Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

[Job 33:6]

"ok so where are your vertical examples? "

This is just a copy and paste of my last post 174:

So, the only thing left to do at this point is to review the key points:

We have our bedding planes and these animals are resting where they lived. They didn't get carried anywhere. Thin crinoid stems just a few millimeters in diameter remain in tact. So they werent clobbered. Thin, flat, regular, non brecciated, non conglomerated thin laminations of silt and mud buried these animals in a calm fashion, yielding their shale matrix (they are in shale).

The crinoid filter feeders and clams attached to already empty nautiloid shells. Meaning that these nautiloids lived, died, their shells sank, and animals attached to them and continued to live on in this calm sea.

Some nautiloids were observed as follows:

Of This calm sea, grab the lights drifted and collided with these nautiloids, thereby forming the "comet".

As described in my prior post, The nautiloid is perpendicular to bedding, Which means that it's pointed up and down (which means that it is vertically positioned), It is the circular structure we see in on a bedding plane on the above depicted shale.

 

[Job 33:6]

"that way you prove that it can be caused by gradual change"

Let's rewind and go back to my prior posts again:

I'll bold the parts associated with your question.

Alright so here is our title page again:

"Hydrodynamic conditions and the benthic community..."

He's talking about how marine currents are observed in association with benthic communities, which are shallow marine species.

He talks about graptolites and planktonic organisms. Plankton being ocean animals. Brachiopods, crinoids, bivalves.

These are...clams. and animals that filter feed, like things similar to corals that just kind of stick to a rock and just filter feed.

This is the "biostratigraphy". It's a description of what species are observed in this particular locality.

He's painting an image. He's reconstructing the past.

"A weak but rather consistent current, trending Wsw-ene". Ok, a current. A weak current, as it is described.

"Which used empty nautiloid shells as substratum". He's saying that other shellfish attached to empty or dead cephalopods and used them as a footing.

See, he's saying that the crinoid, which is a filter feeder.and clams, they're attached to empty nautiloid shells on the sea bottom and these crinoids were filter feeding while using the nautiloid as a footing. We know that they were attached to pry shells because that's how they've been observed. We know that their crowns were facing the direction of current because that's how they've been observed, which means that they were calmly feeding while attached to already empty shells. Which means that this is a calm environment.

This is what he's saying.


Let's read more:

"The unusually regular laminations points to sedimentation in a very quiescent environment",

He's describing layers that are unusually regular. Or flat, suggesting a very calm depositional environment.

Lamination (geology) - Wikipedia

Let's contrast this though.

Here is a breccia:

What do we see? We see angular fragments. This is the kind of stuff we see by meteor.impacts for example. Or by volcanoes that have erupted. The angular fragments display high energy, destructive forces because rocks are being shattered. This is what a chaotic and rapidly changing environment looks like.

Here is a conglomerate:

Notice the rocks are round and smooth. Smoothing of rocks is a demonstration of weathering. Go to a local Creek and look at how smooth the stones are.


Now let's go back though. To the paper. We have shales (a fine sediment) and unusually regular laminations. Flat, simple, calm. (This calm, uniform, flat bedding suggests a non chaotic, calm and gradual depositional environment)

He says "crinoid skeletons with thin stems show a relatively deep sea character", noting a depth of perhaps 100 meters.

It's a continental shelf. Home of the largest aquatic biodiversity on earth. He's describing it in the past.

"The direction of the zoarium growth shows us that the Shell became overgrown only after the death of the cephalopod"

What he's saying is that, the nautiloid died. It's shell rested in a stationary position, and in that stationary position, a bryozoan, a filter feeder, grew from it's shell. (Bryozoans and crinoids resting on a dead and empty shell while feeding and pointed in the direction of current suggests a calm environment in which they were buried, if buried in a chaotic environment, the thin crinoids would be broken while the shells tumbled. But rather these fossils are intact and in the case of nautiloids, they're even positioned vertical to bedding, which is exactly how they existed prior to burial as demonstrated by the graptolite comets).

Let's keep going.

