|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Paleocurrents: the 'diverse' features of the GC were laid via rapid, correlated flow | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
From TB:
quote: 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: And from page 581:
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: 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: Sounds like primarily non-marine, fluvial deposition to me. To requote your Pettijohn: quote: Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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.html Unfortunately, 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
From TB, message 21:
quote: How do you define this "rapid" flow? I see "normal" flow.
quote: 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 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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#110 I have responded to message 110, in message 112 of that topic. Cheers,Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Thank you, Edge, for (more or less) writing the message I didn't feel up to doing.
quote: 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: 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#152 Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: 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: 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: AND
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#131 Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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 http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=18&m=185#185 Psycho Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024