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. 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. Further, this in an 'invented' controversy on your part since I doubt you can find one geologist who will say that every layer takes eons of time. But, let's look at some that DO take time. The navajo sandstone is a mega cross-bedded unit.Here is a photo I took: 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? 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.CheersJoe Meertrefs:Hintze, L. Geologic History of Utah, v20, 3, BYU Geology Studies

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][b]Hintze, L. Geologic History of Utah, v20, 3, BYU Geology Studies[/QUOTE]

​

[/b]

​

(Off-topic question)

​

Isn't BYU a private college run by the Latter-Day Saints?

---

Yes it is! But there is no ye-creation bias in the geology department.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

--The C-T boundary isn't the end of the Flood on my watch, and I believe it is likewise for Tranquility.

---

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.

quote:

---

"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: 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.CheersJoe Meert

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"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?[/QUOTE]

​

JM: Yes, coal beds are not marine (or we have swimming dinosaurs leaving footprints!)

​

[QUOTE]"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?
[/b]

---

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!CheersJoe Meert

​

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation: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?

quote:

---

--Well no, there weren't necessarily multiple flood events, and neither were the flood waters themselves direct causes of the extinction of the dinosaurs and similar animals.

---

JM: Then you do not believe the biblical account of the flood?

quote:

---

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.

---

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!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge and Joe, I have to say that you really did do exactly what TC suggested. You tried to say that I said my refs were 'proof' that the flood generated the GC when I of course said nothing of the sort. I understand that you don't like what I'm saying becasue it challenges something you are convinced of but if we treated each others actual specific points seriously then we could have a far more educational experience on both sides.

​

So I will say it again that those refs I cited show:
(i) That layering can, and frequently did, occur rapidly in
'seconds and minutes' from, eg, constant flow.
(ii) At least some geologists agree (and I would find it hard to believe that any could deny with integrity) that major formations representing 100s and 1000s of feet of teh GC were undoubtledly formed rapidly.

​

That is what I said/am saying. Stop setting up strawmen! Of course I'm saying this is suggestive of the global flood but I would love to hear your specific thoughts on (i) and (ii) above in this post that summarizes my first post.

​

---

JM: Hold on just a moment. There is NOTHING in your original post to hint that you were only talking about SOME layers. Indeed, as I mentioned you would be hard pressed to find a geologist who would disagree with the notion that some layers might be deposited rapidly. However, the implication of your original message was either (a) poorly stated or (b) deliberately deceptive. Here's the last part of your original post:

quote:

---

I'm not trying to say this necessarily proves anything but it is part of our 'thesis'. It certainly proves that mainstream researchers are willing to admitt that layers do not have to represent annual/seaonal bands or even point to great age at all.

---

So where is the qualifier that mentions SOME? Everyone of your quotes is suggestive that you meant to explain all layers as rapid. Now you seem to be backing down from that a bit. Good thing. However, please don't create your strawman argument and then chide others for not debating you. I am all for a good discussion. So, getting down to brass tacks, what exactly were you debating with your original post? It seems to me that you were setting up a strawman by implying that the majority of geologists somehow reject the notion that some strata can form quickly. If that is not the case, then what exactly was your point? Remember that SOME strata are not ALL strata and I've given some examples of problematic sequences in a global flood scenario. In fact, it is precisely because of these problems that no creationist will provide us with the specific strata that mark the pre, syn and post flood rocks. TC made one claim and then quickly abandonded it. If you look at ICR publications, for example, they claim "it's a flood rock", but they don't tell you how they determined that!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, I really think I stated my POV quite clearly if you re-read the first post.

​

I know you guys think what we say is 'nothing new'. But boy, this stuff is not even hinted at in the introductory books and even much of the advanced stuff. Anyone trying to get into geology would still hink that layers build up in stagnant lakes and gentle seas. The paleocurrent data shows that this is hogwash for the bread and butter strata that characterise the GC.

​

I don't agree that what I'm saying is off-centre. What I am saying (eg abot paleocurrents) concerns the typical strata in the column, not some anomoly.

​

---

JM: Wait a minute. Please show me these textbooks that claim that all strata are laid down slowly! I've been teaching intro geology for 8 years and I've never made such a claim. Nor was I ever exposed to such a claim during my undergraduate days. Please don't generalize on topics unless you can back them up. What you are claiming is, well, bull----! Sorry, but I expected more from a 'Phded' scientist than making false assertions about what is taught. You were properly berated for making the original assertion and now, even when two geologists tell you that your claim was hogwash, you follow it up with more hogwash!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

If pressed geolgoists will agree on these issues as you have but they are not mentioned/emphasised in geology text books.

