Rapid generation of layers in the GC

OK it's more westerly in average then SW (or NW for that matter) over the continent. In anycase I think it is clear that there is a prevailing direction and that it shows that the entire continental bed needs to be viewed as a whole. The Pettijohn diagram shows very well that in the Appalacians the currents persisted over many series of formations (you guys might know the ages of the top of your heads, I certainly don't).I think it is clear that the continetal dposits were deposited in a whole as sheets of sediments and that Lyell is a good way to explain all the miscellaneous erosional features carved into this mega formation exept that if the sediments were soft and we're draining huge amounts of water then we can expect it rapidly.PS - the continental map I showed demonstrates that over the continent there is a prevailing direction of paleocurrents spatially - sure with local perturbations. The graphs Moose posted show that temporally we have good consistency too in at least one location. My earlier quotes show that this is not an isolated incident.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

I know I'm annoying all of you with (i) my claim and (ii) my occasional incorrect usage of terms. I apologise on point (ii). On point (i) all I can say is that I think it explains the geolgocial column better than your answer.When I'm talking about 'river deltas' being cut out do you think perhaps I'm talking about the channels of the river delta? Obviously these then filled with sediments as occurs in river deltas. So how should I refer to erosional aspect/phase of river delta formation?On conglomerates, I'm not saying that the flood only eroded new sediments. Even at Mt St Helens we know that the mud flows carved canyons out of both soft new sediment and solid rock as well.------------------
You are go for TLI

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I know I'm annoying all of you with (i) my claim and (ii) my occasional incorrect usage of terms. I apologise on point (ii). On point (i) all I can say is that I think it explains the geolgocial column better than your answer.

---

That remains to be seen! http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=19&p=7 post 16 please.Schraf has started a thread re fossil plants http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=17&p=7 , & their appearance in the fossil record, a subject I championed some months back. This is an issue that creationists/noachian floodists need to address.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I agree Mark.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]OK it's more westerly in average then SW (or NW for that matter) over the continent. In anycase I think it is clear that there is a prevailing direction and that it shows that the entire continental bed needs to be viewed as a whole. The Pettijohn diagram shows very well that in the Appalacians the currents persisted over many series of formations (you guys might know the ages of the top of your heads, I certainly don't).[/QUOTE]Yes, there is a consistent prevailing direction, but not a constant direction. Why do you think that is? You have never said except some vague reference to a single event. Remember, your theory has to explain why the prevailing current directions remain consistent, but that there are significant deviations for part of the time. My own theory is that the topography and continental borders have not qualitatively changed for long periods of time. For instance the Atlantic seaboard has had an ocean to the east and highlands to the west since at least the Triassic. That's a pretty long time and I'm sure that the geological record will reflect this. East of the Appalachians, the prevaling direction of continental deposits will be east-southeasterly for something like 200 million years. This will be the opposite of the 295 bearing from the Pettijohn figures.And no, I do not remember the details of these formations except that I think some are Devonian, so they are prior to my proposal above and mainly opposite in direction. Remember, the topography is changing so the gradients will be changing. Your theory should explain this. I also think you need to collect more data to actually make a point. The problem then is that none of this will logically show that the deposits were laid down in a short period by one event.

quote:

---

I think it is clear that the continetal dposits were deposited in a whole as sheets of sediments and that Lyell is a good way to explain all the miscellaneous erosional features carved into this mega formation exept that if the sediments were soft and we're draining huge amounts of water then we can expect it rapidly.

---

You are confusing erosion and sedimentation here again. If you had a better background you could be clearer and we could address this issue. As it is, I'm not sure what you mean. How did the erosional effects occur before lithification and yet then lithification occurred at the surface to give us the featurese we see today. Why would streams follow fracture directions if the sediments were still soft during erosion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I know I'm annoying all of you with (i) my claim and (ii) my occasional incorrect usage of terms. I apologise on point (ii). On point (i) all I can say is that I think it explains the geolgocial column better than your answer.

---

Actually, I don't know what your explanation is. Could you please make a concise statement as to how/why you think this?

quote:

---

When I'm talking about 'river deltas' being cut out do you think perhaps I'm talking about the channels of the river delta? Obviously these then filled with sediments as occurs in river deltas. So how should I refer to erosional aspect/phase of river delta formation?

---

Not sure. I never really figured out what you were saying.

quote:

---

On conglomerates, I'm not saying that the flood only eroded new sediments.

---

But you said they were soft.

quote:

---

Even at Mt St Helens we know that the mud flows carved canyons out of both soft new sediment and solid rock as well.

---

Do you think this is shocking to geologists, also? Do you really think that this was not considered during construction the histories of the older mountain ranges? And why can you not give us an example of such a phenomenon in non-volcanic terranes? Why must you always compare MSH with every other sedimentary environment? This is such a staple of the creationist literature that it undermines your claims of familiarity with mainstream publications.

In our model we have: (i) erosion and depositon onto land due inundation of the land by the sea and (ii) then erosion and depositon into land and sea as the ater level drops. Only a detailed simulation could hope to say sensibly exactly what to expect and creationists are beginning to do this. I have seen a Pangia simualtion that shows what prevailing currents the earth would have with a single continent due to planetary rotation etc. I think it was consisten with the Nth American paleocurrent data.As Snelling or Austin said somewhere recently, "we have been spedning the last 25 years showing that we have some sort of case qualitatively. Now we are putting effort into quantitaive, determinisic models" [paraphrased from memory].

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]In our model we have: (i) erosion and depositon onto land due inundation of the land by the sea and (ii) then erosion and depositon into land and sea as the ater level drops. Only a detailed simulation could hope to say sensibly exactly what to expect and creationists are beginning to do this. I have seen a Pangia simualtion that shows what prevailing currents the earth would have with a single continent due to planetary rotation etc. I think it was consisten with the Nth American paleocurrent data.[/QUOTE]

​

JM: Do you mean Pangea? I don't think you have a good grasp of geology yet. Based on your 'rabbit feces=cud' comment I am beginning to doubt your biological knowledge as well. However, in the interest of moving forward, please explain what the he-- you are talking about here. The paleocurrents are perfectly in line with what we expect. For example, the Weaverton formation lies on the eastern side of the Neoproterozoic rift sequence and paleocurrent directions should largely be to the E (as shown).

​

[QUOTE]As Snelling or Austin said somewhere recently, "we have been spedning the last 25 years showing that we have some sort of case qualitatively. Now we are putting effort into quantitaive, determinisic models" [paraphrased from memory].[/b]

---

JM: They'd do better by first assembling some physical data to back their models. As Baumgardner clearly shows with his quantitative flood models: GIGO. Austin and Snelling can't even tell us what deposits are pre, syn and post flood. Apparently, they are giving up on looking for physical evidence (I have some clue as to why) and are going to try to dazzle with numbers and statistics. Unfortunately, the physical evidence is going to continue to befuddle their efforts.CheersJoe Meert

^ I think they are going about it in a very step by step manner given the limited funds and people.All I'm saying is that I've seen some simulations that clearly show you get prevailing currents in approximately the right direction. If you can't wait for me to link to these pages on the web then go search for them!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I think they are going about it in a very step by step manner given the limited funds and people.

​

All I'm saying is that I've seen some simulations that clearly show you get prevailing currents in approximately the right direction. If you can't wait for me to link to these pages on the web then go search for them!

---

JM: Well, let me throw one more wrench into the fire. When I spoke of the Weaverton formation paleocurrents facing to the east, I should have spoken more clearly. That is, they point in an easterly direction in present-day coordinates. At the time of their formation, the currents would have been facing south since Laurentia was turned on its side. Since you agree with Baumgardner's rapid drift model (and he uses a Pangean continent); do the models take into account paleogeography or present-day geography? You see, it's quite one thing to talk about paleocurrents in their present-day coordinates, quite another to place them in a model where the continents are moving at meters/second. CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-21-2002]

Joe, I agree it would be crazy not to work on Pangea where it was at the time. We agree with almost all of these reults - just not the timing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe, I agree it would be crazy not to work on Pangea where it was at the time. We agree with almost all of these reults - just not the timing.

---

JM: SO DID THEY? What evidence do creationists use to reconstruct Pangea? I'm curious since they reject most of the data mainstream geologists used--yet they come up with the exact same supercontinent! Not a difference at all. I find that odd. What do creationists have to say about Panottia? Rodinia? Columbia?CheersJoe Meert

We use the same stuff you use - paleomagnetism, fossils and radioisotopic proportions . And I'm sure you're aware that creationsts can't afford to reproduce all of geology everytime. We really aren't trying to overturn everything. On your specific question: I'll link that sim soon and we'll see.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We use the same stuff you use - paleomagnetism, fossils and radioisotopic proportions . And I'm sure you're aware that creationsts can't afford to reproduce all of geology everytime. We really aren't trying to overturn everything. On your specific question: I'll link that sim soon and we'll see.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-22-2002]

---

JM: well, then you've some problems. Let's take paleomagnetism. For example, igneous rocks must cool below 575 C to acquire a magnetization in the direction of the ambient field. Suppose for a moment that we have a continent drifting rapidly and thousands of basalt layers (or other igneous rocks) being produced. We should find transitional fields in these rocks all the time. We don't, such fields are rare and the one incorrectly used by creationists (Steen's Mountain--) is much younger than the flood.Note: creationists often incorrectly claim that Coe and Prevot showed a rapid reversal in the Steen's Mountain section and they did not. What they found was a rapid excursion, but no reversal..We should also find (assuming Baumgardner is correct) rapid changes in inclination and declination within sequential layers of basalt as they record the drifting of the continents. We don't. In the case of sedimentary rocks, we look at something called DRM (Detrital remanent magnetization) which requires hematite grains to orient themselves as they fall through a column of water in the direction of the ambient field. This requires very calm conditions (turbulence easily overcomes the force trying to align the grains). Therefore you need to show these rapid reversals in the sedimentary sequence. What do we find? The Kiaman Long Reversed interval (all reversed polarity) and the Cretaceous Long Normal interval (all normal polarity)--- i.e. in the midst of a flood that you claim featured rapid reversals the rocks say NO! Furthermore, you've elsewhere stated that you cannot identify flood deposits in any globally correlatable detail. How can you use paleomagnetism to reconstruct Pangea when you cannot correlate strata? What are radioisotopic proportions? Do you mean radiometric dating? Not much use to creationists since you claim the rates are (a) variable and (b) you cannot correlate rocks on a global scale necessary to reconstruct Pangea. You've brought up yet more inconsistencies in the creationist model.CheersJoe MeertPS: With that to chew on, I am off to sleep. Gonna be a busy week.5 for me with NSF proposal deadline June 1. I will try to stay up to date on these threads.

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-22-2002]

Hey TB:I'm not a geologist, so I'm not even going to try and answer your questions. However, you might find this webpage (a series of links to relatively recent mainstream geology articles that cover a fair selection of your topic) on Weathering and Paleosol References interesting. I'm still working my way through them, but in general the ones I've managed to digest appear to pretty much kill your argument. This one, Late Eocene detrital laterites in central Oregon: Mass balance geochemistry, depositional setting, and landscape evolution seems particularly germane to your questions concerning alluvial deposits. This one, Pliocene pedosedimentary cycles in the southern Pampas, Argentina also talks about different types of sedimentation in a single location in the GC over time. What I like about it is that it goes into some detail on the "how we know" - which I think was one of your questions on the other thread. I haven't finished them all (I'm only down to the "K"s) so there may be others that you might read that are even more appropriate.Just my $.02.