* In our discussion of my tentative geochronology, I and Web said:
1) LK: Precontinental Earth ---- (where continents did not yet exist.)
2) LK: Flora and fauna ---------- (flourished on the precontinental Earth.)
W: No. No life at all, with possible exception of bacterial forms.
* The flora and fauna that turned to fossils within the continental sedimentary strata (which strata we both think were deposited all at once) obviously existed for some time before the strata were laid down. Right? I mean they didn't magically come into existence as the strata were being deposited. Did they? If there was not yet any continental sedimentary strata when they first came to life, they must have lived on the precontinental surface. Isn’t that true?
* We said:
3a) LK: Saturn flares ----- 30k -- (produced detritus that formed sedimentary strata.) (30k = 30,000 y.a.)
3b) LK: Or supervulcanism ----- (formed sedimentary strata.)
4) LK: Supercontinent ----------- (formed quickly from flare detritus, including flood waters.)
3b) Possible. [I.e.] ... bedrock granites; Precambrian.
4) Pangaea [from] crustal upheaval [not flare detritus], then hundreds of years later, breakup of the supercontinent, and shifting/spreading of the continental pieces toward present positions.
* What does crustal upheaval mean?
- What would cause it?
- How could mud, sand and lime (the materials that make the sedimentary strata of the former supercontinent, now the continents) form from crustal upheaval?
- I can imagine such sediments forming from Saturn flares or from electric discharge machining of igneous or metamorphic rock, but I don’t see how they could form quickly from volcanic lava or magma, although volcanic ash seems to be a plausible source for mud, I guess. What am I missing?
Caves & Ice Sheet Dating
* We said:
LK: Could the sedimentary strata have formed 30,000 years ago or more? Caves where cave paintings are found are said by Cook to have been occupied since 30,000 years ago or more. The Greenland ice sheet is said by Cook to have layers accurately datable to 30,000 years ago or more.
W: Disagree with the radiocarbon dating --- would say 5-6 millenia BP, give or take a millennium or two, and post-flood.
- [The Greenland ice sheet dating is based on] presumption of atmospheric and oceanic uniformity over time, which I disagree with.
* By post-flood, do you mean the strata formed immediately post-flood (and as a result of the flood)? Or do you mean a long time after the flood? Surely, you don’t mean that, do you?
- You think the supercontinent’s sedimentary strata formed 5,000 to 8,000 years ago? What evidence do you base that on?
- By atmospheric and oceanic uniformity over time, do you mean many of the ice sheet layers formed more rapidly than normal?
- If so, do you know of any proof for that?
- I think Cook said the Thera/Santorini eruption has been accurately dated, because a layer in the ice sheet was found that has the signature markers for it. And several other later eruptions are also accurately dated.
- Do you have any problem with that?
- If not, do you have an idea how far back the dating of the ice sheet layers are accurate, and based on what?
* We said:
LK: Is it plausible that life could have survived while 2-mile-deep sedimentary strata were deposited, which killed and preserved much of it? If so, how could any have survived?
W: The Ark of Noah, in addition to much sea-supported life, which had no need of the ark.
* TPODs have shown that the ancients likely referred to celestial and atmospheric phenomena as Earth, animals, people, trees and oceans, so it seems likely that Noah’s ark referred to a celestial or atmospheric plasma-related event that was visible to the ancients.
- Are you willing to consider that possibility?
- If so, can you think of other ways by which land creatures could have survived a crustal upheaval or other means of rapid deposition of sedimentary strata?
- How plausible is it that a spaceship or other artificial structure or force protected the land creatures?
- Does there seem to be any non-artificial means that could have protected land creatures from extinction?
* We said:
7) LK: Supercontinent breakup - (must have occurred shortly after #4 [formation of the supercontinent].)
W: ... [About] 2 millenia [after]; see my notes at #4.
LK: Do you agree that the supercontinent must have broken up shortly after it formed, since the Grand Canyon must have formed by erosion of soft sedimentary strata?
W: The second clause doesn’t necessasrily follow from the first, since the formation of the supercontinent and the breakup of same were separate events, however I agree that much major past erosion and continental deformation [orogenies] occurred when sediments were not fully cemented.
* Are you implying that the Grand Canyon formed shortly after the supercontinent formed and that the supercontinent broke up 2,000 years later?
- I thought the Grand Canyon must have formed after the supercontinent broke up, when the Rockies and the Appalachians had already formed from rapid “continental drift” movements. Is that wrong? If so, why?
- Do you agree that the Grand Canyon formed from erosion of soft sedimentary strata?
- The strata would not have remained soft after 2,000 years, would they?
Web said: My model allows an indeterminable (very short or very long) period of time before the upheaval of the crust that formed the original supercontinent, then a couple millennia after that until the great flood event, which triggered the glacial period, lasting a couple centuries, then tapering off in the 7-8 millenia BP range, and continuing to the present.
* So you have the Supercontinent formation at 9 or 10kBP and then the Great Flood quickly followed by the Ice Sheet at 7 or 8kBP.
- How could the supercontinent have formed without a Great Flood to make the nicely layered sedimentary strata?
* The evidence for the widening of the Atlantic Ocean after the supercontinent broke up seems very strong, since the opposite shore outlines match up well and so do the rock strata and fossil types on opposite shores.
- Is the evidence very strong that the Pacific Ocean also widened in a similar way?
- Do the rock strata and fossil types match up there too?
- In my thread, “Breakthrough on How Continents Divided”, I think I posted some evidence for the latter, but I don’t remember if it was very strong for the Pacific.
- If both ocean basins were formerly closed at the same time, it means the Earth’s equatorial diameter was likely much smaller previously and the supercontinent would have covered most of the globe. But as Fred Juenemann pointed out, Earth may have been oval shaped, due to EM pinching forces, and, when those forces diminished, gravity would have made it spherical, which could explain how the ocean basins widened. You can stretch a spherical balloon by hand to make it oval shaped, which would be similar to the effect of z-pinch forces on the Earth’s shape. Letting go of the balloon would allow it to take its normal spherical shape. If the balloon were coated with a thin layer of soft plaster or putty etc, while it was pulled into the oval shape, letting it go should result in something like the breakup of a supercontinent, I guess.
- It looks to me like the Pacific Ocean basin formed first, centered on the East Pacific Rise, which undercuts the western U.S. Shortly after that, it looks like something caused the Atlantic basin to open up, centered on the mid-Atlantic Ridge, which pushed the Americas up near to the East Pacific Rise and partly over it. I think a deep electrical impact off the east coast of Africa, similar to that described by http://newgeology.us
, could have caused the Atlantic to open up and widen.
- What do you think?