At 03:00 PM 1/21/98 GMT, David J. Tyler wrote:
"Whilst there is a growing awareness that non-uniformitarian
processes can legitimately be invoked, there is very little
change in the way geologists interpret depositional environments.
Data is not absent that other explanations are feasible - but the
general problem is that the "uniformitarian mind" does not know
what to look for."
On 21 January, Glenn replied:
"But what I find is that the diluvial catastrophist can't put as
many observations into a theoretical framework as can the
actualist (uniformitarianist)."
I am not very sympathetic with this response, Glenn. Almost by
definition, the uniformitarian approach can be used to put all
geologic data into a theoretical framework - and it is! My
concern is whether that theoretical framework is valid. I am
interested in testing these interpretations, not in accepting the
"best" of a limited range of possible explanations.
As an aside, actualism is a word which can mean different things
to different people. The neo-catastrophists regard themseles as
actualists but not uniformitarianists. So, your treating these
words as synonyms is not something which I endorse.
Glenn: "Since you, like Art, believe in a global flood also, can
you explain the carbonate data problem? If someone on your side
could place problems like this into a coherent theoretical
framework, I for one would probably move back towards you
position. So while actualists may approach the data with a
theoretical framework in mind, as you and Art also do, then why
is it that we must always be told that we have to wait for the
solution to so many geological problems?"
The first step in explaining the carbonate data problem is to
develop coherent models for the deposition of the carbonates.
This is a hurdle at which all have stumbled. The uniformitarians
will not stop to admit it, of course. Modern analogues have to
suffice. But, as Derek Ager pointed out in "The new
catastrophism", the standard examples of modern day carbonate
deposition are grossly overworked and totally fail to meet up to
what is required to deposit the sediments that we now see as
rocks.
Then, there is the whole question of the fossil "reefs" - which
few seem to realise are totally different from modern day reefs.
In Derbyshire, close to me, there are large Carboniferous reefal
structures with fore reef talus slopes and back reef bedded
deposits - but the "core" is a very thin layer of sediment
apparently bound by algae. The "theory" of wave-resistant
structures just does not match up with observational data.
Within the back reef deposits are various alleged "patch reef"
structures - but when they are studied, they appar to be micrite
(a limy mud) which again has no modern analogue. Some who have
studied these things have stopped calling them reefs, preferring
to use the term "build-up structure". However, the mechanism of
their formation is a mystery.
I could go on... Silurian "ballstone reefs" do not show the
evidences of in-situ growth. An allochthonous origin is
undoubtedly the option I favour - based on the field evidences.
I do not have quotations to hand, but there are a number of
carbonate specialists who readily acknowledge that
uniformitarianism has not delivered satisfactory depositional
models for carbonates.
Perhaps when we get closer to a solution to the depositional
environment problem, we shall also make progress with the
carbonate data problem.
I could mention at this point one contribution I would recommend
on the depositional environment of chalk:
Tyler, D.J. 1996. A post-Flood solution to the Chalk Problem.
EN Tech. Journal, 10(1), pp.[page numbers not to hand - sorry]
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.