Time periods between volcanic activity at a particular site can range in the 100s of thousands of years. Is that not enough time of stability for cyclothem deposition to occur?
You have been shown basalt interlaced with cyclothems. To say it isn't possible when confronted with the fact of it, is, to say the least, insane.No. I guess a few million years is appropriate for a very short one in a generally unstable region (for the sake of having that volcano). This figure is given according to the most recent history of glaciation.
You have been shown basalt interlaced with cyclothems. To say it isn't possible when confronted with the fact of it, is, to say the least, insane.
Yes it does, in the part of Moe Swamp basin. Either there is an order of cyclothem following basalt following cyclothem, or the parts above and below the basalt are not cyclothems.No. If you see the cross section again, it does not show that.
No. If you see the cross section again, it does not show that.
Yes it does, in the part of Moe Swamp basin. Either there is an order of cyclothem following basalt following cyclothem, or the parts above and below the basalt are not cyclothems.
The image shows the lava flow underlain the coal beds. Well, I admit the image is too small to be positive on details. The bottom lava layer seems to be all there is.
The data shows the lava layers dated 4 Ma, 2 Ma and 0.3 Ma. In such an environment, the concept of cyclothem does not apply. It is simply a volcanic area.
Are you looking at the same picture I am? At Moe Swamp Basin, the coal beds are situated both above and below the basalt.The image shows the lava flow underlain the coal beds. Well, I admit the image is too small to be positive on details. The bottom lava layer seems to be all there is.
So the coal under or over the basalt is not a cyclothem?The data shows the lava layers dated 4 Ma, 2 Ma and 0.3 Ma. In such an environment, the concept of cyclothem does not apply. It is simply a volcanic area.
The image shows the lava flow underlain the coal beds. Well, I admit the image is too small to be positive on details. The bottom lava layer seems to be all there is.
The data shows the lava layers dated 4 Ma, 2 Ma and 0.3 Ma. In such an environment, the concept of cyclothem does not apply. It is simply a volcanic area.
Here we go Juv'y
MICROSCOPIC QUARTZ CRYSTALS IN
BROWN COAL. VICTORIA
So Juvy do you still maintain that there are no basaltic flows interleaved with brown coals. Also it is obvious that creationists with their magical mystical biblical flood are completely wrong, these deposits are subaerial.
Are you looking at the same picture I am? At Moe Swamp Basin, the coal beds are situated both above and below the basalt.
So the coal under or over the basalt is not a cyclothem?
The point is creationist state that the brown coals of Victoria formed during the magical mystical biblical flood; this is impossible. Why I here you ask. Well the Miocene geology of Victoria contains many basaltic flows, all of which are subaerial, thus DRY GROUND. Not to mention all other evidences.
DRY GROUND = No Magical Mystical Flood
Thus the brown coals of Victoria are not the result of magical mysticism.
Agreed Juvy
wikipedia said:In geology, cyclothems are alternating stratigraphic sequences of marine and non-marine sediments, interbedded with coal seams. Unique to the Carboniferous and earliest Permian periods, they apparently formed as a result of marine transgressions and regressions related to decay and growth of ice sheets, respectively, as the Carboniferous was a time of widespread glaciation. Cyclothems were possible because of the extremely low topography of the interior lowlands the seas covered and uncovered, which is why they have been absent in the current ice age.
Ok Rob, several point here, which I will in good time get round to, but for now I would like to stay will the Miocene brown coals of Victoria, Australia, because I think we need to get to the answers on this subject first, particularly as the creationist Tas Walker has written an article stating that these deposits are biblical flood deposits.
Tas Walker
Coal Memorial to the flood.
First published:
Creation ex nihilo 23(2):2227
March 2001
LINK
I have shown; in fact he shows in his article that the brown coals in question are interleafed with subaerial basaltic flows. So they were not formed beneath water, but subaerially.
Juvy has also made some claims that coal cyclotherms and basaltic volcanism cannot occur in the same place, but I have shown otherwise; in particular the island of Sumatra which at present is in the most tectonically active area in the world and also has vast peat swamps, which are a precursor to brown coal.
So this discussion is not about creationism per say, but about nothing more than the Victoria brown coals and if they were formed in a subaerial or sub-aqueous environment.
While I freely agree that Wikipedia is not the best source for geology on the internet, would anyonme wish to comment on this definition of Cyclothem?
Tas walker is a great creationist and like this article shows makes many and varied good points about subjects. Versatile in his examination of the data.
Mr Walker is right about this being a sudden event. Yet when did it happen?
The talk about flora indicates a post flood world. so to me this could be from a post flood event that is the source of the fossilization of post flood australia in the south which I use for my marsupial ideas. I suspect this is the origin and time line. Its from some surge of the sea over the land from some earth movement causes. Austalia was already moored permanent save for rising/falling a little perhaps.I guess your going to say that this must of happened on dry land and not from being submerged or something.
I need to know your complaint.
I do see the possibility of a combination of things occuring.
The key feature is to have a sequential deposits made by "peaceful" repetitive rising and falling of sea level (it means that the land does not move). As a result, such a deposit only happened in a region of stable earth crust, on which volcanic activity is not a likely feature.
Wrong, wrong wrong; your quote that the land does not move has now convinced me you know about as much geology as my 4 years old grandson.
Take the South Wales coal field, which is carboniferous in age and formed within a foreland basin as a result of the Variscan orogeny.
A foreland basin does not mean it has to be active. The Atlantic Coast of North America is currently a foreland basin.
My patience to you is getting thin. If you insult me ONE more time, I will not talk to you any more.
A foreland basin does not mean it has to be active. The Atlantic Coast of North America is currently a foreland basin.
My patience to you is getting thin. If you insult me ONE more time, I will not talk to you any more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?