always a pleasure to joust with you.
At 09:29 AM 9/11/97 -0700, Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
I would not put Austin or Rupke in that generation.
FWIW, Rupke did publish in peer-reviewed journals. Austin has not, that I
am aware of.
> But the idea that the flood was like a bucket filled with
>sediment is fantasy. I think the laws of sedimentology were just as they
>are today. Stuff had to be eroded, transported and deposited. It was
>never all in the bucket at one time, so I fail to see the point you are
>trying to make about denser (not necessarily larger tho) stuff settling
>first. When it got to the bucket, denser settled faster than less dense,
>smaller stuff that got to the bucket at the same time. Thus there would be
>a continual interposition of denser and less dense material throughout the
>sedimentary process. That's what we see in the rock record.
I agree that that is what we see in the rocks--denser/less dense
interspersed. But I don't see your suggestion working either. Here is why.
(This will look awful on the htm in the archives)
_____~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| ++++++++++++++++++++++++ _________this level is continental shield
|========= _______ ======|
|---------| |____--|
|_________| |__|
subbasin 1 subbasin 2
Let the above be a basin The ~ is the uppermost layer, + is the second
layer, = is the third layer and - is the lowest rock layer. There is one
thing that is absolutely essential here. Before the first permanent
sediment was laid down, all the erosion in that basin that was going to
occur HAD occurred. The fact that the --- layer is found in both sub-basins
strongly implies that the erosion had finished at the same time in both
basins.One the --- was laid down, no further erosion digging into that layer
occurred. Then came the === layer, also found in both basins.This sediment
and every sediment above had to come out of some other spot on earth. It
could not have been derived locally.
HEre is the problem.The widespread occurrence of paleozoic strata, each
having the same fossils and lithology, covering innumerable basins over vast
areas would suggest that the erosion had finished in all of these basins.
This means that somewhere there had to be a pile of sediment which could
supply the subsequent layers. The Cambrian often starts with a conglomerate
above an unconformity, then often is a quartzite, then glauconitic shales
and limestones. The Cambro-Ordovician dolomites which are algal, mottled,
with rip-up clasts, extends from New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, throughout the
Appalachians, the Williston Basin, and can be followed into Greenland,
Europe and are found on the Siberian platform. Then above these are often
the Silurian Red beds with salt found in the Baltic, Japan, Siberia
Australia and throughout the Northeastern US. Then Devonian beds which are
topped out by the Devonian Black shales (the Woodford,Chattanooga) This is
found in Alaska under the Lisburne limestone. Above these come the crinoidal
limestones probably more widespread than any other rock layer.
I could go on and on, The point is that it is impossible to conceive of each
of these beds, say the devonian shales having numerous sources during a
flood. But one can't hardly have a world wide source which yields dolomite
during one period of the global flood then black shales, then crinoids, then
cyclical deposits of the Pennsylvanian, then the Permo-Triassic redbeds etc.
It makes more sense for these to be deposited during changed global
environments than trying to sort all these lithologies into an order during
one or even 100 years.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm