Paleocurrents: the 'diverse' features of the GC were laid via rapid, correlated flow

Here's some new stuff on paleocurrents (DEFINITION: flow rate/direction data extracted from strata. EG: from pebble, fossil and ripple marks of statistically significant consistent orientation). And GC = geological column. This link is a creationist study of the mainstream literature paleocurrent data.Link: http://origins.swau.edu/papers/global/paleocurrents/default.html"We have verified the stable southwesterly pattern of paleocurrents across the craton documented by others [Potter and Pryor(1961), Seeland(1968)] and have chronicled its persistence with some variation throughout the Paleozoic. In the Mesozoic the currents exhibit increasing variability and shift from predominantly westerly to predominantly easterly. By mid Cenozoic there is no discernible continent-wide paleocurrent pattern, reflecting expected tertiary basinal sedimentation. These patterns and transitions must accompany major changes in global current trends.""Paleozoic paleocurrents indicate the influence of directional forces on a grand scale over an extended period. Various authors have attributed the directionality to such things as "regional slopes," but it is difficult to see how this could apply to deposits of such diverse origins over so wide an area. The lack of strong directionality in the underlying Precambrian sustains the need to seek understanding of what makes the Paleozoic style of sedimentation unique with respect to directional indicators".I'll repost the mainstream stuff soon. We think these vast beds were part of the rapid inundation of flood waters. We're talking correlations horizontally across the entire continent of Nth America and vertically through much of the 300 million year Paleozoic.The paleocurrent data also demonstrates a qualitative difference of the tertiary series from the Mesozoic/Paleozoic.The two main points are that
(i) That the flows were sufficient to generate consistent alignment
(ii) The consistency extends to beds formed in 'diverse' environments. We believe the 'diverse' beds had a common origin and were not disconnected from each other.This data is absolutely diagnostic of a rapid global flood.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-13-2002]

^ I'm not that knowledgable about detailed flood models but I would tend to agree with you TC. I tend go along with the Mesozoic being genuine flood deposits.As TC pointed out, this creationist Chadwick also seems to have the best paleocurrent maps on the web based on mainstream published data (these were the ones I posted last moth actually): http://geology.swau.edu/
Here's an eg: http://geology.swau.edu/paleocur/pznorth.html

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-12-2002]

Repost of some quotes from Pettijohn (a mainstream paleocurrent expert):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.Moose - I direct you to these pages of the 3rd Ed of Pettijohn as you requested and the entire paleocurrent chapter.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-12-2002]

Edge, we'll have to see what the modern strata paleocurrents look like but I already know that you will not get ordered paleocurrents across thousands of square miles of today's shelves (I have scuba dived). The entire Precambrian doesn't have ordered paelocurrents - that is more like your epeiric seas. (Within creationist internal debates, this is actually good evidence for my 1000 year day stuff). The noise is superimposed on to the correlated flow. You can't argue wioth data. Much of the noise would be due to local 3D topography of course. The basic point is you would not get paleocurrents from a gradual innundation. You would get the Precambiran type zero paelocurrent strata. That is my well founded expectation. You show me modern day shelf sediments which have ordered paleocurrents over thousands of square miles.Either way there is something very different about Paleozoic and Precambrian innundations. One was rapid, the other was not.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-13-2002]

Gene90, so how did these hoodoos form from a mainstream POV?

Moose, I don't doubt that there are mixed marine/non-marine beds. We obviously expect that in our model where we are getting marine innundation and catastrophic freshwater flooding from highlands. Regardless there is still an overwhelming general current bias that is maintained vertically and horizontally that demonstrates rapidity and connectivity across time and space.

Moose, I've agreed in several places that local 3D topgraphy would have generated the noise. It does not take away from the general continent wide correlation in orientation or the fact that there are continent wide rapid flows in the first place. And I thought mountains were eroded in about 10 million years?Your continent was flooded by rapid correlated marine flows and this was supplemented by freshwater flows down slopes.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-13-2002]

MooseThese smaller processes you could say are non-flood, we could say they are local freshwater flooding but due to the catastrophic global rain.I've read mountains exist for about 10 million years via other mainstream estimates but let's check that up.These flows are 'rapid' enough to generate statistically significant ordering. They are much more rapid than anything in the Precambrian. I am utterly convinced by intuition (gained from scuba diving) they are far more rapid than what occurs in shelf floors today. I am yet to find hard data on this though and would love to see it. I do not deny that locally one might get rapid currents (eg in the Straights of Gibraltar) but on your continent we know that it is continent wide. On averge, almost all sedimentary rock you dig up from eg an eperic sea deposit will display ordered flow. It is not due to local 3D topography in general.

