Walt Brown's super-tectonics

On 12-29-2003, whatever wrote:"They say they are finding clams in
the closed position, which infers that
they were buried alive, it says they
are finding these clams in sedimentary
rocks all over the world, including,
Mt.Everest.http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=5
P.S. I thought Pelecypods included the
clams, oysters, etc..."This apparently refers to the statement by Walt Brown:"21. Petrified clams in the closed
position (found all over the world)
testify to their rapid burial while they
were still alive, even on top of Mount
Everest."Pelecypods do include clams. Still, clams can be buried in closed, growth, position by any number of processes. A good hurricane or storm can wash a layer of sediment onto the bottom of a continental shelf, lagoon, estuary, or tidal flat and bury any number of clams in growth position. With rising sea level or a prograding coastline, these sediments can eventually be buried by additional sediments and preserved within the rock record.Having looked at readily available sources, I have, as of this time, been unable to find any documentation that closed clams have actually been found in growth position on top of Everest, although being marine limestones, their presence is entirely possible. The only references to the type of fossils found on Mount Everest that I found was Odell (1967) and Gansser (1964). Neither publication mentioned anything about pelecypods /clams being found on Mt. Everest. I would be very interested if anyone knows of even one published scientific paper that actually documents the presence of clams on top of Mt. Everest. (Or is this a Young Earth Creationist urban legend?)Both Gansser (1964) and Odell (1967) reported that only the plates of crinoids, specifically crinoid stems, have been found in the partially metamorphosed limestone, which comprise the top of Mount Everest. The fossils were found in samples retrieved by a team of Swiss climbers in 1956 and a team of American climbers 1963. Crinoids are a group of stalked marine echinoderms related to sea urchins and starfish.Some web pages are:1. Introduction to the Crinoidea
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/echinodermata/crinoidea.html2. Ron Fine's Crinoid Stems
Ron Fine's Crinoid Stems3. Crinoid Stems
Crinoid Stems
Page not found - InfoWestThe crinoid stems clearly indicate marine deposition at sometime in the past. Their presence is consistent with the rock containing them being assigned to the Ordovician-age Mt Jolmo Lungma Formation, which comprises the top of Mt Everest above 8600 meters above sea level as mapped by Bortolami (1998). Curiously, crinoids are only abundant as fossils in Paleozoic age, Ordovician to Carboniferous period, rocks. It is curious that the Noachian Flood would deposit and not later erode "sediments" that Young Earth Creationists would date to the early stages of their "Flood" and leave nothing dating to the waning age of their "Flood". Also, it seems that Walt Brown falsely exaggerates the diversity of fossils found in these rocks. Technically speaking, it is incorrect to describe a few crinoid plates as being "seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals".One Walt Brown statement is:"19. The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest
(from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of
sedimentary rock packed with seashells and
other ocean-dwelling animals."An additional observation reported by Odell (1967) refuted the claim that sedimentary rocks are found at the top of Mt. Everest and his ideas about the origin of the marine fossils on top of Everest. Odell (1967) noted that the "limestones" containing the crinoid fossils are actually fine-grained, thin-bedded grey calc-schists. According to Odell (1967), the rocks containing marine fossils on Everest are not sedimentary rocks as Walt Brown falsely reports, but rather sedimentary rock, limestone, that has been metamorphose into calc-schists. It is impossible for the rock containing the crinoids, even the apparently imaginary clams of Young Earth Creationists, to have been newly deposited sediment. Rather it is sediment that was deposited and metamorphosed by tectonic processes and deep burial before being uplifted and exposed by erosion.Underlying the Mt Jolmo Lungma Formation and comprising the bulk of Mt. Everest is not grantite but rather metamorphic rocks of the Namche Migmatite Orthogneiss and the Black Gneiss Complex as mapped by Bortolami (1998). Within the area of Mt. Everest, the Namche