Paleocurrents: the 'diverse' features of the GC were laid via rapid, correlated flow

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You might be right about the diving but I doubt it is enough to explain the data Gene90. Remember the entire Precambiran systematically has near zero paleocurrents. I really think that is what you will see for the normal situation. If you think currents sufficient to generate continent wide paleocurrents are the norm then why zero currents in the Precambrian marine beds?

---

JM: ROTFL! Where did you get this gem? I just finished a proposal on the Vindhyan sequence in India which has wonderful paleocurrent data.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Are you sure you're not just a little biased Edge?

---

JM: Well, I've just returned from the field (Midcontinent US) and a little worse for the wear (wrenched lower back out of alignment) and see that the debate has progressed very little. Aside from being convinced that God did a poor job designing our backs, I am also convinced that the rocks don't tell of a global flood! We saw several instances of well-developed paleosols and continental redbeds sandwiched between shallow marine sediments with clear evidence for erosional hiatus. The paleocurrent argument being played out here continues to border on the ridiculous. A global flood that is also responsible for the uplift of mountains, fountains erupting from the deep etc is NOT going to leave regions of consistent paleocurrents. The onus is on the flood geologist to show why these could have only formed in a Noachian flood event. Did you back off somewhere with your claim of no paleocurrents in the Precambrian (that one was hilarious)?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe

​

Welcome back (to you and your back).

​

I backed (a lot of backs around here) off from saying the pC paleocurrents were zero. I now say that they are non-correlated - so due primarily to 3D topography but I'm only basing this on Chadwick so I'd be quite happy to completely recant in the light of mainstream data.

​

In our model we expect ordered paleocurrents for the high energy components of the flood. Empirically this is what we see in much of the Paleozoic. It is not ridicuous and it is not a baseless expectation. If marine innundaitons were rapid, even tidal wave like then we expect to see something exactly like the Paleozoic.

​

BTW, so what exactly is the basis for identifying paleosoils in the column? Terrestial eroded surface? Terrestial habitats? Sediment constituents?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-25-2002]

---

JM: So all tidal waves arrive from exactly the same direction? Seems odd given the levels of seismicity needed in your model! I would expect to see high variability in tsunami deposits rather than regularity on such a fine scale. By the way, paleocurrents in many Precambrian deposits are rather uniform as well. OF course, the uniformity in both Paleozoic and other deposits is highly dependent upon scale of observation. For example, all sediment transport in the Mississippi on a gross scale is to the south, on a finer scale, the paleocurrent directions will be variable.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 06-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge

​

You think I don't get it? Your first paragrpah makes it clear that you think the naming of a phenomenon is the same as an explanation.

​

There are half a dozen mainstream explanations of cyclothems that are qualitativelydifferent! It is not a closed case.

​

The paleoslope controlled the non-marine deposition did it? That is your inference Edge - what if it was catastrophic flooding across flat terrain from the NE? The divergent directions are due to local 3D paleoslopes. There were shallow fresh water lakes above the sandstones inferred from the fresh water shales above the sandstones.

---

JM: Data please.CheersJoe MEert

TB,Percy has a wonderful summation of my points in the same thread that you reference. You came on this board touting your credentials and then proceed to reject all science that does not agree with your predetermined view of the bible. Did you stop to think about whether or not the Noachian flood story must be true as a matter of salvation? Have you examined the historical discussion of the Sumerian and Hebrew cultures that suggests that, perhaps, the Hebrews merely changed the Gilgamesh epic to fit into their own culture because, after all, it is a good story? Geologists went through the flood pangs long ago. As I mentioned, many of us have gone 'out of the intro textbook cribbing' stage to actually look at the rocks. You misquoted Verhoogen (as was pointed out to you) in order to support your bias. I hope this is not how you write scientific papers?! Culling sections of other work out of full context is something we've all come to expect from creationists. What you've not done, and what we implore you to do, is provide us with a self-consistent model of the global flood. We won't get one from you or any other creationist. Why? It's simple, a global flood of Noachian proportions would leave unequivocal evidence if it occurred only 4000 years ago. Yet, there is no agreement on the part of creationists on an issue as simple as 'what strata mark the onset' and 'what strata mark the end'!! Setterfield has the flood ending where you say it starts. You claim it lasted throughout the Phanerozoic, yet your 'only data' are from the Carboniferous which are not all marine. You've got a lot of work to do. In nearly 200+ years, creationists have not accomplished the simple task of identifying the start and end of the flood in the geologic record! At the very least, might you be able to see WHY conventional geology has abandonded the flood model?CheersJoe Meert

Geez edge, don't you realize that the trees aren't growing between the surges? The surges are just rhytmically bringing in new vegetation mats at regular intervals. It testifies to God's glory that each surge brings in precisely the same sequence of sediments and organic material during a global tempest that is also ripping continents apart and creating tsunamis and incredible heat. You have to understand that the flood was both gentle and rough depending on what data you are dealing with. Man, I thought you had that figured out by now!CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 07-02-2002]

[QUOTE] Of course I understand transgression and its role in the preservation of coal seams. I just don't make a priori assumptions about the rate at which it occurred as you do.[/B][/QUOTE]JM: OF COURSE YOU DO!! You attribute it all to the time of the flood.
The rate is then trivial to calculate.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'll allow for both your possibility and mine. It's your side that a priori assumes that our explanation is pseudoscience.

---

JM: That is patently false. Geology had the very same assumption you did 200 years ago. The data led to the alternative. You need to get back to the books!CheersJoe Meert

wehappy,we all know those pictures were drawn with a uniformitarian bias. In reality, the contacts are sharp and laterally continuous across the entire continent. It shows how badly real geologists misrepresent the flood!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Wehappy et al

​

I base my coments on an entire chapter in Verhoogen, not a figure sumarizing only one or two cylocthem cycles out of 30 to 50. In addition there is nothing in our model to expect all layers to be vast in extent. But our model can account for the ones that are vast. For example Verhoogen states:

​

Note in bold that there is difficulty reconcikling the flatness dictated by the shallow sea with the slope required by the sandstone paleocurrents. In our scenario there is simply no problem. Note also that very similar cyclothems form in other parts of the world at the same time. In our scenario cyclothems are due to rapid surges and require no fine-tuned tectonics cyclically raising and lowering of slopes.

​

Our scenario is a model like any other but it links the origin of the vegetation with the rapid flow and does not need to account for cyclically alternating flatness and always same orientaiton slope over an enormous region.

---

JM: No comment on wehappy's diagrams that quite clearly show that these are formed in a river environment? Lucy, you've got some splainin to do.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

1. A non-catastrophic senario must explain the alternating slope and flatenss. Without rapid flooding the explanations require the same SW slope to appear 30-50 times over the same vast region.

---

JM: What is the slope (gradient of the Mississippi river? Rapid flooding is not necessary. All you need is a water supply from the NE. It need not be catastrophic or rapid, just steady.

quote:

---

2. Parallel stream beds over half a continent are consistent with flooding. Floods end as streams of course. In our scenario the rapid currents are causally related to the uprooting of the vegetaiton that became the coal seams. The association of a repeating slope and coal seams are utterly coincidental in your scheme

---

JM: Baloney, as I mentioned the overall paleoslope on the eastern side of a mountain range is to the east and on the western side it is to the west. All you need is a general flow from the NE toward the SW. You're trying to hard to rescue the Gilgamesh myth.CheersJoe Meert