Non-marine sediments

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ I'm very aware of the need for detailed scholarly work in any endevour. I simply made a propositon based on a preliminary look at the data and I am willing to accept your assesment that (i) many non-marine beds tell a story that may be inconsistent with the flood and (ii) I/we need to get into the details.[/QUOTE]JM: No, the strata on earth argue unequivocally against a global Noachian flood. Your 'proposition' has already been proven false by a wealth of scientific observation. You cling to it for religious rather than scientific reasons. That's fine, so long as you acknowledge the source of your dogma.CheersJoe Meert

Our hypothesis is that mainstream geology has religiously clung to Lyellian interpretations and shoehorned the data because early on the possibility of a huge deluge laying vast beds was never properly considered. You find it amazing that I believe what I believe but I find it equally so that you believe in placid epeiric seas despite systematic evidence of rapid currents unlike any shelf floor today. We each find it hard to believe what the other does and we both claim the other has 'religious' beliefs.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Life sciences doesn't have desktop access to the geological literature tools - only the geoloogy department has. When I get time I'll stroll clandestinely into the geology library again and use Georef, always with the feeling that some faculty member is about to pull me up by the collar and perform a civilian arrest.

---

That would be you projecting your unconscious feelings of hostility towards a science that fundamentally disagrees with your preconcieved religious biases. For online geo-searching, go here: USGS-GEOREFThere you will find, for example, this citation of a portion of a USGS paper for 21 pages that just describe the erosional surfaces found within the Supai Group... McKee, P 1173

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Our hypothesis is that mainstream geology has religiously clung to Lyellian interpretations and shoehorned the data because early on the possibility of a huge deluge laying vast beds was never properly considered. You find it amazing that I believe what I believe but I find it equally so that you believe in placid epeiric seas despite systematic evidence of rapid currents unlike any shelf floor today. We each find it hard to believe what the other does and we both claim the other has 'religious' beliefs.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-05-2002]

---

JM: Not properly considered? ROTFL!! The Noachian flood story held sway until the weight of the evidence fell against it! You ought to read some Historical geology papers and books as well. I can easily show that your claim of 'religiously' clinging to dogma is wrong for conventional geology. Here are three reasons:(1) Noachian Flood-Diluvialists-Held forth by people like Sedgwick and Cuvier. Heck even Lyell was trained in diluvialist theory. But Lyell chose to look at the rocks and encouraged Sedgwick and others to do the same. Sedgwick looked at the data more carefully and concluded the notion of the Noachian flood was rather stupid (I'm paraphrasing his words to the geological society). That the Noachian deluge is no longer considered is evidence of the science willing to change due to new evidence.(2) Static Continents: Geologists once held that continents were static in their present location. As new evidence came forth to show that they were not, geology underwent a revolution in thinking and adopted the new paradigm called plate tectonics. Proof again that geology yields to the evidence.(3)Young age for the earth- Geologists once thought the earth was young until they began to closely study the rock record. People like Joly and Hutton concluded that it must be much older. Kelvin analyzed the thermal structure of the earth (as had Comte de Buffon) and concluded the earth was somewhere between 20-100 million years old. Kelvin's analysis held sway until the discovery of radioactive decay (more importantly the heat released by decay) and slowly the age of the earth was established at 4.5 Ga. Proof again that geology is swayed by the evidence and not dogmatic.Note the difference. There is NO piece of evidence anywhere that will change the mind of a creationist with regard to their peculiar interpretation of Genesis. Yet, creationists are loathe to talk about the disharmony within their own camps regarding the Noachian deluge. You've got, for example, Setterfield insisting the whole thing is Precambrian, you are insisting it is Cambrian through Cretaceous, TC insists its Cambrian through Tertiary. Others are insisting it's all Paleozoic. Yet none of you have stopped to consider the fact that maybe you can't agree on the time of the flood because the evidence is not clear. I would argue, as would any geologist who has bothered to look at the rocks, that there simply is no evidence for a Noachian type deluge. The difference between creationism and modern geology is that modern geology yields (sometimes reluctantly) to evidence and the evidence against a global flood was long ago settled. Geology does not debate this anymore, since evidence against a global flood is present in nearly every outcrop on earth!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
...you believe in placid epeiric seas despite systematic evidence of rapid currents unlike any shelf floor today.

---

Can you provide this evidence? I would like to see a side-by-side comparison of ancient epeiric sea paleocurents with modern ones - like the South China Sea, Java Sea, North Sea, Baltic Sea, Black Sea,Berings Strait, etc.If you cannot provide this comparison, you are making statements of belief and passing them off as scientific conclusions (again). Belief without, or in spite of, evidence is the exact definition of "faith".

quote:

---

We each find it hard to believe what the other does and we both claim the other has 'religious' beliefs

---

Provide evidence, and I will stop claiming your opinions are based on religion. Examine the evidence I have cited, and you will no longer have any excuse to accuse me of 'religious beliefs'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
...you believe in placid epeiric seas despite systematic evidence of rapid currents unlike any shelf floor today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wehappyfew:
Can you provide this evidence? I would like to see a side-by-side comparison of ancient epeiric sea paleocurents with modern ones - like the South China Sea, Java Sea, North Sea, Baltic Sea, Black Sea,Berings Strait, etc.

---

Personally, I don't really need the side by side (at least yet). I would settle (for now) for just TB's eperic sea paleocurrent data.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

"Personally, I don't really need the side by side (at least yet). I would settle (for now) for just TB's eperic sea paleocurrent data."
--Paleocurrent data may be valuable to me in my Grand canyon formation hypothesis. Would anyone have any good sources for paleocurrent data for the grand canyon sediments, most specifically the above deposits in the surrounding area?
--I might be bumping into a brick wall though because the data may not be what is actually the canyon formation currents, but pre-formation currents.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-10-2002]

Thanks for the links Wehappy. Did you get a gut feeling for what they said about the erosional surfaces?

Joe, I can't find accounts of anyone back then (ie 19th century) proposing that the flood might have (i) rapidly produced layering by hydrodynamic sorting, (ii) occurred in surges so as to account for marine/non-marine alternating beds and (iii) that large canyons wer carved out of soft sediment. I don't know if this is because (a) these guy's voices weren't loud enough or (b) they didn't exist or (c) I haven't done enough reading. Buckland put the flood down to only the top gravel layers in England. Cuvier talked about multiple floods - OK, close to our modern day surges but I'm pretty sure he talked about great ages. Sedwick was pretty much on our side but seemed not to be able to imagine catastrophic flow cutting through soft layers dying down to modern day flows. Unless you can show me otherwise I have not come across anything like the modern flood geology synthesis.Creationists change there models all the time too just as evoltuionists do. The creationism of 2002 is hardly recognizable as that of the 1970s. I like the scientific disharmony amongst us, I find it healthy - I didn't like the solidarity of the 1970s and 1980s. This disharmony might be due to our being wrong but it equally well could be because it is a dificult problem and it is early days for us.

Wehappy, I would like to see some nice jargon free explanaitons of what you guys have found regarding non-marine beds with extracts of quotes rather than ref after ref. When I post stuff I always post some quotes and and my explanation in layman's terms in addition to the actual ref. I'll look at your ref but if you want to show that the non-marine beds were systematically formed by today's process explain your evidence. I will show you evidence that the beds do not follow this pattern.

Moose, I'll repost what I posted earlier and see what else I can find. After reading Pettijohn (a mainstream expert) I have absolutely no doubt that the marine beds across Nth America are characterised by spatially and vertically correlated rapid paleocurrents. I would love to see the comparison with modern sediments off-shore (not on the beach like one picture that got posted) but I already know that shells and pebbles are not aligned in any of shelves where I dive! These epeiric seas were categorically not habitats but I'm as hungry for data as anyone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe, I can't find accounts of anyone back then (ie 19th century) proposing that the flood might have (i) rapidly produced layering by hydrodynamic sorting, (ii) occurred in surges so as to account for marine/non-marine alternating beds and (iii) that large canyons wer carved out of soft sediment. I don't know if this is because (a) these guy's voices weren't loud enough or (b) they didn't exist or (c) I haven't done enough reading. Buckland put the flood down to only the top gravel layers in England. Cuvier talked about multiple floods - OK, close to our modern day surges but I'm pretty sure he talked about great ages. Sedwick was pretty much on our side but seemed not to be able to imagine catastrophic flow cutting through soft layers dying down to modern day flows. Unless you can show me otherwise I have not come across anything like the modern flood geology synthesis.

​

Creationists change there models all the time too just as evoltuionists do. The creationism of 2002 is hardly recognizable as that of the 1970s. I like the scientific disharmony amongst us, I find it healthy - I didn't like the solidarity of the 1970s and 1980s. This disharmony might be due to our being wrong but it equally well could be because it is a dificult problem and it is early days for us.

---

JM: Why look for second order effects of a global flood when the first order effects are completely absent? Geologists abandonded the flood model because there was no clear evidence for it. That alone should hint that this 'global catastrophe' was not. The disharmony amongst creationists is not a good sign. The bible is supposed to be an unambiguous literal text as should be the evidence for a global flood. So, why can't you guys even agree on the simplest matter "that's a flood rock" and "that's not"?CheersJoe Meert

You're right TC, the paleocurrent data has nothing to do with the erosion of the Grand Canyon - it relates to the depositional environment of the vast beds thatthe canyon was cut out of.

Joe, if you don't think inundations of continents by the sea and vast non-marine beds are at least potentially consistent with a tectonically induced global flood then I think you are plain biased.So I would call vast marine layered beds on land with rapid paleocurrent signatures 'first order' evidence of the flood. That's the fundamental point that makes this discussion difficult - you probably wont agree with that that is first order evidence for the flood.The mechanisms that generated the strata are messy as we all know - they chew up previous evidence etc. For us, how much of it was glacial vs tectonic we'll just have to wait. If you want to a priori ignore the possibility that is your right.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Moose, I'll repost what I posted earlier and see what else I can find. After reading Pettijohn (a mainstream expert) I have absolutely no doubt that the marine beds across Nth America are characterised by spatially and vertically correlated rapid paleocurrents. I would love to see the comparison with modern sediments off-shore (not on the beach like one picture that got posted) but I already know that shells and pebbles are not aligned in any of shelves where I dive! These epeiric seas were categorically not habitats but I'm as hungry for data as anyone.

---

1) This topic seems to have much strayed from NON-marine sediments.2) I know it would cut the others out of the discussion at bit but...
seemingly, you are referring to Sedimentary Rocks 3rd ed., by F.J. Pettijohn. I own a copy of this book, and have it available. If you'd like to, cite some page numbers to me. I'm available at mnmoose@lakenet.com. I am skeptical about your abundance of "rapid" marine paleocurrent indicators.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe