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

From TB:

quote:

---

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.

---

There is also, on page 520, a series of paleocurrent diagrams that show a strong preferred paleocurrent direction to the northwest (I've posted this diagram before).
As noted above, the rock units include the Upper Devonian Catskill and Pennsylvanian Pottsville. The diagrams also include the Mississsippian Pocono and Mauch Chunk units.I now refer to page 580-582 of the Pettijohn book, where he discusses the molasse sedimentary facies. The above four units are cited (page 582) as being molasse type deposits.I don't wish to type large amounts of text from Pettijohn, other that this (From page 580):

quote:

---

The molasse association consists mainly of sandstone and shales.

---

And from page 581:

quote:

---

The molasse association is thus neither continental nor marine but rather both; it consists of an association of sediments formed in varying local environments including those of the beach and foreshore, the tidal lagoon, and alluval deposits in part deltaic, in part floodplain with its backwater swamp, and in part alluvial fans. In short, the area of molasse sidimentation is a deltaic coastal plain and its inland extension to the mountain front (Fig. 14-14, page 522).

---

Essentially, these molasse type deposits are clastic wedges; sediments that were shed off of the tectonicly lifted Appalachian Mountains.It may be part marine, but that part is near shore marine. Also note, that that northwest paleocurrent trend is a right angle to the general trend of the Appalachian Mountains.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.

---

No, it means that you had a southeast-northwest trending mountain range, that was being eroded. The sediments were transported by alluvial processes (rivers), in a generally northwest direction. The sediments found, support a uniformitarianistic process quite nicely.To requote my Pettijohn:

quote:

---

...a deltaic coastal plain and its inland extension to the mountain front.

---

Sounds like primarily non-marine, fluvial deposition to me.To requote your Pettijohn:

quote:

---

This means essentially stable paleoslope for a period of 150 to 200 milion years.

---

Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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?

---

First of all, I find that I should make a clarification on what I was referring to as the Appalachian Mountains. More accurately, it would have been the precursor mountain range, of which the current Appalachian Mountains are a reminent. Other reminents are the mountains of eastern Europe.Now, indeed, I was focusing in on a smaller area. But that smaller area has rocks that are evidence for a non-"flood" process.I have no data on the time limits to a mountain range existance, but the previous discussion would indicate it is much more than 10 million years.As for your "general continent wide correlation in orientation" (of paleocurrents); this will require more study on my part. For now, I would ask you how and why do you define your "continent wide rapid flows" as being "rapid"?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

First of all, I find this map to be such a simplified summary of so much data, that is of most questionable value:
http://geology.swau.edu/paleocur/pznorth.htmlUnfortunately, the by period maps are of the entire world, and are effectively illegible.I must ponder the remainder of you "wishful thinking" post. I now, however, must ask you: Were the Appalachian rocks we were previously discussing, a result of "catastrophic" processes? Any meaningful results require that we discuss the details, not just some broad generalization of geology.And, how many of those paleocurrent measurements you talk about, are from rocks deposited from non-marine, fluvial processes?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

From TB, message 21:

quote:

---

All we can say is that the non-marine Appalachian rocks were generated under rapid flow.

---

How do you define this "rapid" flow? I see "normal" flow.

quote:

---

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.

---

For me, it's primarily normal fluvial processes. Little or nothing unususal; little or nothing that we don't see happening in the modern world.

quote:

---

I would imagine that most of the paleocurrent measurements are from marine deposits.

---

I would guess that most were non-marine. Without knowing the nature of the paleocurrent indicators, or the type of sediments they're in (at least marine or non-marine), any discussion of substance is impossible. If they were, say, all non-marine, then your position would be badly hurt. If they were all marine, my position would be badly hurt. For the essence (but not all) of the arguement (it seems) is the distribution of marine and non-marine sediments.TB from message 24:

quote:

---

Remember the entire Precambrian systematically has near zero paleocurrents.

---

I don't know what you mean by that word "systematically", but there is an abundance of paleocurrent indicators in Precambrian rocks. And there are many areas of consistant general flow direction, much as in the Appalachian example previously discussed. I'll dig into my Precambrian Geology class notes, if you want more on this.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

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

quote:

---

The Moine series of Scotland is preCambrian. Your entire thesis is nullified by your own reference. This illustrates the pitfalls of relying on Creationist secondary sources (those with agendas that conflict with scientific honesty and integrity). Always check the primary literature.

​

You can't argue with the data.

