Non-marine sediments

quote:

---

Clastic impurities? The floating mats are the last to sink. Once the flow stops, silt settles and then the mats sink. That is no 'just so' story - it is exactly what one would expect.

---

It must have been pretty tough on those poor insects and invertebrates when their floating mats got converted into coal.How many times do you think this happened during the flood year? Did you really say 50?Why didn't the floating mats float up again when the next surge came in?Isn't the amount of coal more than could be accounted for if all the earth's preflood surface where covered with thick vegetation and it all got converted to coal through this absurd scenario?Randy

^ This cycling could have been due to a number of things from:1. Twice daily tides on a nearly globally covered earth (simulations have shown large global currents in this situation2. Tectonically induced tidal waves3. Larger scale gobal sea-level changes caused by catastrophic sea-floor spreading.Whatever the case the data talks of catastrophism more than it does gradualism. Why else do we have rapidly transported sandstones interspersed with coal for 1000s of feet of strata over half a continent? None of the mainstream theories accounts for this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ This cycling could have been due to a number of things from:

​

1. Twice daily tides on a nearly globally covered earth (simulations have shown large global currents in this situation

​

2. Tectonically induced tidal waves

​

3. Larger scale gobal sea-level changes caused by catastrophic sea-floor spreading.

​

Whatever the case the data talks of catastrophism more than it does gradualism. Why else do we have rapidly transported sandstones interspersed with coal for 1000s of feet of strata over half a continent? None of the mainstream theories accounts for this.

---

It seems to me from reading these threads that you just chose to ignore the explanations that have been given to you over and over. You do this because they don't fit your myth.Why don't you try to explain where all this sand came from? Did God create hugh amounts of sand just so it could be spread around to fool us into thinking that flood deposits actually had a different origin?You try to focus on one thing that you think can be twisted to fit your myth, even though it doesn't really fit and ignore the masses of evidence that falsify the global flood many times over in many ways.There are clear examples of sandstones made from wind formed sand dunes in the geologic column. How did this happen during the global flood? How did evaporate forms? How did thick salt layers get deposited in Utah while the flood was washing back a forth and depositing all the layers of the Colorado plateau? Or I remember! The water was boiling. OOPs that kills off all life. How did paleosols form during the flood? How about limestones and dolomites? One huge weakness of "flood geology" is that the source of the sediments is never discussed. That and the fact that the flood layers are never clearly identified because there are no worldwide flood layers. You have already shown that you can't explain fossil ordering, biogeography and biodiversity. You can't really explain geology with the flood myth either.Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I think your Rose diagrams were from Pettijohn. I presume you understood that every paleocurrent meaurement at a particular site is a rose diagram that shows the stats? The rose output gives the average direciton and a correlaiton type parameter (usually between 0 and 1.0) indicating consistency. (Mathematially you sum all the vectors, the resultant gives the direction and the length of the resultant divided by 'n' gives the correlation). In any case all real data will show a spread. But when the rose diagram points SW with a statistical correlation of 0.75 half way across North America then it is clear that these results indicate a correlated origin for thse sandstone beds.

---

So, how do you explain the divergent paleocurrent directions? Not only are the ones you are talking about simply prevailing current directions, similar to what we would see today, there are some units that have entirely different directions? Heck, if these were radiometric dates, you'd be howling about how undependable they are.Besides, why aren't the currents showing two primary directions? If your flood occurred in surges, it would be logical that the currents should show both flood and ebb directions.

quote:

---

The trees sank vertically and silt formed around the roots.

---

How do you know this? Were you there? In fact real scientist would say that they 'appear to have sunk in the vertical position.'

quote:

---

In Austin's video the trees just 'hover' due to near neutral bouyancy.

---

Oh, I get it. You are using Stuart Nevins' theory. Now, let's see... where is the coal in Spirit Lake... Hmm, there isn't any. And where are the tracks of terrestrial animals? Nope, none there. How about the widespread sheets of sedimentary deposits? Nope, not present.And just how long do you think a neutral bouyant tree will stay in one, vertical position is such currents as you envision? Seems to me they would be knocked down and transported to the corners of the earth.

quote:

---

If the flood plain is carrying a lot of silt then footprints can be recorde in water. Most of trackways in the grand Canyon best match amphibian/reptiles walking under water.

---

Yes, according to some creationists they were made under 300 feet of water. Interesting reptiles you're imagining. No, the deposits are aeolian. The grains size distribution and the frosted facets are quite distinct.

quote:

---

We do not observe the floating mat model today becasue there is no global flood today.

