Robert Byers writes:
I'm not sure if this thread is continuing. So i will continue conservatively. Everyone seemed to say the same thing.
The case here of turbidity sediments is a great case for re interpretation of data.
they thought first one thing and then a revolution took place. A correction so very important.
Turbidites were first described in 1962, by a guy called Arnold H. Bouma.
Turbidite - Wikipedia Your reference from 2008 is a bit late. Bouma actually described the Bouma Cycle very well, too:
Wiki writes:
Turbidites were first properly described by Arnold H. Bouma (1962), who studied deepwater sediments and recognized particular fining up intervals within deep water, fine grained shales, which were anomalous because they started at pebble conglomerates and terminated in shales.
This was anomalous because within the deep ocean it had historically been assumed that there was no mechanism by which tractional flow could carry and deposit coarse-grained sediments into the abyssal depths.
Bouma cycles begin with an erosional contact of a coarse lower bed of pebble to granule conglomerate in a sandy matrix, and grade up through coarse then medium plane parallel sandstone; through cross-bedded sandstone; rippled cross-bedded sand/silty sand, and finally laminar siltstone and shale. This vertical succession of sedimentary structures, bedding, and changing lithology is representative of strong to waning flow regime currents and their corresponding sedimentation.
Robert Byers writes:
They no longer thought slow layering accounted for segregated layers in these rock columns.
Lots of segregated layers are a result of very slow layering. You can even see it happening today all over the world!
Robert Byers writes:
.instead a confused sediment group
Robert Byers is always confused. Sediments would really look weird if they are confused.
Robert Byers writes:
. was thrown aggressively into deep water and instantly sorted itself into many layered or segregated sediments.
Not even deep water. We see it in reservoirs and lakes, too. I even gave you a reference earlier.
Robert Byers writes:
this is a example and perhaps sometimes the actual mechanism for much of what is found in the rock strata .
Telling porkies again, are you?
Robert Byers writes:
A single chaotic flood event throws sediment into deep water and mechanism separates it and deceives that it was from slow annual events.
Oh, we see it often. It also is not a single event. A single event deposits one layer, grading from coarse grained to fine grained at the top. Lots of these on top of each other indicate lots of events. Definitely not one global flood involved.
Robert Byers writes:
The example alone here is how imagination and better research/thinking figures out there is no need to see strata of rock as demanding each layer from a different age.
Who has ever done that? Setting up a straw man again, are we?
Robert Byers writes:
Segregated flows can do the same thing and then, like the turbidites turn all to stone. The example of the turbidite by the way i see as a post flood event.
And all those other events way before the K-T line? Just ignoring them?
Robert Byers writes:
below and above the k-t line the same processes worked in special episodes.
All natural. No global flood involved.
Robert Byers writes:
The turbidite example is a modern process but just rare or never happens now.
Stop telling porkies Robert.
Robert Byers writes:
The special case of massive water moving about is today unknown.
Oh, the Gulf Stream is not unknown at all. So also the Benguela Current. So are lots of currents. No global flood involved.
Robert Byers writes:
The discovery of turbidity events is actually an embarrassment to geology.
It didn’t seem like an embarrassment when it was first published in 1962. It explained a lot!
Robert Byers writes:
They had no reason to guess how these sediment layers were created. Once a few thought harder it was figured out although they had to change earth events.
No, a few people thinking harder won’t change earth events. Events on earth would keep going on, regardless of what some people think (scientists) or what some people don’t think (creationists).
Robert Byers writes:
The author did get excited that old ideas can be overthrown. Right!
Maybe you think so because you don’t know what you are talking about?
™ Version 4.2
(1)