Non-marine sediments

I think you need to look at the geographical map in Verhoogen (or any other book with a chapter about coal beds) and you will see how bizaree your position is. The cyclothem beds cover most of these US states and this behaviour of rapid fresh water currents and marine inundations repeats dozens of times with coal in between each time!Let it be recorded that you believe this occurred gradually. If you want to be associated with that postion let it be so.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-27-2002]

quote:

---

Multiple tectonically induced tidal waves could have rapidly uprooted vegetation, deposited sediment and coal and hence produced cyclothems. Inbetween each wave would be catastrophic fresh water flooding due to the 40 days of rain. I'm planning to read Austin's origin work on the floating mat model so I wont propose a detailed model until I've read the masters work.

---

JM: This is why your model is senseless. YOu call on multiple tectonically induced tidal waves depositing 'coal'? Don't you mean source material for later coal formation? What does not make sense to me is the 'razor-fine' contacts established during these 'events'. You are proposing forces that are more known for their chaotic erosive and depositional effects rather than for producing finely laminated sedimentary deposits. Do an experiment. Mix some sand and fresh vegetation in water and slosh it rapidly back and forth over a flat surface and tell me what results. You get nothing like cyclothems. As far as your cry about consistent paleocurrents, I again ask you the question of scale. If we examine the current direction along the western side of the present-day Andes mountains, the prevailing currents would be westwardly. On the eastern side of the Andes, the prevailing currents would be easterly. Your implication, and it is quite misleading (if not outright fraudulent) is that ALL Paleozoic sediments in the US exhibit a SW paleocurrent. This is false. The correct statement is that there is a prevailing SW paleocurrent observed in the sediments where paleocurrents are evident. Within the prevailing SW-directed paleocurrents, there is variability reflecting local topography. I finally note that in your chaotic scenario of tidal waves and chaotic fresh water flooding, the last thing one would expect is a consistent paleocurrent direction. Your conclusion has blinded you to your own inconsistencies!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I think you need to look at the geographical map in Verhoogen (or any other book with a chapter about coal beds) and you will see how bizaree your position is.

---

I think you should go out and work in the coal mines a little bit.

quote:

---

The cyclothem beds cover most of these US states ...

---

Yes, the formations that contain cyclothems cover large areas. However, no single cyclothem has been correlated interregionally. And furthermore, why don't they cover the entire world according to your scenario? I mean, it WAS a worldwide flood, right?

quote:

---

... and this behaviour of rapid fresh water currents and marine inundations repeats dozens of times with coal in between each time!

---

This indicates a worldwide flood? And no, there is not coal found in every cyclothem. Neither do polystrate tree fossils cut through more than one cyclothem. And what rapid fresh water currents are you talking about? You have given us no velocity information nor any assurance that these velocities are anything more than normal streams.

quote:

---

Let it be recorded that you believe this occurred gradually. If you want to be associated with that postion let it be so.

---

Wrong again, but go ahead and whack that strawman a good one for me, too. I'd rather stay with the facts.No geologist denies that there are some catastrophic events. In fact there are multitudes of them in the geological record. They are all part of the uniformitarian evolution of the earth. Some events are rapid, but not ALL events.

JoeIt is well known that you can get nice layering under rapid flow. I never claimed that cyclothems in particular had been demonstrated deterministically via simulations etc.The most correct statemnet on paleozoic paleocurrents is this: the data we have shows a clear continental level SW flow. There is no possible reason for collection bias leading to such an anomoly. This unambiguously demonstrates that the processes which deposited these beds were correlated across the continent.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2002]

EdgeVerhoogen contains the claim (by others) that some coal seams have been correlated across the entire half-continental distance. Even if this is not true the scope is vast.Verhoogen talks about SW fresh water paelocurrents correlated across these cyclothem beds.What strawman did I construct? None of the models in Verhhogen are catastrophic! Is there a catastrophic mainstream cyclothem model? What is it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Verhoogen contains the claim (by others) that some coal seams have been correlated across the entire half-continental distance. Even if this is not true the scope is vast.

---

No. Coal-bearing formations, or epochs can be correlated in time. They are not the same seams. Frequently, coal seams cannot be correlated for certain across a single mining district. Most of the ones I have drilled pinch out within a matter of miles.

quote:

---

Verhoogen talks about SW fresh water paelocurrents correlated across these cyclothem beds.

---

Yes, on the east coast of North America in the late Paleozoic the primary paleoslope was to the south and west.

quote:

---

What strawman did I construct? None of the models in Verhhogen are catastrophic!

---

That is because the cyclothems of the east coast and in the basic understanding of coal deposits, deposition is not extremely catastrophic. Now, there are catastrophic deposits. No one has ever said there aren't. It's just that these are not (unless you happen to be a tree inundated by a rising sea level).

quote:

---

Is there a catastrophic mainstream cyclothem model? What is it?

---

Not that I know of. The fact that they can be call cyclothems at all suggests that they are normal events that gradually built up a system. Your original comment sounded like you believed that no geologists beleive in ANY catastrophic events.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The most correct statemnet on paleozoic paleocurrents is this: the data we have shows a clear continental level SW flow.

---

Where's the data? Nothing you have shown makes this clear at all. They may show a prevailing direction, but not a constant direction. The paleoslope would give enough bias to cause a tendency for a prevailing direction.

Edge - the point is that there is a statistically significant non-zero bias! Why else would mainstream researchers come to the conclusion that the 'sandstone was brought in by SW currents'. It has no Biblical conotations until one appreciates the sub-continental scope of the event. The word flood would be used if it were not over such a large area. You don't agree, fine - I am simply telling you my impression.How does one get sandstones brought in from the NE over continental distances? You have a paleoslope. but the point is that there was a shallow freshwater inland sea (lake) there periodically. Are you talking periodic uplift/subsidence, 50 times, with always the same pattern?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge - the point is that there is a statistically significant non-zero bias! Why else would mainstream researchers come to the conclusion that the 'sandstone was brought in by SW currents'. It has no Biblical conotations until one appreciates the sub-continental scope of the event. The word flood would be used if it were not over such a large area. You don't agree, fine - I am simply telling you my impression.

​

How does one get sandstones brought in from the NE over continental distances? You have a paleoslope. but the point is that there was a shallow freshwater inland sea (lake) there periodically. Are you talking periodic uplift/subsidence, 50 times, with always the same pattern?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2002]

---

JM: I'll repeat what has been mentioned elsewhere. You've not made a very good case for a flood with your cyclothem claims nor your paleocurrent claims. As I and others have mentioned, and you've yet to supply an answer, the paleocurrent data you supply do not support a global flood model. Consistency is not likely in such a tumultuous event as you have elsewhere described nor is the depositional model realistic. You can sit there and claim it is until you are blue in the face, but until you actually publish your experiments and all the data (not cribbed material from creationists) you've not made a case. The geologists here are growing tired of you, not because you are making a strong case, but because you fail to defend your case with even a modicum of data. Surely a Ph.Ded scientist knows the value of supplying data to defend a case. A Ph.Ded scientist should also know the value of publishing those data. Why not write up a paper and let us review it? Make it complete with references and data so that we can critically evaluate it. All you've done so far is post a few links and a couple of text passages. I know that you are well aware that such items do not make for a strong scientific paper. We hold you to a much higher standard than the high-schoolers posting here because you should know better. Go ahead, write the paper, and come back at us with data rather than sweeping generalizations. Then we can make some headway.CheersJoe Meert

Joe I agree with some of what you've said. However, I am utterly convinced that the data I have outlined points to the flood.I know exactly what sort of research I would do if I was a career flood geologist. I'm not so you wont get that paper. I'm aware of the enornmous amount of work required to formalise what I'm saying and I'll keep an eye out for papers in CEN TJ etc so that I can post other peoples work along these lines.

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe I agree with some of what you've said. However, I am utterly convinced that the data I have outlined points to the flood.

​

I know exactly what sort of research I would do if I was a career flood geologist. I'm not so you wont get that paper. I'm aware of the enornmous amount of work required to formalise what I'm saying and I'll keep an eye out for papers in CEN TJ etc so that I can post other peoples work along these lines.

​

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

---

JM: Publishing in creationist vanity journals is not going to convince anyone (other than creationists) that you are on to anything. I am editor of Gondwana Research and would be happy to receive your article for review. You would need to slant it toward Gondwana, but given that you are talking about all this during a Pangea time frame (creationist years), I think it could fit in the journal. You can find author guidelines at: http://gondwanaresearch.com
You may be utterly convinced that you are on to something, but you've not supplied any good support for a global flood on these pages. Just a bunch of over-generalizations and 'couldabeens'. Hardly the stuff of paradigm shifts. The invitation is given to you to submit your article.CheersJoe Meert

^ Thanks for the invite. If I was a flood geologist I would certainly publish mainstream (as well as creationist - it's nice to be able to write openly creationist sometimes too). But this project is not one that can be done by moonlighting (without destroying my family life).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Thanks for the invite. If I was a flood geologist I would certainly publish mainstream (as well as creationist - it's nice to be able to write openly creationist sometimes too). But this project is not one that can be done by moonlighting (without destroying my family life).

---

JM: That's the rub? I've looked through all your posts once again and found precious little unambiguous support for your claims. Sweeping generalizations and 'couldabeens' are pretty lousy science as we both know. Perhaps, if you could even sit down for a week or two and publish a coherent web page with some supporting data. That would certainly lead to a more reasoned discussion. As you might imagine, your ideas--no matter how logical to you--are going to meet with resistance from those of us who have looked at a fair number of the rocks you are speaking about. There is much to be said for a fresh outlook, but unless you supply meaningful and coherent data with that outlook, you're going to be met with criticism (if not outright hostility). You take the typical novice approach to the data by making sweeping generalizations about topics which many of us have researched well beyond your cursory views. You MIGHT be right, but without any data to back your position, you are unlikely to convince anyone other than those who were already convinced. I repeat, we are going to be more demanding of you than the high-schoolers on here because you should know the rigors of science. So take a few weeks (or months) and develop something internally consistent. I'll wait!Cheersjoe Meert

We'll see Joe. I truly value the comments of people here - I am putting something together but I admit it is largely a plausibility arguement. I personally think my emphasis on the marine/non-marine stratigraphy and paleocurrents has a slighlty new angle on it as compard to Austin, Snelling, Baumgardner, Walker et al.The research I would want to look at if I were a career flood geologists is, in two parts:(1) Compare many local geological columns world wide for general patterns of marine and non-marine beds. I may get around to this.(2) Study the patterns of paleocurrents in these beds, carefully distinguishing marine from non-marine.Chadwick has partially done (2) but the data on his web site is difficult to use and he hasn't distinguished between marine and no-marine. Now, for (1) above I need to go look at lots of local geological column papers. Is there a web database that I could extract this info from for a number of local columns? Would I be able to determine marine/non-marine and bed thickness? What about horizontal 2D extent? I pessimistically suspect that no such database exists.

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge - the point is that there is a statistically significant non-zero bias!

---

Yes! Exactly what a paleoslope would do!

quote:

---

Why else would mainstream researchers come to the conclusion that the 'sandstone was brought in by SW currents'. It has no Biblical conotations until one appreciates the sub-continental scope of the event. The word flood would be used if it were not over such a large area. You don't agree, fine - I am simply telling you my impression.

---

THat is the problem. You usage of the word 'flood' simply represents a scale that is unattained in the geological record.

quote:

---

How does one get sandstones brought in from the NE over continental distances?

---

By transport down a paleoslope that dips SW.

quote:

---

You have a paleoslope. but the point is that there was a shallow freshwater inland sea (lake) there periodically.

---

No problem. Then the current pattern would adjust ever so slightly.

quote:

---

Are you talking periodic uplift/subsidence, 50 times, with always the same pattern?

---

Well, the exact number is in doubt, but sure, that's very possible, depending on climatic patterns, actual topography and activity of the mid-ocean ridges.