Migmatite Orthogneiss consists of fine grained biotite-amphibole-epidote schists and diopside-grossular-epidote fels with variable amounts of quartz, plagioclase and calcite called the North Col Formation. It also contains pure marbles and marbles with silicate layers that form a strikingly visible layers. One such layer is the Yellow Band, lying between 8200 and 8600 meters above sea level on Everest, which is composed of marbles and phyllites with quartz and carbonates (Bortolami 1998).The lower parts of Mt. Everest are mapped as Black Gneiss by Bortolami (1998). It consists of biotic paragneiss and micaschists. These rocks are clearly derived from the metamorphism of sedimentary rocks. The strata underlying the metamorphosed limestone of the Mt Jolmo Lungma Formation consist entirely of highly metamorphosed rocks (Bortolami 1998).Sills of Tertiary granites are locally present. However, they are very much younger than the bulk of the strata comprising Mt. Everest and unconnected to their origin (Bortolami 1998). A very long and complicated tectonic history is indicated by the rocks that comprise Mt. Everest.These observations refute the contention, as stated by in message 4 by Mr. whatever":" however its a granite mountain, was this under the
oceans at one time, if so, then why is it granite,
if the oceans bottom is suppose to be basalt."However, Mt. Everest isn't a granite mountain. It is composed of highly metamorphosed rocks, some of which were sedimentary rocks. The local granites were intruded later into these rocks as molten rock. Also, the strata is rather chopped up by faulting that has likely displaced the marine strata from whatever rock it originally lay on.References Cited:Bortolami, G., 1998, Geology of the Khumbu Region,
Mt Everest, Nepal. In A. Lami and G. Giussani, eds.,
pp. 41-49. Limnology of high altitude lakes in the
Mt Everest Region (Himalayas, Nepal).Memorie dell'
Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia. vol.57. Istituto per lo
Studio degli Ecosistemi, Verbania Pallanza, Italy.http://www.iii.to.cnr.it/pubblicaz/mem57/04_Bortolami.pdfGansser, A., 1964, Geology of the Himalayas,
John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., New York.Odell N. E., 1967, The highest fossils in the
world. Geology Magazine. vol. 104m, pp. 173-74An interesting article is:G.E. Gehrels, P.G. DeCelles, A. Martin, T.P. Ojha,
G. Pinhassi and B.N. Upreti, 2003, Initiation of
the Himalayan Orogen as an Early Paleozoic Thin-
skinned Thrust Belt. GSA Today. vol.13, no.9, pp. 4-9.It is found at:Attention Required! | CloudflareAttention Required! | Cloudflare(2003)13%3C4:IOTHOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2The paper refutes Walt Brown's super tectonics because it shows multiple generations of mountain building separated by long periods of time recorded in the rocks of the Himalayas.Some web pages:1. Himalayan tectonics
404: Earth and Environment2. Geology of the Himalayan Mountains
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wittke/Tibet/Himalaya.html3. Colisiones continentales y Orogenesis
http://tlacaelel.igeofcu.unam.mx/...D/colision/colision.html4. The Himalayas: Two continents collide
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/himalaya.html5. Some Visual Evidences of the Himalayan Formation
http://rip.physics.unk.edu/Nepal/NPB.html"How do We Know that the Himalayas are Still Rising?Scientists can measure the movement of plates and
the rise of the Himalayas through a system called
Global Positioning System (GPS). This technique
has been used by planes and ships for a long time
to determine their position.The scientists first set up several survey points
at different places in the Himalayan region.
They place a GPS receiver in each survey points
which records its position from several
satellites circling the earth above it. The
measurements are done continuously each time the
satellites pass over the survey points. The
survey points are linked by radio telemetry and
e-mail to the headquarters. The scientists
use the data thus collected to measure the
relative motion of the points with an accuracy
of 3 mm.Using this technique the scientists have been
able to find that the Indian plate is moving
northward at the rate of 18 mm a year and the
Himalayas are rising at about 5 mm a year."6. Deformation Kinematics of Tibeatan Plateau Determined
from GPS Observations by Jinwei Ren at:
http://center.shao.ac.cn/APSG/pdfs/Renjinwei.pdf7. Jouanne, F., J. L. Mugnier, M. R. Pandey, J. F.
Gamond, P. Le Fort, L. Serrurier, C. Vigny, and J. P.
Avouac (1999) Oblique convergence in the Himalayas of
western Nepal deduced from preliminary results of GPS
measurements. Geophysical Research Letters. vol. 26 ,
no. 13 , p. 1933. - Abstract no. 1999GL900416 at
http://www.agu.org/.../abs/gl/1999GL900416/1999GL900416.htmlYours,Bill Birkeland[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 12-29-2003]

whatever wrote:"JonF, I think the dilution factor makes it hard
to cipher how long it would take to increase all
the mineral salts in the ocean's,..."If a person would read a basic text on oceanography, they would find that the dilution factor is simply not a problem as Mr. whatever incorrectly claims. There is more than enough data available concerning the composition of the ocean, such that the variations in composition of seawater can be determined on a global basis and the total volume of salt and various elements can be calculated. Also, there is enough data available in the scientific literature about inputs and outputs that they can be calculated on an approximate basis. The so-called "dilution factor" is a non-existent problem to those people, who take the time to research this subject.Go look through:Holland, H. D., 1978. The Chemistry of
the Atmophere and the Oceans, (New York:
John Wiley and Sons).Holland, H.D., 1984. The Chemical Evolution
of the Atmosphere and the Oceans, (Princeton:
Princeton University Press).Mr whatever also wrote:"however, were talking of volcanic mineral
salt additions, even the dust of the earth
in the form of rain, don't see how salt is
recycling back out of the oceans, they
really can only get saltier, the
hydrological cycle, etc...like they don't
come out of solution unless they become
super saturated, etc..."What Mr. whatever stated above is simply not true. There are various outputs, mechanisms by which salt leaves the ocean, as described in detail by Glen Morton in "Salt in the sea" at:http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.htmlThese outputs are:1. Sea spray 6.7 x 10^10 kg/yr
2. Cation Exchange 5.2 x 10^10 kg/yr
3. Burial of pore water 3.9 x 10^10 kg/yr
4. Halite deposition 4.0 x 10^10 kg/yr
5. Alteration of Basalt 14 x 10^10 kg/yr
6. Albite formation 0 kg/yr
7. Zeolite Formation .2 x 10^10 kg/yr
8. Biogenic output .5 x 10^10 kg/yr
9. Collective Small outputs 3.6 x 10^10 kg/yrTotal amount of salt removed from oceans is 38.1 x 10^10 kg/yr.The total calculated by Glen Morton in this article is, within the error bars of the estimates and calculations, identical to the influx of sodium that one Young Earth creationist used, 35.6 x 10^10 kg/yr. The amount of salt going into the ocean is the same as the amount being removed from it. This renders any attempts to date the age of the oceans by the amount of salt in it an exercise in futility and self-delusion. Similar calculations and conclusions can be found in:Cook, M. A. 1966. Prehistory and Earth Models
Max Parrish & Company, Ltd., London. 353 pages.Dalrymple, G. Brent. 1984. "How Old is the Earth?
A Reply to Scientific Creationism" Proceedings
of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific
Division, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Volume 1, Part 3,
edited by Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites,
April 30, 1984, pages 66-131.Also, see:1. Claim CD221:
CD221: Amount of dissolved minerals in oceans2. 4. Accumulation of metals into the oceans
The Age of the Earth3. Salt, Meteors and the Global Flood
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/saltandmeteors.htmYours,Bill Birkeland

whatever wrote:"ts interesting that you all feel the earth is old,
but then again what can I say, the bible itself
testifies the heaven and the earth were created
in the beginning, and that one thousand years
is like a night watch to the Lord, etc..."It is not a matter of "feeling" anything. It is a matter
of looking at facts and observations and using
basic prionciples of physics, chemistry, etc to make
solid interpretations about what they mean in
terms of Earth History. It is the ultimate in "Crime
Scene Investigations" and detective work in using
one's brain to understanding what has happened
in the past instead of mindlessly quoting words
from the Bible to justify preconcieved beliefs that
are based upon a very falliable, human interpretation
of the Bible falsely presumed to be God's truth.
If the best a person can come up with as arguments
for their interpretation of Earth History are Bible quotes
and Walt Brown's technobabble, then Young Earth
creationism, as science is in a very sad state of
disrepair.The fact of matter is that there is nothing in the Bible
that "testifies" to a Young Earth and Walt Brown's
point of view. This so-called "testimony" is nothing
more than a specific and narrow interpretation of
what is written in the Bible by all too, falliable humans.
At this point in time, I have yet to see Mr. whatever offer
any credible support that the way he and Mr. Brown,
both fallible humans capable of making mistakes in
their interpretations of the Bible, interpret the Bible
has any valdity and is even close to approaching
God's truth in any fashion.Yours,Bill Birkeland

In Message 29, true Creation wrote:"While the topic of discussion is Walt
Brown's hydroplate theory, a little over a
year ago I wrote a brief rebuttle to one of his
mechanisms for the formation of strata,
liquefaction. Instead of posting a link to
the short essay, I will copy the relevant
portions because I will probably revise it
sometime in the upcoming months.--One of Brown's evidences for liquefaction
as a means for stratification in the geologic
column is the well documented 1929 trans-
atlantic cable breaks. In 1952, Heezen and
Ewing presented evidence that a large-scale
turbidity passed across a segment of the
North Atlantic seafloor. On November 18,
1929, the New England and Maritime Provinces
of Canada were hit by an earthquake which
was centered off the edge of the Grand
Banks, Nova Scotia."...text and figures deleted...Walt Browns use of the Grand Banks earthquake and turbidite to promote liquefaction is soundly refuted not only by the observations and data presented by TrueCreation in message 29, but also by research concerning the surface morphology and sediments of the Grand Banks turbidite. Walt Brown seems to have been completely unaware of the fact that oceanographers, geologists, and sedimentologists have directly sampled, using piston cores, the deposits of the Grand Banks turbidite and found no evidence of the large-scale liquefaction that he claimed occurred. Instead, these researchers, including Piper et al. (1988, 1999), found sediments with all of the characteristics of a "siesmoturbidite", a massive turbidite produced by a shelf-edge failure created by a major earthquake. Piper et al. (1988, 1999) found that the turbidity current generated by the Grand Banks submarine slide transported some 175 to 200 cubic kilometers of sediments into the Sohn Abyssal Plain to create the Grand Banks turbidite. The Grand Banks turbidite covers an area as large as 150,000 square kilometers within the Sohn Abyssal Plain with a layer of sediment over a meter thick displayimg the characteristic sedimentary structures of a turbidite. Far from proving any Walt Brown's speculations, the Grand Banks earthquake and the turbidite it produced demonstrated that conventional geological processes are quite capable of producing the unusually thick turbidites that infrequently occur within interbedded sandstone (turbidite) and shale that comprise sedimentary sequences called "flysch". It also shows how thinner sandstone beds that comprise flysch sequences can be created by smaller turbidity currents. Liquefaction only caused the shelf-edge to collapse. After that other processes, including a turbidity current several hundred meters thick, took over to move the sediment and deposit over the Sohn Abyssal Plain. Piper et al. (1988, 1999) and other published papers readily refuted what Walt Brown has to say about the Grand Banks earthquake.That Walt Brown's claim that a tsunami radiating out from the earthquake's epicenter partially liquefied sediments on the seafloor is scientifcally bankrupt e can be readily seen in the abstract "Tsunami Deposits from the1929 Grand Banks Earthquake and Submarine Landslide, Taylor's Bay, Newfoundland" by Mcadoo, Brian G., MIinder, Justin, Moore, Andrew, and Ruffman, Alan and presented in Session No. 32 of the Geolofical Society of America Northeastern Section - 38th Annual Meeting (March 27-29, 2003) and found at:
http://gsa.confex.com/...3NE/finalprogram/abstract_51324.htmIf a person reads through the abstract, they find that the tsunami that hit Newfoundland's Burin Peninsula was just over 13 meters high and inundated land to an elevation of 7 meters. Although large relative to a individual being, a 13-meter tall tsunami was far too weak to have done what Walt Brown claimed it to have done. It is physically impossible for this tsunami to have had any effect at all on the sea bottom at depths of 20,000 feet. As noted above, it is clearly documented that a submarine slide and turbidity currents were actually responsible for what happened offshore within the Grand Banks.Reference Cited:Piper, D. J. W., Shor, A. N., and Clarke, h
J. E. H.. 1988, The 1929 "Grand Banks"
earthquake, slump, and turbidity current.
In: H. E. Clifton, ed., pp. 77-92,
Sedimentologic Consequences of Convulsive
Geologic Events. Special Paper 229,
Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.Piper, D. J. W., Cochonat, P., and Morrison,
M. L., 1999. The sequence of events around
the epicentre of the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake:
initiation of debris flows and turbidity
current inferred from sidescan sonar.
Sedimentology. vol. 46, pp. 79-97More Grand Banks References:Piper, D. J. W., and Aksu, A. E., 1987, The
source and origin of the 1929 Grand Banks
turbidity current inferred from sediment
budgets. Geo-Marine Letters, vol. 7,
pp. 177-182.Piper, D. J. W., Shor, A. N., Farre, J. A.,
O'Connell, S., and Jacobi, R., 1985b, Sediment
slides around the epicenter of the 1929 Grand
Banks earthquake: Geology, vo;. 13, pp. 538-541and1. Bibliography of reports on sediment instability
and related issues on the Scotian margin
http://gsca.nrcan.gc.ca/staff/piper/ssbiblio.pdf.2. "Backanalysis of the 1929 Grand Banks
Submarine Slope Failure" at:
http://www.costa-canada.ggl.ulaval.ca/...sion%2020_11pdf.pdfFor more about flysch, go look at:Bouma, A. H., 1962, Sedimentology of some flysch
deposits: Amsterdam, Elsevier, 168 p.and ""Y" City and it's rich display of geological formations."
http://www.ycitymountaininn.com/...ns/Jackfork/jackfork.htmlAnother related paper:Pilkey, O. H., 1988, Bsin plains: Giant
sedimentation events. In: H. E. Clifton, ed.,
pp. 93-100, Sedimentologic Consequences of
Convulsive Geologic Events. Special Paper 229,
Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.The Special Paper 229 has a paper about the catastrophic lahars of Mt. St. Helens, "Origin, Behavior, and sedimentology of prehistoric catastrophic lahars at Mount. St. Helens, Washington" by K. M. Scott on pp. 23-36. They look identical to what a person sees in the Yellowstone Petrified forests.Yours,Bill Birkeland