Rapid generation of layers in the GC

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:JM: Two things. (1) This is what it indicates. (2) According to your timeline, this all took place during the flood and yet the dinosaurs never died in the flood. More importantly, in some cases, the coals interfinger with the marine deposits indicating that this was a beach, backshore lagoonal type environment rather than total flooding. So, if the dinosaurs were aboard the ark, how did they get to Utah during the flood?

quote:

---

--Well no, there weren't necessarily multiple flood events, and neither were the flood waters themselves direct causes of the extinction of the dinosaurs and similar animals.

---

JM: Then you do not believe the biblical account of the flood?

quote:

---

Though because this flood was effective on a global scale, topography as well as rapidly evolving topography, currents, and other causes of water distribution and elevation play factors in where and and at what time isolated areas would become submerged or appear terrestrial.

---

JM: Good to see you have abandonded the biblical account of the flood. In no time, you'll recognize more of the difficulties in trying to reconcile mythology with evidence. You're growing!CheersJoe Meert

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. I understand that you don't like what I'm saying becasue it challenges something you are convinced of but if we treated each others actual specific points seriously then we could have a far more educational experience on both sides.So I will say it again that those refs I cited show:
(i) That layering can, and frequently did, occur rapidly in
'seconds and minutes' from, eg, constant flow.
(ii) At least some geologists agree (and I would find it hard to believe that any could deny with integrity) that major formations representing 100s and 1000s of feet of teh GC were undoubtledly formed rapidly.That is what I said/am saying. Stop setting up strawmen! Of course I'm saying this is suggestive of the global flood but I would love to hear your specific thoughts on (i) and (ii) above in this post that summarizes my first post.------------------
You are go for TLI

And for those who don't know about 'cyclothems' they are simply coal containing sequences of strata that ideally contain repeating sequnces of 10 layers. In practice each cyclothem deposit may contain anywhere from a few to dozens even up to 100 cycles of these 10 layers and each cycle may only have some of the 10 layers. Each cycle is ideally composed from top to bottom:gray shale
limestone
black lamin. shale
limestone
gray shale
COAL
underclay
limestone (fresh water)
gray sandy shale
fine sand/siltIn the mainstream ref I quoted from (in the second post of this thread) the geologist was talking about cycles of order 40 foot with up to 100 of these being repeated. And the point he was making was that(a) geologists have struggled to explain these cyclical deposists via non-catastrophic means and that
(b) infamous () polystrate tree fossils have proven that these did form rapidly, a least in his opinion. Single tree trunk passes vertically though two cyclothems. It must have been rapid. And presumably it occurred via foating mats of uprooted vegetation, hydrodynamic sorting and multiple (tidal?) flood surges in the same big flood.Again, I am not saying this has to be Noah's flood but whenever we see a cyclothem deposit of 100s to 1000s of vertical feet it is logical to assume that it was formed rapidly due to these multiple examples around the world where we know it was rapid.We also have to be aware of the vast horizontal scale of these types of beds. Coal seams (and the other layers too) can traverse across multiple US states - from Pennsylvania to Kansas (although whether this paricular formation is a cyclothem I am unaware). Floating mats the size of US states inescapably come to mind.In any case it is clear that vast horizonal and vetical sections of the GC undoubteldy formed very rapidly and yet in the past it was believed that these were gradually formed over millions of years. Yes we than propose that this can be extended to the entire GC and then I agree there are problematic aspects, but, IMO, they may be surrmountable.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-19-2002]

[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:

---

I understand that you don't like what I'm saying becasue it challenges something you are convinced of but if we treated each others actual specific points seriously then we could have a far more educational experience on both sides.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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. I understand that you don't like what I'm saying becasue it challenges something you are convinced of but if we treated each others actual specific points seriously then we could have a far more educational experience on both sides.

​

So I will say it again that those refs I cited show:
(i) That layering can, and frequently did, occur rapidly in
'seconds and minutes' from, eg, constant flow.
(ii) At least some geologists agree (and I would find it hard to believe that any could deny with integrity) that major formations representing 100s and 1000s of feet of teh GC were undoubtledly formed rapidly.

​

That is what I said/am saying. Stop setting up strawmen! Of course I'm saying this is suggestive of the global flood but I would love to hear your specific thoughts on (i) and (ii) above in this post that summarizes my first post.

​

---

JM: Hold on just a moment. There is NOTHING in your original post to hint that you were only talking about SOME layers. Indeed, as I mentioned you would be hard pressed to find a geologist who would disagree with the notion that some layers might be deposited rapidly. However, the implication of your original message was either (a) poorly stated or (b) deliberately deceptive. Here's the last part of your original post:

quote:

---

I'm not trying to say this necessarily proves anything but it is part of our 'thesis'. It certainly proves that mainstream researchers are willing to admitt that layers do not have to represent annual/seaonal bands or even point to great age at all.

---

So where is the qualifier that mentions SOME? Everyone of your quotes is suggestive that you meant to explain all layers as rapid. Now you seem to be backing down from that a bit. Good thing. However, please don't create your strawman argument and then chide others for not debating you. I am all for a good discussion. So, getting down to brass tacks, what exactly were you debating with your original post? It seems to me that you were setting up a strawman by implying that the majority of geologists somehow reject the notion that some strata can form quickly. If that is not the case, then what exactly was your point? Remember that SOME strata are not ALL strata and I've given some examples of problematic sequences in a global flood scenario. In fact, it is precisely because of these problems that no creationist will provide us with the specific strata that mark the pre, syn and post flood rocks. TC made one claim and then quickly abandonded it. If you look at ICR publications, for example, they claim "it's a flood rock", but they don't tell you how they determined that!CheersJoe Meert

Edge, I really think I stated my POV quite clearly if you re-read the first post.I know you guys think what we say is 'nothing new'. But boy, this stuff is not even hinted at in the introductory books and even much of the advanced stuff. Anyone trying to get into geology would still hink that layers build up in stagnant lakes and gentle seas. The paleocurrent data shows that this is hogwash for the bread and butter strata that characterise the GC.I don't agree that what I'm saying is off-centre. What I am saying (eg abot paleocurrents) concerns the typical strata in the column, not some anomoly.------------------
You are go for TLI

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, I really think I stated my POV quite clearly if you re-read the first post.

​

I know you guys think what we say is 'nothing new'. But boy, this stuff is not even hinted at in the introductory books and even much of the advanced stuff. Anyone trying to get into geology would still hink that layers build up in stagnant lakes and gentle seas. The paleocurrent data shows that this is hogwash for the bread and butter strata that characterise the GC.

​

I don't agree that what I'm saying is off-centre. What I am saying (eg abot paleocurrents) concerns the typical strata in the column, not some anomoly.

​

---

JM: Wait a minute. Please show me these textbooks that claim that all strata are laid down slowly! I've been teaching intro geology for 8 years and I've never made such a claim. Nor was I ever exposed to such a claim during my undergraduate days. Please don't generalize on topics unless you can back them up. What you are claiming is, well, bull----! Sorry, but I expected more from a 'Phded' scientist than making false assertions about what is taught. You were properly berated for making the original assertion and now, even when two geologists tell you that your claim was hogwash, you follow it up with more hogwash!CheersJoe Meert

Joe, I said:

quote:

---

I'm not trying to say this necessarily proves anything . . . It certainly proves that mainstream researchers are willing to admitt that layers do not have to represent annual/seaonal bands or even point to great age at all.
. . . .
Again all this proves is that what used to be thought of as taking millions of years has in some instances, even by mainstreamers, been agreed to have taken only a matter of hours/days/weeks.

