Non-marine sediments

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, I am aware of Morton, but there are flood geologists that used to be mainstream geologists too.

---

Good. Give us some references. Is Stuart Nevins one of them?{added by edit}
I meant Steve Austin, but does that really matter?

quote:

---

How could what I say be interpreted as not believing in unconformities?

---

Well, you weren't very clear.

quote:

---

What I am saying is that there are about a dozen major formation/formation unconformities in the Grand Canyon (and even these have relatively small relief). Within the formations the sequences are remarkably free of major unconformities!

---

Yes, and just what does this mean to you? Why should there be many unconformities? Maybe there are. Do you understand that the top of virtually every cross bed is an erosional surface?

quote:

---

Some here are trying to say that every layer is an unconformity and that is simply not true - no sedimentologist would agree with that.

---

Good, lets hear a quote or a reference. Not being a sedimentologist myself, I would like to be enlightened.

quote:

---

IMO, in the non-marine formations you guys should have a lot more unconformities than you do although Wehappyfew claims that continuous deposition on land is currently generating non-marine strata indistinguishable in basic character from the Supai or Hermit.

---

And? Are you saying that swamp deposits are not presently deposited? Beach sands? Fluviatile deposits?

quote:

---

I personally doubt this and would like to see the actual refs that claim this.

---

I think Blatt and other does this. I'll try to track some down tomorrow sometime if no one else does. How about eolian sand deposits? Hmm, now let me think.......

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 06-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
And can anyone show me a continental shelf floor today where there are cone shells, dead or alive, preferentially aligned - eg 80% lining up in one direction? This is a typical paleocurrent observation. Other observations involve ripplemarks and pebble orientations. The epeiric seas were nothing like what gradualists imagine.

---

Like this? "Here’s a shot illustrating cobble imbrication along the west coast of Baja, California, Mexico near San Carlos. Notice how the surf has stacked most of the cobbles so their long axes are dipping seaward. This is the most hydrodynamically stable position and provides a nice unidirectional planar paleocurrent indicator."So according to this example, pebbles, and presumably cone shell fossils, should always line up with their long axis pointing seaward. Do you agree that "seaward" is not likely to change very often at the edge of a continental margin?

Nice try Wehappy. You're proposing this mechanism across continental sized regions? If you are then you just proved our point that there was rapid flow across vast regions that look like no shelf sea I've ever seen.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]

And here are the beginnings of my evidence of the flood-like character of the Suppai: a comment I found on the Suppai formation at a presumably mainstream Grand Canyon site:

quote:

---

Sediments appear in many places to be thin beds spread over wide areas in short periods of time.

---

http://www.und.edu/instruct/mineral/101intro/grandcanyon/grandcan.htmThis is code for 'flood'. I'll have to look at what they're getting at but it may be what I am saying. I think the Supai even to a layman's eye doesn't look like eons of normal non-marine processes. We'll see, I'm not trying to do anything but support scientifically what I can actually see with my eyes.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
And here are the beginnings of my evidence of the flood-like character of the Suppai: a comment I found on the Suppai formation at a presumably mainstream Grand Canyon site:

​

http://www.und.edu/instruct/mineral/101intro/grandcanyon/grandcan.htm

​

This is code for 'flood'. I'll have to look at what they're getting at but it may be what I am saying. I think the Supai even to a layman's eye doesn't look like eons of normal non-marine processes. We'll see, I'm not trying to do anything but support scientifically what I can actually see with my eyes.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]

---

JM: Could not help but notice you left this out:

1000' thick series (group) of alternating red crossbedded sandstones and shales. The upper part of the group is non-marine and tracks of quadrupeds are found on bed tops. These tracks are believed to have been made by amphibians or primitive reptiles.

This is code-word for NO flood.CheersJoe Meert

More code words for non-Flood deposition..."the Esplande sandstone... composed almost entirely of climbing translatent strata and sand-slide structures... contains locally abundant plant fossils, vertebrate trackways, and even evaporite deposits."The Esplande is the upper unit of the Supai Group."The basal part of the Wescogame contains a conglomerate derived from the underlying Manachka. "Conglomerates require lithification of the underlying unit... more non-Flood code words for these two Supai Group units.(Paleozoic Strata of the Grand Canyon)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
And here are the beginnings of my evidence of the flood-like character of the Suppai: a comment I found on the Suppai formation at a presumably mainstream Grand Canyon site:

​

Sediments appear in many places to be thin beds spread over wide areas in short periods of time.

