Non-marine sediments

EdgeRegardless of whether it was a paleoslope or not the data clearly demonstrates that the sandstones were deposited as sheets by a flood. And this happened every cyclothem cycle.The fact that global flood geolgoists exist shouldn't stop mainstreamers from correctly identifying that much of the non-marine geological column was deposited by vast but possibly local floods.Where on earth do you get non-marine sandstone sheet depositon over such a distance under rapid flow? If you find somewhere it will be a flood! The cyclothem sandstones were depostied by flood(s)!You need subsidence to get a shallow lake where a slope used to be! And you need it time and time again (50 times) in the same place in the same 3D pattern!We simply propose that the cyclothems are themselves flood deposits. As simple as that. It is a model. If you want to rule it out becasue of uniformitarian bias feel free.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Edge

​

Regardless of whether it was a paleoslope or not the data clearly demonstrates that the sandstones were deposited as sheets by a flood. And this happened every cyclothem cycle.[/QUOTE]

​

JM: No, this is not true. If the data were so clear, then geologist would have reached a similar conclusion. Your flood makes no sense. Flood surges are not rhythmic.

​

quote:

---

The fact that global flood geolgoists exist shouldn't stop mainstreamers from correctly identifying that much of the non-marine geological column was deposited by vast but possibly local floods.

---

​

JM: In contrast to the flood geologists, real ones look at the data and let the data lead them to the conclusions. Creationists have already assumed the conclusion and toss out the parts that disagree or ignore the details.

​

quote:

---

Where on earth do you get non-marine sandstone sheet depositon over such a distance under rapid flow? If you find somewhere it will be a flood! The cyclothem sandstones were depostied by flood(s)!

---

​

JM: Probably from looking at the rocks as most good geologists do. You've focussed so much on N.A. Where are the similar data from other continents (synchronous with NA)? You won't find it. Do you know why?

​

quote:

---

You need subsidence to get a shallow lake where a slope used to be! And you need it time and time again (50 times) in the same place in the same 3D pattern!

---

​

JM: HUH?

​

[QUOTE]We simply propose that the cyclothems are themselves flood deposits. As simple as that. It is a model. If you want to rule it out becasue of uniformitarian bias feel free.[/b]

---

JM: You are simply wrong without having to resort to uniformitarianism. The rock record says so. Without breaking my toe on a rock, you can imagine me kicking one and saying "I reject your notion thusly"!CheersJoe Meert

JoeSW paleocurrents in sandstones strewn across half a continent is a large flood. It is mainstream bias to deny that.You have equally well predetermined your mechanisms as we have.Tas Walker has done flood analyses on Australian basins. As a beginner I will study the dat I can get my hands on easily.Why Huh? There was a shallow fresh water lake cyclically where your supossed SW slope was. That requires ridiculous fine tuning of tectonics. You simply don't want to allow for even regional flooding! It is dead obvious.JM: You are simply wrong without having to resort to uniformitarianism. The rock record says so. Without breaking my toe on a rock, you can imagine me kicking one and saying "I reject your notion thusly"! TB: Huh?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SW paleocurrents in sandstones strewn across half a continent is a large flood. It is mainstream bias to deny that.

---

Why? You have never made an argument as to why this is. In fact, at one time geologists thought as you do now, however, the evidence finally convinced them otherwise. If you followed their reasoning you wouldn't have to 'reinvent the wheel.'

quote:

---

You have equally well predetermined your mechanisms as we have.

---

Actually, I did have a predetermined idea what cause the geological column. After many years of studying the actual rocks I can confidently say that it was wrong.

quote:

---

Tas Walker has done flood analyses on Australian basins. As a beginner I will study the dat I can get my hands on easily.

---

Please do that. Try to come up with something new. What his data will probably say that there was an innundation of various basins, so there must'a been a world wide flood!

quote:

---

Why Huh? There was a shallow fresh water lake cyclically where your supossed SW slope was.

---

TB, do you have any concept of what makes up a paleoslope? There is a bias in the down-gradient direction; not a continuous planar surface that extends across a continent.

quote:

---

That requires ridiculous fine tuning of tectonics. You simply don't want to allow for even regional flooding! It is dead obvious.

---

No. This has been explained to you. Depending upon climates, local sea level, and local topography along with ocean basin volcanism there is no problem 'fine tuning' anything. There is simply fluctuation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Joe

​

SW paleocurrents in sandstones strewn across half a continent is a large flood. It is mainstream bias to deny that.[/QUOTE]

​

JM: Actually, you have only claimed this without evidence. What's even worse is that you've claimed it for non-marine strata. That's a very poor start on your part.

​

quote:

---

You have equally well predetermined your mechanisms as we have.

---

​

JM: You show your naivete both as a geologist and as a scientist. A good scientist may start with a bias, but will ultimately yield to the data. I have looked at the rocks you speak of. Can you say the same thing?

​

quote:

---

Tas Walker has done flood analyses on Australian basins. As a beginner I will study the dat I can get my hands on easily.

---

​

JM: Tas Walker, like you, is a creationist first and like you, is not a geologist. Why should his unpublished stories carry any weight. If you, or Tas, or Barry want to change the status quo, you need to assemble a coherent publishable model. The web may help you appeal to the general public, but you will go unnoticed by modern science.

​

quote:

---

Why Huh? There was a shallow fresh water lake cyclically where your supossed SW slope was. That requires ridiculous fine tuning of tectonics. You simply don't want to allow for even regional flooding! It is dead obvious.

---

​

JM: Actually, it requires a stable continental area and that's it. Yours requires a rhythmic catastrophic flood with continents changing positions and rotating kilometers per day. If you think your model is consistent, then publish it! Quit pussyfooting around on the web hoping to convince high-schoolers that you are correct!

​

[QUOTE]TB: Huh?[/b]

---

JM:Exactly!CheersJoe Meert

EdgeWhy weren't the sandstones laid down by a regional flood?Your fluctuations require tectonic cycles.

JoeThe cyclothem sandstones were laid via SW non-marine currents. It's in Verhoogen!I am not a geologist but I frequently fossick around road cuttings and am well read on the issue. I accept that you have come to the conclusion that the flood is impossible. Nevertheless, I propose that the majority of non-marine strata are easily reinterpreatble as regional flooding. This would change the game. The scope of these beds actually demands it. Neither of you two, or Moose, have shown why the cyclothem sandstones arn't better exaplined by regional flooding. You are plain biased.If we used your criteria then all of my molecular biology papers are rubbish as well simply becasue I did my PhD in physics.You just proposed that the cyclothems could be laid down without fine-tuned tectonics. How, taking into account the fresh water paleocurrents?

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Why weren't the sandstones laid down by a regional flood?

---

No. A flood would have left other evidence. First of all, it shouldn't be sandstone finishing off a cycle. It would be shale. Also the cyclicity suggests a different mechanism. Face it, surges won't work. They have to be too slow.And why are you hedging? I thought it was a global flood.

quote:

---

Your fluctuations require tectonic cycles.

---

Perhaps. But then what is wrong with that? Rasing sea level just a few feet in a hundred years might be all that is necessary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The cyclothem sandstones were laid via SW non-marine currents. It's in Verhoogen!

---

So the streams were flowing down a paleoslope to the SW. What is the problem with this?

quote:

---

I am not a geologist...

---

NO! Really?

quote:

---

... but I frequently fossick around road cuttings and am well read on the issue. I accept that you have come to the conclusion that the flood is impossible.

---

Actually not. Local and even regional flooding is more than possible. It's just that global flooding isn't supported by any evidence.

quote:

---

Nevertheless, I propose that the majority of non-marine strata are easily reinterpreatble as regional flooding.

---

This is an interesting statement. Just where do you suppose that the sediment to be deposited as non-marine beds came from?

quote:

---

This would change the game.

---

Not really.

quote:

---

The scope of these beds actually demands it.

---

Okay, first find me a bed that can be traced across any continent.

quote:

---

Neither of you two, or Moose, have shown why the cyclothem sandstones arn't better exaplined by regional flooding. You are plain biased.

---

Please read my posts of tonight. I feel like I'm really wasting time here, TB. Maybe that's the biggest problem that I have with your posts. Please answer just one or two of my questions. I'd feel so much better.

quote:

---

If we used your criteria then all of my molecular biology papers are rubbish as well simply becasue I did my PhD in physics.

