Non-marine sediments

quote:

---

Joe's mainstream abstracts even admit that the region was 'flooded' (no big surprise - there are fresh water shales half way across the continent testifying to the flatness).

---

JM: I guess you missed this little warning in that post:Oh dear (watch TB get hung up on the word 'flooding surface')Scientists make predictions, looks like I am pretty good.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: I guess you missed this little warning in that post:

​

Oh dear (watch TB get hung up on the word 'flooding surface')

​

Scientists make predictions, looks like I am pretty good.

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

​

---

And TB wonders why we prefer not to use the word 'flood!' It must be because we are unscientific...

This is a bump. I am still waiting for TB to explain the channeled sands in the cyclothems of western Pennsylvania as We Happy Few presented to us. If these were flood deposits, why are they in the form of channels that flowed to the west, rather than the vast, sheet-like deposits that you described?

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
This is a bump. I am still waiting for TB to explain the channeled sands in the cyclothems of western Pennsylvania as We Happy Few presented to us. If these were flood deposits, why are they in the form of channels that flowed to the west, rather than the vast, sheet-like deposits that you described?

---

JM: He's moved off into Humphreys astrology.CheersJoe MeertPS: The term 'astrology' is appropos here.

OK, moving back into geology mode . . .I can accept chanelled sands - I still think it was sheets of flood waters that caused it but the sheets of flood waters end up as channels as the water volume reduces.We can probably agree on one thing - there was some sort of correlation between the multiple channels - either through 3D topogrphy (ie a slope) or through rapid flooding. You pick (1), I pick (2). (2) makes more sense becasue you don't have to repeatedly raise/drop a vast 3D landscape to get a shallow lake there in between and the coal is explained as surge debris.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-25-2002]

JoeCan you give me a good reason why I shouldn't use your abstract mentioning 'flooding' to suggest that that was cyclically the basis of this formation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I can accept chanelled sands - I still think it was sheets of flood waters that caused it but the sheets of flood waters end up as channels as the water volume reduces.

---

But what happened to the vast sheets of sand that covered the coal everywhere?

quote:

---

We can probably agree on one thing - there was some sort of correlation between the multiple channels - either through 3D topogrphy (ie a slope) or through rapid flooding.

---

Please explain how these sands were deposited by a flood. Why do they look identical to sands not deposited by floods in modern streams?

quote:

---

You pick (1), I pick (2). (2) makes more sense becasue you don't have to repeatedly raise/drop a vast 3D landscape to get a shallow lake there in between and the coal is explained as surge debris.

---

Oh no, of course not. By your reasoning we have to have a hundred flood surges that brought water in from somewhere and then removed them long enough for forests to grow and then surge them in again. Yeah, that makes sense! Just where did this water go in between surges? How does the bible explain all this surging and ebbing?

From TB:

quote:

---

I challenge someone here to summarize the mainstream view. We all know how easy it is to post links.
It has never been summarized by any of you. Something that accounts for the consistent orientaiton stream slope and the shallow sea, and cyclicity. Cyclothems are not well explained mainstream.

---

I think we had a fairly good summary in the material quoted from Verhoogen. I believe I wrapped up said quotations in message 131.I think the real problem is, that you (TB) are looking for a nice, simple explanation, when the explanation is really quite complex. Many factors can be involved. Some situations may involve some combinations of processes, while other situations involve other combinations of processes. There is no simple black and white answer.Not that I've personally studied much of it, but I'm sure there has been vast amounts of literature published on cyclothem sedimentation, within the context of even greater amounts on sedimentation processes in general. Of course, probibly 99.9 percent of it will never make it to the internet.The mainstream of geologic study has sweated the details.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-01-2002]

^ The mainstream view in that, very good but old, text is that there are about four very diferent theories. From my reading of them, most, or all of them, require bizaree conincidences over this huge area of North America. Our theory simply acknowledges it was catastrophic as evidenced by the large correlated paleocurrents and associated organic material.The modern view is actually that the large paleocurrents are indeed due to flooding. We agree - we just go one step further and say that the coal in between all of the 50 flooding events was brought in by the flooding! It is flood debris! It is not tens of millions of years of normal processes! This entire issue is so subtle and at the same time our interpretations are crucially different.You can all keep calling us unscientific whilst all we're actually doing is trying to show everyone that a different perspective often brings incredible insight to these issues and, yes, is consistent with Scripture.Mainstream geology will continue to resist an admission that thousands of feet of strata could have been laid in days and weeks becasue it truly does open up the possibility of the Genesis Flood. Nevertheless, the strata world-wide are consistent with rapidity of formation. The stories of mainstream geology are calibrated fantasies: this bed looks similar to this modern environment so that's how it happened even though many features don't quite match up.God would say "You fool - I told you about the flood. You shoehorn data, willfully ignore what I said and accuse those who admit they don't have all of the answers of naivety".[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ The mainstream view in that, very good but old, text is that there are about four very diferent theories. From my reading of them, most, or all of them, require bizaree conincidences over this huge area of North America.

