From: Glenn Morton <email@example.com>
> The important feature of the Haymond, which may or may not exist in the
> Tavrick is the burrows. You are missing the most important feature of the
> Haymond by moving over to another deposit about which less is known.
"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.
The Tavrick formation has burrow tunnels that were filled with sand from
superposed sand strata.
> the Tavrick formation is not mentioned in over 90 years of AAPG Bulletins,
> and appears nowhere in Journal of Sedimentological Research, or the GCAGSC
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).
> >Turbidites are by definition high energy, short-term deposition. The
> >Tavrick and Haymond are Flysch (i.e. turbidite) formations. Therefore
> >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
> into the sand, there is no mounting where the worm emerged at the top of
> 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
> >the tops of the shales show many signs of high energy erosion
> >(dragging grooves, ripple marks, sole marks, etc.) which would have
> >the upper part of the shale deposition and presumably the "conical hills'
> >around burrow holes.
> Allen, you don't understand the terminology here. The sole marks, dragging
> grooves and riple marks are erosive features created by the clasts and
> 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. 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."
> >As I said before, the fast moving currents which deposited the sand also
> >eroded the top of the shale likely removing the "conical mounds."
> But that is inconsistent with your statement that the animals were
> the sand which had been dumped on them. If the animals were burrowing
> upward, they would mix sand and shale at the interface and one would see a
> trace of the animal's passage in the sand. THis is not seen. The sand
> don't fit back together exactly when it has been burrowed and one can see
> burrows in sand as well as in shale.
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
> You entirely miss the fact that viscous fluids in motion generate
> 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.
> >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
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
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
> So why do the tiny microfossils which float in the water sort themselves
> 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
> 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. 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.
> 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
> 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.
> >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.
> Finally! Thank you. So you think that all these poor animals did burrow
> Haymond 166 times per day for a full month. Don't you think they ever grew
> tired or wanted to eat or sleep? Even fruit flies sleep but you aren't
> letting these animals get any rest whatsoever with your scenario. How did
> they survive without eating during that month of constant burrowing?
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
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 09 2002 - 02:40:01 EST