|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2553 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
WMScott Stated:
quote
This is very faulty reasoning because the North Americanmines discussed in this web page are not the only source of diatomite. A person need only look at: minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/diatomite/250301.pdf This article shows that 2,000 metric tons of diatomite wereimported from other countries. In addition, finished fertilizers and pesticides imported from other countries would also contain foreign diatomite in them. Thus, a person also needs to know the composition of foreign diatomite deposits in order to rule out a human source for your diatoms. There is another major problem with the web page at: CAS – Central Authentication Service The problem is that diatomite and diatomaceous earthare different types of sediment, as indicated in the "Glossary of Geology" published by the American Geological Institute. This web page only discusses the source of diatomite, which consists of pure diatoms. It stated nothing about the sources of diatomaceous earth, which is a mixture of diatoms and other sediments, and is very widely used widely in agriculture. Diatomaceous earth is mined at different quarries then is pure diatomite. As a result, the above web page is insufficient by itself torule out a human origin for any alleged "marine diatoms". I say "alleged" the quality of pictures so far shown are, in my opinion as a geologist who has worked with microfossils, vastly inadequate for any identification of it. In fact, for really accurate identification of many diatoms, a person often needs a electron microscope because of the limited resolution of light microscopes. The comments about " The types of diatoms found in theoceans 3.5 million years ago was considerably different from what was present at the end of the ice age." is not completely true. There are many species and genera of diatoms that persist from the Miocene until modern times. For example Asterolampra Marylandica occurs in Miocenemarine sediments described at: Core Data from the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), NOAA/NGDC/WDC for MGG Seafloor Series vol. 1 Go look at: "Leg : 73Top/Bot Interval(mm): 400/ 420 Sample Age : UPPER MIOCENE Hole: 520 Depth Top of Core(m): 310.50 Core: 14 Depth Top Sample(m) : 310.91 Sect: 1 No. Observed Fossils: 18" and "Leg : 73Top/Bot Interval(mm): 710/ 730 Sample Age : UPPER MIOCENE Hole: 520 Depth Top of Core(m): 322.50 Core: 17 Depth Top Sample(m) : 324.72 Sect: 2 No. Observed Fossils: 10 and Core Data from the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), NOAA/NGDC/WDC for MGG Seafloor Series vol. 1 Go look at: "Leg : 50Top/Bot Interval(mm): 580/ 600 Sample Age : MIOCENE Hole: 415 Depth Top of Core(m): 273.50 Core: 5 Depth Top Sample(m) : 275.59 Sect: 2 No. Observed Fossils: 20" "ASTEROLAMPRA MARYLANDICA (ABUNDANT/)" Yours,Bill Birkeland. Houston, Texas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2553 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
wmscott wrote in Message 157 of 157:
... duplicate article deleted... I apologize for posting the same article twice. Idon't how I managed to double post this this post twice. Also, I don't know how I managed to overlook the fact that I double posted the same post until today. Way too preoccupied with current events at this time to think straight about what I am doing. Bill [This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2553 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
wmscott wrote in Message 157 of 157:
"It is believed that there are over 500,000 CarolinaBays that still exist and that the total number when they were created was perhaps two and half million. That is a lot of impacts and a lot of heat, if this type of event happened on a ice age ice sheet, it would have resulted in a huge release of ice water. As the map shows, the comet that created the Carolina Bays exploded just south of the late Wisconsin ice sheet margin, the super flood evidence and the finding of possible micro tektites in Wisconsin points towards a large number of comet impacts also having occurring on the ice sheet in Canada at the same time. Like other comet events, the exploding Carolina bay comet was only one of several large pieces of a large comet that had been broked apart in space by the gravity of a too close past to the sun or one of the large outer planets before it approached the earth. If one or more other comet pieces also hit the large ice sheet over Canada and possibly other ice sheets as well, the release of water would have easily raised sea levels high enough to trigger a domino chain reaction among the ice age ice sheets." ====== end of wmscott quote ========================== Unfortunately, much, if not all of what Mr. wmscottstates above about the Carolina Bays has been largely refuted by detailed examination of the Carolina Bays by various geologists and archaeologists over the last decade or so. A main problem is that the Carolina Bays predate theend of the Wisconsinan by **tens of thousands** of years. For example as discussed in "Age and Climatic Correlates of Carolina Bays and Inland Dunes of the South Atlantic Coastal Plain: New Data" at http://www.cla.sc.edu/sciaa/srs.html , the Carolina Bays are at least 115,000 to 135,000 years old as indicated by sand from the rims of these landforms dated by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL). On the above web page it is stated: "On the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site(SRS), adjacent to the Savannah River in the Upper Coastal Plain, two OSL dates from the rim of Flamingo Bay indicate that the bay formed initially at 108.7 +/- 10.9 ka B.P. and was rejuvenated at 40.3 +/- 4.0 ka B.P. A single date from Bay 40 indicates that it formed at 77.9 +/- 7.6 ka B.P." The Carolina Bays are also older than surficial dunesthat have been dated using OSL dating at "29.9 +/- 2.8 ka B.P., 31.4 +/- 2.5 ka B.P., 35.8 +/- 4.8 ka B.P., 36.7 +/- 6.0 ka B.P., and 39.0 +/- 4.5 ka B.P." Brook eta al. (2001) present radiocarbon dates that,like OSL date indicate that the Carolina Bays are older than 40,000 to 50,000 years old. Also, it is stated by Mark J. Brooks and Barbara E.Taylor in " Early Hunter-Gatherer Use of Carolina Bays" at: 300 Multiple Choices , "Optically Stimulated Luminescence dates from severalbays, compared with ice core and deep sea oxygen isotope records of global climate change, indicate that some bays formed at least as early as the Sangamon Interglacial (~135-115 thousand years ago) and were rejuvenated during brief, warm, moist intervals of the subsequent Wisconsinan Glacial. Many of the bays apparently continued as open-water lakes into the early Holocene but, due to sediment infilling, most transitioned to temporary wetland ponds by ~7000 years ago." This is also discussed in an abstract of a talk presentedat the Geological Society of America 2002 Denver Annual Meeting (October 27-30, 2002) by Ivester, A. H., Godfrey-Smith, D. I., Brooks, M. J., and Taylor, B. E. and titled "Carolina Bays and Inland Dunes of the Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Yield New Evidence for Regional Paleoclimate" at: http://gsa.confex.com/...2AM/finalprogram/abstract_45547.htm In part they found: "Ages from eolian sand rims on the southeast edgesof Carolina bay wetlands indicate conditions were suitable for rim development-i.e., southwesterly winds were blowing across ponded water-during several intervals of the late Quaternary. In the upper Coastal Plain, dates from Flamingo Bay indicate the rim was active at 108.7 10.9 ka BP and again at 40.3 4.0 ka BP. The nearby Bay-40 had an actively forming sand rim at 77.9 7.6 ka BP." If the sand rims of these Carolina Bays are as old as40 to 109 thousands years, than the Carolina Bays are definitely predate the end of the last glacial epoch by tens of thousands of years. In fact, these and other OSL dates now that the Carolina Bays are ten times older than Mr. wmscott argues them to be. This present obvious problems with his theories. :-) :-) Radiocarbon data published by Brooks et al. (2001)also refutes the age assigned to the Carolina Bays by Mr. wmscott. In a study of the stratigraphy of sediments filling one Carolina Bay, Big Bay, they radiocarbon dated swamp deposits buried by a sand sand dumped into Big Bay as a sand dune migrated into this Carolina Bay. The organic-rich swamp deposits found buried beneath and preserved by a layer of eolian sand yielded radiocarbon dates greater than 48,000 BP. These dates show that the Carolina Bays were in existence over 50,000 years and far too old to be associated with the end of the last glacial epoch. In fact, Big Bay is likely much older, as the sand dune, which migrated into and dumped sand into Big Bay, was active between 65,000 to 140,000 BP as dated by OSL techniques. Regardless of their origin, the Carolina Bays are fartoo old to be related to any mythical meteorite or comet impact that occurred at the end of the last glacial epoch. Additional dates refuting wmscott's estimate of the age of Carolina Bays has been published in Brooks et al. (2001) and other published articles. Also, research by Brooks et al. (1996) and Grant et al.1998) both clearly demonstrated that the current size and shape of the Carolina Bays is the result of extensive modification by lacustrine and eolian processes of the original depressions that formed the initial Carolina Bays. These porcesses have modified the siae and shape of Carolina Bays for over at least thousands, and possibly tens of thousands of years. As a result, the present shape and orientation of the bays likely has little resemblance to the original shape of the Carolina Bays when they first formed. As a result, using the modern shape and orientation of the Carolina Bays to infer their origin is a completely and utterly bankrupt as a scientific technique. Some references are: Brooks, M. J., Taylor, B. E. and Grant, J. A., 1996,Carolina bays and Holocene landscape evolution on the Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Geoarchaeology. vol. 11, pp. 481-504 Brooks, M. J., Taylor, B. E., Stone, P. A., and Gardner,L. A., 2001, Pleistocene encroachment of the Wateree River Sand Sheet into Big Bay on the middle coastal plain of South Carolina. Southeastern Geology. vol. 40, no. 4., pp, 241-257. Grant, J. A., Brooks, M. J., and Taylor, B.E. 1998, Newconstraints on the evolution of Carolina bays from ground- penetrating radar. Geomorphology vol. 22, pp. 325-345. SREL Home page, Office of Research, University of Georgia In terms of their origin, other research also hassignificantly contradicted the idea that they are the result of an impact. For example, Carolina Bays not only occur along the Atlantic Coastal Plain, but also can be found in in Mississippi and Alabama within the coastal plain bordering the Gulf of Mexico. On the surviving terrace surfaces overlying the Citronelle Formation, geologists have found hundreds of oval to circular depressions ranging from 45 to 780 m (150 to 2,600 ft) in diameter and from 0.9 to 12 m (3 to 40 ft) in depth. As noted by Otvos (1997) these circular features show that Carolina Bays are found west of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, except for a part of Florida dominated by carbonate karst. Research by Isphording (1996) and Isphording andFlowers (1988) concluded that the circular depressions within the Gulf Coastal Plain are not impact craters. Instead they, concluded that these depressions are siliclastic karst. They argue that the intensive weathering and dissolution of quartz and clay in the Citronelle Formation created these depression much like weathering and dissolution of limestone in the Florida region created carbonate karst. Later, May and Warne (1999) reviewed what was known about the Carolina Bays and concluded that they, like the "Carolina Bays" of the Mississippi - Alabama coastal plain, are also siliclastic karst. References Cited Isphording, W. C., 1996, Siliclastic karst developmenton Citronelle Formation sediments, Southeastern United States (Alabama-Mississippi). Geological Society of America Abstract with Programs. vol. 28, no. 2, p. 17. Isphording, W. C. and Flowers, G. C., 1988, Karstdevelopment in coastal plain sands; a "new" problem in foundation engineering. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists. vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 95-104. May, J. H. and Warne, A. G., 1999, Hydrogeologic andGeochemical Factors Required for the Development of Carolina Bays Along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, Coastal Plain,USA. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience. vol. V, no. 3, pp. 261-270. (Fall 1999) Otvos, E. G., 1997, Northeastern Gulf Coastal PlainRevisited: Neogene and Quaternary Units and Events: Old and New Concepts. Guidebook no. 8, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, Austin, TX. Also, people might be interested in looking at:"NEBRASKA'S CAROLINA BAYS" by ZANNER, C. William at: http://gsa.confex.com/...1AM/finalprogram/abstract_22324.htm Yours, Bill BirkelandHouston, TX
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2553 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
In message 160 of 160 wmscott wrote:
"Did a quick search on the web I see. Well Bill, theCarolina Bays are a somewhat broad classification especially considering that their method of formation is not agreed upon, this results in some landforms that may not truly be Carolina Bays being lumped in the classification incorrectly. Not every oval shaped depression is a Carolina Bay, some of the very old dates, which are in conflict with the more modern dates generally found could be explained in some cases by such a misclassification. Then there are the usual errors associated with the various dating systems that could account for some of the other very old dates." This sounds like nothing more than an excuse by whichyou are throwing out the data which contradicts your hypothesis. This has been called elsewhere as "Cafeteria Catastrophism". It is a process by which catastrophists choose their data like they choose food at a cafeteria. The data is "distasteful" to their hypothesis they leave on it the counter (ignore it or discard it) as they would leave distasteful food at a cafeteria buffet line. If the data is "tasteful" to their hypothesis, they take it (sort of "buy" it) and use it as they would do food at a cafeteria buffet line. The fact of the matter is that the Carolina Bays withinthe Atlantic with the "old dates" in general show the general morphology, internal structure, alignment, and distribution as other Carolina Bays within the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Given that the bays with the very old dates are identical in nature to the Carolina Bays along the Atlantic Coastal Plain and virtually identical to the Gulf Coast oriented lakes indicates that they likely were created by the same process. From the innumerable papers I have read about Carolina Bays, I have **not** seen any data that even suggests that Carolina Bays consist of landforms of very different origin within the Atlantic Coastal Plain and they are any different in origin from similar lakes and ponds within the Gulf Coastal Plain. The only reason that Mr. wmscott has for arguing for themisclassification of Carolina Bays is that the OSL dates of the Carolina Bays, which have been dated, showed them too old to support his "comet theory". The claims of misclassification is just one way that he can throw away / dismiss data that refutes his theory. This is simply cafeteria catastrophism at work, where data that a person finds distasteful is left behind like distasteful food of the cafeteria shelf. What the difference in dates indicate is that the sameprocesses **acted at different** times in the past either to create or substantially modify the Carolina Bays. In case of the Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dates, the variance in dates simply means that at specific times in the past the climate along the Atlantic Coastal for reworking the rims of the Bays by eolian processes. During each reworking, the OSL "clock" was reset when the sand was exposed to sunlight. As a result, the younger OSL dates are only minimum dates, which only indicate the last period of when eolian processes eroded and redeposited the sand along the rims and not the actual age of the Carolina Bay dated. The wide spread of OSL dates certainly indicate that the modern morphology of the Carolina Bays is the result of **periodic** modification of them over tens of thousands of years. This is totally consistent with both their formation as siliclastic karst and later modification by lacustrine and eolian processes. As the least, the complete modification of the Carolina Bays after formation over this period of time make the use of their current morphology to infer their origin completely impossible. +++++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "I also allow for the possibility that the CarolinaBays were formed earlier in the ice age such as just after the LGM." If Mr. wmscott would look at the pollen data that hasbeen acquired for numerous Carolina Bays, he would find that the presence of full-glacial pollen assemblages within them clearly indicate that they are, at least, as old as the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). This clearly refutes his theory that they belong to a terminal Pleistocene event. For example, the sediment filling Big Bay containsmultiple zones of differing pollen assemblages. The pollen assemblages of the middle zones are characteristic of cold climate, full glacial sediments. At the bottom of the sediments filling "Big Bay" Brooks et al. (2001) found pollen assemblages characteristic of warm climates and plants that lived in the region during the last interglacial between 75,00 to 134,000 BP. Thus, the pollen assemblages from Big Bay confirm both the OSL and radiocarbon dates that demonstrate that Big Bay is over 70 to 80 thousands years older than the model proposed by Mr. wmscott would predict it to be. Similarly, if a person reads through other publishedstudies of pollen assemblages recovered from the cores taken from cores many other Carolina Bays, a person finds, that the pollen assemblages show that they were in existence **during** the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). This refutes the proposal that they might have formed just after the LGM. Some of these studies are Delcourt et al. (1984), Frey (1953,1955), Watts (1980). Brooks, M. J., Taylor, B. E., and Stone, P. A.,Gardner, L. B., 2001, Pleistocene encroachment of the Wateree River Sand Sheet into Big Bay on the middle coastal plain of South Carolina. Southeastern Geology. vol. 40, no. 4., pp, 241-257. Delcourt, P. A. and Delcourt, H. R., 1984) LateQuaternary paleoclimates and biotic responses in eastern North America and the western North Atlantic Ocean. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. vol. 48, no. 2-4, pp. 263-276 Frey, D. G., 1953, Regional aspects of the late-glacialand post-glacial pollen succession of southeastern North Carolina. Ecological Monographs. vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 289-313. Frey, D. G., 1955, A time revision of the Pleistocenepollen chronology of southeastern North Carolina. Ecology. vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 762-763. Watts, A. L., 1980, Late-Quaternary vegetationhistory at White Pond on the inner coastal plain of South Carolina. Quaternary Research. vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 187-199. +++++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "The extremely early dates that would push the Baysformation back into an interglacial are obviously wrong considering that the bays are also found on areas of the continental shelves that were only exposed during glacial periods." As far as I have found in the published scientificliterature, there is absolutely no hard evidence and data to support the claim that Carolina Bays have been on the continental shelf. Given that the LGM continental shelves have been deeply eroded and modified by shoreface and nearshore processes as it was submerged, the only way surface landforms like Carolina Bays would have survived inundation would to have been buried by sediments before submergence. Once buried, it be virtually impossible, even with modern technology to find and identify Carolina Bays. As a result, I find the reports of Carolina Bay, especially since I can find no hard data to support them, to be nothing more then catastrophist mythology or geopeotry that has been repeated mindlessly as fact when there is absolutely no evidence to support it. If Mr. wmscott can point me to a specific paper inwhich specific descriptions, maps, and sketches of Carolina Bays found on the continental shelf, I would like him to post it and I am very interested in finding the citation(s) to such papers. I would challenge Mr. wmscott to produce side-scan sonar images and sub-bottom profiler data that clearly show underwater Carolina Bays lying on the continental shelf to prove that they actually exist outside of the imagination of certain catastrophists. +++++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "The 'soft' nature of the bays restricts theirformation to fairly recent time, they could not be an ancient land formation or they would have faded away long ago. These factors limit the bay formation to the last advance of the Pleistocene ice age." The statement "The 'soft' nature of the baysrestricts their formation to fairly recent time" is a completely factually bankrupt statement in two respects. First, the flat plains, although composed of "soft"sand, is an extremely stable surface surface as a result of several factors. First, it is covered with a thick cover of vegetation. The thick stabilizes the surface by physically binding the sediment together where it can be eroded by either surface flow or wind. Second, the coastal plain is a very flat surface that greatly inhibits surface runoff and encourages ponding of water on its surface. This greatly inhibits the development of drainage networks that would eventually dissect its surface and encourages water to sink into the sand instead of running off of it. Finally, the coastal plain is underlain by thick sand, in which water sinks into rather than running off. Overall, the flat sandy nature of the coastal plain and its thick vegetation cover makes for a very stable surface, which despite being compose of sand, is very resistant to erosion because. This is a surface, on which it would takes tens of thousands to hundreds of years for landforms to "fade away" as he claims. Such a stable surface, in fact, is a prime location for the development of siliclastic karst as argued by: May, J. H. and Warne, A. G., 1999, Hydrogeologic andGeochemical Factors Required for the Development of Carolina Bays Along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, Coastal Plain,USA. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience. vol. V, no. 3, pp. 261-270. (Fall 1999) Finally, if Mr. wmscott would look at the literatureabout the geomorphology of the Atlantic coastal plain, he would find many ancient landforms, e.g. sand dunes and beach ridges, are composed of the same sand as the Carolina Bays that have been dated as being tens of thousands, even about a hundred thousand years old. These landforms **have not** faded away within a fairly recent time as Mr. wmscott and other catastrophists claim would happen to the Carolina Bays. The "fading away" does occur, but its takes tens to hundreds of thousands of years to occur. It doen **not** occur over a "fairly recent time" as he incorrectly presumes without reviewing the pertinent published research. +++++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "I also noted that the third site you cited stated"Extant SRS hay morphology formed mainly during the Holocene and did not involve migration of bays across the landscape." By 'hay' I assume they mean 'bay'. The Holocene is of course the last ten thousand years. The age of the Carolina Bays is just another of the many facets of the Mysterious Carolina Bays that is argued about." Mr. wmscott grossly misinterprets this web page. It does**not** conclude that this Carolina Bay either originated or was first created during the Holocene. Rather, this web page concluded is that "extent", modern, morphology of this Carolina Bay was the result of lacustrine and eolian processes having modified a pre-existing, Pleistocene Carolina Bay over a large part of Holocene. The significance of this web page is that morphology now exhibited by this Carolina Bay is not the result of the processes the originally created it. As a result, it is impossible to use the shape and orientation of this and other Carolina Bays, as Savage, and many others have naively done. For example, on this web page, it is stated: "Ia, Multiple periods of bay-rim accretion with interveningintervals of erosion may characterize the longer-term evolution of the (sic) a, bays." Comet impacts do **not** create a crater by eroding andrebuilding its rim over a long period of time as happened with the Carolina Bays. Impact processes occur over a very, very brief period of time a and do **not** involve periodic erosion and rebuilding of a crater over a period of ten thousand years as has happened with various Carolina Bays. The web page is the abstract to "New constraints onthe evolution of Carolina Bays from ground-penetrating radar" by John A. Grant, Mark J. Brooks, and Barbara E. Taylor, which appeared in vol. 22 of geomorphology. It is found at: SREL Home page, Office of Research, University of Georgia +++++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "If you carefully read the web sites you providedlinks to, you will notice that wind was sometimes only invoked as a modifying effect on already existing Bays, "southwesterly winds were blowing across ponded water-during several intervals of the late Quaternary" even some of the sites you cited recognize that wind is a poor explanation for creating the Bays." I did **not** say that eolian processes created theCarolina Bays. I was noting that lacustrine and eolian processes have modified the shape, size, and orientation of the Carolina Bays once they were created to the point that it is completely and utterly impossible to use their orientation to infer their origin. The web sites and papers that I cited in my previous post demonstrate that the current / modern shape, size, and orientation of these bays reflect post-formation modification over the last several, even tens of thousands of years. As a result, it is incredibly sloppy and rather bankrupt science to use the orientation and shape of the Carolina Bays as evidence for them having been caused by the impact of either a comet or meteorite. +++++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "Both the wind and Karst or dissolution theoriesare unable to account for many features associated with the Bays." Contrary to what Mr. wmscott falsely claims above,May and Warne (1999) and Isphording and Flowers (1988) clearly demonstrate that siliclastic karst can account for all of the features of the Carolina Bays. Go read: 1. May, J. H. and Warne, A. G., 1999, Hydrogeologic andGeochemical Factors Required for the Development of Carolina Bays Along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, Coastal Plain, USA. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience. vol. V, no. 3, pp. 261-270. (Fall 1999) and 2. Isphording, W. C. and Flowers, G. C., 1988, Karstdevelopment in coastal plain sands; a "new" problem in foundation engineering. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists. vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 95-104. "The most basic problem is since both wind anddissolution are on going processes, why are no Bays currently being formed? The dissolution of siliclastic sediments is avery slow process. The development of a new sinkhole would take hundreds, possibly thousands of years. To actually observe the formation of a sinkhole in siliclastic karst, a person would need a sequence of either aerial photographs or similar data covering a period of several hundred years. Given that aerial photographs and similar data only go back to the 1930s and 1940s, the data needed to observe the formation of a new Carolina Bay simply does **not** exist. Thus, given the limitations of the available data, it is impossible for Mr. wmscott or anybody else to know whether or not new Carolina Bays are being forming. I would challenge Mr. wmscott to provide hard evidence that actually proves that no new Carolina Baysare not forming anywhere in the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Another problem, is that the process is climatedependant. Within parts of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, the lack of new Carolina Bays being developed can be the result of the fact that modern climate differs from the time during which Carolina Bays were active. These very well could be relict landforms, which are now only being modified by lacustrine and eolian processes. However, Isphording and Flowers (1988) within the modernGulf Coastal Plain document active siliclastic karst that Mr. wmscott claims does not exist. In fact, they have describe actual damage to foundations of buildings in Gulf Coastal Plain caused by active siliclastic karst. In this case, the owner of the building actually collected damages from his insurance company as the result of the processes that create siliclastic karst and insurance companies have had to rewrite policies to exclude this process from their insurance coverage (Isphording and Flowers 1988). This case, is proof that siliclastic karst is a real process and capable of creating the initial depressions, which can be later modified by eolian and lacustrine processes to create Carolina Bays. References Cited Isphording, W. C. and Flowers, G. C., 1988, Karstdevelopment in coastal plain sands; a "new" problem in foundation engineering. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists. vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 95-104. +++++++++++++++++++ XXXXX In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "The location of many Bays has proven to beincompatible with the dissolution theory, Why? Nothing that Mr. wmscott has written about thelocation of the Carolina Bays is incompatible with their formation by the siliclastic karst processes. In fact, the Atlantic Coastal Plain is an excellent location for the development of siliclastic karst as discussed by: May, J. H. and Warne, A. G., 1999, Hydrogeologic andGeochemical Factors Required for the Development of Carolina Bays Along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, Coastal Plain, USA. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience. vol. V, no. 3, pp. 261-270. (Fall 1999) I find it quite revealing that Mr. wmscott dismissesthe above citation off-hand very likely without even bothering to read it. :-) :-) +++++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "and alinement placement of many Bays isincompatible with wind theories." This statement is **not** supported by the facts.Kaczorowski (1977) demonstrated, e.g. his Figure 50, shows a very strong correlation between the orientation of Carolina Bays and either Holocene or Pleistocene prevailing winds depending on when they were modified. His and other studies refute the claim that "alinement placement of many Bays is incompatible with wind theories" as Mr. wmscott falsely claims. By carefully selecting the pictures used to illustratetheir papers and using averages of measured directions of the orientation of the Carolina Bays, catastrophists have greatly understated the large variation in orientation that exists among Carolina Bays. As a result, catastrophists by focusing on average direction of Carolina Bay orientation have overlooked the fact that the variability in the direction of Carolina Bays is far greater than can be explained by either a meteorite or comet impact. However, variations in prevailing wind direction over the tens of thousands of years that Carolina Bays were modified can explain the large variation in orientation not illustrated either by averaged directions or carefully selected photographs. There are several problems with figures as at: http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbfig5.gif 1. As discussed above, they only show the averagedirection of the orientation of the Carolina Bays. They don't show the actual spread of bay orientations, which is wide enough to greatly contradicts any meteorite or comet hyp0thesis. 2. This figure practices cafeteria catastrophism byfailing to show that the orientation of the Carolina Bays in Delaware. Because they have a southwest to northeast orientation, as seen in Figure 50 of Kaczorowski (1977), the orientation of these Carolina Bays cannot be explained by a meteorite / comet breakup as shown in http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbfig5.gif 3. Also the figure at http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbfig5.gifalso fails to show that the Carolina Bays in New Jersey, Maryland, and Florida, as shown in Figure 50 and 51 of Kaczorowski (1977), lack any preferred orientation. The lack of preferred orientation readily refutes the origin of these Carolina Bays by either meteorite or comet impacts. Finally, it is quite revealing that the orientation ofthe Carolina Bays in Georgia and parts of South Carolina do **not** converge as other orientations do. If all of the Carolina Bays were created by the remnants of single exploded meteorite, than the orientation of all of the bays should converge on a single general point, which despite areas having Carolina Bay orientations contradicting the comet theory left out of the above figure, they still do **not** do. Kaczorowski, R. T., 1977, The Carolina Bays: acomparison with modern oriented lakes. technical report 13-CRD. Coastal research Division, University of south Carolina, Columbia. +++++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "On the Carolina bays being formed by impacts, Ihighly recommend the book "The Mysterious Carolina Bays" by Henry Savage Jr. 1982. The book is out of print and a bit hard to get hold of, but well worth it. It covers the history of the controversy on how the Bays were formed and covers all of the technical points very nicely." Having been published in 1982, 20 years ago, thediscussion in this book is quite obviously antiquated and badly out-of-date in terms of what is now known about both geology and geomphology of the Carolina Bays and what is now known about the mechanics of comet and meteorite impacts. In the latter case, research in the about impact mechanism in the twenty years since Savage published this book found that much of what Savage had to say about the mechanics of comet and meteorite impacts is woefully wrong and violates what is now known about the physics of impacting comets and meteorites. Also, Savage's book contains a lot of misinformation about the geology and nature of the Carolina Bays that has been refuted by research conducted since his book was published. +++++++++++++++++++ XXXX In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "comet exploded over the Ohio river valley in theMidwest, allowing for various effects, all of the Bays point to this area. The individual impacting comet fragments exploded on contact blasting open a shallow depression. The Siberian event blast occurred at about 10,000 ft and the area of knocked down trees is the same shape as a Carolina Bay." However, knocking trees is not the same as digginga hole in the ground. These are two entirely different processes for it is impossible to make a valid comparison. The important thing here, is that **no** Carolina Bay-like hole was dug. As a result, Mr. wmscott completely lacks any observed instance where the explosion of a comet created a Carolina Bay-like hole. +++++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "If the blast had occurred at ground level, a depressionin that shape would have been created in an area with a sandy soil like the area the bays are found in." This is pure speculation. If the blast had occurred atground level, very likely, a very well form crater, with a bottom deeper than the Carolina Bays, would have formed. Also, I have to wonder what process would cause 500,000 fragments of various sizes from a comet to all explode at ground level. +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "The author even mentions "Near Camden South Carolinais a long farm drainage ditch with a depth of about fourteen feet. Exposed at the bottom of the ditch are masses of prostrate timbers, many of considerable size, indicating a massive blow-down." There are many problems with this piece of evidence.First, prostrate timber can occur by a variety of processes, including trees falling down onto the bottom of a swamp. If there was some alignment of the individual logs, a person might conclude it was a blowdown. However, hurricanes, tornadoes, and violent squall lines can cause blowdowns. The problem is that from the description provide it is impossible to know how this bed of "prostrate logs" was created and if they are associated with or even the same age as the Carolina Bays. That these logs are associated with whatever created the Carolina Bays is nothing more than speculation without any facts to back it up. +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: page 96, the similarity with the Siberian event isobvious. What similarity? 1. the Siberian event did **not** produce a Carolina Bays-like holes in the ground. As a result, the 1908 Tunguska event has no similarity to the Carolina Bays. 2. Processes other then exploding meteorites blowdown trees. If they were blown down, these South Carolina trees are similar, not only to the Siberian event, but also trees blown down by hurricanes, tornadoes, and microbursts in thunderstorms. There is absolutely no evidence that demonstrates the trees discussed above are related to the process that created the Carolina Bays. Also, even if the trees were blown down by a comet, for which there is no evidence, there is no evidence that such a comet was created the Carolina Bays. Not only is the similarity not obvious, but it is nonexistent. +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "Inside the Bays, coring the ground has revealed thatthe original surface was removed and a raised rim formed." This is not true. There is nothing in the core datathat precludes ground having subsided as the result of siliclastic karst formation. Also, when they were completely dry, eolian processes could have been some deflation (erosion) of the exposed bottom of these bays to some extent. The core data does preclude Carolina Bays from being impact craters. +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "This action occurred very quickly, for the bottomof the bays show no sign of gradual action in that the next layer is lake bottom which then filled in over time." This is completely false. There is simply no evidencethat shows that the Carolina Bays were created "very quickly". In contrast, there is an abundance of evidence discussed in the papers mentioned in Message 159 of mine that shows that the Carolina Bays have been gradually modified by lacutsrine and eolian processes over tens of thousands of years. The statement "gradual action" is an example ofscientific terminology that is so vague and ill-defined as to be absolutely meaningless in any scientific fashion. In fact, the pollen assemblages, radiocarbon dates, paleosols, and well-defined layers clearly show that the Carolina Bays have filled in over an extremely long period of time dating back into, and even past the last glacial maximum (LGM). +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "The rims also contain fractured shells and pebbles,and these same shells and pebbles are unbroken when found in other areas. This is some of the incredibly bad misinformationabout the Carolina Bays that catastrophists mindlessly repeat without bothering to verify whether it is true or not. The fact of the matter is that " fractured shells and pebbles" are almost always **lacking** from the sandy rims of Carolina Bays. The only places where fractured shells and pebbles occur within the sands composing the rims of Carolina Bays are at known archaeological sites where they are obvious manuports. +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "The Bays are also found in a pattern of over lappingand in rows that only a bombardment pattern of comet fragments could create." 1. This is not true the erosion and rebuilding of therims of the Carolina Bays are very capable of producing this pattern. +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "The Bays are eroding away, they are not being formedby processes in action today." They are **not** being "eroded away". Rather theyhave been alternatively eroded and rebuilt by eolian and lacustrine processes as they are being slowly infilled by organic or other sediments. Go read the article "New constraints on the evolution of Carolina Bays from ground-penetrating radar" by John A. Grant, Mark J. Brooks, and Barbara E. Taylor, which appeared in vol. 22 of Geomorphology. An abstract of it is found at: SREL Home page, Office of Research, University of Georgia +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "There are no new ones forming." As discussed above, 1. active siliclastic karst hasbeen observed, 2. it is impossible to directly observe the formation of landforms that might require thousands of years to develop, and 3. the environmental conditions within the Atlantic Coastal Plain, which have varied considerably over the last tens of thousands of years, may not be those needed for the formation of siliclastic karst. Just because the environemtal conditions now might **not** be favorable for siliclastic karst to form does **not** indicate that environmental conditions at various times during the Pleistocene were always unfavorable for its formation. Of course, from what he has written, Mr. wmscottprovides absolutely no evdience that new Carolina Bays are **not** forming within the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The statement that "There are no new ones forming" is unsupported by any credible evidence. He has no way of knowing whether new Carolina bays are the process of forming or not. In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "and no other answer for their creation that makesmore sense then comet impacts has been put forward. Any theory can be attacked, but let us see if you can find a better one, otherwise if by nothing else, the impact theory wins by default." Given that a viable hypthesis, siliclastic karst,does exist and the comet impact hypothesis cannot explain many observations, e.g. the lack of preferred orientation for Carolina Bays in Florida and New Jersey and the NE - SW orientations of Carolina Bays in Delaware, the comet impact hypothesis presents many problems itself. +++++++++++++++++ end of part 1 +++++ Yours, Bill BirkelandHouston, Texas [This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2553 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
Start of Part 2
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "A web site on comet impact formation of the CarolinaBays stated. "The proposed model with shock waves from cometary fragments exploding above the surface creating a series of similar landforms is conceptually very simple, and is far less complex than most of the terrestrial models postulated recently. For geometrically regular forms such as Carolina Bays we prefer a simple causal mechanism if it is feasible." Siliclastic karst is a simple causal explanation. Itis far simpler and scientifically plausible than having a metorite or comet explode first in the air and than having 500,000 fragments, regardless of their size, like a natural cluster bomb, all explode again just above the ground without any of them actually impacting the ground. (If they had impacted the ground like normal meteorites, than the Carolina Bays should all show the distinctive characteristics of real impact craters.) +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "Examination of impact mechanics and Carolina Baymorphometry eliminates traditional impact phenomena resulting from meteoroid swarms or asteroids. However, the unique orbital and physical characteristics of a comet favor a model in which a high velocity retrograde comet or a low velocity prograde comet collided with the Earth. The incoming nucleus approached from the northwest and fragmented. The fragments, diverging from the main trajectory, volatized and subsequently exploded in the atmosphere near the surface. The resultant shock waves created shallow elliptical depressions which are best displayed in the sandy sediments of the Coastal Plain." Experts in cometary and meteorite impacts would findthis explanation to be quite laughable. The problem is that there is simply no known way to explain multiple explosions, one high in the atmosphere, and then having its fragments explode again exactly at the ground surface like some sort of natural cluster bomb. After a meteor or comet explodes high in the atmosphere, there is simply no reason why its fragments would explode again right above the ground. Instead, they should impact the surface any meteorite or comet would do and leave recognizable crater. Out of the several meteorites and comets that do explode in the upper atmosphere each year, some with considerable force, it quite curious that none of them, including the Tunguska event and two other possible similar events that have been recorded having ocurred in South America have produced any Carolina Bays-like features. This web page presents lots of speculation with little, if any, real science to support their ideas. Although twenty years ago when Savage wrote his bookthis explanation might have had some credibility, however the knowledge about how impact processes work gained since the 1980s shows that this hypothesis simply doesn't make any scientific sense. Large comets and meteorites that reach the ground intactdo produce very large explosions and craters. However, the explosions also dig deeply into the ground instead of simply blowing a shallow patch of the surface away. If the Carolina Bays, which are 1 to 2 km in diameter, were created by such impacts, their original bottoms should be over 90 to 150 meters deep, which they are not. Carolina Bays among many other things simply too shallow to be impact craters. +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: ""This model is not fully substantiated. But, giventhe terrestrial and extraterrestrial constraints used in this paper, a comet remains a viable alternative worthy of further consideration." A RE-EVALUATION OF THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL ORIGIN OF THE CAROLINA BAYS" The paper presented at this web page was publishedin June of 1975. Since then, numerous people have given this idea consideration and spent lots of time working out the mathematics and physics of it needed to make it work. Unfortunately, in the 27 years since it was published, serious scientists have found the hypothesis advoctaed by this paper just doesn't make any sense in terms of what is now known about the process of comet and meteorite impacts. As a result, the geologists who work with impact craters and processes have all but given up on the hypothesis proposed on the above web page. For example, Mr. wmscott would have a difficult time finding anyone attending the Lunar and Planetary Conference in Houston, Texas this month that would take "this model" seriously anymore. +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "Another web site had more information on comet impactformation of the Carolina Bays and tied the event in with the Pleistocene extinction event and a sudden climate change event." .....rather old and largely outdated discussion ofterminal Pleistocene megafauna extinction omitted... The fact of the matter is that radiocarbon dates, OSLdates, and pollen data from various Carolina Bays previously discussed, all demonstrate that the formation of the Carolina Bays occurred tens of thousands of years prior to the extinction of megafauna at the end of the Pleistocene. As a result, this discussion of terminal Pleistocene extinction is totally meaningless as far as the origin of the Carolina Bays is concerned. +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "While the comet theory is not universally accepted," This is a great understatement. :-) :-) Mr. wmscottwould have a very hard time finding even a sizable minority among geologist would accept the "comet theory". +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "it is by far the best theory for the formation ofthe Carolina Bays and leads the pack by a wide margin" It is the only theory to account for some features that the other theories are unable to account for, and is the obvious answer that pops out to even a casual viewer of aerial shots of the Carolina Bays." Given that the modern orientation and shape of theCarolina Bays are the result of repeated modification of the bays by erosion and deposition as documented by the research, which I have cited in this and my previous post, it is impossible, as falsely claimed above by Mr. wmscott to determine the origin of these bays by the observations of the casual viewer. However, by casual observation, a person can see that the Carolina Bays in Maryland, New Jersey and Florida, because of their lack of any preferred orientation, cannot be explained as the result of the impact of either a comet or meteorite. Similarly, by casual observation, the northeast to southwest oriented Carolina Bays in Delaware cannot be explained by casual observation using the "comet theory" either. The Carolina Bays are very complex landforms, in which, more than just casual viewing is needed to understand how they form. In case of the aerial photographs, if a person carefullyselects the photography that best conforms to the argument being made, casual observation will support the theory. However, what is not usually shown, as illustrated by Figure 51 of Kaczorowski (1977), are the many aerial photographs of Carolina Bays of which a casual viewing clearly refutes the "comet theory". The fact of the matter, is that any data, e.g. aerial photographs, will show "obvious answers" to the "casual viewer" if they are carefully selected and illustrated because they support the obvious answer, while contradictoty data is ignored. Go see: Kaczorowski, R. T., 1977, The Carolina Bays: acomparison with modern oriented lakes. technical report 13-CRD. Coastal research Division, University of south Carolina, Columbia. +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "Now if the Carolina Bays were formed as the result ofan exploding comet, they will of course all have the same age. Considering the older dates given to a few possible Bays, there seems to be only two possible answers, either the older dated 'bays' are actually old lakes and are not true 'Bays' or they are Carolina Bays and the dates are in error. The evidence points to a single event that created the Bays, as for the dating of that event." The problem is that people have looked at the spatialrelationships and relative degree of preservation of the surface morphology of individual Carolina Bays. From looking at these characteristics, it is quite clear that Mr. wmscott is completely and utterly wrong about the Carolina Bays having been created by a single event. An example of such research is: Washington, P. A., 1994, Spatial and temporal relationsamong Carolina Bays in the southwestern North Carolina coastal plain. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs. vol. 26, no. 4, p. 68. Washington (1994) stated: "Statistical analysis of the size and areal distributionsof Carolina Bays in the southwestern North Carolina coastal plain finds a series of distinct groups. Each group is comprised of Bays with a very consistent size and is found within a specific limited area, usually 15 to 30 km in diameter. The individual Bays within each group have very similar character (depth of depression, floor saturation, etc.) and degree of definition (clarity of borders, etc.), suggesting the Bays within each group are all of similar age and form a distinct genetic population. The areal extents of the various groups overlap, givingthe wide range of Carolina Bay sizes seen in most areas. Within overlap regions, many Bays are terminated (overlain) by Bays of other groups. The superposition patterns among Bays of the various groups are consistent, indicating that each group formed at a distinct and separate time. Based on the successive superpositioning, it can be shown that there are many generations of Carolina Bays in this region. The Bays comprising these populations become progessively less distinct with age." The findings of this research clearly contradict thesupposition that they were created all at the same time as required by the "comet theory". Because of cyclic glacial-interglacial climate change, +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: dating is of course relative and needs calibrationaccording to what ever time scale we are referring to. Whether that event occurred earlier or later is not so much the point as the fact that it occurred." This sounds like Mr. wmscott is throwing out scientificdata that has been validated and calibrated simply because it contradicts his hypothesis. If the OSL and radiocrabon dating had supported his hypothesis, we would likely be hearing a very different story. :-) :-) From various catastrophists, the reasoning mightbe interpreted as being: If the orientation of a Carolina Bay doesn't supportthe "comet theory" then it obviously must not be a Carolina Bay. Therefore, it doesn't have the orientation peredicted by the "comet theory" it must be another type of lake or pond "misclassified" as a Carolina Bay. As a result, a person can ignore orientation data from a "Carolina Bay" that contradicts the "comet theory" and he and she is not obligated to either use or show it in their diagrams and figures. The latest version, I hear is: If a Carolina Bay is dated as being too old to fitthe "comet theory", then either that "Carolina Bay" is a lake or pond of different origin "misclassified" as a carolina Bays or the dating technique used to date needs to be calibrated. In either case, this data can be ignored in discussing the origin of the Carolina Bays. The general rules, appears to be: If data from a Carolina Bay contradicts the"comet theory", obviously either the oriented lake it came from has been "misclassified" as a Carolina Bay or the data needs to calibrated to fit the theory. :-) :-) :-) :-) If the data doesn't agree with the "comet theory", than there must be something wrong with the data, but certainly nothing can ever be wrong with the "comet theory". :-) :-) +++++++++++++++++ In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote: "Since you like references, here is a whole bunch fromthe first web site I cited on the Bays." These references only shows how antiquated and obsoletethe research presented on that web page is. For example, in terms of cratering mechanics the following are extremely out-of-date and now worthless as scientific references: Baldwin, R. B., 1963. The Measure of the Moon. Chicago:The University. of Chicago Press. Baldwin, R. B., 1965. A Fundamental Survey of the Moon.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Hartmann, W. K., 1973. Moons and Planets: An Introductionto Planetary Science. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc. Hawkins, G. S., 1964. The Physics and Astronomy ofMeteorites. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Krivov, E. L., 1966. Giant Meteorites. New York: PermagonPress. Wyatt, S. P., 1966. Principles of Astronomy. Boston:Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Looking at these citations, it appears that the web pageunderstanding of the dynamics of meteorite and comet impacts is woefully obsolete depending on references that are over 30 years old. A person has to wonder where are any modern citations about impact cratering, such as Melosh's book on impact cratering to be found in this web page. It is interesting that list does include: Frey, D., 1951. Pollen Succession in the Sediments ofSingletary Lake, North Carolina, Ecology, vol. 32, pp. 518-533. Frey, D., 1954. Evidence of the Recent Enlargementof the "Bay" Lakes of North Carolina, Ecology, vol. 35, pp. 78-88. Both of these papers contain pollen data and radiocarbondates that refute the terminal Pleistocene age for theCarolina Bays proposed by Mr. wmscott. (Of course looking through the list of references, one of theyoungest of two references published in the same year is: Daniels, R. B., and Gamble, E. E., 1971. Stability ofCoastal Plain Surfaces, Southeastern Geology, vol. 13, pp. 61-75. This web page apparently does not discuss any researchmore recent than 1971. This just shows how out of touch and out of date the discussion on this web page is about what is known about Carolina Bays. Yours, Bill BirkelandHouston, Texas [This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2553 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
On 04-01-2003 08:29 PM, wmscott wrote:
Member ; >I found your last postings very intriguing and very>persuasive. But I find the evidence and deductions >supporting impact reation of the Carolina Bays also >very persuasive. Have you read Savage's book? Yes, I have read Savage's book. Having read it, I findit quite revealing that the antiquated, over 20 year old science presented in it can be considered the "best" that supporters of an impact origins for the Carolina Bays can present. >If you haven't, perhaps you aren't aware of just how>strong the case is for impact creation. Here is a >link to a web site that has the complete book "The >Mysterious Carolina Bays", by Henry Savage Jr on line. >Index of /bobk/mcb I would suggest >you read it over and show me the holes, for I find >that Savage presents a conclusive case that the Bays >are comet impact craters. One main problem, as I noted below, is that the physicalmechanisms / model, which Savage presents for the formation, has been over the last 20 years, found to be completely unworkable. Over the twenty years, since Savage published his book, field studies and computer simulations / modeling has shown that meteorites don't impact and behave as Savage hypothesized in his book. >He examines all the other possibilities>including the ones you put forward, and shows why they >will not work. Only comet impacts can account for all of >the features of the Bays You greatly overstate the case made by Savage. Giventhat his book was published in 1982, how can this book argue against hypotheses and explain data published in journal articles that were published in 1989, 2001, etc. some 19 to 20 years **after**. Savage's book on the Carolina Bays was published?? This book only addresses arguments and information made up to 1982. It has nothing to say about any the articles and abstracts published after 1982. Even with the data up 1982, Savage provides a less than iron clad, even convincing case in his book on the Carolina Bays. Also, his ideas about impact mechanics are out of date by 20 years and have been found to woefully wrong-headed since its publication. ...text deleted... >I don't agree with the "Cafeteria Catastrophism">approach, it is of course an exercise in self delusion. >But what is it that you have against the catastrophists? >Do you reject all catastrophism such as a comet killing >off the dinosaurs, or is yours more of a limited >rejection of just YEC influenced catastrophism? I have nothing against catastrophism when there is soliddata to support it. I agree that a comet very likely killed off the dinosaurs. I agree that major catastrophes, e.g. massive caldera eruptions, extraterrestrial impacts, have occurred and influenced Earth's prehistory. What I disagree with supporters of catastrophists like Immanuel Velikovsky, whose wild and wonderful theories about global catastrophes, can be now shown to be contradicted by an overwhelming amount of evidence and are now known to violate very basic laws of phyiscs. If a person can provide, as in case of the K-T and various other impacts, solid evidence of the catastrophe and show that it follows the laws of physics, I have no problem in accepting them. Like many geologists and astronomers, I disagree withpeople who believe that every round or oval lake absolutely positively must be an impact crater simply beacuse of their shape and without providing very reasons for their identifiaction. >From reading Savage's book it appears that only>impacting comet fragments can account for all of the >features, siliclastic karst or eolian processes can >only account or some of the features. The impact mechanisms by which Savage explains theformation of the Carolina Bays have largely, if not entirely discredited in the last twenty years. If the processes by which Savage explains the formation of the craters are now known to be total nonsense, then his impact can't be said to explain any of the Carolina Bays at this time. >( haven't read the paper you cited on this, but hope>to do so soon.) As many have pointed out, new bays are >not currently being formed, which is a major problem >for terrestrial theories since these processes are on >going. This claim indulges in a hyperuniformitarianism, whichsimply is not true. Just because we don't see a process operating in the present fails completely to mean that that this process hadn't operated sometime in the past. Mr. wmscott doesn't understand that there has drastic changes in climate between glacial and interglacial cycles. During this time, different processes will be active during a glacial - interglacial cycles. For example, a person can find glacial moraines over all of the Midwestern Untied States. Just because I can't find ice sheets forming these moraines anywhere in the Midwest today doesn't mean that there is a major problem in advocating that they were created by terrestrial processes associated with continental ice sheets. Using Mr. wmscott's logic, I can argue that these glacial moraines were created by some extraterrestrial event because I can't find moraines being created currently in eastern United States by continental ice sheets. If the Carolina Bays are relict landforms, which formed at somemtime in the past when climate, ground water, and sea level were different than they are now, than not being able to find any forming today proves nothing. There are relict beach ridges on the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Because these beach ridges are now high and dry and not forming doesn't mean they weren't created by active shoreline at some time in the past. >Contrary to what you posted, it is childishly easy>to detect the formation of new Carolina bays, it is >as easy as spending a few moments in a woods and >noticing how trees come in different sizes and >deducing the pattern of growth. Contrary to what Mr. wmscott naively claims, it isnot "childishly easy" to detect the formation of new Caroline Bays. It is absolutely impossible to use trees to determine whether new Carolina Bays are Forming. First, given the very slow process by which a Carolina Bay form, the time over which it would become apparent that a Carolina Bay is forming would far exceed the life span of most trees, as it far exceeds the period of time for which detailed aerial and topographic data has been collected. Second, the trees in a Carolina Bay and an area also is responding to short term environmental changes in climate and ground water, which would mask any influence of any very gradual Carolina Bay formation that might be taking place. Finally, the forests of the Atlantic Coastal Plain have been greatly disturbed by agriculture, urban development, ground water withdrawl, tree farming, and many other anthropogenic processes. It would be very difficult to find an area undisturbed to the point that finding an area where a person can find the effects of Carolina Bay formation extremely difficult. I don't understand how it would be possible to use trees to determine whether not Carolina Bays are indeed forming. Looking at the sizes and variations of trees on the Atlantic Coastal Plain would prove about whether Carolina Bays are now forming or not. >Similarly with the Bays, growing Bays would be>obvious by their increasing depth shown in the >progression in the types of bottom sediments >changing from shallow to deep lake types. Unfortunately, the level of Carolina Bays constantlychange in response to changes in climate (even weather), groundwater, and other factors. The effects of the subsidence of a Carolina Bay, presuming it is even an active landform, not a relict landform being modified by other processes, will be completely masked by such changes. Presuming that a Carolina Bay is actively subsiding,the progressive deepening and change in bottom sediments still may not occur. The subsidence of such a feature will be so slow that the rate, at which it is filled by organic sediment and wind blow material can very easily match or exceed the rate at which it subsides. In such as case, a Carolina Bay can actively subside and still not show a progressive deepening. There are so many factors that would determine the depth of a Carolina Bay that the present or absence of a progressively deepening sequence of bottom sediments proves nothing about their origin or activity. >Even if siliclastic karst origin theory was correct,>and it maybe, it appears to be dependant on climate >and is almost inactive under present climate conditions. >The Karst theory does seem to be the only serious >contender to the impact theory, but Savage claims to >have shown why it will not work in his book. How does Savage, in a book published in 1982,demonstrate that theory published in 1989 doesn't work? How can Savage address new data and ideas discussed in papers published in 1989 to 2002?? this doesn'e make any sense. >On the statements that the impact theory has been>abandoned, appears to be premature at the very least >or this fact is only known to some geologists. Here >is a link to a web page dated 2001 referring to an >impact origin for the Carolina Bays. >http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v33n3/dps2001/198.htm People still rehash old ideas. What is interesting isthat this abstract fails to explain why the magnetic anomalies occur **outside** of the features. If these were real impacts, the magnetic anomalies should occur inside the features. Meteorites and comets do not act like bullets. A single abstract, which are not peer- reviewed, does not mean an idea is widely accepted except by the person who gave the abstract. Can Mr. wmscott find a recent peer-reviewed journal article that regards the impact hypothesis as being credible? >Here is a lecture outline for a college course dated>November 14, 2002 that refers to a possible comet >impact origin for the Carolina Bays. >http://web.lander.edu/rsfox/415origin-4Lec.html You misrepresent what the lecture states. This lecture,which by a non-geologist, simply states that the Carolina Bays are of "unknown origin". The impact hypothesis is **not** endorsed in the lecture but simply listed as one of "18 mechanisms have been proposed, none is wholly satisfactory". It clearly states that the "comet basins" and meteor basins" explanations are not considered a satisfactory explanation by the person who prepared the lecture notes. The lecture notes are for " Limnology Lecture OutlinesEnvironmental Science 415, Biology 415, Richard Fox, Department of Biology, Lander University, Lake Origins 4" >In 2001 the World Wild Life site stated; "Carolina>Bays are ovate shaped shallow depressions and occur >abundantly across a broad band of the coastal plain from >southern North Carolina to the South Carolina-Georgia >border (Richardson and Gibbons 1993). They represent a >type of bog or bog-lake complex unique to the >southeastern coastal plain, and are thought to have >been formed by a meteor or comet impact." >Biomes | Conserving Biomes | WWF These are botantists, not geologists who produced thisweb page. I suspect that they are just repeating what they found in some source without bothering to critically evaluated where it is a currently viable hypothesis. This proves nothing about how Quaternary geologists, Planetary geologists, and geomorphologists regard the impact theory. >It appears to me that after a brief internet search,>that the impact theory is alive and well, being >referred to even in current college lecture outline >notes. Mr. wmscott has a very strange definition of "alive andwell". By his definition of "alive and well", I could claim that Saddam Hussein is "alive and well" and in charge of all of Iraq. Today, Saddam is likely is in better condition than the impact hypothesis. For example, if Mr. wmscott look closely at the lecture notes that he cited above, he will find that the person, who prepared it, regards the impact hypothesis as being not entirely satisfactory. This is not a "ringing" endorsement of the "impact theory". A true indication of how geologists and the scientificcommunity in general feel about the impact hypothesis concerning the origin of the Carolina Bays can be found in the "Earth Impact Database" at: Planetary and Space Science Centre | UNB "The Earth Impact Database is a resource thathas been assembled since 1985 by researchers at the Geological Survey of Canada (a division of Natural Resources Canada). It has now been transferred to the Planetary and Space Science Centre at the University of New Brunswick Department of Geology, owing to the restructuring of various research programs of the GSC and redeployment of many those who were formerly engaged in its maintenance." The list of identified craters is sorted by diameter at: Planetary and Space Science Centre | UNB Looking at the list a person can find recognizedcraters starting with Haviland with a diameter of 15 m (45 ft) and Dalgaranga with a diameter of 24 m (73 ft). However, not a single Carolina Bay can be found on this list. If the Carolina Bays have any credibility amongconventional scientists as craters resulting from either a meteorite or comet impact, they should be on this list. The fact that none of the Carolina Bays are listed on this list demonstrates that the scientists involved in studying craters simply have found any of the arguments for the Carolina Bays being the result of an impact as being completely unconvincing. Also, where are any of the Carolina Bays on otherlists of verified impact structures as such as: Terrestrial Impact Crater Structureshttp://www.solarviews.com/eng/crater.htm If the Carolina Bays are recognized as impact craters,why are they not figured on the "Interactive Map of Terrestrial Impact Craters"? This interactive map can be found at: Interactive Map According to that map, the only recognized impactcrater on the East Coast is the Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure at: Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure [Shortened too-long links. --Admin] Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center | U.S. Geological Survey It is impossible to argue that this impact structureis in anyway related to the Carolina Bays. In fact, the Chesapeake Bay Impact has absolutely no surface expression. >Now on the impact theory, no one is saying that the>impacts happened yesterday, everyone accepts the fact >that the Bays are and have been under going modification >by lacustrine and eolian processes which has effected >their original alinement. These processes may have >'detuned' the bays so that they are no longer pointed >to a common source, as they once may have. If a person accepts that the Carolina Bays have beenextensively modified by lacustrine and eolian processes, than a person is left with the problem that the oval and circular shapes that they now exhibit are not their original shapes. As a result, the shapes and orientations of the Carolina Bays cannot be used as evidence of their origin unless it can be prove they are somehow related to their origin. >The theory being here that there may not have been>enough time for the bay alinement to become completely >random or purely local wind alined, so that much of the >original 'signal' is still present. If there has been modification of the shape andorientation of the Carolina Bays, how do you know what is "signal" from the origin of a Carolina Bay and what is the result of post-origin modification of the Carolina Bays? The problem here is that Mr. wmscott is assuming that the orientations, which are consistent with an impact origin, are the "original signal" because it fits the "comet theory" and any deviations from these origins are later modifications because they don't fit the "comet theory". He has absolutely no data to show any of the original "signal", shape and orientation of the Carolina Bays, has survived from the origin of these features. From what Has been reported about these features from references cited in my last post, I find it quite unlikely that any of the Carolina Bays retain their original shape and