From: Glenn Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> 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
> on topic. What do you have to say about the Haymond formation? Don't
> someone on some other topic.
1st. It would be good if you would take the time to learn what "bait and
switch" really is.
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 point is that
Creationary Catastrophists have already interpreted Haymond-like formations
(i.e. the Tavrick formation) within the Creationary Catastrophist model.
> >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
> the Haymond be deposited in a short time. Wonderful mantra. If you say it
> 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
> 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
Typical Ad hominen. Where is your scientific argument? This is the ASA
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.
> >The burrow holes are where the worms dug their way out after being
> >in the shale during the turbitide events. (not burrows down into the
> 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.
> >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.
> >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.
As I said before, the fast moving currents which deposited the sand also
eroded the top of the shale likely removing the "conical mounds."
> >Such Turbidite events could easily be associated with Noah's flood
> >catastrophe that consisted of thousands of events from asteroid impacts
> >Catastrophic plate tectonics.
> And lemonade springs could also be the fountains of the deep, but merely
> saying it doesn't make it so. As I have previously mentioned to you but
> fail to believe, thousands of asteroid events would be the equivalent of
> more than all the nukes in the worlds arsenals going off at once.
> would die. And as to Catastrophic plate tectonics, I have pointed out to
> you before that Baumgardner's model would generate 10^28 joules and this
> burn up the earth. Of course you don't care for this conclusion so you
> ignore it but don't solve it.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
> You failed to explain how the 75,000 feet of sediment lies atop the
> 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
> 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. 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. 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
> All I see is a guy who won't explain the data within his paradigm and who
> only offers mantras.
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.
All I see is a guy who is blinded to the theological foundations of the
interpretations which he accepts as truth. And confuses interpretations
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 08 2002 - 14:55:12 EST