---

Please describe these bizarre coincidences. Could you be talking about the rise in sea level related to melting of the continental ice sheets, or increased volcanism at the mid-ocean ridges? Why are these so bizarre?

quote:

---

Our theory simply acknowledges it was catastrophic as evidenced by the large correlated paleocurrents and associated organic material.

---

How do you determine this versus slower sea level rises? You have not yet demonstrated that there were 'large, correlated paleocurrents' or any connection with organic material.

quote:

---

The modern view is actually that the large paleocurrents are indeed due to flooding.

---

Please provide some documentation of this. Who has determined that paleocurrents are related to global flooding? Why do the paleocurrents follow channels downslope from known highlands?

quote:

---

We agree - we just go one step further and say that the coal in between all of the 50 flooding events was brought in by the flooding!

---

Transported coal? What is your evidence of this? Please document this assertion. I have seen transported coal, but never in economic units. There is too much contamination.

quote:

---

It is flood debris!

---

This is an easy statement to make, but much harder to support. Please do so.

quote:

---

It is not tens of millions of years of normal processes!

---

Please show how 'tens of millions of years of normal processes' is ruled out by your data. This is what you must do to unseat the mainstream theories of coal formation.

quote:

---

This entire issue is so subtle and at the same time our interpretations are crucially different.

---

Not at all. There is no evidence for thick, economically exploitable coal beds. Nothing subtle about it.

quote:

---

You all keep calling us unscientific whilst all we're actually doing is trying to show everyone that a different perspective often brings incredible insight to these issues and, yes, is consistent with Scripture.

---

But inconsistent with data. And a perspective that has no documentation or data to back it up. No, it is not science, but myth and wishful stories.

quote:

---

Mainstream geology will continue to resist an admission that thousands of feet of strata could have been laid in days and weeks becasue it truly does open up the possibility of the Genesis Flood.

---

Wrong again. it will continue to resist because there is no evidence for the Genesis Flood. If you can provide it, please do so.

quote:

---

Nevertheless, the strata world-wide are consistent with rapidity of formation.

---

Not at all. We have been over this before. Tell us how forests were able to grow between flood surges. Tell us how evaporites formed in the middle of a flood. Tell us how the environments changed from marine to non-marine to subaerial in only a fraction of the geological record. And why do you completely ignore the many dating methods which indicate an old earth?

quote:

---

The stories of mainstream geology are calibrated fantasies: this bed looks similar to this modern environment so that's how it happened even though many features don't quite match up.

---

Well, then tell us what those features are! Tell us why the mainstream explanations are not valid.

quote:

---

God would say "You fool - I told you about the flood. You shoehorn data, willfully ignore what I said and accuse those who admit they don't have all of the answers of naivety".

---

Or he/she/it might say, "You fools, I gave you brains to think with, and what have you done?"

EdgeIf you all refuse to put into plain English how you think those cyclothems got there do you think I'm going to describe your mainstream theroiries to you? I laid out the challenge. If you don't want to take it up, that's fine with me.I haven't documented the correlated paleocurrents? There are south-west paleocurrents in the sandstones over half of your continent as described in Verhoogen!You really think I'm talking about transported coal? You do not. You know aboutthe floating mat model. You are being mischevous becasue you know our model is that the flood transported newly uprooted vegetation and butried it with the coal forming over time.The link of coal with the SW paleocurrents is because the coal is interspersed 50 times vertically with sandstones with SW paleocurrents!The features that don't match up well between ancient and modern environments in general are precisely: paleocurrents, conformity and horizontal extent.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
If you all refuse to put into plain English how you think those cyclothems got there do you think I'm going to describe your mainstream theroiries to you? I laid out the challenge. If you don't want to take it up, that's fine with me.

---

The main periods of coal formation were in the late Paleozoic and the late Cretaceous/early Paleocene. These time periods were characterized by fluctuating spreading rates at the mid-ocean ridges. There was proably also some influence from expansion and contraction of continental ice sheets. At any rate, there are a couple of mechanisms whereby global sealevels might change giving us transgressions such as the Cretaceous seaway in North America (which we KNOW is related to coal formation), and others. If I spent enough time, I might be able to come up with other viable alternatives. In both cases, the mechanisms can accomodate the growth of forests and the accumulation of organic material in between transgression events; and are supprted by independent line of evidence.

quote:

---

I haven't documented the correlated paleocurrents? There are south-west paleocurrents in the sandstones over half of your continent as described in Verhoogen!

---

There are also several other dominant directions as your reference clearly showed. It is also clear that these directions matched not only paleoslopes but mappable stream channels that drained the emergent part of the continent. I suppose that is just a coincidence.By the way, you still need to get us the velocities that were so high during the Paleozoic compared to now.

quote:

---

You really think I'm talking about transported coal? You do not. You know aboutthe floating mat model.

---

Unfortunately, yes. It is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Nevertheless, the floating mat model does not account for rooted trees and dinosaur footprints in the coal beds, among other things.By the way, why did you floating mats finally sink and why are they not near the top of the flood sediments?

quote:

---

You are being mischevous becasue you know our model is that the flood transported newly uprooted vegetation and butried it with the coal forming over time.

---

What do you mean 'with the coal?' It is the coal. Do you understand what coal is? Why would it be newly uprooted? Please explain this model?

quote:

---

The link of coal with the SW paleocurrents is because the coal is interspersed 50 times vertically with sandstones with SW paleocurrents!

---

First, please show me where these occurred in the western coal fields. Second, so what? What is your problem with that? Are you saying that the water sloshed in and out 50 times in one year a yet trees grew to maturity on the site between surges? Where did that water go and how were the 'floating mats' supposed to form and stay together with that much turbulence?

quote:

---

The features that don't match up well between ancient and modern environments in general are precisely: paleocurrents, conformity and horizontal extent.

---

Funny that no sedimentologists have noticed this. They keep on publishing models and comparisons of the envrionments. How silly of them! They should have contacted you first before they made such fools out of themselves.

^
I don't think Verhoogen mentions other directions? But my point is that there is a correlation across most of eastern USA for thousands of feet of sediment! It is not rivers, it is not lakes, it is flooding across a huge sub-continental area generating thousands of feet of sediment.Rooted trees could be sunken transported trees - carried out by eroding out the soil leaving roots intact.Dinosaur footprints etc are fine too - these were shallow flood plains.Floating mats sink due to becoming water logged surely.'With the coal'? Read it again it is clear I am saying that the vegetation becomes the coal - the 'with' was a qualification not meaning 'together'. If you stop assuming we are idiots you'd make more sense of our posts. If I read your posts the worst possible way I could intentially misunderstand yours too.The western coal fields? I am not saying I can prove that all coal formed via floating mats or in surges! I am showing that this case at hand is suggetive that thousands of feet of sediment formed rapidly.The trees did not grow to maturity in between surges - in our model they are transported in and sink vertically as observed in the field with or without roots.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I don't think Verhoogen mentions other directions? But my point is that there is a correlation across most of eastern USA for thousands of feet of sediment! It is not rivers, it is not lakes, it is flooding across a huge sub-continental area generating thousands of feet of sediment.

---

Sure. There were rose diagrams with several directions depicted on each. There was also one that had a prevailing current in a very different direction, as I remember.

quote:

---

Rooted trees could be sunken transported trees - carried out by eroding out the soil leaving roots intact.

---

So, miraculously these trees sank into the underclay and then sent out roots in all directions and happened to sink in the same place as the rest of your floating mats. Yep, sounds logical to me.

quote:

---

Dinosaur footprints etc are fine too - these were shallow flood plains.

---

Did you ever try to leave a foot print in sediment that was being deposited in a current? Sorry, just doesn't add up. Besides, some of these coal beds are tens of feet thick. How did your floating mats get into water that shallow? Besides, I thought this flood was supposed to kill off the dinosaurs. What were they doing playing in the middle of a flood? This is hardly a global event, then.

quote:

---

Floating mats sink due to becoming water logged surely.

---

Sure. All at the same time too.... LOL!

quote:

---

'With the coal'? Read it again it is clear I am saying that the vegetation becomes the coal - the 'with' was a qualification not meaning 'together'. If you stop assuming we are idiots you'd make more sense of our posts. If I read your posts the worst possible way I could intentially misunderstand yours too.

---

Your lack of familiarity with scientific language makes it difficult to understand what you are saying.

quote:

---

The western coal fields? I am not saying I can prove that all coal formed via floating mats or in surges! I am showing that this case at hand is suggetive that thousands of feet of sediment formed rapidly.

---

But the cyclothems are you evidence. You also have indicated that you think coal beds are correlatable on a continental scale. You have not show rapid deposition to be prominent in coal formation.

quote:

---

The trees did not grow to maturity in between surges - in our model they are transported in and sink vertically as observed in the field with or without roots.

---

Have you observed this to have happened in coalfields anywhwere?Basically, you have failed to show any evidence that coal deposits have been transported, that they are related to fast currents, or to global flooding. How many forests have your flood surges denuded? How do they keep growing back in just one year? This makes no sense at all. Do you undestand that rapid currents carry terrigenous clastics that would contaminate your coal fields? If you model were correct, there would be no economic coal in the world.

^ I think your Rose diagrams were from Pettijohn. I presume you understood that every paleocurrent meaurement at a particular site is a rose diagram that shows the stats? The rose output gives the average direciton and a correlaiton type parameter (usually between 0 and 1.0) indicating consistency. (Mathematially you sum all the vectors, the resultant gives the direction and the length of the resultant divided by 'n' gives the correlation). In any case all real data will show a spread. But when the rose diagram points SW with a statistical correlation of 0.75 half way across North America then it is clear that these results indicate a correlated origin for thse sandstone beds.The trees sank vertically and silt formed around the roots. In Austin's video the trees just 'hover' due to near neutral bouyancy.If the flood plain is carrying a lot of silt then footprints can be recorde in water. Most of trackways in the grand Canyon best match amphibian/reptiles walking under water.We do not observe the floating mat model today becasue there is no global flood today. But Mt St Helen's gives us an idea. Just think howmany other aspects of geology would not be a puzzle if one could sit and watch it happen.Clastic impurities? The floating mats are the last to sink. Once the flow stops, silt settles and then the mats sink. That is no 'just so' story - it is exactly what one would expect.