Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
--In a catastrophic scenario, they did not grow in situ, they were deposited in place.
Well I'm glad you've taken time to read the actual geological literature. I especially liked Fritz and Yuretich's papers in the early 80's on the subject.
I thought both Fritz and Yuretich made it clear that many of trees represent tree that grew in situ or as Fritz sometimes says in place but that only some of the trees were transported.
Of course these are not the only fossil forests. If you read
Pole (2001) Repeated flood events and fossil forests at Curio Bay (Middle Jurassic), New Zealand, Sedimentary Geology144 223-242, You can read about 10 succesive conifer forests that each grew in situ in succesive layers with paleosols that developed in between.
Abstract
During the Middle Jurassic, the regional environment of Curio Bay, southeast South Island, New Zealand, was a fluvial plain marginal to volcanic uplands. Intermittent flashy, poorly-confined flood events buried successive conifer forests. With the termination of each flood, soils developed and vegetation was reestablished. In most cases, this developed into coniferous forest. In approximately 40m of vertical section, 10 fossil forest horizons can be distinguished, highlighting a type of fluvial architecture which is poorly documented. Flood-basin material is minimal, but a short-lived floodbasin lake is inferred to have developed within the interval of study. Paleocurrent indicators suggest enclosure of the basin on more than one side. Sedimentation style suggests a relatively dry (less than humid but not arid) climate with seasonal rainfall.
These are Jurassic sediments so they are squarely in the middle of your supposed flood deposits. How did 10 forest grow one atop the other in a relatively dry climate with soil horizon developing in between?
Obviously then, you didn't get a pointer. Try a thought game here, Chris. Think in terms of rock mass properties.
--At every spreading ridge. They are also called accreting plate boundaries, or plate accretion boundaries.
See below.
--While I know that I am of no comparison to anyone with a graduate degree in geology, I think you undermine how much I just might know.
I don't think I have undermined anything. I might have, however, accidentally underestimated something.
Why are you telling me to go read a basic geology text when your asking me what 'accretion' means in the context of geology as you have above?
Because I want you to learn what accretion is and where it occurs. THere are other definitions, obviously, but for the one usually used in geotectonics, try this:
I guess I meant to say Proterozoic/Paleozoic (The Precambrian/cambrian boundary). Sorry for this misunderstanding.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
JM: Oh, ok. So now we can discuss the growth of large Silurian reefs during the global tempest. So far as we know, corals are quite sensitive to the lack of light and floods usually produce turbid waters. So how did these reefs form during the flood? http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...UTF-8%26sa%3DG
Shall we discuss other issues or do you want to change the boundary?
Obviously then, you didn't get a pointer. Try a thought game here, Chris. Think in terms of rock mass properties.
--Hm... I guess I'll just ask you to spill it because I still don't understand what you are trying to get at. You asked if I "ever tried pulling on a 1000 kilometer long block of rock?" Are you questioning my knowledge of the driving mechanisms for PT or are you alluding to something else?
Because I want you to learn what accretion is and where it occurs. THere are other definitions, obviously, but for the one usually used in geotectonics, try this:
--I think that the term here is refering to the accretion of ocean sediment (as well as some ocean crust) onto the sides of a continent where subduction occurs (Joe Meert?). Originally I had said, "spreading occurs in the Atlantic because its oldest regions are accreted to the sides of the adjacent continents" so I guess I was not refering to the plate accretion boundaries. I feel stupid about my carelessness here. Nevertheless, the ocean lithosphere in the atlantic is fused at convergent boundary to the Eastern Americas and Western Africa. Were just playing with sematics here I guess but can't accretion be used in this context--where the ocean lithosphere at convergent boundaries (where subduction is not taking place)is 'accreted' onto the sides of continental lilthosphere. Or is "accretion" only applicable in the scenario of extension/addition?
--Hm... I guess I'll just ask you to spill it because I still don't understand what you are trying to get at. You asked if I "ever tried pulling on a 1000 kilometer long block of rock?" Are you questioning my knowledge of the driving mechanisms for PT or are you alluding to something else?
The point is that the tensile strength of a rock mass is quite low. You cannot pull a slab of it across the asthenosphere. That is not to say that that tension does not occur. Fault plane solutions suggest that tension occurs in some downgoing slabs.
--I think that the term here is refering to the accretion of ocean sediment (as well as some ocean crust) onto the sides of a continent where subduction occurs (Joe Meert?).
Correct. Hence the term accretionary wedge of accretionary prism. It is a mechanism for expanding the size of continents.
Originally I had said, "spreading occurs in the Atlantic because its oldest regions are accreted to the sides of the adjacent continents" so I guess I was not refering to the plate accretion boundaries. I feel stupid about my carelessness here.
No problem. Geological terminology can be confusing. And usage changes. The real problem would be if you refused to learn anything.
Added by edit: Actually, this is how you learn. I was just thinking about the advantage you will have when heading off to college after all of these discussions. I think you will come around to mainstream geology when you get the whole picture and realize that it's not just a wishful thinking story supported by some conspiracy of geologists and that, really, it all comes together in the end. YECism and CPT will never give you that.
Nevertheless, the ocean lithosphere in the atlantic is fused at convergent boundary to the Eastern Americas and Western Africa.
Fused. That would be a much better term.
Were just playing with sematics here I guess but can't accretion be used in this context--where the ocean lithosphere at convergent boundaries (where subduction is not taking place)is 'accreted' onto the sides of continental lilthosphere. Or is "accretion" only applicable in the scenario of extension/addition?
The contact between continent and ocean crusts may include an accretionary zone from prior convergence, but usually the term refers to a process.
Last edited by edgeo; 18th October 2003 at 12:44 AM.
Can we consider some other geological aspects and see them explained
Kimberlite pipes
Glacialial cores in Antarctica
Australian sedimentry basin ( silica deposits)
Petrified forests in basalt
Abyssal volcanoes
Crystal growth of platinum
Zonation of mineralization in the southern continents
The extent of aeolian deposits
Antarctic vulcanism
Oil deposits in new guinea
Xenoliths in permian deposits
Variation in thickness of the shell thickness of spirifids
The geology of Heard Island
I could go on much longer but these should add alittle interest to the the thread if anybody wants to include them in the debate
__________________ "One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive,to find, and not to yield." Alfred, Lord Tennyson
umm, if they were deposited, how did they get rooted in?
And how did paleosoils develop? Along with myriad other questions...
Chris misunderstands the definition of in situ. To most of us it means that this is the position and place where something originally formed. His usage of the term is way out of line and only serves to confuse the issue. Like we've never seen that before...
Any answers to my list. All of which say there was no flood. Why keep going around in circles when you can't fault my points that there was no flood.
__________________ "One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive,to find, and not to yield." Alfred, Lord Tennyson
JM: It's not the Grand Canyon specifically, but the strata within the Grand Canyon do not support the flood. It's the lack of any globally definable sequence that can fit a global flood. You admit you don't have it and neither does anybody else. Nor does anyone else want to get pinned down on a timing because they know that no matter what age range they choose, the sedimentary record will refute the presence of a global flood!
--I guess this is just one of those things I will have to figure out for myself. I hope to verify this over the next couple--well actually an indefinite number of--years. I'm not a very credulous person
JM: I know why. It's because people would rightly ask him to justify the model and to demonstrate some ground truth evidence for it. He can't.
--Probably, though not in a deceitful way. I think he is intelligent enough to know that there isn't enough evidence out there to compare with uniformitarian geology. Like me however, he hopes that further research will indicate otherwise.
JM: Then you'll never publish anything! Part of science is throwing ideas out there so that others can test the ideas and see if they work. CPT will never be given any serious consideration until Baumgardner lays it out in the scientific literature. He refuses to do so because he knows it is a bit of mathematical fiction without a shred of ground truth.
--I don't think he knows it is a bit of mathematical fiction. Neither do I see why it would be. As far as I am aware, his simulations and mathematical models of runaway are in touch with reality.
[/quote]JM: More work to be done is one thing and is mentioned in many publications. However that's different than "more work to be done because we have no data at all to support our conjecture" is quite another![/quote]--I think that the 'more work to be done' is in regards to the reinterpretation of all the mainstream field research. But this also will involve new studies which would otherwise be thought of as trivial and irrelevant to the mainstream community.
