Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

[createdtoworship]

Ok. I'll explain, as the geologist here, who has looked at probably thousands of bedding planes, and as a person who has published research on fossil exposures on bedding planes, I am exceedingly able to understand the material. And I'm not appealing to authority, I'm just doing what I do and have experience doing through my education, my career, through past research and as just as hobby of mine as well.

But you have to be willing to listen and to learn.

ok, so if you explain this to me. This will prove your point that your evidence is valid and explains a perfectly natural slow gradual process could occur in the case of nautiloids standing upright in the grand canyon? If that is the case. Then explain it. But before you explain it, please quote from your peer review, not your own bias. As we all have opinions. And your opinion in this debate is not any more valid than anyone else. However if you have peer review on nautiloids, then it may be used.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, so I'm going to give an example of a cross section image and a bedding plane image.

In the case of the research I was describing, the nautiloids are present silstone-like shales.

And this is in pretty much every paper I've provided you. And, this is what the images show, mudstones and shales and silstones, usually they just look like fine grained black and flat, slate-like rocks. Similar even to the slates that people use as shingles on their roof top.

So above is one of the two images of the graptolite comets.

So firstly, what do we see? Well, we don't see large grains, so we know it's not a sandstone. We don't see varying minerals like we would in any igneous rocks. It looks similar to slates that go on a roof top.

What we clearly see in the image is a shale.

One property of shales, is that they are often friable. They often break in sheets. And when I saw often, I mean all the time.

They break into big flat sheets. But they break more readily, along their bedding plane.

A bedding plane is basically just the historic "floor" or "ground".

Whenever you find foot prints for example, the foot prints are on a bedding plane. Bedding planes are typically flat, just as the ground is outside or just as the beach is.

And so, shales, they break along this bedding plane surface, very readily in a flat fashion.

This is just the way it is. So when we go back to the image, what do we see? We see a very flat, almost as flat as paper, shale, being described as a bedding plane in the paper, and in my 1 minute video. This is just what it is.

And not only that, but if you go back to the image, I'll post it again:

At the upper right of the image, there is also a piece of the bedding plane above it. It's sticking out toward us. Imagine looking down at the floor. That's what the rock is showing us. It's like we are standing over top of it and it is pointing up at us. And this is what Steve Austin does in his video. He stands over the nautiloid and describes how it's pointing up at them.

But of course, a cone shaped object, I'd it is pointed upwards and downwards (it is vertical), then it's body would be exposed to us, much like a sippy straw that has been cut in half. Which is to say, that it looks like a circle. So let's look at the next image, because it's more apparent.

So the graptolites are the stringy looking fossils wrapped around the nautiloid. Graptolites typically look kind of like...like thin strands with teeth-like ridges. If you look very closely in the above image, there are little saw-like sides on the graptolite. Obviously the paper is also describing these as graptolites, but I'm just doing this so that we can both understand what we are looking at.

Ok, so if we look closely, we can see the saw like patter on the sea weed looking fossil.

But it's clearly wrapped around an object is actually slightly elongated in the bottom left direction. Which basically means that it is in fact a vertical object, its sticking up at us because we are looking down at it on a bedding plane.

So when I describe something as perpendicular to bedding. What I am saying is that the nautiloid is almost at a right angle, going straight down into the rock, at a right angle from the bedding plane.

And if we go back to the first image:

If you look closely, you can even see the body chambers of the nautiloid.

Here is a cool website that I sometimes use in my travels.

How Do I Know What Kind Of Orthocone?

This website is for fossil enthusiasts and actually you find a lot of good info on it, and there are a lot of experts on it as well.

But I want to pull up one more image.

So I'm the website I just posted, they talk about the siphuncle.

And it's king of a tube like structure that runs through the body of the nautiloid.

The siphuncle is a tub used to pump fluids from chambers of the nautiloid to adjust it's bouyancy, as per it's definition. But the point is that it appears as a little circle, inside the larger nautiloid body.


So here is one of my prior images that I posted:

And if you look closely at "text figure 5" in the image above, you see the outline of the shell and the circular siphuncle inside.

So back to the graptolite comet.

Above is a diagram that helps put the photographs into perspective. We have the nautiloid sticking up, in an upwards direction. And the graptolite, much like drifting sea weed, gets caught on the nautiloid in the direction of the current.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ok, so I'm going to give an example of a cross section image and a bedding plane image.

In the case of the research I was describing, the nautiloids are present silstone-like shales.

And this is in pretty much every paper I've provided you. And, this is what the images show, mudstones and shales and silstones, usually they just look like fine grained black and flat, slate-like rocks. Similar even to the slates that people use as shingles on their roof top.

View attachment 277237

So above is one of the two images of the graptolite comets.

So firstly, what do we see? Well, we don't see large grains, so we know it's not a sandstone. We don't see varying minerals like we would in any igneous rocks. It looks similar to slates that go on a roof top.

What we clearly see in the image is a shale.

One property of shales, is that they are often friable. They often break in sheets. And when I saw often, I mean all the time.

They break into big flat sheets. But they break more readily, along their bedding plane.

A bedding plane is basically just the historic "floor" or "ground".

Whenever you find foot prints for example, the foot prints are on a bedding plane. Bedding planes are typically flat, just as the ground is outside or just as the beach is.

And so, shales, they break along this bedding plane surface, very readily in a flat fashion.

This is just the way it is. So when we go back to the image, what do we see? We see a very flat, almost as flat as paper, shale, being described as a bedding plane in the paper, and in my 1 minute video. This is just what it is.

And not only that, but if you go back to the image, I'll post it again:
View attachment 277237

At the upper right of the image, there is also a piece of the bedding plane above it. It's sticking out toward us. Imagine looking down at the floor. That's what the rock is showing us. It's like we are standing over top of it and it is pointing up at us. And this is what Steve Austin does in his video. He stands over the nautiloid and describes how it's pointing up at them.

But of course, a cone shaped object, I'd it is pointed upwards and downwards (it is vertical), then it's body would be exposed to us, much like a sippy straw that has been cut in half. Which is to say, that it looks like a circle. So let's look at the next image, because it's more apparent.

View attachment 277239

So the graptolites are the stringy looking fossils wrapped around the nautiloid. Graptolites typically look kind of like...like thin strands with teeth-like ridges. If you look very closely in the above image, there are little saw-like sides on the graptolite. Obviously the paper is also describing these as graptolites, but I'm just doing this so that we can both understand what we are looking at.

Ok, so if we look closely, we can see the saw like patter on the sea weed looking fossil.

But it's clearly wrapped around an object is actually slightly elongated in the bottom left direction. Which basically means that it is in fact a vertical object, its sticking up at us because we are looking down at it on a bedding plane.

So when I describe something as perpendicular to bedding. What I am saying is that the nautiloid is almost at a right angle, going straight down into the rock, at a right angle from the bedding plane.

And if we go back to the first image:
View attachment 277237
If you look closely, you can even see the body chambers of the nautiloid.

Here is a cool website that I sometimes use in my travels.

How Do I Know What Kind Of Orthocone?

This website is for fossil enthusiasts and actually you find a lot of good info on it, and there are a lot of experts on it as well.

But I want to pull up one more image.

So I'm the website I just posted, they talk about the siphuncle.

View attachment 277240

And it's king of a tube like structure that runs through the body of the nautiloid.

View attachment 277241
The siphuncle is a tub used to pump fluids from chambers of the nautiloid to adjust it's bouyancy, as per it's definition. But the point is that it appears as a little circle, inside the larger nautiloid body.


So here is one of my prior images that I posted:
View attachment 277243

And if you look closely at "text figure 5" in the image above, you see the outline of the shell and the circular siphuncle inside.

So back to the graptolite comet.

View attachment 277244


Above is a diagram that helps put the photographs into perspective. We have the nautiloid sticking up, in an upwards direction. And the graptolite, much like drifting sea weed, gets caught on the nautiloid in the direction of the current.

View attachment 277239

I tried reading your post, but I didn't see any conclusion. What is your point?

 

[Job 33:6]

I'll get some text of the discussion, one sec.

I'm painting the picture here. Just entertain my words for a moment.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right under the image is a description specifically to explain what is being looked at. It says "orientation on the sea floor"

I mentioned this before, but each of these papers, and Steve Austin's paper as well, they often talk about other species around the nautiloids, sponges, corals, graptolites.

What they're doing is they're painting a picture. They're saying look, corals. Corals are shallow marine species. They're not talking about dinosaurs or birds or amphibians or anything else. They're talking about things that live in the shallow ocean.

They're saying look, shales. What is the meaning of a shale?

I'm going to try to describe the meaning of a shale. And I'm going to contrast the meaning of a shale, with the meaning of say...sandstone or breccias. In my next post.

And I can post peer review for all of this, but first we have to.understand the context of what is being described and the meaning of it. Maybe I'll just keep quoting the paper as we go.

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let's look back at the nautiloids and the crinoids too, I think they're worth briefly talking about:

 

[Job 33:6]

"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.

Let's keep going.

 

[createdtoworship]

View attachment 277245
Right under the image is a description specifically to explain what is being looked at. It says "orientation on the sea floor"

I mentioned this before, but each of these papers, and Steve Austin's paper as well, they often talk about other species around the nautiloids, sponges, corals, graptolites.

What they're doing is they're painting a picture. They're saying look, corals. Corals are shallow marine species. They're not talking about dinosaurs or birds or amphibians or anything else. They're talking about things that live in the shallow ocean.

They're saying look, shales. What is the meaning of a shale?

I'm going to try to describe the meaning of a shale. And I'm going to contrast the meaning of a shale, with the meaning of say...sandstone or breccias. In my next post.

And I can post peer review for all of this, but first we have to.understand the context of what is being described and the meaning of it. Maybe I'll just keep quoting the paper as we go.

ok so before we go further, your realize that that entire post does not show nautiloids on their heads. So that was a post that was completely non sequitur, and a red herring to the discussion at hand. I just wanted to post that out.

 

[createdtoworship]

Alright so here is our title page again:
View attachment 277246

"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.

View attachment 277247

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.

This is what he's saying.


Let's read more:
View attachment 277248

"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:
View attachment 277249

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.

Here is a conglomerate:
View attachment 277250
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.

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

View attachment 277251

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

again I don't see nautiloids on their heads in any of that.

 

[Job 33:6]

"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.

 

[Job 33:6]

again I don't see nautiloids on their heads in any of that.

Just listen what is being described. I'm getting there.

Your walls are like the great walls of China right now.

So this far, he has painted a picture. A shallow marine environment, brachiopods, bivalves, clams, filter feeders, siltstone and shales, fine sediment, calm flat layers, no large angular cobbles or anything that needs high energy to move.

A calm shallow sea.

weak.currents. with filter feeders that have attached themselves to these empty cephalopod shells. And they're just hanging out feeding.

The filter feeders direct their feeder parts upstream so that they can catch food drifting downstream, and he said that the filter feeders are pointing upstream while attached to resting and stationary nautiloids facing downstream. Meaning that these filter feeders grabbed on to these empty shells and they're just calmly eating.

Ok, so this is a calm environment. But let's keep going.

Do you see where we are going?

Let's go back to the nautiloids now that we have some context about what is displayed in this rock. This "bedding plane" this flat historic surface where crinoids attached to empty shells and were feeding.

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

 

[Job 33:6]

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, It is the circular structure we see in on a bedding plane on the above depicted shale.

 

[Job 33:6]

Now, You don't have to believe any of this, but I believe that I've met your criteria of describing a calm sea environment with vertical nautiloids published by a PhD in a peer-reviewed scientific article.

You don't have to believe it. You can keep those walls high. As high as you want. Even though this is really a nail on the head, you can choose to reject it while simultaneously still accepting Steve Austin's paper which gives less detail.

I would simply ask that you consider this. Just consider the possibility, and that's all I could ask for.

And I am absolutely sufficient as a credible source for this discussion. And I know that I am properly describing this paper. It's just a question of what walls you have up. Like walls that an atheist has toward Jesus. There is apprehension.

Just consider the possibility.

What if I told you that this bedding plane described by Steve Austin was just a single bedding plane, a single thin layer portion of a single 6-8 foot thick bed of rock, in a 6-10,000 foot thick sequence of rock.

Begin to imagine, what we can find, if we actually spent time talking about all the other millions of layers. If you even entertained the idea of what I am describing, you would be astonished by the depth through time that we could go.

 

[createdtoworship]

Just listen what is being described. I'm getting there.

Your walls are like the great walls of China right now.

So this far, he has painted a picture. A shallow marine environment, brachiopods, bivalves, clams, filter feeders, siltstone and shales, fine sediment, calm flat layers, no large angular cobbles or anything that needs high energy to move.

A calm shallow sea.

weak.currents. with filter feeders that have attached themselves to these empty cephalopod shells. And they're just hanging out feeding.

The filter feeders direct their feeder parts upstream so that they can catch food drifting downstream, and he said that the filter feeders are pointing upstream while attached to resting and stationary nautiloids facing downstream. Meaning that these filter feeders grabbed on to these empty shells and they're just calmly eating.

Ok, so this is a calm environment. But let's keep going.

Do you see where we are going?

Let's go back to the nautiloids now that we have some context about what is displayed in this rock. This "bedding plane" this flat historic surface where crinoids attached to empty shells and were feeding.

ok, so your saying....hold on a minute. I don't have the evidence right now. But we are explaining the process of finding evidence? Sir you either have it or you do not, right now I don't see it.

 

[createdtoworship]

On the nautiloids


View attachment 277256

"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.

ok so where are your vertical examples? What is your explaination for the vertical examples, and use an example similiar to a vertical example, that way you prove that it can be caused by gradual change. And you have not yet.

 

[Job 33:6]

ok so where are your vertical examples? What is your explaination for the vertical examples, and use an example similiar to a vertical example, that way you prove that it can be caused by gradual change. And you have not yet.

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.

 

[Job 33:6]

Or at the very least, even if you don't believe it, do you at least understand what the paper is saying and what I've been saying?

 

[Job 33:6]

"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.