>>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?
>
>But it is you that keeps insisting this is a part of a global flood. I
>have made no such assertion. In fact the cobbles and pebbles did make it
>far out into the dune field, and even form a layer of conglomerate across
>an extensive area of the deposit.
Let's not be coy here. Unless you are willing to say that the Mongolian beds
are not part of a global flood, I must assume that you do because I know
your views. I would rather deal with the implications of what your really
believe about the world's geologic framework.
>>
>>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.
>
>Again, you are painting my model for me. I have not tried to place this in
>any scenario, I am just asserting certain findings of the most recent study
>that support a reinterpretation as a shallow water deposit. There would be
>no glauconite here unless the source area was glauconitic sand. I am not
>arguing that the dinosaur nests are anything but what they appear to be.
>Quit putting models in my mouth!
Need I remind you that I have read your model. If the dino nests are nothing
more than what they appear to be, then you must agree that this is quite
problematical for a global flood view (whoever might hold such a view)
because the dino required time to lay the egs and in at least one case sit
on them.
>
>
>>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)
>
>That is a correct definition of rhizolith. Lots of studies have been done
>to ascertain the nature of these things, because they superficially
>resemble roots in general aspect, and are often found where various
>investigators might anticipate seeing roots. It remains problematic to
>assign them wholesale to "roots", since there are rarely if ever actual
>preserved tissues associated with the nodules. They probably do represent
>the results of organic material case hardening of the surrounding matrix.
Moldic fossils also rarely preserve organic material so should we apply the
same standard to them and deny (or at least withhold judgement) that they
are the remains of living matter?
>
>>I am not sure that this is true. There are a lot of cores taken in
>>various marine environments.
>
>True, and many of the same types of bedding structures found in modern
>shallow, fluvial and subaerial environments are found associated with deep
>water submarine fan sequences. We have been compiling a list of these, but
>it is not complete yet.
I have found a major sedimentological difference between marine and
terrestrial dunes. I will post it in another post.
>
>>Is there any purely marine mineral found in either the Coconino, Navajo or
>>in the Mongolian deposits?
>
>What is a purely marine mineral? If you are talking about glauconite, it
>is found in some non-marine deposits today, due to weathering out of
>glauconite from marine deposits (although its half life in a sandstorm
>would be about zip), and you may remember a paper at GSA a couple of years
>ago entitled "The Present is not the Key to the Past" that had to do
>specifically with the occurrence of glauconite (which today is formed only
>in deep marine settings), in which the author was lamenting this
>observation because so many of the glauconitic marine sands in the fossil
>record (like the Tapeats) are currently described as shallow marine because
>of the sed structures they exhibit that have traditionally been used as
>shallow marine indicators.
Weathering of glauconite from other beds and its deposition in a terrestrial
bed would require time and so is inconsistent with any global flood view
(whoever might hold such a view should take note)
>
>
>>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.
>
>Well, that's the data. Now all we need is a rational model to explain it.
>
>
>>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)
>
>Should then have been receiving marine carbonates during that 260 million
>years, or something, don't you think?
I am not sure I fully understand this, but Saudi Arabia was receiving
carbonate for almost all of geologic history. The entire Omani column is
carbonates with small amounts of shale.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm