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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Moose

​

The data on cyclothems alone is sufficient to raise a lot of doubt in the mainstream explanations of vast non-marine beds and cyclothems in particular.

---

(Sorry to jump in here Moose, but I can't resist).You just don't get it, TB. The cyclothems are an explanation of the geological data. Please explain what you mean. Why would the data disagree with the explanation? Tell us just how stupid generations of geologists have been. Why can cyclothems not have fresh water portions?

quote:

---

If these things don't trouble you, fine. I beleive both you and edge are completely mistaken about your understandings of paleocurrents.

---

Well, I guess you are the expert.

quote:

---

The non-marie sandstone paelocurrents indicate that the entire sandstone bed was laid via a SW flow.

---

Actually, it doesn't. There was a prevailing SW direction, perhaps, but this is not surprising knowing that the paleoslope controlled the non-marine deposition.

quote:

---

You can go anywhere in the bed and on average it will be SW.

---

On the average! You mean not always? How do you account for these divergent directions, then?

quote:

---

The idea of rivers is totally ludicrous. You cannot use paleoslope explanations because you have a lake there periodically (50 times or so).

---

Yes, a standing body of water would cover some lowlands if sea level rose a few feet. Last time I checked, this would not be a global flood. How do you know it was a lake, by the way? A suspicion or a gut reaction?

quote:

---

(Sorry to jump in here Moose, but I can't resist).

---

You're more than welcome to. I personally think that all possible discussion has been done, until TB comes up with some additional and substantial data to clarifiy and substantiate his paleocurrent claims.

quote:

---

(Addressed to TB)
How do you know it was a lake, by the way? A suspicion or a gut reaction?

---

I fired my last major shot at message 131 of the "Mon-marine Sediments" topic. I'll repeat (or re-repeat) some of what I posted there.

quote:

---

Repeating the cyclothem description (p.441 of Verhoogen et all):

​

[quote within quote]
A typical cyclothem in Illinois (see Figure 8-30) has sandstone and shale at the base, overlain by discontinuous layers of fresh-water limestone, which is overlain in turn by a coal bed. A meter or less of hard flinty clay beneath the coal, called underclay, is interpreted to be the soil beneath the coal-swamp vegetation. The coal is overlain by gray shale with a marine invertebrate fauna and scattered plant fossils (apparently floating vegetation). which grades upward into a variable alternating sequence of marine limestone, black marine shale, and gray marine shale. This marine sequence is overlain in turn by the basal sandstone and shale of the next cyclothem.
[end of quote within quote]

​

Note the phrase: "discontinuous layers of fresh-water limestone".

---

AND

quote:

---

Now, from Pettijohn's Sedimentary Rocks, 3rd ed., p. 320:

​

[quote within quote]
Freshwater carbonates In some present-day freshwater lakes friable carbonate earths, designated marl, are forming (Davis, 1900). (...gap...) Marl beds also underlie many freshwater swamp peats, recording an earlier lacustrine stage.
[end of quote within quote]

---

This is where, more or less, the lake discussion originated. I have no problem visualizing lakes on a low relief surface, even if it does have a general SW (paleo)slope.I also quoted a major chunk of Verhoogen et all's discussion of cyclothem formation, at that other page. See it at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=18&m=131#131Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

EdgeYou think I don't get it? Your first paragrpah makes it clear that you think the naming of a phenomenon is the same as an explanation.There are half a dozen mainstream explanations of cyclothems that are qualitativelydifferent! It is not a closed case.The paleoslope controlled the non-marine deposition did it? That is your inference Edge - what if it was catastrophic flooding across flat terrain from the NE? The divergent directions are due to local 3D paleoslopes. There were shallow fresh water lakes above the sandstones inferred from the fresh water shales above the sandstones.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge

​

You think I don't get it? Your first paragrpah makes it clear that you think the naming of a phenomenon is the same as an explanation.

​

There are half a dozen mainstream explanations of cyclothems that are qualitativelydifferent! It is not a closed case.

​

The paleoslope controlled the non-marine deposition did it? That is your inference Edge - what if it was catastrophic flooding across flat terrain from the NE? The divergent directions are due to local 3D paleoslopes. There were shallow fresh water lakes above the sandstones inferred from the fresh water shales above the sandstones.

---

JM: Data please.CheersJoe MEert

^ Read Verhoogen cited and quoted by myself in the non-marine beds thread (and heavily transcribed by Moose).

^ Starts at around message 110. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=18&m=110#110

TB,Percy has a wonderful summation of my points in the same thread that you reference. You came on this board touting your credentials and then proceed to reject all science that does not agree with your predetermined view of the bible. Did you stop to think about whether or not the Noachian flood story must be true as a matter of salvation? Have you examined the historical discussion of the Sumerian and Hebrew cultures that suggests that, perhaps, the Hebrews merely changed the Gilgamesh epic to fit into their own culture because, after all, it is a good story? Geologists went through the flood pangs long ago. As I mentioned, many of us have gone 'out of the intro textbook cribbing' stage to actually look at the rocks. You misquoted Verhoogen (as was pointed out to you) in order to support your bias. I hope this is not how you write scientific papers?! Culling sections of other work out of full context is something we've all come to expect from creationists. What you've not done, and what we implore you to do, is provide us with a self-consistent model of the global flood. We won't get one from you or any other creationist. Why? It's simple, a global flood of Noachian proportions would leave unequivocal evidence if it occurred only 4000 years ago. Yet, there is no agreement on the part of creationists on an issue as simple as 'what strata mark the onset' and 'what strata mark the end'!! Setterfield has the flood ending where you say it starts. You claim it lasted throughout the Phanerozoic, yet your 'only data' are from the Carboniferous which are not all marine. You've got a lot of work to do. In nearly 200+ years, creationists have not accomplished the simple task of identifying the start and end of the flood in the geologic record! At the very least, might you be able to see WHY conventional geology has abandonded the flood model?CheersJoe Meert

JoeI know about Gilgamesh - I've mentioned before that we believe it is an independent but fanciful account of the historical Noahic flood and if you think a good arguemnt for that can't be made can you tell me why? We both can rationalize Gilgamesh the way we want. It is interesting for both of us. But we feel the preponderance of flood myths even in the supposedly 40,000 years separate Aust Aborigine culture argues for the globality and reality of the Noahic flood.I didn't tout any credentials until I was challenged on that specific issue (you can check up on that). Occasionally since I cited by credentials when relevant.What misquote of Verhoogen did I make? I think I succesfully rebutted that (maybe?).There is little evidence that the proposal of a detailed flood model would be help. If you can't agree that a global flood in surges that allowed for temporary habitation at various levels in the geological column, and was instigated by radiogenic heating is somewhat compatible with the data then there is not much point proceeding. As we all know a detailed flood model will still be hand wavey. Even if I presented a computer simulation of the entire flood we would still argue forever about the input assumptions.Joe, if you can't agree that the type of flood I've suggested above could potentially account for the data then there is little point discussing it further because you are too antagonistic to the concept. If you could say - OK, I can say that this and that are in your favour and this isn't then we could have a useful discussion.I can see why mainstream science has abandoned the flood model - the reasons are both scientific and religious as I've discussed before.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-01-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You think I don't get it? Your first paragrpah makes it clear that you think the naming of a phenomenon is the same as an explanation.

---

Not sure what you mean here. There is an explanation of the physical data. That explanation might be called 'cyclothem theory' if you wish. It explains what we call cyclothems.

quote:

---

There are half a dozen mainstream explanations of cyclothems that are qualitativelydifferent! It is not a closed case.

---

Please give us this information.

quote:

---

The paleoslope controlled the non-marine deposition did it? That is your inference Edge - what if it was catastrophic flooding across flat terrain from the NE?

---

We would see evidence of a flood.

quote:

---

The divergent directions are due to local 3D paleoslopes. There were shallow fresh water lakes above the sandstones inferred from the fresh water shales above the sandstones.

---

So this is evidence for a global flood?

EdgeThe name 'cyclothem' is empirical obviuously named from uninterpreted observation. Any theory, including ours would be a cyclothem theory! We call them cyclothems too! Are you proposing that we need new nouns to refer to the same observations? OK from now on I'll call them ebopluks OK?Read Verhoogen to get at least 4 cyclothem theories transcibed for you by Moose in the non-marine thread.You see no possibility for a vast flood in SW paleocurrents across a bed traversing half of your continent?I make no claim that this is evidence for a global flood. It is consistent with a global flood. I do claim that, at least in Verhoogen, the flood word is avoided for apparently no better reason tha nto have a uniformitarian explanation. Between the lines Verhoogen does seem to question the idea that these were streams (I think he says 'interpreted as' where usually he states solid interpretaion as near fact understandably so).

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-01-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The name 'cyclothem' is empirical obviuously named from uninterpreted observation. Any theory, including ours would be a cyclothem theory! We call them cyclothems too! Are you proposing that we need new nouns to refer to the same observations? OK from now on I'll call them ebopluks OK?

---

The problem is that your theory does not explain cyclothems.

quote:

---

Read Verhoogen to get at least 4 cyclothem theories transcibed for you by Moose in the non-marine thread.

---

Good. Give us your explanation of one or two of them.

quote:

---

You see no possibility for a vast flood in SW paleocurrents across a bed traversing half of your continent?

---

No. That is because I have seen cyclothems. I have worked with them. I understand the processes that formed them. You, on the other hand have found some references in a few books and made up a story that ignores a large tract of geological data.

quote:

---

I make no claim that this is evidence for a global flood. It is consistent with a global flood.

---

If you selectively look at the geology of cyclothems, you could come up with a global flooding scenario. However, the same selective data would also be diagnostic of other theories.

quote:

---

I do claim that, at least in Verhoogen, the flood word is avoided for apparently no better reason tha nto have a uniformitarian explanation.

---

Not at all. I have explained this to you before, but you apparently do not have enough respect to even consider what I say. The term 'flood' has connotations that would cause the users statements to be misrepresented by religious fanatics. That this has happened is a fact. Besides 'flood' is pretty vague. I could have a flood in my basement, in an arroyo, or covering an entire county. It is not really a good term to use. But I don't suppose that this will make any impression upon you.

quote:

---

Between the lines Verhoogen does seem to question the idea that these were streams (I think he says 'interpreted as' where usually he states solid interpretaion as near fact understandably so).

---

I am glad that you understand Verhoogen so well.

How can you say that our theory doesn't explain cyclothems? For a start I haven't put forward a detailed one and the qualitative one (surges of marine vs fresh water flooding) makes a lot of sense becasue it doesn't need to appeal to bizaree repetitions of uplift/flooding/peat bog/subsidence/innundation and it connects the coal formation with the innundations more causally.Why am I almost the only one that gives jargon free summaries of texts around here? Why don't you summarize the mainstream cyclothem theories. You may have seen cyclothem deposists but isn't it possible you've simply accepted the non-catastrophic rationalizations? Why can't you even say that our explanation could be right?If the word flood is a naughty word then what word do you use to descibe local floods? Diluvial? Isn't that equally naughty? I think most of the non-marine beds could be reinterpreted as diluvial.Doesn't the sub-continental scope of many of these beds trouble you at all? Honestly.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
How can you say that our theory doesn't explain cyclothems?

---

Okay, then tell me how trees can grow between flood surges that are less than a year apart.

quote:

---

For a start I haven't put forward a detailed one and the qualitative one (surges of marine vs fresh water flooding) makes a lot of sense becasue it doesn't need to appeal to bizaree repetitions of uplift/flooding/peat bog/subsidence/innundation and it connects the coal formation with the innundations more causally.

---

Then you don't understand the process of transgression and its role in preservation of coal seams.

quote:

---

Why am I almost the only one that gives jargon free summaries of texts around here?

---

Because you dont' have the vocabulary. You fit geology to match your vocabulary.

quote:

---

Why don't you summarize the mainstream cyclothem theories. You may have seen cyclothem deposists but isn't it possible you've simply accepted the non-catastrophic rationalizations? Why can't you even say that our explanation could be right?

---

I have seen nothing else that explains the data. Oh, well, if I pick and choose the data that I will consider; then I suppose one could see the value in other explanations.

quote:

---

If the word flood is a naughty word then what word do you use to descibe local floods?

---

Local floods or local transgressions.

quote:

---

...

​

Doesn't the sub-continental scope of many of these beds trouble you at all?

---

What do you mean by sub-continental? Actually, probably not. Local units militate against a global flood.

Geez edge, don't you realize that the trees aren't growing between the surges? The surges are just rhytmically bringing in new vegetation mats at regular intervals. It testifies to God's glory that each surge brings in precisely the same sequence of sediments and organic material during a global tempest that is also ripping continents apart and creating tsunamis and incredible heat. You have to understand that the flood was both gentle and rough depending on what data you are dealing with. Man, I thought you had that figured out by now!CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 07-02-2002]

EdgeI've explained before that your in situ trees in some cases are clearly not in situ! Other cases may be debatable. Of course you simply assume they are in situ.Of course I understand transgression and its role in the preservation of coal seams. I just don't make a priori assumptions about the rate at which it occurred as you do.