Rapid generation of layers in the GC

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe T:
As the fully PhDed Dr. Meert pointed out, TB’s original quote in this thread is misattributed. In TB’s defense the place he got this from is a mess, with poor referencing. It is difficult to determine what is quoted and from whom it is quoted. The quote comes from http://www.biblestudymanuals.com/k31.htm and is reproduced below with TB’s excerpt bolded.

---

JM: Thanks JT, that site is horrendous. They talk about 1940-50's geosynclinal hypothesis as if it were the geologic standard! Now, I can't tell for sure, but the tree quote appears to come from a creationist rather than a geologist (Patton). The page is such a mess and it is my guess that someone poorly transcribed a very old text on ye-creationism. Now, I would say that a layperson might copy this material blindly to a website, but a scientist should have been a bit more careful. Interestingly, on the web page the claim is made that 6 hours is enough to convert everything to coal. I believe there are several scaling problems with that conclusion not to mention the fact that the material may have taken millions of years to reach depths/pressures necessary to start the exothermic process leading to coalification. It is also important to remember that the pressure used in the experiment was a bit high.CheersJoe Meert

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Well thanks for doing the leg work Joe, I appreciate it. I really did want to get to the bottom of that one becuase it's only on one creationist site (which did seem odd).

​

I will now do the rest of the leg work and find out where the quote really comes from. The only thing I can imagine is that it comes from the more complete transcript of his acceptance speech? So can I just check - you're saying that in the entire article those paragraphs aren't there? The creationist site does also quotes his coal stuff.

​

Well, we'll have to put this particular discussion on hold until we can find out (i) where those paragraphs come from and (ii) where those cyclothem sites are around the world with polystrate fossils passing through cycles.

​

I personally do not doubt that he said those words but let's see.

​

---

JM: I doubt very much that he said those words. They DO sound very much like Don Patton, creationist.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]My cyclothem quote was meant to cover your point but I'm going to have to find an independent source on this ( I feel like Bob Woodward and Deep Throat wont go on the record) via my flood geologist contacts. [/QUOTE]JM: What kind of (excuse me) crap is that? A geologist who is not willing to lay their ideas on the carpet? This is a first for me!

quote:

---

I believe the data together does talk of rapidity and incredible continuity in the laying down of the geological column. The paleocurrent data tells us that the vast majority of the continetnal deposits on NorthAmerica were a single phenomenon.

---

JM: That's an absurd argument. You've presented us solely with misquoted evidence and 'secret witnesses'. I think if you look carefully at the cyclothems (and edge can speak better to this) you'll find an incredible diversity from Pa to Kansas. What is common to them is that the sea waxed and waned to produce the cycles. The paleocurrent data (which you've yet to provide original sources for) is probably 'consistent' in general terms. Would not a global tempest produce a more chaotic pattern?

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!

---

JM: We've come a long way since Lyell though he was instrumental in the development of the science of observational geology. Have you actually seen cyclothems in the field? I ask, because for a geologist such a question is extremely important.

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.

---

JM: They are not as common as you are trying to make them appear. The 'term' polystrate is not a geological term, it is one developed by and for creationism and as such has no use in geology. For example, I typed the word 'polystrate' in GEOREF and it returned only one hit (a rebuttal at TalkORigins).

quote:

---

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

---

JM: Could you show me the passages in the Noachian story that refer to massive volcanic eruptions and polystrate tree formation? By the way, I still want to know when you think the flood started (i.e. which strata are pre, syn and post flood? ThanksCheersJoe Meert[/b][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]I know the problem is that my mainstream quote turned into a non-mainstream unfindable quote![/QUOTE]JM: You cannot know that. All you know is that some poorly referenced website contains these words and THAT is all you know. In fact, I've already shown that one of the assertions you made (via references) is not what was really said. Look, show me and I am convinced, but don't make absurd claims that these quotes are 'real' until you can show that they are.

quote:

---

But I'm also frustrated that I can't find mainstream references to these polystrate trunks. I know you say we invented the word (I'll reserve judgment on that) but they certainly exist and they should be of interest to everybody.

---

JM: Because it is a creationist invented term! Why are you so afraid of inventing terminology? Radical science requires new terms, don't back down based on terminology.

quote:

---

But 'polystrate' regardless of who made up the word is a dirty word and subject and I believe that's why it is hard to find. I know you probably disagree. You can't deny it has a stigma attached to it.

---

JM: You keep saying this as if the existence of these types of fossils has a stigma attached to it. They do not. What is stigmatized is the creationist assertion that these are somehow unexplainable in conventional geology. No matter how you refer to them, mainstream geology finds no problem with their existence. Can you show me where it does?

quote:

---

Can you deny that polystrate fossils should be interesting to geolgists?

---

JM: Interesting, sure. Troubling (which is your real point), NO.

quote:

---

Then where are the reviews on it? There should be reviews on 'Consequences of polystrate fossils to uniformitarian models of bed formation' etc.

---

JM: Why? They don't provide any special problems except for those invented by ye-creationists. You are spending a lot of time arguing that these are problematic and hinting at some conspiracy, but we've been repeatedly telling you that this is not really an issue that modern geology finds troubling. Stop inventing things!

quote:

---

Joe - by the way, in life sciences we have Medline (biology/chemistry). What web links do you have for abstract searching for earth sciences?

---

JM: I would think you would know this! It's called GEOREF (as I mentioned). You know, for a 'Phded' scientist, you've played pretty fast and loose with your references/sources. I trust this is due more to your naivete with the subject matter rather than your M.O. in scientific studies. I can honestly say that many of your 'references' are things I've come to expect from teenagers and layman rather than those of a trained scientist. I learned to use a variety of scientific referencing systems long ago and would be EXTREMELY hesistant to cite a website without researching the original material ahead of time.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
In my very first ref to Chemtech I admitted that I had found it on the web. I also had (two months ago) tried to find Chemtech on campus. Almost no biologist (or particle physicist for that matter) has ever heard of GEOREF of course! Both of thosegroups are qute insular. I'm a generalist (and also do Windows programming) but unfortunately my tentacles hadn't reached to GEOREF yet . Thanks for the tip and give me a couple of breaks on my moonlighting!

---

JM: well, how come I've heard of, and used, the many biological reference systems? Your map of paleocurrents show tremendous variability and, in fact, refute your own statement regarding their consistency. You've effectively refuted your own argument!
good job!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^Thanks Moose. ^^And Joe, I hope you wont mind if I stick to Pettijohn et als view of the relative consistency spatially and temporally! And remember that map doesn't even show the consistency over time commented on by the mainstream researchers in the quotes I cited.

​

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

---

JM: Well, Pettijohn's data are certainly consistent for the central Appalachians as we might expect but they most certainly are not within +/- 30 degrees of SW. If anything, they are consistently to the NW (nearly 90 degrees from your claim). SW is 225.CheersJoe Meert

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

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]

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

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]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]--A lack in transitional fields? I presume you are addressing a transition in polarity. In this case, we find nothing but transitions in field intensity.[/QUOTE]JM: You showed reversals, not transitional fields. Deep-tow is not able to resolve fine features associated with transitionals.

quote:

---

"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."
--I'm not sure what your getting at. 'Rapid changes in inclination and declination'? What constitutes it as being 'rapid'. Paleomagnetic data as it pertains to inclination and declination of the magnetic field records the orientation or direction of the remanent field.

---

JM: Those rapid directional changes are features of a transitional field.

quote:

---

--[1] - Not only do we look at Depositional Remanent Magnetism (DRM), but we also look toward NRM, TRM, and CRM (Natural, thermoremanent, and chemical remanent magnetism). So these processes of magnetic orientation should have been presented as well.

---

JM: Actually NRM is not usually useful in determining fine structure of transitional fields since it represents a vector sum of all components in the rock. TRM is good at recording transitional fields provided the conditions are right. CRM, so far as I know is not useful in recording transitional fields.

quote:

---

--[2] - Hematite is nothing special except in that it is a ferromagnetic mineral (And thus is a mineral which may orient themselves as the magnetic field directs), which also includes magnetite, pyrrhotite, etc.

---

JM: Actually, hematite is anti-ferromagnetic and strictly speaking should not carry a remanence! The remanence is commonly due to the canting of the magnetic moments or to defects in the lattice structure.

quote:

---

--[3] - In referencing the Kiaman Long Reversed interval and the Cretaceous Long Normal Interval as 'all' specific polarity, is a bit misleading If I am not mistaken.

