|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Non-marine sediments | ||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Let's try to narrow our topics a bit in the interest of economy. For example, I still want to know what sediments (in the conventional column) are pre, syn and post flood. I promise to answer your (BROAD) question. Simply put, there is no 'all encompassing answer".
Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: I guess I am troubled by your use of 'flood after flood'. What exactly do you mean? There are many thick non-marine rock layers (the Navajo sandstone, Fish River Formation and many units within the Vindhyanchal basin come to mind). I think you need a field trip! Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Could not help but notice you left this out: 1000' thick series (group) of alternating red crossbedded sandstones and shales. The upper part of the group is non-marine and tracks of quadrupeds are found on bed tops. These tracks are believed to have been made by amphibians or primitive reptiles. This is code-word for NO flood. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ I agree! But the significance is that for most of a century they pretended that gradualism was true! If one thinks that something is true it's amazing how facts can be shoehorned to support it. That so-called 'evidence' of gradualism was transferred to evidence for evolution in general in the minds of everybody which was not justified. That is what we think happened in the whole evolution issue. I will soon start my paleontology thread and outline what I have discovered about how paleontology really works.[/QUOTE] JM: Why not stick with one topic rather than try the Gish gallop through the board? The Gish gallop is quite successful in oral debate, but on these boards in tends to mute meaningful discussion. I do have some comments regarding some of the issues wehappyfew brought up here and elsewhere. One example that comes immediately to mind (having just finished a proposal) is the Vindhyanchal Supergroup of central India. This 5000+ m Precambrian sequence is of low metamorphic grade. According to you (and I am being generous) it was deposited at 0.5m/day (and rejecting your attempt to rewrite the days of the bible)! That's intriguing because this formation preserves stromatolites (blue green algae columns) that must have been growing at similar rates (can you find a modern analogue to that?). It preserves a host of sedimentary structures such as cross beds, ripple marks, load casts and trace fossils as well. The Lower Vindhyan is separated from the Upper Vindhyan by an angular unconformity. This means that ALL the lower Vindhyan was deposited, lithified and tilted prior to the deposition of the Upper Vindhyan. The Vindhyan Supergroup also contains a fine correlatable record of magnetic reversals within the group which you say occurred during the flood (as I recall). Younger overlap onto the Vindhyan is incomplete (seems weird that the flood would not be able to cover all of the Vindhyan). I dare say, you've got some problems that can be alleviated by abandoning the ye-framework and forcing the bible to fit your own bias. By the way, before you get all giddy about the Cambrian 'explosion' you might want to examine the recent literature. It seems it is becoming less and less explosive! Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 06-04-2002] [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 06-04-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by minnemooseus:
[B] "(i) based on today's processes" - Yes, there's that uniformitarianism again. A solid, fundimental geological principle. "(ii) massaged to support the radioisotopic dates" - I try to not emphasize radiometric dating, for it leads to the popular (mis)preception that it is the only age determaning method. But, yes, radiometric dating is indeed a powerful tool. And, yes, you are correct in that the radiometric dating only provides beginning and ending time boundries. It says nothing about the rates of details between those boundries. It does give a minimum rate for the entire interval, but that is all.[/QUOTE] JM: What is going to be particularly disconcerting for creationists is when radiometric dating starts to be applied systematically to sedimentary rocks. I just finished an excellent paper on some Neoproterozoic glacial rocks in China (phosphorites) that were dated using U-Pb and Lu-Hf methods. Radiometric dating on interbedded volcanics has already estasblished itself as a useful chronometer in the Phanerozoic. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You need to hit those textbooks again as you are incorrect! Look up the term authigenic. You might also want to see how one determines igneous minerals from sedimentary or metamorphic. It makes interesting reading. As for the 0.5m/day, I was being generous to ye-creationism. Your 1000 year day is quite outside the mainstream and reads more like an excuse than anything else. You also need to read about stromatolites, there is no doubt these are in-situ and to argue otherwise you'll need to show some field evidence. Cheers Joe Meert Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ I'm very aware of the need for detailed scholarly work in any endevour. I simply made a propositon based on a preliminary look at the data and I am willing to accept your assesment that (i) many non-marine beds tell a story that may be inconsistent with the flood and (ii) I/we need to get into the details.[/QUOTE] JM: No, the strata on earth argue unequivocally against a global Noachian flood. Your 'proposition' has already been proven false by a wealth of scientific observation. You cling to it for religious rather than scientific reasons. That's fine, so long as you acknowledge the source of your dogma. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Not properly considered? ROTFL!! The Noachian flood story held sway until the weight of the evidence fell against it! You ought to read some Historical geology papers and books as well. I can easily show that your claim of 'religiously' clinging to dogma is wrong for conventional geology. Here are three reasons: (1) Noachian Flood-Diluvialists-Held forth by people like Sedgwick and Cuvier. Heck even Lyell was trained in diluvialist theory. But Lyell chose to look at the rocks and encouraged Sedgwick and others to do the same. Sedgwick looked at the data more carefully and concluded the notion of the Noachian flood was rather stupid (I'm paraphrasing his words to the geological society). That the Noachian deluge is no longer considered is evidence of the science willing to change due to new evidence. (2) Static Continents: Geologists once held that continents were static in their present location. As new evidence came forth to show that they were not, geology underwent a revolution in thinking and adopted the new paradigm called plate tectonics. Proof again that geology yields to the evidence. (3)Young age for the earth- Geologists once thought the earth was young until they began to closely study the rock record. People like Joly and Hutton concluded that it must be much older. Kelvin analyzed the thermal structure of the earth (as had Comte de Buffon) and concluded the earth was somewhere between 20-100 million years old. Kelvin's analysis held sway until the discovery of radioactive decay (more importantly the heat released by decay) and slowly the age of the earth was established at 4.5 Ga. Proof again that geology is swayed by the evidence and not dogmatic. Note the difference. There is NO piece of evidence anywhere that will change the mind of a creationist with regard to their peculiar interpretation of Genesis. Yet, creationists are loathe to talk about the disharmony within their own camps regarding the Noachian deluge. You've got, for example, Setterfield insisting the whole thing is Precambrian, you are insisting it is Cambrian through Cretaceous, TC insists its Cambrian through Tertiary. Others are insisting it's all Paleozoic. Yet none of you have stopped to consider the fact that maybe you can't agree on the time of the flood because the evidence is not clear. I would argue, as would any geologist who has bothered to look at the rocks, that there simply is no evidence for a Noachian type deluge. The difference between creationism and modern geology is that modern geology yields (sometimes reluctantly) to evidence and the evidence against a global flood was long ago settled. Geology does not debate this anymore, since evidence against a global flood is present in nearly every outcrop on earth! Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Why look for second order effects of a global flood when the first order effects are completely absent? Geologists abandonded the flood model because there was no clear evidence for it. That alone should hint that this 'global catastrophe' was not. The disharmony amongst creationists is not a good sign. The bible is supposed to be an unambiguous literal text as should be the evidence for a global flood. So, why can't you guys even agree on the simplest matter "that's a flood rock" and "that's not"? Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: This is why your model is senseless. YOu call on multiple tectonically induced tidal waves depositing 'coal'? Don't you mean source material for later coal formation? What does not make sense to me is the 'razor-fine' contacts established during these 'events'. You are proposing forces that are more known for their chaotic erosive and depositional effects rather than for producing finely laminated sedimentary deposits. Do an experiment. Mix some sand and fresh vegetation in water and slosh it rapidly back and forth over a flat surface and tell me what results. You get nothing like cyclothems. As far as your cry about consistent paleocurrents, I again ask you the question of scale. If we examine the current direction along the western side of the present-day Andes mountains, the prevailing currents would be westwardly. On the eastern side of the Andes, the prevailing currents would be easterly. Your implication, and it is quite misleading (if not outright fraudulent) is that ALL Paleozoic sediments in the US exhibit a SW paleocurrent. This is false. The correct statement is that there is a prevailing SW paleocurrent observed in the sediments where paleocurrents are evident. Within the prevailing SW-directed paleocurrents, there is variability reflecting local topography. I finally note that in your chaotic scenario of tidal waves and chaotic fresh water flooding, the last thing one would expect is a consistent paleocurrent direction. Your conclusion has blinded you to your own inconsistencies! Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: I'll repeat what has been mentioned elsewhere. You've not made a very good case for a flood with your cyclothem claims nor your paleocurrent claims. As I and others have mentioned, and you've yet to supply an answer, the paleocurrent data you supply do not support a global flood model. Consistency is not likely in such a tumultuous event as you have elsewhere described nor is the depositional model realistic. You can sit there and claim it is until you are blue in the face, but until you actually publish your experiments and all the data (not cribbed material from creationists) you've not made a case. The geologists here are growing tired of you, not because you are making a strong case, but because you fail to defend your case with even a modicum of data. Surely a Ph.Ded scientist knows the value of supplying data to defend a case. A Ph.Ded scientist should also know the value of publishing those data. Why not write up a paper and let us review it? Make it complete with references and data so that we can critically evaluate it. All you've done so far is post a few links and a couple of text passages. I know that you are well aware that such items do not make for a strong scientific paper. We hold you to a much higher standard than the high-schoolers posting here because you should know better. Go ahead, write the paper, and come back at us with data rather than sweeping generalizations. Then we can make some headway. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Publishing in creationist vanity journals is not going to convince anyone (other than creationists) that you are on to anything. I am editor of Gondwana Research and would be happy to receive your article for review. You would need to slant it toward Gondwana, but given that you are talking about all this during a Pangea time frame (creationist years), I think it could fit in the journal. You can find author guidelines at: http://gondwanaresearch.comYou may be utterly convinced that you are on to something, but you've not supplied any good support for a global flood on these pages. Just a bunch of over-generalizations and 'couldabeens'. Hardly the stuff of paradigm shifts. The invitation is given to you to submit your article. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: That's the rub? I've looked through all your posts once again and found precious little unambiguous support for your claims. Sweeping generalizations and 'couldabeens' are pretty lousy science as we both know. Perhaps, if you could even sit down for a week or two and publish a coherent web page with some supporting data. That would certainly lead to a more reasoned discussion. As you might imagine, your ideas--no matter how logical to you--are going to meet with resistance from those of us who have looked at a fair number of the rocks you are speaking about. There is much to be said for a fresh outlook, but unless you supply meaningful and coherent data with that outlook, you're going to be met with criticism (if not outright hostility). You take the typical novice approach to the data by making sweeping generalizations about topics which many of us have researched well beyond your cursory views. You MIGHT be right, but without any data to back your position, you are unlikely to convince anyone other than those who were already convinced. I repeat, we are going to be more demanding of you than the high-schoolers on here because you should know the rigors of science. So take a few weeks (or months) and develop something internally consistent. I'll wait! Cheers joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You are simply wrong without having to resort to uniformitarianism. The rock record says so. Without breaking my toe on a rock, you can imagine me kicking one and saying "I reject your notion thusly"! Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM:Exactly! Cheers Joe Meert
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024