glaciers and the flood

I just love this:

quote:

---

The flood was a tremendous tectonic and volcanic event. Layers of volcanic ash mixed within sedimentary rocks and large basaltic lava flows attest to extensive flood volcanism. Over 50,000 volcanoes are estimated on land and on the bottom of the ocean. Many of these likely formed during the flood. At the end of the flood a large amount of volcanic dust and aerosols would presumably have been trapped in the upper atmosphere.

---

JM: To which I say (again).. What flood? There is no evidence for a flood. This whole article states (matter-of-factly) that a global flood occurred and everything can be explained because of that. The problem is that no one is willing to be pinned down on the timing of the flood and the evidence for the flood. If it occurred in the Precambrian (ala Setterfield and a few others), then the Phanerozoic geologic record (especially the Pleistocene) would be fairly far removed from the ravages of the flood (even using a 10000 year interval). Until Oard can tell us when the flood happened and why we find paleosols forming during the flood, his meteorological conjectures are quite useless.CheersJoe Meert

Ahh Brad, We can always depend on you for some delicious word salad.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

hahaha! Im rolling!

---

JM: Hey buddy! How's it going at USF? I'm still pissed they did not allow you in here, but I can always hope to grab you when you come to grad school. Are you liking it?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Word salad" has just been added to my vocabulary.

---

JM: Now check out the definition!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Come on, Joe, you know full well that flood catastrophists utterly reject all uniformitarian dating of the geologic record as irrelevant to their model. So your argument here is irrelevant to a catastrophic flood model.

---

JM: C'mon Roy that's a cop-out and you know it. If 'most' of the geologic record was deposited as a result of the flood, then some of it was not. That means that it should be reasonable to ask (using uniformitarian layers for terminology purposes only) what layer marks the onset, which layers preceded the flood, which layers formed during the peak stages of the flood and which layers formed after. I'm not asking you to accept the dating of the layers, I'm asking you to use the names as a common reference. Wanna try again? Heck, I'd settle for you telling me what 'most' means in your terminology? Is what uniformitarians refer to as the Paleozoic flood or not flood? How about the Mesozoic (flood or no flood?). The Cenozoic (flood or no flood)? Or do you assert that superposition of strata is totally meaningless even compressed to a 6000 year (or 1 year) time interval?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

I'm aware of a hand full of creationary catactclysmic flood models [you mentioned Setterfield for one] Some begin and end the flood in different parts of the geologic record.

---

JM: I know, I find that most intriguing. I know it does not bother you (even though it should), but shouldn't a global cataclysm of such importance be easy to recognize in the geologic strata? Yet it seems there are only a handful of creationists who even attempt to be pinned down on specifics (I know why!).

quote:

---

However, the more popular ideas put the beginning of the flood with layers that are typically called 'Cambrian' and put the end of the flood in layers typically labled 'Tertiary.'

---

JM: Yes, so how is it that layers from Cambrian through Tertiary contain hundreds (if not thousands) of paleosols? These ancient soil horizons require time to form. They contain rootlets and burrows indicating a thriving (and non submersed) community. You can find them all over the globe and all through the geologic column. They are utterly unexplainable in terms of a global flood. Vertebrate burrows in Jurassic Paleosol (courtesy S. Hasiotis)How do you explain the presence of glacial deposits in the Ordovician for example in your flood model? Tillite example.What flood produces massive aeolian deposits? Navajo SandstoneWhat were termites doing establishing colonies and building giant nests in the midst of this global tempest. FOSSIL TERMITE MOUNDS (courtesy Steve Hasiotis)The reason creationists don't have a uniform model? If they did, they'd be hard pressed to explain the observations. They need to be nebulous in order to convince their brethren that the flood is possible when the geologic record is unequivocal in its rejection of a global flood. How do they explain the 10's of thousands of meters of Precambrian sedimentary rock?

quote:

---

Flood cataclysmic geologists believe that 'superposition' is the most important 'law' of geology.

---

So how were the above mentioned rocks 'superposed' in the flood?

quote:

---

What they disagree with is the typical interpetation of depositional environments.

---

JM: No they don't. They simply won't be pinned down on the specifics.

quote:

---

The current sedimentary rock classification system is based on the uniformitarian concept of three primary depositional environments (with many sub-environments) -- marine, non-marine (i.e. continental) and transitional. Such a classification system automatically precludes interpretation of the geologic record as the result of a global cataclysm of Biblical perportions.

---

JM: Nonsense. Creationists have no good explanation for paleosols throughout the geologic record. They cannot explain the existence of termite mounds in the midst of a global tempest. You can cover your eyes, but you cannot hide.

quote:

---

Flood cataclysmists agree that such a classification system is valid as long as there has not been a global flood, but they believe that there has been such a global cataclysm.

---

JM: But it's obviously not clear to them what represents the flood deposits. I know why. Agassiz understood why. The reason is quite simple, there was no global flood.

quote:

---

Therefore, any classification system based on the idea that there was no global cataclysm is bound to be inadequate.

