Rapid generation of layers in the GC

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!

​

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

Edge, the excerpts from Blatt were part of the '2 pages' on catastrophioc geology I could find in his book. I'm not kidding.The paleocurrent data is data gathered from ripple marks and fossil and rock orientation (averaged over the sample) 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.Cyclothem/trees evidence? I can only point you to what Hill is saying.

​

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

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.------------------
You are go for TLI

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. 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.I certainly don't want to ignore paleosoils - I understand the argeument, but polystrate fossil beats paelosoils for me. 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.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.Paleocurrent data is averaged because the particle orientations are only statistically point in the flow direction. 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!). It is a mainstream result anyway. Any geology course on sedimentology teaches it. 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.------------------
You are go for TLI

Joe T, thanks for that info although I don't think a link to some research done for a web post is exactly conclusive!I'll contact Snelling et al on the issue and tell you where their egs come from and we can take it from there.In any case this is all very educational. I must admit I did become convinced that mainstreamers had begun to believe that the vast coal fields (eg across eastern USA) were deposited catastrophically. I'm still convinced that Austin et als catastrophic floating mat mecahnism (and not state-sized peet bogs) is the better answer by far.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

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

Fair enough. Regardless of who said it I still think it's correct but we do need to find these cyclothem polystrates I agree.

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
(ii) they all point in the same direction (within 30 deg or so) across much of Nth America in stratigrphaical time and space.Here is an excerpt I copied from a sedimentology text a few months ago:

quote:

---

F.J. Pettijohn Sedimentary Rocks 3rd Ed Harper & Row (New York) 1974
p520-521 "The stability or persistence of a particular paleocurrent system through time is indeed one of the most astonishing results of paleocurrent measurements. Cross-bedding in a 12,000 foot (3,660m) sequence in the Moine series of Scotland displays a uniformity of orientation throughout which was described by Sir Edward Bailey as "the most surprising single phenomenon" displayed by these strata (Wilson et al Geol Mag 90,377-387 (1953)). Pelletier (Pelletier et al Bull Geol Soc Amer 69, 1-33-1064 (1958)) has shown mean current direction to remain constant in strata ranging from Upper Devonian (Catskill) to Pennsylvanian (Pottsville) in age of Pennsylvania and Maryland. This means essentially stable paleoslope for a period of 150 to 200 milion years."

---

I terms of spatial consistency all I can say is that I have seen the maps.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.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

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

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.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. 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! Sure there were river delatas cut out and coastal boundaries but the thing as a whole was a single event.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.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.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

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

I know the problem is that my mainstream quote turned into a non-mainstream unfindable 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. 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.Can you deny that polystrate fossils should be interesting to geolgists? Then where are the reviews on it? There should be reviews on 'Consequences of polystrate fossils to uniformitarian models of bed formation' etc.Joe - by the way, in life sciences we have Medline (biology/chemistry). What web links do you have for abstract searching for earth sciences?------------------
You are go for TLI

​

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

I wasn't surprised by this data - it's the mainstream researchers who first discovered it that got surprised (see the quotes from Pettijohn)!Here are the North American palezoic paleocurrents: http://geology.swau.edu/paleocur/pznorth.html80% are within +- 30 deg of the SW direction. Obviously due to local topgraphy some arrows aren't but it is clear that there was a constant flow '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.We think this data demonstrates that the vast majority of continental deposits were huge flood deposits and that drainage carved the river deltas and coastal boundaries from stata that were as yet unhardened. We really don't want to throw out Lyell, believe me - I actaully like the guy. But he only explained half the story in our opinions - 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.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

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

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!------------------
You are go for TLI

^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]

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).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.PS - the continental map I showed demonstrates that over the continent there is a prevailing direction of paleocurrents spatially - sure with local perturbations. The graphs Moose posted show that temporally we have good consistency too in at least one location. My earlier quotes show that this is not an isolated incident.

​

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

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.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?On conglomerates, I'm not saying that the flood only eroded new sediments. Even at Mt St Helens we know that the mud flows carved canyons out of both soft new sediment and solid rock as well.------------------
You are go for TLI

I agree Mark.