Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Paleocurrents: the 'diverse' features of the GC were laid via rapid, correlated flow
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 46 of 109 (11793)
06-19-2002 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tranquility Base
06-17-2002 9:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The 'surprise' recorded by paleocurrent researchers clearly was related to the extent of correlation in time and space. Noise may have been a part of it but not the whole story.
If they were so surprised, why are they not flood geologists?
quote:
My statement about the meaningfulness of paleocurrent data is that they are typically represetative of a region which earlier you seemed to be be doubting.
There are prevailing current directions. We have explained this to you. You have ignored us.
quote:
Of course rivers and streams generate paelocurrents but not ordered over tens of thousands of square miles!!
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-17-2002 9:23 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-19-2002 12:52 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 109 (11795)
06-19-2002 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by edge
06-19-2002 12:41 AM


Edge
The paleocurrent researchers invariably explain the local data via local 3D topology. It is difficult to find mainstream apraisals of the continental trends.
Easterly flowing streams don't generate anything like the epeiric sea deposits or the typical non-marine beds! These beds are sheets of strata not river beds! Please take those mainstream blinkers off and look at the strata. The geological column is nothing like what we were taught in kindergarden. It's not rivers and swamps - it's vast epeiric marine deposists and huge fresh water flood plains whether Noahic or not!!
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by edge, posted 06-19-2002 12:41 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-19-2002 11:53 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 50 by edge, posted 06-20-2002 12:58 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 48 of 109 (11823)
06-19-2002 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Tranquility Base
06-19-2002 12:52 AM


I strongly suspect, that if the collective deposits of the modern east coast of the U.S. streams were studied, the big picture arrived at would be of the nature of the molasse deposits, as mentioned in message 9.
Side note: Of course, present day stream processes have been radically influenced by human engineering projects.
quote:
These beds are sheets of strata not river beds!
Once again, what we need is detailed information on one or more of your non-marine "sheets of strata". I suspect that this detailed information could very well show that at least some are a result of uniformatarianist aluvial processes (ie. "river beds").
TB, care to pick a specific non-marine "sheet of strata", to explore in detail?
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-19-2002 12:52 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-19-2002 10:03 PM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 109 (11840)
06-19-2002 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Minnemooseus
06-19-2002 11:53 AM


Moose
I wish I could find a summary of the nature of non-marine beds but because you guys are primarily uniformitarian the idea that they could be correlated isn't really raised mainstream! I do plan to study some papers on large non-marine beds.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-19-2002 11:53 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-20-2002 8:02 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 50 of 109 (11847)
06-20-2002 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Tranquility Base
06-19-2002 12:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
... The geological column is nothing like what we were taught in kindergarden. It's not rivers and swamps - it's vast epeiric marine deposists and huge fresh water flood plains whether Noahic or not!!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-19-2002 12:52 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-20-2002 2:13 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 109 (11852)
06-20-2002 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by edge
06-20-2002 12:58 AM


Edge, your suggestion that streams could account for paleocurrents measured in vast sheet like beds is bizaree to say the least. That is why, to me, it sounded like you still believed the stories we learned in 'kindergarden'*. The average layman thinks the column is due to eons and eons of swamps and rivers. Go ask them. It most certainly is not.
* Whenever I use the term kindergarden I mean things we learned as laymen via TV, school and, yes, kindergarden. My primary school teachers at the very least taught me about long ages of swamps.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by edge, posted 06-20-2002 12:58 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by edge, posted 06-21-2002 12:37 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 52 of 109 (11902)
06-20-2002 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
06-19-2002 10:03 PM


Just a note:
Material concerning both paleocurrents and non-marine sedimentation has ended up in the "Non-marine sediments" topic at
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=18&m=110#110
I have responded to message 110, in message 112 of that topic.
Cheers,
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-19-2002 10:03 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 53 of 109 (11923)
06-21-2002 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tranquility Base
06-20-2002 2:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, your suggestion that streams could account for paleocurrents measured in vast sheet like beds is bizaree to say the least.
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:
That is why, to me, it sounded like you still believed the stories we learned in 'kindergarden'*. The average layman thinks the column is due to eons and eons of swamps and rivers. Go ask them. It most certainly is not.
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:
* Whenever I use the term kindergarden I mean things we learned as laymen via TV, school and, yes, kindergarden. My primary school teachers at the very least taught me about long ages of swamps.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-20-2002 2:13 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 12:41 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 109 (12020)
06-24-2002 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by edge
06-21-2002 12:37 PM


