No, not bad, but here is why I said what I did. Remember the 3 zones. There is
Zone 3- dunes ^
Zone 2 pebbly sheet sandstones |
Zone 1 alluvial fan facies coarse to fine |.
If this were a global flood, why the change in facies over such a short
area? Why wouldn't some of those pebbles and cobbles make it far out into
the sand dunes?
Secondly, if the sands in Mongolia and other places were deposited in the
ocean, why no glauconite, a mineral associated strongly with marine
deposition? Why no fish fossils because surely the flood waters would
contain a few fish to be captured with the dinos? Why are the dinosaurs
found over circular nests which are carefully laid out with narrow ends of
the eggs pointing in toward the center? When in a global flood would a dino
have time to lay a clutch of eggs? Afterall there are several thousand feet
of flood deposited sedimentary rock beneath the egg nests.
And here I need a piece of information. I can't find a description for
rhizolith in my geological dictionaries. Do you have a dictionary that would
give me an official definition of a rhizolith? The Djadokhta Formation of
Mongolia and Inner Mongolia has rhizoliths. My recollection from memory is
that a rhizolith is a caliche or carbonate deposit which formed around
roots. Such trace fossils are found in the Eolian (dune) deposits at Bayan
Mandahu in the Djadokhta formation. (T. jerzykiewicz, et al, "Djadokhta
Formation Correlative Strata in Chinese Inner Mongolia:..." Geological
Survey of Canada Contribution 39793, Can. J. Earth Sci. 30:2180-2195(1993)
This whole thing has not shaken out yet,
>but when the initial studies were done earlier this century, certain
>assumptions were made which have been falsified, such as that you don't get
>dunes underwater, and that if you see certain structures in a modern
>environment that you can see, those structures can be safely used to typify
>that environment. But since nobody has studied sed structures in the
>modern marine environment, there is still a lot of guess work which has
>apparently led geologists astray.
I am not sure that this is true. There are a lot of cores taken in
various marine environments.
Is there any purely marine mineral found in either the Coconino, Navajo or
in the Mongolian deposits?
>>"A complete series is now known from the Carboniferous and including Trias,
>>Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous, comprising a remarkable development of
>>Continental intercalaire."~Raymond Furon, Geology of Africa, translated by A.
>>Hallam and L. A. Stevens, (London: Oliver S. Boyd, 163), p. 99.
>>
>>So the finding of a gradational bottom between the devonian and the
>>Carboniferous is not to be unexpected.
>
>In whose model? Can you suggest what might have been going on during the
>260 million years between the dropping of the last grain of L. Devonian
>sediment and the first grain of U. Cretaceous sediment that would not have
>eroded or deposited anything in the Saudi deposit? To say that is not
>unexpected is to say that it is expected, so there must be a good
>explanation for how this can occur.
My understanding of the Nubian is that it has almost been a constant
deposition of sand in parts of North Africa from the Devonian on.
>As far as the Nubian is concerned, giving this phenomenon a fancy new name
>doesn't alleviate the problem of explaining 260 million years of continuous
>deposition of the same sediment, while nearby in Saudi, during the same 260
>million years not a crumb was deposited.
At least at present the winds are toward the west at that latitude. And no I
don't know what they are in the past. But Saudi Arabia was busy depositing
marine carbonates. The granitic shield dips to the east in Saudi Arabia
separating the Saudi sediments from those of north Africa. Saudi Arabia was
under water and was not recieving much clastic rock. (See AAPG 66:12 p. 2611)
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm