Paleocurrents: the 'diverse' features of the GC were laid via rapid, correlated flow

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
This data is absolutely diagnostic of a rapid global flood.

---

This is a nice assertion, but WHY? Why would the current directions for you flood be any different from the current directions from the existing flood of today (the existing seas)?Sorry, but this is not compelling. In fact, Chadwick admits that there is a lot of noise in the data that would mean a certain amount of inconsistencey thought the approximate prevailing currents are similar. This is exactly what I would expect from any shelf deposits developed during gradual transgression. Would you sea any reason for currents to change on say the east coast if the sea level rose over a few million years? I see no necessity for it. Paleoslopes woud be the same, the basic outline of the continent would be the same areas of upwelling and sinking of the currents would be relatively unchanged. Sorry, but this is not diagnostic of a global flood. Back to the old drawing board!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I've read mountains exist for about 10 million years via other mainstream estimates but let's check that up.

---

Depends. What kind of mountains and under what kind of erosional processes?

quote:

---

These flows are 'rapid' enough to generate statistically significant ordering.

---

You have yet to show that they are:a) Rapidb) Significantly different from modern currents

quote:

---

They are much more rapid than anything in the Precambrian.

---

Quite an assertion. Do you have anything to back it up?

quote:

---

I am utterly convinced by intuition (gained from scuba diving) they are far more rapid than what occurs in shelf floors today.

---

First of all, who said they were all in shelf sediments? Second, how do you measure these currents?

quote:

---

I am yet to find hard data on this though and would love to see it.

---

Maybe the lack is trying to tell you something...

quote:

---

I do not deny that locally one might get rapid currents (eg in the Straights of Gibraltar) but on your continent we know that it is continent wide. On averge, almost all sedimentary rock you dig up from eg an eperic sea deposit will display ordered flow. It is not due to local 3D topography in general.

---

I don't remember this being a conclusion of any researchers that you have referenced. Where do you get this stuff? You have provided nothing that I can recal regarding velocities at all. You have not shown these velocities to be significantly different from anything modern or more ancient. You have not even told us what rock types they are in! You have only spoken in vague generalities about velocities and your current directions are still only prevailing directions that probably reflect the basic regional paleoslopes. You are indulging yourself in delusion and wishful thinking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, I would love to show you somehting comparing the rapidity of currents to modern ones - I just can't find it in the mainstream literature. I don't think Pettijohn commented on it in his book either - I was looking out for it.

---

Ah, there's a reason for that, you know.

quote:

---

The surprise expressed by the researchers quoted by Pettijohn is what makes me think the rapidiy and order are 'not normal'.

---

Not at all. At least that's not the way I was taught. Besides, you just said that you cannot find anything on higher velocities, so why do you presume Pettijohn to have thought the currents were unusual? The surprise they expressed was that the currents would so accurately reflect the paleoslope. They simply thought that there would be more noise.

quote:

---

My statement about the Precambrian is admittedly sourced from Chadwick's creationist summary (see the first post).

---

I'm sure we can find some Precambrian conglomerates for you. Maybe Joe could send us a reference when he has time.

quote:

---

These researchers are clearly claiming that the paleocurrent meaurements that they summarize as a vector on a map will be characteristic of the local region - not a single data point. It would be meaningless if you go 100 metres away and you get a different result. that is certainly not what they are claiming.

---

Not sure what you are saying here. Of course the representations should be regional.

quote:

---

You say what you like but I intuitvely know that currents which can order pebbles and ripple marks are significant.

---

So are you saying that this does not happen even today? Sorry, TB, but we have plenty of fluviatile currents that can create oriented pebbles and ripple marks. There is nothing unusual here.

quote:

---

I've searched the USGS-georef and can't find anything relating paleocurrents to modern day currents. There should be a review on the issue somewhere shouldn't there? I only have access to the USGS abstracts.

---

Usually these are covered in college level geology courses that you have missed. I don't know of any current research in this area since it is pretty well known. Only creationists seem to be behind the curve on the subject and are trying to disprove uniformitarianism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Moose, the flow was rapid enough to generate ordered paleocurrent observables. I would expect that in rivers and floods but not systematically on sea floors.

---

TB, could you show us this paleocurrent data for the Mancos shale or the Pierre Shale? I'd like to see the current velocity estimates for thes formations.

quote:

---

OK - we're talking non-marine so I'll agree that it is 'normal' for rivers and floods. But in that case you then have to agree that the large non-marine beds were laid by floods (obviously many of them)? If you agree then we're back to the unconformity issue.

---

Not at all. Your lack of geological training is showing up here. Non-marine formations can be quite extensive. But then we have been over this ground before. Did you just ignore us?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The point is that the currents were sufficient to leave ordered paleocurrent observables. I still am almost 100% sure that shallow modern day epeiric seas would not display correlated paleocurrent obsevables! No-one here from either camp has been able to come up with anything relevant to this point other than intuition.And of course if these observations also extend to non-marine beds that is even more interesting for us.[/B][/QUOTE]Good, then give us some data. You have refused to do so and it is getting rather tedious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The 'surprise' recorded by paleocurrent researchers clearly was related to the extent of correlation in time and space. Noise may have been a part of it but not the whole story.

---

If they were so surprised, why are they not flood geologists?

quote:

---

My statement about the meaningfulness of paleocurrent data is that they are typically represetative of a region which earlier you seemed to be be doubting.

---

There are prevailing current directions. We have explained this to you. You have ignored us.

quote:

---

Of course rivers and streams generate paelocurrents but not ordered over tens of thousands of square miles!!

---

Why not? Are there not easterly flowing streams all over the east coast of N America? Does that area not cover tens of thousands of sqaure miles?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
... The geological column is nothing like what we were taught in kindergarden. It's not rivers and swamps - it's vast epeiric marine deposists and huge fresh water flood plains whether Noahic or not!!

---

This is getting ridiculous. Who was taught the geological column in kindergarten? And why are flood plains not non-marine? And who was taught that epeiric seas were not responsible for the shelf deposits? You have got everything so convoluted that you are basically lost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, your suggestion that streams could account for paleocurrents measured in vast sheet like beds is bizaree to say the least.

---

Then what do you think happens in non-marine deposits? Several of these environments are above sea level, so one would expect the sandstones in marine and near-marine environments to have stream generated cross beds. I am also waiting for the velocity data along with a comparison to the same modern envirionments.

quote:

---

That is why, to me, it sounded like you still believed the stories we learned in 'kindergarden'*. The average layman thinks the column is due to eons and eons of swamps and rivers. Go ask them. It most certainly is not.

---

No, it is due to eons and eons of various types of marine and non-marine environments. I never learned about the geological column in kindergarten. In fact, I never learned it until college.

quote:

---

* Whenever I use the term kindergarden I mean things we learned as laymen via TV, school and, yes, kindergarden. My primary school teachers at the very least taught me about long ages of swamps.

---

Then your teachers were not competent. I am sorry this is the case. Perhaps that has helped lead to your current misunderstanding of geology. Perhaps you should depend less on television for you education. I think you are inventing a problem here that does not realy exist because it suits your agenda. The reason for focussing on streams and swamps is because of the connection with terrestrial life... mainly dinosaurs which are the center of attention for primary schoolers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I would suggest that most of the non-marine beds worldwide are flood deposits - Noahic for us, regional for you. My reading s so far indicate this to be potentailly true for the large non-marine deposits.

---

No, not. You have not explained how evaporites, eolian deposits and dinosaur tracks, nest, etc. are found in the middle of a global flood.

quote:

---

I'm also waiting for the velocity data and comparison to the same modern envirionments. Someone here should put a grant porposal in and do the work. Maybe I will. I switched from physics to biology . . maybe geology next?

---

You might just cause me to pray in that case. You'd set us back generations.

quote:

---

I'm aware that the layman swamp impression of the geological column comes from dinosaurs. But I bet layman would have a different impression of creationism if you told them that the continental geological column is dominated by invasions of the sea and vast fresh-water beds that cover US state sized areas.

---

I'm not sure why that would be the case. You still have not shown the entire continent to have been covered by water of any composition.

quote:

---

Can anyone here deny that this is the true nature of the geological column? I know no-one can deny this becasue it is an empirical fact!

---

But an irrelevant one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Are you sure you're not just a little biased Edge?

---

Yes, I am biased toward reasonable explanations and diligent science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Whether it was tsunamis or continental scale tectonic slopes the Paleozoic tells a story of vast spatial coordination. But we are plauged by a lack accesible clear presenation of all the data. Even Chadwick's site doesn't distinguish between marine and non-marine.

​

You forgot to address my qustion on paleosoils from last post.

---

So, TB, if you have all these surges and tsunamis etc., why do we have currents in only one direction. Seems that we should have at least two dominant directions. Also, since we are dealing with surges, can you tell us at what point during all of these surges the entire planet was submerged and how long that submersion lasted?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I do plan to be able to get to this stage (primarily via mainstream and creaitonts reading). At this point all I can say is that the more I read mainstream the more I am convinced that the nature of the geological column is more compatible with the Genesis Flood than mainstream explanations. Tas Walker seems to have the most detailed empirical flood model whereas Baumgardner et al have the most tectoncially detailed model. Primarily I'm wanting to read mainstream and form my own impression. Anything I said now would be pure speculation.

---

Are you implying that you haven't said anything yet?Good luck in your reading. However, I am concerned that you do not have the background to understand what you are reading and prefer to misinterpret or misrepresent what you see.For example, no one is convinced that a surging flood would leave evidence of a single flow direction. This is not argued persuasively by your scenario. You are stretching on this. However, you have seen a few flow diagrams that you now interpret to be flood surges. I seriously doubt that you have seen ANY evidence in the field of ANY type of flow, and yet here you are an expert on paleocurrents because you have a 'gut feeling.'

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
There's a slight differnce between noting that the true nature of the geological column is vast non-marine innundations and vast fresh water flood deposits and proposing a detailed model! The first is something that any scientist can do by reading the literature, the second is a day time job! Nevertheless the first is a non-trivial result for me and gives me confidence in the detailed work of career flood geologists.

---

Even thought there are so many items that they cannot explain?

quote:

---

If I am stretching on the paleocurrents then mainstream explanations are stretching far more. I came to my conclusions on paleocurrents from my reading last (S. hemisphere) summer. Since then I found that AIG/ICR geologists and especially Chadwick have come to the same conclusions.

---

Specifics, please. You have not given us anything that a first year geology student couldn't answer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, there's almost no point. Non-marine paleocurrents correlated across sheets that stretch over half of your continent...

---

Half the continent? What about the other half? Once again, I must explain that the currents you see plotted are prevailing currents and that there is a lot of diversity of current directions in any data set. This is due to an overall westward paleoslope on the west side of the original Appalachian Mtns. Also, these are probably from non marine sediments, though you do not specify exactly what they are. Also, what happened to your argument that these non-marine sediments are an insignificant part of the record?Furthermore, in order to indicate a worldwide flood, you need to show a consistent pattern around the entire world. You and wmscott seemt to have a problem understanding what evidence is necessary to support your points. To him, whale bones found at 700 feet in elevation are evidence for a worldwide flood! You position is little better.

quote:

---

... get written of by mainstream scientists as hundreds of parallel streams.

---

Once again, I will ask you: how many streams do you think there are in the Amazon basin on the east side of the Andes? One? Two? Hundreds? Maybe even thousands? If I measured current directions, do you think I would get a prevailing direction somewhere to the north and east? Would they not cover about half of a continent?

quote:

---

And you guys think the correlated paleocurrents in the marine paleozoic strata are normal for epeiric seas.

---

You have not shown current directions for any epeiric seas that I can tell. I thought you were talking about the nonmarine sediments. If you think there are such currents in epeiric seas, then I would like you to show me the current directions in the Mancos Shale and then show how they are coordinated with those you have already discussed.

quote:

---

That is your position - fine - but let it be recorded that that is your position! I am sure that you are scientitfically completely incorrect on both of these points.

---

You have yet to show us any such thing, other than state that your intuitive reaction is that the biblical flood is a better model than the mainstream theory. That is ALL you've got.

quote:

---

And if you are so confident in your interpretation then I will do no more work to convince you otherwise.

---

As far as I can tell, you haven't done any work yet. You have simply reacted to partial information and relied upon your gut reaction. On the other hand, some of us have taken years of geology classes and spent more years in the field with concepts that actually work. And yet your are so confident that we are dead wrong.

quote:

---

And I do not deny that this issue needs to be looked at more closely. I would love Chadwick (or dare I say a mainstream geologist) to collate continent wide paelocurrent data into marine vs non-marine bed by bed data.

---

You have seen some of this data and it clearly indicates some divergent directions that you feel compelled to ignore. You also have not considered that this data is from a relatively small slice of time and a small area of the world. Neither have you shown us what type of sediments these measurements are found from. Then you have completely ignored our explanations and attributed it all to some deep geological mystery.Now, please tell us when these surges finally innundated the entire world and how long the innundation lasted. The tell us how you developed nonmarine sedimentary rocks when the entire world was a marine environment. I would also like to see where in the bible there is word of surging oceans.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 06-28-2002]

Just a few observations on this thread...Here is a quote from Pettijohn that Tranquility Base seems to think shows that paleocurrents of the Paloezoic era were constant:"The stability or persistence of a particular paleocurrent system through time.."As you can see, that is not what Pettijohn says. Pettijohn refers to 'stability or persistence' of a paleocurrent system
through time, not a constant paleocurrent direction through time. As usual, TB lacks the background to critically analyze what TB is reading in the geological literature.I am also amused that TB has frequently mentioned that our 'kindergartners' are not taught the correct version of geological events and that pelagic and epeiric seas are given a minimal role in development of the geological column, while non-marine, swamp-type environments are somehow extremely exaggerated. In contrast to this viewpoint, I am presently reading Windows into the Earth by Smith and Siegel (2000, p33), in which they specifically mention the relative amounts of time for deep-sea sedimentation and the presence of epeiric seas in the Cretaceous. I am not sure where TB gets his information, but I have not seen any particular bias toward 'swamp-type' deposition in the geological literature; nor do I see what the motive would be for doing so.