|
Author
|
Topic: Non-marine sediments
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Thanks - Moose - I'm aware of this but it's good to have it sitting in front of us. What I'm trying to point out is that in the non-marine beds of the Grand Canyon series there are very few 'genuine' unconformities - ie where there is erosion visible - gullies etc. I would actually normally expect gradually formed non-marine beds to be pretty messed up. So what is the mainstream understanding of the nicely layered non-marnine formations like at Grand Canyon.
Just a couple of quick comments. First, it is not at all uncommon (and seems logical) that many unconformities plane off the lower beds giving the appearance of evenness, though the deposits may have consisted of large sand dunes. Imagine a coastal plain sliced level by wave action of a receding or advancing sea. Second, it can be said that all bedding planes or laminae represent brief unconformities. Many are so short that there is no erosion or folding, but others, for instance those which often define a set of cross-beds, do give evidence of some erosion and are often planar. [This message has been edited by edge, 05-28-2002] [This message has been edited by edge, 05-28-2002]
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm not saying that non-neatly layered terrestial fromations don't exist. But for the neatly layered ones that do exist, such as Hermit Shale or Supai how did they from from a mainstream POV?
Not sure, but it seems to be part of a regressive sequence, with a gradual transition from marine(?) Redwall to eolian Coconino. See how this fits right in with the presence of an epeiric sea that is in regression? You seem to think that non-marine deposits are completely independent of the marine and have nothing to do with epeiric seas. It isn't so.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The marine merging into non-marine fits our scenario too.
Yes, but this is non-marine, eolian. Just a little detail that completely demolishes your scenario. Not to mention the detail of an unconformity beween the Hermit and Coconino.
quote:
But here's the important point. In your vast layered non-marine Grand Canyon deposits why do we get land plant fossils strewn throughout these hundreds of thousands of square miles of strata? Why not just at the lake/sea edges? There is nowhere on earth where vast quantities of land plants get dragged hundreds of miles out to sea?
First of all you are probably wrong on that point. But more importantly, we have just talked about how several of the formations are non-marine. Why should the not have plant fossils?
quote:
I think you'll find that layered non-marine beds will not have very good mainstream explanations Edge - but surprise me. We think a vast flood explains this data very nicely - not to mention cyclothems and coal.
What??? Are you not paying attention again? We just discussed how the Hermit Shale is a swamp deposit, the Coconino Sand is a dune deposit, and the Supai consists of offshore bars and beaches. Why are these not explained by mainstream geology? And your really don't want to be emabarassed by cyclothems again do you? We showed earlier that you really have no idea what they mean. Are you feeling okay? Usually I take it as an extreme case of disrespect when people disregard my posts completely. [This message has been edited by edge, 05-30-2002]
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, I have seen eoloian pronouncements reveresed in the literature, I have seen the difficulty of eolian/aqueous identifications explained and I have seen evidence of amphibians in your eolian sediments. You want refs - give me some time.
Yes, reversed in the creationist literature. And really they are not that difficult to discern if one is a well trained sedimentologist. As to the amphibians, so what? How are they going to leave tracks in deep water that is moving so fast as to produce marine dune forms? It simply does not make sense. But you ignore this fact.
quote:
The point about land plant fossils is that they are, from my reading, strewn throughout thousadns of square miles of layered deposists without unconformities internal to the series. That is a flood in anyones' language, and a big one at that.
First, there are unconformities. In a strict sense, every bedding plane is an unconformity. In fact the Hermit shale was deposited at an unconformity. Why do you feel that this is evidence for a flood? I don't see it. Try to give me evidence rather than just make assertions.
quote:
I am not ignoring your posts. We are having a back and forth discussion where we each clear up each others misunderstandings. I don't have a problem with shore lines! Even our vast formations have boundaries. The point is that within the neat layered compnent there are vast land plant fossil containing strata.
Yes, swamps would do that.
quote:
You can keep side-tracking to the sea boundaries if you want but I'm talking about the component of it that I don't think you can easily explain! I'm not talking about the boundaries because I already understand how that could have arisen via mainstream mechanisms.
Yes, and if they can have arisen from mainstream mechanisms then they cannot be used as diagnostic evidence for a flood.
quote:
You continually misrepresent my posts as misunderstandings when often I already understand the component that you are trying to explain as if it was news to me. You think I don't understand that seas have boundaries?
I don't remember saying anything like that. And they are misunderstandings. YOu do not have the background to critically analyze what you read in the creationist literature. You misunderstand pravailing current directions. You misunderstand epeiric seas and how they formed. The problem is that you come here with a preconceived notion that basically means all geology prior to Morris is wrong.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It's possible we both overstate our cases. I still think a lot of your sceanrios are 'just so' scenarios just as much as you say mine are. The only way to better resolve it would be for me to become a geologist and even then we would still probably have to agree to disagree.
You may want to review what happend to one YEC when he became a professional geologist and was confronted with the evidence. Try this link:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gstory.htm quote:
IMO the non-marine layers of the geological column generally speak of continuous deposition and the inserted millions of years of missing time with little evidence of disruption are perhaps not impossible but are certainly not a selling point for your arguement.
Are you saying that you don't believe in unconformities? How do you explain the obvious unconformity at the base of the Paleozoic section? Do you think no time was required for this discontinuity in deposition? Do you think that subaerial deposits are necessarily continuous in deposition? Do you not think that fluvial environments are partly erosional? We have explained these mechanisms to you a number of times. Why do you simply ignore these explanations?(rhetorical question, I think we know the answer).
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, I am aware of Morton, but there are flood geologists that used to be mainstream geologists too.
Good. Give us some references. Is Stuart Nevins one of them? {added by edit} I meant Steve Austin, but does that really matter?
quote:
How could what I say be interpreted as not believing in unconformities?
Well, you weren't very clear.
quote:
What I am saying is that there are about a dozen major formation/formation unconformities in the Grand Canyon (and even these have relatively small relief). Within the formations the sequences are remarkably free of major unconformities!
Yes, and just what does this mean to you? Why should there be many unconformities? Maybe there are. Do you understand that the top of virtually every cross bed is an erosional surface?
quote:
Some here are trying to say that every layer is an unconformity and that is simply not true - no sedimentologist would agree with that.
Good, lets hear a quote or a reference. Not being a sedimentologist myself, I would like to be enlightened.
quote:
IMO, in the non-marine formations you guys should have a lot more unconformities than you do although Wehappyfew claims that continuous deposition on land is currently generating non-marine strata indistinguishable in basic character from the Supai or Hermit.
And? Are you saying that swamp deposits are not presently deposited? Beach sands? Fluviatile deposits?
quote:
I personally doubt this and would like to see the actual refs that claim this.
I think Blatt and other does this. I'll try to track some down tomorrow sometime if no one else does. How about eolian sand deposits? Hmm, now let me think....... [This message has been edited by edge, 06-03-2002]
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
And here are the beginnings of my evidence of the flood-like character of the Suppai: a comment I found on the Suppai formation at a presumably mainstream Grand Canyon site: Sediments appear in many places to be thin beds spread over wide areas in short periods of time. This is code for 'flood'. I'll have to look at what they're getting at but it may be what I am saying. I think the Supai even to a layman's eye doesn't look like eons of normal non-marine processes. We'll see, I'm not trying to do anything but support scientifically what I can actually see with my eyes.
LOL! I sure am glad you are here to translate for us. I mistakenly thought that it meant: "... many short periods of time, over some wide areas, but not everywhere, and not all at once..." Just shows you how an education can lead one astray.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, I didn't mean it was code for the flood, just 'flood'. Whether you like it or not the mainstream literature avoids discusion in plain English of things that sound like creation or flood.
Yes, placing epeirogenic seas in the context of a flood would lead to gross misunderstandings and probably a lot of irrelevant preaching.
quote:
Why do you think the paleontologists hid the 'tradesecret of paleontology' for so long until Gould uncovered it? Do you disbelieve Gould?
I believe Gould in the context of what he was talking about, yes.
quote:
Do you really believe these pre-Gould paleontologists were being unbiased? These paleontologists had been brought up on gradualism for so long that when they finally became professional paleontologists they just followed the party line. A handful broke ranks in the 1970s on an issue which any layman could have told them had they been able to see their data in clarity.
