Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

[Job 33:6]

see my last posts, I won't read any more peer reviews unless you give a picture of the animal in question first. That is fair, I have read four and dismissed four as non sequitur. I am done. That will vet your papers a bit. Also for now, here is a good read for you, showing a validation of the global flood.... Scientists now say the earth was originally covered in water. The Bible has said that for 4,000 years: Scientists say ancient Earth was completely covered in water

This article you have posted is in reference to pre Cambrian strata, not ordovician strata of orthocones.

You want to talk about staying on topic, we have long since departed from the topic of your link.

And sure, let me see what pictures the article has.

 

[Job 33:6]

again it was posted in an official geological resource paper, you can see below: I don't know if it was peer reviewed but it was published at a national geological society of america annual meeting for all geologists....

Steven A. Austin and Kurt P. Wise "Nautiloid Mass-Kill Event at a Hydrothermal Mound within the Redwall Limestone (Mississippian), Grand Canyon, Arizona":Geologic Society of American Abstracts with Programs, Vol.27, no. 6, 1995, p.A-369

from:Joel kontinen: Billions of Dead Nautiloids in the Grand Canyon: Evidence for a Rapid Burial

In 1995 two creationist PhD scientists, Steven Austin and Kurt Wise, found that there were at least 71 nautiloid fossils on the rock ledges of the Grand Canyon. Four years later Steven Austin examined the ledges more thoroughly and found hundreds of nautiloids in a few days. They were of all sizes, from small to very large, some over six feet long, suggesting that a large population of these sea creatures, both young and old animals, was buried simultaneously.[9] This discovery supports the biblical view that Noah’s flood “deluged and destroyed” the early Earth (Genesis 6-8; 2 Peter 3:6).

explain why 15% of the grand canyon deposit of nautiloids, are on their heads!


The nautiloids were trapped in a layer that is from seven to forty or fifty feet thick and at least 180 miles long. There are probably ten billion nautiloid fossils in the bed along with other sea creatures such as corals.[10] Using flow models,[11] Dr. Austin was able to deduce that an enormous and a very rapid sedimentary flow caught the nautiloids and fossilised them almost instantly. The standard explanation of a slowly moving sea could never have produced this phenomenon that Austin aptly calls a mass kill. [12]

[9] Ref. 7.
[10] Austin, Steven. 2003. Geologic Evidences for Very Rapid Strata Deposition in the Grand Canyon. Answers in Genesis DVD.
[11] Ref. 10.
[12] Refs 7 and 10.

here is another clip:

explain why 15% of the grand canyon deposit of nautiloids, are on their heads!

if they were buried gradually would they be lying down?

"15% of these nautiloids were killed and then fossilized standing on their heads. "-(Steve Austin is also the world's leading expert on nautiloid fossils and has worked in the canyon and presented his findings to the park's rangers at the invitation of National Park Service officials.)

quote from
Millions of Grand Canyon nautiloid fossils prove rapid limestone formation | Young Earth - Age of the Earth - Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments

What you have sited above is not a peer reviewed article. You cited "abstracts with programs" meaning it's a preliminary abstract.

Let's see if we can find an article though. I am going to try to help you.

 

[Job 33:6]

see my last posts, I won't read any more peer reviews unless you give a picture of the animal in question first. That is fair, I have read four and dismissed four as non sequitur. I am done. That will vet your papers a bit. Also for now, here is a good read for you, showing a validation of the global flood.... Scientists now say the earth was originally covered in water. The Bible has said that for 4,000 years: Scientists say ancient Earth was completely covered in water

Here's the research discussed in your link. I'm not going to bother reading it because it is discussing archean geology, which is vastly vastly different than Paleozoic geology with orthocones.

I understand that I talked about brachiopods which drug us slightly into another topic, but this archean research is taking us into a completely different world of geology.

 

[createdtoworship]

And both of the above documents are in reference to oblique burial of orthoconic shells.

But I'm going to give you another idea to consider.

Think about how a cone is shaped. It has a point at one end and a wider circle at the other.

So we have corals, sponges, reworking currents in some locations.

One possibility is that the fossil sinks and the point gets stuck in the sand at an angle. Which I think is absolutely possible in instances of reworking.

But consider the other possibility as well, that a cone can most certainly rest with it's circle down. I can grab a cone from my garage that I use to add gas to my car, I can place it in water where it will slowly sink and it certainly could (although in lower probability) come to rest on its circular side. Someone could argue that the current ought to push them on their side and in most cases this is what happens. But there is also the possibility that a current may push a cone onto it's head.

I'll see what else I can dig up for you.

if you can find a cone with a width to height ration of 1 to 4 or 1 to 5 and allow it to stand up in the shallow waters at the ocean, even tucked in some sand, for a long long time, time for it to fossilize, then you are good and you don't need to provide more evidence. Go ahead time is ticking. In the mean while go ahead and read that link about the global flood.

 

[Job 33:6]

again it was posted in an official geological resource paper, you can see below: I don't know if it was peer reviewed but it was published at a national geological society of america annual meeting for all geologists....

Steven A. Austin and Kurt P. Wise "Nautiloid Mass-Kill Event at a Hydrothermal Mound within the Redwall Limestone (Mississippian), Grand Canyon, Arizona":Geologic Society of American Abstracts with Programs, Vol.27, no. 6, 1995, p.A-369

from:Joel kontinen: Billions of Dead Nautiloids in the Grand Canyon: Evidence for a Rapid Burial

Basically, to explain, teams of scientists gather what they consider evidence of something and they generate a preliminary abstract, which is why it says "abstracts with programs". The research is then basically fleshed out by the authors, then it goes through peer review, then it gets published.

 

[Job 33:6]

if you can find a cone with a width to height ration of 1 to 4 or 1 to 5 and allow it to stand up in the shallow waters at the ocean, even tucked in some sand, for a long long time, time for it to fossilize, then you are good and you don't need to provide more evidence. Go ahead time is ticking. In the mean while go ahead and read that link about the global flood.

They're all orthocones. This is what you have been asking me for.

But sure, I'll post more details just for you.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is the article in reference to the telescoping conical cephalopods with perpendicular geopetal structures.

 

[Job 33:6]

And again, this article above also clearly describes information that is actually similar to what Steve Austin described in that around 15 percent are either oblique or perpendicular to bedding.

Which goes back to what I've been saying since the beginning. It seems reasonable to suggest that most would be buried sideways, but we can't expect all of them to do so. Especially when they're among coral and sponges and in environments where they may be jostled around by currents.

 

[Job 33:6]

And I'll give you one more idea to consider.

Storms, such as hurricanes, exist. They pick things up and wash them around.

You can go to a beach and can see storm layers in sand.

What I want you to consider is that, for this particular topic, there really isn't a physical difference (that would practically matter to this discussion) between a global flood carrying and depositing these shells, and a hurricane depositing these shells.

These shells aren't particularly heavy. Regular currents can carry them. But even if you felt compelled to argue that more energy was needed for their deposition, there is no reason that regular storms, such as hurricanes we experience every year, couldn't muster up the energy to stir up some shells.

And Steve Austin's paper actually, in totality, only covers an area of 150 miles. I haven't yet been able to find a place where his article has been peer reviewed, but even if I assumed his works were truthful, his study area is just small.

The state of new York for example spans 300 miles in width. Steve Austin's paper is in reference to a distance of half as much, about 150 km. So even if we assumed Steve Austin's extensive extrapolation of nautiloids (which I'm not sure I can comfortably do without peer review), we would still be looking at a relatively tiny area for what is being alleged as a global flood.

At best, and I mean by really stretching our imagination, and by ignoring biostratigraphy and stratigraphy, and by assuming he is correct without peer review, at absolute best, we are left with a relatively small scale local flood.

Also remember that this formation, the redwall formation of his paper is only 6 foot thick. But the canyon itself is up to 6,000 feet thick. So temporally, it's also very limited. He is looking at 1/1000th of the geologic column of this particular area.

Just consider that order of magnitude, 1/1,000th. Think about it.

Imagine the grand canyon is a 1,000 page book. He is literally looking at 1 page. And even further it's not even the whole page, he is looking at a small layer of that single page, it's not even the whole page.

Here is where I am reading Steve Austin's ideas, but I'm not aware of any peer reviewed journal that might contain this.

View attachment 277108

Link didn't work see below.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[Job 33:6]

And here is the other paper I described earlier:

You asked if the article is in reference to elongated cephalopods and you wanted to see pictures. This article has some pictures and diagrams and also explicitly described jostling from paleocurrents and the burial of shells that are at oblique angles, dipping at angles into the subsurface.

But I'm telling you, if you truly care about this topic, I would recommend reading the additional discussion on biostratigraphy and lithology. These papers are actually pretty interesting.

I love they all talk about other species of sponges and corals, over and over again. Telling the story of a shallow marine...basically coral reefs, where there are different shellfish and bryozoans and they paint the picture well.

Definitely worth the read. And it's all free and readily accessible.

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, I have finished today's march. Sometimes I just dive in and it can hit or miss what I find, but I think it's good to just look at what is available here.

The stratigraphy, the biostratigraphy. The shell types. The consistent suggestion of shallow depths, the shells often remaining in fact despite fragility. The literature on these topics strongly remains in my favor. And I think reasonably so.

It's important to distinguish between abstracts of geological society of America and actual peer reviewed article (I happen to be a member of gsa and happen to be aquainted with the process). I think that this is a fair shot at Steve Austin. His ideas don't appear to be published beyond a non-peer reviewed abstract.

But I also like entertaining ideas and I think the 1/1000 concept/post is quite meaningful as a retaliation (and the idea that basic storms have enough energy to jostle shellfish).

Post 129
Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

The shellfish are of the dimensions of your interest. They are also described in a dipping direction oriented downward in association with regular sea currents. I would definetly be interested in hearing your opinion of the bryozoan growth of the partially exposed orthocone and the telescoped orthocones with perpendicular geopetal structures.

The article you mentioned regarding the world being covered in water is with respect to archean strata. I'd be happy to breakdown the geological column to help explain, but it is very different strata than what we have been talking about. What we have been discussing is Paleozoic (mostly ordovician through devonian). Lithologies are extensively different between these two areas of geology. Stratigraphy and biostratigraphy are very different and the article is strongly separated from your cause.

And on my part, I want to remove mention of one of my articles, the Grey 1989 article, as I feel like it doesn't sufficiently reflect your request (though the others are more like what you're asking for).

 

[Job 33:6]

I was taking time in an effort to go through your other link:

Joel kontinen: Billions of Dead Nautiloids in the Grand Canyon: Evidence for a Rapid Burial

It says that my access is denied when I attempt to check sources. Then when I scroll to the end to look at references, I just see references to other creation websites. 8,10,13 14 etc.

I hate to say it, but I think they're just trying to flip the script here. They're suggesting new discoveries but there is nothing new here. The thickness of the redwall limestone is given a broad range without clear justification. It claims an "enormous and a very rapid sedimentary flow", yet when we look at Austin's paper, it's just a fraction of a single bed that is otherwise 1/1000th of the canyon. Enormous indeed.

 

[Job 33:6]

you may like it as your job depends on it.

And no, my job doesn't depend on any of this. Most geologists jobs don't actually depend on the age of the earth, contrary to popular creationist opinions. I simply enjoy the subject matter. Though I have published research in Paleontology, my career is actually based in the environmental sector, I study the geology of aquifers (hydrogeology). Though on occasion I do come across fossils while working, it is largely disassociated from my career. There is much crossover between fields though, so it's not as though I wouldn't understand concepts of other fields.

if I find it comparable to a nautiloid

The articles you're responding to are in reference to nautiloids. Nautiloids are cephalopods.

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, another honerable mention.

The "graptolite comet".

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vojtch_Turek

Turek, Vojtch, a PhD and expert on fluid dynamics of orthoconic nautiloids, peer reviewed with diagrams and images of the vertical pencil like nautiloids.

 

[Job 33:6]

Further detail is provided in the following image by the same author, describing how the pointed portion of the shell is heavier than the open portion in many nautiloids, and how their shells could "withstand in contact with the sea bottom In an oblique or almost vertical position (With the aperture pointed up) for rather long time."

With the aperture up, the shell could thereby "catch" other sinking shells, thereby creating what we know as "telescoped" shell life, in some instances.

But further, the graptolites becoming caught on these shells demonstrates that they could indeed stand and resist current in a vertical direction. And indeed, they did.

And if hypothetically there were, a massive swath of chaotic waters blasting over the land, we certainly wouldn't expect a fragile shell to stand against it. But, much like the brief YouTube video above, it's an easily understandable concept in a regular tidal environment.

And if these shells were truly instantaneously buried, there isn't much reason to believe that floating graptolites would have had time to even necessarily snag onto the shells. Rather the shells must have remained in a vertical position while also partially un-burried for some period of time.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[Job 33:6]

I dare to make one more post.

Another way that we know that this environment, or perhaps the world, was not annihilated by a catastrophic flood, with relation to the redwall nautiloids, is the simple fact that immediately above the redwall formation, in the supai group, we have more animal trackways and repeated individual layers of mud cracks. Evidence that the land was solid and that life was alive and living. Land has to be solid to have footprints. As the stratigraphy alternates to a terrestrial environment, we later end up with the appearance of reptile tracks. Surely reptiles wouldn't survive a global flood, yet here they walk, right in the middle of the depositional sequence, still hundreds of feet deep below the current surface, yet above the redwall limestone.

And we have trackways below the redwall formation as well.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Ok, so there is a question of if
"
Even if an entire ocean sloshed out of its basin on one side of a continent, went across large sections of the continent, and then back into a different basin on the other side of the continent?"

I would say, that if we look at the image above and below with the meanders:

View attachment 257003

I think that this image doesn't depict water going from one area, directly and catastrophically to another. Rather the water goes maybe a thousand feet, then turns 180 degrees, then repeats over and over.

If water has enough energy to blast it's way across an entire continent, it wouldn't turn 180 degrees.

Like when a fireman opens a water hose to put out a fire, the water doesn't zig zag through the air. It goes in a straight line. Like this:
View attachment 257004

This looks like catastrophism, at least on a miniature scale. The water flows in a straight aggressive line.

But not with the meanders above.

And the answer to this is that, there are two different origins to each formation. The meanders were formed by low energy, meandering streams and incision of water seeking out equilibrium with it's water table (water goes down hill until it gets to more water, so if you lift water up, it cuts down when energized by what we call gravitational potential energy).

With the scablands, some kind of ice damn failed, and a lake of water blasted its way over to the lowest path it could find.

And also, check this out.View attachment 257005

This is a cross section of new York.

And in it, we don't really see something that looks like a big wave blasting its way through. On a more detailed level, it consists of something we call, ocean transgressive and regressive sequences.

Which is to say, it consists of repeating cycles of strata, sandstone, shale, limestone, shale, sandstone, shale, limestone over and over and over and over again. And above that in the Catskills, we have turbidites. And within these layers, we also have variation in minerals formed by anaerobic respiration of bacteria, interbedded with layers of high amounts of oxygen.

To geologists, the answer is simple. Beaches form sandstone (sand is at the beach, simple), sea level rises and sand breaks down into finer silt (if you walk into the ocean, sediment gets smaller, so the rocks too are made of smaller sediment, like mud and silt). And in the deep ocean, we have carbonaceous material, like sea shells. And limestone thus forms out of carbonaceous material.

So the ocean rises and sandstone is covered by siltstone and later covered by limestone.

Then sea level drops, and the reverse happens.

Then sea level rises, then drops, then rises, then drops.

