|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rapid generation of layers in the GC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 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]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Here's a quote from a mainstream journal, presumably from a mainstream geologist chiding his fellow geologists to take on some more catastrohpism back in 1972 (it sounds to me anyway). He's talking cyclothems and polystrate fossils: I admittedly found this one on the Internet but I don't think a context is necessary is it? Go read the article if you need the context. I'd be interested if this guy got sacked or not or was ever allowed to publish again JM: Not only was this guy not sacked, the reference you provided is from an award presentation he received (1972 Storch Award, Fuels Division of the American Chemical Society). Now, here's the problem. Somebody is clearly playing with that paper because it does not contain the quoted text! So, your comment about 'context not needed' is false since the quote is not found within the paper. The full source is Hill. 1972. ChemTech v. 2, pages 292-297. I hate to say it, but this looks to be a typical creationist misuse of a paper. For the moment, I'll ascribe the error to transcription, but this does not bode well for creationist quote mining. In fact, his paper is largely related to the kinetics of coal formation. The only thing it the paper that refers to 'rapid' formation is under the discussion of "The formation of coal". Apparently Hill and colleagues did some lab production of coal and found that when the heating rate was increased from 0.5 C/min to 5 C/min an exothermic reaction took place at temperatures between 220-260 C. He concludes the section with the following:
quote: By the way Hill is a chemist, not a geologist so the comment about 'chiding' his fellow geologists is incorrect and should be changed. However, this research only says that the heating event might have been rapid, but the material could have been around for eons. In a 'normal' continental geotherm, 200-260 C would mean a burial of ~10 kilometers. However, 7 kilobars is roughly double that depth (1 kb ~ lithostatic pressure at 3 kilometers). I suspect this is why he suggests lower pressure experiments. Next time, look at the original source before quoting. Apparently this is especially true of creationist sites (if that is where you got the quote). Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-20-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: First of all, I would like to state that I wish that individuals of the creation side would give identification of their basic position - Are they young earth agers or old earth agers? Knowing this is important, for someone from the evolution side to respond. The YEC perspective is totally out of line with mainstream geologic thought. They seem to want to put vast amounts of the geological sedimentary record into being the results of the flood event. The OEC perspective is more in line with mainstream geologic thought ( All that said, I must compliment you on your perceptive observations. The flood geology avocates love to pull geologic data, that supports some sort of rapid depositional event, out of the greater context, of the data that supports other forms of deposition. This is much akin to taking verbal quotes out of their greater context, and thus distorting the meaning. The "flood geologist" focuses in on the flood support "evidence" (and it often seems to be volcanic deposits - note how often Mt. St. Helens shows up), and ignores the evidence that most of the sedimentary record is not a result of catastrophic processes. Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe T Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 41 From: Virginia Joined: |
As the fully PhDed Dr. Meert pointed out, TB’s original quote in this thread is misattributed. In TB’s defense the place he got this from is a mess, with poor referencing. It is difficult to determine what is quoted and from whom it is quoted. The quote comes from http://www.biblestudymanuals.com/k31.htm and is reproduced below with TB’s excerpt bolded.
quote: Carl Baugh (and many other creationist web sites) also gets some mileage out of the Cookville polystrate tree He says the following:
quote: Here is a picture of the tree. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-petrified-tree.jpg The reason I put tree in quotes is because the formation isn’t a tree. The fact that it is in the Kettles coal mine should be a clue. I’ll leave it to the geologists to explain the difference between a kettle and a polystrate tree if anyone is interested. In a related link, Glen Morton is a geophysicist who is a former young earth creationist. He puts to rest the idea that polystrate trees penetrating multiple coal seams are common at the flowing URL.
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199702/0111.html Glenn reviewed all available creationist work and much conventional literature concerning polystrate trees and coal and came to the conclusion that there is not one example of a tree penetrating multiple coal seams. Joe T.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Thanks JT, that site is horrendous. They talk about 1940-50's geosynclinal hypothesis as if it were the geologic standard! Now, I can't tell for sure, but the tree quote appears to come from a creationist rather than a geologist (Patton). The page is such a mess and it is my guess that someone poorly transcribed a very old text on ye-creationism. Now, I would say that a layperson might copy this material blindly to a website, but a scientist should have been a bit more careful. Interestingly, on the web page the claim is made that 6 hours is enough to convert everything to coal. I believe there are several scaling problems with that conclusion not to mention the fact that the material may have taken millions of years to reach depths/pressures necessary to start the exothermic process leading to coalification. It is also important to remember that the pressure used in the experiment was a bit high. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-20-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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?"
--[1] - Glad to hear my speculation was right [or can be agreed with]. --[2] - How is it that according to my time-line the dinosaurs never died in the flood? It was not a direct cause of the flood, that is to say, 'flood waters', however they did die according to my geochronology during the Flood. How did they get to Utah during the flood? I would have to say they were already there. "JM: Then you do not believe the biblical account of the flood? 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!"--LoL Joe, well I'm sure you would love to hear that, however, it is on the contrary ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-20-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Well thanks for doing the leg work Joe, I appreciate it. I really did want to get to the bottom of that one becuase it's only on one creationist site (which did seem odd).
I will now do the rest of the leg work and find out where the quote really comes from. The only thing I can imagine is that it comes from the more complete transcript of his acceptance speech? So can I just check - you're saying that in the entire article those paragraphs aren't there? The creationist site does also quotes his coal stuff. Well, we'll have to put this particular discussion on hold until we can find out (i) where those paragraphs come from and (ii) where those cyclothem sites are around the world with polystrate fossils passing through cycles. I personally do not doubt that he said those words but let's see. ------------------You are go for TLI
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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. Less tha ndecades vs hundreds of thousands of years would almost undoubtedly leave different signatures. Of course we allow for the unlikely possibility that the two mechanisms could generate the same signature but our working model should be the first option. That's science and that's common sense too.
I certainly don't want to ignore paleosoils - I understand the argeument, but polystrate fossil beats paelosoils for me. If there are paleosoils at various heights along a polystrate tree trunk then I suspect that your paleosoil arguement just bit the dust. I can easily imagine soils being transported under certain conditions. OK, from my itroductory 'Chernicoff', the coal does fall in three state-sized patches in Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pittsburg and Pennsylvania with gaps of no coal but it interbeds with shale, limestone and sandstone that is correlated over the entire distance from Kansas to Pennsylvania. It is undeniable that this sub-continental structure is best viewed as a single phenomonon. Paleocurrent data is averaged because the particle orientations are only statistically point in the flow direction. Any individual particle (organism/pebble) can point along the flow. But if the ere is a statistically significant non-zero orientaiton after abveraging then it is due to flow (what else!). It is a mainstream result anyway. Any geology course on sedimentology teaches it. If you doubt my paelocurrent statements I suggest you read any of Pettijohn, Selley or Blatt et al. The maps are there. The 'shock' of the researchers is quoted, at least in Pettijohn. ------------------You are go for TLI
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Joe T, thanks for that info although I don't think a link to some research done for a web post is exactly conclusive!
I'll contact Snelling et al on the issue and tell you where their egs come from and we can take it from there. In any case this is all very educational. I must admit I did become convinced that mainstreamers had begun to believe that the vast coal fields (eg across eastern USA) were deposited catastrophically. I'm still convinced that Austin et als catastrophic floating mat mecahnism (and not state-sized peet bogs) is the better answer by far. ------------------You are go for TLI [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-20-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: I doubt very much that he said those words. They DO sound very much like Don Patton, creationist. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Fair enough. Regardless of who said it I still think it's correct but we do need to find these cyclothem polystrates I agree.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge, the point about the paleocurrent data is that
(i) these are statistically significant averages - ie the error bars are less than the measurement and(ii) they all point in the same direction (within 30 deg or so) across much of Nth America in stratigrphaical time and space. Here is an excerpt I copied from a sedimentology text a few months ago:
quote: I terms of spatial consistency all I can say is that I have seen the maps. And I have not done any geology courses but have surmised that they teach about paleocurrents becasue the powerpoint slides of 2nd and 3rd year geology courses have paleocurrents discussed on them! I learnt about them first in Pettijohn etc. ------------------You are go for TLI [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-20-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
TB, you have not provided any specific answers to my questions at message #31.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
My cyclothem quote was meant to cover your point but I'm going to have to find an independent source on this ( I feel like Bob Woodward and Deep Throat wont go on the record) via my flood geologist contacts.
I believe the data together does talk of rapidity and incredible continuity in the laying down of the geological column. The paleocurrent data tells us that the vast majority of the continetnal deposits on NorthAmerica were a single phenomenon. I don't doubt that Lyellian analysis can find river deltas and coastal regions etc but as a whole the paelocurrent data tells us that it was a big constant flow issue for tens of thousands of feet of strata! Sure there were river delatas cut out and coastal boundaries but the thing as a whole was a single event. I presume that these guys above aren't denying the existnce of polystrate tree trunks in general - they at least prove the rapid deposition of 50 feet of layered strata. This is seen all around the world and discrediting one kettle coal mine example wont do. We already know from both lab work and Mt St Helens that layering can occur rapidly. When we see tree trunks passing through dozens of feet of strata I think we just have to accept the truth. This doesn't prove Noah but it is suggestive. ------------------You are go for TLI [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-20-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024