Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 2:23 PM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,876 Year: 4,913/19,786 Month: 1,035/873 Week: 391/376 Day: 22/46 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2627282930
31
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
edge
Member
Posts: 4510
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 452 of 460 (20177)
10-18-2002 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by wmscott
10-15-2002 5:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Diatoms don't have little wings, their ill regular shape and having a density closer to sea water than silica, will cause them to travel comparatively farther, but only so far.

Well then, how far is that?

quote:
As for the wind blown diatoms in Antarctica you should look at their size.

Maybe you should. The differences in density and aerodynamics indicate to me that this might be no problem. Now, since, it is your position that this is wrong, it is up to you to show why.

quote:
As you yourself pointed out, some diatoms are very small and are easily transported by wind. As I stated earlier, I am working with diatoms and now forams that are far too large for wind transport to account for.

But you have not shown this. Your only example consists of wind transport of quartz grains. This is completely irrelevant. Once again you have a weak grasp of what evidence is.

quote:
On your "wind can be a very effective transporter of sediments up to the medium-grained sand size. This includes grains up to 200 microns" I would suggest you remember your vantage point, standing on the ground I would guess. From such a vantage point you are seeing the saltation effect. To be carried hundreds or thousands of miles, the sand needs to be carried many thousands of feet up into the atmosphere.

First of all you have not shown that saltation is not a viable mechanism for transporting diatoms in a periglacial environment. Second you have not shown that such altitides are not attainable by diatoms of any size.

quote:
Ground level blowing will not do the trick. Consider sand dunes, they move by the wind blowing the sand up over the dune and down the other side, the dune is moved slowly inch by inch.

Consider then dust storms that that cover hundreds of square miles...

quote:
The wind doesn't just blow them away up into the air and they come down in another part of the country. The sand grains the dunes are composed of are too large for the wind to carry away.

And just what does this have to do with diatoms? Please, for just once, give us some evidence that actually supports your position.

quote:
Great rocks are moved by rivers, but of course the rocks don't float and are too large for normal turbulent river water too carry, they are moved as bed load. It is the same with wind blown sand, grains too large to be carried by the air are blown along the ground and near the ground. This is seen in the way sand dunes move in land under prevailing wind conditions. The site I posted the link to in post 441 had information on wind erosion that should be helpful.

Thank you for the lesson. However, it is not relevant to this discussion.

quote:
On the microtektites you stated that "The earth receives some tons of them every day." are you saying that the earth has tons of debris created each day by daily impact events, or are you confusing microtektites with meteor dust? Impact events are fairly common in the geological sense, but they are not a daily event or the sky must really be falling where you live.

Yeah, well, sometimes I get carried away with a train of thought. Especially when I don't particularly feel that a lot of work is warranted as a response.

[This message has been edited by edge, 10-18-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by wmscott, posted 10-15-2002 5:23 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by wmscott, posted 11-04-2002 4:41 PM edge has responded

wmscott
Member (Idle past 4353 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 453 of 460 (21544)
11-04-2002 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by Percy
10-17-2002 9:01 PM


Dear Percipient;

Sometimes I only bother to reply because of the possible audience that maybe be reading this, perhaps some of them have an open mind, and they will see for themselves that there is some merit in what I have to say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Percy, posted 10-17-2002 9:01 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by Percy, posted 11-09-2002 10:11 PM wmscott has not yet responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 4353 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 454 of 460 (21545)
11-04-2002 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by edge
10-18-2002 11:23 AM


Dear Edge;
quote:
you have not shown that saltation is not a viable mechanism for transporting diatoms in a periglacial environment. Second you have not shown that such altitides are not attainable by diatoms of any size.

Saltation movement of material causes a good deal of wear and tear, sort of like rolling your car down a mountain side, the method of transportation will be obvious by the damage done. The material I have found is in very good shape so saltation is not viable as an explanation for the transport mechanism. As for lifting diatoms to high altitudes, saltation is strictly a near surface phenomenon. The links and information already posted clearly show that particles as large as the diatoms and forams we are discussing, are not lifted to high altitudes in the atmosphere, unless you wish to invoke Wizard of Oz type wind effects.

quote:
Consider then dust storms that that cover hundreds of square miles...

