It seems you do not accept the rise and fall of the land masses in response to the shifting tectonic plates. Obviously, the forces that transport sediment are gravity and tectonic activity. Ocean sediments sink to the bottom, the bottom is lifted up by shifting plates, and sediments are now above sea level. As mentioned, we can measure it happening today.
3 Likes
As an example: with a megatsunami, why is Santeevoluta only found as molds in the Castle Hayne, and Triplofusus cronlyensis and Scaphella precursor are only found in the Waccamaw (which are within 10 miles of each other in some cases), given that they are the same size and of vaguely similar shape?
Why can I find 150 mm Mercenaria campechiensis and 2,000 2-7 mm Caecum at the same small quarry (if you want to help me sort them, let me know 
)?
Why are Haminoea, Limacina, Raeta, Cochlodesma, complete Eulima, or any number of others, ever found, if everything is getting smashed by the boiling, churning slurry oceans?
3 Likes
This paper registers many of the misconceptions @donpartain seems to has been proselytizing here:
Also, this article for AiG
The Sedimentary Record Demonstrates Minimal Flooding of the Continents During Sauk Deposition
And from ICR
Grappling with Megasequences
Laurence L. Sloss would have been aghast at how his work has been appropriated and misrepresented.
Do you have a reference for your data here? Where is the evidence that there is any ocean sediment which was transported? The transport did not happen, so there is no need of any hydraulics whatsoever. What marine sediment is present is due to the presence of the inland sea for millions of years.
2 Likes
I’m not a geologist, but I would think it would be the same processes that are slowly depositing ocean deposits right now.
4 Likes
I do. Rational arguments based solely on the evidence, without the presupposition that your interpretation of Genesis is infallible, would be worth way more, because without that, the evidence is worthless.
YECism has at least one major theological problem in addition to its presumption of infallible interpretation. Since it doesn’t seem like you’ve been following this other conversation, “Is the fossil evidence modified?”, I would invite you to look at it, starting about here, perhaps, where we begin to address it.
Creationism in general does not value compelling evidence the most. From the AiG statement of faith:
No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.
Timothy Clarey’s paper is a work of theology, not geology.
1 Like
And every YEC is an infallible interpreter except for their young earth colored glasses.
The ones I actually know are more sensible, fortunately.
1 Like
The Zuni sequence includes a huge number of distinct layers, including about half of the Jurassic and the Cretaceous. (A random example is at Abstract: Sequence Stratigraphy of Late Mesozoic Rocks of the Colorado Plateau, by D. Nummedal; #91004 (1991) ) Each layer has evidence of how it formed, which can be seen by studying its geological features. They cannot be produced by a single giant wave. There are hundreds of different zones with different types of ammonites as well as different microfossils. Most larger fossils show somewhat slower change, but there are numerous zones marked by changes in the types of all kinds of fossils. Oysters, inoceramids, and rudists are a some important index fossils that are large, bottom-living clams that would not be moved around in the same way as planktonic microfossils or ammonites. There are also major changes in the types of fossil leaves and pollen, in the vertebrates, in corals, in sea urchins, etc. Many beds preserve fragile specimens that would have been destroyed by the wave you are proposing. There are reefs, there are trackways with drips of mud, there are thin layers of volcanic ash, there are land and freshwater deposits, there are calm marine conditions, there are massive evaporites; none of those could be deposited by a single giant wave, or even by lots of big waves. If you actually examine the geological evidence, you do not find support for a young earth position. All young earth claims since the late 1700’s have been attempting to explain away the geologic evidence, plausible only to people who do not know the geology well (or who aren’t thinking about the geology). They are not based on the evidence of the rocks; they are attempts to impose a young-earth position regardless of the scientific evidence, without considering whether the young-earth interpretation of the Bible might be at fault.
The dinosaur herds aren’t buried in ocean sediment. It’s river sediment. Occasionally, an individual dinosaur got washed out to sea (or pulled into the water by a predator such as Deinosuchus), so there are a few dinosaurs in ocean sediments, but most are in terrestrial settings. A giant wave like what you propose should produce far more mixing of ocean and land materials than what we see. You’re also mixing up the occasional buried herd (which happens from time to time with modern large mammals) with the areas that have a lot of dinosaurs, but not as a single group. Another find in the area of the Alberta dinosaurs was a slab of rock covered in gaping shells of freshwater clams. (It may be findable online in one of the virtual tours of the Royal Tyrrell Museum.) The sediment in the rock shows the traces of the clams burrowing. It tells a clear story. A stream full of mussels got a pile of sand dumped on it due to a flood (certainly not on the scale of flood geology claims, as the clams only had several centimeters to dig up through to get back to the surface). But the sand diverted the water, and the clams were left high and dry when they reached the surface. That could only happen in a land setting, with some time of exposure, not within a giant wave. A giant wave should mix up everything across the land surface. But the fossil dinosaur herds are herds, not a mix of all the different kinds of dinosaurs around. There are major changes in the types of dinosaurs present in the different layers, which likewise does not make sense in your single giant wave model.
If you were to try to use your megatsunami model to find oil, you would quickly run into problems. To find oil, a model needs to give specific details, not merely sound impressive. Exactly how big is this wave? Which layers were produced by it and which weren’t? Where would there be a high enough concentration of dead stuff to produce significant amounts of oil or gas? Where would those concentrations of dead stuff have experienced enough heat and pressure to turn into oil or gas, but not so much as to completely cook it away? Where are the layers with enough holes to hold oil or gas, with an impermeable layer above to trap the oil or gas underground instead of letting it leak out at the surface where bacteria can eat it?
No young-earth model answers such questions, except to the extent that they answer them incorrectly (for example, a giant tsunami would produce a giant jumble of material, likely to have plenty of dead stuff and holes to hold oil and gas, but nothing that would cap it and prevent leaking out. But we don’t see those deposits at the scale predicted by your model; we only see the occasional regional tsunami deposit associated with things such as an asteroid impact or the side of a volcanic island falling into the ocean). This is why no oil company uses young-earth models - they are no good when it comes to actually describing how the world works.
2 Likes
Phil, from what I have read–in both old-earth and young-earth articles–there was a definite uni-directional flow of sediment from west to east, across North America: from the west coast to the east coast.
Notice the article Ron submitted, entitled “Paleogeography of the Late Cretaceous of the Western Interior of Middle North America–Coal Distribution and Sediment Accumulation,” says this: “Lithofacies grade, west to east, from coarse-grained sandstone facies, through interbedded sandstone and shale, to shale, chalk, and ultimately to limestone.” So, “west to east” grading…from coarse to fine sediment layers: so, sandstone to shale to limestone. Such lithofacies are characteristic, according to Walther’s Law, of a transgressive water flow, where sediment is deposited with sand (sandstone) overlain by clay (shale) overlain by carbonate (limestone).
So, this pictures water flow from the west coast to the east coast–a transgressive flow.
This is also supported by this geological diagram: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSoegk5Md-PFOMlJ6tww9-1P7sLEErTqcDhlMIne8hRg3Zp-EHl8vuTeXUpsFr8oQeiwjM&usqp=CAU
Notice how the sediment layer deposits are thickest in the west, and then thin towards the east (circumventing the Transcontinental Arch).
Now, in view of this, I see a problem with the popular idea that sediment layers on the craton were simply laid by the rise (uplift) and fall (subsidence) of the continent (six times, no less). Assuming such actions would spread these layers across the continent, what direction(s) would the water flow take? It seems to me that as the continent would rise from beneath sea level, the water flow would go both east and west–separated by the Transcontinental Arch (the high point of the continent). So, the sediment layers should show sediment being deposited from west to east on the east side of the Arch, and sediment being deposited from east to west on the west side of the Arch. Yet, again, this is not at all what we find in the actual geological record, which shows only a west to east, transgressive flow.
And, in such a scenario, the sediment layers would be thickest at the Arch, and thin toward the coasts. However, what we actually find is that the sediment layers are thickest in the West and then thin toward the East.
“They cannot be produced by a single giant wave. There are hundreds of different zones…”
I have already addressed this–more than once: there are five different orders of sequences. Put another way, there are indeed many “sub-sequences” within each megasequence.
Notice this article, speaking of the high sea level during the Zuni (late Cretaceous, here). It accounts for this continental transgression as being caused by a high ocean level that was global (eustatic), so not as a result of any continent’s subsidence (which involves relative sea level).
Major transgression during Late Cretaceous constrained by basin sediments in northern Africa: implication for global rise in sea level
“These results indicate that northern Africa underwent significant transgression during Late Cretaceous reaching its peak during Turonian to Coniacian. This significant transgression has been attributed to the global high sea-level during this time.”
Bone beds have been found in what are today river channels. But that is not at all to say that it was flooding rivers that buried the herds of dinosaurs–who show evidence they were trying escape the rising flood waters (even leaving their young behind). While some of the dino’s were not all that big, some were 30 feet long and weighed 2 to 3 tons; it would have had to be pretty high and strong flooding rivers to overwhelm these guys!
But actually instead of attributing their mass burial to flooding rivers, authorities speak of “recurring coastal-plain flooding”–caused by tropical storms, even hurricanes. Yet, having directly experienced a flooding hurricane (even being flooded out of my house), I have trouble seeing a herd of these great beasts being mass drowned and mass buried in the flooding waters even of a hurricane (especially the dino that stood 13’ tall and weighed 6 tons in China). Think of Triceratops, who stood close to 10’ tall and tipped the scales at up to 13 tons! Can you imagine what kind of sedimentary water flow would be required to drown and bury him in sediment? Hardly a flooding river…or even a flooding hurricane!
Studies are showing that the flooding waters of the Late Cretaceous (the Zuni) were the highest ever of our earth’s past. But the flooding was not just local or regional. They speak of the high “global”–eustatic–sea level. That means these same continent-flooding waters were simultaneously flooding other continents as well–like Africa.
Studies in sedimentary layer thicknesses bear out the same truth. Thicknesses of the Zuni (Cretaceous) were the greatest on all continents–in fact, Africa’s Zuni thicknesses were much greater even than ours, here in North America.
You are apparently incapable of answering this, with your myriad of facts, trees in the forest, mistakenly interpreted.
Unlike mainstream geologists, you have proposed no plausible mechanism for the sub-sequences.
Moreover, the numerous sub-sequences exhibit strong evidence of slow deposition over eons of time:
- Different layers of ammonites, despite their similar hydrodynamic properties
- Different layers of microfossils, despite their similar hydrodynamic properties.
- Different index fossils in various sub-sequence layers:
- oysters
- inoceramids
- rudists
- leaves
- pollins
- corals
- sea urchins
Also:
- trackways
- thin layers of volcanic ash
- massive evaporites
Hat tip: @paleomalacologist
However frantically you attempt to wave your magic wand and say the magic words – “Same evidence, different worldview!” – you cannot make these rabbits disappear into the hat.
You have quoted this out of context.
The quoted passage refers to a small part of the continent, not the entire continent!
Here, let me give you the full text:
During phases of uplift in the Columbian-Sevier orogen, great volumes of coarse-grained terrigenous sediments were deposited as clastic wedges in the western side of the basin. Lithofacies grade, west to east, from coarse-grained sandstone facies, through interbedded sandstone and shale, to shale, chalk, and ultimately to limestone. [emphasis mine]
Now take a look at the accompanying map:
I have marked the map indicating the location of the basin in question.
The text on this diagram is completely illegible. There is no way to judge whether you are interpreting it correctly.
You are completely wrong to make this claim. The Transcontinental Arch has not always existed. As just one example: during the late Cretaceous, the area of what is now the Great Plains sank, and an inland sea separated stable platforms to the west and to the east.
"We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us."
I have every reason to accept your qualifications as a minister of the gospel, Don. That is your gift, and you exercised it faithfully for ~50 years. Thanks for that service!
Your claim to a gifting as a geologist, however, is – ahem – not as well established. You seem to be unaware of this, however many times your brothers, who love you, point it out to you.
You spoke of the arrogance of geologists, Don. You went there. Consider, then, how you yourself might be perceived when you implicitly make strong claims of geological expertise greater than that of thousands who have each labored for decades to obtain advanced degrees and domain mastery…
…yet you make obvious, silly mistakes based on an ignorance of the fundamentals and details of geology and paleontology. Do give this point some thought.
Blessings,
Chris
P.S. You have made 75 posts in this thread. Yet you have not been able to provide any mathematical, geophysical analysis of any of the things you have claimed. You’re batting zero-for-75. Can you see why readers of this thread would conclude that your implicit claim to expertise is unsupported?
3 Likes
He has not been able to give even a ‘layman’s description’ of how intact fossils are formed in multiple tsunamis without destruction, speaking of catastrophism:
Chris…you keep doing this. You are reading faster than your brain can think. I did not at all say that geologists are arrogant; I said that anyone who thinks they are too knowledgeable or too gifted, etc. etc. to be questioned or challenged in their teaching…is being arrogant. In fact, scientists are to be the very first ones willing to be questioned and challenged since they know that science, by its very nature, is designed to be a growing, self-correcting study.
And speaking of being corrected, I do accept (and appreciate, even) your correcting me by pointing out the context of the quote I used. I had the “west to east” applying to the whole continent, when the writer was actually applying it to a more limited area, this orogeny.
At the same time, if the study had addressed lithofacies farther east, I am confident it would have recognized that this facies (limestone upon shale upon sandstone) extends east well beyond this orogeny. I’m sorry the diagram didn’t work out (and thanks for pointing this out); however, it does indeed (if anyone visits the website they’ll see it) show sediment thinning from west to east, to the East Coast–which would not support the uplift/subsidence model.
You are being hyper-critical accusing me of representing myself as an expert in geology. To share on this thread what I have read, from the work of geologists, and to explain my takeaway from it is not claiming to be an expert. I haven’t double-checked, but I think Ron is the only professional geologist in this thread; and yet, the rest of you have expressed your thinking at least as confidently as I have, even admitting you are amateurs. Why is it, when I express my thinking, I’m claiming to be an expert; but when you and others in this thread are expressing your thinking, you are not claiming such expertise? It seems that you save your criticism only for those who disagree with you.
Dale, I am not wedded to tsunamis being the hydraulics that transported and spread about 53 million cubic kilometers of sediment across North America. So, what do you have in mind, that did it?
Many of the fossils contained in this sediment show amazing definition–like trilobite eyes–evidencing a very rapid and complete burial in muddy sediment (not a gradual burial over millions of years). On the other hand, there are also large “bone beds” consisting of graded, disarticulated bones. There are dinosaur “graveyards” that evidence dinosaurs trampling each other, as they were being overwhelmed and buried alive by flooding sediment. So, what would you say is responsible for this kind of sedimentary flow?
In other words, you have the very same data I have, to work with? So, bring it back to life! What was happening here?
That’s been covered previously, I believe, double entendre not intended.
If you can believe that fossil beds with that kind of “amazing definition” (and there are a lot of them) remained intact throughout your multiple churning and abrasive tsunamis within a year, then your imagination is more easily persuaded than mine.
Since you have responded to this question (finally!) – how about the others of mine that you did not respond to? I can only conclude that they were too difficult to answer. You can access them easily where right after your original post there is a row of profile photos with the number of respective posts each contributor has made. Clicking/tapping on one will yield a filtered result listing only that contributor’s replies.