Geological megasequences: data pointing to 500+ million years of evolution? Or to the year-long biblical Flood?

[Chris_Falter]

Craley’s explanation of this diagram does not make sense to me. Here’s what he says:

Fig. 10 shows that the rocks of the Absaroka and Zuni megasequences cover and protect much of the earlier megasequences, preventing their late Flood or post-Flood erosion across much of North America (and the other two continents also). There was undoubtedly some erosion as each megasequence regressed and a new megasequence transgressed, but not a late or post-Flood erosional event as suggested to explain the high volumes for the Tejas.

In the easternmost of the 4 profiles, the lower layers (Kaskaskia, etc.) are almost entirely absent. The Tippecanoe and Sauk are almost entirely absent in the second-from-the left profile. Kaskaskia formations are missing from the southernmost third of the left-most profile.

The standard explanation, if I have understood it correctly, is that the various sections of the tectonic plate(s) rose and fell due to a variety of geophysical mechanisms that @rsewell could explain far better than I. Together with eustatic variation in sea level, it created erosional and depositional patterns.

The forces involved in the rising and fall of the crust are extreme. They are the product of heat acting on the crust, and due to friction of tectonic movements they also generate heat. Before I could believe the YEC hypothesis that what geologists think happened over 500 million years could be compressed into a single year, I would need to see the equations worked out with special attention to heat outputs.

I would also need to see some working out of the equations that predict the amount of folding and fracturing that would occur.

Unfortunately, none of Clarey’s articles show evidence of such mathematical work. Clearly he worked hard, but it seems to me that he was not working on the right things. He is trying to work the depositional and erosional patterns into a narrative consistent with flood geology, but he has not done any work on widely noted data that strongly refute his narrative – among them, all the things that @rsewell, @paleomalacologist and @Paraleptopecten have noted.

@donpartain

this diagram does show that the greater loads of sediment were deposited on the West Coast, then thinned as more and more of the sediment was deposited.

I do not understand how you could come to this conclusion. Original deposition would vary based on how far downstream the water flows, for sure, which would suggest that layers which are thicker in the west might have involved east to west flows. However, the pattern could also be the result of greater erosion eastward due to crustal and sea level changes. There seem to be a lot of considerations in play here, which is why I am inclined to trust the community of thousands of experts as they work all these factors out.

@donpartain

“Also, dinosaur herds are extremely rare finds”

Western Montana has a “mass graveyard” containing the bones of thousands of Maiasaura, catastrophically buried together.

Alberta, Canada has a “mega-bone bed,” where thousands of Centrosaurus dino’s were catastrophically buried in sediment.

You do realize, of course, that the fact that you can only cite 2 dinosaur herd formations would suggest that such herds are extremely rare finds?

@donpartain

these erosion zones were caused either by the powerful transgressive flow of sediment across the continent (as was the case with the Sauk transgression–producing “the Great Unconformity”–or caused by the regression of the sediment flow.

I can understand how water flows create erosion. However, I would expect sediment flows to result in deposition. Thus I am unsure of what you are trying to state here.

@rsewell - I would appreciate your reviewing this post, if you have a moment. Did I misstate anything? What important considerations did I miss?

Thanks,
Chris

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@Chris_Falter

Based on what you have just said, the thinning of the sediment in that layer from west to east would imply that the erosion was flowing from east to west. Is that correct?

Given what the layer is, that is probably going along with time under water, hence period of deposition.

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@donpartain

Timothy, I corrected myself on this matter–see my reply to Chris. The graphics in Clarey’s study actually show the sedimentary layer thinning going from a west to northeasterly direction, thinning toward the Canadian Shield.

That makes sense. Once you get close enough to the east coast, the dominant issue becomes period of deposition increasing as elevation decreases.

[donpartain]

Thanks so much for all your help on this, Chris!

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@donpartain

I think Ron is the only professional geologist in this thread

While I have engineered upstream oil & gas, my world begins at a producing well where the exploration has been done. I am not a geologist, but I accept geology, and the best I can offer is, as Chris has laid out, an informed appreciation of the work of actual geologists that I have known or read.

