|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Paleocurrents: the 'diverse' features of the GC were laid via rapid, correlated flow | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: If they were so surprised, why are they not flood geologists?
quote: There are prevailing current directions. We have explained this to you. You have ignored us.
quote: Why not? Are there not easterly flowing streams all over the east coast of N America? Does that area not cover tens of thousands of sqaure miles?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
The paleocurrent researchers invariably explain the local data via local 3D topology. It is difficult to find mainstream apraisals of the continental trends. Easterly flowing streams don't generate anything like the epeiric sea deposits or the typical non-marine beds! These beds are sheets of strata not river beds! Please take those mainstream blinkers off and look at the strata. The geological column is nothing like what we were taught in kindergarden. It's not rivers and swamps - it's vast epeiric marine deposists and huge fresh water flood plains whether Noahic or not!! [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-18-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I strongly suspect, that if the collective deposits of the modern east coast of the U.S. streams were studied, the big picture arrived at would be of the nature of the molasse deposits, as mentioned in message 9.
Side note: Of course, present day stream processes have been radically influenced by human engineering projects.
quote: Once again, what we need is detailed information on one or more of your non-marine "sheets of strata". I suspect that this detailed information could very well show that at least some are a result of uniformatarianist aluvial processes (ie. "river beds"). TB, care to pick a specific non-marine "sheet of strata", to explore in detail? Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Moose
I wish I could find a summary of the nature of non-marine beds but because you guys are primarily uniformitarian the idea that they could be correlated isn't really raised mainstream! I do plan to study some papers on large non-marine beds. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-19-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: This is getting ridiculous. Who was taught the geological column in kindergarten? And why are flood plains not non-marine? And who was taught that epeiric seas were not responsible for the shelf deposits? You have got everything so convoluted that you are basically lost.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge, your suggestion that streams could account for paleocurrents measured in vast sheet like beds is bizaree to say the least. That is why, to me, it sounded like you still believed the stories we learned in 'kindergarden'*. The average layman thinks the column is due to eons and eons of swamps and rivers. Go ask them. It most certainly is not.
* Whenever I use the term kindergarden I mean things we learned as laymen via TV, school and, yes, kindergarden. My primary school teachers at the very least taught me about long ages of swamps. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-20-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Just a note:
Material concerning both paleocurrents and non-marine sedimentation has ended up in the "Non-marine sediments" topic at http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=18&m=110#110 I have responded to message 110, in message 112 of that topic. Cheers,Moose
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Then what do you think happens in non-marine deposits? Several of these environments are above sea level, so one would expect the sandstones in marine and near-marine environments to have stream generated cross beds. I am also waiting for the velocity data along with a comparison to the same modern envirionments.
quote: No, it is due to eons and eons of various types of marine and non-marine environments. I never learned about the geological column in kindergarten. In fact, I never learned it until college.
quote: Then your teachers were not competent. I am sorry this is the case. Perhaps that has helped lead to your current misunderstanding of geology. Perhaps you should depend less on television for you education. I think you are inventing a problem here that does not realy exist because it suits your agenda. The reason for focussing on streams and swamps is because of the connection with terrestrial life... mainly dinosaurs which are the center of attention for primary schoolers.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
I would suggest that most of the non-marine beds worldwide are flood deposits - Noahic for us, regional for you. My reading s so far indicate this to be potentailly true for the large non-marine deposits. I'm also waiting for the velocity data and comparison to the same modern envirionments. Someone here should put a grant porposal in and do the work. Maybe I will. I'm aware that the layman swamp impression of the geological column comes from dinosaurs. But I bet layman would have a different impression of creationism if you told them that the continental geological column is dominated by invasions of the sea and vast fresh-water beds that cover US state sized areas. Can anyone here deny that this is the true nature of the geological column? I know no-one can deny this becasue it is an empirical fact!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: No, not. You have not explained how evaporites, eolian deposits and dinosaur tracks, nest, etc. are found in the middle of a global flood.
quote: You might just cause me to pray in that case. You'd set us back generations.
quote: I'm not sure why that would be the case. You still have not shown the entire continent to have been covered by water of any composition.
quote: But an irrelevant one.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ Are you sure you're not just a little biased Edge?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, I am biased toward reasonable explanations and diligent science.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5701 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: 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)? Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5701 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: 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. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 06-25-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024