JM: No you didn't! Apparently you don't even know what the evidence was that led to the fall of diluvialism. You mentioned that you don't know what led Agassiz to declare the Noachian flood false and you've admitted that you don't know what the other data were either. Nothing wrong with that, but how can you then say we've learned things in the past 150 years that falsifies the previous conclusions without knowing what those conclusions were .
--Yes I did admit to those things. But when I said something along the line of "we've learned things in the past 150 years that falsifies the previous conclusions" that was my speculation, not my conclusion. I'm sorry if I seemed to indicate otherwise.
JM: The flood has been tested and refuted. Baumgardner does not wish to publish his model so it will never be recognized by mainstream science.
--I wouldn't either until I get some better modeling. I had recently talked to Baumgardner via the telephone, and we thought of some very interesting aspects of runaway that could be modeled in TERRA. You can't tell me that even if we could convince you or anyone else in the geoscience community that Baumgardner's runaway subduction calculations and simulations are in touch with reality and produce very interesting results, that anyone would see it worthy of further research as something that has occured in earth history(due to its unresolved evidently devistating implications). Maybe on Venus, but definitely not on Earth.
JM: Because there is no ground truth observation to support his model.
--What exactly is it that you would consider ground truth? Are you alluding to a piece of evidence, having a model that can be considered a complete alternative to mainstream geodynamics, or something else?
JM: Perhaps, but without any geologic evidence to support the model it remains wishful thinking.
--I concur.
JM: Yes, it is as it is written ; however, it's not what I meant. I meant it does not matter what we knew about plate tectonics as it was mainly observations from the sedimentary record and the fossil record that disproved the flood.
--Well what we know about plate tectonics is certainly relevant if PT is basically the reason such a catastrophe took place on the continents, right?
JM: It's not just easier to call on global floods, what is easy is to point out the total lack of evidence for a global flood. So far, no one has come close to even defining the strata marking the onset of the flood. This is amazing that a one-year catastrophic event that supposedly resulted in nearly all of the present day geology cannot be identified in the sedimentary record. In fact, no one seems to be trying to do that! Why?
--Well there arent many people trying to do anything in this framework. Hence, the need for laborers. Also, how exactly do you define the onset of the flood? In all technicality, the runaway subduction process probably could have began many years before the actual event. So Eustasy could have been very slowely rising and then just began to exponentially take off during the "flood year". I still think that if the entire Cambrian+ geologic column is indeed 'flood sediment' then it will be difficult to show that it really is due to its complexity.
JM: What's the difference? You can't define it and the rest of us can take you to any time period you choose and falsify the flood! We have ground truth evidence that it never happened in earth history and you have nothing. It seems to me to lead to a fairly certain conclusion.
--I have yet to come to this conclusion.
JM: What deposits in Asia are correlable with specimen ridge? In Africa? What point in the flood did specimen ridge occur?
--I mean correlations of age, not depositional scenario. What was occuring at specimen ridge was not occuring world wide. They were regional events. Since specimen ridge is Eocene, and the start of the flood is Cambrian, probably the last half or quarter.
JM: Umm, yes you do need a framework. It seems to me that you've had several hundred years to come up with one and so far the only framework that creationists developed is that it didn't happen. The Neo-creationists have presented us with nothing. Baumgardner's model is nothing more than an attempt to create a computer flood. There is no observational evidence to support CPT.
--Baumgardners model is that framework, or at least the wireframe. I think that it is just a "computer flood" is an underestimation of how interesting his findings really are.
JM: So tell us the ground truth geologic evidence that supports this as the pre-flood/flood boundary? Globally speaking what should we expect to see?
--I would expect to see the sudden appearence of metazoan lifeforms. As far as I am aware, this is what we see.
umm, if they were deposited, how did they get rooted in?
--The possibility I thought of was that when the area was inundated, the trees which were upright hit bottom and were burried as if they grew in situ by tuffaceous sands also in the water. When the water subsequently abated, the trees not in vertical position were washed away. Something like that.
.
; however, it's not what I meant. I meant it does not matter what we knew about plate tectonics as it was mainly observations from the sedimentary record and the fossil record that disproved the flood.
Linear Mode
