Hi Allen,
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Allen Roy [mailto:allenroy@peoplepc.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:20 PM
>To: Glenn Morton
>Subject: Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today
>
>
>From: Glenn Morton <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>
>> >> Please interpret for me how you would go about interpreting the
>> >> Haymond formation within a Biblical paradigm? Here is the data.
>> >> Here are the observations:
>> >From: "Flood geology of the Crimean Peninsula, Part 1, Tavrick
>> >Formation" by Alexander V. Lalomov, CRSQ, Vol 38, No. 3,
>> >December 2001:
>> [irrelevant stuff snipped]
>> Wait a minute. This is clearly bait and switch. I asked for an
>> interpretation of the Haymond formation and you go off talking about the
>> Crimea. This is not relevant to the issues I laid on the table. Please
>stay
>> on topic. What do you have to say about the Haymond formation? Don't
>quote
>> someone on some other topic.
>
>1st. It would be good if you would take the time to learn what "bait and
>switch" really is.
Believe me, being in the oil industry I know what bait and switch is. By
your reply,you baited me to think that I was going to get an explanation of
the Haymond formation, but then you switched to something entirely
different, the Tavrick formation.
>
>2nd. The Tavrick formation is extremely relevant to the issue because the
>Tavrick formation and the Haymond formation are basically the same thing --
>Flysch deposition, or rather, Turbidite deposition. They both
>have the same
>features--alternating shale and sand with fluting, dragging, and burrow
>holes filled with sand in the shale. I figured that you had the
>intellectual capacity to make the connection between the [irrelevant stuff]
>and the Haymond formation, but obviously I was wrong.
The important feature of the Haymond, which may or may not exist in the
Tavrick is the burrows. You are missing the most important feature of the
Haymond by moving over to another deposit about which less is known. Indeed,
the Tavrick formation is not mentioned in over 90 years of AAPG Bulletins,
and appears nowhere in Journal of Sedimentological Research, or the GCAGSC
transactions. So, I repeat my request for you to explain the burrows, the
source of the sands and shales, how long it is inbetween each cycle and how
that fits into the 75,000 feet of younger sediment off to the east and how
all this fits into a model of the global flood.
The point is that
>Creationary Catastrophists have already interpreted Haymond-like formations
>(i.e. the Tavrick formation) within the Creationary Catastrophist model.
I didn't ask for an explanation of Haymond-like formations, because no
formation is exactly like any other. I asked for an explanation of the
Haymond features--you are switching the subject. If you can't explain the
burrows in relation to the Haymond events, then simply say so. THere is no
shame in saying 'I don't know'.
>
>> >These deposits are turbidite deposits under high energy and could
>> >easily have occurred in a short time.
>> Nice mantra. I can be deposited in a short time, you can be
>deposited in a
>> short time, all god's chillin's can be deposited in a short time and so
>can
>> the Haymond be deposited in a short time. Wonderful mantra. If you say it
>20
>> times and use prayer beads I will send you this fine blessed
>prayer cloth.
>> Now, get serious and tell me how short a time, how often per day the
>little
>> critters must dig, where was the source rock coming from, how could the
>> sand and shale be separated so cleanly if the mud was still stirred up in
>> the flood waters. Quit mindlessly repeating mantras and give an actual
>> explanation.
>
>Typical Ad hominen. Where is your scientific argument? This is the ASA
>isn't it?
I presented the data for the Haymond formation but getting you to discuss it
rather than other beds seems to be rather difficult. Do you want a repost or
private email of those scientific observations of the Haymond again? I
pointed out, in a typical argument, why it is unreasonable to believe that
the Haymond layers are deposited in one year. THat is my scientific argument
and you have yet to reply to it. You can find my original argument at:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200202/0080.html
>
>Turbidites are by definition high energy, short-term deposition. The
>Tavrick and Haymond are Flysch (i.e. turbidite) formations. Therefore they
>are by definition high energy, short-term depositions.
Then please explain the burrows in the Haymond, how much time it took for
the burrowers to burrow. I have already shown evidence against your
suggestion that they are escape burrows because there is no shale dragged up
into the sand, there is no mounting where the worm emerged at the top of the
next sand or at the top of the shale. Once again, I asked about the
Haymond, and you continue to speak of the Tavrick.
>
>> >The burrow holes are where the worms dug their way out after being
>buried
>> >in the shale during the turbitide events. (not burrows down into the
>shale)
>> False, if that were the case, there would be a little conical hill around
>> each burrow hole. There isn't. And the burrowing out would drag shale up
>> into the sand which is not observed. Back to the drawing board Allen.
>
>Sorry, but the tops of the shales show many signs of high energy erosion
>(dragging grooves, ripple marks, sole marks, etc.) which would have removed
>the upper part of the shale deposition and presumably the "conical hills'
>around burrow holes.
Allen, you don't understand the terminology here. The sole marks, dragging
grooves and riple marks are erosive features created by the clasts and other
objects carried down with the sands. THey are not the same as excavation
cones caused by burrows. I would suggest taking a look at Reineck and
Singh, "Depositional SEdimentary Environments," Have you read it, or any
sedimentary environment book?
>
>> >During the turbidite events,
>> >1. shale mud with worms (or whatever did the burrowing) is deposited
>> > quickly.
>> >2. The worms dig their way out leaving the cast.
>> So where is the conical hill around each escape burrow? We see this
>> sometimes with some critters, but not here.
>
>Nice mantra.
>
>> >3. The sand is deposited quickly and fills the burrows,
>> >4. the worms are washed away in the fast moving current and not
>> >deposited in the sand.
>> >5. goto 1.
>> Your model has observational data missing from it. No conical mound from
>> the dirt thrown out of the mud by the critter trying to leave.
>
>Speaking of mantras.
Well, if you won't respond to scientific observation then what will you
respond to?
>
>As I said before, the fast moving currents which deposited the sand also
>eroded the top of the shale likely removing the "conical mounds."
But that is inconsistent with your statement that the animals were escaping
the sand which had been dumped on them. If the animals were burrowing
upward, they would mix sand and shale at the interface and one would see a
trace of the animal's passage in the sand. THis is not seen. The sand grains
don't fit back together exactly when it has been burrowed and one can see
burrows in sand as well as in shale.
>The Oceans basins are the fountains of the great deep. These basins were
>broken up by asteroid impacts, initiating sinking of the dense
>oceanic crust
>into the Athenesphere. This sets up rotating cells in the mantle which
>pulled apart the continental masses.
And I suppose you don't care about how much energy such impacts input to the
earth and how large an area will be sanitized by the pressure wave. We have
been over that territory and I see no reason to go there again. All I will
do is ask that regardless of what you think of me, please consider what I
said 2 years ago: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200007/0127.html
>
>The impacts on Jupiter prove that explosion fireballs jet into space above
>the atmosphere dissipating most of the resulting heat into space
>and not the
>atmosphere. I am well aware of the forces involved due to
>asteroid impacts,
>probably more than you are.
See the above URL and the followups.
Some of the largest known impact craters were
>likely made by explosions larger than the nuclear weapons ever made
>altogether. There would indeed be complete destruction within the blast
>zone, but the bigger the explosion, the more energy that is radiated
>directly into space. It is quite likely that medium sized impacts had more
>destructive impact on the globe than the largest ones.
>
>If I remember correctly, your computations are based on the idea that the
>continent slide across the mantle generating heat from the friction. The
>continents do not slide across the underlying mantle. Rather,
>sinking crust
>sets up rotating cycles in the Athenesphere which then drag (or push) the
>continents apart.
You are unaware of the shearing force which viscous fluids have and which
would affect things even if you set up a circulation. The shearing force
opposes the motion and you don't avoid it with your suggestion. I will
guarantee that there is a resisting force regardless of what pulls or pushes
the continent. The mantle has a viscosity of 10^22 poise which will reduce a
bit as the temperature goes incredibly higher.
The largest source of heat comes from the exposed mantle
>at the rift zone. It is cooled by water converted to steam geysers.
>Baumgartner's calculations indicate that these steam geysers will also jet
>above the atmosphere dissipating most the heat into space.
You entirely miss the fact that viscous fluids in motion generate frictional
heat. Even Baumgardner calculated that 10^28 joules of energy would be
created by what he is suggesting and he is suggesting something similar to
your scenario.
"Because all current ocean lithosphere seems to date from Flood
or post-Flood times, we feel that essentially all pre-Flood ocean
lithosphere was subducted in the course of the Flood. Gravitational
potential energy released by this subduction of this lithosphere is
on the order of 10^28 J. This alone probably provided the energy
necessary to drive flood dynamics." ~ S. Austin, D. R. Humphreys, J.R.
Baumgardner, A. A. Snelling, L. Vardiman and K. Wise, "Catastrophic
Plate Tectonics," in Robert E. Walsh, ed. 3rd Int. Conf. on
Creationism, (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1994), p. 612
The reference for the 10^28 Joules is to J. R. Baumgardner "Numerical
Simulation of the Large-Scale Tectonic Changes Accompanying the
Flood, in R. E. Walsh et al, editors, Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Creationism, (Pittsburgh: Creation
Science Fellowship, 1987), p. 17-30
So are you saying that Baumgardner is wrong?
>
>Thus the heat from asteroid impacts and CPT will largely be radiated into
>space above the atmosphere. The largest problem will likely be nuclear
>winter symptoms, but even those are highly exaggerated.
Have you done computer modeling to be sure of this?
>
>> You failed to explain how the 75,000 feet of sediment lies atop the
>burrows
>> and how quickly the burrows could be made and you failed to explain where
>> the sediment came from and how rapidly it was deposited whether it was
>post
>> flood or during the flood. You haven't explained anything.
>
>Simple. It is called a flood catastrophe. Asteroid impact-tsunami is the
>major erosional and depositional factors of the Creationary Catastrophe
>model.
So why do the tiny microfossils which float in the water sort themselves out
in perfect order in the Gulf of Mexico and around the world by shape? They
are all about the same size and take a long time to settle out of the water.
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/micro.htm
Why isn't everything stirred up and mixed up?
Mega-tsunami will also be a factor due to CPT. 75,000 feet of
>sediment is nothing. Impact-tsunami erode and then deposit as they move
>across the surface of the earth.
Exactly what experimental data or observation do you offer in support of
this concept? Aren't you doing exactly what the YECs criticize scientists
for? Often it is claimed that we can't know what happened because we weren't
there, so were you there? Have you ever observed a mega-tsunami?
The sediment came from some places and
>deposited in others. Turbidite deposition and tsunami deposition are very
>similar. When Creationary Catastrophists think FLOOD, they do not think of
>rivers overflowing due to rain, (although that likely played a
>small part of
>the catastrophe).
>The Haymond depositions are turbidite and by definition quick
>deposits. The
>associated burrows must therefore, also be quick. Quick likely means
>minutes to less than an hour.
Finally! Thank you. So you think that all these poor animals did burrow the
Haymond 166 times per day for a full month. Don't you think they ever grew
tired or wanted to eat or sleep? Even fruit flies sleep but you aren't
letting these animals get any rest whatsoever with your scenario. How did
they survive without eating during that month of constant burrowing?
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 08 2002 - 16:18:35 EST