Shallow Marine environments are oxidized. Deep marine marine environments are without oxygen.

Then at the very top of new York, there are multiple layers of glacial till.
View attachment 257006

Look closely at the figure and we see up to 9 + independent and lithologically unique layers of glacial till, all deposited by independent glaciers.

Planet gets cold, glaciers extend south and creates moraines. Planet warms, glacier retreats, drops stones and deposits till. Planet cools, glacier returns, planet warms, glacier retreats and deposits more till

Over and over and over and over and over again.

These are the ice ages of the milankovich cycles for which there have been many.

But there's more.

Let's throw in dinosaur nests and trackways and complex burrow networks. Dinosaurs are walking around, they're eating, they're sleeping they're mating, building nests, laying eggs, making burrows and living in the burrows. Right in the middle of the mesozoic. And amphibians and reptiles are doing the same throughout the Paleozoic and the same goes for the cenozoic, all over the world animals are walking around, making nests, laying eggs, making burrows, throughout every period of geologic superpositional time. Life didn't appear to notice that there was a catastrophy going on.
View attachment 257010
View attachment 257011
View attachment 257012

Right in the middle of these oceanic trans and regressive sequences.

So ultimately, and this is just my opinion, but these things, the meanders, the oceanic sequences, the burrow networks, nests, and tracks, I don't think they indicate or suggest that a giant wave of water came blasting over North America.

But there's more still.

There are over 4 million varves in the green River formation. 4 million. No flood imaginable could produce something like that.

But there's more.

Right splat in the middle of the Paleozoic is an overturned angular unconformity.

View attachment 257007
But there's more

Ductile Deformed originally bilaterally symmetric fossils.

View attachment 257008
View attachment 257009
Ductile deformation, meaning that extreme pressures caused by plate tectonics, but not so extreme that the fossils would be obliterated, but rather they deform under ductile conditions, like play-doh. But the pressure can't be too great, or the fossil would reach a brittle failure and snap into pieces.

And there's more, I could go on for days. But the point is that, all of these things make perfect sense if the past was just like today.

In today's world, sea level changes. Simple. Animals make foot tracks and nests and burrows. Ok, simple.

Rivers make meanders. Ok simple.

Flood waters make flood deposits and erosional rills and surfaces (yes, we can see evidence of flooding when it happens).

Global climate does change. I know it's controversial in today's political climate, but it's a real thing. Glaciers advance and they retreat, it's what they do. They deposit till and drop stones. Simple.

Angular unconformity? Simple. Layer A deposits. Layer A lithified. Layer A is tilted by orogenesis, plate tectonics. The himilayas grow in height each year, today. We see it happening, simple.

Layer A is pushed over and erodes flat. Layer B is deposited on top, layer B lithified. Here comes the catch, more orogenesis, the unconformity turns over again making the older and superpositionally deeper layer flat.

1. ______________
(First layer is deposited)

2. // ////// /// //////
// /// // / //// /////// //
(Layer lithifies then turns on side)

3. // /// // / //// /////// //
(Top layer erodes off)

4. __________________
// /// // / //// /////// //
(New layer is deposited on top)

5. ______///////////
______////////////
(New layer lithifies, then the collective system turns again putting the older layers back to horizontal with the younger layers vertical).

Just take time to wrap your head around the above text. And ponder it, in addition to the other details and consider how a flood could do it all.

4 million independent varves in the green River formation. Embrace that number for just a moment.



Then turn back to the question. Could a wave washing across North America do all this?

Most scientists, and by most, I mean every scientist I've ever known, including myself, would say...no.

@Wolseley

Wow! A post that makes sense and that does not confuse religion with science! Thank you for taking the time to share with us!

 

[createdtoworship]

??

This article you have posted is in reference to pre Cambrian strata, not ordovician strata of orthocones.

You want to talk about staying on topic, we have long since departed from the topic of your link.

And sure, let me see what pictures the article has.

The flood article ? Just saying many scientists believe a catastrophe happened. That is all.