Paleocurrents: the 'diverse' features of the GC were laid via rapid, correlated flow

MooseThese smaller processes you could say are non-flood, we could say they are local freshwater flooding but due to the catastrophic global rain.I've read mountains exist for about 10 million years via other mainstream estimates but let's check that up.These flows are 'rapid' enough to generate statistically significant ordering. They are much more rapid than anything in the Precambrian. I am utterly convinced by intuition (gained from scuba diving) they are far more rapid than what occurs in shelf floors today. I am yet to find hard data on this though and would love to see it. I do not deny that locally one might get rapid currents (eg in the Straights of Gibraltar) but on your continent we know that it is continent wide. On averge, almost all sedimentary rock you dig up from eg an eperic sea deposit will display ordered flow. It is not due to local 3D topography in general.

First of all, I find this map to be such a simplified summary of so much data, that is of most questionable value:
http://geology.swau.edu/paleocur/pznorth.htmlUnfortunately, the by period maps are of the entire world, and are effectively illegible.I must ponder the remainder of you "wishful thinking" post. I now, however, must ask you: Were the Appalachian rocks we were previously discussing, a result of "catastrophic" processes? Any meaningful results require that we discuss the details, not just some broad generalization of geology.And, how many of those paleocurrent measurements you talk about, are from rocks deposited from non-marine, fluvial processes?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

[QUOTE][b]Gene90, so how did these hoodoos form from a mainstream POV?[/QUOTE][/b]Hard rock capping a limestone (or similar) base. Add eons of rain.Of course, lateral motion from a flood would topple it.

[QUOTE][b]Your continent was flooded by rapid correlated marine flows and this was supplemented by freshwater flows down slopes.[/QUOTE][/b]Then you need intact deltas high upon mountain ridges.

[QUOTE][b]Edge, we'll have to see what the modern strata paleocurrents look like but I already know that you will not get ordered paleocurrents across thousands of square miles of today's shelves (I have scuba dived).[/QUOTE][/b]I have some limited experience here as well. The places we dive are shallow (most of the time under 100') and are almost always near obstructions (wrecks, reefs, ledges, etc) that will disrupt the natural direction of the current--that's why there is so much marine life there. Also we usually dive not only on the continental shelf but very near land, where inconsistencies in the shape of the beach will redirect currents and where tidal currents become an issue. If we were 100 miles offshore over a uniform bottom the direction of the current would likely stay fairly consistent. (But it probably wouldn't be worth the dive)In short, SCUBA people dive the anomalies and pass over the 'normal' sea bottom. I feel that what we see down there is likely *not* representative of the 'typical' bottom.

I agree Moose, it would be great to have the data on a per continent, per epoch basis (Please Dr. Chadwick?).All we can say is that the non-marine Appalachian rocks were generated under rapid flow. It may be difficult to distinguish between your model and my model. In both cases we appeal to 3D topography. For you it is lots of floods (I presume) for me it is one. The point of distinguishment would be the relief at the unconformities. Does the non-marine paleocurrents support a global flood? I don't know becasue we don't have the data split into marine and non-marine although I've got the feeling that the non-marine beds are more flow correlated across the continent than you guys would like. But the marine paleocurrents do not support the placid epeiric sea idea that is certain.I would imagine that most of the paleocurrent measurements are from marine deposits.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-13-2002]

Can you explain Gene90? Your posts are very brief.

"Hard rock capping a limestone (or similar) base. Add eons of rain.Of course, lateral motion from a flood would topple it."
--Are we aware of any "paleohoodoo's"? I may have to come to accept a Cenozoic+ sediment post-flood deposition after all.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-13-2002]

You might be right about the diving but I doubt it is enough to explain the data Gene90. Remember the entire Precambiran systematically has near zero paleocurrents. I really think that is what you will see for the normal situation. If you think currents sufficient to generate continent wide paleocurrents are the norm then why zero currents in the Precambrian marine beds?

From TB, message 21:

quote:

---

All we can say is that the non-marine Appalachian rocks were generated under rapid flow.

---

How do you define this "rapid" flow? I see "normal" flow.

quote:

---

It may be difficult to distinguish between your model and my model. In both cases we appeal to 3D topography. For you it is lots of floods (I presume) for me it is one.

---

For me, it's primarily normal fluvial processes. Little or nothing unususal; little or nothing that we don't see happening in the modern world.

quote:

---

I would imagine that most of the paleocurrent measurements are from marine deposits.

---

I would guess that most were non-marine. Without knowing the nature of the paleocurrent indicators, or the type of sediments they're in (at least marine or non-marine), any discussion of substance is impossible. If they were, say, all non-marine, then your position would be badly hurt. If they were all marine, my position would be badly hurt. For the essence (but not all) of the arguement (it seems) is the distribution of marine and non-marine sediments.TB from message 24:

quote:

---

Remember the entire Precambrian systematically has near zero paleocurrents.

