>On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Glenn Morton wrote:
>> Now, the Diecke bentonite is a bentonite which is wide spread
>through out the eastern US., from Michigan, to Alabama to New York.
>It is the same bentonite as the Big Bentonite that covers large parts
>of Europe. The Deicke bentonite is the largest volcanic eruption
>ever. Let me cite Huff et al, ...
>>
>> This event allows one to know that the beds in Europe were the
>identical time in America. The only reason anyone reading this is
>just now learning of it is because Creationists don't know enough
>geology to even be aware of things like this. Thus,they don't talk
>about them.
>
>I used to use this bentonite as evidence for correlation. However, a
>paper in _Geology_ (I think it was last year) provided geochemical
>evidence against the US / Europe link. I can't supply a reference
>now, but I'll look it up.
>
I would be interested in any refutation of this connection that I missed. But
let's start with something of a less grand scale. Below you state that
bentonites can be used to correlate across wide areas. Would you agree that
the Deicke bentonite can serve as a regional time correlation point throughout
the eastern US? In this way we have a marker which acts as a chronomarker
connecting up several basins on a regional scale. If you accept that, then
here are the continent wide implications. By means of this and
other,overlapping bentonites I can construct a relative chronological chart
through the basis of North America. It would look like this:
----------d----
--------------c---------------------
-----b-----------
----------bentonite a--
-----deicke bentonite----
Would you agree with this on an isolated continent? That chronostratigraphy
can be established across a continent?
[snip]
>DT:
>> >These are all reasonable approaches to correlation, although a
>number of these generalised correlations only really emerge one the
>rocks are reexamined in the light of the Geological Column
>concept.
>GM:
>> No. The are the order that the rocks are found in undisturbed
>basins. The data is mere observation of order and lithology.
>
>We observe rock units - no problem. Do we observe "Tertiary" rocks?
>No - we observe rocks which we interpret as Tertiary in the sequence.
>Once we have done our correlations, patterns emerge. This is the
>point I am making here.
True. But we do not observe Mammals or reptiles either. We classify them as
such. Same thing with the rocks. Tertiary rocks have several traits besides
fossils which mark them as different. Tertiary rocks generally fringe the
present continents, when not deformed; tertiary rocks lie on top of all other
rocks containing dinosaurs, trilobites etc. Tertiary rocks are generally the
least compacted of all sediments (having been less deeply buried). The
velocity of sound in Tertiary rocks is slower than in other rocks (see A.R.
Gregory "Rock Physics in Seismic Interpretation" AAPG Memoir 26, p. 19) The
velocity of sound in Tertiary sandstones are as much as 1 kilometer/second
SLOWER than Cretaceous sandstones. There is far less dolomite in Tertiary
rocks than there is in Paleozic rocks (which are always found
stratigraphically lower than Tertiary rocks.
When you come to fossils, Tertiary rocks contain certain
mammalian/fish/microscopic fauna which NEVER is found in the rocks containing
the dinosaurs. Middle Tertiary rocks are the first rocks in which grass
pollen is found (thanks, Art Chadwick). Mesozoic and Paleozoic rocks havehave
no grass pollen. (YECs should consider why grass pollen was able to escape
burial in the flood. The reason yecs give for mammals being most abundant in
the Tertiary is that mammals were able to run. Can grass pollen run?)
This type of criteria is no different than classifying animals as mammals
based upon fur, mammary glands and warm-bloodedness.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm