|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II | |||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, but I mistakenly thought that a well-read geologist such as yourself would be quite familiar with this unit.
quote: Well, it was the first one that came to mind since I took a field trip across the Colorado Plateau last year. You know, a field trip is one that you actually go out and see the rocks. They used to be an important part of a geological education. And no, I didn't use the Morrison Fm. because it has no eolian sands that I know of.
quote: Not at all. The grain size is not unusual for eolian sands, but they are visible grains (fine sand) so I assume that they are at least 75 microns, which is being conservative due to my less than perfect eyesight. As I remember you said something like wind is not an effective transporter of sand grains greater than 57 microns. And yet here is the Slick Rock member covering probably over a ten thousand square miles and up to a couple of hundred miles from its source in the Uncompahgre uplift. And, as you have indicated, the Entrada is not exactly one of the largest formations containing eolian sands. It shouldn't be hard to come up with other larger, modern or ancient examples. For one the Sahara might come to mind. You have mentioned below that most transport of Entrada sands actually being carried out by streams (which I disagree with, but that is of no import)... So where are the stream deposits that are the source of the Saharan sand dunes?
quote: Yes, including wind.
quote: Not the Slick Rock.
quote: I don't know what you mean by this. The Entrada includes sands of grain size greater than you say are impossible, carried significant distances by wind alone.
quote: That is what I have just given you. I am sorry that I assumed you knew about all of this before.
quote: Now you do. Fine sands are effectively transported by wind. Diatoms should be even easier to transport.
quote: Yes, and quite a bit less dense than quartz grains. Why would you compare the aerodynamics of diatoms diredtly to those quartz grains? Just guessing, but an equivalent dimension of diatoms to quarts grains of 57 microns might even be double that and resulting in effectively easier transport. By the way, not to be distracted too far from the main subject, when are you going to get us some actual evidence for a global flood? Ultimately, all this to-do over eolian transport is just so much fluff. Let's get into some real data supporting a global flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Somehow, I seriously doubt your last statement. It does not appear to anyone here that you are willing to learn, but would rather take up your soapbox and sell your book. And your willingness to tilt at the windmills of mainstream geology suggests a degree of hubris that I can hardly imagine taking on without formal training.
quote: Please document your statement that grains over 40 microns cannot be lofted. I actually have little problem with larger particles including drops of sea water containing diatoms being carried to heights that would make them transportable by stong winds. Since I am not a sedimentologist, I do not have supporting evidence at this time, but will make an effort to find it. Other than this, you entirely miss my point that you are comparing quartz grains with diatoms... very different in their aerodynamic and transportability properties. If you do not address this you cannot be taken seriously. Thirdly, you have yet to explain how diatoms got into ice formations at the south pole. These are simple facts that you have decided to conveniently ignore. I do not intend to argue the finer points here, just show you that, logically, you must consider these things. I am not trying to 'prove' anything. That is for the absolutists. However, to jump from the limited evidence that you have to the inference of a global flood that left no obvious evidence, is sheer folly. Particularly since you are not as well-versed in geology as you occasionally imply in your dismissal of professional geologists on this board.
[quote]On side points, the Morrison Fm. has eolian sand dunes. [/B][/QUOTE] Very likely, as they are common in near marine environments. However, I do not believe that the dunes cover large time-stratigraphic horizons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Hmm, see nothing here yet about diatoms.
quote: As far as I can see these are reworked sediments, wmscott. Also, it appears on a first scan that the microfossil separation method was designed to collect the finer grained diatoms.
quote: I hate to rain on your parade here, wmscott, but I am not trying to prove anything. Your statement betrays your lack of a scientific background. I am only trying to show that you have not considered all of the alternatives. This is only one area where you have not been complete in your treatment of your diatoms. In fact, I am not convinced that you diatoms are marine or even that they are diatoms. I am not convinced that they have not been saltated in some kind of reworked sediment. I am not convinced, either, that there were not temporary incursions of marine waters into the proglacial environment of the receding ice cap. And most of all I am not convince that they have anything to to with any kind of global flood. The latter is really the evidence that you should be locating or providing. The rest of all this is really just a diversion. We can get caught up in all kind of geological minutia, but just what does all this have to to with a global flood? In fact all you have done is start with a premise that there was a flood and then selectively combed the literature for factoids that, by themselves, might allow the interpretation of a flood. You have ignored the rest of the data out there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: [/quote] I am glad that you have finally come to realize this. Are you going to begin giving us evidence for your flood now?
quote: You have given me nothing to overturn. You say that sand grains cannot be transported long distances regardless of the fact that we are not dealing with sand grains. And even more telling is the fact that you can find nothing to support any kind of a global flood.
quote: You mean other than pointing out the fact that you have not shown any transportability figures for diatoms? And that you have presented no evidence of a global flood? Really, wmscott, I hate to break this to you, but I really don't take your argument seriously enough to put much work into it at all. I think the lack of other posters to this board is evidence that others think the same way. You still have not made the connection between aerial transport of diatoms and sand grains. In fact, I have come to doubt that you even have diatoms, or that you have accurately identified them. Your lack of geological background really causes me to question everything that you post here. Never mind that fact that this would hardly be evidence of a global flood. I have spent countless hours trying to give you an education in geology and help you review your ideas, but all you have done is put on the blinders and stomp your feet on the ground.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Nonsense, you have posted information in support of a slightly higher sea level after the ice age. Nothing more.
quote: It is on a level with requesting information that supports your viewpoint of a worldwide flood.
quote: More like frustration at not getting straight answers.
quote: Actually, it means that I recognize the possibility that you could be wrong about many other things such as whether these are actually marine diatoms. My interaction with you does not give me much confidence in your ability.
quote: Well, post them and I'll look at them, but I'm probably no better than you at telling what are diatoms and what are marine diatoms. Knowing how inaccurate you are regarding geological information, all I would suggest, however, that you might be wrong here. Now, how about some evidence that a global flood actually happened?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Hmm, not quite global yet, wmscott. First of all that doesn't even make it to Colorado. Second, those are modern elevations. Call when you get some real evidence.
quote: Yes, as I remember they were in tectonically active areas. You went on to minimize the effect of plate tectonics after that.
quote: Nothing concrete here, wmscott.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I see that I am not getting through to you on this point that you have not presented evidence for a global flood. Let's try this: What if I contended that the evidence you have presented actually is evidence AGAINST a global flood, because you have not found such evidence at elevations higher than 1000 ft in North America. This would be just as valid as your assertion that a global flood is 'proven' by your discoveries. In fact, as you collect more data, you must be prepared to find that you will actually disprove the global flood story! Does this not make sense? To take this a step further, I suggest that the only reason you can accept your findings as evidence for a global flood is your blind adherence to a myth. This is why I reject your 'evidence' as supportive of a global flood hypothesis. It is completely inconclusive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: You have been asked repeatedly to support this statement. Please do so.
quote: Nonsense. That is why we have peer reviewed literature. If there were any serious objections to whether a sequence was deltaic vs something else, it would become an open point of contention. Believe it or not some geologists take these details seriously. I know that you have a jaundiced view of science, but I have personally seen this happen. Hmm, do I detect a littel bitterness here? Are you just a bit afraid of wmscott's ideas?
quote: Sorry, but questioning the data goes on all the time. Unlike the field of creationism. I think you are projecting.
quote: Since when do river deltas require ferns? Really, do you have any idea what a river delta looks like in the geological record?
quote: Hey, you've convinced me. No matter that you haven't the vaguest understanding of geological processes, you must be correct. [This message has been edited by edge, 11-29-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Hunh? I don't know how much mor clearly I can say this. You cannot apply the concept of rapidly deposited sand laminations to major sandstone units or to other rock types. You are committing a logical fallacy to do so.
quote: You do not generate layers by erosion. You generate them by deposition. Your understanding of sedimentation is so convoluted that I doubt we can help you here.
quote: Somehow, TB, I doubt that you have any idea what the geometry of a deltaic deposit is or what coalescing deltas would look like. I am not sure why a coastal plain at near base level could not generate such a deposit. But if you say so...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Correct, wmscott, therefor we cannot ascertain that they are indeed the same organism... You have convinced me that the identification is completely inconclusive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: In case anyone wonders what the heck TB is talking about, TC has redefined 'in situ', 'in place' and now perhaps 'in growth position' to mean 'transported.' See, every one of those coral pieces in growth position has actually been transported who knows how far, and then miraculously replanted in the proper environment so that they can continue growing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Ummmmmm, one minor detail here. Aren't you forgetting to provide evidence for a global flood? In the end, it doesn't matter whether your diatoms are marine or fresh or both. It doesn't matter if they are transported by wind, water or bicycle. It doesn't even matter if they are diatoms or glass beads. How can they possibly constitute evidence for a global flood? You need to fit this into a framework of data that support your conclusions. You have not done this.
quote: Wmscott, this is ridiculous. Even your photos have shown the identification, provenance and transport of the diatoms to be equivocal. You are going to be shredded if you publish this nonsense as evidence for a globabl flood. If you want to call it an unusual find of marine diatoms, fine; we will all congratulate you. But there is no evidence yet that any body of water covered the entire globe at one time. You cannot even show that catastrophic melting of the ice caps occurred, or that such an event would cover the earth with water. This is still untenable.
quote: When you continually ignore advice, it will eventually become very negative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: But they have NOT been mapped. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say this. When you do so map the world, then you will have evidence. A few occurrences at under a kilometer elevation simply does not do it. This is a silly waste of time. Go and get your data.
quote: There is no such evidence as yet.
quote: Irrelevant. The title of thise thread addresses evidence for a global flood. After so many pages, we have seen no such evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: You are correct. The wmscott samples bear only the grossest resemblance to the index specimens. It is also possible that the specimens he has shown us are transported as well. One is clearly broken some are possibly abraded. The photos are of quite poor quality, though. Hardly enough to support a challenging claim to the mainstream geological interpretation. In this case, I rather think that one must be convinced before seeing the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: It would be a major step. But you have to show hard evidence that thediatoms are actually diatoms, that they are marine and that they are not somehow transported. They must also be found at virtually all elevations. THAT would be evidence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024