---

I don't know what you mean by that word "systematically", but there is an abundance of paleocurrent indicators in Precambrian rocks. And there are many areas of consistant general flow direction, much as in the Appalachian example previously discussed. I'll dig into my Precambrian Geology class notes, if you want more on this.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 06-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Remember the entire Precambiran systematically has near zero paleocurrents. I really think that is what you will see for the normal situation. If you think currents sufficient to generate continent wide paleocurrents are the norm then why zero currents in the Precambrian marine beds?

---

Precambrian sedimentary deposits are poorly represented, hence few paleocurrents from the Precambrian. But it looks to me like they are relatively well represented. Perhaps you can better explain your position, I'm (obviously) a bit confused. http://geology.swau.edu/paleocur/precatot.htmlAs for the Hoodoos, they are caused by a water resistant rock (such as basalt) covering less resistant or more porous rock (limestone or sandstone). Rainwater will have access to the entire structure except rock directly under the basalt (or whatever) cap. The result is the rest of the formation eroding away except the basalt boulder and the sandstone underneath, now holding it high in the air.You can see something rather similar happen in miniature when pebbles rest upon clay or silt that is exposed to rain, since most of the erosion is from the impact of raindrops, the rest of the clay bed washes away, leaving the pebbles elevated a few centimeters above the ground, now supported by pillars of clay directly underneath.Ah the joy of a childhood spent walking into stuff.

quote:

---

TrueCreation Are we aware of any "paleohoodoo's"?

---

I'm not the one to ask. *But* I think there *could* be such a thing. The place to look would be 'fossil' dunes or perhaps other aeolian deposits. It sounds like a terribly esoteric thing to look for but might give clues regarding paleoseismology.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 06-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I've read mountains exist for about 10 million years via other mainstream estimates but let's check that up.

---

Depends. What kind of mountains and under what kind of erosional processes?

quote:

---

These flows are 'rapid' enough to generate statistically significant ordering.

---

You have yet to show that they are:a) Rapidb) Significantly different from modern currents

quote:

---

They are much more rapid than anything in the Precambrian.

---

Quite an assertion. Do you have anything to back it up?

quote:

---

I am utterly convinced by intuition (gained from scuba diving) they are far more rapid than what occurs in shelf floors today.

---

First of all, who said they were all in shelf sediments? Second, how do you measure these currents?

quote:

---

I am yet to find hard data on this though and would love to see it.

---

Maybe the lack is trying to tell you something...

quote:

---

I do not deny that locally one might get rapid currents (eg in the Straights of Gibraltar) but on your continent we know that it is continent wide. On averge, almost all sedimentary rock you dig up from eg an eperic sea deposit will display ordered flow. It is not due to local 3D topography in general.

---

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.

Moose, the flow was rapid enough to generate ordered paleocurrent observables. I would expect that in rivers and floods but not systematically on sea floors. OK - we're talking non-marine so I'll agree that it is 'normal' for rivers and floods. But in that case you then have to agree that the large non-marine beds were laid by floods (obviously many of them)? If you agree then we're back to the unconformity issue.OK what is your normal fluvial mechanism? We're not talking rivers here - look at the correlated Paleozoic data on either side of the Rockies (I presume it's the precursor of the Rockies?). If that data is non-marine (likely since it's high up) then you have vast non-marine beds.I fully agree we need to sort out if these paleocurrent measurements are marine or non-marine. Across the continent I suspect they are generally marine. If they are primarily non-marine then you are in really big trouble Moose - they are generally correlated across the continent somehting you should certainly not expect! If they are primarily marine then you don't have placid epeiric seas.I'm basing my comments on the creationist Chadwick who summarized the Precambrian data as typically having no order. I admitt I don't have a mainstream source on that.

Edge, I would love to show you somehting comparing the rapidity of currents to modern ones - I just can't find it in the mainstream literature. I don't think Pettijohn commented on it in his book either - I was looking out for it.The surprise expressed by the researchers quoted by Pettijohn is what makes me think the rapidiy and order are 'not normal'.My statement about the Precambrian is admittedly sourced from Chadwick's creationist summary (see the first post).These researchers are clearly claiming that the paleocurrent meaurements that they summarize as a vector on a map will be characteristic of the local region - not a single data point. It would be meaningless if you go 100 metres away and you get a different result. that is certainly not what they are claiming.You say what you like but I intuitvely know that currents which can order pebbles and ripple marks are significant. I've searched the USGS-georef and can't find anything relating paleocurrents to modern day currents. There should be a review on the issue somewhere shouldn't there? I only have access to the USGS abstracts.

Gene90, given Chadwick's comment (see first post) I presume the flow rates are low.As for the Hoodoos, I guess we have 4500 years of Lyellian processes not to mention the fact that the flood gradually morphed from catastrophic to Lyellian during the flood drainage.