Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood sorting
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 53 (16264)
08-29-2002 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Peter
08-29-2002 4:51 AM


Peter
The flood occurred in surges based on geo-data (if there was a flood) so that is why it is not as simple as you are suggesting. Show me the links to the tank data. The amount of work done in this area would be incredibly minimal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Peter, posted 08-29-2002 4:51 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by edge, posted 08-30-2002 1:31 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 44 by compmage, posted 08-30-2002 3:12 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 46 by Peter, posted 09-03-2002 3:38 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 32 of 53 (16265)
08-29-2002 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 8:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark24 & John
Most of your comments ignore the fact that our explanation will come from convoluting all three processes.
If you think that anyone could be expected to explain this stuff with hand waving then I suggest that you've just got yoursleves jobs replacing the supercomputers working on grand challenges worldwide. You think we should be able to just 'see the answer'? Who needs supercomputers to predict protein 3D structure - you should be able to just handwave the tertiary structure from sequence. Why not predict next years weather while your at it?
The flood fossil order is a computing grand challenge.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]

So, none of my questions ansered, then.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 8:16 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 33 of 53 (16266)
08-29-2002 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tranquility Base
08-29-2002 8:39 PM


quote:
I've admitted 100 times that I can't prove the fossil order is due to the flood. But I do believe the geo-data suggests rapidity of formation.
It goes much further than saying you can’t prove the fossil order is due to the flood. You can’t provide any rational explanation for how the observed fossil ordering could have possibly been produced by a flood and overwhelming evidence has been presented demonstrating that the fossil record could not have been produced by a global flood. Why don’t you try answering my question? Why would any combination of hydrodynamic sorting, differential mobility and biogeography lead to the selective burial of mammals in a way that correlates with their post-flood extinction rates?
quote:
The way the fossil order would have to e tested would be with a computer simulation of the entire process. It is almost impossible to do but one could try and pick out some salient subset of data and have a go.
This is ridiculous and just a dodge. In the immortal words of Bob Dylan You don’t need a weather man to tell which way the wind blows. It so easy to see that your proposed mechanisms can’t possibly explain fossil sorting by a flood that computer modeling would be a complete waste of time. My guess is that even creation scientists will never try it because they know that attempting it would only show how wrong their ideas about the fossil record are.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 8:39 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by mark24, posted 08-29-2002 9:31 PM Randy has not replied
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 10:55 PM Randy has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 34 of 53 (16267)
08-29-2002 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Randy
08-29-2002 9:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Randy:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The way the fossil order would have to e tested would be with a computer simulation of the entire process. It is almost impossible to do but one could try and pick out some salient subset of data and have a go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is ridiculous and just a dodge. In the immortal words of Bob Dylan You don’t need a weather man to tell which way the wind blows. It so easy to see that your proposed mechanisms can’t possibly explain fossil sorting by a flood that computer modeling would be a complete waste of time. My guess is that even creation scientists will never try it because they know that attempting it would only show how wrong their ideas about the fossil record are.

Absolutely. The direct contradictions have been repeatedly pointed out.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Randy, posted 08-29-2002 9:28 PM Randy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 53 (16268)
08-29-2002 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Randy
08-29-2002 9:28 PM


Randy
Who says that the flood distribtiuon of fossils coprrelates with the post flood extinction pattern?
For marine organisms we would argue that the aproximate (anti)correlation of first appearence stratigraphic level with extantness makes sense due to flood survivability.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Randy, posted 08-29-2002 9:28 PM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Randy, posted 08-29-2002 11:14 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 42 by edge, posted 08-30-2002 1:26 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 36 of 53 (16271)
08-29-2002 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tranquility Base
08-29-2002 10:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy
Who says that the flood distribtiuon of fossils coprrelates with the post flood extinction pattern?
For marine organisms we would argue that the aproximate (anti)correlation of first appearence stratigraphic level with extantness makes sense due to flood survivability.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-29-2002]

I posted this twice now. I wonder if you are paying attention. I said that distrubtion of mammals correlates with supposed post flood extinction. I took the data from Glenn MOrton's page on this. Here they are again.
Triassic there are 4 genera--no living members
Jurassic, 43 genera-no living members ,Cretaceous 36 genera-no living members, Paleocene 213 genera-no living members, Eocene 569 genera-3 extant genera, Oligocene 494 genera 11 extant genera, Miocene 749 genera 57 extant genera,Pliocene762 genera 133 extant genera, Pleistocene, 830 genera 417 extant genera.
Of course you can't identify which of these layers were pre or post flood because there was no flood but there it is.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 10:55 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-30-2002 12:37 AM Randy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 53 (16273)
08-30-2002 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Randy
08-29-2002 11:14 PM


^ If it was post flood extinction (eg catastrophic glacial melting) then it would make sense that the correlation of the column with today's distribution of mammals makes sense. On the other hand if the entire Cenozoic is during-flood then that is a harder ask for us becasue of the ark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Randy, posted 08-29-2002 11:14 PM Randy has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 38 of 53 (16275)
08-30-2002 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tranquility Base
08-29-2002 12:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Your epeiric seas, generating most of the geological column, have the tell-tale sign of high energy flood event written in just about every layer in the form of rapid paleocurrent signatures.
Nope, not mine. However, I certainly would like to see your documentation of this assertion. Most of the geological column exhibits characteristics of high flow regimes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 12:38 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-30-2002 1:13 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 53 (16276)
08-30-2002 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by edge
08-30-2002 1:05 AM


^ I read in a mainstream source that turbidite deposits make up half of the geo-column. Huge sand waves and rapid correlated paleocurrents are the norm in the Paleozoic for example. Lyell was wrong about most of the geo-column.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by edge, posted 08-30-2002 1:05 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by edge, posted 08-30-2002 1:23 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 48 by edge, posted 09-21-2002 10:56 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 40 of 53 (16277)
08-30-2002 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tranquility Base
08-29-2002 8:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
If you're right, post the links to the abstracts systematically comparing paleocurrents in modern vs ancient environments! I can't find them.
I'm not sure why I have to do your research for you. How about starting with just these few from my ancient sedimentology text:
Klein, 1967, Paleocurrent analysis in relation to modern marine sedimentary environments, AAPG Bull. 51, p. 337.
McGowen and Garner, 1970, Physiograhic features and stratification types of coarse-grained point bars,: Modern and ancient examples, Sedimentology, v. 14, pl 77.
Pryor, 1961, Sand trends and paleoslope in the Illinois Basin and Mississippi Embayemnt, In Geometry f Sandstone Bodies, AAPG publication.
Harms and others, 1965, Depositional environment of the Fox Hills Sandstones near Rock Springs, Wyoming, WY Geol. Surv. Guidebook 19th Filed convference p. 113.
Now are you still saying that geologists do not apply modern environments to older rocks? If not, please just read any sedimentology textbook. That is practically all they discuss. It would be under 'facies models.'
quote:
It's a fantastic basic science research project akin to systematic genomics. I might even put a proposal in to ARC or NSF.
You mean, based on your research so far?
quote:
And I never said that every bed demonstrates rapid currents. About half do ...
Hmm, earlier you said 'most' do. But never mind, I'd still like to see the reference on this.
quote:
...with the rest due to gentle settling afterward - but gentle settling today vs gentle settling after a catastropghic surge which would have suspended enormous quantities of debris are two different things.
So how many settling events do you see? Seems like you are pretty much constrained to one or several. Unfortunately there are thousands and most of them are millimeter scale. Hardly the stuff of global floods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 8:29 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by edge, posted 08-30-2002 10:27 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 41 of 53 (16278)
08-30-2002 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tranquility Base
08-30-2002 1:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I read in a mainstream source that turbidite deposits make up half of the geo-column.
Please document. We have seen you misunderstand your own sources before. I would like to see the original study on this.
quote:
Huge sand waves and rapid correlated paleocurrents are the norm in the Paleozoic for example.
Please give us an example. Where do these huge sand waves occur. If there are so many this should be a piece of cake for you.
quote:
Lyell was wrong about most of the geo-column.
A vague generalization. Please give examples. Show us where Lyell was wrong a significan number of times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-30-2002 1:13 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 42 of 53 (16279)
08-30-2002 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tranquility Base
08-29-2002 10:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
For marine organisms we would argue that the aproximate (anti)correlation of first appearence stratigraphic level with extantness makes sense due to flood survivability.
I can see you've got this all figured out. Then tell us why there are no modern pelecypods in the early Paleozoic. Do you really think they were that much faster (or maybe intelligent) than the brachiopods that were so common then? Then perhaps you could get back to the flowering plants problem... I'm still waiting for your explanation their appearance in the GC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 10:55 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 43 of 53 (16280)
08-30-2002 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tranquility Base
08-29-2002 8:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The flood occurred in surges based on geo-data ...
What data is this? How long were your surges? How many were there?
quote:
...(if there was a flood) so that is why it is not as simple as you are suggesting. Show me the links to the tank data. The amount of work done in this area would be incredibly minimal.
You mean based on the research you've done so far? I wonder why there are all of those flumes in the basements of Geo Departments all over the world. I don't suppose anyone ever used them.
You and wmscott seem to have the same affliction: an aversion to actual data. I hope you can overcome this, because you really don't have anythig to support what you've been asserting all along.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 8:42 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 44 of 53 (16287)
08-30-2002 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tranquility Base
08-29-2002 8:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Peter
The flood occurred in surges based on geo-data (if there was a flood)...

Come again?! This is like saying "your answer is correct (if you gave an answer)...
------------------
compmage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 8:42 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 45 of 53 (16315)
08-30-2002 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by edge
08-30-2002 1:20 AM


Earlier, TB complained that:
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
If you're right, post the links to the abstracts systematically comparing paleocurrents in modern vs ancient environments! I can't find them.
Perhaps you are too focussed on the paleocurrent part. The point is that if the current indicators were significantly different, it would have been noticed by someone, sometime, but it hasn't. This is my beef with your point. If there were some significant difference, then there would probably be precisely the study that you want. That is the nature of sedimentology. And certainly there are plenty of references regarding comparisons of modern environments and those recorded in the geologic record. Actually, there are probably too many of these to count.
Here are a few examples of courses and studies comparing modern and ancient depositional environments and some short quotes. I wonder why none of them have noticed the great discrepancy between modern and ancient that your intuition tells you is true. Could it be that you are asking for something that does not exist, for the simple fact that there is no such phenomenon?
http://aapg.confex.com/...ro2002/techprogram/paper_66399.htm
"The sedimentary facies models of the Silurian sequences correspond to: of shore shales, progradational wave and tide dominated ramps, braided, straight and meandering fluvial systems and tidal complexes."
(Nothing about high velocities indicating flood deposits in this part of the record. I mean, hey, the flood should be in full force during the Silurian)
Page Not Found - Institute for Tropical Ecology and Conservation
"The ITEC field station at Boca del Drago, Panama, provides a truly outstanding location for the study of both ancient and modern marine carbonates and carbonate environments. The site, within a sheltered archipelago in Chiriqui Lagoon on the Caribbean coast of Panama, offers students exceptional access to the many subenvironments of a highly productive modern 'carbonate factory'."
(Hmm, carbonates seem to correlate well across the ages)
Page not found | UBC Science - Faculty of Science at the University of British Columbia
"Recognition of sedimentary facies and thus interpretation of sedimentary environments is critical for:
a. understanding earth history
b. predicting the geometry and characteristics of lithologic units
c. resource exploration and development"
(Well, it seems that there is a bottom line here. Modern facies must correlate with ancient ones. Now, where is that pesky flood that is so obvious to TB?)
http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/...ses/thirdyear/geo3e03.html
"Students will be exposed to a number of modern and ancient examples of sedimentary successions formed in each of these environments."
(Obviously they are brainwashing students here into believing the uniformitarian conspiracy. They are looking at both modern and ancient environments and must be overlooking the lack of comparison between the two. They really run a risk here of some student outsmarting the the professors someday!)
For my next post I will look at paleocurrents directly and see what happens. If I don't find anything I won't post and the flood will be proven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by edge, posted 08-30-2002 1:20 AM edge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024