According to every recent reliable source I have seen, Pangea was only over the south pole, and broke apart before it moved away. The major periods of regression seem to correspond to periods when there were substantial continents near the poles, yes, but not the same ones.
0.05 inches per week is rather excessively fast, more like 0.0005 inches per week is the fast end of the shorter term (tens of thousands of years) changes.
No, nobody does because it would have no need to, and would smash everything fragile in the deposits if it did The sediments are primarily terrigenic or biogenic, marine deposited sediments. On average they would take ~~30,000,000 years to deposit to a high enough thickness to given that depth (some places higher, others lower.
Over the one-year period of sediment layer deposition, these layers compacted and cemented together enough to prevent their being washed off.
By the way, it’s almost comical to picture the kind of cyclical uplift and subsidence of the continents proposed by the uniformitarian model–it’s like a carousel!–rather than acknowledge the powerful cyclical mega-tsunamis, caused by plate tectonics (like subduction of ocean plates at mid-ocean rifts, and/or subduction of ocean plates under continent plates), and evidenced by the megasequences themselves (such as 250-ton boulders being driven across the craton, during the Sauk megasequence).
How would slowly, slowly, slowly transgressing ocean waters caused by melting glaciers and/or subsiding continents have the dynamics–the raw power–to pick up, transport, then deposit the 3 million cubic kilometers of mostly ocean sediment across much of North America during the Sauk megasequence alone?
Current rates of continental movement are different from rates during the split up of Pangea. There were plate tectonics at work at that time that heated up the mantle, thus increasing the velocity of continental movement.
This clearly illustrates a problem with the assumptions of the uniformitarian model. You simply cannot project onto all past events the ways things happen today.
Of course, it did not. It was deposited by erosion to areas that were lower at that time and later rose to the present altitude in response to the shifting tectonic plates. Doesn’t take anything out of the ordinary known processes we see today.
The Sloss sequence diagram–based on actual geological data–disagrees with your claim that the earth was nowhere near being under water after the appearance of terrestrial life.
More specifically, notice the Absaroka megasequence–which contains fossils of both marine and terrestrial life…and also shows at least most of the continent under water.
But erosion does not account for the greater amounts of sediment–which were marine…right out of the ocean.
In fact, it is significant that the first three megasequences contain exclusively marine life…along with their habitat (and just what we would expect with the Flood model).
Can you show us a link to something indicating that even the sloss data indicates that the entire earth was under water after tetrapods walked earth? What I am seeing is that at various times large portions of Laurentia was under water except for the Appalachians. I’m not seeing evidence for Laurentia and Gondwana both being mostly, let alone completely, under water at the same time.
It is not my claim, it is not me suggesting that I have more insight than qualified geologists. Do note I said completely submerged, which is fully compatible with the Sloss sequence. That there has always been dry ground represents findings of geology before and after the Sloss sequence was introduced.
Yes, look at the sloss diagram I linked early on, and then I also pasted it in two of my replies. It shows bands of conformities in black—erosion layers that separated the sequences from each other. The areas of white and yellow show the extent of sea & sediment coverage. The right border of the diagram is the East Coast and the left border is the West Coast. So when the white/yellow areas span from border to border, this describes complete coverage by water/sediment. Such happens during both the Absaroka and Zuni sequences—when tetrapods walked the earth.
The “always-dry-ground” idea is inconsistent with the fact that marine fossils cover all continents. In fact, there are even “whale graveyards” in deserts! Clearly, marine (ocean) water flooded the whole earth at least once.
Ancient crossbedded dunes were subaqueous, not subaerial
I did not see info stating both supercontinents were under water at the same time, or ever completely understand water. All the data shows different flooding at different times and never the entire supercontinent.
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
75
That is the uniformitarianian model. Under persistent kneading plates can move 2cm a year. And? That means magic how?