---

JM: The 'system' was NEVER based on the assumption that no global flood occurred. That's inventing history.

quote:

---

As a result, there is now a concerted effort among flood cataclysmic geologists to develop a new interpretive classification system of sedimentary rocks.

---

JM: Baloney, they've had hundreds of years to demonstrate the flood.

quote:

---

Just as uniformitarian geologists base their classification system upon their belief in naturalism,

---

JM: Baloney, the classification system has nothing to do with philosophical beliefs. Christians, Muslim, agnostic and atheist scientists were all responsible for studying ancient depositional environments. It's only ye-creationists who refuse to see what the rocks are telling them.

quote:

---

Most flood cataclysmists are Christains, meaning that they believe in Jesus as their savior. Not only is Jesus their savior he is also the creator.

---

JM: More Christians are not flood cataclysmists, meaning that they also believe Jesus is their savior. The fact that a few have chosen to believe an ancient flood myth has nothing to do with their salvation.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

I'm no geologist. Perhaps you can check this link and let me know what it is actually saying about the first of the Joe Meert examples? (the Missouri one) We will have to also wait till Joe gets back to give us some more info.

---

JM: Yes, they do and I explained quite clearly why I resized and relabled the photograph:

quote:

---

This photo is updated as the old photo was improperly formatted (the update was made solely to provide proper perspective and to highlight the absurdity of Tas Walker's 'analysis' rather than to Walker's blustering about 'changing the story').

---

By the way, the caption reads regolith and paleosol DEVELOPED ON, not DEVELOPMENT.I'll give a brief account here of the history of this page here. When I was at Indiana State, I conducted a paleomagnetic research project on the St. Francois Mtns volcanics/intrusives (Meert and Stuckey, Tectonics 2002 v 21:2, DOI 10.1029/2000TC001265). On one of my sampling trips I was accompanied by Steve Hasiotis (http://www.findarticles.com/...i_m1511/is_n2_v19/ai_20159538). Steve is a world-renowned expert on trace fossils and paleosols. Steve pointed out this paleosol to me and later thinking about the notion, I realized that paleosols present a real problem for the ye-viewpoint. If you look at the original paleosol site Paleosols you'll see that the discussion of paleosols was part of a larger essay. When TAs Walker picked up on this and wrote a 'journal' article on one deformed photograph I was amazed. Naturally, I realized that the discussion needed some expansion and clarification because most of Walker's arguments were incorrect. You can see my detailed response to his article Geology at 200 d . There are many types of paleosols and the assertion that every paleosol must show every horizon or every feature is nonsensical (for example one would not expect to find root traces in Precambrian paleosols). The development of specific soil horizons depends on many factors.
So, yes I did relabel and resize the photograph in order to point out the details and included another photo that I found in a publication by Kisvarsanyi: As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with providing further clarification in science. If there is some rule that I've violated, then I'd like to hear about it. Lastly, I spent a week last fall with Greg Retallack and had the opportunity to discuss paleosols with him (at the outcrop). Frankly, I did not even realize the extent to which paleosols appear in the sedimentary record. On our trip out to Toroweap, he pointed out no less than 50 paleosol horizons. Here is a photo of Greg Retallack (right) and Walter Alvarez (left) examining a paleosol at the rim of the Grand Canyon at Toroweap (line from Greg's right foot to his left knee defines the base of the paleosol and the top of the paleosol is defined by the rock at about Greg's chest height. Greg is without question, one of the world's leading authority on the subject of paleosols. I suggest you read his book "Soils of the Past". You can purchase the book at Amazon
http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/HL-Ebooks/outdoor/geology.htmor you may want to read the book 'Soils and geomorphology' (also available at the above mentioned website) by Peter W. Birkeland. At any rate, Tas' diatribe on my paleosol suggests that one ye-creationist recognized a problem (even if he was able to wish it away). I'll get to the rest of your comments when I get a chance. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that Hasiotis and I are wrong and that this is not a paleosol, how does that help ye-creationists? There are still thousands of paleosols in the geologic record that meet the criteria you demand. How did those paleosols develop during the flood?CheersJoe MeertThis message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-25-2005 14:24 AM

quote:

---

Rootlets? Where are the roots? What kind of natural mechanism could rip all the rootlets off the roots and then only preserve the rootlets? If rootlets are preserved in-situ then the roots should be also.

---

JM: I mistyped. The correct term would be root traces. The roots themselves are gone.

quote:

---

Creationary geologists are working on reinterpretation of burrows.

---

JM: I bet they are! This is a big problem for them.

quote:

---

Are they tillites?? Oard has published research on this.

---

JM: Really, I just looked up his name in Georef and came up blank. Yes, they really are tillites.

quote:

---

It is impossible for anyone of any persuasion to do any science without a set of presuppositions.

---

JM: Ahh yes, this old canard. You might enjoy this:Same EvidenceWhy is it that petroleum and mining companies won't pay for your presuppositions, Mrs. Morris?CheersJoe MeertThis message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-25-2005 12:57 AM

quote:

---

This description is admittedly brief, but the most important part is missing -- i.e. the description of the 'horizons' that define a soil. No horizions, no soil.

---

JM: Yes, and I explained why it is a brief description. The purpose of the webpage was not specifically meant to discuss this particular example, but the problem that paleosols present in general to the young earth column. I also think you need to get more current on the definition of paleosol.

quote:

---

That's it! And there no references to back up that assertion. Meert just expects us to believe him that it is a paleosol because he calls it a paleosol.

---

JM: Actually, it was Steve Hasiotis who identified it as a paleosol. If you would like to contact steve, I can give you his e-mail. What I find intriguing as well is that you seem satisfied to reject it as a paleosol simply because Tas Walker (who has never even been to the outcrop) thinks it is not a paleosol.

quote:

---

But before we move on to something else, this needs to come to closure. Either Meert needs to provide evidence that this particular formation is truely a paleosol or admit that he just thinks it is.

---

JM: Umm, yes I am going to get on the next plane to Missouri so that I can sample the paleosol and demonstrate to royboys satisfaction that it is a paleosol. The funny thing is, I'm willing to bet that even with all that effort, you will still dismiss it with a handwave. So, in order to expedite the conversation I am willing to discard this one paleosol as an example. That leaves some tens of thousand other paleosols that await your handwave.

quote:

---

Frankly, I believe that they are hard to recognize simply because they are not paleosols. I believe that a cataclysmic interpretation can be found for all the interpreted paleosols especially in light of tsunami deposition.

---

JM: The irony meter just went red. Ok, we should accept this proclamation because....

quote:

---

I did not mean to imply at paleosols should have ALL the horizions found in soils, although it may have sounded like it. Since a soil is defined by means of horizions, then a paleosol should have at least one horizion. Since your did not mention any such horizion in the formation, and one certainly did not appear in the photo, then classifying it as a paleosol is certainly ambiguous and perhaps arbitrary. It appears to be simply an unsorted conglomerate.

---

JM: You visited the outcrop when? Are you aware of the current discussion regarding the definition of paleosols within the scientific community?

quote:

---

I find it interesting that in the web page you simply call it a paleosol without providing any evidence.

---

JM: No, I explained why it was on the website and I explained that an expert in paleosols examined the outcrop. I also explained that you may completely disregard this example and you are still left with thousands of others to dismiss.

quote:

---

And, in the paper in Tectonics, you assert in a single line with no referrences that it is a paleosol. And now, you say that your source of interpretation is Steve Hasiotis. But even yet there is no explanation why this is a paleosol, it all rests upon an appeal to authority.

---

JM: As does your refutation of it. Two of us (hasiotis and myself) have been to the outcrop, examined the outcrop and concluded that it is a paleosol. We might be wrong, but at this point I tend to rely more on our observations than on those who have never been to the site or ever published on paleosols.More on your alleged paradigm later.CheersJoe Meert

the rest of my reply:I’ve given you a good example of why the ‘framework’ argument is a red-herring. You’re basically claiming that all ‘frameworks’ offer the same explanatory power. Thus if someone has the ‘pixie’ framework that establishes that all geologic observations were made by evil pixies, it should be considered equally with ye-creationism. After all, both the pixieists, the naturalists and the ye-creationists have access to the same observations. They just interpret them differently. Perhaps the true acid test of ye-creationism is how it is valued by those with no stake in how well the paradigm works. Oil companies don’t ask to see the latest creation model to help them find oil, yet they do consult people like Hasiotis to examine paleoenvironments. They consult paleomagnetists to help them establish continental configurations and locate potential places for oil exploration. When the rubber meets the road and $$ is on the line, not a single oil company wants to hear the ye-creation world view because it offers no informational value.I don’t doubt for a second that creationists will need to reinterpret paleosols to fit their worldview just as they must reinterpret tillites. The real issue is the value of the paradigm. Ye-creationists have to re-interpret the fossil record, transitional fossils. They need to reinterpret aeolian deposits, desert varnish, the presence of tracks in sandstone. They need to reinterpret the standard biological classification system. They have to re-interpret every single radiometric date, the physics of radiometric dating. They have to reinterpret astronomical observations, the 2nd law of thermodynamics etc. etc. The real question they never seem to want to ask is how all these sciences could be so wrong and yet function so well. Instead of saying, you know, we (ye-creationists) have to come up with an excuse for nearly every scientific discovery that is made...could it be that we are wrong? Instead, they fall back and say "No, our interpretation of the bible is correct and therefore we are right to force the round pegs of science into our square view of theology.Furthermore, most of ye-creation science is reactionary. Modern science makes an observation and ye-creationists re-interpret that observation. Yet ye-creationists make very few novel observations of their own and thus the scientific value of ye-creationism can rightly be challenged.CheersJoe MeertThis message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-26-2005 15:09 AM