glaciers and the flood

My favorite but OT part of that link: ROFL. "Only six days' rain to flood the Earth? That's absurd! It'd take at least forty!"Oy, weh!

quote:

---

Then you'll have to explain terrestrial tetrapod tracks found here:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand3.htm
Please explain how these tracks formed in the middle of a flood and how the were preserved in the raging floodwaters that dropped the entire Phanerozoic record in one year.

---

I have seen these tracks in Grand Canyon, in sandstone quarries near by, in the geology specimin vault at the Museum of Northern Arizona, and I have some samples in my personal collection.Point #1: No one has ever found the bones of this animal so no one knows what it is. All they know is that it has 4 feet with 5 claws on each. It has a tail that sometimes drags and it comes in a variaty of sizes.
point #2: It is interpreted as a terrestrial animal because the coconino sandstone is interpreted as aeolian.How these track could be made in the sand during a flood cataclysm has already been discussed in detail in flood cataclymic literature. If you want to know simply search for it. I don't have time to pander to your creationary cataclysmic illiteracy.Since the coconino sandstone is considered an subaquius deposition, the tetrapod is interpreted as an amphibian.

quote:

---

Well, maybe you should refute those beliefs rather than attempt to attack the interpretations.

---

Amazing, someone who has a glimps of the real issues! I have not been attacking naturalistic interpretations. My whole point has been that you can have creationary cataclysmic interpretations and evolutionary naturalistic interpretations. And which interpretation you accept depends not upon which side has the largest number of interpretations, but what foundational presuppositions you choose to believe in.

quote:

---

Funny how all the scientists who discovered evolution were YECs before they saw the data. If these presuppositions, as you call them, are so strong isn't it odd how this happened?

---

This is an extremely simplistic view of what happened. It was not the data that caused the naturalists to sometimes abandon their former beliefs, but interpretations of the data. The majority of these people were unaware of the influence of presuppositions on their ideas (as indeed many people on C&E today) and missed the distinction between interpretation and raw data. It was not until the last century that philosophers of science realized that there is no such thing as truly empirical evidence. All evidence is interpreted to some degree.And not all naturalists abandonded the Bible, consider the British Scriptural Geologists of the early 1800s:
Historical Setting | Answers in Genesis
Many of the same arguuments and objections found in Creationary Cataclysmic literature today is found in the works of these 19th century naturalists.AllenThis message has been edited by allenroyboy, 02-24-2005 21:37 AM

quote:

---

They seem to be "analysing" and critizing the Missouri example from the photograph!

---

They are reinterpreting the data as presented by Meert's written description of the outcrop and supported by Meert's photo. If the supposed "paleosol" had any of the real features of a soil, such as the A,B,C and R horizions required for there to be soil, Meert would have noted them and he would have pointed them out in the photo. He didn't and they arn't in the photo.After AiG posted this article, Meert went back and changed his story by relabeling the "paleosol" as "regolith and paleosol development" on the photo [see addendem], but still made no reference to any required soil horizions.

quote:

---

For those computer-chair geologists, regolith is loose rock resting on bedrock.

---

And that is exactly what Meert describes and shows in the photo. Granite on the bottom, regolith [loose rock] in the middle, and sandstone on top.Meert interprets the regolith as "paleosol in development" but gives no physical evidence for any horizions that describe a real soil. So based on Meert's own descriptions and as supported by the photo, this cannot be a paleosol.AllenThis message has been edited by allenroyboy, 02-24-2005 21:43 AM

I see no hint of them doing anything but pretending to analyze the geology from the picture alone. Would you please show where they do anything else? They did not set out in quotations anything they took from Meert so I can't see it.ABE
I went to the Meert site they reference and it has the picture they use but no description. It also has a lot of other even more interesting paleosols. They don't mention those.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-25-2005 01:10 AM

One reasonable assumption each side can make about the other is unfamiliarity with opposing evidence and arguments, one of the reasons for rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines:

4. Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

I'm no geologist. Perhaps you can check this link and let me know what it is actually saying about the first of the Joe Meert examples? (the Missouri one) We will have to also wait till Joe gets back to give us some more info.

---

JM: Yes, they do and I explained quite clearly why I resized and relabled the photograph:

quote:

---

This photo is updated as the old photo was improperly formatted (the update was made solely to provide proper perspective and to highlight the absurdity of Tas Walker's 'analysis' rather than to Walker's blustering about 'changing the story').

