Rapid generation of layers in the GC

"I think you are missing the point. No one on here, to my knowledge, has said that every layer of sediment MUST form slowly over eons of time. Some don't and you are not getting a quibble about that."
--He didn't assert this at all as a 'must', but as something that should be considered."What you have done is make a giant leap (sans evidence) that ALL sedimentary layers were laid down quickly. That you have provided no evidence for whatsoever! Not one of those quotes suggests that all sedimentary layers are laid down in seconds or minutes."
--He didn't say that this suggests that all sedimentary layers have been laid down quickly, but attempted to give support on his assertion that there isn't much of a problem with rapid depositions."The Navajo is a late Triassic-Jurassic sandstone with wind directions alternating from the N to NW and it contains rare reptilian tracks. This is overlain by the continental fluviatile Morrison Fm and finally by Cretaceous marine sediments and finally by coal beds. Here's where the problem comes in for a flood scenario of Cambrian-Cretaceous age. All of these units contain reptilian fossils with the exception of the marine sediments (which interfinger with continental ones). Most importantly, these coal beds contain dinosaur trackways that are in beds above what many consider the end of the flood. Why is this important? Well, assuming the flood took one year and there were two dinosaurs on board, and the boat landed in Turkey, then it does not leave much time for the dinosaurs to repopulate the earth and walk around in the vegetation mats left by the flood. Any explanation for these observations?"
--The C-T boundary isn't the end of the Flood on my watch, and I believe it is likewise for Tranquility."Can you also tell me about all the flood waters that occupied the same area before the dune deposits? None of these observations make sense to me in terms of a singl Noachian flood."
--Think I need some emphasis, or clarity. Not sure what your asking.------------------

"JM: Then you have an even bigger problem! If the Cretaceous marine deposits are not flood evidence, then where are they? That's the end of marine deposition in the region."
--At the end of marine deposits didn't you state that there are coal beds above these?"JM: There are other (older) marine-terrestrial transitions in the strata out west. Apparently, this is one region where one could escape the flood. Maybe all the flowering plants, dinosauars etc were headed to Utah? Maybe the Mormons are on to something living there."
--I'm not too knowledgable on this area and its geologic compositions and all, though it seems to me that there simply were periods where marine deposits were made and when terrestrial area appeared, eolian dunes were created?------------------

"JM: Yes, coal beds are not marine (or we have swimming dinosaurs leaving footprints!)"
--That's what I thought, but I had some speculation on whether there was another event later on in geologic history in which Marine deposition occurred. So lets see, why is this not simply explained by the fact that marine sediments were deposited as this area was submerged, and then after waters abated form this area, suspended vegetation settled and was later consolidated into coal? Seemingly according to the data given, this is what it indicates."JM: So, you have multiple flood events in your single Noachian flood? As I said, you are faced with the peculiar feature that dinosaurs either quickly repopulated a still flooded earth or they were not killed in the flood. Lucy, you've got some splainin to do!"
--Well no, there weren't necessarily multiple floods, and neither were the flood waters themselves direct causes of the extinction of the dinosaurs and similar animals. Though because this flood was effective on a global scale, topography as well as rapidly evolving topography, currents, and other causes of water distribution and elevation play factors in where and and at what time isolated areas would become submerged or appear terrestrial.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-18-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-18-2002]

"JM: Two things. (1) This is what it indicates. (2) According to your timeline, this all took place during the flood and yet the dinosaurs never died in the flood. More importantly, in some cases, the coals interfinger with the marine deposits indicating that this was a beach, backshore lagoonal type environment rather than total flooding. So, if the dinosaurs were aboard the ark, how did they get to Utah during the flood?"
--[1] - Glad to hear my speculation was right [or can be agreed with].
--[2] - How is it that according to my time-line the dinosaurs never died in the flood? It was not a direct cause of the flood, that is to say, 'flood waters', however they did die according to my geochronology during the Flood. How did they get to Utah during the flood? I would have to say they were already there."JM: Then you do not believe the biblical account of the flood?JM: Good to see you have abandonded the biblical account of the flood. In no time, you'll recognize more of the difficulties in trying to reconcile mythology with evidence. You're growing!"
--LoL Joe, well I'm sure you would love to hear that, however, it is on the contrary . I did not abandon the biblical account. I also must say and stress that the bible isn't, can't be, and wont be my evidence, nor the support which is used from which I draw the conclusions. But it is one I can freely draw conclusions with and stick with the realm of a tenable method of science, if you understand the use of logic here. Also, nothing was said that will contradict the flood event. I assume that you find the contradiction from my notion that 'neither were the flood waters themselves direct causes of the extinction of the dinosaurs and similar animals'. This in no way is contradictory, it is simply applying dynamics and mechanics which is the cause and effect of how these mechanisms would be driven over the time of this event. In this sense I am talking Hydrodynamics, one simple and easy to understand example may be the moon and its tidal effects on ocean depth in ellipse sections of the earth.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-20-2002]

Hey Moose, I took a look at the scan you have and thought you could use a little help with the sizing, I took a couple seconds and took out the background which was drastically adding a surplus of information there. File size was reduced by about a little more than half and I exported it in Gif format so that I could reduce the color spectrum by a little more to get rid of about another 10k of bulk: http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/evcforum/Untitled.gif--I hope the left-hand text is still clear to read, my monitor is blurry and I'm on a very high resolution so it may be easier to read for others on the board than me.------------------

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.------------------

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]

"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.------------------

"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^/\^------------------