|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Paleocurrents: the 'diverse' features of the GC were laid via rapid, correlated flow | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5711 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]
Of course I understand transgression and its role in the preservation of coal seams. I just don't make a priori assumptions about the rate at which it occurred as you do.[/B][/QUOTE]
JM: OF COURSE YOU DO!! You attribute it all to the time of the flood.The rate is then trivial to calculate. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
I'll allow for both your possibility and mine. It's your side that a priori assumes that our explanation is pseudoscience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5711 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: That is patently false. Geology had the very same assumption you did 200 years ago. The data led to the alternative. You need to get back to the books! Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Believe what you want but if you can force a uniformitarian interpretation you will as cyclothems demonstrate. That is not scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: So ALL of them are not in situ? You do understand that that is what you are saying, don't you?
quote: Prove it. Explain it to us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: LOL! Your theory has yet to explain how trees grew and swamps formed in between global flood surges that all occurred within one year! Just to where did all that water ebb and then stay away for a miracle tree to grow to maturity? For a soil to develop? Pretty whimsical if you ask me. But, as you say, it IS more scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
How could 'Other cases may be debatable' be equated with 'So ALL of them are not in situ?'? It is clear that I am leaving both options open. You are too antagonistic Edge. Why can't we talk as if we were friends? Your transgressions occur for reasons varying from glacial melting to sea-floor spreading (same as ours actually) and gradually creep up over land covering peat bogs which turn into coal over eons. I understand your POV and in isolation it makes a lot of sense. But the cyclothems in totality have such varying mainstream explanations it is clear that it is not well understood and that it is being shoehorned by unifromitarianism. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Okay, a little lesson in logic. If only one case exists of a tree growing to maturity between your surges, you have been proven wrong. Simple as that. It means that between at least two surges there were several decades of time... all in the middle of a flood. You need to have zero trees give evidence of growing in between surges. Otherwise your hypothesis fails.
quote: For several reasons. You have misrepresented what prinicpal scientists in my field have accomplished in their research. You have ignored most of what Joe and I have told you. You have implied that geologists cannot correctly interpret basic data that a first year student can readily recognize. And you have acted as though you are capable of all these things and more. You 'understand' how geologists think, what our biases are, what we are afraid of, etc., etc., etc. I could say a lot more, but I hold keep my counsel.
quote: And what is wrong with this?
quote: Nonsense. It is you who disregards the evidence of forests growing in between the transgressions. It is you who ignores the presence of paleosoils between the cycles. It is you who cannot explain the evaporite deposits in between the Paleozoic and Mesozoic coal formations. It is you who does not know that cyclothems are not found in western North America. It is you who cannot tell us whether the paleocurrents were measured in marine or non-marine rocks. It is you who cannot fathom a stream system reworking a coastal plain. It is you who thinks sloping surfaces cannot have depressions in which water might collect. (I think I'll stop here for the sake of other readers) And yet... your model is so much better! Talk about shoehorning!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
I'll fully agree that one case of an in situ tree is damning to our theory. You may think you have proof of that we may not. I do not set out to misrepresent you guys and I do not ignore what you say. Your rebuttals of my points are not always the final story Edge. You know our opinion of the Yellowstone forests. You know how we explain coal. You know how we explain paleosoils. We do not expect cyclothems everywhere. Water collecting in local depressions does not explain the fresh water shales continuity half way across NA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wehappyfew Inactive Member |
quote: Pictures are so helpful sometimes...
The sandstone filling a dendritic channel, shown in cross-section above, viewed as an isopach below...
A bigger map with paleogeography reconstructed from this data. Note the meandering channel flowing out into the birdsfoots delta...
All those varying depositional settings plus lots of time and sea-level changes result in a complicated cross section...
Read about Pennsylvanian cyclothems here:
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/districts/cmdp/Chap08-1.html "Waxing and waning of continental glaciers resulted in episodic sea level changes, similar in amplitude to those during the Quaternary (~100 m; Heckle, 1995). Klein and Willard (1989) evaluated the relative impacts from these two mechanisms on the Pennsylvanian Period coal basins of the United States. They attribute the control of cyclothems in the Western Interior Basin to repeated transgressions and regressions of a mid-continent sea. These changes in sea level were caused by glaciation. Klein and Willard conclude, based on the more clastic nature of Appalachian sediments and the deeper basin warping, that the Appalachian Basin was affected most by tectonic controls. They also invoke a combination of transgressive-regressive cycles and tectonism as controls on cyclicity in the Illinois basin." Not a global Flood.
[i]"Two more factors have been proposed to explain the distribution of coals and intervening sediments. These are the "deltaic" model of Ferm (1970, 1974) and Donaldson (1969, 1974, and 1979) and the "climatic" model of Cecil et al. (1985) and Donaldson et al. (1985). The deltaic model accounts for rapid facies changes that occur over very short horizontal distances. These rapid changes are due to repetitive channel switching, as in the [b]modern Mississippi delta.[/i][/b]" !!!!!! "The climatic model explains the marked vertical stratigraphic, sedimentological, and mineralogic variations from the beginning to end of Pennsylvanian sedimentation, throughout the Appalachian Basin, and explains chemical and physical changes in coals through time. For example the red beds found in the Conemaugh Group are attributed to dry conditions. The widespread freshwater lake deposits of the upper Allegheny and Monongahela Groups are also indicative of dry conditions (Cecil et al., 1985). " Dry conditions = not a global Flood Now go ahead and find a Flood "geologist" who is willing to explain the Flood in terms of actual outcrops, rocks, thin-sections, and data...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5711 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
wehappy,
we all know those pictures were drawn with a uniformitarian bias. In reality, the contacts are sharp and laterally continuous across the entire continent. It shows how badly real geologists misrepresent the flood! Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Thanks for the data, wehappyfew. Perhaps this will help TB understand the actual deposition of the various types of sediments in the record. Somehow, I doubt it, though. Actual evidence seems to get lost in the next TB post and we all go back to the 'gut reaction' and 'hunch' type of reasoning based on the bible. I mean, it's obvious that a flood 'fits the data better.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Wehappy et al
I base my coments on an entire chapter in Verhoogen, not a figure sumarizing only one or two cylocthem cycles out of 30 to 50. In addition there is nothing in our model to expect all layers to be vast in extent. But our model can account for the ones that are vast. For example Verhoogen states:
quote: Note in bold that there is difficulty reconcikling the flatness dictated by the shallow sea with the slope required by the sandstone paleocurrents. In our scenario there is simply no problem. Note also that very similar cyclothems form in other parts of the world at the same time. In our scenario cyclothems are due to rapid surges and require no fine-tuned tectonics cyclically raising and lowering of slopes. Our scenario is a model like any other but it links the origin of the vegetation with the rapid flow and does not need to account for cyclically alternating flatness and always same orientaiton slope over an enormous region.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5711 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: No comment on wehappy's diagrams that quite clearly show that these are formed in a river environment? Lucy, you've got some splainin to do. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Joe, Wehappy et al
Anouncement------------- Here, as in the non-marine thread, I concede that since I don't have the data on the other 30-50 cycles I'll retract my point that it wasn't streams. Instead I will simply point out two things that are almost as significant: 1. A non-catastrophic senario must explain the alternating slope and flatenss. Without rapid flooding the explanations require the same SW slope to appear 30-50 times over the same vast region. 2. Parallel stream beds over half a continent are consistent with flooding. Floods end as streams of course. In our scenario the rapid currents are causally related to the uprooting of the vegetaiton that became the coal seams. The association of a repeating slope and coal seams are utterly coincidental in your scheme. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-03-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024