That is not borne out by your comments in this thread. Repeatedly, you have stated to those who actually agree with the Sloss model and have attempted to inform you of sound geology, that they are contrary to actual geological data, despite being consistent with the laws of physics and well understood geological processes of sedimentation.
You’re a disarming player Sir. Charm is difficult to beat.
The study of geological mega sequences supplies actual data (from core samples of the layers of sedimentary rock) not just hypothetical models—data for us to reason from, to decide what it evidences about our earth’s past. While old-earth geologists and young-earth geologists disagree on the timescale of mega sequences, they are in basic agreement about the “story” told by the data—namely, that six basic cycles of transgressing and regressing ocean waters intruded upon the continents at increasing sea levels even to the point of covering them. And with the increasing sea levels were increasing amounts of sediment—finally reaching millions of cubic kilometers of sediment on each continent by the final mega sequence (around 56 million cubic kilometers on the North American continent). All are also agreed that the flooding waters began draining (regressing) off the continents during the final mega sequence (the Tejas)—and massive sand beds in the Gulf of Mexico also attest to this runoff.
The disagreement is over the timescale. Did these six mega sequences occur over 500+ years, or over a period of only one year? Were these six periodic floorings of a very, very slow rising ancient sea? Or were these mega sequences caused by catastrophic rising ocean waters—all a part of a one- year catastrophic Flood?
And you don’t see the problem.
So how many times are you going to imply that the USGS is wrong when they state that there were land forms (high mountains) much higher than the maximum sea level rise of 800 feet?
You keep repeating the same errors in spite of repeated correction.
Moreover, abundant evidence has been given to you about the rate of the sea level changes, and you give every appearance of not even listening to the evidence, much less grasping the evidence.
I am going to ask the @moderators to close this thread because of your violation of the forum guidelines that forbid incessant repetition.
I’m sure that God has a fruitful path for you, Don. I’m not sure that presenting yourself as an expert on geophysics is that path. Know that I have just prayed for God’s blessings on your continued journey, wherever that may be.
Chris Falter
3 Likes
Chris, the 800-1000 foot sea level of the Zuni I have spoken of is not my figure—rather it’s been stated more than once in articles discussing mega sequences, articles in fact by old -earth’ers. But they seem to put this with continental subsidence—which of course drops the height of mountains. In any case, you yourself can read their explanations.
So, this stated sea level is not my doing!
As for “incessant repetition,” it’s been evident to me that few in this thread were familiar with the study of mega sequences. So it has been necessary for me to repeat certain points, explaining and elaborating.
In fact, I don’t get the impression you read any of the articles I linked early on, did you? Yet, this was to be the main subject matter of this thread—remember?
I did indeed.
EDIT:
BTW, you have asserted that changes in sea level and tectonic subsidence should be aggregated, thus leading to the conclusion that North American high mountains were submerged at certain junctures.
Per the University of Georgia Stratigraphy Lab, you are in error:
Relative sea level is the difference between eustatic sea level and tectonic subsidence.
Even if the geology department of the University of Georgia has misrepresented this basic definition, you would need to quantify the tectonic subsidence to have any hope of making a valid point.
@moderators Since I have introduced new evidence, please disregard what I said earlier.
1 Like
Throughout this discussion, you have failed to substantially reply to any of the errors in your conception of Sequence Stratigraphy. These include 1) the idea that the major part of sedimentation of North America is transported by tsunamis, where in fact geologists have detailed histories which involve far more local processes, and geologists can study the changing course of alluvial plains, shorelines, and other contributors to the sedimentation process over time, 2) that the Sloss diagram infers that the entirety of the continent was under water at given times, where in fact Lawrence Sloss as well as any credible geologist maintained that while North America was at times divided by water, there remained vast tracts of dry land, 3) that geologists are oblivious to the basic questions concerning their life’s work, and are guided by some anachronistic uniformitarianism rather that detailed evidence, measurement, and mathematical analysis, 4) that the observed stratification can settle out from violent, continent cresting while gently laying down intact marine fossils, 5) that hard collisions are required to create mountain ranges, despite the fact we are actually able to observe elevation gain due to tectonic drift in real time, 6) notions that limestone and chalk formations, and hydrocarbon reservoirs can somehow form from a series of waves. After all this, you make the remarkably ironic suggestion that others are making suppositions that run contrary to actual geological data.
You have wholly ignored suggested material which addresses your misconceptions, including books and papers concerning flood geology generally, and papers which deal specifically with your posts. If you are interested in geology rather than just apologetics, you may wish to read closely this professional paper of the US Geological Survey which provides a detailed overview of the Paleogeography of the Late Cretaceous of the Western Interior of North America, which breaks down the Zuni - Tejas sequence you attempt to compress to a portion of a year, into the Cenomanian (98.5-93.5 Ma), Turonian (93.5-88.5 Ma), Coniacian - Santonian (88.5-83.5 Ma), Campanian I (83.5-79 Ma) & II (79-72 Ma), and Maastrichtian (72-65.5 Ma) intervals, with indication of shorelines, rivers, deposits, and volcanism. There are pages of cited references. It contains the answers to most of your questions.
3 Likes
A short distance, but not more than a few kilometers at most.
A further problem is that in the southeastern US, in the latest of those megasequences, there are about 20 shorter term (500,000-10,000,000 year) pulse, and about 200 Milankovitch cycle-based ones within those. Each one of the 20 pulses has noticeably different organisms, including many found in no other layers.
A generalized sequence:
Wando Formation and equivalents (Milankovitch highs in last ~200 kya) Shelly sand
Canepatch Fm. and equivalents (~300 kya-500 kya) Shelly sand
James City Fm., Ft. Thompson Fm., and equivalents (~700 kya-1.2 Mya) Shelly sand
Bermont Fm. and equivalents (~1.4-1.6 MYA) Shell hash with sand
Faunal Turnover (<10% extinct species above, >40% below) Carolinapecten extinct and Pterorytis exterpated
Waccamaw Fm., Caloosahatchee Fm., and equivalents (~2.4-1.8 MYA) Shell hash with sand
Chowan River Fm. and equivalents (~2.8-2.6 MYA) Shell hash with sand
Faunal Turnover (50-70% extinct above, 80-90% below)–Chesapecten and Ecphora extinct
Yorktown Fm., Goose Creek Limestone Jackson Bluff Fm., Tamiami Fm., and equivalents (~3.2-4.4 MYA) Shelly Mud, Shelly Sand, Limestone.
Eastover Fm. and equivalents (~6-8 MYA) Limestone
St. Marys Fm. and equivalents (~11.7-12.5 MYA) Limestone
Pungo River Fm., Calvert Fm. & Choptank Fm., and equivalents (~13-19 MYA) Phosphatic shell hash, Limestone
Chipola Fm. and equivalents (~20-23 MYA) Chesapecten and Ecphora appear sandy shell hash or limestone
Belgrade Fm. and equivalents (~23-25 MYA) Limestone
River Bend Fm. and equivalents (~25-30 MYA) Limestone
Castle Hayne Fm. and equivalents (~34-44 MYA) Limestone
Congaree Fm., Nanjomoy Fm., OIdsmar Limestone, and equivalents (~43-55 MYA) Limestone
Beaufort Group, Black Mingo Group, and equivalents (~56-65 MYA) Limestone
K-T Boundary Exogyra, ammonites, and mosasaurs extinct
Peedee Fm. and equivalents (~65-71 MYA) Clayy Mud, some mudstone
2 Likes
Chris, somehow you missed what I said. First, the sea level (800 feet) was not my figure; it did not come from me–I simply referred to it. Secondly, continental subsidence used to explain it (or anything else) did not come from me. In fact, I have doubts about such having happened, though I can see the possibility of subsidence occurring on the east and west coasts due to heavy sediment buildup there (a subsidence claimed by some to have caused the Transcontinental Arch).
Actually, this is not a “problem” for megasequences. In fact, there are five “orders” of sequences, depending upon varying lengths of time.
I agree. There does not seem to be much in way of informed engagement or constructive direction.
2 Likes
A quote from your suggested reading: Lithofacies grade, west to east, from coarse-grained
sandstone facies, through interbedded sandstone and shale, to
shale, chalk, and ultimately to limestone. These generalized
facies patterns were interrupted by effects on sedimentation
caused by major movements along the thrust belt, growth of
arches, increase in subsidence rate, periodic subaerial exposure and erosion, and shoreline migration.
First, this “lithofacies grade, west to east” composed of sediment layers fining-up from sandstone to shale to limestone, is exactly what I have been talking about–it describes the transgressive phase of the Zuni (Cretaceous) megasequence. In fact, I think that young-earth geologists would accept the rest of this paragraph as well–except as occurring within the one-year biblical Flood.
In other words, the mainstream uniformitarian approach to this data is to stretch out the events over millions of years. We don’t see this as necessary, under the catastrophic tectonics implied by the biblical Flood.
@donpartain - Timothy Campbell’s stratigraphic sequence analysis strongly refutes your one-year flood explanation.
I would like some other words to explain away what happens in a tsunami and what obviously constitutes a high velocity coarse grained and destructive churning, as opposed to this invention:
No, that is not implied by the biblical flood. That is only your incorrectly inferred interpretation of the Noahic flood.