Really? How is it that no land animals perished in an alleged series of 3 mega-tsunamis? Your assertion that we would expect exclusively marine life to perish in a series of 3 mega-tsunami events makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I would point out that, by contrast, the progression from (marine life) to (marine life + amphibians) to (marine life + amphibians + reptiles) to (marine life + amphibians + reptiles + mammals) is 100% consistent with the natural history of the past several hundred million years as described by mainstream paleontology.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but in the absence of mathematical geophysics, what you believe is entirely irrelevant to science. Until you provide some actual scientific work, instead of the speculation you have been producing, Don, observers like me – who respect science, who respect scientists, and worship the God who made an orderly universe that can be described by mathematical physics – have only one logical choice: we have to keep trusting the consensus geophysics.
Consensus geophysicists have done the hard work of building mathematical, geophysics models that explain several hundred million years of tectonics. As far as I can tell, all you are offering is pure speculation. Sorry, Don. Because I believe in a God who has made the world orderly in a fashion that can be described by mathematical physics, I cannot give any credence to your speculation.
I have said this several times, but you seem deaf to what I am saying. Or is it the case that the mathematical work in support of YEC models (for example, of uplift of the Himalayas in a YEC timeframe) simply does not exist?
Actually, you are engaged with quite the argument with yourself. I am astonished that you do not remember reaching a different conclusion just a day ago:
Seriously, Don. Do you not recognize that you are contradicting yourself?
Sea level rose perhaps as high as 800 feet, which flooded the swampy plains of today’s Midwest. However, the US Geological Survey states that high mountains existed on the continent during those eras. I pointed that out to you, and you seemed to acknowledge it. But a mere 24 hours later you seem to remember nothing of that conversation. What gives? I do not feel like I am speaking with a trustworthy conversational partner when you contradict yourself this way.
You completely and totally misunderstand the assumptions of mainstream geology. Please give what I am about to say some careful thought.
The scientific community makes one, and only one, fundamental assumption about what happened in the past:
The laws of physics applied.
That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Does it contradict the laws of physics that the crust might thin, causing a plate to fragment, and some of the fragments might subsequently at a rate of 2 centimeters per year rather than 1 millimeter per year? As you might suppose, the answer is no, it does not contradict the laws of physics.
And if the answer is no, it does not contradict modern geology. It might contradict the “uniformitarian” geology of 1850, but it does not contradict the geology of 2021 in the least.
You might consider talking about the geology of 2021, rather than setting up a straw man of 1850 and then knocking it down. What does knocking down a 170-year-old, ridiculous straw man accomplish?
Now you might contend that God suspended the laws of physics during the flood year. I would reply that you are inventing that – the Bible does not say a miracle occurred.
Once you lean on miracles to explain the data, we have no way to talk about logic or history or physics. If God suspended the normal operations of the universe, literally anything could have happened.
There is no evidence that could ever disprove an assertion of a miracle. The earth would have been heated to 22,000o C. by accelerated radioactive decay? No problem, the laws of physics were not in operation! Tectonic plates were zipping around like bumper cars, but not leaving the 150,000 feet high mountains that the laws of physics would expect? No problem! The laws of physics were not in operation!
Do you see why some of us might have a problem with this stance?
It’s not that I don’t believe in the miracles labeled as such by the Bible. I believe in the resurrection of Lazarus, and in the resurrection of Jesus. I believe that God healed Naaman of leprosy when he followed Elisha’s instructions to wash in the Jordan. Etcetera.
However, when someone invents a miracle just to support a favorite exegesis, when other plausible exegeses are available–sorry, I cannot go there with you.
Best,
Chris
6 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
77
Bizarre religious beliefs are two a penny. What’s this one got to do with Jesus?
One of the problems (of many) with the YEC approach is that they have to rework all of the physics of the reality of the earth and the cosmos to force fit it to an interpretation of the Bible that they humanly presume to be infallible. And they contradict the Bible in the process.
Every time there is a new discovery which contradicts their skew (which is almost always), they have to back up and punt, missing the goal of truth.
Truth comes from reality – the truth that comes from the reality of the data that God has revealed in the Bible and the truth that comes from the reality of data that God has revealed in creation. They do not and cannot conflict. If they appear to, then our interpretation of one or the other or both is flawed.