Rapid generation of layers in the GC

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm not trying to say this necessarily proves anything but it is part of our 'thesis'. It certainly proves that mainstream researchers are willing to admitt that layers do not have to represent annual/seaonal bands or even point to great age at all.

---

Are you actually comparing varved sediments to storm deposits, or mudflows, or other local catastrophic sedimentation events? Do you really think that geologists have not thought about these things? Do you really think that catastrophism is not recognized as part of the uniformitarian concept?You see, this was all explained to me in my very first Geology course. That's something you miss by going straight to the professional papers and monographs ... the background to be able to critically analyze what you read. As a result you have been sucked in by the professional creationists who give you only a part of the story. I am sorry that they have taken advantage of you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
I think you are missing the point. No one on here, to my knowledge, has said that every layer of sediment MUST form slowly over eons of time. Some don't and you are not getting a quibble about that.

---

But, Joe, eolian cross-beds have been shown to form in only seconds. Why, it couldn't have taken more than a couple of days to deposit the Navajo Sandstone!(Oh yeah... )

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I think you are missing the point. No one on here, to my knowledge, has said that every layer of sediment MUST form slowly over eons of time. Some don't and you are not getting a quibble about that."

​

--He didn't assert this at all as a 'must', but as something that should be considered.

---

However, there is an implication that this is evidence that the geological record could be formed in a one year flood. If you do not believe this to be the case, I suggest that you make that clear and also have some words with the professional creationists who misuse this same information.

quote:

---

"What you have done is make a giant leap (sans evidence) that ALL sedimentary layers were laid down quickly. That you have provided no evidence for whatsoever! Not one of those quotes suggests that all sedimentary layers are laid down in seconds or minutes."

​

--He didn't say that this suggests that all sedimentary layers have been laid down quickly, but attempted to give support on his assertion that there isn't much of a problem with rapid depositions.

---

No geologist has ever said so. So what is the point?

quote:

---

"The Navajo is a late Triassic-Jurassic sandstone with wind directions alternating from the N to NW and it contains rare reptilian tracks. This is overlain by the continental fluviatile Morrison Fm and finally by Cretaceous marine sediments and finally by coal beds. Here's where the problem comes in for a flood scenario of Cambrian-Cretaceous age. All of these units contain reptilian fossils with the exception of the marine sediments (which interfinger with continental ones). Most importantly, these coal beds contain dinosaur trackways that are in beds above what many consider the end of the flood. Why is this important? Well, assuming the flood took one year and there were two dinosaurs on board, and the boat landed in Turkey, then it does not leave much time for the dinosaurs to repopulate the earth and walk around in the vegetation mats left by the flood. Any explanation for these observations?"

​

--The C-T boundary isn't the end of the Flood on my watch, and I believe it is likewise for Tranquility.

---

You still have the same problem. In fact, you have less time to repopulate the earth.

quote:

---

"Can you also tell me about all the flood waters that occupied the same area before the dune deposits? None of these observations make sense to me in terms of a singl Noachian flood."

​

--Think I need some emphasis, or clarity. Not sure what your asking.

---

I think Joe is asking where did the flood waters go so that you could have eolian deposits in the middle of a global flood.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Edge and Joe, I have to say that you really did do exactly what TC suggested. You tried to say that I said my refs were 'proof' that the flood generated the GC when I of course said nothing of the sort. [/QUOTE]Well then, you should say what you mean. Otherwise, we have to guess. No need to be coy.

quote:

---

I understand that you don't like what I'm saying becasue it challenges something you are convinced of but if we treated each others actual specific points seriously then we could have a far more educational experience on both sides.

---

Actually, nothing you have said is a surprise at all. It's just that you don't know the whole story, so your conclusions are a bit out of alignment with reality.Perhaps more later.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe, in all the texts I have read the origin of the sedimentary record is decribed via analogy with modern gradualistic means. Catastrophism is hardly mentioned in these texts. When it is it is as an anomoly.

---

Nonsense. I learned catastrophism (well, let's just say) a long time ago in my first Geology course.

quote:

---

I have a simple first year geology textbook in my hands (Chernicoff) and the origin of the GC is described in this fasion.

---

That is probably because for the GC, it is basically true. Some sediments are deposited slowly, others rapidly. Do you really think that we didn't notice rapid deposition of pyroclastic flows? How about the slow deposition of reefal limestones? Really, you take a single isolated fact and build a story without looking at the surrounding data.

quote:

---

In each of the detailed texts on the 'origin of sedimentary rocks' (Selley (1996), Blatt et al (1980), Pettijohn (1974)) there are literally (I'm serious) about 1000 pages on analogies with modern gradualistic processes and a couple of pages on catastophic means of generating layering. I am not kidding. I read these books from cover to cover.

---

I thought you gave us some references from Batt, et al. that talked about rapid sedimentation. In fact, you had several quotes that talked about rapid sedimentation. Please explain.

quote:

---

The amazing thing is that this is never propoerly reconciled (IMO) with the paleocurrent data which IMO tells a story that is consistent with catastrophism even though this option is ignored in the mainstream texts.

---

Sorry, but I am unfamiliar with this paleocurrent information. What is it?By the way, I am also completely unfamiliar with trees that have survived more than one cyclothem. Could you please document this? I have heard of them being rooted in an organic paleosol and then overwhelmed by a number of sand and silt layers, but never a complete cyclothem as you have defined them. I have heard that no trees penetrate a superposed coal seam.I also wonder if you have ever considered the time between depositions of each cycle? Or the time necessary to grow new layers of sufficient organics to form the coal beds? Or the apparent necessity of multiple floods to form the cycles? Your theory needs a lot of work, TB.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
And regardless of Hill's evidence we all know that there are many many examples of polystrate fossils world wide demonstrating that 50 foot sections have been rapidly laid down. When the layering is just the same for the upper and lower 1000 feet why not the entire formation rapidly?[/B][/QUOTE]There is no problem with inundation by great thicknesses of sand or silt in a storm-type deposit. The problem is that these things don't happen every year. Usually, there are long periods of non-deposition or slow deposition between the greater events. In fact, some of these sections are probably eroded away, permitting more time into the geological record. Just because a layer can form in minutes does not mean that all layers do so. Neither does it mean that there are not long periods of time between the catastrophic events. You need a more rounded education, TB.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Hill talks about polystrate trees passing through multiple cyclothem cycles (ie it passes from one 10 layered cycle into another 10 layered cycle). These cycles are themselves part of 50-100 repetions. Semantics aside it is clear what he is talking about!

---

You wouldn't have a picture of this, would you? I am also interested in knowing if they are actually 10-layered cycles. In most cases a cyclothem is not a complete, ideal set.

quote:

---

Hill is simply saying that the polystrate tree trunk proves that two of the cyclothems happened very rapidly.

---

For all I know this is possible. However, this would not dictate that all cyclothems are deposited "rapidly."

quote:

---

If the rest of the cycles above and below look the same, and are conformable, it is reasonable (in fact it compells one) to assume that they all occurred rapidly as part of the same event.

---

Not at all. The development of paleosoils and vegetation, compel one to believe that there was a lengthy time between some of the layers in a cyclothem.

quote:

---

Forget about me, forget about my educaiton.

---

I cannot do that. I must explain, at least to myself, even if you don't want to admit it, why your picture is out of focus.

quote:

---

Just read Hill. It could just be that the uniformitarian paradigm just doesn't allow you to consider the possibility that Hill is right, ...

---

I'm sorry, but the article looks like it is from an obscure(?) journal (at least to me), and is not part of the typical professional geological literature.

quote:

---

...paleosoils or no paleosoils.

---

Sure. Let's just ignore them.

quote:

---

These are not storm deposits Edge - these are vast beds covering tens of thousands of square miles. the coal seams can be tracked across half of North America!

---

I was just using storm deposits as an example of rapidly deposited sediments. And, no, they cannot be traced half way across North America. According to my textbook, they may cover up to one or two states. Remember, our states are smaller.

quote:

---

Edge, the excerpts from Blatt were part of the '2 pages' on catastrophioc geology I could find in his book. I'm not kidding.

---

Well, then that probably is comparable in the amount of time that catastrophic deposition actually took place in geological history. Did the book say anything about turbidites? Those are catastrophic, but I'll bet you didn't count those in your "2 pages." Or perhaps most of us just accept catastrophism as a normal part of an overall uniformitarianist approach. You sound shocked, but really I know of no geologist that does not accept catastrophism. If you had actually taken a course in Geology, you might have picked this up.

quote:

---

The paleocurrent data is data gathered from ripple marks and fossil and rock orientation (averaged over the sample)...

---

Averaged, eh? Why do they have to be averaged if the direction was always the same?

quote:

---

... that enable the flow direction/velocities to be reconstructed. The paleocurrent maps of your country demonstrate that much of the Mesozoic and Paleozoic formations were generated under rapid flow and I think in a SW orientation. In some cases researchers have expressed shock that 'for 200 million' years the flows were constant in direction/orientaiton.

