Non-marine sediments

PercyI meant 'fair enough' that you point it out.There's an awful lot of science in what we're doing. I'll agree it is unikely to be supported by the Dept of Energy, NIH or ARC.Evoltuionists make a lot of noise about the lack of mainstream Phded scientists that are YECs. It's not irrelevant for me to point out that here is one.

Tranquility Base writes:

---

You state the Bible was not divinely inspired in detail but how can you be sure?

---

You've got your science backwards. One doesn't assume something until it's disproved. In science you seek positive evidence. What objective evidence do you have of the Bible's divinity?

---

The Bible is unique in many ways and only bias allows people to deny this.

---

And so uniqueness implies divinity? How so? Once again, your logic is not apparent to anyone who isn't an evangelical. You need arguments that do not first require the listener to convert. Be scientific for once.

---

In the 14,000 years history scenario the first 7000 years are the 7 days of creation. There is absolutely no problems gnerated by this at all from a scriptual POV. Many creaitonists don't like it becasue they think we are heading down the slippery slope to age interpreations...

---

Let me get this straight. Your own people don't buy it, but I should?

---

Paelosoils could have formed from ash fallout during many multiple surge gaps and could account for burrows, stream beds, roots, sedimentary patterns, etc.

---

Really? Soil comes from ash fallout? And I thought these weren't real habitats, anyway, so how could there be burrows, stream beds, etc...Soil is complex and takes a while to form through the breakdown of underlying bedrock by weathering and organic processes.

---

We explain the radiometric and magnetic data as you do with the proviso of accerlated decay which accerlated the tectonics.

---

Same old proposals, same no evidence.I think you need to back up to square one and then make sure that each step forward you take has supporting evidence. Right now you've taken so many steps without any associated evidential support that you've placed yourself way out in fantasyland.--Percy

Fair enough!--Percy

quote:

---

How would you repeatedly get consistent SW flow half way across Nth America and then placid in-land lakes?

---

Your data on these paleocurrents still continues to be vague at best.

quote:

---

You accept parallel streams (probably hundreds) traversing thousands of kilometres before you can accept flooding?

---

I accept that there is evidence, for numerous sea transgressions and regressions, in the Pennsylvanian rocks of the cyclothems under discussion. I also accept (and I believe you did also) that the sandstones are of fluvial origin, of streams flowing in the general southwest direction. I also note, on the map of page 445 of Verhoogen et all, that the Pennsylvanian rocks of the Illinois Basin are of an area with a greatest dimension (in a NW-SE direction) of about 600 km (had to figure out the scale from another map). I certainly don't know the details of the paleogeography, and the details of the distribution and lengths of individual streams. I see no reason that the streams need be multiples of thousands of kilometers long.And I think you dependence on repeated deposition of vast "vegetation mats" has no connection to any reality. In Verhoogen's descriptions, the coal deposits are clearly from in place, non-transported vegetation.

quote:

---

I think geologists simply have a stigma about that dirty word. And these hundreds of parallel streams happen every few thousand years in the same place where there was a coal swamp! And this happened dozens of times.

---

Let's see your detailed discription of how the pile of the repeated marine and non-marine sediments of the cyclothems came to be.Something like?: There was a land area, with streams and lakes. Then the flood happened, and seas formed over the land. Vast, thick mats of vegetation were floating in the seas, and they then settled to the sea bed of non-marine sediments. Then the seas deposited a fair thickness of limestone and shale. Then a phase of the flood abated; the seas regressed, and the land was an area of streams and lakes again. This cycle happen dozens of times, all within a time period of, at most a few years. (???)This sounds like a total fairy tale, but then you seem to have a better version. Let's hear it, in precise enough detail.Even if you pull it off, you've only explained a small portion of the geologic column.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