Umm, TB, a clue: all of these people are still evolutionists. I don't understand what your point is. Oh, are you still picking on the dead guy who had 19th century technology and information? Hardly seems fair. After all, I accept that you think the flood is Cambrian to Creatceous. Or should I point out that Barry Setterfield says that you have a dirtly little secret in your understanding of the flood? See how silly this can get? It's up to you.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, I would love to hear in your own words what you think Gould said about pre-PE paleontology and paleontologists and in what context?
Perhaps you should find the rest of Gould's quote. As I remember, he was basically arguing for PE, not against evolution. This is one of the most common out-of-context quotes used by creationists.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
But the significance is that for most of a century they pretended that gradualism was true!
Yeah, well... It still is!... Along with catastrophism!
quote:
If one thinks that something is true it's amazing how facts can be shoehorned to support it.
I know what you mean!
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe, if you don't think inundations of continents by the sea and vast non-marine beds are at least potentially consistent with a tectonically induced global flood then I think you are plain biased.
The problem is that these are consistent with almost any scenario. Why do you think they point only toward a global flood. Especially when you have non-marine beds through out the section. The point is that there is plenty of evidence that you ignore. That would make you biased.
quote:
So I would call vast marine layered beds on land with rapid paleocurrent signatures 'first order' evidence of the flood.
First of all you have not produced such data. Second, why is it not evidence for mainstream geological thinking?
quote:
That's the fundamental point that makes this discussion difficult - you probably wont agree with that that is first order evidence for the flood.
Correct. Because it isn't!
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Percy you either have not read my posts or are ignoring the fact that we believe that acclerated isotopic decay generated the heat that tectonically initiated the flood. So we expect rapid sea-floor spreading, rapid magnetic reversals and correlation with radiodecay! We could reasonably expect surges due to frictional plate slipping and hence multiple aerial exposures for up to months during the 400 days. Please stop discussing pathetic strawmen
The point is, what is your evidence for accelerated radioactive decay? Why did it happen? Why did it stop?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Percy, you say we have no evidence - we see the water laid rocks around the world as evidence of the flood!
If gross simplification is necessary for you to understand geological history, then please feel free to believe as you wish.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Percy, I love science but I have come to the conclusion that there is more to this universe than science. Not out of a lack of success of science but becasue of positive experiences in Christ and of the Bible.
No, I think this was a premise for you and not a conclusion.
quote:
You read my recent posts in this thread. I think the data does talk flood. The 'just so' stories trying to explain near continental sized correlated non-marine strata via gradualism are poor science.
For someone who knows as little about the subject as you have demonstrated, that is a very bold assertion. Now, if you want to talk about 'just so' stories, I have a few for you. See there was this flood that deposited the entire geological column even thought there was no source for the sediments; and there were no mountain ranges at the time even though we see mountains in various degrees of erosion today. And I don't have an explanation for why flowering plants don't show up until late in the geological history, but my scenario is better than anything that people who have studied the subject for a hundred years can come up with...
quote:
I've read a bit of wmscott's thread and I intend to read it more carefully.
I'm not sure that it would be a good use of your time.
quote:
The standard YEC approach is gaining a very good consensus recently based on some healthy differnces over the last 20 years.
Yes, it is. Among non scientists.
quote:
... I'm here to show that PhDed scientists can (i) trust the sciptures
(ii) scientifically look at origins
(iii) admit when data is against them
(iv) demonstrate that a lot of the data is on the creationist side
I trust the scriptures to tell me how to live. Not how I came to life. Many scientist believe the same. So far you have not shown number 4. Please get us some data.
quote:
I'm also here to learn.
I seriously doubt this.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
My positive experiences in Christ, the church and of the Bible gradually gave me confidence in Genesis. Yes I agree that our story has 'just so' elements too. But I still think the majority of the gross features and the details of the geological record are more compatible with the flood.
Okay, give us whatever you think is the best single piece of evidence that your scenario is correct. Then, tell us how mainstream geology does not explain this facet of the natural evidence. If your positive evidence for your scenario is significantly different from this subject of this thread, please start another thread.
|
™ Version 4.2