HI Allen,
You wrote:
Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Allen Roy
>Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 11:36 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today
>
>"Trackways of crawling worms and burrows of marine organisms are also
>observed in the flysch formation. More specific identification of the
>ichnofauna has not been made. There are both surficial and tunnelling
>crawling traces on the upper bedding plane of the shale layers. usually we
>see only casts of these traces on the lower bedding plane of the superposed
>sandstone layers. Tunnels filled with sand which were later
>cemented. Very
>short fossil tracks are evidence of short time between sedimentation
>superposed strata." Lalomov, A.V., 2001, Flood Geology of the Crimean
>Peninsula, Part I: Tavrick Formation, CRSQ, Vol. 38, No. 3, pg. 121.
Great. So this bed also presents the same evidence for long times separating
the layers. As Darryl noted, the sands are catastrophic, the shales aren't
and require time. And once again, I would point you to the laws of physics
in the form of Stoke's law for the settling rate of shale particles in
water. You can perform this experiment yourself in a jar. Take sand box sand
and mix in a dash of dirt, fill the jar with water put the lid on and shake
vigorously. Set the jar down and you will see that the sand drops out
almost immediately but the water remains muddy for many hours. This is the
reason that the flood can't deposit shale rapidly.
>
>The Tavrick formation has burrow tunnels that were filled with sand from
>superposed sand strata.
>
>> 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.
>
>Logvinenko, N.V. and G.V. Karpova. 1961. Litologiya i gineses Tavricheskoi
>Formatsii Crima (Lithology and geneiss of Tavrik formation of Crimea).
>Kharkov University Publishers, USSR. (Russian).
>
>Logvinenko, N.V. 1961. O Flishevih texsturkh triasovih otlojenii Crima
>(About Flysch textures in triassic deposits of Crimea.) Isvestiya vuzov
>(Proceeding of institutes of higher education). Geologiya i Razbedka
>(Geology and Prospecting) 3:16-28. Moscow, USSR. (Russian).
So, have you read these articles or are you merely repeating references from
CRSQ? It may look really scholarly, but it does little good with an English
speaking audience. Pick examples which we can get to the primary literature.
I speak Chinese, not Russian.
>
>
>> >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 Haymond and Tavrick are both flysch (turbidite) formations
>BOTH of which
>have borrows.
Then you still haven't explained the burrows. You can't simply say,
turbidites are deposited rapidly therefore the burrows are deposited
rapidly. Why? That assumes that the burrows can be deposited with the
sediment. How does one deposit a hole in the ground? What you must do to
convice people your position has any validity is to show how the animals
were able to burrow 156 times per day for a month without eating or sleeping
and without dying when covered hundreds of time a day with sediment. What
high-energy health drink were these animals drinking?
>
>> 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?
>
>I know the difference between erosive features and excavation cones. The
>point I was trying to make is that the erosive features are
>evidence of high
>energy erosion which would have removed the excavation cones as the next
>turbidite rolled into place over the previous one.
You don't get these high energy features at the sand-shale interface but
you do have them at the shale-sand interface. This should tell you that the
deposition of the shale was not catastrophic as it didn't erode into the
sand. It looks like this
--------------------------------
sand
-----solemarks erosion burrows--
shale
-----smooth boundary------------
sand
-----solemarks erosion burrows--
shale
-----smooth boundary------------
sand
-----solemarks erosion burrows--
And further, the marine
>life making the burrows would have been carried away in the turbidite along
>with the excavation cones, only to be buried again in the next
>layer of mud.
>
>I am currently rereading. Raymond, L.A. 1995 "Petrology; The study of
>Igneous, sedimentary, and Metamorphic Rocks." I also have on hand waiting
>to be read, Stow, A.V. ed. 1992, "Deep-Water Turbidite Systems" and Warren,
>J. 1999, "Evaporites, their Evolution and Economics."
My advice, read it looking for data, not only for data which supports you.
Consider deeply the problems to your viewpoint that the book presents.
>The animals would likely have burrowed out leaving behind excavation cones,
>When the next turbidite comes along, the cones and animals are swept away
>and mixed up into the turbidite as it sorted it's load and deposited it.
>Again the animals would find themselves buried in mud and have to dig their
>way out, only to be swept away again. No one is suggesting that they all
>survived.
Then, if they didn't all survive, then we should expect that there would be
fewer animals with each layer. We should see a strong decrease in burrows as
we go up the Haymond formation. This is not observed. Indeed if only 1% of
the animals died in each Haymond layer, we would see only 1 burrower out of
a thousand in merely 600 layers. But there are 15,000 layers. If only one
out of a thousand dies, then they are all dead before the 2000th layer.And
if only 1 out of ten thousand die, then you should have 22% fewer burrows on
the upprmost layer than in the bottom. So,what do you say to this? ARe you
going to say that only 1 in 10,000 died in the landslide?
>
>> 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.
>
>> So are you saying that Baumgardner is wrong?
>
>No. The question then is, how does Baumgardner propose that the heat is
>dissipated? He proposes that some of it is take above the atmosphere by
>water geysers. Some will be used to melt the cool and dense oceanic crust
>which sank into the mantle. Baumgardner has calculations on the amouts of
>energy that would be dissipated to space by way of water geysers.
No, Baumgardner goes miraculous on us. In all his writings, I have never
seen him say this. He writes:
"Finally, it seems evident that the Flood catastrophe cannot be understood
or modeled in terms of time?invariant laws of nature. Intervention by God
in the natural order during and after the catastrophe appears to be a
logical necessity. Manifestations of the intervention appear to include an
enhanced rate of nuclear decay during the event and a loss of thermal energy
afterward." (Baumgardner 1986, p. 24)
And inspite of this admission, Baumgardner continues to act as if scientific
modeling will do any good. If the Flood is a miracle, then it is the
highest form of hubris to tell God what miracle he performed.
>
>> >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?
>
>Others at the JPL and Sandia labs have done such modeling concerning
>asteroid impacts. Computer modeling of the Jupiter impacts and
>the tunguska
>event (and confirmed by the impacts on Jupiter) show that the fireballs jet
>into space by way of the asteoroid trajectory path through the atmosphere.
>The fireballs represent the major part of the heat generated by the impact
>explosions. Explosion in the air or on the ground will behave pretty much
>the same with the fireball jetting back to space through the trajectory
>path.
And when I pointed you to that modeling 2 years ago, you disbelieved it.
>
>However, above a certain magnitude of power, the impact explosions will
>simply blow away the entire atmosphere above the impact site. The
>generated
>heat would be be jetted into space through the gaping hole in the
>atmosphere.
>
>Do I have on hand all the sources and data to back these
>statements up? No.
>I have simply presented a summary of what anyone would know if they were
>familiar with the literature dealing with asteroid impacts. It can easily
>be confirmed through a little reading or by contacting those
>knowledgable on
>the subject.
Why do you ignore what the scientists say about the killing caused by
asteroids?
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200007/0127.html
>
>> 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?
>
>At this point I do not have an answer for that. But to say, that one thing
>that needs to be forgotten is the idea that the Flood was a large
>homogenous
>mess.
It is amazing how often people refuse to answer simple questions concerning
the geology of the flood. Why? You claim hundreds of asteroids hitting the
earth and you don't expect things to get mixed up? What kind of idea is
that?
Rather, that it was composed of thousands of individual wave and
>surge events associated with asteroid impacts and tectonic violence (and
>other more minor events). I would suggest that these microfossils did not
>settle out of the water. Rather, they became trapped in high
>concentrations
>muddy mixes which were rapidily deposited.
They are not found in high concentrations. THey are dispersed throughout
all the rocks of all geologic ages and the ones from the Cretaceous rocks
are not found in Tertiary rocks. INdeed, these things change in form about
every 3 million years so even ones alive today are not found in the Miocene
rocks.
>
>> 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?
>
>I am engaging in exactly the same mental exercises in modeling and thinking
>that scientists studying the effects of asteroid impacts are
>doing. Most of
>what I have been saying comes from what I have read here and there in the
>literature about impacts and their effects. The only difference is that I
>(and other Creationary Catastrophist) are proposing that nearly all the
>known impact craters happened over about a 5 month period rather
>than spread
>out over millions of years.
Thousands of impacts killing everything with an overpressure of 4 psi.
"The 1908 Tunguska airburst provides a calibration, with a shock wave
sufficient to fell trees over an area of >= 1,000 km 2 and a fireball that
ignited fires over a smaller area near ground zero. The yield of the
Tunguska blast has been estimated at 10-20 from microbarograph measurements
in Europe and other methods. If we assume that the radius of forest
devastation would apply also to destruction of nearly all buildings (chiefly
poorly constructed residences), which would thus kill most people, the area
of lethal damage is given by a=100y2/3, where Y is the yield in MT and A is
in Km2. This corresponds to an overpressure of about 4 p.s.i. (~2.8 x 10^5
dyne cm^3)." ~ Clark R. Chapman and David Morrison, "Impacts on the Earth by
Asteroids and Comets: Assessing the Hazzard," Nature, 367, Jan. 6,1994, p.
34.
The KT impact at Chicxulub was 100 million megatons. It would have
overpressured the world. Admittedly there is much of this energy which would
have escaped to space, but not enough to save most of life on earth.
>In a catastrophic environment it is flee or die, there is no such luxury as
>sleep. Besides, survival of all the animals is not expected, nor
>guaranteed. Extinction was the order of the day during the flood
>catastrophe.
See my calculation above about how few we would expect to survive. So why do
we not see them decrease in number as we go up through the Haymond and
indeed why do we see any at all in the Tertiary strata which lies above the
Haymond?
>
>Let me ask. Is there an increase in the number of burrows per
>strata as one
>goes upward through the Haymond formation? If it does increase,
>or at least
>remain relatively constant then one could propose an increased or static in
>population over time. However, a decrease in the number of burrows from
>bottom to top is what one could expect in an catastrophic
>environment due to
>the lack of survival of the animals.
When looked at through all time, from the Cambrian to the present, we find
an increase in the numbers and types of burrows and footprints on geologic
surfaces. It is as though the world is being populated with more and more
types of animals during the period over which the sediments were deposited.
If they were deposited during a global flood, then we should expect animals
to die off during the flood and thus we should see fewer and fewer tracks
and burrows as we go up. This observation is exactly opposite to what the
flood should predict.
In the cambrian we only find burrows like skolithos and trilobite tracks.
increasing in number and density from the precambrian. When we get to the
devonian more and more fish traces are found and when we get to the
Carboniferous we find the first tracks of animals. We also find burrows and
tracks of trilobites and other animals at this time. When we go up into the
Mesozoic we find the first tracks of dinosaurs, which seems odd as this is
the middle of the flood and they seemed to get more numerous as we go from
the Triassic into the Jurassic and Cretaceous. And we still find the lowly
marine burrows only made slightly differently than the paleozoic ones. So,
the trend is opposite what the flood would lead us to expect.
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 : Sat Feb 09 2002 - 07:08:53 EST