Non-marine sediments

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, 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.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.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.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. 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?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-30-2002]

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.

I'll eventaully post some stuff on the eolian issues since I agree it is an important distinguishing point for the two scenarios. As you may know the creationists studied tracks and they best matched amphibians impedded by flowing water. And it was a mainstream reversal of assignment I was talking about.Are you saying every layer in the Hermit shale is an unconformity? That's news to me! If that is the mainstream view I'll put it down to interpretaiton due to necessity with long ages not to the data! We obviously can't proceed along this line because we can't agree that there is no evidence for aerial exposure. We may as well give up. In my own geological fossickings, when I see neat layering I will continue to interperet as continuous, uninterrupted layering unless there is another reason to suspect so. I susgest you should do the same. I really can't fathom how you could say that. I think you are violating a near stratigraphical law that neat layering indicates continuity.My point is that since these are land plant containing non-marine layers your scenario requires off and on freshwater flooding that should be given away by genuine unconformities. They are not there - your claim that neat layers are unconformities is simply incorrect IMO.I know you claimed one of the Grand Canyon formations was generated by swamps. Can you show me that this is the mainstream view. I didn't think the bed composition was consistent with that?Inland sea boundaries can't be used as evidence for the flood, agreed, but land plant material strewn thoughout a thousands of square mile area stratum is diagnostic of the flood.I really haven't misunderstood much at all actually. If anything I like some of the newer geology books which emphasize the epeiric sea level contributions to the origin of the geological column. In the past I had really thought the geological column was primarily the result of non-stop local flooding.I understand how it works now and that (i) most of it is marine and (ii) most of the rest is vast non-marine beds consistent with the flood. Nothing you have said has changed this impression I have recently gained.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-30-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]I'll give you an example. I made the simple statement in the other thread that 'I knew' that much of the geological column was laid down by epeiric seas. Do you think anyone here came and said - we agree, now continue. No, I had to go find the evidence. That's fine, I learnt a lot doing it.[/QUOTE][/b]
Did you not read my post in which I explicitly agreed with the predominantly marine nature of the GC? It is disheartening to realize you are not reading or comprehending my posts. I will try to express myself more plainly and forcefully, if you think that will help. [QUOTE][b]OK, this case I am claiming, is based on general reading and no specific reference, that there are vast terrestial beds with terristial plant and animal fossils strewn horizontally throughout the strata...[/QUOTE][/b]
This is completely non-controversial. It is entirely in agreement with "mainstream" geology. You have no cause to protest that flood geology is required to explain this fact. I will try to explain:
Since we can find modern sedimentary environments that contain vast horizontal beds composed, in part, of dead animals and plant remains, we can use the principle of actualism to infer that previous deposits of similar nature were formed by the same processes. If you have ever visited the delta of a major river, like the Mississippi, you have seen vast expanses of absolutely flat, widespread, neatly layered animal and plant remains slowly sinking under their own weight. The current Mississippi delta contains almost 50,000 feet of shallow marine, deltaic and fluvial layers... all nearly conformable, neatly layered, containing widespread plant and animal fossils... and the layers continue without interruption right up to the present, uppermost layer deposited by the last big flood in 1993. This is basic sedimentology. To claim that such layers cannot be explained is silly, since they are forming today. I truly cannot fathom how you can make such a claim. [QUOTE][b]...What I have based the claim on is books I've read about Grand Canyon strata. And these state that strata are dominated by confiers, ferns etc etc. If you think they are only at 'edges' then you equally need to show that with refs. I perfectly understand how one expects to get a 'diagonally' travelling sea edge during transgression/regression. But when we hear that a partilcular stratum is 'dominated' by conifers and ferns then I will usually assume that it is not just along a lake boundary.[/QUOTE][/b]
Now you seem to be claiming that conifers only grow along sea or lake shores. Do you even know what a conifer is? Have you ever seen one growing somewhere other than a sea or lake shore?What about rivers... they can meander across a floodplain and create overlapping lenses of channels, levees, marshes and oxbows that cover an entire area with these deposits (and their associated fossils). Look up the Karoo Formation of South Africa (the upper 3 members). [QUOTE][b]We both need refs to show this, in particular for Grand Canyon non-marine strata. I don't deny there are genuine 'lake edge' phenomena but, from my reading, that is not the case in the vast layers of the fresh water depoists that overlap with the epeiric seas (in terms of plant fossil locations).[/QUOTE][/b]
Why the hang up on fresh water (apparently lake) deposits? What about eolian, fluvial and deltaic deposits? These are much more numerous, and are usually quite extensive horizontally. Do you really need references to show that these are common in the GC and the Grand Canyon strata? Really, do a google search on "Karoo fluvial" [QUOTE][b]I don't believe I have made mistake after mistake here. I have honestly offered you my current understanding and you have all contributed to my educaiton in geolgoy, yes, but, IMO, it hasn't changed my basic thesis.[/QUOTE][/b]
Ignorance is bliss... but we may still be able to partially educate you. Don't give up yet. [QUOTE][b]We explain coal as occurring via the burial of state sized floating mats of vegetation uprooted catastrpohically. The next surge could have deposited sandstone and limestone. [/QUOTE][/b]
Like I said, that is a really lame and completely inadequate "theory". Any investigation at all beyond the usual Creationist puff-pieces... like looking at actual coal layers for example... would be sufficient to dispel such ridiculous scenarios. [QUOTE][b]The Hermit Shale is in itself neatly layered, as is the Supai...[/QUOTE][/b]
... as is nearly every present-day mudstone depositional environment... [QUOTE][b]There is a very flat unconformity separating the two formations but there is no evidence for 1000s of non-marine events within these formaitons. I can only assume that you guys think that some how these were fresh water coastal lakes or river deltas and may not have considered why there are land plant fossils horizontally throughout strata. [/QUOTE][/b]
From your vast oversimplifications, I can only assume that you have very little actual knowledge of what is contained in these two formations. As a result, your questions/objections/assumptions make little sense. There is little I can do until you have gathered more facts and descriptions of these rocks. [QUOTE][b]Unless I'm mistaken, I've never seen cross bedding and ripple marks described as unconformities. These type of phenomena occur pwithin stratum. Unconformities typically generate relief traversing multiple strata.[/QUOTE][/b]
No... once again... unconformities are defined as missing sediment, an absence of deposition, or a time gap of significant duration... "relief traversing multiple strata" is an added requirement on your part. Such relief may or may not be present. In areas of low relief, like coastal plains, significant relief is impossible to achieve by erosion. Most unconformities would fall into the subset called disconformities. Naturally, these are harder to recognize. And it goes without saying that your Creationist sources are none too eager to point them out when they are evident.At a fine scale, crossbeds are the result of erosion of individual ripples, dunes, etc. Of course, they are not referred to as uncomformities... that term is reserved for the same process at a much bigger scale/duration. The point was made to illustrate that the "neatly layered" impression is only a large-scale feature... similar to the fact that the Mississippi delta is uniformly flat for hundreds of miles, yet contains small scale cross-beds, overlapping lenses of channel deposits, oxbow lakes, levees, etc that are anything BUT neatly layered and parallel.

quote:

---

Can you explain your Redwall issue again. I have no problem with there being an unconfromity at the top of this sequence. Why couldn't conglomerates have been transported in?

---

The conglomerates are formed out of rounded pebbles, cobbles and boulders of the underlying Redwall limestone - not transported from some distant source. If you can follow the logic, that requires the Redwall to be completely lithified BEFORE the channels were cut into the Redwall Fm. Unconsolidated limestone mud does NOT form rounded pebbles in a stream bed. The second clasts referred to were cobbles of Chinle Fm that fell into karst features within the Redwall Fm. Again, using simple logic, the complete lithification of the overlying Chinle must predate the formation of the karst. And the karst itself requires a very long duration of sub-aerial exposure. You will certainly fail to find any references supporting the formation of caves and karst in minutes or hours. [QUOTE][b]I think you overstate the significance of the layers narrowing. There is nothing in our scenario which states that layers don't gradually disappear horizontally! We think big but no one expects layers to be universal.[/QUOTE][/b]
That is not the point I am making. Again ,this requires some logic and visualiztion skills... The Grand Canyon strata, with a only a few exceptions, thicken from east to west. Let's suppose that the total sequence adds up to 20,000 feet at one point towards the west, and only 10,000 feet farther east. Now pick two formation composed of deltaic, shallow marine or any other nearshore facies - one at the top, and the other at the bottom. The difference in elevation between the eastern and western edges of these two formations is 10,000 feet... But both surfaces were formed at or near sea level! Can sea level tilt by 10,000 feet over a few hundred miles? Or did the basin subside gradually as the sediments loaded the crust, with progressively more subsidence towards the west?
Do you get it yet? [QUOTE][b]Your hunreds and thousands of unconformities? Any layman looking at the Grand Canyon strata knows that there are almost no interfaces which look like the current topgraphy of the earth with the Grand Canyon strata.[/QUOTE][/b]
As you should know by now, the layman can often be quite wrong. Ask any layman to explain the difference bewteen special and general relativity...Any geologist, even an amateur enthusiast such as yourself, who actually examines Grand Canyon strata would easily find hundreds, maybe even thousands of minor and major unconformities. Examine the primary literature describing the various members and formations. Such features are primary sedimentary structures that gather a lot of detailed descriptions in the scientific literature. Yet without bothering to look closely at either the data or the rocks themselves, you have made another mistaken generalization of grand and epic proportions. I'll say it again... You are very very wrong. Unconformities are quite prevalent within the strata of the Grand Canyon. [QUOTE][b]We are arguing extents here. I have not even mentioned the trivial relief that occurs at the boundary of the Carboniferous Redwall Limestone and the supposedly much older Cambrian Muav Limestone. Trivial relief and 200 million years of missing time![/QUOTE][/b]
And there are many more you could have mentioned as well. There is no point wasting bandwidth detailing them all."Trivial relief" is such an inapproriate term here. The ultimate fate of all topographic relief is to be planed off, given enough time, absent tectonic forces. Almost certainly, we cannot ever know how much of the Muav Fm existed above the remaining portion... and was leveled by erosion to its present thickness before deposition of the Temple Butte Fm. Expecting significant relief in a quiet passive margin coastal plain is absolutely wrong.Since you are so fond of the Hermit and Supai Fms, please read this description of a few of the members found in them..."The Manakacha primarily consists of quartz sandstone, with intercalated layers of mudstone. Of special interest within the Manakacha are layers of cross-bedded, reversely graded sandstone laminae referred to as "climbing translatent strata."...

​

The basal part of the Wescogame contains a conglomerate derived from the underlying Manachka. Parts of this formation preserve tracks, trails and burrows...

​

Above the Wescogame lies the Esplande sandstone, composed almost entirely of climbing translatent strata and sand-slide structures. Additionally, the Esplande Sandstone contains locally abundant plant fossils, vertebrate trackways, and even evaporite deposits...

​

The Hermit Fm consists of, variously, ripple marked sandstone, occasional outcrops of eolian sandstone, carbonate rich lime, and mudstone...

​

Some bedding planes within the Hermit preserve plant material (primarily small ferns and cone-bearing plants), insect wings, and vertebrate tracks."Contained in those descriptions are dozens of minor unconformities, if you know the lingo.

quote:

---

We obviously can't proceed along this line because we can't agree that there is no evidence for aerial exposure.

---

Absolutely... if you can't infer aerial exposure from karst, eolian sansdtones, evaporites, dendritic drainage surfaces, etc, then there is little hope that reality will intrude on your mythology.

quote:

---

My point is that since these are land plant containing non-marine layers your scenario requires off and on freshwater flooding that should be given away by genuine unconformities.

---

On and off freshwater flooding sounds exactly like what is already known to deposit plant material over wide areas in modern basins. Every big flood of the Mississippi River or the Congo River does exactly that. Every big river flood creates another stratum in a stack of "neatly layered" deposits containing future fossils. Why is this not plainly self-evident to you?

quote:

---

I know you claimed one of the Grand Canyon formations was generated by swamps. Can you show me that this is the mainstream view. I didn't think the bed composition was consistent with that?

---

​

OK..."The Unkar Group as a whole appears to record 4 cycles of west-to-east transgressions and regressions of the sea, with subarial deposits alternating with tidal flat and shallow marine sediment deposits."

​

"The Chinle Formation consists of a conglomerate valley-fill sequence overlain by fluvial, floodplain, marsh, delta, and lacustrine deposits (Stewart et al., 1972; Dubiel et al., 1991). The depositional environment inferred for the Chinle Formation is similar in many respects to the modern Congo Basin."

​

"The Upper Triassic Chinle Group encompasses strata assigned to about 50 lithostratigraphic units in the western United States ranging from West Texas to Nevada and Idaho to New Mexico. Most of these strata were deposited in a single depositional basin associated with a large fluvial system with paleoflow to the west and a drainage basin comparable to the Congo Basin of equatorial Africa. The depositional environments include channels, overbank/crevasse splays, floodplains, and minor lacustrine facies, with increasing evidence of eolian and lacustrine deposition at the top of the section. Three unconformity-bound sequences have been observed in these deposits. The first two sequences consist of basal channel-fill conglomerates and sandstones that fine upwards into dominantly flood-plain mudstones and paleosols. The third sequence consists primarily of interbedded siltstones and fine sandstones, and demonstrates an increasing eolian trend."

​

"In the eastern Colorado Plateau of southwestern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico, the Moenkopi is either missing or is thin and composed of deposits that suggests largely a fluviatile origin. As one progresses westward, the formation gradually thickens and contains increasing amounts of mudstones and shales, which are horizontally bedded with extensive development of symmetrical and current ripple marks, mud cracks, and other surface features of the bedding planes that require shallow, tidal-flat conditions to form."

​

"Alfisols are common in floodplain mudrocks in the lower and middle Chinle (Monitor Butte and Petrified Forest Members), consisting of thick red, clay-rich horizons, locally exhibiting small carbonate nodules. These soils contain red-purple mottles, abundant beetle burrows (Scoyenia) and small rhizoliths, and indicate predominantly moist soils and persistently high water tables."

​

"The Carmel Formation consists in this area of beds of limestone separated by thin sandy limestone beds containing fossils of shallow water organisms. Eastwardly, the Carmel displays evidence of stream and mudflat type deposits. Evaporites are present in some areas (Chronic, 1990, p.36)."

​

"The Summerville preserves mudcracks and ripple marks (Baar, p. 183), and is overlain in some areas by thick evaporite deposits (Chronic, 1990, p. 35). All of this suggests a shallow water, tidal-flat origin for the Summerville."

(all quotes extracted from http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/ )

Wehappy - My geological column thread took about 3 days to establish that much of the geological column was deposited by epeiric seas and it was me that found the quotes stating that 'much of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras' were epeiric sea deposits. I'm glad that you agreed with me but I've got a feeling I came up with those quote first.I can understand that much of what I am saying is non-controversial. I'll carefully read all of your quotes and at the end of the day I might have to agree that the non-marine strata are consistent with your long-age scenario. At this point I think that catastrophic flooding is at the very least, a better scenario.I'm not saying that conifers only grow along shore lines. If I read that a certain stratum is dominated by conifer fossils my first assumption is that this is true for much of that stratum not just a lake edge. So I infer a difficulty for non-catastrophic explanations. You don't because you can imagine state sized deltas etc. I can imagine state sized deltas too but I don't think one would get conifer fossils throughout state sized layers non-catastrophically.Your Redwall issue may be explained by hydrodynamic sorting. In our catastrophic scenario we don't just get layers one after the other over eons but instead we (i) not only speed up the process but (ii) hydrodynamic sorting can act to sort material over vast vertical sequences unlike in your model where hydrodynamic sorting has nothing to do with strata seperated by 'millions of years'.I get your point about the varying vertical levels now. In our scenario the rapidity of deposition or rapidity of tectonic activity might explain the different vertical levels.I can agree with you that the mainstream sceanrios are possible. What I am saying is that it is also possible that these ancient environments were (i) rapidly laid and (ii) rapidly eroded out of soft sediments. What you see as long ages we can see as the flood.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. 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.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Wehappy - My geological column thread took about 3 days to establish that much of the geological column was deposited by epeiric seas and it was me that found the quotes stating that 'much of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras' were epeiric sea deposits. I'm glad that you agreed with me but I've got a feeling I came up with those quote first.