---

Oh, I see. That is convenient for you.

quote:

---

But Mt St Helen's gives us an idea. Just think howmany other aspects of geology would not be a puzzle if one could sit and watch it happen.

---

Right. You are comparing a proximal stratovolcanic environment to a flood plain. I get it.

quote:

---

Clastic impurities? The floating mats are the last to sink.

---

Then why are they not on top of everything?

quote:

---

Once the flow stops, silt settles and then the mats sink. That is no 'just so' story - it is exactly what one would expect.

---

And just where do you see this today? Remember you are depositing millions(?) of cubic miles of sediment in just a year. This makes no sense whatever and I would certainly not expect it.

RandyYou think I ignore things? I think it is incredible how you think Pennsylvanian era geology can be reconstucted with such ease. Where the sand came from is the same problem for both sides.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You think I ignore things? I think it is incredible how you think Pennsylvanian era geology can be reconstucted with such ease. Where the sand came from is the same problem for both sides.

---

With ease? Sorry, but this was undertaken by years of painstaking fieldwork. That is fieldwork that creationists have NOT done. And the sand is not really a problem. In fact I'm pretty sure that it's provenance was from older Pz sands and crystalline basement in the highlands to the east. This is just another 'problem' invented by creationists. We recognize no such problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
This cycling could have been due to a number of things from:

​

1. Twice daily tides on a nearly globally covered earth (simulations have shown large global currents in this situation

---

You still have the problem of how trees grew in these locations. There is no evidence that diurnal tidal fluctuations had anything to do with cyclothems. If you have some, I'd love to see it.

quote:

---

2. Tectonically induced tidal waves

---

Show us tidal waves that have deposited coal beds and you might have something.

quote:

---

3. Larger scale gobal sea-level changes caused by catastrophic sea-floor spreading.

---

Why does it have to be catastrophic? You have not ruled out 'gradual' rises in sea level, and yet indicate that they must be catastrophic. Why?

quote:

---

Whatever the case the data talks of catastrophism more than it does gradualism.

---

Please support this statement. [quote]Why else do we have rapidly transported sandstones interspersed with coal for 1000s of feet of strata over half a continent? None of the mainstream theories accounts for this.[/B][/QUOTE]You have not shown that they were rapidly transported. You have not even defined what 'rapid' is. You also have not shown a coal bed to correlate over half a continent. Please back up your statements. You are simply making assertions here, hoping that we will tire of them and let you off the hook.A while back you even admitted that it might be 'only a couple of states in size' when confronted with actual evidence. You seem to be forgetting what we have helped you with.

EdgeIt is clear that you pick and choose one aspect of what we are saying at a time and refuse to look at the entire story at any one time. When we talk about evidence of catastrophic layering you say 'but what about the trees', when we explain our theory about the trees you say 'but what evidence is there for catastophic layering'. Pardon the analogy, but it is as if I am talking to an Alzeimers sufferer. We have a self consistent sceanrio that could actually be the truth. Since you can never retain more than one aspect of our model at a time you will never even be able to say, yes, it is self consistent.I do not claim proof of anything except that we have evidence that can be interpreted as the catastrophic burial of thousands of feet of sediment across half of North America.None of you will ever even say it is self consistent because to say that we can demonstrate plausibility that thousands of feet of strata were catastrophically laid across half of North America would mean there was almost nothing standing in the way of explaining the entire tens of thosands of feet of most of the geological column rapidly. So of course you will never say it is possible or self consistent even though it is both.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-05-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]EdgeIt is clear that you pick and choose one aspect of what we are saying at a time and refuse to look at the entire story at any one time. . [/quote]Actually this is exactly what you do. When shown all the data that cannot possibly be consistent with a worldwide flood you say, "I think I see something that might possibly be consistent with flood deposition so I reject your falsifications" even though you can't refute them. When shown that what you think is consistent with flood deposition is not actually evidence of a worldwide flood you just repeat assertions that have already been refuted.

quote:

---

When we talk about evidence of catastrophic layering you say 'but what about the trees', when we explain our theory about the trees you say 'but what evidence is there for catastophic layering'

---

When shown that your "model" can't explain features such as rooted trees and dinosaur tracks you try to change the subject to the non existent evidence of "catastrophic layering" when asked for evidence of catastrophic layering you just assert that it is there.

quote:

---

Pardon the analogy, but it is as if I am talking to an Alzeimers sufferer. We have a self consistent sceanrio that could actually be the truth. Since you can never retain more than one aspect of our model at a time you will never even be able to say, yes, it is self consistent.

---

Your scenario may be self consistent but unfortunatly for you it is not consistent with the real world.

quote:

---

I do not claim proof of anything except that we have evidence that can be interpreted as the catastrophic burial of thousands of feet of sediment across half of North America.

---

Only if you ignore a lot of factors that Edge and Joe and others have pointed out to you over and over.

quote:

---

None of you will ever even say it is self consistent because to say that we can demonstrate plausibility that thousands of feet of strata were catastrophically laid across half of North America would mean there was almost nothing standing in the way of explaining the entire tens of thosands of feet of most of the geological column rapidly. So of course you will never say it is possible or self consistent even though it is both.

---

But you have demonstrated no such thing and further even if some parts were plausible it would mean nothing unless catastrophic deposition by a WORLDWIDE flood were the ONLY possible explanation because there are so many other observations in geology, paleontology, archeology, biogeography and biodiversity and probably a few that I left out that totally falsify the worldwide flood of Noah.
Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It is clear that you pick and choose one aspect of what we are saying at a time and refuse to look at the entire story at any one time.

---

Those aspects are called details. Your model does not explain the details. That is why we keep coming back to them. Besides, if I ever got some answers to my questions I might not have to repeat them so often.

quote:

---

When we talk about evidence of catastrophic layering you say 'but what about the trees', when we explain our theory about the trees you say 'but what evidence is there for catastophic layering'.

---

But actually, my questions are the same ones. How do you account for 'catastrophic layering' when the trees are evidence of longer periods of time. You have not explaind how fully developed trees managed to survive or develop in between successive surges of the flood. So basically, your story about trees is unsupportable and your catastrophic flood surges is unsupportable.

quote:

---

Pardon the analogy, but it is as if I am talking to an Alzeimers sufferer.

---

It's probably early onset.

quote:

---

We have a self consistent sceanrio that could actually be the truth.

---

Internal consistency is not a measure of accuracy. You seem to have accepted several premises that are inconsistent with the facts.

quote:

---

Since you can never retain more than one aspect of our model at a time you will never even be able to say, yes, it is self consistent.

---

Correct. You do not have evidence for catastrophic flooding. Oh, yeah, you don't have evidence that the coal beds are related to flood surges either. Maybe you just need to show that ONE of your interpretations is correct.

quote:

---

I do not claim proof of anything except that we have evidence that can be interpreted as the catastrophic burial of thousands of feet of sediment across half of North America.

---

I see that we are not getting through to you. Simply put, your evidence has been soundly refuted.

quote:

---

None of you will ever even say it is self consistent because to say that we can demonstrate plausibility that thousands of feet of strata were catastrophically laid across half of North America would mean there was almost nothing standing in the way of explaining the entire tens of thosands of feet of most of the geological column rapidly. So of course you will never say it is possible or self consistent even though it is both.

---

But you have failed to satisfy the details evident in nature. You want to preserve upright trees and dinosaur footprints through catastrophic surges that occur over 'half of North America' at least once a week for a year. This is incredibly inconsistent.You want to denude forests of the planet to produce 'floating mats' of logs and organic debris and then you expect them to sink quietly into nice thick layers. You want to do this repeatedly. Tell us, where did the trees come from? What was your continuous source of trees? Does this mean that there was some land upon which trees could grow throughout the time of the flood? Does that sound like a global flood to you? I am simply astounded that you find your model to be internally consistent. How can you, with a straight face, expect us to accept such an ad hoc set of disjointed concepts.

In an earlier post on this thread, TB postulated that the dinosaur footprints in, or near, coal beds were formed when dinosaurs wandered into the flood-devastated land between flood surges. This raises some questions, such as why did those dinosaurs migrate into these regions? Heck, according to you, these areas were quite large... almost continental, in fact. Must have been an awfully long trek throught the mud. Certainly there was no food since the vegetation in these places was all buried by the flood surge. Or did plants grow there during the week or less between surges?I'd also like to know where the dinosaurs came from. I mean, doesn't this indicate that there was some land mass present that wasn't affected by the flood? Were these places mountainous? Why didn't humans find these places and survive the flood surge to leave some footprints also? Was there one final, mother-of-all-surges that was the real flood? I mean, at some point, the entire world must have been flooded, right? When did that occur?How did all these violent surges affect the vegetation mats? It seems to me that with the 'rapid' currents that you have found, they would be broken up and scattered throughout the geological record. And just how did Noah's ark survive the repeated high currents and beachings?One last question (for now). Do you know anything about what kind of deposits and current indicators are left behind by tidal currents? How do these compare to your cited current indicators?