PercyThe consistencies between the books of the Bible far outweigh the supposed inconsistencies. The themes that run through scripture are consistent throughout. There are a couple of hints that the 66 books are the 'right' ones. Isaiah has 66 chapters. It's 40th chapter talks of 'one crying in the wilderness' and 'a new convenant'. Enter John the Baptist at the start of the New Testemant (the 40th book). The 66th chapter of Isaiah ends with 'a new heavens' and a new earth' as does the 66th book of the Bible, Revelations. A hint, not proof. The 7-sticked candle stick (probably a future icon for Indiana Jones)
of Moses' tabernacle is descibed in detail in the books of Moses. In the New Testament we align it with the word of God (shedding light). It had 66 pieces. If it is split in 'half', leaving the middle sick with the 3 piece stand, the pieces split into 39 (OT) and 27 (NT). A hint, not proof.The paleosoils could have been temporary habitats for days and weeks. Some could be ash, some sediment from floating mats, some stream sediment, some transported soil . . .

MooseThe paleocurrent data is clear for the sandstones of the Nth American Pensylvanian deposits. 'SW across half the continent' is not vauge.I don't accept that the sandstone is due to streams. There is nowhere on this planet where there are hundreds of parallel streams traversing half a continent without meandering! It is not even conceivable. The sandstones were laid and eroded by sheets of flood wates from the NE.I'll read Verhoogen again tonight and check out if he states the extent of the SW paelocurrents.Austin et al have shown elsewhere that the floating mat model is a good model and that, for example, the coal beds sit on top of razor blade neat stratagrpahic interface and the roots do not enter the strata.Anyone who has seen the floating mats of Mt St Helen's knows how plausible the floating mat model is. Multiple tectonically induced tidal waves could have rapidly uprooted vegetation, deposited sediment and coal and hence produced cyclothems. Inbetween each wave would be catastrophic fresh water flooding due to the 40 days of rain. I'm planning to read Austin's origin work on the floating mat model so I wont propose a detailed model until I've read the masters work. You still haven't explained how you can get SW correlated flows and placid lakes cyclically in the same place. We get it becasue of the flood surges and the breaks inbetween, we don't need a paleoslope.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The paleocurrent data is clear for the sandstones of the Nth American Pensylvanian deposits. 'SW across half the continent' is not vauge.

---

In case you didn't notice, those were prevailing currents. There were other, divergent measurements as well. As to there being a preferred direction, it probably has to do with the shape of the continent, the rotation of the earth and other factors which do not change very much. No big surprises really.

quote:

---

I don't accept that the sandstone is due to streams. There is nowhere on this planet where there are hundreds of parallel streams traversing half a continent without meandering! It is not even conceivable. The sandstones were laid and eroded by sheets of flood wates from the NE.

---

Nonsense. Coastal plains can be built by meandering streams. Thousands of channels, mostly heading in the same general direction.

quote:

---

Austin et al have shown elsewhere that the floating mat model is a good model and that, for example, the coal beds sit on top of razor blade neat stratagrpahic interface and the roots do not enter the strata.

---

Except that in many places they do. Can you show us where a floating mat of logs has resulted in a coal field?

quote:

---

Anyone who has seen the floating mats of Mt St Helen's knows how plausible the floating mat model is. Multiple tectonically induced tidal waves could have rapidly uprooted vegetation, deposited sediment and coal and hence produced cyclothems. Inbetween each wave would be catastrophic fresh water flooding due to the 40 days of rain. I'm planning to read Austin's origin work on the floating mat model so I wont propose a detailed model until I've read the masters work.

---

It doesn't work. I have been over this with Helen elsewhere. We have never seen this come close to happening. I fyou want to get into details, I suggest starting another thread. It could be substantial. Do you really think that we will have a commercial coal bed in Spirit Lake in less than 4000 years?

quote:

---

You still haven't explained how you can get SW correlated flows and placid lakes cyclically in the same place. We get it becasue of the flood surges and the breaks inbetween, we don't need a paleoslope.

---

Sorry, but you've got one. If the flood surged so much why don't we have bipolar current diagrams? And you have not shown that the currents were exclusively to the southwest. As I recall, one unit diverged strongly from that trend.

EdgeIf you want to believe that hundreds of parallel rivers travelling down a continental sized slope alternated with a vast (flat of course) lake, swamp and marine innundation through dozens and dozens of cycles feel free. Your faith is far stronger than mine.

