I moved this first thing to the top of the response because of its importance.
At 04:58 PM 1/23/98 GMT, David J. Tyler wrote:
>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]
Considering that Dallas is built on chalk of the same age as the Dover
Chalk, I would be very interested in your explanation. The Austin Chalk can
be followed from Mexico (where it is called the San Felipe formation) across
Texas and Dallas, then it dives to the east of Dallas and goes under
Louisiana. I drilled a well in 1984 in St. Bernard Parish, Lousiana to a
depth of 24,329 feet. We encountered the Austin Chalk at 18,000 feet. We
drilled 2000 feet of chalk(which as you know is about 70-90% dead
microscopic animals) and then found the Woodbine formation at 20,000 feet.
If the chalk is post flood, where did the 20,000 feet of sediment above the
Austin chalk in Louisiana come from? I would be interested in an outline of
your theory and how it applies to St. Bernard Ph. Louisiana.
Now back to the original order of your post.
>David Tyler responding to Glenn Morton:
>
>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.
>
I guess that makes us even. I would think ANY explanation for all the data
is superior to NO explanation of major portions of the geological data. What
you have said is that actualism is successful but I don't want to believe in
it. Why would we want to tie the Bible to a view which is unsuccessful at
explaining so many features of the world? By doing this, we make the Bible
have nothing to do with the real world.
>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.
I would define actualism as meaning that the laws of physics were the same
for all historical times is a reasonable assumption. I really did not mean
to make actualism a synonym for uniformitarianism. Creationists attack
uniformitarianism but strictly speaking the type of uniformitarianism that
Lyell advocated was a perpetual motion machine. Lyell and Hutton believed
that even the rates of geologic processes were the same in the past as they
are today. Actualism is a more reasonable term because if push came to
shove, most geologists today would not accept Lyell's version of
uniformitarianism. And if the laws of physics are the same yesterday as
today, then catastrophes like meteor impacts are quite possible (but the
rate of impact has fallen with the age of the universe.) Thus almost all
geologists who believe in the initial meteor bombardment of the earth during
the solar systems formation are using actualism as defined above rather than
Lyell's version of uniformitarianism.
>
>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.
I fail to see why the actualists can't explain the carbonates. They have
billions of years of carbon cycling to create this vast quantity of
carbonate. YECs have 6000 years. We know that the continents were covered
by shallow seas which would have created the perfect conditions for
carbonate deposition. Why did the continents ride lower in relation to sea
level in the past? Because the mantle was hotter and less dense. The
mantle being less dense, isostacy would require that the continent would
ride lower and therefore the ocean would cover more of the continent. This
is a perfectly valid actualist explanation. It is not uniformitarian in nature.
>
>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.
No one has said that the animals which lived in the Carboniferous were the
same as the animals that live today. There is no reason they should have
the same behaviors. As you know, modern hexagonal corals were not found in
the Paleozoic. All paleozoic corals were tetracoralla. They were
different. And many of the paleozoic reefs were made up of various other
animals, stromatoporoids and other critters. (see AAPG memoir 33 p. 403)
But there are Paleozoic corals which created reefs similar to those of
modern forms. See AAPG MEmoir 33 p. 402, p. ) Triassic varieties are shown
on page 419.
I would also point you to the existence of caves and sinkholes which can be
seen on seismic data buried about 3700 feet in the stratigraphic section.
(page 101 of the AAPG memoir entiteld The Interpretation of 3d Seismic Data.
I don't own that book but borrowed it from a freind.) The seismic data
shows buried sink holes which show that the laws of chemistry were the same
when those layers were deposited.
>
>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.
Examine the cases I cited. and while you are at it, look at the
Stromatoporoid colony on page 403.
Go look at the coral reef removed from Miocene strata from Virginia on p.
606 of Dott and Batten, _Evolution of the Earth_, (St. Louis, McGraw-Hill,
1971). Also look at the connected colonial Halysites colony from the
Silurian rock in Dott and Batton, p. 607. While some reefs are better
described as bioherms, there are some in-situ grown reefs which are never
discussed by the YECs.
>
>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.
If you find them I would be interested in hearing them. Clyde Moore lead my
first carbonate field trip and he seemed quite happy with actualism. This
was in 1983 and I was very depressed after seeing all the evidence for life
in the carbonate rocks of Texas. I stood on the Caprinid reef at Pipe Creek
south of Austin. One could see about 2 acres of connected animals and
moldic porosity. It was an awesome site for someone (like me in 1983) who
believed that there were no connected reefs in the geologic column.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm