|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rapid generation of layers in the GC | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Are you actually comparing varved sediments to storm deposits, or mudflows, or other local catastrophic sedimentation events? Do you really think that geologists have not thought about these things? Do you really think that catastrophism is not recognized as part of the uniformitarian concept? You see, this was all explained to me in my very first Geology course. That's something you miss by going straight to the professional papers and monographs ... the background to be able to critically analyze what you read. As a result you have been sucked in by the professional creationists who give you only a part of the story. I am sorry that they have taken advantage of you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: But, Joe, eolian cross-beds have been shown to form in only seconds. Why, it couldn't have taken more than a couple of days to deposit the Navajo Sandstone! (Oh yeah...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: However, there is an implication that this is evidence that the geological record could be formed in a one year flood. If you do not believe this to be the case, I suggest that you make that clear and also have some words with the professional creationists who misuse this same information.
quote: No geologist has ever said so. So what is the point?
quote: You still have the same problem. In fact, you have less time to repopulate the earth.
quote: I think Joe is asking where did the flood waters go so that you could have eolian deposits in the middle of a global flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Edge and Joe, I have to say that you really did do exactly what TC suggested. You tried to say that I said my refs were 'proof' that the flood generated the GC when I of course said nothing of the sort. [/QUOTE] Well then, you should say what you mean. Otherwise, we have to guess. No need to be coy.
quote: Actually, nothing you have said is a surprise at all. It's just that you don't know the whole story, so your conclusions are a bit out of alignment with reality. Perhaps more later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Nonsense. I learned catastrophism (well, let's just say) a long time ago in my first Geology course.
quote: That is probably because for the GC, it is basically true. Some sediments are deposited slowly, others rapidly. Do you really think that we didn't notice rapid deposition of pyroclastic flows? How about the slow deposition of reefal limestones? Really, you take a single isolated fact and build a story without looking at the surrounding data.
quote: I thought you gave us some references from Batt, et al. that talked about rapid sedimentation. In fact, you had several quotes that talked about rapid sedimentation. Please explain.
quote: Sorry, but I am unfamiliar with this paleocurrent information. What is it? By the way, I am also completely unfamiliar with trees that have survived more than one cyclothem. Could you please document this? I have heard of them being rooted in an organic paleosol and then overwhelmed by a number of sand and silt layers, but never a complete cyclothem as you have defined them. I have heard that no trees penetrate a superposed coal seam. I also wonder if you have ever considered the time between depositions of each cycle? Or the time necessary to grow new layers of sufficient organics to form the coal beds? Or the apparent necessity of multiple floods to form the cycles? Your theory needs a lot of work, TB.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
And regardless of Hill's evidence we all know that there are many many examples of polystrate fossils world wide demonstrating that 50 foot sections have been rapidly laid down. When the layering is just the same for the upper and lower 1000 feet why not the entire formation rapidly?[/B][/QUOTE] There is no problem with inundation by great thicknesses of sand or silt in a storm-type deposit. The problem is that these things don't happen every year. Usually, there are long periods of non-deposition or slow deposition between the greater events. In fact, some of these sections are probably eroded away, permitting more time into the geological record. Just because a layer can form in minutes does not mean that all layers do so. Neither does it mean that there are not long periods of time between the catastrophic events. You need a more rounded education, TB.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: You wouldn't have a picture of this, would you? I am also interested in knowing if they are actually 10-layered cycles. In most cases a cyclothem is not a complete, ideal set.
quote: For all I know this is possible. However, this would not dictate that all cyclothems are deposited "rapidly."
quote: Not at all. The development of paleosoils and vegetation, compel one to believe that there was a lengthy time between some of the layers in a cyclothem.
quote: I cannot do that. I must explain, at least to myself, even if you don't want to admit it, why your picture is out of focus.
quote: I'm sorry, but the article looks like it is from an obscure(?) journal (at least to me), and is not part of the typical professional geological literature.
quote: Sure. Let's just ignore them.
quote: I was just using storm deposits as an example of rapidly deposited sediments. And, no, they cannot be traced half way across North America. According to my textbook, they may cover up to one or two states. Remember, our states are smaller.
quote: Well, then that probably is comparable in the amount of time that catastrophic deposition actually took place in geological history. Did the book say anything about turbidites? Those are catastrophic, but I'll bet you didn't count those in your "2 pages." Or perhaps most of us just accept catastrophism as a normal part of an overall uniformitarianist approach. You sound shocked, but really I know of no geologist that does not accept catastrophism. If you had actually taken a course in Geology, you might have picked this up.
quote: Averaged, eh? Why do they have to be averaged if the direction was always the same?
quote: I seriously doubt this. Climatic patterns have relied on many other global characterisics from angle of the earths tilt toward the sun and the position of the oceans for very long lengths of time. I can't imagine that ocean currents are much different. I have heard the same thing about the wind direction on top of all of Colorado's high peaks. However, I remember once when I was on Sunlight, there was actually no wind at all. That was actually amazing. My suggestion is that prevailing current directions were pretty steady; but do not assume that this means all current directions were in the same direction. You seem to have the same problem here as with the cyclothems. Some beds are deposited quickly, so the ALL must be deposited quickly. The average current directions are consistent, so ALL currents are in the same direction. I can assure you that I have personnally seen multiple current directions in cross-bedded sandstones of the southwest. [This message has been edited by edge, 05-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Edge, cyclothems have such a specific signature (thats' why there's jargon for them) that if we show that a couple of cyles are undoubtedly rapid then it does behove one to prpopose that the entire sequence was rapid. [/QUOTE] The first problem is that, as far as I can see, you have not shown this. My own experience and Joe T's reference to Glenn Morton clearly indicate a misunderstanding regarding polystrate fossils in the cyclothems.
quote: Okay, show us that this occurred in decades. You have not done so thus far. The 'signature' that I see says much longer periods of time, not even including the inter cyclothem period.
quote: Sorry, but the theory must accomodate both.
quote: Imagination is exactly what it is.
quote: THe problem here is that you are talking about coal. Before you were talking about a single cyclothem.
quote: I could take any data set and come up with an average direction...
quote: Show us the data then, not just averages.
quote: Good, then you can explain how many of these courses you have had and who taught them. I had Murray, for one.
quote: Good, then you can give us the quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I still would like to see your data. There are obviously some currents that diverge from the average. I can't believe that you (all) can think that paleocurrents do not waver, but radiometric decay is completely undependable! This is utter silliness.
quote: All point in the same direction? You quote does not confirm this. Where does your 30 degree number come from?
quote: Nothing about scatter in the data here. I'm not really sure what your point is, however. So what if the prevailing current directions were consistent over extended periods?
quote: I am afraid that I do not see what is so shocking about this. Interesting, yes, but shocking? No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: You are still confused. The rapidity of an event is not necessarily indicative of rapidity of the entire record. And I really wish you guys would get your act together. We usually have creationists complaining that the geological record is so incomplete that it must be made up.
quote: Nonsense. If the rain runs down my driveway the same direction every time it rains, does that mean that all of the rainstorms came at once? Can I make this any clearer?
quote: Lyellian analysis? Sheesh! Is that the latest reference you can find on mainstream sedimentology?
quote: NO!!! River deltas are not cut out! They are filled in! Do you know how many river deltas there are in the geological sequence. Man, you're butchering the science of geology.
quote: Perhaps all caps would help here. No one denies the existence of rapidly deposited sediments. However, that does not mean that all sediments were deposited rapidly.
quote: AAAARARAGGGHhgg/. Are your really trying to compare continental shelf sedimentation with proximal volcanic deposits?
quote: And the truth is that some deposits are rapid. Many are not. And even if they are, there are extended intervals between catastrophic events. TB, you are getting more and more tedious. Coutesy demands that I leave it at that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: This seems to be at odds with the data Moose presents from Pettijohn. So, maybe the currents were not quite so consistent?
quote: The data from Pettijohn do not indicate a constant, as you describe it, flow direction, only a prevailing direction.
quote: As we have seen above, the direction is not SW and there is variation in the data. It is not constant, unless you wish to redefine 'constant' also.
quote: This does not logically follow. Your cyclothem argument has been devastated, and yet you cling to this notion.
quote: Once again, river deltas are not erosional features, but depositional features. So you are saying that that rock fragments that form conglomerates were soft when they were plucked from their original site? Do you really think that this makes sense?
quote: TB, you are not throwing out Lyell, you are torturing the whole science of Geology.
quote: Well, he did his work over a hundred years ago. I'm not sure what you expect from him.
quote: Think about this now. Are you familiar with the composition of sedimentary rocks? How do rock fragments that obviously come from the eroded terrane occur within conglomerates and graywackes that form much of the Appalachians, for instance? If the sediments in the source terrane were soft, how does this happen? Maybe you should reread Lyell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I think the problem here is what is 'constant' and what is 'prevailing.' If TB wants to say that the prevailing currents are surprisingly consistent, and leaves it at that, there is absolutely nothing one can say to refute it. However, to say that the currents are constant over hundreds of millions of years, and therefor they represent a single event, is completely unsupportable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]OK it's more westerly in average then SW (or NW for that matter) over the continent. In anycase I think it is clear that there is a prevailing direction and that it shows that the entire continental bed needs to be viewed as a whole. The Pettijohn diagram shows very well that in the Appalacians the currents persisted over many series of formations (you guys might know the ages of the top of your heads, I certainly don't).[/QUOTE] Yes, there is a consistent prevailing direction, but not a constant direction. Why do you think that is? You have never said except some vague reference to a single event. Remember, your theory has to explain why the prevailing current directions remain consistent, but that there are significant deviations for part of the time. My own theory is that the topography and continental borders have not qualitatively changed for long periods of time. For instance the Atlantic seaboard has had an ocean to the east and highlands to the west since at least the Triassic. That's a pretty long time and I'm sure that the geological record will reflect this. East of the Appalachians, the prevaling direction of continental deposits will be east-southeasterly for something like 200 million years. This will be the opposite of the 295 bearing from the Pettijohn figures. And no, I do not remember the details of these formations except that I think some are Devonian, so they are prior to my proposal above and mainly opposite in direction. Remember, the topography is changing so the gradients will be changing. Your theory should explain this. I also think you need to collect more data to actually make a point. The problem then is that none of this will logically show that the deposits were laid down in a short period by one event.
quote: You are confusing erosion and sedimentation here again. If you had a better background you could be clearer and we could address this issue. As it is, I'm not sure what you mean. How did the erosional effects occur before lithification and yet then lithification occurred at the surface to give us the featurese we see today. Why would streams follow fracture directions if the sediments were still soft during erosion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Actually, I don't know what your explanation is. Could you please make a concise statement as to how/why you think this?
quote: Not sure. I never really figured out what you were saying.
quote: But you said they were soft.
quote: Do you think this is shocking to geologists, also? Do you really think that this was not considered during construction the histories of the older mountain ranges? And why can you not give us an example of such a phenomenon in non-volcanic terranes? Why must you always compare MSH with every other sedimentary environment? This is such a staple of the creationist literature that it undermines your claims of familiarity with mainstream publications.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Just where did these transported soils come from? I thought the entire world was flooded. What is the source? I mean, you can only call upon surges for so long before there is no longer any land mass for soils to be developed on. And what about the time for these soils to be developed? How do you pack all of this into a year's time? By the way, are these surges described in the bible as part of the flood? I've often wondered how creationists manage to embellish the flood details when the bible is said to be a literal and accurate account.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024