---

I thought I went to coinsiderable trouble to not overstate. OK, in the first point my 'do not have to' should have been stronger. I promise to be even more careful next time.My point? It was that (i) layers can be rapidly formed (some posters on this board have claimed that you shouldn't get layering). And (ii) my cyclothem example was to demonstrate that vast formations in the GC, previously thought to be gradualistically formed over millions of years, has mainstream agreement of rapid formaiton. This is non-trivial.If pressed geolgoists will agree on these issues as you have but they are not mentioned/emphasised in geology text books.------------------
You are go for TLI

Joe, in all the texts I have read the origin of the sedimentary record is decribed via analogy with modern gradualistic means. Catastrophism is hardly mentioned in these texts. When it is it is as an anomoly.I have a simple first year geology textbook in my hands (Chernicoff) and the origin of the GC is described in this fasion.In each of the detailed texts on the 'origin of sedimentary rocks' (Selley (1996), Blatt et al (1980), Pettijohn (1974)) there are literally (I'm serious) about 1000 pages on analogies with modern gradualistic processes and a couple of pages on catastophic means of generating layering. I am not kidding. I read these books from cover to cover.The amazing thing is that this is never propoerly reconciled (IMO) with the paleocurrent data which IMO tells a story that is consistent with catastrophism even though this option is ignored in the mainstream texts.So what hogwash did I pronounce anyway?------------------
You are go for TLI

quote:

---

If pressed geolgoists will agree on these issues as you have but they are not mentioned/emphasised in geology text books.

---

JM: What semester did you take my course? Please show me in your notes where I made such a claim. Heck, since you claim it is a common occurrence, you should have no problem supplying me with three sets of original student notes from introductory courses where the instructor claimed that sediment deposition was always slow and gradual. As for the rest, I agree you backed off from what was hinted at in your first post, but it's the first post that was the source of your grief. Finally, some cars are able to run at 200+ mph (320 kph), but it is a stretch to claim that all cars run consistently at 200 mph. However, let's go with your claim and assume that EVERY SINGLE layer was formed quickly. Such an assertion does not necessarily help the ye-model since we've clear evidence for things like paleosols between layers indicating weathering and erosion. We have further evidence that some of the sedimentary material was buried and metamorphosed after formation and was in turn intruded by igneous rocks. We've further evidence that these processes occurred over time periods that included erosional hiatuses. So, even if we take your argument to the extreme, we still can't squeeze the history of the rocks into a 1 year flood time frame. Also please see post 4 in this discussion. While you are composing your reply, tell me again what layers represent the pre, syn and post flood strata.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-19-2002]

Joe, I meant that you have agreed that some strata were rapidly formed.Do you agree that cyclothems were rapidly formed? What is the current mainstream consensus?I agree if you take our stuff to (our) extreme there are problems. I have seen work arounds for many of these problems and for now I am satisfied that the flood hypothesis is possible.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe, I meant that you have agreed that some strata were rapidly formed.

​

Do you agree that cyclothems were rapidly formed? What is the current mainstream consensus?

---

JM: No, I don't agree that cyclothems were rapidly formed. Individual units within the cylcothems were probably formed at different rates, but I see no evidence that they were formed within a ye-creationist time span. Do you have some evidence that they were? For example, I agree that the repetitions could be fast (few 10's of thousand of years) which is a geological eyeblink. To my knowledge, there is no evidence for megacycles forming in the period of weeks or years (especially given the sedimentary structures within some of the cycles) and the presence of paleosols within the cycles.CheersJoe Meert

^ So what about the polystrate tree trunk passing vertically throuhg two cylcothem cycles that this guy is talking about?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ So what about the polystrate tree trunk passing vertically throuhg two cylcothem cycles that this guy is talking about?

---

JM: Yes, I see you've made this claim, but can you give me the original reference? I have a difficult time grasping the full context of second hand reports. Please note, I am not saying the information is false, but I cannot comment on the small amount of information you have given here.CheersJoe Meert

I've only read a four or five paragraph extract from this article somewhere on the web. Our geology and chemistry libraries don't have ChemTech. Does yours? I think it's a merged journal. We should track it down but it's pretty clear he is referring to a tree trunk passing through two cyclothem cycles!EDIT - the journal is now called "Chemical Innovation" but our chemistry library doesn't have it.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-20-2002]