Edge:

quote:

---

And you have not shown that the currents were exclusively to the southwest. As I recall, one unit diverged strongly from that trend.

---

I think the discussion of the Appalachian (sp?) sediments (from another topic) and the discussion of the Pennsylvanian cyclothems are getting confused a bit.Most of the Appalachian sediments (re: the Pettijohn book) had a general NW paleocurrent direction. I think these are the ones that TB conceded to me, as being fluvial. The cyclothems (re: the Verhoogen et all book) had sands with a general SW paleocurrent direction.Now, the cyclothems sandstones under discussion - TB, I think the evidence, as presented by Verhoogen et all, that they are stream deposits, is extremely strong. If you are going to sell your "flood" model, then an alternate explanation to the sands being fluvial is a priority.By the way, TB, might I ask what the subject of your Phud disertation was? I certainly hope you didn't get it from the same place Hovind got his. B.S. - Bullshit
M.S. - More of Same
PhD - Piled higher and Deeper Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

^ CP violation. The nuclear weak interactions are responsible for the interconversion of protons and neutrons in the sun, leads to beta decay, it is the only force that neutrinos feel: down quark -> up quark + electron + antineutrino. It's detailed explanation by Salam and Weinberg was a triumph of 'gauge' theories of fundamental interactions and won them the nobel prize in the 1970s. it predicted the mass of the W and Z bosons exactly where CERN found them to be in the 1980s. It also predicts the Higgs particle. All those neutrino experiments are weak interaction experiments.The weak interactions almost conserve CP (charge conjugation-parity) symmetry. This slight violation of CP seen in kaon decays, for example, leads to antiparticles not quite being the exact mirror image of particles. It may be responsible for the preponderance of matter over anti-matter.What you call fluvial I might call flood - especially when it displays correlated paleocurrents over half of a continent! Do you guys have a tech word for flood or did you remove it from your vocabulary after the diluvialist controversies? Is diluvial the naughty tech word?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What you call fluvial I might call flood - especially when it displays correlated paleocurrents over half of a continent! Do you guys have a tech word for flood or did you remove it from your vocabulary after the diluvialist controversies? Is diluvial the naughty tech word.

---

The word 'flood' has connotations, obviously. If we were to use the word, you would feel duty-bound to misrepresent what we say.(added by edit) Just look at what happened to Jack Horner!

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 06-26-2002]

Is that good science though Edge? The sedimentary environments are documented in excrutiating detail: aeolian, glacial, fluvial, deltaic, shelf, abysal etc and yet the actual data could be consistent with most non-marine strata being flood deposits, a category rarely mentioned because of the stigma!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Is that good science though Edge? The sedimentary environments are documented in excrutiating detail: aeolian, glacial, fluvial, deltaic, shelf, abysal etc and yet the actual data could be consistent with most non-marine strata being flood deposits, a category rarely mentioned because of the stigma!

---

No, it is a debating tactic. No one said this was science. Besides we wouldn't want to compromise your integrity by allowing you to misrepresent whatever we say. As I said, just look at one careless statement by Jack Horner and suddenly he's a raving flood geologist!So how are eolian dunes deposited by a flood? Or evaporites? Or paleosoils? You do understand don't you that swamps imply a terrigenous source of sediment in order to build up deposit? Sorry, your statement makes no sense. And we do mention sea level changes, they are called trangressions. And there is no evidence that any of them ever completely innundated the world. Why don't you go find us evidence of this rather than make up fantastic stories?

It seems clear from cyclothems at least that vast fresh water flooding has generated large proportions of the geologocal column but mainstream sources refuse to use the 'flood' word and rather propose hundreds of parallel streams instead! That truly is poor science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It seems clear from cyclothems at least that vast fresh water flooding has generated large proportions of the geologocal column but mainstream sources refuse to use the 'flood' word and rather propose hundreds of parallel streams instead! That truly is poor science.

---

No, lots of times its only a few main streams. How many streams do you think occur in the Amazon Basin, for instance? And the word is 'transgression.' I have explained this to you before. You seem unable to accept any explanation that we give you. Consequently, I think you are only mirroring when you say that we will not consider other theories.