​

This is code for 'flood'. I'll have to look at what they're getting at but it may be what I am saying. I think the Supai even to a layman's eye doesn't look like eons of normal non-marine processes. We'll see, I'm not trying to do anything but support scientifically what I can actually see with my eyes.

---

LOL! I sure am glad you are here to translate for us. I mistakenly thought that it meant:"... many short periods of time, over some wide areas, but not everywhere, and not all at once..."Just shows you how an education can lead one astray.

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
LOL! I sure am glad you are here to translate for us. I mistakenly thought that it meant:

​

"... many short periods of time, over some wide areas, but not everywhere, and not all at once..."

​

Just shows you how an education can lead one astray.

---

Also, I must wonder what, in the context of geologic time, does a "short period" mean? I could be a day, or it could be thousands of years. More information is needed.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Joe, you seem to want to shoehorn us into a flood of your choosing. If you can only imagine the one from the kids books, fine for you. We imagine one with back and forth marine and non-marine surges. We have absolutely no problem with footprints.

Wehappy, I have never said there aren't aspects of the data that are not immediatley answerable (especially by me). As I pointed out in the above post we see the flood as a series of surges and their may have been aerial exposure for up to months. Whether this can account for your deposits I have no idea. In the case of salt domes etc I know creationists have proposed precipitative rather than evaporative processes.I've mentioned before that the conglomerates in two different formations could have been washed into both formations from the same hardened origin.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]

Edge, I didn't mean it was code for the flood, just 'flood'. Whether you like it or not the mainstream literature avoids discusion in plain English of things that sound like creation or flood. Why do you think the paleontologists hid the 'tradesecret of paleontology' for so long until Gould uncovered it? Do you disbelieve Gould? Do you really believe these pre-Gould paleontologists were being unbiased? These paleontologists had been brought up on gradualism for so long that when they finally became professional paleontologists they just followed the party line. A handful broke ranks in the 1970s on an issue which any layman could have told them had they been able to see their data in clarity.

Moose are you so sure of these (non-radioisotpoically) estimated ages for layers? I agree that geologists are very logical and thorough scientists, don't get me wrong. But the depositon rates are(i) based on today's processes and
(ii) massaged to support the radioisotopic datesI scientifically have no problem with this but it is also true. You just know that somehow it formed over, eg 20 million years, based on radioisotopic dating of nearby lava flows. In actual reality you have no idea how long any part of any bed took to form!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, I didn't mean it was code for the flood, just 'flood'. Whether you like it or not the mainstream literature avoids discusion in plain English of things that sound like creation or flood.

---

Yes, placing epeirogenic seas in the context of a flood would lead to gross misunderstandings and probably a lot of irrelevant preaching.

quote:

---

Why do you think the paleontologists hid the 'tradesecret of paleontology' for so long until Gould uncovered it? Do you disbelieve Gould?

---

I believe Gould in the context of what he was talking about, yes.

quote:

---

Do you really believe these pre-Gould paleontologists were being unbiased? These paleontologists had been brought up on gradualism for so long that when they finally became professional paleontologists they just followed the party line. A handful broke ranks in the 1970s on an issue which any layman could have told them had they been able to see their data in clarity.

---

Umm, TB, a clue: all of these people are still evolutionists. I don't understand what your point is. Oh, are you still picking on the dead guy who had 19th century technology and information? Hardly seems fair. After all, I accept that you think the flood is Cambrian to Creatceous. Or should I point out that Barry Setterfield says that you have a dirtly little secret in your understanding of the flood? See how silly this can get? It's up to you.

Edge, I would love to hear in your own words what you think Gould said about pre-PE paleontology and paleontologists and in what context?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Nice try Wehappy. You're proposing this mechanism across continental sized regions? If you are then you just proved our point that there was rapid flow across vast regions that look like no shelf sea I've ever seen

---

I noticed that you edited this message to remove a sentence promising to provide paleocurrent data. Why?You seem to be missing the point of my example and description. I will ask again... do you think that the "seaward" direcion is fairly stable over time and along the length of a coastline? If so, then you have just accepted that "mainstream" actualism explains very well the observation of consistent paleocurrent orientations. No huge surges needed... just normal wave action on beaches transgressing and regressing... leaving behind imbricated pebbles and shells... just like beached today.Will you provide paleocurrent data to support your position on "rapid currents"? The stability and orientation aspects seem fairly well covered now.