@donpartain

Rather, I said it was arrogant for a uniformitarian geologist to say that only uniformitarians can be geologists.

Of course you have to be uniformitarian to practice geology. I expect you are a uniformitarian yourself. Consider the fireplace example I provided. The river rocks do not have to be labeled, this is from a stream bed, for you to be reasonably certain they are. Even with no history at all, you recognize the polished, rounded character of the stones which were worked by water, as opposed to slab rock. You can identify a stream bed, even late in the season when there is no flowing water. You spot flood debris when the flood is long gone. You make these identifications because you are guided by your accumulated experience with rocks in streams. You infer history based on continuous and uniform processes. The present is key to the past.

Geologists incorporate such common observations, but the scrutiny is far more deliberate, the resources including satellite imaging and gravimetrics far more expansive, specialties such as geochronology which complement field work far more rigorous, and the scientific context far more consilient. But while all this vastly extends the reach of commonplace observation, the uniformitarian principle still holds. With satellite images, changes in river course and emergence of islands have been charted. Once we know how rivers behave and what sort of trail that leaves, when we see the same signs elsewhere, it makes sense that the same processes were at play. Basalt formed underwater forms pillows which are distinct from basalt formed on land - so when we find pillow basalt, we know there had to have been water there at the time. So we can use precise scientific observation to increase our understanding of evidence we encounter from the past. Again, what is there to disagree with? That is uniformitarianism.

I once built a retaining wall which was nice and plumb when I placed the blocks. Over the ensuing decade it acquired a forward tilt. Yet I never once saw it move. Now either I can subscribe to the idea that reality is contradictory, or I can accept that some movement is just too slow to directly perceive. Instrumentation, however, can detect well below the human perception with great precision, and so the movement of tectonic plates, the bulge at Yellowstone, and the rise of the Himalayas, rate of erosion of Niagara Falls, all have been routinely charted in near real time for decades now. How much of a stretch really, is it to suppose that this has been going on for some time? That is uniformitarianism.

Everything we observe in geology without exception comports with what we know of physical law. Erosion, tectonic movement, uplift, impact events, the whole compass of geology, is in keeping with physics. Uniformitarianism is based on knowing what can actually happen without violating natural law. Physics delineates phenomena, predicts associated outcomes, and defines the rate at which things can occur. It is a self-contradiction to state that one accepts observational science but not uniformitarianism.

So there is much more of catastrophe in mainstream geology, and more of uniformitarianism among literalists, than is freely acknowledged. It seems to me that literalists are uniformitarian until the data conflicts with cherished presuppositions about the flood and recent creation, and then and only then does it all get thrown away. In their hands, uniformitarianism ceases to be common sensensical guidance and is turned into an artificial and vaguely sinister rhetorical dog whistle. As such, it enables one to look at a beautiful panorama of mountain, glacier, rock and river, and not believe his own eyes.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I came across an interesting photo that demonstrates that the terrible untruth of uniformitarianism still takes place today, remembering that limestone is not produced in a current by rapid flooding, but over thousands of years (and it is a soft rock – diamond it’s not):

Limestone - Wikipedia

This is also informative: Limestone: The Calcium Carbonate Chemical Sedimentary Rock

[donpartain]

@Chris_Falter

I can understand how water flows create erosion. However, I would expect sediment flows to result in deposition. Thus I am unsure of what you are trying to state here.

Both would be occurring. In the Sauk, the transgressive flow was so strong, it even drove 250-ton boulders as it eroded the top of the basement rock. This eroded rock forms the Great Unconformity. At the same time, though, as the flow transgressed across the continent, it was laying down sediment–heavier to lighter, as the sediment was being used up.

In the diagram you kindly posted for me, notice how thick the Absaroka, Zuni, and Tejas are in the west, where they began to be deposited; and then, they thinned more and more toward the Canadian Shield, as they dropped more and more sediment across the continent.

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

I teach both geology and biology, and my MS and PhD are geology, so I’d probably qualify as a professional geologist.

A model suggesting that each of the 5th order cycles of sequence stratigraphy was deposited by an individual megatsunami does have the advantage of making some fairly specific predictions. Too many young earth models are so vague as to be completely unverifiable.

However, such a model does not match with the evidence. The larger order sequence stratigraphic units, and many lower order ones, are seen globally as a gradual rise in water level, shown by the change in facies following Walther’s Law. But a tsunami ought to start somewhere and radiate outward. If a megatsunami originated in the Pacific today, for example, it would produce a flow pattern going from the west coast of North America towards the east. The deposit should include a jumble of all sorts of things near the coast, gradually tapering off to less massive things carried farther and farther inland. Fine mud and low-density materials such as floating wood and plastic would go the farthest. Instead, we get beach facies advancing inland all around the coasts of all the continents, followed by somewhat deeper water facies, and so on. Many of these sequences contain reefs, which cannot grow during a tsunami wave. The amount of sediment deposited in a single year envisioned in global flood models would prevent any reef or other hardground environment. But there are reefs through most of the Phanerozoic sequence.

The thickest layers occur in various places, depending on where had tectonic sinking or rising, whether there was a nearby source of sediment, etc. For example, there are very thick deposits for the younger part of the Zuni sequence just east of the Rockies. The collisions folding the mountains up helped to fold the area beyond them down. Going further east, there is a combination of no valley to dump lots of sediment into and a long distance from the eroding mountains that supply most of the sediment, so the layers tend to get thinner.

[donpartain]

@Chris_Falter

I would also need to see some working out of the equations that predict the amount of folding and fracturing that would occur.

Do you mean, in addition to the actual geological data Clarey presents, you need models that would predict what the data should be? Are you talking about “folding and fracturing” of sedimentary layers, or what? And why do you need this in order to evaluate the data Clarey presents? Please elaborate for me.

[donpartain]

@Chris_Falter

You do realize, of course, that the fact that you can only cite 2 dinosaur herd formations would suggest that such herds are extremely rare finds?

I see your point, but I wasn’t meaning to imply that these were the only cases of mass burials of a herd of dinosaurs.

At the same time, these cases are significant in helping us estimate the kind of water dynamics that must have occurred at this time. The Maiasaurus stood a little over 8 feet tall, was 30 feet long, and weighed up to 22,000 pounds (11 tons). Now…imagine several thousand of these giants herded together–then suddenly buried alive under several feet of sediment flow. No tropical storm or even hurricane has ever driven that kind of sediment flow across land, has it? This is repeated with a Centrosaurus herd.

But evidence does exist of the highest global (eustatic) flooding during this time–the Cretaceous (Zuni), which would easily account for the exceptional hydraulics at work at this time, upon all continents simultaneously.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@donpartain

The black-area unconformities are not missing layers “representing millions of years,” as uniformitarian geologists popularly claim.

Rather, they are erosion zones–just like the K-T (or K-P) boundary.

Not so. Why would an erosion zone be enriched in iridium? And if dinosaurs were together with buffalo and mammoths of the same size and mobility, why would they all be found on opposite sides of the boundary? Geologist do not claim millions of years because that is popular; rather, that expanse of time is concluded from the evidence.

[Chris_Falter]

@donpartain

In the diagram you kindly posted for me, notice how thick the Absaroka, Zuni, and Tejas are in the west, where they began to be deposited; and then, they thinned more and more toward the Canadian Shield, as they dropped more and more sediment across the continent.

You seem to imply that the sediment flowed from the west to the east. However, the four profiles run North-South, not East-West. So what you are saying does not seem coherent to me. But I will grant that interpreting the diagram is a little tricky due to the fact that a spherical surface is being projected onto a 2-dimensional flat surface.

Secondly, sedimentation tends to increase toward the ends of flows, as far as I can tell, so your description seems exactly backwards to me.

What does make sense to me is the idea that the Western Interior Seaway was an important feature in the Tejas and Zuni. Lo and behold, the locations of the deepest Tejas and Zuni sediments follow the contours of the Western Interior Seaway. Coincidence?

As for the rest of your posts, I am just going to stay quiet so you can start responding to all of the amazing and astute posts by well-qualified people like @paleomalacologist and @rsewell, which you have largely glossed over hitherto.

I find their posts highly instructive; I think you will, too.

Best,
Chris

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@donpartain

The Maiasurus stood a little over 8 feet tall, was 30 feet long, and weighed up to 22,000 pounds (11 tons). Now…imagine several thousand of these giants herded together–then suddenly buried alive under several feet of sediment flow. No tropical storm or even hurricane has ever driven that kind of sediment flow across land, has it?

(Note: I am not an expert on dinosaurs or flood dynamics

Across land, no, but massive landslides, like the one that caused the 1958 Lituya Bay earthquake and megatsunami - Wikipedia could easily bury a herd of that size.

Deep, rapidly flowing flooded rivers can do far more than initially obvious: given the typical density of vertebrates, you would need about 3 meters of water to potentially wash off a large Maiasaura. The local river (Broad) has gotten to 6 meters deep and 150 meters wide at peak flood. It has an average flow rate (under those conditions) of about 4m/s. That would be enough to be a serious challenge for most dinosaurs.

Bursting natural dams on larger rivers would be far more extreme. And a simple “getting stuck in soft mud” is enough to do in large numbers of animals.

[donpartain]

@paleomalacologist

But a tsunami ought to start somewhere and radiate outward. If a megatsunami originated in the Pacific today,

But what if we think bigger than this. Instead of thinking of an earthquake-generated tsunami from some a small location (as was Japan’s tsunami, off the northeaster coast of Honshu, Japan’s main island), think about tsunamis generated from the large stretches of mid-ocean rifting, with accompanying trench-forming ocean plate subduction. Such subduction (here, older ocean plates subducting under newer plates) would trigger mega-earthquakes, which would trigger massive tsunamis–like nothing we have ever experienced in historic times.

This would result in large ocean sediment deposits all along the West Coast–with the hydraulics to drive them across major stretches of the continent, wouldn’t it? And as this transgressive flow would cross, it would be depositing sediment layers in keeping with Walther’s Law; that is, the coarse sand layers (to become sandstone) would be on the bottom; the finer clay sediment layers would overlie these (to become shale); and the calcium carbonate sediments (the finest of the sediments) would layer upon the clay layers, to become limestone.

Which is exactly what we find in the Tonto group of Grand Canyon, in the Sauk megasequence: Tapeats SANDSTONE…overlain by Bright Angel SHALE…overlain by Mauv LIMESTONE. Classic Walther’s Law of sediment deposition.

[donpartain]

@Chris_Falter

What does make sense to me is the idea that the Western Interior Seaway was an important feature in the Tejas and Zuni. Lo and behold, the locations of the deepest Tejas and Zuni sediments follow the contours of the Western Interior Seaway. Coincidence?

Referring to the Zuni and Tejas megasequences as “seas” or “seaways” is typical for those who view each megasequence as occurring over millions and millions of years.

In fact, Google “Sauk Sea,” and you will read that the Sauk transgressive and regressive sedimentary flows were actually caused by the slowly, slowly rising and falling ocean waters (and that such rising waters were caused by melting glaciers as the continent migrated over the equator and away from the poles).

“Sea” fits because such interpreters of the data view each transgressive-regressive cycle as occurring over tens of millions of years…meaning that they believe the flooding waters stayed on the continents for a long time, making them a “sea.”

[donpartain]

@Paraleptopecten

Bursting natural dams on larger rivers would be far more extreme. And a simple “getting stuck in soft mud” is enough to do in large numbers of animals.

But just “getting stuck in mud” would not completely bury–and so, fossilize–them. It would just kill them.

