Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Non-marine sediments
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 181 of 221 (12702)
07-03-2002 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2002 9:18 PM


http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf055/sf055p13.htm
Another example of cyclothems and paleochannels. Please also notice this:
All ten members are never present at one location. The most common sequences are 1, and/or 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10. Note too that a geologist talks about catastrophism. Boom, boom boom go the TB strawmen.
and another:
http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/J_B_Bennington/abstracts/iccp-99.html
Oh dear (watch TB get hung up on the word 'flooding surface'.
http://www3.uakron.edu/envstudies/Energy/pcoal2.html
A nice introductory slide set.
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/pciesiel/gly3150/cyclic_sedimentation.html
From my colleague here.
and an abstract:
Abstract:Incised valleys are an important, but little studied, component of Upper Pennsylvanian cyclothems in the Mid-Continent. During the Upper Pennsylvanian, glacio- eustatic cycles resulted in alternate exposure and flooding of vast areas of the Mid- Continent. Near equatorial paleolatitudes and extensive chemical weathering of the exposed craton resulted in mud-rich siliciclastic sediment influx to drainage networks that included incised valleys. During transgressions, incised valleys flooded to form tide- dominated, muddy estuaries. The Douglas Group (Virgilian) in eastern Kansas contains several incised valley fills (IVF) and a range of tidal facies that can be best understood through comparisons with modern deposits, mostly in macrotidal estuaries. Recognition of tidal influence in facies that are devoid of macrofossils is important for interpreting sea- level history, and lack of the recognition of tidal influence commonly lead to incorrect interpretations. Transitions from fluvial to estuarine facies, which were formed during marine flooding, can be recognized by the occurrence of mud-draped bedforms. Also the presence of facies that are likely the result of macrotidal conditions may have implications for paleogeographic reconstructions, because very high tidal ranges commonly occur in funnel-shaped estuaries. The IVFs occur throughout much of the Pennsylvanian in the Mid-Continent, and are probably even more common than previously has been recognized.
Several factors in addition to sea-level history influenced formation of IVFs. Climate may have had a profound influence. During wetter periods, rivers incised more deeply and developed extensive valley systems. During the drier periods, such as the Permian, valleys apparently did not develop at all. Other controls on valley morphology include bedrock lithologies exposed during incision, and basement structure.
Cheers
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 07-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 9:18 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 9:45 PM Joe Meert has replied
 Message 186 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 10:20 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 221 (12704)
07-03-2002 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Joe Meert
07-03-2002 9:31 PM


^ The key point in all of this is for you to explain the 30-50 times repeated association of parallel streams with flat coal beds over a sub-continental region without flooding. I've asked, all of you this on multiple occasions.
Maybe there really were a series of surges/tidal waves that caused this, with or without Noah? It explains the non-marine to marine, the rapidity, the coal and the intervenning calms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Joe Meert, posted 07-03-2002 9:31 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Joe Meert, posted 07-03-2002 9:49 PM Tranquility Base has replied

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


Message 183 of 221 (12705)
07-03-2002 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2002 9:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ The key point in all of this is for you to explain the 30-50 times repeated association of parallel streams with flat coal beds over a sub-continental region without flooding. I've asked, all of you this on multiple occasions.
Maybe there really were a series of surges/tidal waves that caused this, with or without Noah? It explains the non-marine to marine, the rapidity, the coal and the intervenning calms.

JM: Read the links, the cause has been explained here, there and elsewhere. You just keep closing your eyes and pretending that no one has answered your question. What should we do? Keep repeating the answer? We've tried, that does not keep you from repeating the same question. If you want to learn, you need to pay attention and stop ignoring the answers.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 9:45 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 10:05 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 221 (12707)
07-03-2002 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Joe Meert
07-03-2002 9:49 PM


I challenge someone here to summarize the mainstream view. We all know how easy it is to post links.
It has never been summarized by any of you. Something that accounts for the consistent orientaiton stream slope and the shallow sea, and cyclicity. Cyclothems are not well explained mainstream.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Joe Meert, posted 07-03-2002 9:49 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Joe Meert, posted 07-03-2002 10:12 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 203 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-01-2002 1:54 AM Tranquility Base has replied

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


Message 185 of 221 (12709)
07-03-2002 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2002 10:05 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]I challenge someone here to summarize the mainstream view. We all know how easy it is to post links.
It has never been summarized by any of you. Something that accounts for the consistent orientaiton stream slope and the shallow sea, and cyclicity. Cyclothems are not well explained mainstream[/QUOTE]
JM: Explain how posting the mainstream view for the umpteenth time would be useful and after I finish celebrating July 4th, I'll post it again. You've seen the mainstream view here, you've ignored it. I've now posted the mainstream view in some links and you've ignored it. What could possibly motivate me to repeat myself again to a student who is sure to ignore it anyway?
Cheers
Joe Meert
See you on the 5th!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 10:05 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 10:24 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 221 (12710)
07-03-2002 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Joe Meert
07-03-2002 9:31 PM


Joe
We simply have the admitted 'flooding' (from your abstract above) resposible for both the shales and the sandstones. One sits on top the other. Not to mention the coal.
I'm glad to see that a large proportion of the Pennsylvanian is being seen for what it is - a flood bed, whether rapid or not. The sandstones give away the rapidity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Joe Meert, posted 07-03-2002 9:31 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by edge, posted 07-04-2002 10:20 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 221 (12711)
07-03-2002 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Joe Meert
07-03-2002 10:12 PM


Joe
You show me the post where a mainstream view was summarized that accounts for these things? The closest is Moose's transcription from Verhoogen. Why can't any of you lay out the gist of it? Your new links do not account for the the big picture of paleocurrents, coal, cylicity etc. Have a good ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Joe Meert, posted 07-03-2002 10:12 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by edge, posted 07-04-2002 1:55 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 188 of 221 (12725)
07-04-2002 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2002 10:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You show me the post where a mainstream view was summarized that accounts for these things? The closest is Moose's transcription from Verhoogen. Why can't any of you lay out the gist of it? Your new links do not account for the the big picture of paleocurrents, coal, cylicity etc. Have a good ID.
I'm not even sure how important this is. We do not see the cyclothems in the coal measures of western North America. Perhaps TB or TC could explain this difference.
On the other thread, TB states:
quote:
1. A non-catastrophic senario must explain the alternating slope and flatenss. Without rapid flooding the explanations require the same SW slope to appear 30-50 times over the same vast region.
I fail to see why this is a problem. How would a transgression change the overall paleoslope of the continent? You a being silly here, TB.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 10:24 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-04-2002 2:40 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 189 of 221 (12726)
07-04-2002 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2002 9:18 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.[/B][/QUOTE]
Nonsense. What caused your sea level rises to occur cyclically? Remember, it has to occur on the scale of decades in order for forests to grow in between the surges, but also fast enough to happen 50 times within one year...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 9:18 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-04-2002 2:44 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 221 (12727)
07-04-2002 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by edge
07-04-2002 1:55 AM


Edge
Why do you insist on us needing to have cyclothems everywhere there is coal? For us cyclothems may only occur on flats accesible to tidal waves. There is no expectation for this to be the only way coal can form.
No-one expects a transgression to change the slope. The point you're missing, which Verhoogen makes crystal clear, is that whatever explanation is used one has to explain a vast shallow lake alternating with a SW paleocurrent bed. For you the paleocurrent is due to a slope (unlike us) so therefore you need 30-50 tectonic uplifts and subsidences in a very specific 3D manner such that you can get SW flow cycling with a flat shallow lakes.
It is a big problem for you. The problem exists only becasue you insist on a slope. If you can drop the slope concept then the rapid flow occurred as catastrophic surges across flat plains that brought in, and created channels in, sand. It also brought in uprooted vegetation. The shales formed in the intervenning calm and the vegetaiton gradually sunk or deposited on the shales as the waters subsided. Enter the next surge. In a mainstream scenario a huge underwater earthquake and aftershocks could achieve this, or in our scenario, multiple semi-global plate slippages could achieve this.
Joe's mainstream abstracts even admit that the region was 'flooded' (no big surprise - there are fresh water shales half way across the continent testifying to the flatness). All we are saying is that the sandstones suggest that this flooding was rapid and that not only that - it brought the vegetation in too. No pseudo-science or God of the gaps just consistency with the data.
There is nothing wrong with our scenario and it beats yours hands down. You have no reason, other than coincidence for getting cyclical association of SW sandstones/shallow lakes/swamps 30-50 times.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by edge, posted 07-04-2002 1:55 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by edge, posted 07-04-2002 10:07 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 196 by Joe Meert, posted 07-06-2002 5:37 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 221 (12728)
07-04-2002 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by edge
07-04-2002 2:00 AM


Edge
See above post for mechanisms of cyclical sea level rises/tidal surges. And why do we need time for your forests to grow? We're talking surges that bring in uprooted vegetation. The original vegetation source is the same for every coal seam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by edge, posted 07-04-2002 2:00 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by edge, posted 07-04-2002 10:09 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 192 of 221 (12739)
07-04-2002 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Tranquility Base
07-04-2002 2:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Why do you insist on us needing to have cyclothems everywhere there is coal? For us cyclothems may only occur on flats accesible to tidal waves. There is no expectation for this to be the only way coal can form.
Well, I was just wondering why the surges of your global flood only affected one relatively small part of the world and only a limited part of the geological record. Remember, these surges must have been massive to bring in all of that sand at such high velocities in one direction. Then they have to ebb and remove tremendous quantities of water and hold it somewhere for decades, so that a forest can grow where the surges catastrophically destroyed the prexisting forests.
quote:
No-one expects a transgression to change the slope. The point you're missing, which Verhoogen makes crystal clear, is that whatever explanation is used one has to explain a vast shallow lake alternating with a SW paleocurrent bed.
TB, if we have a gentle slope and then cover it with water, we have a lake (of course, I'm not sure who said it was a lake in the first place). Then when the water recedes, there is no more lake. It would seem that this is a simple concept.
quote:
For you the paleocurrent is due to a slope (unlike us) so therefore you need 30-50 tectonic uplifts and subsidences in a very specific 3D manner such that you can get SW flow cycling with a flat shallow lakes.
What do you mean by a 'flat, shallow lake?' You simply do not make sense here. All lakes are flat. All gently sloping surfaces have irregularities. What lake are you talking about? The transgression itself?
quote:
It is a big problem for you.
I am glad that you can invent another problem for us. This is a great passtime for creationists. I see no problem. Perhaps you can make yourself more clear.
quote:
The problem exists only becasue you insist on a slope.
And the problem with this is? Do we not have slopes on most land surfaces? Is there not a general east dipping slope from the Rocky Mtns. to the east? Is it not 'vast' in scope? You are being silly here, TB.
quote:
If you can drop the slope concept ...
Okay, try having a mountain range and an ocean with no slope in between.
quote:
... then the rapid flow occurred as catastrophic surges across flat plains that brought in, and created channels in, sand.
Sorry, but you have to ignore the timing to get what you want. How do the forests grow in betweent the surges? If you cannot answer this question, you are wasting everyone's time.
quote:
It also brought in uprooted vegetation.
See, the forests are gone. Thirty to fifty times as you say. How can you get this in only one area of the earth?
quote:
The shales formed in the intervenning calm and the vegetaiton gradually sunk or deposited on the shales as the waters subsided.
Sorry, but the coal measures of the Cretaceous are not associated with the extensive shale deposits. Now how do you get these surges with calm periods when you have to have so many surges in one year? You have run out of time, TB. There is not time for calm periods.
quote:
Enter the next surge. In a mainstream scenario a huge underwater earthquake and aftershocks could achieve this, or in our scenario, multiple semi-global plate slippages could achieve this.
Have you ever seen a tsunami have a 'calm' period during which it deposited shale? This would really help your model.
quote:
Joe's mainstream abstracts even admit that the region was 'flooded' (no big surprise - there are fresh water shales half way across the continent testifying to the flatness).
Just as I have predicted. If the word flood is used, you will turn it into a global flood. TB, 'flooded' simply means that the land was covered by water.
quote:
All we are saying is that the sandstones suggest that this flooding was rapid and that not only that - it brought the vegetation in too. No pseudo-science or God of the gaps just consistency with the data.
But you have to ignore the stream directions to get your scenario. The paleocurrents are downslope, toward the sea. A massive flood surge would travel in the opposite direction. No no pseudo-science at all, in fact no science at all, just a terrific imagination, wishful thinking and omission of important data. Please explain how a flood surge deposits all of that sand and leaves current indicators in the opposite direction of travel.
quote:
There is nothing wrong with our scenario and it beats yours hands down.
You have been given a litany of questions that you cannot answer, and evidence that you will not address and you can say this?
quote:
You have no reason, other than coincidence for getting cyclical association of SW sandstones/shallow lakes/swamps 30-50 times.
The mainstream model has been explained to you. You have rejected it, a priori, based on a myth that you cling to. You have no other reason. You have fantastic mechanisms that leave no trace of their actions and ignore mountains of data against you. This is utter silliness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-04-2002 2:40 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 193 of 221 (12740)
07-04-2002 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Tranquility Base
07-04-2002 2:44 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
See above post for mechanisms of cyclical sea level rises/tidal surges. And why do we need time for your forests to grow? We're talking surges that bring in uprooted vegetation. The original vegetation source is the same for every coal seam.[/B][/QUOTE]
Okay, TB, how many times in one year can you denude your forests? And why do we see so many rooted trees in the coal seams?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-04-2002 2:44 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 194 of 221 (12743)
07-04-2002 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2002 10:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We simply have the admitted 'flooding' (from your abstract above) resposible for both the shales and the sandstones. One sits on top the other. Not to mention the coal.
Yep. Just because some place is flooded, we can infer a global flood. Just as I predicted you would do. Hey, my basement flooded last year... did you get the same surge?
quote:
I'm glad to see that a large proportion of the Pennsylvanian is being seen for what it is - a flood bed, whether rapid or not. The sandstones give away the rapidity.
Yes, now how do you account for the many thousands of feet of flood sediments before your flood surges?
Oh, yeah: we have sandstones being deposited today in most rivers. Can you tell me whether this is part of a late surge left over from the flood, or can I expect to have beachfront property next week? (And why is the sea rising so damn slowly?... Should'a been here by now!) In case you don't get my point, do you really think that sandstones necessarily indicate some kind of rapid process? If so, you are pathetically mistaken. Try looking around you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 10:20 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by edge, posted 07-06-2002 12:47 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 195 of 221 (12901)
07-06-2002 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by edge
07-04-2002 10:20 AM


I would still like to see TB's explanation of the data presented by wehappyfew here on the paleocurrents thread. Conveniently for TB, the discussion there regarding cyclothems has been moved to this thread, but the data is still over there. So, TB, how do you explain the channels? How do you explain the lack of continuous sandstone sheets that you have presistently referred to?
I would also like to know why the current indicators on the west side of the Appalachians present a westerly flow, when any rushing surge should present us with paleocurrents in the opposite direction. Perhaps there is something I'm missing in your model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by edge, posted 07-04-2002 10:20 AM edge 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