---

Actually, TB and I have been directly consulting the Pettijohn book (added by edit 6/17/02: Of course, the book isn't "the primary literature", but it is a reliable source). And I did notice that the Moine was pC, although I don't know if TB did (I think that info may have been elsewhere in the book, or perhaps I found it on the web).The discussion has, more or less, been on marine paleocurrents. I, though, have been trying, to some degree, point out the non-marine-ness of a least some of the geological units TB is citing. I don't have specific information at hand, but I suspect the Moine is also non-marine.Still a rather amusing self contridiction on TB's part.I've concluded, and I think TB agrees, that it is impossible to have further meaningful discussion on these paleocurrents, without more specific information on their nature, including the nature of the containing rock units.TB's source of inspiration was cited earlier in the string. He is a geologist/biologist who teaches at an Adventist university. He has apparently compiled a massive amount of paleocurrent data. The purpose of such is apparently to show widespread consistant paleocurrents in continental marine rocks, as support for "the flood". To what degree his compilation of paleocurrent info is only that of marine deposited rocks, I don't know. It would seem to be further amusement, if many of these paleocurrents were actually found to be from measurements in non-marine rocks.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 06-18-2002]

I strongly suspect, that if the collective deposits of the modern east coast of the U.S. streams were studied, the big picture arrived at would be of the nature of the molasse deposits, as mentioned in message 9.Side note: Of course, present day stream processes have been radically influenced by human engineering projects.

quote:

---

These beds are sheets of strata not river beds!

---

Once again, what we need is detailed information on one or more of your non-marine "sheets of strata". I suspect that this detailed information could very well show that at least some are a result of uniformatarianist aluvial processes (ie. "river beds").TB, care to pick a specific non-marine "sheet of strata", to explore in detail?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Just a note:
Material concerning both paleocurrents and non-marine sedimentation has ended up in the "Non-marine sediments" topic at
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=18&m=110#110I have responded to message 110, in message 112 of that topic.Cheers,
Moose

Thank you, Edge, for (more or less) writing the message I didn't feel up to doing.

quote:

---

Once again, I must explain that the currents you see plotted are prevailing currents and that there is a lot of diversity of current directions in any data set. This is due to an overall westward paleoslope on the west side of the original Appalachian Mtns.

---

TB, remember the paleocurrent diagrams from Pettijohn? Although most of those had a general northwest direction, they was a considerable range of readings varying from that general direction.

quote:

---

Also, these are probably from non marine sediments, though you do not specify exactly what they are

---

I also suspect that the paleocurrent data is from non-marine sediments.In general, TB is taking the vaguest of data, and making the grandest of conclusions. IMO, until more precise data is presented, there is no basis for further discussion on the topic.Side note: Joe Meert has related information at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=18&m=152#152Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

(Sorry to jump in here Moose, but I can't resist).

---

You're more than welcome to. I personally think that all possible discussion has been done, until TB comes up with some additional and substantial data to clarifiy and substantiate his paleocurrent claims.

quote:

---

(Addressed to TB)
How do you know it was a lake, by the way? A suspicion or a gut reaction?

---

I fired my last major shot at message 131 of the "Mon-marine Sediments" topic. I'll repeat (or re-repeat) some of what I posted there.

quote:

---

Repeating the cyclothem description (p.441 of Verhoogen et all):

​

[quote within quote]
A typical cyclothem in Illinois (see Figure 8-30) has sandstone and shale at the base, overlain by discontinuous layers of fresh-water limestone, which is overlain in turn by a coal bed. A meter or less of hard flinty clay beneath the coal, called underclay, is interpreted to be the soil beneath the coal-swamp vegetation. The coal is overlain by gray shale with a marine invertebrate fauna and scattered plant fossils (apparently floating vegetation). which grades upward into a variable alternating sequence of marine limestone, black marine shale, and gray marine shale. This marine sequence is overlain in turn by the basal sandstone and shale of the next cyclothem.
[end of quote within quote]

​

Note the phrase: "discontinuous layers of fresh-water limestone".

---

AND

quote:

---

Now, from Pettijohn's Sedimentary Rocks, 3rd ed., p. 320:

​

[quote within quote]
Freshwater carbonates In some present-day freshwater lakes friable carbonate earths, designated marl, are forming (Davis, 1900). (...gap...) Marl beds also underlie many freshwater swamp peats, recording an earlier lacustrine stage.
[end of quote within quote]

---

This is where, more or less, the lake discussion originated. I have no problem visualizing lakes on a low relief surface, even if it does have a general SW (paleo)slope.I also quoted a major chunk of Verhoogen et all's discussion of cyclothem formation, at that other page. See it at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=18&m=131#131Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

I don't have any further response at the moment, but I do wish to say:This discussion seems to be happening with essentially identical content at two different strings (or is it more?). I strongly suggest that the cyclothems discussion be confined to the "Non-marine Sediments" topic, which currently (and soon to be paleocurrently ) is at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=18&m=185#185Psycho Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe