>From: Darryl Maddox [mailto:dpmaddox@arn.net]
>Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 8:34 PM
>To: Glenn Morton; Allen Roy; Asa@Calvin. Edu
>Subject: Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today
>
>
>Allen, Glenn and those who have been reading this whatever it is.
>
>An answer to Glenn's request for a Biblically based interpretation of the
>Haymond formation (I am assuming you wanted the whole formation explained
>and not just the sand/shale sequences) can be found in CRSQ v. 36 #1, June
>1999. The Haymond Formation Boulder Beds, MArathon Basin, West Texas:
>Theories on Origins and Catastrohism by George F. Howe, and Carl R. Froede
>Jr. and in the other CRSQ articles referenced in this article. Now I don't
>know if they ever explained or even addressed the interbedded sand/shale
>sequences but if they did this is where the answer is, not in the
>article on
>the Tavrick formation regardless of how similar the two may be.
I have that article in my files here and they did not address the issue of
the burrows at all. Their entire article concerned the depositional setting
and the origin of the cobbles. And this is amazing to me and another example
of young-earth creationism's ability to ignore the evidence. Howe and I
corresponded for a while and during those discussions I mentioned the
Haymond formation and the problem. A few years later he asked me for
information about the formation again and I sent him the copy of the Dallas
Geological Soc. Guidebook quoted in the paper. I thought Howe was going to
attempt to address the burrow question. Obviously he didn't and he and
Froede didn't even bother to mention the problem presented by McBride. Here
is what McBride says:
"Two thirds of the Haymond is composed of a repititious
alternation of fine- and very fine-grained olive brown sandstone
and black shale in beds from a millimeter to 5 cm thick. The
formation is estimated to have more than 15,000 sandstone beds
greater than 5 mm thick." p. 87.
"Tool-mark casts (chiefly groove casts), flute casts and
flute-lineation casts are common current-formed sole marks.
Trace fossils in the form of sand-filled burrows are present on
every sandstone sole, but nearly absent within sandstone beds.
~ Earle F. McBride,"Stratigraphy and Sedimentology of the Haymond
~ Earle F. McBride,"Stratigraphy and Sedimentology of the Haymond
Formation," in Earle F. McBride, Stratigraphy, Sedimentary
Structures and Origin of Flysch and Pre-Flysch Rocks, Marathon
Basin, Texas (Dallas: Dallas Geological Society, 1969), p. 87-88
The fact that Howe knew of this data, the fact that I sent him a copy of the
book and the fact that he didn't bother to mention it in his 1999 paper is
very disappointing to me as I like George and thought better of him than
this.
>
>It's a simple piece of logic; when a person asks a question about a
>particular formation you either anwer it directly or say you don't know but
>you may have an analogous formation for which you do have information that
>may be relevant. But at least be sure you have read the literature on the
>formation requested and that the answer to the specific question isn't
>there.
>
>As for Glenn insisting that Allen address the sand/shale sequences of the
>Haymod Formation specifically I don't see why he is being so picky.
Because the key to this deposition lies with the burrows and the physial act
of burrowing.
IF
>Allen can figure out how to get clay to deposit rapidly enough to
>explain an
>ANALOGOUS deposit then the same information should acceptable as an
>explanation for sand/shale sequences of the Haymod Formation. I
>believe one
>of the keys to science is that the laws of physics are consistent with
>regard to time and space variations. But the key words here are IF and
>ANALOGOUS. I have never heard anyone explain how to deposit clay rapidly
>(other than by adding chemicals to create floculates as I believe I have
>heard they do at sewage treatment plants) and having not read all the
>articles on the Haymond or the Trevic I don't know if they are analogous or
>not.
>
>As for Allen asserting that since turbidites represent rapid deposition in
>high energy environments, if he will read the section on turbidites in the
>Encyclopedia of Sedimentation, 1978, ed by Fairbridge and Bourgeois,
>published by Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross Inc. I think he will find that only
>the sand portions are deposited rapidly - the interveening clays and shales
>are deposited slowly and this agrees with both the observation of the
>behavior of these materials in natural environments and in
>laboratory tests.
Stoke's Law is one which global catastrophists totally ignore. It relates
particle size to sedimentation rate in a viscous fluid. Clay particles are
small enough that they can take years to fall to the bottom of a not so deep
ocean.
This law is v=2/9(gr^2(d1-d2))/mu
where v is settling velocity
g is acceleration of gravity
r is particle radius
d1 is density of grain
d2 is density of liquid
mu is viscosity of liquid.
Clays 1 micron in radius falls at .0003 centimeters per second or 100 meters
per year. Add turbulence to the waters and that rate will drop.
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 - 07:09:01 EST