Re: New Guinea tsunami information.

From: Allen Roy (
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 - 16:06:06 EST

  • Next message: bivalve: "seventh day (the rest of the story?)"

    From: Glenn Morton <>
    > >I was only making a comparison between the particle makeup of the tsunami
    > >deposit and the make-up of layers of the Haywood formation. The lack of
    > >burrows, the number of layers, and the timing the tsunami are separate
    > >issues that need to be addressed, but not till later. I am merely making
    > >the case at this time that tsunami depositions and turbidite
    > >depositions are similar.
    > But Allen, this entire discussion started because I asked about burrows,
    > number of layers with burrows etc. and you now say that that is another
    > issue which must be dealt with at a different time? Come on. The burrows
    > are the issue.

    I feel that I have offered a possible interpretation of how the burrows got
    there. I need not repeat myself here. We had moved on from that into
    discussing whether the deposition pairs were tsunami deposits and so we were
    exploring what they were like.

    > OK, so if we have the oceans a slurry of mud, how do the fish breath? Mud
    > slurry is death to most fish and surely you aren't suggesting that Noah
    > the fish with him? Every solution you offer in one place creates problems
    > another.

    I stand amazed at how you can jump from a tsunami being a slury of mud to an
    ocean being a slury of mud. A tsunami can pass undetected across vast
    oceans, but it is only when it reaches shoaling waters that it begins to
    pick up its load. Only then could the tsunmai become a slury of mud.

    As for turbidites, they travel under the ocean because of their great
    density and do not mix with the overlying waters (but for a very minor

    An Ocean of mud slurry is your invention.

    > >Clague, J.J. and Bobrowsky, P.T. 1994, "Tsunami Deposits beneath tidal
    > >marshes on Vancouver Island, British Columbia" GSA Bulletin. v. 106, pp.
    > >1295-1297. (It is really wierd but they actually think that the three
    > >waves made only ONE (1-2 cm) deposit AND that the one deposit was
    > >ONLY SAND!
    > >Yet they admit that there was only deltic depositions below the lowest of
    > >the three mud/sand pairs.)
    > I have ordered this article. I want to know the particle sizes of the
    > clay/silt. Silt is usually just small sand particles but without checking
    > on this, my recollection is that they are bigger than the shale fraction
    > most often.

    It is simply called "interstitial mud" or "orgaic-rich mud."

    > >Let the facts speak for themselves. They are more important than an
    > >off-hand remark told to me.
    > But I have never read, seen or ever heard a geologist say that tsunami and
    > turbidites are indistinguishable. When one makes a claim like you did,
    > proper and right thing to do is either document the claim, or withdraw it.

    There is no need to withdraw it. I note the source and you can take it or
    live it.

    > >Obviously there are no burrows! One would not expect there to be burrows
    > >from EVERY turbidite, nor from EVERY tsunami. And I did not bring up the
    > >New Guinea tsunami deposits in order to make burrow comparisons. I am
    > >discussing the grading of the material and the fact that mud is a part of
    > >tsunami deposit.
    > I have been asking for a cogent, coherent and credible explanation of the
    > burrows and you have been trying to talk about everything else but the
    > burrows.

    Like I said above I believe that I have give a possible explanation.
    Obviously you don't think so. At this point there is little more that I can

    > >> This is from R. Peters et al, ITS 2001 proceedings "An Overview
    > >of Tsunami
    > >> Deposits along the Cascadia Margin," p. 479
    > >> http://www.pmel.noaa.govits2001/Separate_Papers/3-03_Peters.pdf
    > >>
    > >> "Tsunami deposits may be distinguished from river deposits by distinct
    > >> biological markers, spatial distribution, sediment characteristics, and
    > >> geochemistry. Tsunami deposits contain marine or brackish water
    > >> microfossils while fossils in river deposits, if present, would be
    > >> water varieties. Tsunami deposits fine landward, while river deposits
    > >> generally fine seaward. The composition texture of the sand grains can
    > >> used to determine a coastal or upriver source. Geochemical indicators,
    > >such
    > >> as bromine enrichment, may indicate a marine source."
    > >
    > >Great quote. It illustrates another important difference between the
    > >typical geologist and Creationary Catastrophist geologists.
    > Your response shows what is wrong with young-earth creationism. In YEC,
    > accepts only the data which agrees with them and finds reasons to doubt
    > everything else.

    not quite. We recognize that interpretation is led by assumptions. Since
    most interpretations are led by the assumption of gradualism which leads to
    conclusions about time that are incompatible with the "short" age since the
    Creation week, the YEC who rejects grandualism over vast times will natually
    reject interpretations based on it.

    > In YEC, one must search for the fastest set of conditions
    > possible to apply everywhere and discount anything that might indicate
    > processes.

    Since YEC reject gradualism over vast times, then they will interpret within
    the idea of catastrophism.

    It is a one way logic gate. Data that one can force fit to YEC is
    > accepted data which can't be is doubted or worse the integrity of the
    > is questioned. (doesn't apply to you in this instance)

    It is not the data that is force fit. Rather the data is interpreted within
    the YEC paradigm. that is the distincion.

    Hmmm. must be a back handed complement. :)

    > You are ignoring things like the Coconino formation which has crossbedding
    > (tsunami's don't do that) which contain only land creatures like lizard,
    > spiders and scorpion tracks, but have no fish, not brachiopods, no fish
    > Widespread deposits like this seem hard to explain with your tsunami
    > Surely one fish or brach was in the area to be dragged ashore with the
    > tsunami.

    I think it is premature to claim that tsunami do not do crossbedding. As
    Carey, S., 2001 "Tsunami deposits from major explosive eruptions: An
    example from the 1883 eruption of Krakatau," Geology, v.29,n.4,p347, says,
    "The study of such deposits [tsunami] is still in its infancy, and many
    questions remain about the process of deposition from tsunamis..."

    We have noted before some similarities between tsunami and turbidite
    depositions. In Lalomove, Op cite, pg. 121 are photographs of the Flysch
    (turbidite) formations which positively show cross bedded sandstones within
    flat bedded shales. Considering the possibility that these could be tsunami
    deposition, then it may be possible that tsunmai do form crossbedding.

    It is quite likely that there was a short passage of time between the
    Coconino and Supai group. And such a different type of sediment would be
    indicative of a different source and/or direction of tsunami path. And we
    need to remember that it is interpretation which identifies some of the
    track ways with spider or scorpion origin. I do not debate the data, for I
    have seen them, but I debate the interpretation.

    (I am going to have to refrain from responding any further to this, not
    because I would not want to, nor because I cannot, but simply because I only
    have so much time and there are some more important things I need to get
    done. I'll go back into Lurking mode for a while again. See you. It's
    been fun.)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 13 2002 - 16:05:20 EST