---

JM: You are mistaken.

quote:

---

--I think that Radiometrics may be valuable as evidence in the construction of Pangea in the case of the Global Flood.

---

JM: Do you mean radiometric dating? Or the use of isotopes? While isotopes are used in radiometric dating, not all isotope work is based on decay.

quote:

---

A stage in larger fractionation processes involves chemical alteration of the freshly emplaced oceanic crust by seawater via vigorous hydrothermal circulation near the spreading ridge where temperatures are high. Cooling produces volumetric contraction that leads to formation of fractures and allows seawater to penetrate to fine spatial scales and significant depths. Hydrothermal activity is effective in extracting Pb from the basaltic crust and precipitating it in metalliferous sulfide deposits. As the lithosphere migrates away from the ridge it is eventually covered by a blanket of sediment that tends to reduce the hydrothermal flow. Though studies may suggest that significant hydrothermal flow occurs far away from mid-ocean ridges and that the sediment blanket is less effective in restricting such flow than once believed [Baumgardner, 2000] [Stein and Stein, 1994]. Of course this is only one of many evidences as you very well know.

---

JM: How does this relate to 'radiometrics' as defined by you? I think you are cribbing material and posting it as relevant. Unfortunately, sans context, this looks totally out of place in the scheme of your post. Could you rephrase this again in English and tell me what significance it has for the flood and 'radiometrics'?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

--I must say then, I am not sure what you mean by a transitional field. Might you cite a piece of data as an example for some clarification? Show why what we see today in this lack of transitions is evidence for slow paleomagnetic activity. As well as showing what I should expect in rapid reversals and why.

---

JM: A transitional field is a field which exists in-between a normal and reverse field.

quote:

---

--If I interpret your statement rightly and contrast it to what my source says, it is either a TRM, CRM, or DRM, though are not necessarily combined to produce an average vector orientation, it may just be a use of one of the three. I think this is reasonable (while a bit contrary to exactly what you said) by stating in my source while discussing Paleomagnetism, 'A rock can acquire NRM in several ways' and then proceeding directly after in discussing TRM, CRM, and DRM.

---

JM: Well, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Simply put, an NRM is a vector sum of all magnetizations be they CRM, DRM, TRM, pTRM or VRM.

quote:

---

--We can agree on TRM. CRM may be very speculative in mainstream paleomagnetic studies, though may hold some use for hematite orientations. As hematite is usually formed by oxidation and reduction in sediments.

---

JM: CRM is not speculative. It happens. The question is whether or not CRM will faithfully record transitional fields. In some cases, it might but pTRM or DRM is probably more likely to do the trick.

quote:

---

"JM: Actually, hematite is anti-ferromagnetic and strictly speaking should not carry a remanence! The remanence is commonly due to the canting of the magnetic moments or to defects in the lattice structure."
--Well G-whiz! Yet they acquire a weak permanent magnetism when formed. What are the implications of your second sentence?

---

JM: I am trying to get you to use the right terms and understand the process. Strictly speakying a purely antiferromagnetic mineral will not carry an interpretable remanence. They can, through defects and canting acquire a remanence.{quote--Yes I know, 'Radiometrics' is just a word that I picked up from other people in discussions on the subject, synonymous with 'a radiometric dating technique'.[/quote]JM: It's a poor choice of a word.

quote:

---

--To summarize, because of the mobility of Pb by the effects of hydrothermal flow in basalt, you may have older dates as you increase in distance from the spreading ridge, this is only one simple suggestion. Others may be more plausible for the distribution of radioisotopes in MORB's. Whichever the reason, distribution shows that there was some mechanism by which a decrease in parent isotopes are present in more distant basalt, as new basalt widens the oceans.

---

JM: This is one of those 'just so' 'couldamightabeen' stories with no data to back it up. It is just as probable that it could produce younger ages, mixed ages or may not be relevant at all. Until you can show evidence for this actually happening in the orderly manner needed to make the oceans look older than they are, you won't find it of much use. Plus, you've got that nagging issue of ocean floor morphology which pretty much shows us that the ocean REALLY is older the further you move away from the ridge. Geologists are way ahead of you with data, you're only at the inconsistent, conjecture phase.CheersJoe Meert