|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Paleocurrents: the 'diverse' features of the GC were laid via rapid, correlated flow | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: This is a nice assertion, but WHY? Why would the current directions for you flood be any different from the current directions from the existing flood of today (the existing seas)? Sorry, but this is not compelling. In fact, Chadwick admits that there is a lot of noise in the data that would mean a certain amount of inconsistencey thought the approximate prevailing currents are similar. This is exactly what I would expect from any shelf deposits developed during gradual transgression. Would you sea any reason for currents to change on say the east coast if the sea level rose over a few million years? I see no necessity for it. Paleoslopes woud be the same, the basic outline of the continent would be the same areas of upwelling and sinking of the currents would be relatively unchanged. Sorry, but this is not diagnostic of a global flood. Back to the old drawing board!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Depends. What kind of mountains and under what kind of erosional processes?
quote: You have yet to show that they are: a) Rapid b) Significantly different from modern currents
quote: Quite an assertion. Do you have anything to back it up?
quote: First of all, who said they were all in shelf sediments? Second, how do you measure these currents?
quote: Maybe the lack is trying to tell you something...
quote: I don't remember this being a conclusion of any researchers that you have referenced. Where do you get this stuff? You have provided nothing that I can recal regarding velocities at all. You have not shown these velocities to be significantly different from anything modern or more ancient. You have not even told us what rock types they are in! You have only spoken in vague generalities about velocities and your current directions are still only prevailing directions that probably reflect the basic regional paleoslopes. You are indulging yourself in delusion and wishful thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Ah, there's a reason for that, you know.
quote: Not at all. At least that's not the way I was taught. Besides, you just said that you cannot find anything on higher velocities, so why do you presume Pettijohn to have thought the currents were unusual? The surprise they expressed was that the currents would so accurately reflect the paleoslope. They simply thought that there would be more noise.
quote: I'm sure we can find some Precambrian conglomerates for you. Maybe Joe could send us a reference when he has time.
quote: Not sure what you are saying here. Of course the representations should be regional.
quote: So are you saying that this does not happen even today? Sorry, TB, but we have plenty of fluviatile currents that can create oriented pebbles and ripple marks. There is nothing unusual here.
quote: Usually these are covered in college level geology courses that you have missed. I don't know of any current research in this area since it is pretty well known. Only creationists seem to be behind the curve on the subject and are trying to disprove uniformitarianism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: TB, could you show us this paleocurrent data for the Mancos shale or the Pierre Shale? I'd like to see the current velocity estimates for thes formations.
quote: Not at all. Your lack of geological training is showing up here. Non-marine formations can be quite extensive. But then we have been over this ground before. Did you just ignore us?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The point is that the currents were sufficient to leave ordered paleocurrent observables. I still am almost 100% sure that shallow modern day epeiric seas would not display correlated paleocurrent obsevables! No-one here from either camp has been able to come up with anything relevant to this point other than intuition. And of course if these observations also extend to non-marine beds that is even more interesting for us.[/B][/QUOTE] Good, then give us some data. You have refused to do so and it is getting rather tedious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: If they were so surprised, why are they not flood geologists?
quote: There are prevailing current directions. We have explained this to you. You have ignored us.
quote: Why not? Are there not easterly flowing streams all over the east coast of N America? Does that area not cover tens of thousands of sqaure miles?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: This is getting ridiculous. Who was taught the geological column in kindergarten? And why are flood plains not non-marine? And who was taught that epeiric seas were not responsible for the shelf deposits? You have got everything so convoluted that you are basically lost.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Then what do you think happens in non-marine deposits? Several of these environments are above sea level, so one would expect the sandstones in marine and near-marine environments to have stream generated cross beds. I am also waiting for the velocity data along with a comparison to the same modern envirionments.
quote: No, it is due to eons and eons of various types of marine and non-marine environments. I never learned about the geological column in kindergarten. In fact, I never learned it until college.
quote: Then your teachers were not competent. I am sorry this is the case. Perhaps that has helped lead to your current misunderstanding of geology. Perhaps you should depend less on television for you education. I think you are inventing a problem here that does not realy exist because it suits your agenda. The reason for focussing on streams and swamps is because of the connection with terrestrial life... mainly dinosaurs which are the center of attention for primary schoolers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: No, not. You have not explained how evaporites, eolian deposits and dinosaur tracks, nest, etc. are found in the middle of a global flood.