Still only a local transport event if it occurs over a sandy area, and the finer sand can of course be carried great distances. If you have a point to make here, you will have to state it more clearly, no point in me wasting my time shooting at shadows.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by edge, posted 10-18-2002 11:23 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by edge, posted 11-04-2002 8:30 PM wmscott has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4510
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 455 of 460 (21556)
11-04-2002 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by wmscott
11-04-2002 4:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
quote:
you have not shown that saltation is not a viable mechanism for transporting diatoms in a periglacial environment. Second you have not shown that such altitides are not attainable by diatoms of any size.

Saltation movement of material causes a good deal of wear and tear, sort of like rolling your car down a mountain side, the method of transportation will be obvious by the damage done. The material I have found is in very good shape so saltation is not viable as an explanation for the transport mechanism. As for lifting diatoms to high altitudes, saltation is strictly a near surface phenomenon. The links and information already posted clearly show that particles as large as the diatoms and forams we are discussing, are not lifted to high altitudes in the atmosphere, unless you wish to invoke Wizard of Oz type wind effects.


So, you still have no evidence to support your point. You have neither shown that saltation is not viable, nor that other possible methods of wind transport are ruled out. Well, regardless, you need to find some way of explaining marine diatoms hundreds of miles from the sea in Antarctica. I don't really care how it is done, but it is a fact that it happens. You cannot avoid the facts.

quote:
quote:
Consider then dust storms that that cover hundreds of square miles...

Still only a local transport event if it occurs over a sandy area, and the finer sand can of course be carried great distances. If you have a point to make here, you will have to state it more clearly, no point in me wasting my time shooting at shadows.


Right and just what size are those finer sand grains? And their specific gravity compared to diatoms? And just what is their source? How did the sand dunes of the Entrada Fm. get from their source to the far reaches of the Colorado Plateau? According to you this should be impossible. I dare say that you are being selective about the facts that you will entertain.

If you are wasting your time, it has nothing to do with me. I have been trying to get you to focus on what you need to show a biblical flood and what is actual evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by wmscott, posted 11-04-2002 4:41 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by wmscott, posted 11-06-2002 4:56 PM edge has responded

wmscott
Member (Idle past 4353 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 456 of 460 (21724)
11-06-2002 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by edge
11-04-2002 8:30 PM


Dear Edge;
quote:
How did the sand dunes of the Entrada Fm. get from their source to the far reaches of the Colorado Plateau? According to you this should be impossible. I dare say that you are being selective about the facts that you will entertain.

If you are referring to the Entrada dunes in the Great Sand Dunes National Monument National Park, the following quote from the brochure for the park is quite informative under the section titled 'geology.'

quote:
Geology: The dunes were formed from sand deposited by the Rio Grande river and its tributaries, which flow through the San Luis Valley. For thousands of years, prevailing westerly winds have come over the Rockies and down over the river flood plain, picking up sand particles on the way. These are then deposited at the east edge of the valley before the wind rises to cross the Sangre de Cristo mountains.

http://www.americansouthwest.net/colorado/great_sand_dunes/national_monument.html

Now I haven't been to this park nor have I read extensively on it's geology, but it sounds like the dunes there are a case of water transported sand that has been locally reworked by wind. It also sounds like the reason the dunes are found where they are is due to the wind being unable to carry the sand over the Sangre de Cristo mountains. Are these the dunes you wished to refer to? If so they hurt your position rather than help, it would appear you have only succeeded in placing your foot firmly in your mouth.

As for saltation being a transport mechanism for large marine diatoms found in Wisconsin. Diatoms are made of glass and are in the form of hollow glass boxes made up of two over lapping halves that fit together. So you are saying that you believe these fine structures were transported by saltation which involves hitting the ground and being bounced and rolled along until picked up by the wind for a short hop and then hitting the ground again for well over thousand miles? As I pointed out in my last post, this type of wear and tear would be very evident and is not present in the samples I have examined.

quote:
Well, regardless, you need to find some way of explaining marine diatoms hundreds of miles from the sea in Antarctica. I don't really care how it is done, but it is a fact that it happens. You cannot avoid the facts.

No, one certainly can't avoid the facts and as I have been pointing out to you diatoms come in a wide range of sizes and the smaller sizes are easily transported by wind while the larger sizes are not. I web site we referred to earlier in this thread on marine diatoms found in Antarctica stated " These diatomaceous sediment microclasts range in size from 25 to 40 microns, however, and do not preclude eolian transport." http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/nsf97160/ch9.htm#fig1 The reason of course wind transport is not precluded is that they are small enough for the wind to pick up and carry. Even in Antarctica, the phyiscal laws governing wind transportation still apply, things above 57 microns are too large for long distance transportation by wind lofting. The larger sizes of marine diatoms and forams I have found here in the Midwest are much larger and would not be carried far by the wind.

quote:
I don't really care how it is done, but it is a fact that it happens.

Now if I had made a statement like this you would have jumped all over me. Sounds like you are the one who is blindly believeing in things. I think I just heard the sound of your other foot entering your mouth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by edge, posted 11-04-2002 8:30 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by edge, posted 11-07-2002 12:13 AM wmscott has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4510
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 457 of 460 (21751)
11-07-2002 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by wmscott
11-06-2002 4:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
quote:
e: How did the sand dunes of the Entrada Fm. get from their source to the far reaches of the Colorado Plateau? According to you this should be impossible. I dare say that you are being selective about the facts that you will entertain.

If you are referring to the Entrada dunes in the Great Sand Dunes National Monument National Park, the following quote from the brochure for the park is quite informative under the section titled 'geology.'


No, wmscott. The Entrada Formation is not found anywhere near the Great Sand Dunes NP. On the other hand it is found up to hundreds of miles from its source. Your lack of knowledge here does not surprise me.

quote:
Geology: The dunes were formed from sand deposited by the Rio Grande river and its tributaries, which flow through the San Luis Valley. For thousands of years, prevailing westerly winds have come over the Rockies and down over the river flood plain, picking up sand particles on the way. These are then deposited at the east edge of the valley before the wind rises to cross the Sangre de Cristo mountains.

Irrelevant, unfortunately.

quote:
... Are these the dunes you wished to refer to? If so they hurt your position rather than help, it would appear you have only succeeded in placing your foot firmly in your mouth.

Quite to the contrary, I'm afraid. See above.

quote:
As for saltation being a transport mechanism for large marine diatoms found in Wisconsin. Diatoms are made of glass and are in the form of hollow glass boxes made up of two over lapping halves that fit together. So you are saying that you believe these fine structures were transported by saltation which involves hitting the ground and being bounced and rolled along until picked up by the wind for a short hop and then hitting the ground again for well over thousand miles?

Hmm, I thought you said it was much less than that. Under 600 as I remember. Nevertheless, you have ignored the fact that diatoms have been transported hundreds of miles by wind, whether by saltation or not. You may as well face the facts.

quote:
As I pointed out in my last post, this type of wear and tear would be very evident and is not present in the samples I have examined.

Well then maybe it wasn't saltation. Whatever it was, you need to come up with an explanation.

quote:

quote:
e: Well, regardless, you need to find some way of explaining marine diatoms hundreds of miles from the sea in Antarctica. I don't really care how it is done, but it is a fact that it happens. You cannot avoid the facts.

No, one certainly can't avoid the facts and as I have been pointing out to you diatoms come in a wide range of sizes and the smaller sizes are easily transported by wind while the larger sizes are not. I web site we referred to earlier in this thread on marine diatoms found in Antarctica stated " These diatomaceous sediment microclasts range in size from 25 to 40 microns, however, and do not preclude eolian transport." http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/nsf97160/ch9.htm#fig1 The reason of course wind transport is not precluded is that they are small enough for the wind to pick up and carry. Even in Antarctica, the phyiscal laws governing wind transportation still apply, things above 57 microns are too large for long distance transportation by wind lofting.


No. As I remember it was 57 microns for SAND, not diatoms. And I don't really buy that anyway.

quote:
The larger sizes of marine diatoms and forams I have found here in the Midwest are much larger and would not be carried far by the wind.

Very well, but you still have to show this empirically.

quote:
quote:
e: I don't really care how it is done, but it is a fact that it happens.

Now if I had made a statement like this you would have jumped all over me. Sounds like you are the one who is blindly believeing in things.


You really don't get it. When we see something happens in reality, then we need an explanation. We can't just say that because sand grains cannot be transported this way, then it must be impossible. The difference between you and me is that you have derived a conclusion that is not a fact.

quote:
I think I just heard the sound of your other foot entering your mouth.

I think your hearing is deficient.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by wmscott, posted 11-06-2002 4:56 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by wmscott, posted 11-09-2002 8:02 PM edge has not yet responded

wmscott
Member (Idle past 4353 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 458 of 460 (22055)
11-09-2002 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 457 by edge
11-07-2002 12:13 AM


Dear Edge;

You have been pretty cryptic about this but OK, so let me see if I have got this straight now, you are referring to the Entrada Formation which is a 166 million year old Jurassic sandstone formation in eastern Utah and western Colorado? You are really reaching deep into the past, couldn't you find a more recent example? And why are you bothering with the Entrada Formation when the there are far larger sandstone formations such as the Morrison Formation?

I gather, based on the line of argument you have been pursuing, that you are stating that the location and extent of this sandstone deposit is evidence of wind lofting of very large sand grains far larger than what we see today? That would be a unique view point. Due to it's great age, the area of the Entrada formation has changed greatly and elevations have shifted and topographical features and been added and removed. Normal accepted means of transporting sand and sediment are adequate to explain the size and extent of the deposit. Perhaps you should explain your argument in more detail, from what I have found so far, the evidence fails to support your line of thought. One web site stated. " Entrada Sandstone Formation: Formed in both a marine and terrestrial environment. The earthy facies were formed in a marine environment, whereas the sandy facies were formed on land in wind blown sand dunes." For this deposit to have started as a marine deposit, it had to of course be underwater which indicates a very subdued topography, even after it was uplifted this area was probably still pretty flat and covered by sand which was reworked by the wind. Additional sediment was also carried in by the rivers which had previously run into the sea. As another site noted. "Here in northeast Utah, the Entrada Formation was deposited in river channels, with many of its thick sandstone layers created by flood deposits. Following deposition, the Entrada Formation was buried, tilted and uplifted by tectonic activity." It sounds like most of the sand was carried to the area by water, not wind and was locally reworked by wind to create the dunes. I fail to see why you believe large scale transport of large sand particles by wind lofting was required, it is certainly not a mainstream view, remember I am suppose to be the one here that is off the wall.

On a side note on the Entrada sandstone formation, they ran the movie "Galaxyquest" on TV Thursday night and there as big as life in the scene with the rock monster was the deposit we have been arguing about. Apparently part of the movie was shot in Goblin Valley State Park in Utah, and since the rock monster was animated to match the background rocks, you could say he was made up of Entrada sandstone. So I got a double laugh watching the movie and thinking how you in effect are attacking me with the same monster.

You stated that you disagreed with the 57 micron limit on wind lofting, why and for what reasons and what evidence do you base this on? From what I have been able to find, 40 microns is a more reasonable limit based on the maximum size found in wind lofted deposits. I have seen nothing to support a much larger lofting limit size.

Density of diatoms and forams? Well they sink in water, which is why I used the reference to water droplet sizes, so figure a density a bit heavier than water.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by edge, posted 11-07-2002 12:13 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18369
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 459 of 460 (22060)
11-09-2002 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by wmscott
11-04-2002 4:40 PM


wmscott writes:
Sometimes I only bother to reply because of the possible audience that maybe be reading this, perhaps some of them have an open mind, and they will see for themselves that there is some merit in what I have to say.

Then it must be your view that the entire world has a closed mind. There has been no indication that anyone accepts your arguments. How many Creationists have come to your support in this thread? Would that number be zero? I can remember only one other Creationist who posted here, TB, and he disagreed with you.

The measure of your arguments and evidence is their ability to move the opinions of others, and by this yardstick they measure pretty short. I think it's time for you to take a step back and ask yourself how, mixing my metaphors, you can raise your batting average.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by wmscott, posted 11-04-2002 4:40 PM wmscott has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12589
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 460 of 460 (22062)
11-09-2002 10:21 PM


This thread has been closed, but only because it had become so long. Long threads have high overhead when rebuilding the HTML pages. A new thread with the same title has been created.

------------------

--EvC Forum Administrator


  
RewPrev1
...
2627282930
31
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019