---

I seriously doubt this. Climatic patterns have relied on many other global characterisics from angle of the earths tilt toward the sun and the position of the oceans for very long lengths of time. I can't imagine that ocean currents are much different. I have heard the same thing about the wind direction on top of all of Colorado's high peaks. However, I remember once when I was on Sunlight, there was actually no wind at all. That was actually amazing.My suggestion is that prevailing current directions were pretty steady; but do not assume that this means all current directions were in the same direction. You seem to have the same problem here as with the cyclothems. Some beds are deposited quickly, so the ALL must be deposited quickly. The average current directions are consistent, so ALL currents are in the same direction. I can assure you that I have personnally seen multiple current directions in cross-bedded sandstones of the southwest.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 05-20-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Edge, cyclothems have such a specific signature (thats' why there's jargon for them) that if we show that a couple of cyles are undoubtedly rapid then it does behove one to prpopose that the entire sequence was rapid. [/QUOTE]The first problem is that, as far as I can see, you have not shown this. My own experience and Joe T's reference to Glenn Morton clearly indicate a misunderstanding regarding polystrate fossils in the cyclothems.

quote:

---

Less tha ndecades vs hundreds of thousands of years would almost undoubtedly leave different signatures. Of course we allow for the unlikely possibility that the two mechanisms could generate the same signature but our working model should be the first option. That's science and that's common sense too.

---

Okay, show us that this occurred in decades. You have not done so thus far. The 'signature' that I see says much longer periods of time, not even including the inter cyclothem period.

quote:

---

I certainly don't want to ignore paleosoils - I understand the argeument, but polystrate fossil beats paelosoils for me.

---

Sorry, but the theory must accomodate both.

quote:

---

If there are paleosoils at various heights along a polystrate tree trunk then I suspect that your paleosoil arguement just bit the dust. I can easily imagine soils being transported under certain conditions.

---

Imagination is exactly what it is.

quote:

---

OK, from my itroductory 'Chernicoff', the coal does fall in three state-sized patches in Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pittsburg and Pennsylvania with gaps of no coal but it interbeds with shale, limestone and sandstone that is correlated over the entire distance from Kansas to Pennsylvania. It is undeniable that this sub-continental structure is best viewed as a single phenomonon.

---

THe problem here is that you are talking about coal. Before you were talking about a single cyclothem.

quote:

---

Paleocurrent data is averaged because the particle orientations are only statistically point in the flow direction.

---

I could take any data set and come up with an average direction...

quote:

---

Any individual particle (organism/pebble) can point along the flow. But if the ere is a statistically significant non-zero orientaiton after abveraging then it is due to flow (what else!).

---

Show us the data then, not just averages.

quote:

---

It is a mainstream result anyway. Any geology course on sedimentology teaches it.

---

Good, then you can explain how many of these courses you have had and who taught them. I had Murray, for one.

quote:

---

If you doubt my paelocurrent statements I suggest you read any of Pettijohn, Selley or Blatt et al. The maps are there. The 'shock' of the researchers is quoted, at least in Pettijohn.

---

Good, then you can give us the quote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, the point about the paleocurrent data is that

​

(i) these are statistically significant averages - ie the error bars are less than the measurement and

---

I still would like to see your data. There are obviously some currents that diverge from the average. I can't believe that you (all) can think that paleocurrents do not waver, but radiometric decay is completely undependable! This is utter silliness.

quote:

---

(ii) they all point in the same direction (within 30 deg or so) across much of Nth America in stratigrphaical time and space.

---

All point in the same direction? You quote does not confirm this. Where does your 30 degree number come from?

quote:

---

Here is an excerpt I copied from a sedimentology text a few months ago:

​

...

---

Nothing about scatter in the data here. I'm not really sure what your point is, however. So what if the prevailing current directions were consistent over extended periods?

quote:

---

And I have not done any geology courses but have surmised that they teach about paleocurrents becasue the powerpoint slides of 2nd and 3rd year geology courses have paleocurrents discussed on them! I learnt about them first in Pettijohn etc.

---

I am afraid that I do not see what is so shocking about this. Interesting, yes, but shocking? No.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I believe the data together does talk of rapidity and incredible continuity in the laying down of the geological column.

---

You are still confused. The rapidity of an event is not necessarily indicative of rapidity of the entire record. And I really wish you guys would get your act together. We usually have creationists complaining that the geological record is so incomplete that it must be made up.

quote:

---

The paleocurrent data tells us that the vast majority of the continetnal deposits on NorthAmerica were a single phenomenon.

---

Nonsense. If the rain runs down my driveway the same direction every time it rains, does that mean that all of the rainstorms came at once? Can I make this any clearer?

quote:

---

I don't doubt that Lyellian analysis can find river deltas and coastal regions etc but as a whole the paelocurrent data tells us that it was a big constant flow issue for tens of thousands of feet of strata!

---

Lyellian analysis? Sheesh! Is that the latest reference you can find on mainstream sedimentology?

quote:

---

Sure there were river delatas cut out and coastal boundaries but the thing as a whole was a single event.

---

NO!!! River deltas are not cut out! They are filled in! Do you know how many river deltas there are in the geological sequence. Man, you're butchering the science of geology.

quote:

---

I presume that these guys above aren't denying the existnce of polystrate tree trunks in general - they at least prove the rapid deposition of 50 feet of layered strata. This is seen all around the world and discrediting one kettle coal mine example wont do.

---

Perhaps all caps would help here. No one denies the existence of rapidly deposited sediments. However, that does not mean that all sediments were deposited rapidly.

quote:

---

We already know from both lab work and Mt St Helens that layering can occur rapidly.

---

AAAARARAGGGHhgg/. Are your really trying to compare continental shelf sedimentation with proximal volcanic deposits?

quote:

---

When we see tree trunks passing through dozens of feet of strata I think we just have to accept the truth. This doesn't prove Noah but it is suggestive.

---

And the truth is that some deposits are rapid. Many are not. And even if they are, there are extended intervals between catastrophic events.TB, you are getting more and more tedious. Coutesy demands that I leave it at that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
80% are within +- 30 deg of the SW direction.

---

This seems to be at odds with the data Moose presents from Pettijohn. So, maybe the currents were not quite so consistent?

quote:

---

Obviously due to local topgraphy some arrows aren't but it is clear that there was a constant flow...

---

The data from Pettijohn do not indicate a constant, as you describe it, flow direction, only a prevailing direction.

quote:

---

... 'for tens of millions of years' (as testified in the quotes I gave) across Nth America in the SW direction that was modulated locally by mountains ranges etc.

---

As we have seen above, the direction is not SW and there is variation in the data. It is not constant, unless you wish to redefine 'constant' also.

quote:

---

We think this data demonstrates that the vast majority of continental deposits were huge flood deposits ...

---

This does not logically follow. Your cyclothem argument has been devastated, and yet you cling to this notion.

quote:

---

... and that drainage carved the river deltas and coastal boundaries from stata that were as yet unhardened.

---

Once again, river deltas are not erosional features, but depositional features. So you are saying that that rock fragments that form conglomerates were soft when they were plucked from their original site? Do you really think that this makes sense?

quote:

---

We really don't want to throw out Lyell, believe me - I actaully like the guy.

---

TB, you are not throwing out Lyell, you are torturing the whole science of Geology.

quote:

---

But he only explained half the story in our opinions - ...

---

Well, he did his work over a hundred years ago. I'm not sure what you expect from him.

quote:

---

... the drainage part of the flood and not the depostional. We believe he got the time factor way out becasue of course he's talking about carving through solid rock whereas we're talking about (i) huge amounts of water and (ii) carving out soft sediments.

---

Think about this now. Are you familiar with the composition of sedimentary rocks? How do rock fragments that obviously come from the eroded terrane occur within conglomerates and graywackes that form much of the Appalachians, for instance? If the sediments in the source terrane were soft, how does this happen? Maybe you should reread Lyell.

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Quoting myself, from message 69:

​

I thought I should step in, before this gets futher out of hand.

​

I posted that graphic to illustrate paleocurrent variability and consistancy. It is not the data TB was specificly referring to, in his original citing of Pettijohn.

​

Of course, none of this means that I agree with the conclusions he's comming to.

---

I think the problem here is what is 'constant' and what is 'prevailing.' If TB wants to say that the prevailing currents are surprisingly consistent, and leaves it at that, there is absolutely nothing one can say to refute it. However, to say that the currents are constant over hundreds of millions of years, and therefor they represent a single event, is completely unsupportable.

[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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We really don't have the big problem you guys think we do with soils. The flood occurred in surges and washed soils from higher regions step by step. So we get soils washed down and layering at different levels with each surge.

---

Just where did these transported soils come from? I thought the entire world was flooded. What is the source? I mean, you can only call upon surges for so long before there is no longer any land mass for soils to be developed on. And what about the time for these soils to be developed? How do you pack all of this into a year's time?By the way, are these surges described in the bible as part of the flood? I've often wondered how creationists manage to embellish the flood details when the bible is said to be a literal and accurate account.