Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

[Job 33:6]

Also, one more post:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw1lSvYbxTFdTy3pCbz4jk_b&cshid=1589290884725

If we look at figure 12 in Austin's paper, it looks like most nautiloids are pointed to the east, rather than upright.

In fact, he says that only 3 out of 21 are vertical. Which is actually 14%, not 15% as Austin suggests.

Which is actually a very small number. It's not like he's talking about hundreds over the span of miles. He's talking about 3 over a distance smaller than my kitchen.

It's hard to make a truly compelling argument based on observation of 3 upright nautiloids in the grand immensity that is the grand canyon.


Notice how in my old earth geology topics, I usually discuss grand expanses of distance and depth (the state of new york, I post a cross section of strata even below the green river formation. I discuss structural features and many layers going thousands of feet in depth in each post).

Then compare this nautiloid idea based on a single and relatively thin 6 foot bed with 3 upright nautiloids.

Now, someone could say "well can't we extrapolate this percentage (14%) over greater distances?"

Well, stratigraphically (and temporally) we cannot because the bed is only 6 foot thick. But yes, it could be hypothetically possible to extend this percentage estimate horizontally, but Austin doesn't seem to do that, so his argument is incomplete in nature.

At best, his idea suggests a temporally limited (a very small fraction of a percentage of time in Earth history), and a localized catastrophic event (maybe something like a hurricane, tsunami or a localized flood).

 

[createdtoworship]

I just took a look at Steve Austin's descriptions. In his discussion here:
Geologic catastrophe and the young earth - creation.com

He suggests that the bed with nautiloids is about 2 meters thick, or about 6 feet.

The grand canyon is some 5,000-6000 feet deep (not including strata beneath the exposed portion). So...I think that my most recent post is significant in this regard. He's actually examining what is literally about 1/1000th of the grand canyon, stratigraphically. Of course if we see things like foot tracks above this layer, we might not view this as a global catastrophic flood or a flood that killed all life, but rather perhaps something temporally and geospatially local.

Well again the grand canyon is vast so any one person giving a discovery on such a large scale, will be small. So I don't get your point. But what I am saying is that is it, or is it not observed that naudiloids stand on their head. You mentioned currents doing this, do you have evidence of this? I mean certainly a pick unicorn could have grabbed the naudiloids and put them on their head before covering them in lime ridden soils. But what does the evidence say. And this is not just one of one hundred but it's tens out of a hundred are fossilized like this. Also you seem to love the grand canyon, do you know that modern dating techniques on the various layers of the grand canyon have dated the deeper layers younger than the top soil? Yes, I said that right, they dated the deeper older rock formations younger than the rock formations higher. But that is another topic, I will post later, lets finish the naudiloid conversation. So if you don't have evidence that naudiloids can not only be pushed upward in a current, but that that current can last all the time it takes to fossilize that creature. That sounds outlandish to me. I much rather just say, well it was covered so quickly that some of them turned a little. Now doesn't that sound more logical?

 

[createdtoworship]

Also, one more post:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw1lSvYbxTFdTy3pCbz4jk_b&cshid=1589290884725

If we look at figure 12 in Austin's paper, it looks like most nautiloids are pointed to the east, rather than upright.

In fact, he says that only 3 out of 21 are vertical. Which is actually 14%, not 15% as Austin suggests.

Which is actually a very small number. It's not like he's talking about hundreds over the span of miles. He's talking about 3 over a distance smaller than my kitchen.

It's hard to make a truly compelling argument based on observation of 3 upright nautiloids in the grand immensity that is the grand canyon.


Notice how in my old earth geology topics, I usually discuss grand expanses of distance and depth (the state of new york, I post a cross section of strata even below the green river formation. I discuss structural features and many layers going thousands of feet in depth in each post).

Then compare this nautiloid idea based on a single and relatively thin 6 foot bed with 3 upright nautiloids.

Now, someone could say "well can't we extrapolate this percentage (14%) over greater distances?"

Well, stratigraphically (and temporally) we cannot because the bed is only 6 foot thick. But yes, it could be hypothetically possible to extend this percentage estimate horizontally, but Austin doesn't seem to do that, so his argument is incomplete in nature.

At best, his idea suggests a temporally limited (a very small fraction of a percentage of time in Earth history), and a localized catastrophic event (maybe something like a hurricane, tsunami or a localized flood).

yes And I said 11% so, even if it was 10%. The question is, it's not 1% or 2% it's more than that. So it needs to be addressed.

 

[Job 33:6]

yes And I said 11% so, even if it was 10%. The question is, it's not 1% or 2% it's more than that. So it needs to be addressed.

It's an incomplete study. We can't make assumptions about a young earth or global flood based on 3 nautiloids. This pretty much goes without saying. The earth is grand and expansive and this study is microscopic in scale.

If anyone needs to address this, it is Steve Austin. Meaning that he needs to address the question of if his vertical and horizontal extrapolations hold true, and he needs to describe more stratigraphy along with that as he maps out his research.

But of course we would be overly optimistic in expecting such a thing.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well again the grand canyon is vast so any one person giving a discovery on such a large scale, will be small.

This isn't actually true. Structural studies for example, can cover entire countries. Many studies related to paleontology actually derive conclusions from a host of independent research projects, or from a multitude of their own.

But in this case, we are talking about literally 3 nautiloids.

Maybe you just have to experience science to understand why such a small sample size isn't particularly meaningful.

So I don't get your point. But what I am saying is that is it, or is it not observed that naudiloids stand on their head. You mentioned currents doing this, do you have evidence of this? I mean certainly a pick unicorn could have grabbed the naudiloids and put them on their head before covering them in lime ridden soils. But what does the evidence say.

We aren't actually talking about 10% over the entire grand canyon, we are talking about literally 3 nautiloids in a space smaller than my kitchen. And yes, actually there is an extraordinary large amount of literature available on the laramide orogeny (probably thousands of papers that cover a lot more than 3 nautiloids), if you're interested in evidence for shallow marine transgression over the west coast. I'll take a look for some specific to nautiloids and shell direction for you as well.

is not just one of one hundred but it's tens out of a hundred are fossilized like this. Also you seem to love the grand canyon, do you know that modern dating techniques on the various layers of the grand canyon have dated the deeper layers younger than the top soil? Yes, I said that right, they dated the deeper older rock formations younger than the rock formations higher. But that is another topic, I will post later, lets finish the naudiloid conversation. So if you don't have evidence that naudiloids can not only be pushed upward in a current, but that that current can last all the time it takes to fossilize that creature. That sounds outlandish to me. I much rather just say, well it was covered so quickly that some of them turned a little. Now doesn't that sound more logical?

Let's stick with one topic at a time. The last person I spoke to on this gave me 99 questions and then acted surprised that I didn't go out of my way to write him a novel.

 

[Job 33:6]

Nautiloids and current ripples as paleocurrent indicators in upper Ordovician limestones, Anticosti island, Canada | Journal of Sedimentary Research | GeoScienceWorld

I'll dig up a few and then we can look into figures and specific orientations.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is an example of a study that references more than 3 shells:

Shell directions as a tool in palaeocurrent analysis - ScienceDirect

"Data plots established on 50,413 measurements from 217 localities document rather consistent current patterns which show only minor variations through subsequent intervals."

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is one suggesting little to no collective orientation at all (in a particular locality), which is significant in that it is a reminder that some fossils could hypothetically deviate from a standard depending on what kind of current is hitting them or lack thereof, whether their shells hypothetically gets stuck on a rock or twig. We probably shouldn't expect the world of fossils to be one big perfectly aligned structured design. We aren't living in a computer, the world deviates from the norm in some cases, and we aren't talking about magnetic orientation frozen in cooled magma, we are talking about sea shells in an actively mobile sea.

Taphonomy and Paleobiological Implications of Middle Devonian (Eifelian) Nautiloid Concentrates, Alaska on JSTOR

Let's keep digging around...

 

[createdtoworship]

It's an incomplete study. We can't make assumptions about a young earth or global flood based on 3 nautiloids. This pretty much goes without saying. The earth is grand and expansive and this study is microscopic in scale.

If anyone needs to address this, it is Steve Austin. Meaning that he needs to address the question of if his vertical and horizontal extrapolations hold true, and he needs to describe more stratigraphy along with that as he maps out his research.

But of course we would be overly optimistic in expecting such a thing.

you can when the total found was like 30, I mean right? Say you have clam fossils and they are all lying flat, then 3 of them are standing on end, straight up. You wouldn't take notice, like....what happened here?

 

[createdtoworship]

This isn't actually true. Structural studies for example, can cover entire countries. Many studies related to paleontology actually derive conclusions from a host of independent research projects, or from a multitude of their own.

But in this case, we are talking about literally 3 nautiloids.

Maybe you just have to experience science to understand why such a small sample size isn't particularly meaningful.



We aren't actually talking about 10% over the entire grand canyon, we are talking about literally 3 nautiloids in a space smaller than my kitchen. And yes, actually there is an extraordinary large amount of literature available on the laramide orogeny (probably thousands of papers that cover a lot more than 3 nautiloids), if you're interested in evidence for shallow marine transgression over the west coast. I'll take a look for some specific to nautiloids and shell direction for you as well.



Let's stick with one topic at a time. The last person I spoke to on this gave me 99 questions and then acted surprised that I didn't go out of my way to write him a novel.

I already addressed this in my last post.

 

[createdtoworship]

Here is one suggesting little to no collective orientation at all (in a particular locality), which is significant in that it is a reminder that some fossils could hypothetically deviate from a standard depending on what kind of current is hitting them or lack thereof, whether their shells hypothetically gets stuck on a rock or twig. We probably shouldn't expect the world of fossils to be one big perfectly aligned structured design. We aren't living in a computer, the world deviates from the norm in some cases, and we aren't talking about magnetic orientation frozen in cooled magma, we are talking about sea shells in an actively mobile sea.

Taphonomy and Paleobiological Implications of Middle Devonian (Eifelian) Nautiloid Concentrates, Alaska on JSTOR

Let's keep digging around...

can you post your quote from that article saying that this is normal....

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok here is one that discusses how nautiloids can sink in a vertical direction in calm shallow marine environments.

Taphonomy of Ammonites from the Santonian-Lower Campanian Santa Marta Formation, Antarctica: Sedimentological Controls on Vertically Embedded Ammonites on JSTOR

They even reference "landing marks". I'm not sure how wild and crazy of an environment there could be as shell "landing marks" remain.

And then it says "hydrostatic analysis suggests that permanent vertical stability of nautilus shells resting on a seafloor is only possible that shallow depths".

And it further states:
"Most vertically oriented aminoid shells could only be preserved if they were deposited In water depths less than 10 m"

And it notes references after each statement.

 

[Job 33:6]

The above article actually gives a description of how nautiloids shells fill with gas as the body rots, thus pulling the shell toward the surface until it eventually fills with just enough water to sink in a vertical fashion.

It did not take a lot of work to find this, maybe about 30 minutes of time digging around.

Imagine the things that I have found having these kinds of oddball discussions over the past decade. You would be surprised what kind of literature is out here.

 

[Job 33:6]

And sorry for so many posts, but look at their sample size. They looked at over 2,300 shells.

And compare this with Steve Austin's paper where he looked at 20.

This is...a big deal. It's important to understand the scale difference between what Steve Austin is doing and what others are doing.

Steve Austin looks at a rock literally about the size of my bathroom and because he saw 3, not 3000 or 300 or even 30, he saw literally just 3 upright shells, and said "well, I guess this is solid evidence for a catastrophic flood".

 

[Job 33:6]

I would also recommend looking at the discussion on stratigraphy. They describe a regressive sequence along with several graded coarse to fine sandstones (multiple sandy turbidites).

Which is something that an individual chaotic flood cannot account for (a variation in rock densities suggesting repeated variation of current strength).

It also describes much of the fossiliferous sections as having "highly bioturbated" shales capping those sandstones, meaning that life was living and churning and processing organics within a muddy environment, at the time of and after what Austin would call a flood (but what we otherwise just call the ocean).

Meaning that life wasn't dead after these shells were deposited. Life just kept living. Which, if a chaotic flood laid waste to this environment, we might expect an absence of evidence of life immediately thereafter. If it were a shallow sea, then it wouldn't be surprising. Shales are also fine grained, suggesting a shallow marine environment (just as sandstones represent Sandy environments or limestones represent deeper sea limey organic environments).

I would also recommend taking a look at figure 9 and the paragraph beneath figure 9 which describes how aminoids would use larger shelled organisms as shelter in which they lived. A lot of these animals appear to have just been living as they normally would.

But also notice the collective species of animals found corals, crinoids, gastropods. Where do corals live? Well, they live in shallow seas. Ok no surprise here. Any dinosaurs? No of course not. But plenty of shallow sea clams and squids and stuff like this.