---

So you are an expert in molecular biology, nuclear physics and geology. I'm impressed.

quote:

---

You just proposed that the cyclothems could be laid down without fine-tuned tectonics. How, taking into account the fresh water paleocurrents?

---

We have. They are primarily controlled by paleoslopes. (Is there an echo in here?)

EdgeBut fresh water shale does sit directly on top of the sandstone!Why do the surges have to be too slow in our scheme?I'm not hedging. I'm trying to work out whether non-marine beds can be reinterpreted as flood deposits regardless of globality.I'm not talking just raising sea level in your scheme. You need tectonic cycles to regualraly get a SW bias in a region where there was a vast but shallow lake. It is not a local 3D basin becasue the freshwater shales are 'remarkably extensive' as stated by Verhoogen (see Moose's transcriptions).

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
But fresh water shale does sit directly on top of the sandstone!

---

In some cases. Nevertheless. Where did that sand come from? Where did the mud come from? Answer: upslope.

quote:

---

Why do the surges have to be too slow in our scheme?

---

You need to grow forests between them.

quote:

---

I'm not hedging. I'm trying to work out whether non-marine beds can be reinterpreted as flood deposits regardless of globality.

---

Okay, there are lots of local floods. So what?

quote:

---

I'm not talking just raising sea level in your scheme. You need tectonic cycles to regualraly get a SW bias in a region where there was a vast but shallow lake.

---

So?

quote:

---

It is not a local 3D basin becasue the freshwater shales are 'remarkably extensive' as stated by Verhoogen (see Moose's transcriptions).

---

So lakes are not three dimensional? What the heck are you saying? You expect to have a perfectly planar slope? Why can't I have extensive shales over an irregular surface? This is getting silly, TB. Please make yourself clearer.

EdgeBut why is it streams? The sandstone is distrubted across the entire region apart from gaps. It's origin is obviously associated with the fresh water shale sitting directly on top of it which is continuous across the region.If much of the non-marine geological record can be reinterpreted as regional flood deposits then our scenario is far more likely. The sediment came from highlands as in your scenario. Later in the global flood it would have come from sheet erosion of soft sediment.Our scenario does not require sheets to traverse entire continents. The observed scope however is suggestive of vast flooding.I almost always answer your questions in my posts.My areas of expertise? As you know I have a PhD in nuclear physics. However, I have worked in molecular biology for 11 years now. Over the last 6 months I have extensively read mainstream geology.The point you never answer is how you can repeatedly get a vast shallow fresh-water lake sitting where a slope of vast extent existed without appealing to fine-tuned tectonics (to raise and lower the slope).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Where on earth do you get non-marine sandstone sheet depositon over such a distance under rapid flow?

---

Where have you shown such sandstone sheets with rapid flow? Any actual data behind all this handwaving? Can you give a specific formation?Maybe you haven't figured out yet that not all paleocurrent indicators are caused by moving fluids. Many are due to wave and surf processes. These will orient perpendicular to shorelines without any net current at all.

quote:

---

You need subsidence to get a shallow lake where a slope used to be!

---

Exactly.
Shallow coastal lakes are common features of modern transgressive sequences and subsiding basins. Lake Ponchetrain in the Mississippi delta comes to mind. Tens of thousands of feet of subsidence are required to account for the observed sediment wedges, in both modern and ancient deltas. Can the Flood "model" explain this???
No. [QUOTE][b]SW paleocurrents in sandstones strewn across half a continent is a large flood.[/QUOTE][/b]
There exists today large sheets of sand and shale half a continent wide and several hundred km broad off the coast of many passive margins. These are being formed by processes acting today - deltas, swamps, reefs, nearshore and distal sediment transport. The average current direction is downslope. Not formed by a Flood.

quote:

---

Why weren't the sandstones laid down by a regional flood?

---

Because reality doesn't have to conform to your mythology? Because the evidence shows they were formed by normal deltaic, fluvial and shoreline processes that can be observed today? Because sediment sources are absent in the Flood "model"? Because well-rounded and well-sorted quartzose sandstones require LOTS of time? [QUOTE] [b]But fresh water shale does sit directly on top of the sandstone![/QUOTE][/b]
Which is identical to any modern delta.

quote:

---

I propose that the majority of non-marine strata are easily reinterpreatble as regional flooding.

---

I propose that you actually [i][b]DO[/i][/b] that "reinterpretation".
Use actual rocks, data, and outcrops. Go ahead.
Until you do, you are blowing smoke, just like the helium-in-the-granites fantasy you repeat every few days.
Until you use evidence to "reinterpret" these strata, you have nothing except speculation, "gut-instincts", and pre-conceived fantasies from a very old book.Can you point to a specific sandstone layer that you think is wrongly interpreted as non-marine?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
But why is it streams? The sandstone is distrubted across the entire region apart from gaps. It's origin is obviously associated with the fresh water shale sitting directly on top of it which is continuous across the region.

---

TB, as wehappy has shown you, the pattern of sandstones in many formations is that of stream channels. If you were an oil driller prospecting the Dakota sands, you would be very disappointed in the lack of lateral continuity of the producing zones. However, most oil explorationists do not use flood geology, or your model in particular.

quote:

---

If much of the non-marine geological record can be reinterpreted as regional flood deposits then our scenario is far more likely.

---

If, if, if... The problem is that they can't be.

quote:

---

The sediment came from highlands as in your scenario. Later in the global flood it would have come from sheet erosion of soft sediment.

---

That was above water? Hmm, where is this global flood then?

quote:

---

Our scenario does not require sheets to traverse entire continents. The observed scope however is suggestive of vast flooding.

---

Have you looked at wehappy's maps and sections yet? If you do, see that units can be correlated over great distances, but not lithologies. You apparently do not understand correlation. I am also waiting for an explanation as to why cyclothems are not found in the western coal fields...

quote:

---

I almost always answer your questions in my posts.

---

Then how do you explain the Mancos Shale if the epeiric seas were covered by rushing flood waters that leave high-velocity, uni-directional current indicators?

quote:

---

My areas of expertise? As you know I have a PhD in nuclear physics. However, I have worked in molecular biology for 11 years now. Over the last 6 months I have extensively read mainstream geology.

---

I don't remember asking. I understand that you are an amateur geologist.

quote:

---

The point you never answer is how you can repeatedly get a vast shallow fresh-water lake sitting where a slope of vast extent existed without appealing to fine-tuned tectonics (to raise and lower the slope).

---

Why does it have to be 'fine-tuned?' Despite what you think very few cyclothems match the ideal section. Raising sea level a few feet on a very low-lying coastal plain should do it. I imagine mechanisms are tectonic, but they do not havae to be tuned to anything. The periodicity is probably quite variable. On the other hand, have you ever seen a flood that rhythmically washes back and forth over an entire coastal plain 50 times in less than a year, and only leave current marks in one direction? Pretty silly actually.

EdgeUntil I have data on the 30-50 cycles and not two of them I'll reserve my judgement on their continuity. We do not require at all for all sandstone beds to be enormous. It helps iour arguemnet, yes. I would like to see the other 30-50 cyclothem cycles.But in the absense of that data I will temporarily retract my statement that the sandsontes themselves look like flooding and instead will simply point out the fact that you require a vast slope to alternate with incredible flatness 30-50 times. We require nothing of the sort.You seem to have a problem with a global flood tha tdidn't occurr instantaneously. The Bible itself decribes a half dozen stages over 400 days not including decades of aftermath.We don't need exactly the same patterns of coal formation everywhere!The Mancos Shales obviously formed during the calms that interspersed surges in our scenario.Your statemnt of 'So you are an expert in molecular biology, nuclear physics and geology' did require a clarification of which were professional and which were self taught fields.Your system requires fine-tuning becasue it is always a SW slope alternating with extreme flatness. You keep talking about raising sea-level 'a few feet'. I agree with that. But that is not the point. The point is that there is cyclically a long distance SW slope as evidenced by your streams. Verhoogen comments on it as a key feature to be explained as I reposted in the Paleocurrent thread today.Our scenario would occur naturally due to cyclical sea level rises, The rapidity would be unidirectional. It could easily occur due to multiple frictional plate slippages. I have no idea if this cyclicity is seen in tidal waves but as you know our sea-floor spreading is very rapid.