Besides these mass (and massive) dinosaur “graveyards” are actually found all over the world–and during the very same Zuni megasequence (Cretaceous). Just Google “dinosaur graveyards” (or “bone beds”) and see what all comes up. China, especially, has lots of them.

In fact, there are even whale “graveyards”–in deserts, nonetheless. Doesn’t this sound more like catastrophic ocean waters flooding continents?

[donpartain]

As I believe you have pointed out, the presence of iridium at this boundary can be accounted for from volcanism. It seems to me it could have been deposited at this level during the regressive phase of the Zuni. Wouldn’t this have been possible?

What evidence calls for millions of years? Mammals do seem to have been more mobile, for the most part escaping the rising Zuni waters.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@donpartain

accounted for from volcanism.

Speaking of which…

INCREDIBLE (NONBIBLICAL) EVENTS REQUIRED FOR MOUNT ARARAT

Mount Ararat is an ancient volcano, with fossil-bearing sedimentary rock on its flanks interspersed between layers of lava. Consider the sequence of events required by flood geology this form during a single flood: (1) sediments and dead animals were deposited from floodwaters; (2) the sediments turned into fossil-rich rock; (3) magma was extruded into and up through the sedimentary rock (which was miraculously shielded from significant alteration by the heat) to create an entire volcanic mountain range up to 17,000 feet in height; (4) this huge, once-melted rock mass cooled at a miraculous rate; (5) Noah’s ark landed on it – all in 150 days!

From The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth, p.24.

(A beautiful book with eleven contributing authors, nine of whom are evangelical Christians.)

[Chris_Falter]

@donpartain

Mammals do seem to have been more mobile

Ah, Don. As far as I can tell, either you are making this up or you are relying on someone who is poorly informed. What is your source for this assertion?

It is true that the largest quadruped dinosaurs lumbered slowly.

However, many dinosaurs were not large quadrupeds!

Here’s a sample I found from a quick Google search:

Here’s a brief list of some popular bipedal dinosaurs and their known run speeds :

• Tyrannosaurus Rex – About 20 mph
• Velociraptor – About 25 mph (with 40 mph sprint)
• Dilophosaurus – About 20 mph
• Megalosaurus – About 30 mph
• Compsagnathus – About 40 mph
  [original emphasis]

Source

Why are sloth fossils only found above the K-T boundary, and fossils of all these dinosaurs found only below the K-T boundary?

@donpartain

But just “getting stuck in mud” would not completely bury–and so, fossilize–them. It would just kill them.

Have you ever heard of the fossils at the La Brea tar pits?

I am officially out of this conversation. I think I have listened more than enough to draw a conclusion about the value of your scientific contributions.

As I have said previously, each one has his gift. Exercise your gift, Don!

And exercise the humility to trust the scientific giftings that God has distributed across many tens of thousands of paleontologists and biologists.

Best,
Chris

[donpartain]

Please check out this abstract:

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-abstract/83/11/1026/244637/Experimental-Deposition-of-Carbonate-Mud-From

Title:
Experimental Deposition of Carbonate Mud From Moving Suspensions: Importance of Flocculation and Implications For Modern and Ancient Carbonate Mud Deposition

An excerpt from this abstract:

“Just as previously assumed for terrigenous muds, there has been a long-standing notion that accumulation of abundant carbonate mud reflects quiescent conditions of offshore and deeper-water environments. These experiments demonstrate unequivocally that carbonate muds can also accumulate in energetic settings. In the sedimentary record of carbonate rocks, interbedded grainstones and lime mudstones may thus not necessarily reflect shifts in depositional energy (or water depth), but alternatively may imply a shift in supplied sediment type. The observations we report suggest that published interpretations of ancient lime muds and derived paleoceanographic conditions may need to be reevaluated.”

So, this addresses the deposition of sand (to form sandstone), clay (to form shale), and calcium carbonate (to form limestone) in flowing waters. What do you think?