The stratigraphic suggests it was a continental shelf (it even describes alluvial fans), and these are all animals and features that we would expect to find in such a place.

"Alignment of wood fragments and vertical ammonites accumulated on one side of the shelter provides additional evidence set the plane of symmetry of the ammonites is oriented parallel to the flow."

There is also note of shell shientation based on density of sediments collected inside of it (page 7).

Anyway...I'll wait to see your thoughts.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok ok, last post and I'll stop blabbering.

In basic physics it would also make more sense that a conical shell would initially sink in a vertical direction. Just as if we drop a pencil (or a dense pen) in a swimming pool, then the pencil would naturally sink in a vertical direction (it won't sink sideways because there would be more resistance). And if this bottom of the swimming pool is lined with sand then that pencil is going to poke into that sand and get wedged in a vertical direction. then it just becomes a question of what the current is like if it's going to take that pencil and if its going to turn in on its side or not.

This is, I believe the basic concept that is discussed in the paper.

But actually the paper talks about a lot more than just the fossils, The discussion on stratigraphy Is notable, and it looks like they even get into post deposition orogenic deformation.

also if you don't feel like paying money to read these kinds of research papers, I would recommend making a free account on Jstor. Then you can read to your heart's desire for free and you can read about any weird topic that you would like. Or if You are a student and academic institution, often you can get access to databases for free through your institution. Or you can otherwise just purchase individual papers for cheaper prices If you really feel an urge to read them.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ok here is one that discusses how nautiloids can sink in a vertical direction in calm shallow marine environments.

Taphonomy of Ammonites from the Santonian-Lower Campanian Santa Marta Formation, Antarctica: Sedimentological Controls on Vertically Embedded Ammonites on JSTOR

They even reference "landing marks". I'm not sure how wild and crazy of an environment there could be as shell "landing marks" remain.

And then it says "hydrostatic analysis suggests that permanent vertical stability of nautilus shells resting on a seafloor is only possible that shallow depths".

And it further states:
"Most vertically oriented aminoid shells could only be preserved if they were deposited In water depths less than 10 m"

And it notes references after each statement.

So think of it logically. You have high currents, in shallow waters, both comments you have made to this point. And somehow it gets buried in silt slowly but fast enough to allow the nautiloid to stay upright. Isn't that just a Subtle confirmation of catastrophism? Again, high currents is shallow waters, but not a catastrophe is a stange standpoin to argue.

 

[createdtoworship]

The above article actually gives a description of how nautiloids shells fill with gas as the body rots, thus pulling the shell toward the surface until it eventually fills with just enough water to sink in a vertical fashion.

It did not take a lot of work to find this, maybe about 30 minutes of time digging around.

Imagine the things that I have found having these kinds of oddball discussions over the past decade. You would be surprised what kind of literature is out here.

Ok so please tell me the qualifications of those that did the peer review, mine were PhD geology

 

[createdtoworship]

Here is an example of a study that references more than 3 shells:

Shell directions as a tool in palaeocurrent analysis - ScienceDirect

"Data plots established on 50,413 measurements from 217 localities document rather consistent current patterns which show only minor variations through subsequent intervals."

So then that would be an area that was gradual fossilization. But the grand Canyon is a key area for you guys so let's focus on a strong position you have.

 

[Job 33:6]

So think of it logically. You have high currents, in shallow waters, both comments you have made to this point. And somehow it gets buried in silt slowly but fast enough to allow the nautiloid to stay upright. Isn't that just a Subtle confirmation of catastrophism? Again, high currents is shallow waters, but not a catastrophe is a stange standpoin to argue.

well if you think of a shollow marine environment such as a continental shelf in which the environment is described, There are currents and waves, Though water is also shallow.

Also given the dense nature of shellfish, they don't actually have to be buried particularly fast because shells actually last a really long time and animals don't typically eat shells.

The current doesn't have to be any higher than currents are today.

And actually along with these studies often there are ripple marks which are also relative to the size of the waves of their particular environment. Much like we see in modern-day Shallow Marine environments.

A lot of flood believers like to suggest all or nothing cases. If there is a current, it must be catastrophic.

But as we have seen in the paper, these are also delicate shells, so how strong of a current are we really talking? Well, it's likely just a regular current of today. Strong enough to move shells around, but not so strong as to break them. such currents are known to exist in shallow environments of today.