 

[Job 33:6]

"that way you prove that it can be caused by gradual change"

Let's continue:

"The external surface of cephalopod shells often bear separate or groups of crinoid holdfasts frequently jointly with brachiopods"

He's saying that filter feeders and brachiopods have attached to these empty shells and are feeding. The crinoids need something like a rock or a shell to hold onto while they filter feed, so they've grabbed onto this shell and they're just hanging out eating.

"They were sporadically found even on the internal surface"

He's saying that in some cases they even attached themselves to the inside of the shell. He then describes stem diameters 3mm and length of 15 cm.

Ok and here is a good piece:

He's pointing out that the shells are facing a particular direction due to current. He says that these communities would need a relatively calm current to survive.in them.

These species, they aren't damaged or tumbled or tossed. They're on this bedding plane. They're home.

"The rigid stems of crinoids on bedding surfaces are oriented adaperturally in relation to cephalopod shells"

He's saying that the crinoids are tilted in a similar fashion as the nautiloids. Meaning that same current that was directing the nautiloid shells, is the current that was directing the crinoids.

Meaning that they were filter feeding while attached to this shell.

Much like drawn in the picture.

(The above scenario in which thin crinoids attach to nautiloids is a scenario that can only happen in a calm environment, obviously these animals couldn't grow and filter feed in an environment in which their substrate was being tumbled around by powerful currents, rather they needed a calm environment to thrive,.much like filter feeders of today. And this calmness suggests that they were not in a rapidly changing or chaotic environment, rather they were in a calm, gradually changing sea).

But it doesn't stop there...

 

[Job 33:6]

"that way you prove that it can be caused by gradual change"

On the nautiloids

"The obliquely or vertically disposed shells are always oriented downwards with their apices."

This is actually exactly what Steve Austin was saying. They're saying that the point is going downward the shell is tilted in the direction of current. They vary from oblique to vertical angles (1-45 degrees), some more horizontal, some angled, some.almost vertical.

"Un ambiguous evidence for this interpretation is provided by the confrontation between bundles of graptolite rabdosomes intercepted by cephalopod shells"

He's saying that there is unambiguous evidence for this current, because graptolites have drifted into and in confrontation, ran into the nautiloids.

"A direct proof of the current direction has been obtained by measurement of two graptolite "comets" found in situ (found exactly as they were when they formed, just as the seaweed on the tree in the following video. In situ.



What is being said is that, when they say "in situ", it means that they are observing the graptolite in the position that it stood upon its burial.

And what do we know about the stratigraphy? We know that it consists of shale with fine flat laminations as described earlier and has depicted in the pictures, which suggests a calm and gradual depositional environment. We know that thin crinoid stems would not withstand an excessive current which might actually tumble or rotate the substrate in which the crinoids stood upon. We know that the crinoids crowns were facing the direction of current and thus they were feeding. And we also know that graptolites remained entangled around these nautiloids as they stood vertically against this current.

Which means that the environment never imposed enough force to break or shatter or even rotate or even just merely push on their sides the delicate shells holding the graptolites in the course of their burial. which is exactly in line with what every other stratigraphic biostratigraphic and lithological feature about this environment tells us.

Everything about this, literally every detail tells us that this was a calm and gradually changing environment and that the burial itself was calm and gradual as well. There is no brecciated material, laminations are flat and simple, non undulating and homogenous. No large cobbles suggesting a higher energy environment. No evidence from the in situ positioned nautiloids that currents were anything out of the ordinary, no evidence of breakage or damage to the delicate shells or damage to the crinoids. No evidence that the crinoids had any issue filter feeding in the direction of current.

Nothing about this, suggests anything other than a calm and gradual depositional environment.

 

[Job 33:6]

"What is your explaination for the vertical examples"

Once you are able to accept (or at least if you understand what is being said):

A. That indeed, these nautiloids are vertical to bedding and;

B. That everything about the stratigraphy, biostratigraphy and overall lithology suggests a calm and gradual depositional environment,

Then, once we understand the above, then we can ask the question of how these shells came to be in a vertical position.

 

[Job 33:6]

So now let's recap and look at Steve Austin's YouTube video again so that we can better understand his position:

"So something swept over them and buried them, it froze very rapidly to trap a nautiloid in vertical orientation".

The person he is with said "it's fossilized in a vertical position...that seems strange to me".


So what these two are doing, is that, they're implying that, basically, a nautiloid can not stand vertically on its own, and that something strange happened, on which "something" swept over them and froze them vertically, rapidly burying them, thus allegedly solving the problem of how they could stand vertically.

However as we now know, as per our helpful simple BBC YouTube video, and peer reviewed research by PhDs (Austin's research isn't peer reviewed),

Nautiloids can indeed stand vertically in an environment in which graptolites drift with current and wrap themselves around the nautiloids.

The existence of these graptolite comets, is direct proof in opposition of the ideas that Steve Austin is suggesting. Because obviously the nautiloids were in fact not rapidly buried, as they existed in a calm environment and remained vertical and unburied while crinoids and bryozoans and brachiopods grabbed onto other nautiloid shells (demonstrating calmness of the environment) and vertical nautiloids stood against current, unburied while graptolites drifted downstream and wrapped around them.

If it were true that nautiloids could only stand vertically if they were frozen by a swift and rapid undersea avalanche, then we wouldn't have a situation where they stood vertically for a period of time while graptolites drifted downstream and wrapped around them in what we otherwise see as a calm depositional environment.

Well how do we know that there was a "period of time and that this time was calm" In which these nautiloids stood against current?

We wouldn't have crinoids and bryozoans and brachiopods attaching to their empty shells to filter feed. Think about a slow-growing coral, a slow-growing coral needs time to attach itself to a shell or to an object and it needs time to grow and it needs time to feed. so if we see these features this tells us that time passed within this formation prior to its burial. Which tells us a story not of rapid burial, but of a calm and gradual depositional environment.

This is not instantaneous, "frozen" in a vertical position as "something swept over them", it is proof that nautiloids can stand vertically against current in a calm depositional environments for an extended period of time. And in fact, they did.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well first I would ask. Do you accept what has been said this far in regards to the graptolite comets, the shale lithology, the crinoid attachments to empty shells, the graptolites indicating the direction of current...the thin laminations associated with calm depositiom, the thin crinoid stems (some 3mm in diameter) unbroken during burial.

Do you understand what is being presented and do you accept that this is an accurate description of what actually exists.in this paper?

If so, then we can talk about what these same scientists say about how these features came to be.

It doesn't matter. We are looking for direct evidence to contradict my direct evidence. Here is another article...Flood model solves Antarctica rain forest mystery to evolutionists: Temperate rainforests near the South Pole during peak Cretaceous warmth | Nature

 

[createdtoworship]

"ok so where are your vertical examples? "

Let's rewind and go back to my recent posts. This is post 173, explaining what graptolite comets are, they themselves are vertical nautiloids, and in my next post, post 174, I described more vertical nautiloids, with photographs, from the research paper. I'll post 174 again as well:

On the nautiloids

"The obliquely or vertically disposed shells are always oriented downwards with their apices."

This is actually exactly what Steve Austin was saying.(in his own different paper). They're saying that the point is going downward the shell is tilted in the direction of current. They vary from oblique to vertical angles (1-45 degrees), some more horizontal, some angled, some.almost vertical.

"Un ambiguous evidence for this interpretation is provided by the confrontation between bundles of graptolite rabdosomes intercepted by cephalopod shells"

He's saying that there is unambiguous evidence for this current, because graptolites have drifted into and in confrontation, ran into the nautiloids.

"A direct proof of the current direction has been obtained by measurement of two graptolite "comets" found in situ (found exactly as they were when they formed, just as the seaweed on the tree in the following video. In situ.

Ok so if the are verticle examples what is their slow.and gradual.explanation for.why they occured? Please quote the statements or highlight a sentence or two describing this.

 

[createdtoworship]

"ok so where are your vertical examples? "

This is just a copy and paste of my last post 174:

So, the only thing left to do at this point is to review the key points:

We have our bedding planes and these animals are resting where they lived. They didn't get carried anywhere. Thin crinoid stems just a few millimeters in diameter remain in tact. So they werent clobbered. Thin, flat, regular, non brecciated, non conglomerated thin laminations of silt and mud buried these animals in a calm fashion, yielding their shale matrix (they are in shale).

The crinoid filter feeders and clams attached to already empty nautiloid shells. Meaning that these nautiloids lived, died, their shells sank, and animals attached to them and continued to live on in this calm sea.

Some nautiloids were observed as follows:

Of This calm sea, grab the lights drifted and collided with these nautiloids, thereby forming the "comet".

As described in my prior post, The nautiloid is perpendicular to bedding, Which means that it's pointed up and down (which means that it is vertically positioned), It is the circular structure we see in on a bedding plane on the above depicted shale.

So it makes.more sense.to you that this nautiloid was.standing on its head for thousands of years versus being buried quickly via catastrophy?

 

[Job 33:6]

So it makes.more sense.to you that this nautiloid was.standing on its head for thousands of years versus being buried quickly via catastrophy?

Not necessarily thousands of years. But a perhaps a few decades? Sure.

Check out the following link, I know you don't like to read but...

Sedimentation Rate - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Estimates of sedimentation at a continental slope here are listed as 500-1000 cm / 1000 years, or on the higher end, 1 cm per year or 0.5 cm per year.

So lets say we hypothetically have a nautiloid that is sticking up 3 feet (which is relatively large for a nautiloid), and let's say a portion of it's body is already in the subsurface mud.

3 ft = 36 inches = 91 cm = 91-182 years. So a large nautiloid could be buried under slow conditions potentially within a single human lifetime.

And I'm sure that we could find both faster and slower rates if we dug around. But I think the point is that while it might take some time, it wouldn't necessarily take thousands of years. In extreme cases perhaps just 1-200 years.

 

[Job 33:6]

It doesn't matter. We are looking for direct evidence to contradict my direct evidence. Here is another article...Flood model solves Antarctica rain forest mystery to evolutionists: Temperate rainforests near the South Pole during peak Cretaceous warmth | Nature

Was Steve Austin's discussion about vertical nautiloids not a piece of your evidence? I recall when we first started this discussion, it was. I'm pretty sure that's how this discussion began.

I know we have been talking for perhaps a week now, but Steve Austin's works are the only thing that I have really been focusing my attention on.

But if you feel that the discussion on nautiloids has reached it's full potential and you're ready to drop the topic in favor of another, we can. But if you're still interested in what science might have to say about it, we can keep working it over as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok so if the are verticle examples what is their slow.and gradual.explanation for.why they occured? Please quote the statements or highlight a sentence or two describing this.

Ok. So, are you asking why the shell was buried at all? Or why the shell was standing to begin with?

The first question would be a question related to plate tectonics. The second question would be related to shell flow dynamics. We could read up on either one, but one of my posts mentioned how these shells were more heavy on the pointed end, and thus would sink initially with the heavier end down. I'll pull the article back up again.

Well actually I have to run, but I'll get to it shortly.

 

[Job 33:6]

"The higher density of the body and mainly of the shell in the proximity of the aperture was balanced by the largest volume of last camerae. The centre of buoyancy of an empty shell but with phragmocone stili filled with gas was not near the apex but in the adapertural part of phragmocone. This opinion is evidenced by the deposition of shells pointing downwards with their apices, as observed by Schmidt (1930). Šrámek provided
another evidence based on his study of the position of nautiloid shells in con-cretions from the upper layers of the Liteň Formation at the Kosov locality.
The shells not only Iie horizontally but also occur stuck at different angles"

What the author is saying here is that, normally the weight of the body of the nautiloid (the very front/aperture) would counter balance weight of the camerae toward it's center.

But in an empty shell, the pointed end becomes heavier as the aperture, thus the pointed end becomes heavier than the front and sinks into the water and into sediment faster than the wider head.Particularly when the shell contains gas, that gas is going to be moreso toward the open end, thereby making the pointed end more heavy.

