an interested reader in good standing have as much significance as the vote of participants, especially when those participants are ideological counterparts who may tend to be somewhat biased in their vote?

Sorry, Buz you gave me the impression that you had just dropped in and weren't actually following it closly.

have you looked into the various coral dating methods and the annual growth data? there are some interesting things happening and many of the older samples are from ... the great barrier reef see this article about surface temperature information from corals (click)and this article about coral and GEOCHRONOMETRY (click)and this series of "slides" about coral cores (click)I can see an annual coral chronology being built similar to the one for tree-rings and providing lots of information about sea conditions then linked to ages.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I vote that he stays. But I wish he'd take some of your suggestions to heart...Nonetheless I don't think censorship is the answer, and I don't think he's that disruptive. No more than Brad, anyway.

quote:

---

only find it interesting that scientists admit the seas lowered

---

Sea level change has been a staple of geology for some time now.Here are images of maps from two times when sea level was higher and parts of continents were covered with epeiric seas:Late Cretaceous:
Early Devonian:Here's a map of more recent times showing lower sea levels (which are quite rare). This is probably the time of GBR emergence you're talking about.From scotese.comFor at least the last ten years, and probably twenty, the response of depositional systems to sea level has been the emphasis of the science of sequence stratigraphy. That was before my time.Sea level change happens on two scales: local and global.Local changes are actually the land mass bobbing up and down with the global sea level nearly constant. This isn't important to your discussion unless it is the cause of the Great Barrier Reef rise.Global changes have multiple potential causes. The most important one that causes the magnitude of change is the mid-ocean ridge spreading rate. MOR spreading rates go up, the ridges increase in volume, displacing more water. This happens on very long timescales so most non-geologists don't even think about it.Second are glacial cycles. Water gets trapped as ice driving sea levels down. We may be seeing this in action now but it is rather slow by human timescales. Interestingly, the sea level rise from melting glaciers is faster than the fall due to growing glaciers, so that when you plot glacier-driven eustacy you don't get nice sine-waves. The reason is obvious if you give it a moment's though.The third, least significant one happens on timeperiods low enough that we see it right now, in response to changing climate. The oceans warm up, and expand thermally.When you make all three of these mechanisms operate simultaneously and throw in some tectonic changes just for extra confusion, you notice that sea level is always changing, and it can only be either going up or down.Then when you go to the rock record, and look at the BIG picture, you find that sedimentary geology is basically a record of slow sea level falls (regression) and sea level rises (transgressions) with a few events mixed in. All the features we see like deltas and fans and beaches, and river systems that used to be isolated events to sedimentary geologists are just smaller players in that bigger picture, and they make more sense now. If you're interested in sea level change, my recommendation is that you do a Google (we all seem to like Google around here) search on "sequence stratigraphy" and/or "marine regression" and see what you find.This message has been edited by gene90, 05-08-2004 11:37 AM