quote: You might just cause me to pray in that case. You'd set us back generations.
quote: I'm not sure why that would be the case. You still have not shown the entire continent to have been covered by water of any composition.
quote: But an irrelevant one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, I am biased toward reasonable explanations and diligent science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: So, TB, if you have all these surges and tsunamis etc., why do we have currents in only one direction. Seems that we should have at least two dominant directions. Also, since we are dealing with surges, can you tell us at what point during all of these surges the entire planet was submerged and how long that submersion lasted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Are you implying that you haven't said anything yet? Good luck in your reading. However, I am concerned that you do not have the background to understand what you are reading and prefer to misinterpret or misrepresent what you see. For example, no one is convinced that a surging flood would leave evidence of a single flow direction. This is not argued persuasively by your scenario. You are stretching on this. However, you have seen a few flow diagrams that you now interpret to be flood surges. I seriously doubt that you have seen ANY evidence in the field of ANY type of flow, and yet here you are an expert on paleocurrents because you have a 'gut feeling.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Even thought there are so many items that they cannot explain?
quote: Specifics, please. You have not given us anything that a first year geology student couldn't answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Half the continent? What about the other half? Once again, I must explain that the currents you see plotted are prevailing currents and that there is a lot of diversity of current directions in any data set. This is due to an overall westward paleoslope on the west side of the original Appalachian Mtns. Also, these are probably from non marine sediments, though you do not specify exactly what they are. Also, what happened to your argument that these non-marine sediments are an insignificant part of the record? Furthermore, in order to indicate a worldwide flood, you need to show a consistent pattern around the entire world. You and wmscott seemt to have a problem understanding what evidence is necessary to support your points. To him, whale bones found at 700 feet in elevation are evidence for a worldwide flood! You position is little better.
quote: Once again, I will ask you: how many streams do you think there are in the Amazon basin on the east side of the Andes? One? Two? Hundreds? Maybe even thousands? If I measured current directions, do you think I would get a prevailing direction somewhere to the north and east? Would they not cover about half of a continent?
quote: You have not shown current directions for any epeiric seas that I can tell. I thought you were talking about the nonmarine sediments. If you think there are such currents in epeiric seas, then I would like you to show me the current directions in the Mancos Shale and then show how they are coordinated with those you have already discussed.
quote: You have yet to show us any such thing, other than state that your intuitive reaction is that the biblical flood is a better model than the mainstream theory. That is ALL you've got.
quote: As far as I can tell, you haven't done any work yet. You have simply reacted to partial information and relied upon your gut reaction. On the other hand, some of us have taken years of geology classes and spent more years in the field with concepts that actually work. And yet your are so confident that we are dead wrong.
quote: You have seen some of this data and it clearly indicates some divergent directions that you feel compelled to ignore. You also have not considered that this data is from a relatively small slice of time and a small area of the world. Neither have you shown us what type of sediments these measurements are found from. Then you have completely ignored our explanations and attributed it all to some deep geological mystery. Now, please tell us when these surges finally innundated the entire world and how long the innundation lasted. The tell us how you developed nonmarine sedimentary rocks when the entire world was a marine environment. I would also like to see where in the bible there is word of surging oceans. [This message has been edited by edge, 06-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Just a few observations on this thread...
Here is a quote from Pettijohn that Tranquility Base seems to think shows that paleocurrents of the Paloezoic era were constant: "The stability or persistence of a particular paleocurrent system through time.." As you can see, that is not what Pettijohn says. Pettijohn refers to 'stability or persistence' of a paleocurrent systemthrough time, not a constant paleocurrent direction through time. As usual, TB lacks the background to critically analyze what TB is reading in the geological literature. I am also amused that TB has frequently mentioned that our 'kindergartners' are not taught the correct version of geological events and that pelagic and epeiric seas are given a minimal role in development of the geological column, while non-marine, swamp-type environments are somehow extremely exaggerated. In contrast to this viewpoint, I am presently reading Windows into the Earth by Smith and Siegel (2000, p33), in which they specifically mention the relative amounts of time for deep-sea sedimentation and the presence of epeiric seas in the Cretaceous. I am not sure where TB gets his information, but I have not seen any particular bias toward 'swamp-type' deposition in the geological literature; nor do I see what the motive would be for doing so.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024