---

The delay and difficulty (still unresolved, BTW) was your insistence that much of the world has been submerged for most of its history (from the "mainstream POV"). That is not the same as having a predominance of marine sediment. It's a fine distinction, but basic to the concepts from sedimentology neccessary to understanding the issues discussed here. You still have a long way to go in this respect.BTW, have you added up the total amount of marine vs non-marine strata exposed in the Grand Canyon? I would wager its closer to 50-50 than 90-10... I'll go add it up... [QUOTE][b]At this point I think that catastrophic flooding is at the very least, a better scenario.[/QUOTE][/b]You are free to imagine anything you like BEFORE you examine the evidence, but it would be more scientific to allow the data to drive your conclusions. [QUOTE][b]I'm not saying that conifers only grow along shore lines. If I read that a certain stratum is dominated by conifer fossils my first assumption is that this is true for much of that stratum not just a lake edge. So I infer a difficulty for non-catastrophic explanations. You don't because you can imagine state sized deltas etc. I can imagine state sized deltas too but I don't think one would get conifer fossils throughout state sized layers non-catastrophically.[/QUOTE][/b]
This is a little annoying... why do you use the word "imagine" ??? The state-sized deltas do, in fact, exist. Fossils of conifers (and many other organisms) are currently being deposited across the entire width and breadth of those deltas.Most deltas are slowly sinking under the weight of their sediments. Marshes and swamps grow across the entire width of the delta. The conifers grow in the marsh. The conifers die and fall to the bottom of the widespread marshes. Anoxic conditions, burial by new sediment, and subsidence are sufficient to preserve the conifers as fossils. Ergo... a broad, nearly continuous layer of conifer fossils.It doesn't matter what you think might be possible since the state-sized layers of conifer-laden sediments already exist at the surface today in modern deltas and subsiding basins.No imagination is neccesary to understand the current processes of stream meander and floodplain deposition. These processes create wide expanses of overlapping channel fill... and they are doing it right now in a stream near you. Every square meter of a floodplain is covered with old, filled-in stream channels, levees, marshes, oxbows, etc. If conditions are favorable, every channel and marsh could have a wealth of fossils. This is all readily observable today by anyone who cares to look, in easily accessible areas. The sediments deposited are identical to fluvial deposits found in the Grand Canyon strata. This comparison of modern sedimentary processes and ancient strata is the basis of sedimentology. Until you get a handle on these basic techniques, you are just talking out of your fundament when you make your declarations of what you "think" or "imagine" to be possible, unlikely, etc.A prime example is this... [QUOTE][b]
Your Redwall issue may be explained by hydrodynamic sorting. In our catastrophic scenario we don't just get layers one after the other over eons but instead we (i) not only speed up the process but (ii) hydrodynamic sorting can act to sort material over vast vertical sequences unlike in your model where hydrodynamic sorting has nothing to do with strata seperated by 'millions of years'. [/QUOTE][/b]
Talk about your 'just-so stories'... you have explained nothing. Give us a detailed explanation of exactly how unlithified lime mud can form rounded pebbles in a dendritic stream channel incised into the same layer of unlithified lime mud. Explain how caves can form in lime mud, and then explain how cobbles of the overlying formation can find their way into those caves within the Redwall limestone without both being already lithified. Feel free to use the words "hydrodynamic" and "sorting", but a two-word phrase is not actually an explanation - you need a detailed description of a process.That phrase "hydrodynamic sorting" has got to be one of the biggest jokes in Creationist mythology. It has zero credibility with anyone who studies sediments.

quote:

---

I get your point about the varying vertical levels now. In our scenario the rapidity of deposition or rapidity of tectonic activity might explain the different vertical levels.

---

​

Good, then we will examine the consequences of such "rapid tectonic activity" in a later post. You can get a head start by estimating the heat released by deforming that much continental basement rock in a very short time span.

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).

Wehappy, if you are professionally convinced that the vast non-marine beds are no different to some of the huge contemporary environments then, being a non-geologist, I certainly can't argue against that. I personally believe that this is probably not entirely correct but I will continue my literature research to back this up so that this is not just a pronouncement.Why would I leave some room to doubt your claims and the other professional geologists here?(i) Because I believe the flood is a good model so far and I doubt it would leave exactly the same signiture as gradualism, so I put down some of your explanations as 'just so' stories just as you do for us.
(ii) In some instances I believe mainstream geology has ignored flood evidence. The paleocurrent data for the marine beds simply does not support the placid epeiric sea concept. If mainstream geology were really non-biased the descriptions of epeiric seas should at least mention the possibility of catastrophic flooding as empirically demonstrated via paleocurrents. These currents are so fast that they ordered the orientations of conical seashell fossils in the sme direction for 'millions of years'. Some geologists (on this board eg) dislike polystrate fossils to the extent that they claim that none of the examples are really fossilised trees. I'm not a field geologist, I can't prove it but I think this is simply evidence of incredible bias. At least some mainstream geologists here seem to deny that neat conformable strata are, in the first instance, evidence of continuous deposition (I have no problem with secondary interpretations but people here wont agree on primary interpretations). Coal formation? If you guys truly believe your state sized swamps that's fine . But to deny that floating mats is a good alternative smacks of bias.PS - I would be interested in the names of modern non-marine environments that look like the Grand Canyon formations. Any refs/links demonstrating the similarities? Is there anywhere (eg on the web or a review paper) that a true sectional/3D topographical impression of these strata can be gained without mounting my own expedition?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-02-2002]