But there are, from what I can tell, various models and suggestions for why these shells might float in various ways and how they're manipulated by currents. I think these are just considerations for how things can happen, rather than a rule that all shells must abide by. Which I suppose is fine considering most shells aren't vertical.

 

[Job 33:6]

Not necessarily thousands of years. But a perhaps a few decades? Sure.

Check out the following link, I know you don't like to read but...

Sedimentation Rate - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Estimates of sedimentation at a continental slope here are listed as 500-1000 cm / 1000 years, or on the higher end, 1 cm per year or 0.5 cm per year.

So lets say we hypothetically have a nautiloid that is sticking up 3 feet (which is relatively large for a nautiloid), and let's say a portion of it's body is already in the subsurface mud.

3 ft = 36 inches = 91 cm = 91-182 years. So a large nautiloid could be buried under slow conditions potentially within a single human lifetime.

And I'm sure that we could find both faster and slower rates if we dug around. But I think the point is that while it might take some time, it wouldn't necessarily take thousands of years. In extreme cases perhaps just 1-200 years.

I took a look at Austin's paper:

His nautiloids were on average about 1 foot long or 12 inches. 7cm diameter in a 1:5 ratio is 35 cm or 13.7 inches.

35 cm at 1 cm per year means that a shell resting in the mud could be buried in perhaps just 35 years.

Even at a mean of 9.6 that's 45-50 cm or 50 years.

 

[createdtoworship]

"ok so where are your vertical examples? "

This is just a copy and paste of my last post 174:

So, the only thing left to do at this point is to review the key points:

We have our bedding planes and these animals are resting where they lived. They didn't get carried anywhere. Thin crinoid stems just a few millimeters in diameter remain in tact. So they werent clobbered. Thin, flat, regular, non brecciated, non conglomerated thin laminations of silt and mud buried these animals in a calm fashion, yielding their shale matrix (they are in shale).

The crinoid filter feeders and clams attached to already empty nautiloid shells. Meaning that these nautiloids lived, died, their shells sank, and animals attached to them and continued to live on in this calm sea.

Some nautiloids were observed as follows:

Of This calm sea, grab the lights drifted and collided with these nautiloids, thereby forming the "comet".

As described in my prior post, The nautiloid is perpendicular to bedding, Which means that it's pointed up and down (which means that it is vertically positioned), It is the circular structure we see in on a bedding plane on the above depicted shale.

ok so I need a link to this peer review for analysis, since you have refused to validate your sources, I have to spend my time to validate them. Validation means including what major the scientist had for his PhD and maybe even what university. You have not provided any of this. Then Again quote THAT PEER REVIEW, that was validated, to show how it's more logical to view a nautiloid buried in sand, is normal proceedure for a nautiloid not to be swayed by fast currents, even if half way in sand, it would still tilt in a 1 to 4 or 1 to 5 ration of length to width, again you have only 2 parts under sand while 3 parts above, is not very stable. Believing that type of idea is more scientific than simply saying it was buried fast. So again if you could do the leg work and find the author of the peer review above, regarding this specific picture of what looks like a vertical nautiloid.

 

[Job 33:6]

ok so I need a link to this peer review for analysis, since you have refused to validate your sources, I have to spend my time to validate them. Validation means including what major the scientist had for his PhD and maybe even what university. You have not provided any of this. Then Again quote THAT PEER REVIEW, that was validated, to show how it's more logical to view a nautiloid buried in sand, is normal proceedure for a nautiloid not to be swayed by fast currents, even if half way in sand, it would still tilt in a 1 to 4 or 1 to 5 ration of length to width, again you have only 2 parts under sand while 3 parts above, is not very stable. Believing that type of idea is more scientific than simply saying it was buried fast. So again if you could do the leg work and find the author of the peer review above, regarding this specific picture of what looks like a vertical nautiloid.

I've already posted a link to it and have posted screenshots of the title page several times. Ive posted screen shots of several pages as well. If you're still confused after all this time about who the author is or what the paper is titled, there's not much I can do for you.

 

[Job 33:6]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw1TyzaSlLA0sjCPbSs5iDDV&cshid=1590028016680

Československá akademie věd – Wikipedie
In the years 1953 - 1992, the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences ( ČSAV ) was the highest Czechoslovak scientific institution, the Academy of Sciences , followed by the current Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (AS CR).

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,39&q=Hydrodynamic+conditions+and+the+benthic+community++of+upper+Wenlockian+calcareous+shales++in+the+western+part+of+the+Barrandian+(Kosov+qua&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=JDkAyD0JSNIJ

Časopis pro mineralogii a geologii. (Journal, magazine, 1956) [WorldCat.org]

The author is strongly credentialed. He has 31 papers listed to his name, most if not all on cephalopods. And a very strong career based background working with museum collections.

Vojtěch Turek

He practically eats, sleeps and breaths nautiloids.

 

[createdtoworship]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw1TyzaSlLA0sjCPbSs5iDDV&cshid=1590028016680

Československá akademie věd – Wikipedie
In the years 1953 - 1992, the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences ( ČSAV ) was the highest Czechoslovak scientific institution, the Academy of Sciences , followed by the current Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (AS CR).

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,39&q=Hydrodynamic+conditions+and+the+benthic+community++of+upper+Wenlockian+calcareous+shales++in+the+western+part+of+the+Barrandian+(Kosov+qua&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=JDkAyD0JSNIJ

Časopis pro mineralogii a geologii. (Journal, magazine, 1956) [WorldCat.org]

The author is strongly credentialed. He has 31 papers listed to his name, most if not all on cephalopods. And a very strong career based background working with museum collections.

Vojtěch Turek

He practically eats, sleeps and breaths nautiloids.

well sorry sir, we don't know what his degree is in. See science hates to trace their sources. Schools refuse to post credentials, because they want to hire who they want, not necessarily who has a degree in a related field. But unfortunately it makes sourcing peer reviews hard. And this whole paper must be tossed out, as we can't find his major, nor the university nor the date of PhD. It could have been in the 50's. Now again I am not saying older scientists are disqualified, but if person with newer credentials says something different, we can use that as leverage.

 

[Job 33:6]

well sorry sir, we don't know what his degree is in. See science hates to trace their sources. Schools refuse to post credentials, because they want to hire who they want, not necessarily who has a degree in a related field. But unfortunately it makes sourcing peer reviews hard. And this whole paper must be tossed out, as we can't find his major, nor the university nor the date of PhD. It could have been in the 50's. Now again I am not saying older scientists are disqualified, but if person with newer credentials says something different, we can use that as leverage.

He has a czech equivelant of a doctorate degree similar to a PhD and Masters it is a high level doctorate degree, indeed the highest level academic degree of the Czech sciences.

- Národní muzeum

His title is literally a doctor of natural sciences.

His doctorate research is in Paleontology from Charles University.

This guy, of all the people on planet Earth who study nautiloids, he's probably top 50 in experience and education pertaining to them. Based on the massive list of publications he has, the organizations he is a part of and has published through and his life long experience and career with them.

He is certainly far more experienced than Steve Austin.

As I've said in my last post, this guy eats, sleeps and breathes nautiloids. He's grown up collecting, he's has many years of experience with nautiloid experts, his doctorate degree is in Paleontology, the guy has some 30+ publications mostly on cephalopods, his publications are in very prestigious journals.

There really isn't any excuse not to view his credentials as anything but highly successful and very specific to the topic.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3RMrXP5WR9Ga1W24VFPIgZ

 

[Job 33:6]

The paper also has been cited at least 20 times:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=15152371107241146660&as_sdt=5,39&sciodt=0,39&hl=en

This is pretty robust.

He has the highest degrees, he has lifelong experience, he is part of the most prestigious scientific organization of Eastern Europe, he has some 30+ publications in all of the big name journals including palaios and bulletin of geosciences, journal of paleontology, Paleontology, journal of Czech geological sciences and many more.

This guys credentials are exceptionally prestigious and strong and are strongly focused on nautiloids.