orientation. ....text deleted... >Your objections to all the comet fragments just happening>to explode just above ground level overlooks the >explanations given in the impact theory. Highly volatile >comet fragments impacting the ground at a low angle are >riding behind a 'pressure wave cone' that triggers an >explosion in the volatile comet and creates the bay shaped >hollow. These ideas, proposed by Savage in his 1982 book, havebeen shown to be completely scientifically bankrupt. The "pressure cone wave" has been shown to be nothing more rather imaginative, but scientifically bankrupt idea that lack any basis in reality. Comet fragments would simply **not** behave that way as research into impact cratering has demonstrated in the twenty years since Savage published his book. For the real dynamics of comet and meteorite impacts, a person needs to read Melosh's book "Impact Cratering". What is currently known about impact theory clearly shows that the "explanations given in the impact theory" provided by Savage have proved to be simple-minded nonsense. >Or so they tell me, personally I suspect that exploding>on ground contact would create pretty much the same >effect. This not true. The ground explosion would produce aclassic impact crater, of which the Carolina Bays have very few of the characteristics. >The volatility of comets combined with a low impact>angle and possibly a lower impact speed in this case, >would create impact features completely different >than what is seen in meteorite impact craters. Unfortunately, none of what is said above is true.Regardless of whether an object is meteorite or a "volatile" comet and regardless of the angle of impact, a well defined, classic meteorite crater will result. Go read Melosh's book, "Impact Cratering" for the details. >I even found a reference on the web to "Gault's>idea that the Bays could be formed by ejecta from a >glacial impact." http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/shoelett.html >which happens to be the mechanism I put forth in >my book. Ice ejected from impacts on the ice sheet >that could have hit the Carolinas would be following >flatter suborbital trajectories and would have a >much slower impact speed than impacting comet >fragments and eliminates the need for an air burst. This is as physically impossible as the ideas proposedby Savage. First, an impact powerful enough to eject large blocks of ice into suborbital trajectories would have vaporized, melted, and completely shattered any ice into very small fragments. Although the image of large icebergs being ejecta into orbit by a comet impact makes a wonderful image for a disaster movie, there certainly isn't any scientific basis for accepting that it could happen. In addition, an impact large enough to do this would have left a very, very big crater and spread impact eject over a large part of North America. The idea is not only bad science, but also lacks any evidence for having happened. ..text deleted... Yours, Bill BirkelandHouston. [This message has been edited by Admin, 04-07-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2553 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
In Message 175 of 177
Mr. wmscott wrote: 05-06-2003 08:41 PM "A victorious conclusion to a long debate? Since inresponse to my last post there are no further posts on additional changes I need to make in my flood theory, it would seem that I can conclude this thread by announcing a VICTORY. Only seems fair that if no one is able or willing to challenge my theory on how the Biblical flood happened, I can claim victory in this debate." ------------------ Given that this is nothing more than a messageboard, which is unknown to more 99.999 percent of the experts in the field of Quaternary geology and paleoclimatology, you have achieved nothing of a victory. If Mr. wmscott actually argued his ideas against real experts, he will find that he has achieved nothing in the way of a "victory". All the above claim of "victory" indicates is how completely YE creationists deluded themselves with trvial matters about how credible their ideas are. There is a difference between "victory" and somone's opponenets getting bored enough with the same old arguments that they find something else more entertaining and worthwhile to do with theirtime. If you presented your ideas at a meeting of the American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) or any international association of Quaternary geologists, your model wouldn't survive 4 minutes. I predict that your ideas would get sliced, diced, and shredded into innumerable pieces. If you manged to survive a presentation of your ideas at such as meeting that might be a minor victory. I would be more impressed with Mr. wmscott's ideas if he could prepare a paper about them and got that paper published in either "Boreas", "Geological Society of America Bulletin", or "Quaternary Research". However, I suspect that the posibblity that wil happen is nonexistent. This is not because of any prejuduice on the part of conventional scientists, but because of the badly flawed nature of the arguments and research behind his work. I would certainly challenge Mr. Wmscott to put his best arguments together in a paper and submit it for publication in one of the above journals and keep us posted on the results of his efforts. Publication of such a paper would be a real victory. (It also would be very intersting to see what would happen if this paper was submitted to "Creation Ex Nihlo Technical Journal". A "peer-review" by people sypathetic with Mr. Wmscott's ideas would be quite revealing.) Beside, I suspect that nobody has recently posted anything against your ideas because they have bored with the way this topic has been discussed to death and found it was a waste of time to continue discussing hopeleeslly scientifically bankrupt ideas in a thread ,which is going nowhere, and gone onto pursuing other more profitable or interesting matter. A major reason that people have stopped posting is that like others, I have better things to do than argue science with someone who still has a long, long way to go before he knows what he is talking about and proposes a hypothese so unsupported by the evidence that it poses absolutely no threat to conventional science and, will be taken seriously only by people, e.g. YE creationists, looking for science fiction of some sort to justify a very narrow, literal interpretation of the Bible. A person can only beat a dead horse for so long before finding way more useful, fun, or some combination of both to use their time. For example, I have joined a group of geologists, who providing assistance in the rebuilding of the Iraq Directorate of Geology and depts. of geology in Iraq universities that were totally destroyed by the looting and other aftermaths of the 2nd Gulf War. I will be devoting more of my time toward that project which will have far more than arguing about ideas that are going nowhere fast. The above claims of "victory" remind me alot of Baghdad Bob's claim that there were no either US troops in Baghdad of those present were getting soundly defeated. Also just because a person gets a book published, especially by a company like Xlibris, which allows an author to self-publish without any editorial review is no victory. I predict that his book will join the many other books published by nonscientific book publishers about Atlantis, various sorts of global catastrophes, UFOs, alien abductions, and so forth and ignored by all but true believers because they make their case with such flawed arguments and evidence, nobody considers them worth their time refuting them. There is so much junk science published in books dnd so little time that a person has focuse only on those that have some chance being taken seriously and ignore the rest. A person can find more about Xlibris Publishers at: https://www1.xlibris.com/about/index.asp "About XlibrisXlibris gives you the tools you need to become your own publisher. You give us your manuscript, we work with you to format it and design the cover, and then the completed file is stored digitally." It is only a hobby to argue with people like Mr. wmscott. Like many hoobies, I have to pass on them when I have serious things to do like work, finding oil, and more fun things to, e.g., like going on vacation to visit Lake Baikal in Siberia. To interpret my absent and others absence as a victory is a mistake and an exercise in self-delusion. All it means, is that I have either gotten bored with arguing about the same old technobabble that contributes nothing constructive to society; looking for something more challegening to do, e.g., learning knitting; or doing something more interesting to do, e.g., visiting Lake Baikal,, than discussing geology with someone who still doesn't much of what he is talking about and has nothing new to say and whoseidea;s will have no impact at all on conventional geology. +++++++++ It was asked: "So last chance, does anyone know of any evidencethat would preclude the occurrence of a recent global flood as described in this thread?" Any good book on Quaternary Geology and Quaternary Paleoclimatogy will contains numerous peices of evidence that easy refuted the concept of a late Pleistiocene Flood proposed by Mr. wmscott. Specific evidence that refute Mr. wmscott's reasearch can be found in the PAGE's newletters at: http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/newsletters.html One issue, the "Long Record" issue, Vol. 7 No 3(December, 1999) That issue contains various long records of paloeclimatology and paleoenvironments that all refute Mr. wmscott's arguments. There is also a bunch of other evidence and data from many other sources mentioned on the PAGEs web page that also refute his ideas. Yours, Bill Birkeland{off to Russia on vacation very, very early tomorrow morning :-) :-) [This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 05-07-2003] [This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 05-07-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2553 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
In Message 175 of 177
Mr. wmscott wrote: "So last chance, does anyone know of any evidencethat would preclude the occurrence of a recent global flood as described in this thread?" For an of some of incredible amount of evidence that refutes Mr. wmscott ypothesis, a person need only go read one of many books such as; Ruddiman, W. F., and Wright, H. H., Jr., 1987, North America andAdjacent Oceans. The Geology of North America, vol. K-3, geological , Society of America, Boulder, CO That book, Chapters 13, 14, and 15, discusses a number of pollen sequences from numerous lakes across North America that span the period of time during which Mr. wmscott alleges his Biblical flood occurred and utterly fail to show any evidence of any sort of catastrophe. There is nothing within the fluvial and lakes deposits, which accumulated during the period which Mr. wmscott alleges his Biblical Flood occurred that show any evidence of any major catastrophe. There innumerable other published pollen data found in many published papers and summarized in various books, which also refute Mr. wmscott's ideas. Contray to what Mr. wmscott would like to believe, there is an abundance of evidence out there that readily refutes his ideas, which he will find if he bothers to research what is known about the Pleistocene. However, I doubt that the facts are enough to disuade him from wasting time, effort, and a good chunk of life on an idea which many published papers and books conclusively demonstrated to be invalid and scientifically bankrupt. Also, a person can find numerous papers with palynological evidence for lake cores and other sources in the "North American Pollen Database" list of references at: North American Pollen Database - ReferencesNorth American Pollen Database - Unacquired Sites Inventory - Mainmenu Mr. wmscott shoulld take the time to attend an American Quaternary Society (AMQUA) or Geological society of America Meeting and discuss his ideas in person with people who are real experts in Pleistocene and Quaternary geology, climatology, and paleoenvironments. There, not on messageboards like this, he will find out what the basic problems his ideas are. He also can attend a "Friends of the Pleistocene" (FOP) fieldtrip, which occur annually in six different parts of United States. They are a good place where a person has the opportunity to talk informally with all sorts of Quaternary geologists, soil scientists, palynologists, and Earth Scientists who study the Holocene, Pleistocene, and Quateranry research that he or she is oding and get useful feedback and advice, and suggestions. An example of some of their field trips can be found at: http://www4.nau.edu/.../v30n1/friends_of_the_pleistocene.htm The Midwest Friends of the Pleistocene field trip, which last usually 2 and a half days around a weekend, is one that Mr. wmscott could possibly attend. Some Web Pages QUATERNARY PALYNOLOGYPage not found | Geosciences NOAA PalaoclimatologyError 404: Page or Resource Not Found | NCEI Error 404: Page or Resource Not Found | NCEI Overhead transparencieshttp://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/overheads.html If I had more to spend on this subject I could pot the citation of numerous published papers, all presenting evidence that refutes Mr. wmscott's ideas. However, I have better things to do with my life than do the homework that Mr. wmscott needs to be doing himself. If Mr. Mr. wmscott really beileives that he has a case for his Biblical Flood, I challenge him to submit a paper for publication to either "Boreas", "Geological Societyof America", or "Quaternary Research" instead of publishing books with the vanity publishers where no scientist will pay any serious attention to them. If he can get a paper published in any one of those journals, he would have a real victory instead of the nonexistent one he claims, like Baghdad Bob claimed in Baghdad, in his previous messages. Yours, Bill Birkeland(Soon to be visiting Lake Bailkal) :-) :-) :-) [This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 05-07-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2553 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
In making some of the claims below, I get the impression that Mr. Scott intended to get a reaction from the geologists on this list. Because, his ideas are so completely refuted and unsupported by the vast volume of published evidence and aren't taken seriously by any conventional geologist, I have ignored his posts having better things to do than beat a hopelessly dead horse that "ain't" going anywhere. However, I will make an exception to this post.
Mr. Scott started: "Basically I am looking at a large scale impact event on the lateIce Age ice sheets, which resulted in the 40 days of rain and dumped enough water into the oceans to raise sea level high enough to destabilize the edges of the great ice sheets, resulting in a runaway chain reaction of massive glacial surging. The resulting rise in sea level would be something like 500 feet to perhaps as much as 4000 feet in less than a month, perhaps even as little as a few days." If such a event happened, it would caused an extinction event comparable to the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary as the worlds coastal and lowland environments would have been completely destroyed by being submerged under water. Besides there is simply not enough water in modern or ancient ice caps to have raised sea level by over 1,000 feet. On that basis alone, this idea is as scientifically bankrupt as the movie "Water World". Mr.Scott continued: "There is good evidence for supporting a recent temporaryrise in sea level to above the 1000 ft contour line. (see posts or book)" This can be only said if a person simply ignores an enormous amount of negative and positive evidence the clearly demonstrates that this didn't happened. For example, such an event would have created a well-defined event bed that would be quite obvious in outcrops and in cores containing paleoenvironmental records covering tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years from numerous lakes, bogs, and other locations. Also, much of the evidence,except for his diatom research, that I have seen in his posts is composed of material recycled from other catastrophists. It consists of largely of alleged anomalies culled from now antiquated and out-of-date research. In many cases, if a person consults the recent literature, a person will find that these anomalies have conventional explanations or consists of features, i.e. the shorelines on the mountains near Lake Baikal, which have been found to exist only in the imagination of the person who reported them. "Some of the more geologically minded posters on this boardhave agreed with me that such a past event is feasible..." I am not one of such "geologically minded posters". From what I have seen of Mr.Scott's posts what he proposes is not only physically infeasible but readily refuted by a review the abundant paleoenvironmental data that has been published for the Pleistocene. Mr.Scott continued: "and have challenged me to prove it by publishing ascientific paper on it. Currently I am working on improving my testing methods to do the basic research required for such a paper." I have challenged Mr.Scott to publish his research. I look foward to seeing Mr. Scott not only publishing the results of his research in a geology journal but also presenting it at a meeting or two such as GSA or AMQUA. Best Regards, Bill Birkeland This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 08-18-2004 09:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2553 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
First, some interesting and recent research:
1. Satellite reveals the biggest of big bangs by JAMES REYNOLDSThe Scotsman (Scotland) August 19, 2004 Home | The Scotsman 2. Antarctic craters reveal strike - BBC News - August 19, 2004BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Antarctic craters reveal strike The asteroid may have raised sea levels by up to 60cmScientists have mapped enormous impact craters hidden under the Antarctic ice sheet using satellite technology. "The scientists told a conference this week that theimpacts occurred roughly 780,000 years ago during an ice age." "This would have melted about 1% of the ice sheet,raising water levels worldwide by 60cm (2ft)." The interesting thing is that according to this statistic is that if a hypothetical impact managed to melt all of Antarctica, it would only raise sea level by at least 200 ft. If a person searches the internet, they would find "Estimated Present-Day Area* and Volume* of Glaciers and Maximum Sea Level Rise Potential" at: USGS URL Resolution Error Page According to the USGS data and calculations on this web site, sea level would rise 7.0 meters (23 ft) if all of the ice in Greenland and mountain glaciers melted and 73.44 meters (241 ft) if all of the ice on Antarctica melted. At best, sea level would rise only 80.44 meters (264 ft) if some hypothetical catastrophe managed to melt the world's ice sheets. Although substantial, the melting of modern ice sheets falls far short being able to flood land anywhere near the 1,000-foot contour. Of course, a person can use a tsunami to flood above the 1,000-foot contour. However, as noted below, any process that can push water that far up on land will leave tear up the land and ecology to the point that well-defined evidence of its occurrence will remain behind long after it had occurred. Mr. Scott wrote: ...Vogon Poetry about talking to the audience omitted... :-) :-) "Never heard of the Pleistocene Extinction event" The problem here is that it is "events" not "event". The extinction of Pleistocene megafauna occurred at different times on different continents separated by thousands to tens of thousands of years. Therefore, it simply impossible for a single event to be responsible for the extinction of megafauna all over the world. There is no single "Pleistocene Extinction event", but a number of extinction events, which is discussed in more detail by Scott A. Elias in an article at: http://www4.nau.edu/...n1/quaternary_paleobiology_update.htm One example of this is the dates at which mammoths became extinct. As summarized by Claudine Cohen in her book, "The Fate of the Mammoth: Fossils, Myth, and History", Mammoths became extinct in central Europe between 14,000 to 12,000, years BP; in China about 14,000 years BP; and in Siberia about 9,000 years BP. In North America, it becomes more complicated as discussed in "Quaternary Paleobiology Update: Debate continues over the cause of Pleistocene megafauna extinction" by Scott A. Elias in Volume 29 Number 1 May 1999 of "The Quaternary Times Newsletter of the American Quaternary Association" at: http://www4.nau.edu/...n1/quaternary_paleobiology_update.htm In this article, Scott A. Elias stated: "It now appears that the major megafaunal exinctionevent took place at 11,400 14C yr B.P. This event included the extinction of camels, horses, giant sloths, Pleistocene bison, and all other genera of megafaunal mammals that did not survive beyond 11,400 14C yr B.P. , with the exception of the proboscideans. Mammoths and mastodons persisted beyond 11,400 yr B.P. Stafford et al. have dated the extinction of North American mammoth and mastodon to 10,900-10,850 yr B.P. So it now appears that there were two distinct extinction episodes. Each event took less than 100 years." According to the dates, at which, mammoth became extinct in various parts of the world, Mr. Scott's global flood would had first struck China about 14,000 BP to kill off the mammoths and then taken 2,000 years to reach Europe and kill off the mammoths there. After wiping out the mammoth in Europe, it would have had to taken a 600 years to cross the Atlantic Ocean to wipe out the camels, horses, giant sloths, Pleistocene bison, and all other genera of megafaunal mammals, except for mammoths and mastodons in North America. Then it would have had to sloshed back and forth around the Atlantic Ocean for 500 years and come back to North America to wiped out the mammoths and mastodons. Then Scott's global flood would have had to spend 1,800 years travelling back across the Atlantic and Europe and, 5000 years after leaving China, into Siberia to wipe out its mammoths by 9,000 BP. A 5,000-year long flood isn't a brief event. Finally, on Wangel Island, about 140 miles off the coast of eastern Siberia, mammoths became extinct about 3,700 years BP. This is a problem for Mr. Scott's theory. His global flood would have had to travel at a rate of 0.026 mile (139.47 ft) per year for 5300 years after having killed off the mammoths in Siberia to have reached and finally finished off the last of the mammoths on Wrangel Island. From this brief travelogue, it is quite clear that any explanation of Pleistocene extinctions needs to explain why the extinction of mammoths occurred over 5,000 years, 10,000 years if Wrangel Island is included. Mr. Scott wrote: "We have had this discussion before, and as I have toldyou, the thin dusting of marine diatoms left by a brief marine flood would be too sparse to turn up in convectional examinations of sediment cores. I have to take a fair sized sample and process the whole thing and manage to strain out only a few marine diatoms. How on earth do you expect such a brief event to show up prominently in outcroppings?" The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that any catastrophe or movement of shoreline capable of flooding the land above the 1,000-foot contour would certainly leave behind something more substantial than a "dusting of diatoms". Any event of the magnitude of which you are proposing, no matter how brief is going to leave an event bed that will be preserved in protected areas, as in the thousands of lakes that have been cored and analyzed for paleoenvironmental data. An excellent proof of this argument is the 7200-7300-year old landslide, the Storegga Slide, which occurred on the continental slope west of Norway. It created a tsunami that propagated across the North Atlantic and Norwegian Sea regions. Although the Storegga tsunami, which this slide created, was much smaller and briefer by orders of magnitude than the event proposed by Mr. Scott, it left a clearly recognizable event bed at locations within western Norway, Scotland, Faeroe Isles and as far south as eastern England. For example, the event bed associated with this tsunami can be found in coastal lakes coastal lakes all along the coast of eastern Scotland, where it is as thick as 10 cm. Although this event happened 7200-7300-years ago; was much briefer in duration than Scott's proposed Global Flood; and is event much smaller than Mr. Scott's proposed event, it left a well-preserved event bed. In fact, enough remains of the event bed created by the in coastal lakes and other locations that the run-up of this a tsunami can mapped with great confidence as discussed in: The Storegga Slide and Tsunami in the North AtlanticRegion by Alastair Dawson. Environmental Catastrophes and Recoveries in the Holocene, August 29 - September 2, 2002 Department of Geography & Earth Sciences, Brunel University Uxbridge, United Kingdom Emuparadise 2022 Thus, it is well documented that a very brief and relative small event such as the Storegga tsunami left a well-defined event bed all across a large portion of the east side of the Atlantic Ocean from western Norway, Scotland to the Faeroe Isles and as far south as eastern England. The Storegga tsunami is excellent proof that large events, no matter how brief their duration leave deposits that should have by now been recovered and recognized in some of the cores analyzed for paleoenvironmental data from hundreds of coastal lakes and deltas all over the world. This fact strongly argues that the event proposed by Mr.Scott certainly should have left an even better developed and well-defined event bed. Ancient tsunamis, other than the Storegga tsunami and much briefer in duration and smaller than it and Scott's proposed global flood, have also repeatedly left readily recognizable event beds. Some documented examples are: Benson, B. E., Grimm, K. A., and Clague, J. J., 1997,Tsunami deposits beneath tidal marshes on northwestern Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Quaternary Research. vol. 48, pp. 192-204. Kelsey, H. M, Witter, and Hemphill-Haley, E., 2002, Plate-boundary earthquakes and tsunamis of the past 5500 yr, Sixes River estuary, southern Oregon. Geological Society of America Bulletin. vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 298-314. Minoura K., Nakaya S. and Uchida M., 1994, Tsunami depositsin a lacustrine sequence of the Sanriku coast, northeast Japan. Sedimentary Geology. vol. 89, no.1-2. Pages 25-31. Minoura, K., Gusiakov, V. G., Kurbatov, A., Takeuti, S.,Svendsen, J. I., Bondevik, S., and Oda, T., 1996, Tsunami sedimentation associated with the 1923 Kamchatka earthquake. Sedimentary Geology, vol. 106, pp. 145-154 Pinegina, T. K., Bourgeois, J., Bazanova, L. I, Melekestsev,I. V., and Braitseva, O. A., 2003, A millennial-scale record of Holocene tsunamis on the Kronotskiy Bay coast, Kamchatka, Russia. Quaternary Research. vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 36-47. "Deposits from as many as 50 large tsunamis duringthe last 7000 years are preserved on the Pacific coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula near the mouth of the Zhupanova River, southern Kronotskiy Bay. These deposits are dated and correlated using Holocene marker tephra layers." Pinegina, T. K., and Bourgeois, J., 2001, Historicaland paleo-tsunami deposits on Kamchatka, Russia: long- term chronologies and long-distance correlations Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. vol. 1, pp. 177-185 Copernicus.org - 404 Even hurricanes can, under the right circumstances, produce event beds that are readily recognizable. This is well documented in: Liu, K. B. and Fearn, M. L., 2000, Reconstruction ofprehistoric landfall frequencies of catastrophic hurricanes in northwestern Florida from lake sediment records. Quaternary Research. vol. 54, pp. 238-45. Liu, K. B. and Fearn, M. L. 2000. Holocene history ofcatastrophic hurricane landfalls along the Gulf of Mexico coast reconstructed from coastal lake and marsh sediments. In: Ning, Z.H. and Abdollahi, K.K. (eds.) Current Stresses and Potential Vulnerabilities: Implications of Global Climatic Change for the Gulf of Mexico Region of the United States, Franklin Press, Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, pp. 38-47. Liu, K.B. and M.L. Fearn. 1993. Lake sediment record oflate Holocene hurricane activities from coastal Alabama. Geology. vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 793-796. Hunting Prehistoric Hurricanes: Storm-tossed sandoffers a record of ancient cyclones by John Travis http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000520/bob9.asp The above references clearly prove that geologic events, such as hurricanes and tsunamis, that are shorter in duration and considerably less in magnitude than the global flood hypothesized by Mr. Scott repeatedly create event beds / deposits that can be recognized in cores and outcrops. That events lessor in intensity and duration than the global flood advocated by Mr. Scott regularly create recognizable event beds, which can remain intact for many thousands of years, readily refutes the contention that such global flood could have occurred and left only a "thin dusting of marine diatoms". Such a global flood would have substantially altered the landscape it covered and left a well-defined and recognizable event bed because of its intensity regardless of how brief it might have been. It nothing more than wishful thinking to propose that a catastrophic global flood would only leave a "thin dusting of marine diatoms" given the intensity and scale of the proposed processes involved. Similarly, such an event would have had a devastating effect on coastal and lowland ecosystems that would have been even more painfully obvious than an event bed. That is another story and fatal problem to Mr. Scott's ideas. Mr. Scott wrote: "So the raised shorelines near Lake Baikal are imaginary?Perhaps I will have to edit them from my book, got any references on this? Seems like an awfully odd thing for someone to imagine." Unfortunately, the references are still packed from moving. From what I found, the person, who mapped this shoreline, mapped it along with a number of other shorelines elsewhere in the former Soviet Union. Given that later geologists, in detailed mapping of the areas where this and his other shorelines had been, found nothing remotely resembling either a shoreline or any associated deposits, I feel quite safe in concluding that they were imaginary. I will look around for the references as it is an excellent example of antiquated research that has been completely refuted by later studies. In using the "raised shorelines" as evidence of his global flood, Mr Scott grossly contradicts himself. He argues for a "brief" marine flooding to explained the absence of an event bed. However, Mr. Scott overlooks the fact that brief catastrophic events, i.e. hurricanes and tsunamis don't produce shorelines. Well-defined shorelines are only produce if the boundary between land and water remains relatively stable for a long period of time. In the solid metamorphic, igneous, and sedimentary country rock of the near Lake Baikal area, it would have taken decades, even hundreds of years of a stable water level for any sort of recognizable shoreline to form. If this global flood was a brief event, it is impossible for it to have formed any sort of recognizable shoreline. Thus, even if this shoreline was for real, it can't be used as evidence of a brief catastrophic flood as proposed by Mr. Scott. Best Regards. Bill Birkeland Operation Air Conditionerhttp://www.operationac.com/ http://www.operationac.com/dw_pages/whatwedo.htm This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 08-20-2004 01:44 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2553 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
wmscott wrote:
"It would be expected that large scale removal of waterfrom the oceans would cause the ocean floor to rebound which would cause a general subsidence of the continents. This reduction in relief combined with glacial covering of the high points beneath glacial ice, may have allowed the entire earth to be covered by 'water' if the sea level rise reached the edges of the ice sheets and mountain glaciers. No tsunamis are invoked here, so I am not expecting to find such wide spread evidence." The effects of large-scale removal of waters from the oceans and formation of ice caps in terns of what it would cause in terms of ocean floor uplift and continental subsidence has been modeled using data and field observations from the real world. The amount of water removed by the formation of ice sheets was simply too small, 120 meters of sea level rise, relative to a total depth of 4,000 to 5,000 meters, to have cause the ocean floor to rebound as much as Mr. Scott claims. At most, the removal of water from the world's oceans, would have caused only several meters of rebound. This is far, far, far, far too little to have caused what Mr. Scott claimed it did. Within continents, the isostatic depression of the crust beneath continental ice sheets, in fact caused a wide strip, called the "forebudge", of the continents adjacent to the ice sheet to be elevated, not depressed by tens of meters. Some examples of the published research, which completely refutes Mr. Scott's ideas about the extent of ocean floor rebound includes: Clark, J. A., 1980. A numerical model of worldwide sea-levelchanges on a viscoelastic earth. In Earth Rheology, Isostasy and Eustasy. N.-A. Morner, ed., pp. 525-534. Wiley & Son, New York. Clark , J. A., Farrell, W. E., and Peltier, W. R., 1978.Global changes in post-glacial sea level : a numerical calculation. Quaternary Research. vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 265-287 (This paper received the Kirk Bryan Award for Best Publication from the Geological Society of America, Geomorphology and Quaternary Geology Division in 1979) Morner, N.-A., 1971, Relations between ocean, glacial andcrustal changes. Geological Society of America Bulletin. vol. 82, pp. 787.788. Morner, N.-A., 1976. Euastasy and geoid changes. Journalof Geology. vol. 84, pp. 123-151. Morner, N.-A., 1987a. Models of global sea level changes.In Sea level Changes. M. J. Tooley and I. Shennan, eds., p. 333-355. Blackwell, New York. Some web pages: Isostasy Sea Level ChangesIIS 10.0 Detailed Error - 404.0 - Not Found In addition, Mr. Scott ideas are refuted by research concerning volcanic islands, which act as sea level dipsticks, within the Pacific ocean and elsewhere, which failed to show any significant rebound of the floor as he advocates. The mapping of submerges shorelines around all of these islands show that sea level **fell** by amounts roughly equivalent to the amount of sea level change caused by withdrawal of water from the oceans to create global ice sheets. The amount of rebound was less than several meters at most. This is completely insignificant relative to the depths of the oceans. Thus, the hypothesis that the ocean floors rebounded as much as Mr. Scott proposes is completely refuted by such research. For example: Shinn, E. A., 2001, Geological perspectives of globalclimate change. L. C. Lee, W. Harrison, and B. M. Hanson, eds., pp. 251-264, AAPG Studies in Geology. vol. 47, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Shinn (2001) stated: "Drowned coral reefs and oolitic beaches indicate sealevel was about 100 m below present during Stage 2 as little as 12 ka." to repeat what wmscott wrote: "entire earth to be covered by 'water' if the sea levelrise reached the edges of the ice sheets and mountain glaciers." Finally, if flooding up to the edge of the ice sheets had actually happened, it would have caused among land plants and animals and coastal ecosystems equivalent to what occurred at either Cretaceous-Tertiary or Permian-Triassic boundary. Coastal and lowland plants and animals communities would have been completely obliterated by it. Contrary to what Mr. Scott falsely claims, the extinctions at the end of Pleistocene in no fashion approaches this degree of extinctions. wmscott wrote: "As you know, tsunamis and hurricanes are both energy intensive waveevents which cause erosion. The flood model I am proposing would not have that kind of intensity. A gradual but progressive and on going rise in sea level caused by distant glacial melting and surging would cause a high tide that just keeps on coming. The sea water would simply rise and flow over the land like the tide. "There is very little suspended sediment in the ocean and as long as the rise in sea level wasn't fast enough to cause a incoming 'tide' with enough speed to cause wide spread erosion,..." In the real world, this is all nonsensical wishful thinking on the part of Mr. Scott. Even under the best of circumstances, the placid surging envisioned by Mr. Scott simply doesn't occur. It is impossible for a body of water of any size, especially anything from the size of large lakes to seas and oceans, to be perfectly still all of the time. Because of the weather, i.e. prevailing winds and storms, winds at some time almost always generate waves of some type. Also, the circulation of water masses, including diurnal tidal currents, and major storms frequently generate significant bottom currents. As a result, by waves or currents of some type impact every shoreline of a major body of water at some time of the year. These currents and waves always result in the erosion of shorelines of oceans, seas, and any large body of water. Regardless of how slowly or fast sea level rose, there is always going be some sort of erosion by currents, waves, or combination of both, at the shoreface of the shoreline in which any loose sediments, specifically soil horizons, are stripped off of the ground surface. This erosion creates a readily recognizable erosion surface, called a "ravinement surface". Where tidal currents are active, the lateral migration of tidal channels along a trangressing coast will create a tidal ravinement surface. In the real world. studied in great detail by geologists, it is physically impossible for a "a gradual but progressive and on going rise in sea level" to submerge an area without land surface being deeply eroded as the shoreline moves landward across it. If Mr. Scott would visit the Louisiana coast, he anyone else would see that even during "a gradual but progressive" rise in sea level, significant and detectable erosion of the land's surface will always occur. Why this happens is discussed in: Bruun, P. 1962. "Sea Level Rise as a Cause of Shore Erosion."Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division. vol. 88(WW1) pp. 117-130. Papers that document in great detail the erosion andsedimentation that occurs even with "a gradual but progressive and on going rise in sea level" submerges dry land are: Rodriguez1, A.B., Fassell, M. L., Anderson, J. B., 2001,Variations in shoreface progradation and ravinement along the Texas coast, Gulf of Mexico. Sedimentology. vol. 48 no. 4 Page 837-853. Demarest, J. M., Kraft, J. C., 1987, Stratigraphic recordof Quaternary sea levels: implications for more ancient strata. In Sea-level Fluctuations and Coastal Evolution. D. Nummedal, O. H. Pilkey, and J. d. Howard, eds., pp. 223-239. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication no. 41, Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma Nummedal, D., and Swift, D. J. P., 1987, Transgressivestratigraphy at sequence-bounding unconformities; some principles derived from Holocene and Cretaceous examples. D. Nummedal, O. H. Pilkey, and J. d. Howard, eds., pp. 241-260. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication no. 41, Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma and Siringan, F. P., and Anderson, J. B., 1994, Modernshoreface and inner-shelf storm deposits off the east Texas coast, Gulf of Mexico: Journal of Sedimentary Research., vol. B64, pp. 99-110. Mr Scott has rate of sea level rise versus degree of erosion completely backward. Here, Mr Scott doesn't understand that the slower the rate of sea level, the longer the former land surface would be subject to action of waves and currents within shoreface and the more deeply eroded the land surface would be. Conversely, the faster sea level rises, the less time a submerged surface will be subject to erosion within the shoreface and nearshore environments and the less erosion will occur. Still even with very fast rates of sea level rise, there is always a significant amount of erosion as land becomes submerged. Only if entire land surface of the continents were dropped several tens of meters instantaneously, would the surface not have been subject to wave action within the shoreface and nearshore environments. That processes, however, would create its own evidence of it having occurred. "...there wouldn't be any sediment layer to be found save for whatsediment you would expect from ocean water, things like diatoms. Erosion would be limited to the bottle necks where the flow would be funneled, such as the straits of Gibraltar, the Bosporus, etc." As documented in the publications noted above, what Mr. Scott claims here is simply not true. Even a slow submergence of the land surface would result in extensive erosion and accumulation of sediments. One factor overlook here is that while all of this is happening, volumes of sediments are still being dumped into the world oceans by rivers such as the Mississippi and melting out at the edge of the ice caps. As a result, even at high stands of sea level, large amounts of sediments would still be dumped into the world's oceans and a layer of recognizable marine clastic sediments would accumulate in some areas. It is quite obvious that Mr. Scott has a long, long way towards constructing a viable theory. Best Regards, Bill Birkeland.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024