---

JM: What semester did you take my course? Please show me in your notes where I made such a claim. Heck, since you claim it is a common occurrence, you should have no problem supplying me with three sets of original student notes from introductory courses where the instructor claimed that sediment deposition was always slow and gradual. As for the rest, I agree you backed off from what was hinted at in your first post, but it's the first post that was the source of your grief. Finally, some cars are able to run at 200+ mph (320 kph), but it is a stretch to claim that all cars run consistently at 200 mph. However, let's go with your claim and assume that EVERY SINGLE layer was formed quickly. Such an assertion does not necessarily help the ye-model since we've clear evidence for things like paleosols between layers indicating weathering and erosion. We have further evidence that some of the sedimentary material was buried and metamorphosed after formation and was in turn intruded by igneous rocks. We've further evidence that these processes occurred over time periods that included erosional hiatuses. So, even if we take your argument to the extreme, we still can't squeeze the history of the rocks into a 1 year flood time frame. Also please see post 4 in this discussion. While you are composing your reply, tell me again what layers represent the pre, syn and post flood strata.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe, I meant that you have agreed that some strata were rapidly formed.

​

Do you agree that cyclothems were rapidly formed? What is the current mainstream consensus?

---

JM: No, I don't agree that cyclothems were rapidly formed. Individual units within the cylcothems were probably formed at different rates, but I see no evidence that they were formed within a ye-creationist time span. Do you have some evidence that they were? For example, I agree that the repetitions could be fast (few 10's of thousand of years) which is a geological eyeblink. To my knowledge, there is no evidence for megacycles forming in the period of weeks or years (especially given the sedimentary structures within some of the cycles) and the presence of paleosols within the cycles.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ So what about the polystrate tree trunk passing vertically throuhg two cylcothem cycles that this guy is talking about?

---

JM: Yes, I see you've made this claim, but can you give me the original reference? I have a difficult time grasping the full context of second hand reports. Please note, I am not saying the information is false, but I cannot comment on the small amount of information you have given here.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]I've only read a four or five paragraph extract from this article somewhere on the web. Our geology and chemistry libraries don't have ChemTech. Does yours? I think it's a merged journal. We should track it down but it's pretty clear he is referring to a tree trunk passing through two cyclothem cycles! [QUOTE] JM: We have it. Do you have the full reference?CheersJoe meert

I'll look it up in the morning (remember we yanks are a bit behind the times). I am assuming that it is more than a one page article?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Dead tree trunks have a way of rotting.

---

JM: BE careful, you are assuming the trees are dead. There are cases where this is not so (Cypress swamps in the current Mississippi delta for example!)

quote:

---

And regardless of Hill's evidence we all know that there are many many examples of polystrate fossils world wide demonstrating that 50 foot sections have been rapidly laid down. When the layering is just the same for the upper and lower 1000 feet why not the entire formation rapidly?

---

JM: Maybe, maybe not. The cases I am familiar with do not indicate thousands of feet, but perhaps I am ignorant of the literature?CheersJoe Meert

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Well this is what I came to learn. But I estimate 'thousands of feet' from Hill's example and others I have read about. The cyclothem (coal) containing layers from Kansas to Pennsylvania are pretty thick too.

---

JM: They are. However, might you be confusing cyclothems with megacyclothems? At any rate, those units have sedimentary structures and paleosols that indicate significantly more time than 400 days. I fear that you may have become infatuated with one feature of these beds and forgot that marriage requires acceptance of everything.
CheersJoe Meert

​

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Here's a quote from a mainstream journal, presumably from a mainstream geologist chiding his fellow geologists to take on some more catastrohpism back in 1972 (it sounds to me anyway). He's talking cyclothems and polystrate fossils:I admittedly found this one on the Internet but I don't think a context is necessary is it? Go read the article if you need the context. I'd be interested if this guy got sacked or not or was ever allowed to publish again . [/QUOTE]JM: Not only was this guy not sacked, the reference you provided is from an award presentation he received (1972 Storch Award, Fuels Division of the American Chemical Society). Now, here's the problem. Somebody is clearly playing with that paper because it does not contain the quoted text! So, your comment about 'context not needed' is false since the quote is not found within the paper. The full source is Hill. 1972. ChemTech v. 2, pages 292-297. I hate to say it, but this looks to be a typical creationist misuse of a paper. For the moment, I'll ascribe the error to transcription, but this does not bode well for creationist quote mining. In fact, his paper is largely related to the kinetics of coal formation. The only thing it the paper that refers to 'rapid' formation is under the discussion of "The formation of coal". Apparently Hill and colleagues did some lab production of coal and found that when the heating rate was increased from 0.5 C/min to 5 C/min an exothermic reaction took place at temperatures between 220-260 C. He concludes the section with the following:

quote:

---

"These observations suggest that in their formation, high rank coals, i.e., anthracite and low-volatile bituminous, which contain large concentrations of multi-ring carbon-hydrogen structures, were probably subjected to high temperature at some stage in their history. A possible mechanism for formation of these high rank coals could have been a short time, rapid heating event. Much additional work should be done at lower pressures to see if the same results are obtained as we found at and above 7 kilobars

---

By the way Hill is a chemist, not a geologist so the comment about 'chiding' his fellow geologists is incorrect and should be changed. However, this research only says that the heating event might have been rapid, but the material could have been around for eons. In a 'normal' continental geotherm, 200-260 C would mean a burial of ~10 kilometers. However, 7 kilobars is roughly double that depth (1 kb ~ lithostatic pressure at 3 kilometers). I suspect this is why he suggests lower pressure experiments.Next time, look at the original source before quoting. Apparently this is especially true of creationist sites (if that is where you got the quote).CheersJoe Meert

​

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