Edge, I am aware of Morton, but there are flood geologists that used to be mainstream geologists too.How could what I say be interpreted as not believing in unconformities? 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! Some here are trying to say that every layer is an unconformity and that is simply not true - no sedimentologist would agree with that. 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. I personally doubt this and would like to see the actual refs that claim this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Wehappy, if you are professionally convinced that the vast non-marine beds are no different to some of the huge contemporary environments then, being a non-geologist, I certainly can't argue against that.

---

I am not a professional geologist, so there is no need to create an air of authority around my conclusions. The positions I have been taking ARE based on evidence, data and the professional-quality fieldwork done by real geologists. These are just as available to you as they are to me, so there is nothing preventing you from being just as knowledgeable and informed about this science.So armed, you certainly WOULD be able to argue against what I have been saying. It's just plainly evident that, so far, you are not.

quote:

---

I personally believe that this is probably not entirely correct but I will continue my literature research to back this up so that this is not just a pronouncement.

---

Exactly the right course to take. Except for the part about believing your conclusion before having any evidence to support it. [QUOTE][b]Why would I leave some room to doubt your claims and the other professional geologists here?(i) Because I believe the flood is a good model so far and I doubt it would leave exactly the same signiture as gradualism[/QUOTE][/b]
I would think so, as well. You should therefore be able to distinguish the sedimentary structures in the Grand Canyon Super Group (preCambrian and therefore pre-Flood) and the post-Cretaceous post-Flood formations from the Cambrian-Cretaceous Flood deposits. The fieldwork and data are published for all to read. Find those distinctive differences, and you will have something relevant to talk about.You could start with these formations from the GCSG:Unkar Group - the Bass Limestone (up to 330ft), the Hakatai Shale (up to 985ft), the Shinumo Quartzite (1328ft), the Dox Formation (3100ft), and the Cardenas Lava (~900ft)The Nankoweap Formation (which rests unconformably atop the Cardenas Lava.)The Chuar Group (about 5000 ft thick)The Sixtymile formation - about 200ft thick, composed of material derived from the Chuar Group.A search on these formation names should turn up lots of material.

quote:

---

(ii) In some instances I believe mainstream geology has ignored flood evidence. The paleocurrent data for the marine beds simply does not support the placid epeiric sea concept. If mainstream geology were really non-biased the descriptions of epeiric seas should at least mention the possibility of catastrophic flooding as empirically demonstrated via paleocurrents. These currents are so fast that they ordered the orientations of conical seashell fossils in the sme direction for 'millions of years'.

---

Hmmm...
I went back through the threads and found your first real reference to paleocurrents:

quote:

---

"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"

---

If this is the basis for subsequent statements that "paleocurrents for your country have been constant" (to pararphrase), then you have made another mistaken extrapolation from incomplete and obsolete data. If you were to examine the paloegeographic reconstructions for N. America, you would find that the two locations mentioned - Pennsylvania and Maryland - are on the back side of one of the largest and longest-lasting orogenies in earth history. Just to the east, a subducting ocean plate - the Iapetan - built up a long range of mountains similar to the Andes today. Small chunks of continental crust slammed into, and accreted, on occasion. Eventually, the African plate collided, raising the Alleghenian orogeny. This is the background for the observation that the paleoslope had been constant for the region for quite a long time. As expected under modern plate tectonic theory. Therefore the paleocurrents followed the slope of these ancient mountains for as long as those mountains existed.
Completely unsurprising.... now.
But your reference is from 1958!!!
BEFORE plate tectonics was a widely accepted theory!Then you extended this result to the entire country (Pennsylvania and Maryland are a very small percentage of the US). Without data, as far as I can tell from your citations to date. I have seen numerous other paleocurrent data showing a wide variety of directions and modalities. [QUOTE][b]Some geologists (on this board eg) dislike polystrate fossils to the extent that they claim that none of the examples are really fossilised trees. I'm not a field geologist, I can't prove it but I think this is simply evidence of incredible bias.[/QUOTE][/b]
Or evidence that they really don't exist. I'm sure there are people who claim that the UN has black helicopters flying over their house at night, sending in mind-control microwave signals. Anyone who denies the existence of these helicopters must be part of the conspiracy.Present evidence, and we will examine it. Present no evidence, and we will continue to doubt the existence of something no-one has ever seen (no-one with any credibility in geological circles). That's the great thing about geology... for the most part, evidence just sits there like a big pile of rocks. Its not going anywhere - unlike black helicopters, UFOs, Loch Ness monsters, pink unicorns, etc. So if any "polystrate" trees are really out there, your Creationist flood geologists should have no trouble pointing out numerous locations around the world where they are found in situ. Since none have been identified, we can be pretty confident this is another case of wishful thinking and/or deception by those few "geologists" who have signed an oath pledging to distort or ignore any evidence that does not conform to the YEC position. [QUOTE][b]At least some mainstream geologists here seem to deny that neat conformable strata are, in the first instance, evidence of continuous deposition (I have no problem with secondary interpretations but people here wont agree on primary interpretations).[/QUOTE][/b]
This paragraph makes no sense. I cannot figure out what you are trying to say. Perhaps there is a translation problem between Australian English and redneck English.