Edge
I would suggest that most of the non-marine beds worldwide are flood deposits - Noahic for us, regional for you. My reading s so far indicate this to be potentailly true for the large non-marine deposits.
I'm also waiting for the velocity data and comparison to the same modern envirionments. Someone here should put a grant porposal in and do the work. Maybe I will.
I switched from physics to biology . . maybe geology next?
I'm aware that the layman swamp impression of the geological column comes from dinosaurs. But I bet layman would have a different impression of creationism if you told them that the continental geological column is dominated by invasions of the sea and vast fresh-water beds that cover US state sized areas. Can anyone here deny that this is the true nature of the geological column? I know no-one can deny this becasue it is an empirical fact!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by edge, posted 06-21-2002 12:37 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by edge, posted 06-24-2002 12:52 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 55 of 109 (12022)
06-24-2002 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Tranquility Base
06-24-2002 12:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I would suggest that most of the non-marine beds worldwide are flood deposits - Noahic for us, regional for you. My reading s so far indicate this to be potentailly true for the large non-marine deposits.
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:
I'm also waiting for the velocity data and comparison to the same modern envirionments. Someone here should put a grant porposal in and do the work. Maybe I will.
I switched from physics to biology . . maybe geology next?
You might just cause me to pray in that case. You'd set us back generations.
quote:
I'm aware that the layman swamp impression of the geological column comes from dinosaurs. But I bet layman would have a different impression of creationism if you told them that the continental geological column is dominated by invasions of the sea and vast fresh-water beds that cover US state sized areas.
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:
Can anyone here deny that this is the true nature of the geological column? I know no-one can deny this becasue it is an empirical fact!
But an irrelevant one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 12:41 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 1:33 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 109 (12034)
06-24-2002 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by edge
06-24-2002 12:52 AM


^ Are you sure you're not just a little biased Edge?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by edge, posted 06-24-2002 12:52 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by edge, posted 06-24-2002 9:31 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 58 by Joe Meert, posted 06-25-2002 2:09 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 57 of 109 (12100)
06-24-2002 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tranquility Base
06-24-2002 1:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Are you sure you're not just a little biased Edge?

Yes, I am biased toward reasonable explanations and diligent science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 1:33 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 58 of 109 (12159)
06-25-2002 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tranquility Base
06-24-2002 1:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Are you sure you're not just a little biased Edge?

JM: Well, I've just returned from the field (Midcontinent US) and a little worse for the wear (wrenched lower back out of alignment) and see that the debate has progressed very little. Aside from being convinced that God did a poor job designing our backs, I am also convinced that the rocks don't tell of a global flood! We saw several instances of well-developed paleosols and continental redbeds sandwiched between shallow marine sediments with clear evidence for erosional hiatus. The paleocurrent argument being played out here continues to border on the ridiculous. A global flood that is also responsible for the uplift of mountains, fountains erupting from the deep etc is NOT going to leave regions of consistent paleocurrents. The onus is on the flood geologist to show why these could have only formed in a Noachian flood event. Did you back off somewhere with your claim of no paleocurrents in the Precambrian (that one was hilarious)?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 1:33 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 9:02 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 109 (12181)
06-25-2002 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Joe Meert
06-25-2002 2:09 PM


Joe
Welcome back (to you and your back).
I backed (a lot of backs around here) off from saying the pC paleocurrents were zero. I now say that they are non-correlated - so due primarily to 3D topography but I'm only basing this on Chadwick so I'd be quite happy to completely recant in the light of mainstream data.
In our model we expect ordered paleocurrents for the high energy components of the flood. Empirically this is what we see in much of the Paleozoic. It is not ridicuous and it is not a baseless expectation. If marine innundaitons were rapid, even tidal wave like then we expect to see something exactly like the Paleozoic.
BTW, so what exactly is the basis for identifying paleosoils in the column? Terrestial eroded surface? Terrestial habitats? Sediment constituents?
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Joe Meert, posted 06-25-2002 2:09 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Joe Meert, posted 06-25-2002 11:35 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 60 of 109 (12187)
06-25-2002 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Tranquility Base
06-25-2002 9:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe
Welcome back (to you and your back).
I backed (a lot of backs around here) off from saying the pC paleocurrents were zero. I now say that they are non-correlated - so due primarily to 3D topography but I'm only basing this on Chadwick so I'd be quite happy to completely recant in the light of mainstream data.
In our model we expect ordered paleocurrents for the high energy components of the flood. Empirically this is what we see in much of the Paleozoic. It is not ridicuous and it is not a baseless expectation. If marine innundaitons were rapid, even tidal wave like then we expect to see something exactly like the Paleozoic.
BTW, so what exactly is the basis for identifying paleosoils in the column? Terrestial eroded surface? Terrestial habitats? Sediment constituents?
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-25-2002]

JM: So all tidal waves arrive from exactly the same direction? Seems odd given the levels of seismicity needed in your model! I would expect to see high variability in tsunami deposits rather than regularity on such a fine scale. By the way, paleocurrents in many Precambrian deposits are rather uniform as well. OF course, the uniformity in both Paleozoic and other deposits is highly dependent upon scale of observation. For example, all sediment transport in the Mississippi on a gross scale is to the south, on a finer scale, the paleocurrent directions will be variable.
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 06-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 9:02 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-26-2002 12:22 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024