Rapid generation of layers in the GC

Thanks Quetzal. You do realize that your 2nd and 3rd papers you link refer to only single Cenozoic epochs? But I'll check them out for info on how the layers go there - thanks. We really don't have the big problem you guys think we do with soils. The flood occurred in surges and washed soils from higher regions step by step. So we get soils washed down and layering at different levels with each surge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Thanks Quetzal. You do realize that your 2nd and 3rd papers you link refer to only single Cenozoic epochs? But I'll check them out for info on how the layers go there - thanks. We really don't have the big problem you guys think we do with soils. The flood occurred in surges and washed soils from higher regions step by step. So we get soils washed down and layering at different levels with each surge.

---

And the established soil horizons that multiple trees are rooted in?Why do some of them have burrows if they are catastrophicall transported?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We really don't have the big problem you guys think we do with soils. The flood occurred in surges and washed soils from higher regions step by step. So we get soils washed down and layering at different levels with each surge.

---

Just where did these transported soils come from? I thought the entire world was flooded. What is the source? I mean, you can only call upon surges for so long before there is no longer any land mass for soils to be developed on. And what about the time for these soils to be developed? How do you pack all of this into a year's time?By the way, are these surges described in the bible as part of the flood? I've often wondered how creationists manage to embellish the flood details when the bible is said to be a literal and accurate account.

Hey Joe, by your post this seems like a very nice time to do some reading on Geomagnetism in the ocean floor. Then I may post a more intellectual response.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Thanks Quetzal. You do realize that your 2nd and 3rd papers you link refer to only single Cenozoic epochs? But I'll check them out for info on how the layers go there - thanks. We really don't have the big problem you guys think we do with soils. The flood occurred in surges and washed soils from higher regions step by step. So we get soils washed down and layering at different levels with each surge.

---

Umm, yeah I knew that. What's your point? We're still talking tens of millions of years. The key point in those two articles is that the pattern is deposition, followed by erosion, followed by deposition, etc. Are you now postulating some kind of incredibly rapid eolian erosion as well as rapid deposition? With different soil types?

http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Smilies/frown.gif[/IMG]------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-25-2002]

"JM: well, then you've some problems. Let's take paleomagnetism. For example, igneous rocks must cool below 575 C to acquire a magnetization in the direction of the ambient field. Suppose for a moment that we have a continent drifting rapidly and thousands of basalt layers (or other igneous rocks) being produced. We should find transitional fields in these rocks all the time. We don't, such fields are rare and the one incorrectly used by creationists (Steen's Mountain--) is much younger than the flood."
--A lack in transitional fields? I presume you are addressing a transition in polarity. In this case, we find nothing but transitions in field intensity.--Rather than finding blocky non-transitional magnetic anomalies, we find fluctuating intensities [Vine & Mathews, 1963]."We should also find (assuming Baumgardner is correct) rapid changes in inclination and declination within sequential layers of basalt as they record the drifting of the continents. We don't."
--I'm not sure what your getting at. 'Rapid changes in inclination and declination'? What constitutes it as being 'rapid'. Paleomagnetic data as it pertains to inclination and declination of the magnetic field records the orientation or direction of the remanent field."In the case of sedimentary rocks, we look at something called DRM (Detrital remanent magnetization) which requires hematite grains to orient themselves as they fall through a column of water in the direction of the ambient field. This requires very calm conditions (turbulence easily overcomes the force trying to align the grains). Therefore you need to show these rapid reversals in the sedimentary sequence. What do we find? The Kiaman Long Reversed interval (all reversed polarity) and the Cretaceous Long Normal interval (all normal polarity)--- i.e. in the midst of a flood that you claim featured rapid reversals the rocks say NO!"
--[1] - Not only do we look at Depositional Remanent Magnetism (DRM), but we also look toward NRM, TRM, and CRM (Natural, thermoremanent, and chemical remanent magnetism). So these processes of magnetic orientation should have been presented as well.-NRM is the fossil magnetism in a rock.
-TRM is when ferromagnetic mineral inclusions are cooled to blocking temperature (Below Curie Temperature) and aquire a remanent magnetism.
-CRM is the case in which low temperature chemical processes form magnetic minerals. As these minerals increase in size they become magnetically stable in which a remanant magnetism will be acquired.
-DRM is as Meert correctly described, when a ferromagnetic minerals fall through water while in the presence of a magnetic field and become partially aligned with the ambient magnetic field as sediment deposits with these mineral constituents.--[2] - Hematite is nothing special except in that it is a ferromagnetic mineral (And thus is a mineral which may orient themselves as the magnetic field directs), which also includes magnetite, pyrrhotite, etc.--[3] - In referencing the Kiaman Long Reversed interval and the Cretaceous Long Normal Interval as 'all' specific polarity, is a bit misleading If I am not mistaken."Furthermore, you've elsewhere stated that you cannot identify flood deposits in any globally correlatable detail."
--Tranquility may have not submitted his answer on this, though you know what I have decided as a place to assume currently in discussing with me. However, I do believe that Paleomagnetism may shed more valuable light on Post/Pre/Flood depositions as research proceeds."How can you use paleomagnetism to reconstruct Pangea when you cannot correlate strata? What are radioisotopic proportions? Do you mean radiometric dating? Not much use to creationists since you claim the rates are (a) variable and (b) you cannot correlate rocks on a global scale necessary to reconstruct Pangea."
--I think that Radiometrics may be valuable as evidence in the construction of Pangea in the case of the Global Flood. A stage in larger fractionation processes involves chemical alteration of the freshly emplaced oceanic crust by seawater via vigorous hydrothermal circulation near the spreading ridge where temperatures are high. Cooling produces volumetric contraction that leads to formation of fractures and allows seawater to penetrate to fine spatial scales and significant depths. Hydrothermal activity is effective in extracting Pb from the basaltic crust and precipitating it in metalliferous sulfide deposits. As the lithosphere migrates away from the ridge it is eventually covered by a blanket of sediment that tends to reduce the hydrothermal flow. Though studies may suggest that significant hydrothermal flow occurs far away from mid-ocean ridges and that the sediment blanket is less effective in restricting such flow than once believed [Baumgardner, 2000] [Stein and Stein, 1994]. Of course this is only one of many evidences as you very well know.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-27-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-27-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]--A lack in transitional fields? I presume you are addressing a transition in polarity. In this case, we find nothing but transitions in field intensity.[/QUOTE]JM: You showed reversals, not transitional fields. Deep-tow is not able to resolve fine features associated with transitionals.

quote:

---

"We should also find (assuming Baumgardner is correct) rapid changes in inclination and declination within sequential layers of basalt as they record the drifting of the continents. We don't."
--I'm not sure what your getting at. 'Rapid changes in inclination and declination'? What constitutes it as being 'rapid'. Paleomagnetic data as it pertains to inclination and declination of the magnetic field records the orientation or direction of the remanent field.

---

JM: Those rapid directional changes are features of a transitional field.

quote:

---

--[1] - Not only do we look at Depositional Remanent Magnetism (DRM), but we also look toward NRM, TRM, and CRM (Natural, thermoremanent, and chemical remanent magnetism). So these processes of magnetic orientation should have been presented as well.

---

JM: Actually NRM is not usually useful in determining fine structure of transitional fields since it represents a vector sum of all components in the rock. TRM is good at recording transitional fields provided the conditions are right. CRM, so far as I know is not useful in recording transitional fields.

quote:

---

--[2] - Hematite is nothing special except in that it is a ferromagnetic mineral (And thus is a mineral which may orient themselves as the magnetic field directs), which also includes magnetite, pyrrhotite, etc.

---

JM: Actually, hematite is anti-ferromagnetic and strictly speaking should not carry a remanence! The remanence is commonly due to the canting of the magnetic moments or to defects in the lattice structure.

quote:

---

--[3] - In referencing the Kiaman Long Reversed interval and the Cretaceous Long Normal Interval as 'all' specific polarity, is a bit misleading If I am not mistaken.

---

JM: You are mistaken.

quote:

---

--I think that Radiometrics may be valuable as evidence in the construction of Pangea in the case of the Global Flood.

---

JM: Do you mean radiometric dating? Or the use of isotopes? While isotopes are used in radiometric dating, not all isotope work is based on decay.

quote:

---

A stage in larger fractionation processes involves chemical alteration of the freshly emplaced oceanic crust by seawater via vigorous hydrothermal circulation near the spreading ridge where temperatures are high. Cooling produces volumetric contraction that leads to formation of fractures and allows seawater to penetrate to fine spatial scales and significant depths. Hydrothermal activity is effective in extracting Pb from the basaltic crust and precipitating it in metalliferous sulfide deposits. As the lithosphere migrates away from the ridge it is eventually covered by a blanket of sediment that tends to reduce the hydrothermal flow. Though studies may suggest that significant hydrothermal flow occurs far away from mid-ocean ridges and that the sediment blanket is less effective in restricting such flow than once believed [Baumgardner, 2000] [Stein and Stein, 1994]. Of course this is only one of many evidences as you very well know.

---

JM: How does this relate to 'radiometrics' as defined by you? I think you are cribbing material and posting it as relevant. Unfortunately, sans context, this looks totally out of place in the scheme of your post. Could you rephrase this again in English and tell me what significance it has for the flood and 'radiometrics'?CheersJoe Meert

"JM: You showed reversals, not transitional fields. Deep-tow is not able to resolve fine features associated with transitionals.JM: Those rapid directional changes are features of a transitional field."
--I must say then, I am not sure what you mean by a transitional field. Might you cite a piece of data as an example for some clarification? Show why what we see today in this lack of transitions is evidence for slow paleomagnetic activity. As well as showing what I should expect in rapid reversals and why."JM: Actually NRM is not usually useful in determining fine structure of transitional fields since it represents a vector sum of all components in the rock."
--If I interpret your statement rightly and contrast it to what my source says, it is either a TRM, CRM, or DRM, though are not necessarily combined to produce an average vector orientation, it may just be a use of one of the three. I think this is reasonable (while a bit contrary to exactly what you said) by stating in my source while discussing Paleomagnetism, 'A rock can acquire NRM in several ways' and then proceeding directly after in discussing TRM, CRM, and DRM."TRM is good at recording transitional fields provided the conditions are right. CRM, so far as I know is not useful in recording transitional fields."
--We can agree on TRM. CRM may be very speculative in mainstream paleomagnetic studies, though may hold some use for hematite orientations. As hematite is usually formed by oxidation and reduction in sediments."JM: Actually, hematite is anti-ferromagnetic and strictly speaking should not carry a remanence! The remanence is commonly due to the canting of the magnetic moments or to defects in the lattice structure."
--Well G-whiz! Yet they acquire a weak permanent magnetism when formed. What are the implications of your second sentence?"JM: You are mistaken."
--I may be, you'll have to answer my first comments above to help it along though."JM: Do you mean radiometric dating? Or the use of isotopes? While isotopes are used in radiometric dating, not all isotope work is based on decay."
--Yes I know, 'Radiometrics' is just a word that I picked up from other people in discussions on the subject, synonymous with 'a radiometric dating technique'."JM: How does this relate to 'radiometrics' as defined by you? I think you are cribbing material and posting it as relevant. Unfortunately, sans context, this looks totally out of place in the scheme of your post. Could you rephrase this again in English and tell me what significance it has for the flood and 'radiometrics'?"
--To summarize, because of the mobility of Pb by the effects of hydrothermal flow in basalt, you may have older dates as you increase in distance from the spreading ridge, this is only one simple suggestion. Others may be more plausible for the distribution of radioisotopes in MORB's. Whichever the reason, distribution shows that there was some mechanism by which a decrease in parent isotopes are present in more distant basalt, as new basalt widens the oceans.------------------

quote:

---

--I must say then, I am not sure what you mean by a transitional field. Might you cite a piece of data as an example for some clarification? Show why what we see today in this lack of transitions is evidence for slow paleomagnetic activity. As well as showing what I should expect in rapid reversals and why.

---

JM: A transitional field is a field which exists in-between a normal and reverse field.

quote:

---

--If I interpret your statement rightly and contrast it to what my source says, it is either a TRM, CRM, or DRM, though are not necessarily combined to produce an average vector orientation, it may just be a use of one of the three. I think this is reasonable (while a bit contrary to exactly what you said) by stating in my source while discussing Paleomagnetism, 'A rock can acquire NRM in several ways' and then proceeding directly after in discussing TRM, CRM, and DRM.

---

JM: Well, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Simply put, an NRM is a vector sum of all magnetizations be they CRM, DRM, TRM, pTRM or VRM.

quote:

---

--We can agree on TRM. CRM may be very speculative in mainstream paleomagnetic studies, though may hold some use for hematite orientations. As hematite is usually formed by oxidation and reduction in sediments.

---

JM: CRM is not speculative. It happens. The question is whether or not CRM will faithfully record transitional fields. In some cases, it might but pTRM or DRM is probably more likely to do the trick.

quote:

---

"JM: Actually, hematite is anti-ferromagnetic and strictly speaking should not carry a remanence! The remanence is commonly due to the canting of the magnetic moments or to defects in the lattice structure."
--Well G-whiz! Yet they acquire a weak permanent magnetism when formed. What are the implications of your second sentence?

---

JM: I am trying to get you to use the right terms and understand the process. Strictly speakying a purely antiferromagnetic mineral will not carry an interpretable remanence. They can, through defects and canting acquire a remanence.{quote--Yes I know, 'Radiometrics' is just a word that I picked up from other people in discussions on the subject, synonymous with 'a radiometric dating technique'.[/quote]JM: It's a poor choice of a word.

quote:

---

--To summarize, because of the mobility of Pb by the effects of hydrothermal flow in basalt, you may have older dates as you increase in distance from the spreading ridge, this is only one simple suggestion. Others may be more plausible for the distribution of radioisotopes in MORB's. Whichever the reason, distribution shows that there was some mechanism by which a decrease in parent isotopes are present in more distant basalt, as new basalt widens the oceans.

---

JM: This is one of those 'just so' 'couldamightabeen' stories with no data to back it up. It is just as probable that it could produce younger ages, mixed ages or may not be relevant at all. Until you can show evidence for this actually happening in the orderly manner needed to make the oceans look older than they are, you won't find it of much use. Plus, you've got that nagging issue of ocean floor morphology which pretty much shows us that the ocean REALLY is older the further you move away from the ridge. Geologists are way ahead of you with data, you're only at the inconsistent, conjecture phase.CheersJoe Meert

"JM: A transitional field is a field which exists in-between a normal and reverse field."
--Hm... ok:
[1] - Could you illustrate or explain the data on what this transitional field would look like? I'm a bit at a loss to where or what this transition is in any set of data, or I may simply be misunderstanding it.
[2] - Why would this transitional field be expected in mainstream paleomagnetism?
[3] - Why would this transitional field be expected to not be present in a catastrophic plate tectonic scenario?--This is what comes to mind when I think of what the [ lack of a ]transitional field would look like graphically:
"JM: Well, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Simply put, an NRM is a vector sum of all magnetizations be they CRM, DRM, TRM, pTRM or VRM."
--Exactly, that's what I was trying to say, sorry about the messed up syntax."JM: CRM is not speculative. It happens. The question is whether or not CRM will faithfully record transitional fields."
--Yes, this is what I meant by being speculative about CRM."In some cases, it might but pTRM or DRM is probably more likely to do the trick."
--With it being more strongly recorded and thus higher accuracy in the data, we can agree here."JM: I am trying to get you to use the right terms and understand the process. Strictly speakying a purely antiferromagnetic mineral will not carry an interpretable remanence. They can, through defects and canting acquire a remanence."
--I currently am unable to find more detail on this, while I don't doubt your comments, I'd like to understand more on why it is only through defects and canting which it will then acquire a remanence. Why not when it is deposited?"JM: It's a poor choice of a word."
--I will not use it then.JM: This is one of those 'just so' 'couldamightabeen' stories with no data to back it up. It is just as probable that it could produce younger ages, mixed ages or may not be relevant at all. Until you can show evidence for this actually happening in the orderly manner needed to make the oceans look older than they are, you won't find it of much use."
--I can agree, it may not be all too relevant, it might possibly of some significance, though I would doubt it. I would much rather cling to a more viable hypothesis for radioisotopic distribution in the sea floor."Plus, you've got that nagging issue of ocean floor morphology which pretty much shows us that the ocean REALLY is older the further you move away from the ridge."
--Sure it is older, though by how old would be a better question. But are you referring to your ocean topography argument?"Geologists are way ahead of you with data, you're only at the inconsistent, conjecture phase."
--Sure, might as well be way ahead of me, I sure hope they are at least. There may be a problem with me presenting data as it may not be correctly understood/interpreted, however such is the life a of a young scientist. Though even in knowing this I think I do a fairly well job for my age [ as well as my relatively rapid progression ].------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-30-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-31-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-01-2002]

Bump------------------

^^/\Bump^/\^------------------