Rapid generation of layers in the GC

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

​

In any case it is clear that vast horizonal and vetical sections of the GC undoubteldy formed very rapidly and yet in the past it was believed that these were gradually formed over millions of years. Yes we than propose that this can be extended to the entire GC and then I agree there are problematic aspects, but, IMO, they may be surrmountable.

​

---

TB, care to be more specific? You imply vast vertical sections of the geological column were formed rapidly. Which strata were produced by this rapid formation? What do you mean by "very rapidly"? Days, years, thousands of years? How rapidly were the remaining strata in the geological column formed? Thousands or millions of years?

[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

George R. Hill, Dean of College of Mines & Mineral Industries, Chemtech, May, 1972, p. 292

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

OK, wj, I'm saying, that if we can verify that this geologist GR Hill was not misrepresenting the data, then there is good evidence that sequences of cyclothem cycles were rapidly generated. This opens up (comes close to proving) the likely sceanrio that 1000s of feet of cyclothem deposits were generated rapidly - eg over less than decades. Dead tree trunks have a way of rotting.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?

I'm not sure Joe, I've only seen the excerpt. Go get some shut eye.

​

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

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]

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.

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:
Joe, in all the texts I have read the origin of the sedimentary record is decribed via analogy with modern gradualistic means. Catastrophism is hardly mentioned in these texts. When it is it is as an anomoly.

---

Nonsense. I learned catastrophism (well, let's just say) a long time ago in my first Geology course.

quote:

---

I have a simple first year geology textbook in my hands (Chernicoff) and the origin of the GC is described in this fasion.

---

That is probably because for the GC, it is basically true. Some sediments are deposited slowly, others rapidly. Do you really think that we didn't notice rapid deposition of pyroclastic flows? How about the slow deposition of reefal limestones? Really, you take a single isolated fact and build a story without looking at the surrounding data.

quote:

---

In each of the detailed texts on the 'origin of sedimentary rocks' (Selley (1996), Blatt et al (1980), Pettijohn (1974)) there are literally (I'm serious) about 1000 pages on analogies with modern gradualistic processes and a couple of pages on catastophic means of generating layering. I am not kidding. I read these books from cover to cover.

---

I thought you gave us some references from Batt, et al. that talked about rapid sedimentation. In fact, you had several quotes that talked about rapid sedimentation. Please explain.

quote:

---

The amazing thing is that this is never propoerly reconciled (IMO) with the paleocurrent data which IMO tells a story that is consistent with catastrophism even though this option is ignored in the mainstream texts.

---

Sorry, but I am unfamiliar with this paleocurrent information. What is it?By the way, I am also completely unfamiliar with trees that have survived more than one cyclothem. Could you please document this? I have heard of them being rooted in an organic paleosol and then overwhelmed by a number of sand and silt layers, but never a complete cyclothem as you have defined them. I have heard that no trees penetrate a superposed coal seam.I also wonder if you have ever considered the time between depositions of each cycle? Or the time necessary to grow new layers of sufficient organics to form the coal beds? Or the apparent necessity of multiple floods to form the cycles? Your theory needs a lot of work, TB.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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?[/B][/QUOTE]There is no problem with inundation by great thicknesses of sand or silt in a storm-type deposit. The problem is that these things don't happen every year. Usually, there are long periods of non-deposition or slow deposition between the greater events. In fact, some of these sections are probably eroded away, permitting more time into the geological record. Just because a layer can form in minutes does not mean that all layers do so. Neither does it mean that there are not long periods of time between the catastrophic events. You need a more rounded education, TB.

Hill talks about polystrate trees passing through multiple cyclothem cycles (ie it passes from one 10 layered cycle into another 10 layered cycle). These cycles are themselves part of 50-100 repetions. Semantics aside it is clear what he is talking about!Hill is simply saying that the polystrate tree trunk proves that two of the cyclothems happened very rapidly. If the rest of the cycles above and below look the same, and are conformable, it is reasonable (in fact it compells one) to assume that they all occurred rapidly as part of the same event.Forget about me, forget about my educaiton. Just read Hill. It could just be that the uniformitarian paradigm just doesn't allow you to consider the possibility that Hill is right, paleosoils or no paleosoils.

​

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

These are not storm deposits Edge - these are vast beds covering tens of thousands of square miles. the coal seams can be tracked across half of North America!

​

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

Edge, the excerpts from Blatt were part of the '2 pages' on catastrophioc geology I could find in his book. I'm not kidding.The paleocurrent data is data gathered from ripple marks and fossil and rock orientation (averaged over the sample) that enable the flow direction/velocities to be reconstructed. The paleocurrent maps of your country demonstrate that much of the Mesozoic and Paleozoic formations were generated under rapid flow and I think in a SW orientation. In some cases researchers have expressed shock that 'for 200 million' years the flows were constant in direction/orientaiton.Cyclothem/trees evidence? I can only point you to what Hill is saying.

​

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

TB: I don't normally get involved in the geology discussions - not my field - but I do like following them. A question and an observation:1. I'm not clear what you're arguing. Part of it may be my limited geology background (I took one intro course 25 years ago), but are you claiming that the few examples of polystrate fossils that have been discovered here and there around the world represent evidence for a flood of global proportions? If so, wouldn't there be substantial evidence for rapid deposition literally everywhere, rather than isolated incidences separated by space and time? I mean, wouldn't all polystrate fossils be found in the identical layers? The Yellowstone polystrates are found in Tertiary volcanic breccias, the Nova Scotia polystrates are Carboniferous, etc. It doesn't appear to this geology neophyte - regardless of the rapidity of the deposition - that these deposits occurred anywhere remotely at the same time.2. I had the opportunity to view the results of the Nov. '98 lahar on Casita volcano that buried the town of Posoltega in Nicaragua. In some places the resultant deposition was over 10 meters thick. Because of the vagaries of the terrain, several spots included the lopped-off stumps of trees - some of which were up to 3-4 meters tall - standing upright as though rooted. The entire event took less than 6 minutes, with an average flow-wave speed of 50 km/h. The outflow covered an area of some 30 sq km, beginning with a subsidence of a mere 100 meter-wide slab of rock and soil. Rapid deposition is quite common. In a couple million years, after petrification, erosion, and further deposition, some future geologist will dig up those trees and find exactly the same thing as we see at Yellowstone: upright trees, fully "rooted" (and even preserved leaves), in a series of Holocene deposits. I wonder if someone then will add the Nicaraguan deposits to Yellowstone et al as evidence for a global flood?