Rapid generation of layers in the GC

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]My cyclothem quote was meant to cover your point but I'm going to have to find an independent source on this ( I feel like Bob Woodward and Deep Throat wont go on the record) via my flood geologist contacts. [/QUOTE]JM: What kind of (excuse me) crap is that? A geologist who is not willing to lay their ideas on the carpet? This is a first for me!

quote:

---

I believe the data together does talk of rapidity and incredible continuity in the laying down of the geological column. The paleocurrent data tells us that the vast majority of the continetnal deposits on NorthAmerica were a single phenomenon.

---

JM: That's an absurd argument. You've presented us solely with misquoted evidence and 'secret witnesses'. I think if you look carefully at the cyclothems (and edge can speak better to this) you'll find an incredible diversity from Pa to Kansas. What is common to them is that the sea waxed and waned to produce the cycles. The paleocurrent data (which you've yet to provide original sources for) is probably 'consistent' in general terms. Would not a global tempest produce a more chaotic pattern?

quote:

---

I don't doubt that Lyellian analysis can find river deltas and coastal regions etc but as a whole the paelocurrent data tells us that it was a big constant flow issue for tens of thousands of feet of strata!

---

JM: We've come a long way since Lyell though he was instrumental in the development of the science of observational geology. Have you actually seen cyclothems in the field? I ask, because for a geologist such a question is extremely important.

quote:

---

I presume that these guys above aren't denying the existnce of polystrate tree trunks in general - they at least prove the rapid deposition of 50 feet of layered strata. This is seen all around the world and discrediting one kettle coal mine example wont do.

---

JM: They are not as common as you are trying to make them appear. The 'term' polystrate is not a geological term, it is one developed by and for creationism and as such has no use in geology. For example, I typed the word 'polystrate' in GEOREF and it returned only one hit (a rebuttal at TalkORigins).

quote:

---

We already know from both lab work and Mt St Helens that layering can occur rapidly. When we see tree trunks passing through dozens of feet of strata I think we just have to accept the truth. This doesn't prove Noah but it is suggestive.

---

JM: Could you show me the passages in the Noachian story that refer to massive volcanic eruptions and polystrate tree formation? By the way, I still want to know when you think the flood started (i.e. which strata are pre, syn and post flood? ThanksCheersJoe Meert[/b][/QUOTE]

I know the problem is that my mainstream quote turned into a non-mainstream unfindable quote! But I'm also frustrated that I can't find mainstream references to these polystrate trunks. I know you say we invented the word (I'll reserve judgment on that) but they certainly exist and they should be of interest to everybody. But 'polystrate' regardless of who made up the word is a dirty word and subject and I believe that's why it is hard to find. I know you probably disagree. You can't deny it has a stigma attached to it.Can you deny that polystrate fossils should be interesting to geolgists? Then where are the reviews on it? There should be reviews on 'Consequences of polystrate fossils to uniformitarian models of bed formation' etc.Joe - by the way, in life sciences we have Medline (biology/chemistry). What web links do you have for abstract searching for earth sciences?------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, the point about the paleocurrent data is that

​

(i) these are statistically significant averages - ie the error bars are less than the measurement and

---

I still would like to see your data. There are obviously some currents that diverge from the average. I can't believe that you (all) can think that paleocurrents do not waver, but radiometric decay is completely undependable! This is utter silliness.

quote:

---

(ii) they all point in the same direction (within 30 deg or so) across much of Nth America in stratigrphaical time and space.

---

All point in the same direction? You quote does not confirm this. Where does your 30 degree number come from?

quote:

---

Here is an excerpt I copied from a sedimentology text a few months ago:

​

...

---

Nothing about scatter in the data here. I'm not really sure what your point is, however. So what if the prevailing current directions were consistent over extended periods?

quote:

---

And I have not done any geology courses but have surmised that they teach about paleocurrents becasue the powerpoint slides of 2nd and 3rd year geology courses have paleocurrents discussed on them! I learnt about them first in Pettijohn etc.

---

I am afraid that I do not see what is so shocking about this. Interesting, yes, but shocking? No.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I believe the data together does talk of rapidity and incredible continuity in the laying down of the geological column.

---

You are still confused. The rapidity of an event is not necessarily indicative of rapidity of the entire record. And I really wish you guys would get your act together. We usually have creationists complaining that the geological record is so incomplete that it must be made up.

quote:

---

The paleocurrent data tells us that the vast majority of the continetnal deposits on NorthAmerica were a single phenomenon.

---

Nonsense. If the rain runs down my driveway the same direction every time it rains, does that mean that all of the rainstorms came at once? Can I make this any clearer?

quote:

---

I don't doubt that Lyellian analysis can find river deltas and coastal regions etc but as a whole the paelocurrent data tells us that it was a big constant flow issue for tens of thousands of feet of strata!