---

By the way, the caption reads regolith and paleosol DEVELOPED ON, not DEVELOPMENT.I'll give a brief account here of the history of this page here. When I was at Indiana State, I conducted a paleomagnetic research project on the St. Francois Mtns volcanics/intrusives (Meert and Stuckey, Tectonics 2002 v 21:2, DOI 10.1029/2000TC001265). On one of my sampling trips I was accompanied by Steve Hasiotis (http://www.findarticles.com/...i_m1511/is_n2_v19/ai_20159538). Steve is a world-renowned expert on trace fossils and paleosols. Steve pointed out this paleosol to me and later thinking about the notion, I realized that paleosols present a real problem for the ye-viewpoint. If you look at the original paleosol site Paleosols you'll see that the discussion of paleosols was part of a larger essay. When TAs Walker picked up on this and wrote a 'journal' article on one deformed photograph I was amazed. Naturally, I realized that the discussion needed some expansion and clarification because most of Walker's arguments were incorrect. You can see my detailed response to his article Geology at 200 d . There are many types of paleosols and the assertion that every paleosol must show every horizon or every feature is nonsensical (for example one would not expect to find root traces in Precambrian paleosols). The development of specific soil horizons depends on many factors.
So, yes I did relabel and resize the photograph in order to point out the details and included another photo that I found in a publication by Kisvarsanyi: As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with providing further clarification in science. If there is some rule that I've violated, then I'd like to hear about it. Lastly, I spent a week last fall with Greg Retallack and had the opportunity to discuss paleosols with him (at the outcrop). Frankly, I did not even realize the extent to which paleosols appear in the sedimentary record. On our trip out to Toroweap, he pointed out no less than 50 paleosol horizons. Here is a photo of Greg Retallack (right) and Walter Alvarez (left) examining a paleosol at the rim of the Grand Canyon at Toroweap (line from Greg's right foot to his left knee defines the base of the paleosol and the top of the paleosol is defined by the rock at about Greg's chest height. Greg is without question, one of the world's leading authority on the subject of paleosols. I suggest you read his book "Soils of the Past". You can purchase the book at Amazon
http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/HL-Ebooks/outdoor/geology.htmor you may want to read the book 'Soils and geomorphology' (also available at the above mentioned website) by Peter W. Birkeland. At any rate, Tas' diatribe on my paleosol suggests that one ye-creationist recognized a problem (even if he was able to wish it away). I'll get to the rest of your comments when I get a chance. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that Hasiotis and I are wrong and that this is not a paleosol, how does that help ye-creationists? There are still thousands of paleosols in the geologic record that meet the criteria you demand. How did those paleosols develop during the flood?CheersJoe MeertThis message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-25-2005 14:24 AM

quote:

---

Rootlets? Where are the roots? What kind of natural mechanism could rip all the rootlets off the roots and then only preserve the rootlets? If rootlets are preserved in-situ then the roots should be also.

---

JM: I mistyped. The correct term would be root traces. The roots themselves are gone.

quote:

---

Creationary geologists are working on reinterpretation of burrows.

---

JM: I bet they are! This is a big problem for them.

quote:

---

Are they tillites?? Oard has published research on this.

---

JM: Really, I just looked up his name in Georef and came up blank. Yes, they really are tillites.

quote:

---

It is impossible for anyone of any persuasion to do any science without a set of presuppositions.

---

JM: Ahh yes, this old canard. You might enjoy this:Same EvidenceWhy is it that petroleum and mining companies won't pay for your presuppositions, Mrs. Morris?CheersJoe MeertThis message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-25-2005 12:57 AM

I discovered that Meert had responded while I was working on this message. I'm editing this to try to reflect his new information.

quote:

---

I went to the Meert site they reference and it has the picture they use but no description.

---

Here is Meert's description (from both the AiG and Meert page):

quote:

---

"If you look at the photo at the top of the page, you will see an excellent example of a well-developed paleosol in Missouri. The paleosol is developed on a granite dated to 1473 Ma and underneath the upper Cambrian-age Lamotte sandstone5. Paleosols are fairly common features throughout the standard geologic column ... Why are paleosols so troubling for ye-creationism?"

---

This description is admittedly brief, but the most important part is missing -- i.e. the description of the 'horizons' that define a soil. No horizions, no soil.ANd when you go back to the reference Meert uses to back up the paleosol claim, it says this:

quote:

---

"There are also rare occurrences of paleosol between the SFM rocks and the overlying Lamotte sandstone."
Revisiting the paleomagnetism of the 1.476 Ga St. Francois Mountains igneous province, Missouri, page 2
Joseph G. Meert, William Stuckey
TECTONICS, VOL. 21, NO. 2, 1007, 10.1029/2000TC001265, 2002

---

That's it! And there no references to back up that assertion. Meert just expects us to believe him that it is a paleosol because he calls it a paleosol.A regolith is not a soil unless one can show evidences of soil horizions. Meert has had a couple years now to supply the missing information while editing the site a couple times.Instead of supplying the required information he tries to distract the readers by diverting attention away from his lack of evidence by claiming that his critics are basing their argument solely on a poor quality photo.Give us the evidence for soil horizons, Meert. Quit blustering.

quote:

---

It also has a lot of other even more interesting paleosols. They don't mention those.

---

I didn't see the original article Meert posted, but I would not be surprised to find that these other 'paleosols' were edited in after the AiG article.But before we move on to something else, this needs to come to closure. Either Meert needs to provide evidence that this particular formation is truely a paleosol or admit that he just thinks it is.After that... whatever.Allen
------
I guess i'll leave it pretty much as it was.AllenThis message has been edited by allenroyboy, 02-25-2005 18:46 AM

quote:

---

This description is admittedly brief, but the most important part is missing -- i.e. the description of the 'horizons' that define a soil. No horizions, no soil.

---

JM: Yes, and I explained why it is a brief description. The purpose of the webpage was not specifically meant to discuss this particular example, but the problem that paleosols present in general to the young earth column. I also think you need to get more current on the definition of paleosol.

quote:

---

That's it! And there no references to back up that assertion. Meert just expects us to believe him that it is a paleosol because he calls it a paleosol.

---

JM: Actually, it was Steve Hasiotis who identified it as a paleosol. If you would like to contact steve, I can give you his e-mail. What I find intriguing as well is that you seem satisfied to reject it as a paleosol simply because Tas Walker (who has never even been to the outcrop) thinks it is not a paleosol.

quote:

---

But before we move on to something else, this needs to come to closure. Either Meert needs to provide evidence that this particular formation is truely a paleosol or admit that he just thinks it is.

---

JM: Umm, yes I am going to get on the next plane to Missouri so that I can sample the paleosol and demonstrate to royboys satisfaction that it is a paleosol. The funny thing is, I'm willing to bet that even with all that effort, you will still dismiss it with a handwave. So, in order to expedite the conversation I am willing to discard this one paleosol as an example. That leaves some tens of thousand other paleosols that await your handwave.

quote:

---

Greg is without question, one of the world's leading authority on the subject of paleosols. I suggest you read his book "Soils of the Past". You can purchase the book at Amazon

---

--I second this suggestion. Very good.

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

Hi Allen,I'm catching up, so this is actually a reply to some of your earlier messages. While the specifics of geological dating are outside the scope of this thread, they cannot be considered irrelevant. Any model, catastrophist or geological, must attempt to explain all the data. Quite right. The persuasive power of a model is its ability to explain the evidence. Oard's conclusions cannot be assessed without the accompanying evidence and argumentation by which he reaches these conclusions. At EvC Forum, usually the person introducing an argument explains and supports it. Links and references only play a supporting role. Rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines is probably worth mentioning:

4. Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.

Moving on: I'm not sure how this fits in with a science thread, but most geologists in the US are Christians, too. Okay, but are you doing religion or science? It is fine to know something through faith in the truth of the Bible and the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, but that's not science. Science builds its views upon evidence from the natural world. Most of the concern about Creationism stems from Creationist efforts to have their views represented as science within public school science classrooms, but there's not much to fear in this regard from Creationists who make no atetmpt to disguise the religious origin of Creationism. The evidence we have is that nature can be just as cataclysmic now as ever. Much of the debris of the inner solar system has already struck planets, but collisions still happen, as witness Shoemaker-Levy's collision with Jupiter. The frequency with which stars go nova and supernova hasn't changed appreciably in recent history as we peer back in time into the cosmos. Here on earth, there are still floods, glaciers, volcanos and earthquakes, just as there have always been. Science is based upon evidence from the natural world, and the science forums, of which this is one, accept the traditional definition of science. If you're proposing an alternative approach to knowledge then it would be best if that were done in the [forum=-11] forum. We try to keep discussion narrowly focused in the threads.--Percy

quote:

---

They are reinterpreting the data as presented by Meert's written description of the outcrop and supported by Meert's photo. If the supposed "paleosol" had any of the real features of a soil, such as the A,B,C and R horizions required for there to be soil, Meert would have noted them and he would have pointed them out in the photo. He didn't and they arn't in the photo.

---

--Horizons are not the only diagnostic feature of soils or paleosols. In fact, paleosols may seem massive and featureless at a first approximation (hence a problem with the photo). Paleosols can be identified in the field or in the laboratory through studies of horizons as well as from root traces and soil structure. For the purposes of this discussion we can downplay the significance of root traces in the identification of paleosols because it could be argued that small root traces are indeed in situ, albeit still incipient relative to the timing of catastrophic geology, and that larger root structures are allochthonous (not formed in place, transported).For all we know or can delineate, the paleosol under question in the photo in Meert's essay could be cumulic, thereby indicating very little if any noticable horizonation, void of vertical gradation or diffuse horizon contacts.

quote:

---

Without such field indications the true complexity of a paleosol may not become apparent until petrographic or chemical studies reveal discontinuities.[retallack, 2001]

---

The photo resolution is hardly adequate to identify structural features found in paleosols. And sometimes the soil microfabric must be analyzed to distringuish sedimentary rocks from paleosols.Anyway, Meert stated that he did not determine the pedogenetic origin of the layer in the photograph, but was identified by Steve Hasiotis.This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-25-2005 17:41 AM

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

Hmmm, so I am cataclysmically ignorant. I don't know whether to thank you, or argue the point. First of all, it is not considered to be subaqueous. Second, remember you need to have this amphibian scrambling around on the bottom of an ocean that is depositing several meters of sediment per hour in a current that produces gigantic cross-beds that are forming every few seconds. Do you really expect those tracks to be preserved?Randy Berg, elsewhere on this board is telling us that the Coconino and similar units were rapidly deposited based on Brethault's Ummm, yes, I have a glimpse of the real issues as you see them. However, it is clear that you do not have a glimpse of how to attackt that belief system that you assert is erroneous. Not my point. The point was that if presuppositions are so strong, then why did scientists who had presuppositions of YEC so quickly abandon them in the second half of the 19th century? The only interpretation could be that those old presuppositions were so weak that they could not explain the data. Fine. I never said all of them abandoned young earth interpretations. And that is part of the problem. You guys haven't come up with anything new in nearly a century. I am sure that science will change what we think now, but I am also certain that we will NOT go backwards, as you would like.

quote:

---

Greg {Retallack} is without question, one of the world's leading authority on the subject of paleosols. I suggest you read his book "Soils of the Past".

---

The book is in the local University library and I'll check it out soon.In the mean time I found this on-line:

quote:

---

"Paleosols are diffcult to recognize in early Paleozoic and Precambrian alluvial sedimentary rocks because they lack the large root traces of vascular plants that characterize late Paleozoic and geologically younger paleosols (Retallack,2001a). Only fine rhizome traces are known from Silurian paleosols (Mora and Driese, 1999) and the large root traces and profle form of forest soils are known only as far back as middle Devonian (Retallack, 1997a). Liverwort-like plants may have colonized soils as ancient as mid-Ordovician, but before that time life on land consisted of lichens or microbial scums (Retallack,1992, Retallack, 2000)." pp 373-374

​

Gregory J. Retallack, Nathan D. Sheldon, Monika Cogoini,
R. Douglas Elmore, "Magnetic susceptibility of early Paleozoic and
Precambrian paleosols" Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 198 (2003) 373^380