I agree Moose, it would be great to have the data on a per continent, per epoch basis (Please Dr. Chadwick?).All we can say is that the non-marine Appalachian rocks were generated under rapid flow. It may be difficult to distinguish between your model and my model. In both cases we appeal to 3D topography. For you it is lots of floods (I presume) for me it is one. The point of distinguishment would be the relief at the unconformities. Does the non-marine paleocurrents support a global flood? I don't know becasue we don't have the data split into marine and non-marine although I've got the feeling that the non-marine beds are more flow correlated across the continent than you guys would like. But the marine paleocurrents do not support the placid epeiric sea idea that is certain.I would imagine that most of the paleocurrent measurements are from marine deposits.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-13-2002]

Can you explain Gene90? Your posts are very brief.

You might be right about the diving but I doubt it is enough to explain the data Gene90. Remember the entire Precambiran systematically has near zero paleocurrents. I really think that is what you will see for the normal situation. If you think currents sufficient to generate continent wide paleocurrents are the norm then why zero currents in the Precambrian marine beds?

Moose, the flow was rapid enough to generate ordered paleocurrent observables. I would expect that in rivers and floods but not systematically on sea floors. OK - we're talking non-marine so I'll agree that it is 'normal' for rivers and floods. But in that case you then have to agree that the large non-marine beds were laid by floods (obviously many of them)? If you agree then we're back to the unconformity issue.OK what is your normal fluvial mechanism? We're not talking rivers here - look at the correlated Paleozoic data on either side of the Rockies (I presume it's the precursor of the Rockies?). If that data is non-marine (likely since it's high up) then you have vast non-marine beds.I fully agree we need to sort out if these paleocurrent measurements are marine or non-marine. Across the continent I suspect they are generally marine. If they are primarily non-marine then you are in really big trouble Moose - they are generally correlated across the continent somehting you should certainly not expect! If they are primarily marine then you don't have placid epeiric seas.I'm basing my comments on the creationist Chadwick who summarized the Precambrian data as typically having no order. I admitt I don't have a mainstream source on that.

Edge, I would love to show you somehting comparing the rapidity of currents to modern ones - I just can't find it in the mainstream literature. I don't think Pettijohn commented on it in his book either - I was looking out for it.The surprise expressed by the researchers quoted by Pettijohn is what makes me think the rapidiy and order are 'not normal'.My statement about the Precambrian is admittedly sourced from Chadwick's creationist summary (see the first post).These researchers are clearly claiming that the paleocurrent meaurements that they summarize as a vector on a map will be characteristic of the local region - not a single data point. It would be meaningless if you go 100 metres away and you get a different result. that is certainly not what they are claiming.You say what you like but I intuitvely know that currents which can order pebbles and ripple marks are significant. I've searched the USGS-georef and can't find anything relating paleocurrents to modern day currents. There should be a review on the issue somewhere shouldn't there? I only have access to the USGS abstracts.

Gene90, given Chadwick's comment (see first post) I presume the flow rates are low.As for the Hoodoos, I guess we have 4500 years of Lyellian processes not to mention the fact that the flood gradually morphed from catastrophic to Lyellian during the flood drainage.

EdgeThe 'surprise' recorded by paleocurrent researchers clearly was related to the extent of correlation in time and space. Noise may have been a part of it but not the whole story.My statement about the meaningfulness of paleocurrent data is that they are typically represetative of a region which earlier you seemed to be be doubting.Of course rivers and streams generate paelocurrents but not ordered over tens of thousands of square miles!!I personally felt that Pettijohn was lacking in a section linking real currents today and paleocurrents. I looked for it and unless my memory fails me it is not there. If I were writing a chapter on paleocurrents I would have a section on that and the only reason I would leave it out would be because the research hasn't been done! I hint that that is the case but I somehow doubt that this is still true in the 2000s. If it is I might write up a research grant on it and switch to geology next year.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-17-2002]