Here at Grand Canyon the top layer is the Kaibab Limestone, however this
does not represent the top layer of the entire geologic column that is
known to have been here. To the North the Kaibab slips under about
10,000 ft of sediments and to the East it goes under about 4,000 ft of
sediments. And there are several mountains of sediments setting here and
there on the Kaibab which are remnants of the overlying sediments. It is
proposed that during the first 150 days of the breaking up of the crust
(the fountains {reservoir basins} of the deep), the deep layers of
sediment were deposited. Then, in this region, the Rockies, the Colorado
Plateau, and associated mountain systems were faulted or warped upward.
Waters drained off the highlands and strip sediments off down to what is
now the Kaibab limestone. Then the Kaibab upwarp lifted up and then the
canyon formed. But the point is that many layers of sediemnts,
including many with animal tracks, were stripped away toward the end of
the Flood.
I imagine that similar events occurred there in NJ, such that the
sediments still left there do not represent everthing that was originally
deposited there. Thus they may well represent only a part of the 150
days rather than the entire year.
This makes your calculated deposition rates too slow. As for the
dinosaurs eating, sleeping and such. It would not be that hard for an
large animal such as that to go with outeating and sleeping for long
periods of time. And, in the end, they died.
> >> Who is your authority that tsunami deposits will explain the geologic
> >> column? Cite a scientific journal please.
Even I don't propose that the entire GC can be explained by tsunami
deposits. (my former posts make that clear). however, it is still funny
to think that uniformiarian devoted journals would consider such ideas
for the GC as a whole.
> > I expect that as more catastrophist geologists look
> >again the the depoists we may see tsunami-like interpretation of strata.
> You expect???? You mean no one has done it?
A Catastrophist geologist is not necessarily a creationary geologists.
And there are beginning to be some interpretations involving tsunami and
mega-tsunami depositions. These are associated with bolide impacts at the
proposed K-T boundary. Specifically, the proposed impact sites in the
Gulf of Mexico near the Yucatan, in the Chesapeake Bay area and in the Crow
Creek Member in South Dakota and Nebraska.
I found the following quote quite interesting:
"The recent suggestion that the 180-Km-diameter buried circular gravity
anomaly near Chicxulub on the nor5th coast of Yucatan represents the
Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary bolide impact site ... has focused
renewed attention on sedimentary deposits in the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico and Mexico as possibly recording deposition by an impact-generated
tsunami megawave ... . Although, in theory, testing of this hypothesis
should be easy, this has not been the case in practice because no
consensus exists regarding the identifying attributes of an
impact-generated tsunami. Should the deposition pattern be chaotic or
stratified? How do such deposits differ from submarine gravity slides,
portions of turbidite flow deposits, or channelized sea-level lowstand
deposits?" Stinnesbeck, W., et.al. 1996, 'Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary
Clastic Deposits in Northeaster Mexico: Impact Tsunami or Sea-Level
lowstand?' in MacLeod and Keller, edtrs, 'Cretaceous-Tertiary Mass
extinctions: Biotic and Environmental Changes'. [The '...' represent
rather extended listings of references.]
Work done on Holocene tsunami depoists has not been real helpful. For
instance at Port Alberni, BC, consider three layers studied. The upper
sand sheet [associated with the 1964 Alaska tsunami] "consists of massive,
moderately well sorted, fine to medium sand [ave.=1-2 cm thick]. Twigs,
branches, logs, bark, seeds, and conifer cones and needles are scattered
through the sediment and also occur locally in a mat at the top of the
sand sheet."
The second tsunami deposits "consists of medium to very fine sand and
minor silt and is moderately well sorted [ave=5 cm]. The sediment is
generally massive, although there are scattered granules and pebbles near
the base of the sand at some sites."
The third tsunami layer is "A thick (12-68 cm) unit of sand and pebble
gravel was found at many sites below the second sand sheet,... It is also
well stratifited, unlike the two younger sand sheets. At site 8, for
example, pebble gravel grades up into fine sand without an obvious break.
At site 9, pebble gravel is more abrupltly overlain by medium to coarse
sand. At still other sites, an upward-fining sub unit of coarse to fine
sand with scattered granules and peabbles sharply overlies massive fine
sand. These relationships suggest that the sediments were deposited
during two separate, closely spaced events or during a single event under
markedly fluctuating energy conditions." "It is unlikely that the river
[Somass River] could deposit widespread, sharply bounded, thin sheets of
moderately well sorted sand like the upper two in the Port Albenri
sequence." "We cannot rule out a flood origin for the older sand and
gravel layers at Port Alberni. The third layer appears to have a
sheet-like form but is thicker, much coarser, and more localized than the
two above it. In addition, unlike the younger sands, it is internally
stratified and locally graded. Although these characteristics do not
preclude a tsunami origin, and indeed do not fully meet our expectations
for [river] flood deposits, we prefer to be cautious and thus leave open
the interpretation of this layer." Clague and Bobrowsky, 1994, 'Tsunami
deposits beneath tidal marshes on Vancouver Island, British Columbia,'
GSAB, 1293-1303.
So, even holocene interpretation of possible tsunmi deposits is frought
with uncertainty.
> >The only ones who can tell you if the pollen was flattened or not were
> >the original researchers. Since one is a close personal friend of yours,
> >give him a call.
> This is interesting. You are acting like the pollen proves your point but
> you can't answer questions about the work. Obviously you have a lot of
> faith in the men who performed this work, even though the work was not their
> area of expertise.
I have never said that pollen proves any of my theories. I started this
discussion to see what people thought. I have found that because the men
claim to have found pollen where pollen is not 'supposed' to be then their
work is automatically wrong or called contaminated without benefit of
standard scientific reexamination. And, since the men were not expert
specialists in palyonology, they have no credibility.
Allen Roy
Grand Canyon Creationary Geology Tours, see:
http://www.tagnet.org/anotherviewpoint/