From: Glenn Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >"Trackways of crawling worms and burrows of marine organisms are also
> >observed in the flysch formation.... 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.
> Great. So this bed also presents the same evidence for long times
> the layers. As Darryl noted, the sands are catastrophic, the shales aren't
> and require time.
Shale is not evidence of long time deposition. Darryl conceeded later that
shales could be short time under proper conditions.
> And once again, I would point you to the laws of physics
> in the form of Stoke's law for the settling rate of shale particles in
> water. You can perform this experiment yourself in a jar. Take sand box
> and mix in a dash of dirt, fill the jar with water put the lid on and
> vigorously. Set the jar down and you will see that the sand drops out
> almost immediately but the water remains muddy for many hours. This is the
> reason that the flood can't deposit shale rapidly.
I have done just such experiments and reported them to this net. Try this.
Put a couple of table spoons of sand in a jar. Then fill the jar half full
with dirt. Then fill the rest of the jar with water. Shake well then set
What will happen is that within a minute the sand will set on the bottom of
the jar. In about the same time a thick layer of mud will come to rest on
top of the sand. A thin layer of murky water will swirl above the mud.
Over several hours the water layer will slowly become clear. During the
same time, water will slowly seep up from the mud which has been sitting on
the sand since the beginning. But the important thing is that the Thick
layer of mud did not take hours and hours to form on top of the sand. It
was there almost as quickly as the sand.
> >Logvinenko, N.V. and G.V. Karpova. 1961. Litologiya i gineses
> >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).
> So, have you read these articles or are you merely repeating references
> CRSQ? It may look really scholarly, but it does little good with an
> speaking audience. Pick examples which we can get to the primary
> I speak Chinese, not Russian.
It is not my fault that you cannot read Russian. I cannot either, however,
the author of the Tavrick article in CRSQ (Dr. Alexander V. Lalomov, ARCTUR
Reserach Geological Laboratory, Moscow, Russia) can and has translated
quotations he used from the above articles. You may, of course, choose to
believe that Lalomov is lying.
> >The Haymond and Tavrick are both flysch (turbidite) formations
> >BOTH of which
> >have borrows.
> Then you still haven't explained the burrows. You can't simply say,
> turbidites are deposited rapidly therefore the burrows are deposited
Lalomove indicates that the short trackways and burrows indicate a short
time between depositional events.
> >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.
> You don't get these high energy features at the sand-shale interface but
> you do have them at the shale-sand interface. This should tell you that
> deposition of the shale was not catastrophic as it didn't erode into the
> sand. It looks like this
I know that the high-energy features are at the shale-sand interface. This
is what Lalomove indicates. It is the short trackways and burrows which
indicate that the shale deposition was fast.
>> No one is suggesting that they all survived.
> Then, if they didn't all survive, then we should expect that there would
> fewer animals with each layer. We should see a strong decrease in burrows
> we go up the Haymond formation. This is not observed. Indeed if only 1% of
> the animals died in each Haymond layer, we would see only 1 burrower out
> a thousand in merely 600 layers. But there are 15,000 layers. If only one
> out of a thousand dies, then they are all dead before the 2000th layer.And
> if only 1 out of ten thousand die, then you should have 22% fewer burrows
> the upprmost layer than in the bottom. So,what do you say to this? ARe
> going to say that only 1 in 10,000 died in the landslide?
This is speculation. What does the data indicate?
> No, Baumgardner goes miraculous on us. In all his writings, I have never
> seen him say this. He writes:
> "Finally, it seems evident that the Flood catastrophe cannot be understood
> or modeled in terms of time?invariant laws of nature. Intervention by God
> in the natural order during and after the catastrophe appears to be a
> logical necessity. Manifestations of the intervention appear to include
> enhanced rate of nuclear decay during the event and a loss of thermal
> afterward." (Baumgardner 1986, p. 24)
> And inspite of this admission, Baumgardner continues to act as if
> modeling will do any good. If the Flood is a miracle, then it is the
> highest form of hubris to tell God what miracle he performed.
I agree that if one appeals to a miracle for the Flood, then any model is a
basic waste of time. At this time, I feel that there are ways that such
heat could be dissipated without boiling away all water, atmosphere and life
form. One that is being researched now by Baumgardner is water/steam
geysers associated with the oceanic ridges that would carry large quantities
of heat from the exposed mantle directly into space. I have not yet heard
how much of the generated heat this may account for. There are problems
with CPT, but I believe that they are not fatal to the concept.
> Why do you ignore what the scientists say about the killing caused by
I don't ignore it. I recognize that these are estimates based on the best
information available at this time. And such, I believe that they will be
modified as more and better infromation is developed. I believe that many
of these estimates are exagerated (not intentionally).
> >> 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
> >that needs to be forgotten is the idea that the Flood was a large
> >homogenous mess.
> It is amazing how often people refuse to answer simple questions
> the geology of the flood. Why? You claim hundreds of asteroids hitting
> earth and you don't expect things to get mixed up? What kind of idea is
I did not say that there would be no mixing, but that it would not be a
single HOMOGENOUS mess. Each impact-tsunami would carry different and
distinct loads according to the rocks, soils, vegetation and life forms that
it picked up in it path. And so, the deposition from impact-tsunami could
vary a great deal.
In fact, a single tsunami wave could vary in composition along it's breadth
because of differing matter it crosses over.
> 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
> >settle out of the water. Rather, they became trapped in high
> >concentrations muddy mixes which were rapidily deposited.
> They are not found in high concentrations.
I did not say that the microfossils were in high concentrations. I said
that they became trapped in thick mud and deposited quickly/
> >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
> >(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 KT impact at Chicxulub was 100 million megatons. It would have
> overpressured the world. Admittedly there is much of this energy which
> have escaped to space, but not enough to save most of life on earth.
It is estimated that it would cause an earthquake of 11 on the richter
scale. The overpressure issue is overblown. It would have had a
devistating effect over a very large part of the earth, but it is
exageration to claim that it would kill most everything. Scientists are
backing down from early estimations as more information is discovered. The
hole in the atmosphere would cause much more energy to escape into space
than your estimate allows. One cannot scale the Tunguska event up to 100
million megatons because the tunguska event was encapsuled in the
atmosphere. The Chicxulub event blew the atmosphere away.
> >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
> >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.
> When looked at through all time, from the Cambrian to the present, we find
> an increase in the numbers and types of burrows and footprints on geologic
In the Haymond formation?? or the geologic column?? There is no such thing
as the geologic column. There is a geologic record, but not a geologic
It is as though the world is being populated with more and more
> types of animals during the period over which the sediments were
> If they were deposited during a global flood, then we should expect
> to die off during the flood and thus we should see fewer and fewer tracks
> and burrows as we go up. This observation is exactly opposite to what the
> flood should predict.
All this means, accepting the fabled geologic column for the moment, that
more and more animals were being affected by the flood. The waters are
rising higher and higher onto the continents as impact-tsunami after
impact-tsunami reach higher elevations.
> In the cambrian we only find burrows like skolithos and trilobite tracks.
> increasing in number and density from the precambrian. When we get to the
> devonian more and more fish traces are found and when we get to the
> Carboniferous we find the first tracks of animals. We also find burrows
> tracks of trilobites and other animals at this time. When we go up into
> Mesozoic we find the first tracks of dinosaurs, which seems odd as this is
> the middle of the flood and they seemed to get more numerous as we go from
> the Triassic into the Jurassic and Cretaceous. And we still find the
> marine burrows only made slightly differently than the paleozoic ones.
> the trend is opposite what the flood would lead us to expect.
Yes, indeed, you are referring to the geologic column. like I said above,
assuming some semblance to a geologic column, impact-tsunami would encroach
further and further onto the continents involving more and more types of
But my question was about the number of tracks and burrows of the same
creatures in the Haywood formation not about the supposed geologic column.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 15:11:18 EST