---

Frankly, I believe that they are hard to recognize simply because they are not paleosols. I believe that a cataclysmic interpretation can be found for all the interpreted paleosols especially in light of tsunami deposition.I did not mean to imply at paleosols should have ALL the horizions found in soils, although it may have sounded like it. Since a soil is defined by means of horizions, then a paleosol should have at least one horizion. Since your did not mention any such horizion in the formation, and one certainly did not appear in the photo, then classifying it as a paleosol is certainly ambiguous and perhaps arbitrary. It appears to be simply an unsorted conglomerate.I find it interesting that in the web page you simply call it a paleosol without providing any evidence. And, in the paper in Tectonics, you assert in a single line with no referrences that it is a paleosol. And now, you say that your source of interpretation is Steve Hasiotis. But even yet there is no explanation why this is a paleosol, it all rests upon an appeal to authority.

quote:

---

Tas' diatribe on my paleosol suggests that one ye-creationist recognized a problem

---

Every Flood cataclysmist that of whom I know, recognizes that paleosol interpretation of various layers cannot fit in a cataclysm setting. Over the pase several years papers have appeared in Creationary literature discussing the issue. Largely it is recognized that the issue is one of interpretation based upon which paradigm you are working within.

quote:

---

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that Hasiotis and I are wrong and that this is not a paleosol, how does that help ye-creationists? There are still thousands of paleosols in the geologic record that meet the criteria you demand.

---

Ideally, Cataclymic geologists would consider and reinterpret each of the "thousands" of paleosols. Realistically, as is being reported in Creationary literature, some claimed paleosols are being reinterpreted. So far, to the satisfaction of the flood cataclysmic geologists, every perported paleosol considered can be reinterpreted within the cataclysmic model. [No one expects evolutionary geologists to be satisfied by the reinterpretation.] Therefore, they expect that as more data is examined, satisfactory interpretations will be found.Allen

quote:

---

I said:
Since the coconino sandstone is considered an subaquius deposition, the tetrapod is interpreted as an amphibian.

​

you say:
First of all, it is not considered to be subaqueous. Second, remember you need to have this amphibian scrambling around on the bottom of an ocean that is depositing several meters of sediment per hour in a current that produces gigantic cross-beds that are forming every few seconds. Do you really expect those tracks to be preserved?

---

1. The context of my quote places this as an interpretation by flood cataclysmists, not evolutionary geologists.2. When a water current in a large bay flows across a sandy bottom, sand waves (similar in formation to subaerial sand dunes) are formed.3. As the water flows up the back of the sandwave it strips the surface of the sandwave by picking up sand grains.4. Once the crest of the sandwave is reached much of the sand falls into the low-energy water on the leeward side of the sand wave.5. On this leeward side of the sandwave, where the crossbedding feature is formed, the sand softly drifts to the crossbedding surface, forming layer after layer.6. In the Flood cataclysm model, an amphibian runs/plods UP the crossbedding surface on the leeward side of the sandwave. [note: ALL fosil traces go UP the crossbedded surface. NO fossil traces go DOWN or ACROSS the crossbedded surface, which is a problem for a subaerial interpretation. "One Way" signs at the bottom of the dunes? ]7. As soon as the tracks are made, they are filled in by the continually falling sand forming more crossbeding layers and instantly preserving the traces.8. When the amphibian reaches the crest of the sandwave it is exposed to the high energy current and is picked up by the current only to be dropped beyond/below the sandwave again. The amphibian then tries to escape up the crossbedding slope again.9. This explanation comes from Austin, "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe."10. In a Flood cataclysm model, the flood waters may well be near saturation level and so much of the sand dropped on the crossbedding surfaces will be from the floodwaters as it looses energy and therefor carrying power, rather than just the moving of sand that happens in bays today.

quote:

---

The point was that if presuppositions are so strong, then why did scientists who had presuppositions of YEC so quickly abandon them in the second half of the 19th century? The only interpretation could be that those old presuppositions were so weak that they could not explain the data.

---

The issuse is not how strong the presuppositions were, but rather that many naturalists adopted interpretations without understanding or being aware of the presuppositions. It is likely that most simply did not recognize that there were presuppositions [just as many scientists today]. They did not realize that much "emperical evidence" was actually interpretation based upon persuppositions..

quote:

---

You guys haven't come up with anything new in nearly a century. I am sure that science will change what we think now, but I am also certain that we will NOT go backwards, as you would like.

---

For the most part, there has been no need to come up with anything new because the major arguments remain the same.Its not a matter of going backwards, but rather of getting back on track.AllenThis message has been edited by allenroyboy, 02-26-2005 00:26 AM