---

Lyellian analysis? Sheesh! Is that the latest reference you can find on mainstream sedimentology?

quote:

---

Sure there were river delatas cut out and coastal boundaries but the thing as a whole was a single event.

---

NO!!! River deltas are not cut out! They are filled in! Do you know how many river deltas there are in the geological sequence. Man, you're butchering the science of geology.

quote:

---

I presume that these guys above aren't denying the existnce of polystrate tree trunks in general - they at least prove the rapid deposition of 50 feet of layered strata. This is seen all around the world and discrediting one kettle coal mine example wont do.

---

Perhaps all caps would help here. No one denies the existence of rapidly deposited sediments. However, that does not mean that all sediments were deposited rapidly.

quote:

---

We already know from both lab work and Mt St Helens that layering can occur rapidly.

---

AAAARARAGGGHhgg/. Are your really trying to compare continental shelf sedimentation with proximal volcanic deposits?

quote:

---

When we see tree trunks passing through dozens of feet of strata I think we just have to accept the truth. This doesn't prove Noah but it is suggestive.

---

And the truth is that some deposits are rapid. Many are not. And even if they are, there are extended intervals between catastrophic events.TB, you are getting more and more tedious. Coutesy demands that I leave it at that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]I know the problem is that my mainstream quote turned into a non-mainstream unfindable quote![/QUOTE]JM: You cannot know that. All you know is that some poorly referenced website contains these words and THAT is all you know. In fact, I've already shown that one of the assertions you made (via references) is not what was really said. Look, show me and I am convinced, but don't make absurd claims that these quotes are 'real' until you can show that they are.

quote:

---

But I'm also frustrated that I can't find mainstream references to these polystrate trunks. I know you say we invented the word (I'll reserve judgment on that) but they certainly exist and they should be of interest to everybody.

---

JM: Because it is a creationist invented term! Why are you so afraid of inventing terminology? Radical science requires new terms, don't back down based on terminology.

quote:

---

But 'polystrate' regardless of who made up the word is a dirty word and subject and I believe that's why it is hard to find. I know you probably disagree. You can't deny it has a stigma attached to it.

---

JM: You keep saying this as if the existence of these types of fossils has a stigma attached to it. They do not. What is stigmatized is the creationist assertion that these are somehow unexplainable in conventional geology. No matter how you refer to them, mainstream geology finds no problem with their existence. Can you show me where it does?

quote:

---

Can you deny that polystrate fossils should be interesting to geolgists?

---

JM: Interesting, sure. Troubling (which is your real point), NO.

quote:

---

Then where are the reviews on it? There should be reviews on 'Consequences of polystrate fossils to uniformitarian models of bed formation' etc.

---

JM: Why? They don't provide any special problems except for those invented by ye-creationists. You are spending a lot of time arguing that these are problematic and hinting at some conspiracy, but we've been repeatedly telling you that this is not really an issue that modern geology finds troubling. Stop inventing things!

quote:

---

Joe - by the way, in life sciences we have Medline (biology/chemistry). What web links do you have for abstract searching for earth sciences?

---

JM: I would think you would know this! It's called GEOREF (as I mentioned). You know, for a 'Phded' scientist, you've played pretty fast and loose with your references/sources. I trust this is due more to your naivete with the subject matter rather than your M.O. in scientific studies. I can honestly say that many of your 'references' are things I've come to expect from teenagers and layman rather than those of a trained scientist. I learned to use a variety of scientific referencing systems long ago and would be EXTREMELY hesistant to cite a website without researching the original material ahead of time.CheersJoe Meert

I wasn't surprised by this data - it's the mainstream researchers who first discovered it that got surprised (see the quotes from Pettijohn)!Here are the North American palezoic paleocurrents: http://geology.swau.edu/paleocur/pznorth.html80% are within +- 30 deg of the SW direction. Obviously due to local topgraphy some arrows aren't but it is clear that there was a constant flow 'for tens of millions of years' (as testified in the quotes I gave) across Nth America in the SW direction that was modulated locally by mountains ranges etc.We think this data demonstrates that the vast majority of continental deposits were huge flood deposits and that drainage carved the river deltas and coastal boundaries from stata that were as yet unhardened. We really don't want to throw out Lyell, believe me - I actaully like the guy. But he only explained half the story in our opinions - the drainage part of the flood and not the depostional. We believe he got the time factor way out becasue of course he's talking about carving through solid rock whereas we're talking about (i) huge amounts of water and (ii) carving out soft sediments.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

In my very first ref to Chemtech I admitted that I had found it on the web. I also had (two months ago) tried to find Chemtech on campus. Almost no biologist (or particle physicist for that matter) has ever heard of GEOREF of course! Both of thosegroups are qute insular. I'm a generalist (and also do Windows programming) but unfortunately my tentacles hadn't reached to GEOREF yet . Thanks for the tip and give me a couple of breaks on my moonlighting!------------------
You are go for TLI

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
In my very first ref to Chemtech I admitted that I had found it on the web. I also had (two months ago) tried to find Chemtech on campus. Almost no biologist (or particle physicist for that matter) has ever heard of GEOREF of course! Both of thosegroups are qute insular. I'm a generalist (and also do Windows programming) but unfortunately my tentacles hadn't reached to GEOREF yet . Thanks for the tip and give me a couple of breaks on my moonlighting!

---

JM: well, how come I've heard of, and used, the many biological reference systems? Your map of paleocurrents show tremendous variability and, in fact, refute your own statement regarding their consistency. You've effectively refuted your own argument!
good job!CheersJoe Meert

Here is fig. 14-12 from page 520 of Pettijohn (the same source and page cited by TB). The data is not precisely what TB was referring to, but is related to it.I don't know how long this graphic will stay on my personal site, so Percy is welcome to reproduce and store it elsewhere, and modify the html acordingly.I'll try reducing the size, and reloading it to my site. Get back to you on that (note by edit: size reduction done).Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-21-2002]

^Thanks Moose. ^^And Joe, I hope you wont mind if I stick to Pettijohn et als view of the relative consistency spatially and temporally! And remember that map doesn't even show the consistency over time commented on by the mainstream researchers in the quotes I cited.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^Thanks Moose. ^^And Joe, I hope you wont mind if I stick to Pettijohn et als view of the relative consistency spatially and temporally! And remember that map doesn't even show the consistency over time commented on by the mainstream researchers in the quotes I cited.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

---

JM: Well, Pettijohn's data are certainly consistent for the central Appalachians as we might expect but they most certainly are not within +/- 30 degrees of SW. If anything, they are consistently to the NW (nearly 90 degrees from your claim). SW is 225.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
80% are within +- 30 deg of the SW direction.

---

This seems to be at odds with the data Moose presents from Pettijohn. So, maybe the currents were not quite so consistent?

quote:

---

Obviously due to local topgraphy some arrows aren't but it is clear that there was a constant flow...

---

The data from Pettijohn do not indicate a constant, as you describe it, flow direction, only a prevailing direction.

quote:

---

... 'for tens of millions of years' (as testified in the quotes I gave) across Nth America in the SW direction that was modulated locally by mountains ranges etc.

---

As we have seen above, the direction is not SW and there is variation in the data. It is not constant, unless you wish to redefine 'constant' also.

quote:

---

We think this data demonstrates that the vast majority of continental deposits were huge flood deposits ...

---

This does not logically follow. Your cyclothem argument has been devastated, and yet you cling to this notion.

quote:

---

... and that drainage carved the river deltas and coastal boundaries from stata that were as yet unhardened.

---

Once again, river deltas are not erosional features, but depositional features. So you are saying that that rock fragments that form conglomerates were soft when they were plucked from their original site? Do you really think that this makes sense?

quote:

---

We really don't want to throw out Lyell, believe me - I actaully like the guy.

---

TB, you are not throwing out Lyell, you are torturing the whole science of Geology.

quote:

---

But he only explained half the story in our opinions - ...

---

Well, he did his work over a hundred years ago. I'm not sure what you expect from him.

quote:

---

... the drainage part of the flood and not the depostional. We believe he got the time factor way out becasue of course he's talking about carving through solid rock whereas we're talking about (i) huge amounts of water and (ii) carving out soft sediments.

---

Think about this now. Are you familiar with the composition of sedimentary rocks? How do rock fragments that obviously come from the eroded terrane occur within conglomerates and graywackes that form much of the Appalachians, for instance? If the sediments in the source terrane were soft, how does this happen? Maybe you should reread Lyell.

Quoting myself, from message 69:

quote:

---

The data is not precisely what TB was referring to, but is related to it.

---

I thought I should step in, before this gets futher out of hand.I posted that graphic to illustrate paleocurrent variability and consistancy. It is not the data TB was specificly referring to, in his original citing of Pettijohn.Of course, none of this means that I agree with the conclusions he's comming to.Gotta go,Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Quoting myself, from message 69:

​

I thought I should step in, before this gets futher out of hand.

​

I posted that graphic to illustrate paleocurrent variability and consistancy. It is not the data TB was specificly referring to, in his original citing of Pettijohn.

​

Of course, none of this means that I agree with the conclusions he's comming to.

---

I think the problem here is what is 'constant' and what is 'prevailing.' If TB wants to say that the prevailing currents are surprisingly consistent, and leaves it at that, there is absolutely nothing one can say to refute it. However, to say that the currents are constant over hundreds of millions of years, and therefor they represent a single event, is completely unsupportable.

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