quote:

---

Coal formation? If you guys truly believe your state sized swamps that's fine . But to deny that floating mats is a good alternative smacks of bias.

---

I truly believe the state-sized swamps that I have personally seen actually do exist. I also trust the descriptions made by professionals of currently forming coal beds. Of course, these are far smaller than the giant ones of the Carboniferous and Cretaceous, but rigid uniformitarianism has been out of favor for over a hundred years, and I am not about to start reviving it.Having never seen a floating mat of vegetation that could conceivably result in the formation of a coal layer, and having read the truly laughable descriptions in the Creationist literature, I am not impressed with this "theory". There are innumerable facts, evidences and data that falsify any such theory in its current state. Perhaps another thread could be started to address this in detail, if you wish.Speaking of new threads, I have found some more analysis of the helium "problem" that verifies what I posted earlier in another thread. The luminaries of Creationism have distorted and mangled the facts to create this issue. Their effort would make Goebbels proud... starting from raw data that conclusively precludes a young Earth and transforming it into a comprehensive propaganda campaign to support their fundraising.Would you like to start another new thread to go over this new material, or have you realized how shoddy this argument is?After promising a while ago to present the calculations and data from the RATE book, you have been strangely silent on this issue...

Wehappy, I am reading a lot of mainstream stuff. the stuff on paleocurrents is very accesible. I am finding it difficult to uncover the precise nature of the vast non-marine beds world-wide. I will keep 'digging'.The strata of the Cenozoic is qualitatiely differnet to that of the Mesozoic. I have seen that in print. It shouldn't surprise either of us - the Cenozoic is dominated by glacial sea level curves as opposed to tectonic efects.I am demonstrating some differnces between the models. Just looking at the Supai and Hermit I am convinced that they tell a catastophic story. You don't agree, fine. I truly doubt there is anything forming today that will look like the Supai or Hermit. We'll see how my lit search turns out. Do you think you've proved the reverse?Paeleocurrents - I've also posted continent sized map links too somewhere here. My readings on paleocurrents gave the distinct impression that these results were typical all around the world. Where ever you have vast neatly layered epeiric sea deposits, more often than not:(i) the currents are rapid
(ii) there is a continent sized general uniformity
(iii) there is amazing consistency though time.Polystrate fossils - the best I can do is post links to images and I will. You guys can judge. I must admit before coming here I wasn't aware that the mainstream view was that polystrate fossils don't exist!Austin got a mainstream PhD on floating mats. That doens't prove it but it is mainstream to that extent. Mt St Helen's gave us an inkling of what these mats might look like. Just picture that with the leaves still on.I will get to the RATE helium stuff.

There are polystrate fossils. There are are also polystrate psudofossils.A lot of sediment can be deposited in a very short amount of time. This, however, is not representitive of sedimentation processes in general.Essentially, polystrate fossils are a scientificly understood oddity.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Wehappy, I am reading a lot of mainstream stuff. the stuff on paleocurrents is very accesible. [/QUOTE][/b]
Show us the data. Cite the articles. Provide references to support your interpretations. [QUOTE][b]
I am finding it difficult to uncover the precise nature of the vast non-marine beds world-wide. I will keep 'digging'.The strata of the Cenozoic is qualitatiely differnet to that of the Mesozoic. I have seen that in print. [/QUOTE][/b]
Show us the data. Cite the articles. Provide references to support your interpretations. [QUOTE][b]
It shouldn't surprise either of us - the Cenozoic is dominated by glacial sea level curves as opposed to tectonic efects. [/QUOTE][/b]
The cause of the transgression should have little effect on the sedimentary features in the strata. So according to "mainstream" science, sedimentary rocks from the pre-Cambrian to the Tertiary should share many common features. From what I have seen, they do. I believe it is your task to show there is a qualitative difference. I believe you have not yet shown this. Not with any actual data, at least. [QUOTE][b]I am demonstrating some differnces between the models. Just looking at the Supai and Hermit I am convinced that they tell a catastophic story. [/QUOTE][/b]
Show us the data. Cite the articles. Provide references to support your interpretations. [QUOTE][b]
You don't agree, fine. I truly doubt there is anything forming today that will look like the Supai or Hermit. We'll see how my lit search turns out. Do you think you've proved the reverse?[/QUOTE][/b]
I see nothing in the descriptions of those formations that is not exactly mirrored in present-day sedimentary basins... except for the fossil assemblages. If you will pick any features you feel do not qualify, we can go over them in detail. [QUOTE][b]Paeleocurrents - I've also posted continent sized map links too somewhere here. My readings on paleocurrents gave the distinct impression that these results were typical all around the world. Where ever you have vast neatly layered epeiric sea deposits, more often than not:(i) the currents are rapid
(ii) there is a continent sized general uniformity
(iii) there is amazing consistency though time. [/QUOTE][/b]
Show us the data. Cite the articles. Provide references to support your interpretations. The one citation made by you that I can find so far is very limited geographically (to the slope of a major orogeny), and way out of date (as far as surprise about plate tectonic relationships). I have seen no citations by you to support the "rapid currents" or continental-sized uniformity. [QUOTE][b]
Polystrate fossils - the best I can do is post links to images and I will. You guys can judge. I must admit before coming here I wasn't aware that the mainstream view was that polystrate fossils don't exist! [/QUOTE][/b]
Show us the data. Provide locations where these "polystrate" trees can be observed in the field.In situ standing trees and stumps within sedimentary sequences have been described in the "mainstream" literature for over 130 years. There is no surpise here, just your lack of familiarity with the data that is out there. I know there are some outstanding tree fossils in Nova Scotia... TalkOrigins...and some modern trees being buried in a tidal marsh by rising sea levels... "Sea level is rising slowly causing the tidal salt marshes to build up and advance onto the land surface. Here the salt meadows are invading a forest. Dating of the trees at the base of the marsh shows that tide level is rising about 30 cm (1 foot) per century; the outermost tree is 1000 years old and is buried by 1 meter of peat. "I don't know how many layers are involved, but obviously the marsh is depositing peat at a fairly slow rate. Over time, this peat will be compressed by the weight of overlying sediment until it turns into coal... complete with "polystrate" trees imbedded in situ.Compare and contrast with the ICR propaganda piece here. If you can pick out the numerous obvious errors in the ICR article, then you will be showing some real progress in advancing your geology education. Some of the really gross errors will help explain how the "floating mats of vegatation turning into coal" myth keeps the faithful in the donating mood. [QUOTE][b]Austin got a mainstream PhD on floating mats. That doens't prove it but it is mainstream to that extent. [/QUOTE][/b]
Unwarranted extrapolation from a very limited, minor process to the entire Carboniferous coal sequence is the typical YEC strategy. Show us how Austin's floating mats explain any coal beds beyond the ones he studied - especially the ones with dino footprints, rhizomes penetrating underlying layers, etc. [QUOTE][b]
Mt St Helen's gave us an inkling of what these mats might look like. Just picture that with the leaves still on. [/QUOTE][/b]
The differences between MSH log jams and Carboniferous coal are too numerous to mention. Please give us an inkling of how these logs are going to stay at the bottom after only a few weeks or months in the water.

quote:

---

I will get to the RATE helium stuff.

---

I eagerly await your next data dribble.

And can anyone show me a continental shelf floor today where there are cone shells, dead or alive, preferentially aligned - eg 80% lining up in one direction? This is a typical paleocurrent observation. Other observations involve ripplemarks and pebble orientations. The epeiric seas were nothing like what gradualists imagine.If researchers took the data at face value they would reconstruct catastrophic transgressions that essentially are the flood.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]