|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Non-marine sediments | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Good. Give us some references. Is Stuart Nevins one of them? {added by edit}I meant Steve Austin, but does that really matter? quote: Well, you weren't very clear.
quote: 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: Good, lets hear a quote or a reference. Not being a sedimentologist myself, I would like to be enlightened.
quote: And? Are you saying that swamp deposits are not presently deposited? Beach sands? Fluviatile deposits?
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wehappyfew Inactive Member |
quote: Like this?
So according to this example, pebbles, and presumably cone shell fossils, should always line up with their long axis pointing seaward. Do you agree that "seaward" is not likely to change very often at the edge of a continental margin?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Nice try Wehappy. You're proposing this mechanism across continental sized regions? If you are then you just proved our point that there was rapid flow across vast regions that look like no shelf sea I've ever seen.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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:
quote: http://www.und.edu/instruct/mineral/101intro/grandcanyon/grandcan.htm 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. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Could not help but notice you left this out: 1000' thick series (group) of alternating red crossbedded sandstones and shales. The upper part of the group is non-marine and tracks of quadrupeds are found on bed tops. These tracks are believed to have been made by amphibians or primitive reptiles. This is code-word for NO flood. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wehappyfew Inactive Member |
More code words for non-Flood deposition...
"the Esplande sandstone... composed almost entirely of climbing translatent strata and sand-slide structures... contains locally abundant plant fossils, vertebrate trackways, and even evaporite deposits." The Esplande is the upper unit of the Supai Group. "The basal part of the Wescogame contains a conglomerate derived from the underlying Manachka. " Conglomerates require lithification of the underlying unit... more non-Flood code words for these two Supai Group units. (Paleozoic Strata of the Grand Canyon)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: Also, I must wonder what, in the context of geologic time, does a "short period" mean? I could be a day, or it could be thousands of years. More information is needed. Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Joe, you seem to want to shoehorn us into a flood of your choosing. If you can only imagine the one from the kids books, fine for you. We imagine one with back and forth marine and non-marine surges. We have absolutely no problem with footprints.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Wehappy, I have never said there aren't aspects of the data that are not immediatley answerable (especially by me). As I pointed out in the above post we see the flood as a series of surges and their may have been aerial exposure for up to months. Whether this can account for your deposits I have no idea. In the case of salt domes etc I know creationists have proposed precipitative rather than evaporative processes.
I've mentioned before that the conglomerates in two different formations could have been washed into both formations from the same hardened origin. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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. Why do you think the paleontologists hid the 'tradesecret of paleontology' for so long until Gould uncovered it? Do you disbelieve Gould? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Moose are you so sure of these (non-radioisotpoically) estimated ages for layers? I agree that geologists are very logical and thorough scientists, don't get me wrong. But the depositon rates are
(i) based on today's processes and(ii) massaged to support the radioisotopic dates I scientifically have no problem with this but it is also true. You just know that somehow it formed over, eg 20 million years, based on radioisotopic dating of nearby lava flows. In actual reality you have no idea how long any part of any bed took to form!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, placing epeirogenic seas in the context of a flood would lead to gross misunderstandings and probably a lot of irrelevant preaching.
quote: I believe Gould in the context of what he was talking about, yes.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wehappyfew Inactive Member |
quote: I noticed that you edited this message to remove a sentence promising to provide paleocurrent data. Why? You seem to be missing the point of my example and description. I will ask again... do you think that the "seaward" direcion is fairly stable over time and along the length of a coastline? If so, then you have just accepted that "mainstream" actualism explains very well the observation of consistent paleocurrent orientations. No huge surges needed... just normal wave action on beaches transgressing and regressing... leaving behind imbricated pebbles and shells... just like beached today. Will you provide paleocurrent data to support your position on "rapid currents"? The stability and orientation aspects seem fairly well covered now.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024