Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Thursday, February 18 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1309
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:44:58 -0600
From: "Karen G. Jensen" <kjensen@calweb.com>
Subject: RE: Flood Model, batholiths, and science
>>It's not a matter of being close-minded; it's a matter of recognizing that
>>your unknown "major factors" would violate the known laws of thermodynamics
>>and physics, and so are going to be virtually non-existant.
>
>Isn't that what they were saying when Wegner and a few before him suggested
>continental movement? And in physics when they thought that they had the
>laws described, and there was little to do but confirm them? They had no
>idea that there could be any other way to look at things, and basically
>denied the possibility.
>
>New data, unexpected experimental results, changed the picture. What that
>teaches me is that we probably don't know everything right now, either, and
>perspectives may change still.
Right. Just as unexpected observations in physics led to finding a whole
new realm (QM), and in geophysics a whole new way of looking at the history
of the lithosphere (plate tectonics), explaining the observed parallel
coastlines with the addition of the mid-oceanic ridges, so new experimental
results may come to light that explain the batholith problem in an
unexpected way.
>
>
>Right, anything may change but wishful thinking is the last one to achieve
>such a change. Especially if your "unknown factors" are in violation of
>known laws.
Wegner suggested continental movement without detailing a mechanism (and
really today the proposed mechanisms are still debated and not very
detailed). He was ridiculed and ignored. Same with Bretz, and many
others. It's OK. Happens frequently in science.
By the way, how did the oceans keep from filling in as they opened? If you
calculate the speed at which the oceans, say the Atlantic, opened in the
long-ages model, it is so slow that the crack would have filled with
sediment each year.
Karen
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:03:05 -0600
From: "Karen G. Jensen" <kjensen@calweb.com>
Subject: Re: Flood Model and reefs
>Dear Karen
>
>Karen G. Jensen wrote (in part):
>
>> Currently as far as I am aware, the most accepted model for Capitan Reef is
>> that it is an underwater bank. I have heard that there is a new publication
>> coming out this spring as SEPM Concepts in Sedimentology and Palentology
>> No. 8, entitled "Geologic Framework of the Capitan Reef" the editors are
>> Art Saller and Paul M Harris. It will probably present a variety of
>> opinions.
>
>The difference between a reef and a bank is often one of degree and/or
>semantics.
>The Great Bahama Bank has fringing reefs, for example. The Capitan structure
>contains evidence of shallow water construction, abundant sea floor
>cementation,
>and evidenc of significant relief above the seafloor, especially the
>basin. This
>sounds like a reef to me. For something that size reef or bank complex
>may be a
>better term.
>
>> Aside from Capitan Reef, other structures once interpreted as reefs have
>> been reinterpreted as debris flows. For example, you could look at
>> Mountjoy EW, Cook HE, Pray LC, McDaniel PN. 1972. Allochthonous carbonate
>> debris flows worldwide indicators of reef complexes, banks or shelf margins
>> Stratigraphy and Sedimentology, International Geological Congress, 24th
>> Session, Section 6, p 172-189, which describes five examples.
>
>Of course there are some things that have been called in situ reefs in
>the past
>which are now recognised as debris flows. Why were they identified as reefs?
>Because they are made of of reef rocks which are characteristically
>organically
>bound limestones and/or with abundant evidence of early cementation. But
>where did
>those blocks come from? From parental reefs, or reef environments where
>there was
>not large single reef mass, but a collection of patch reefs, some of which
>ended up
>sliding down into deeper water. In every case that I know of, including
>the paper
>you cite, the blocks in the debris flow blocks (some of which are
>huge-live climbed
>some of them) were transported down slope by mass movement from the main
>reef
>mass where they were formed. In some cases the original reef they came
>from is
>exposed, in some cases not. For every "reef" now identified as a
>transported block
>there are dozens or hundred recognised as being in place. Every block of
>transported reef rock points to a precurssor reef.
Yes. These blocks grew before the depositional event (preflood).
But at Capitan reef although there are some sponges, little if any
organically bound coral are found. And the line between "reef" and "talus"
is abrupt, unlike in real growing reefs.
Thanks for your added info on reefs.
Karen
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:20:40 -0600
From: "Karen G. Jensen" <kjensen@calweb.com>
Subject: Re: Flood Model and dinosaurs
>You ignored the most serious error of all.
>>
[....]
>
>The fatal error to you model is that these animals would have shared all
>characteristics that would have sorted them from other drowned animals, so
>they should have ended up in the same-age sediments, yet they did not. The
>most obvious reason why they did not is because they were not
>contemporaries; ie, they lived at very different and sometimes widely spaced
>times.
>
You have chosen to accept a model that relies heavily on vast amounts of
time. Such long ages are inferred from measureable data, but not directly
observed. You have faith in that inference, even though it may be
mistaken.
You have the right to choose as you do, going along with the majority of
today's scientists. Other models seem like foolishness in comparison with
the wisdom of the world.
I believe that the concept of such long ages is a serious error, even
fatal. But the Lord is merciful and gracious. He desires to dwell with
you, and with me
He knows the truth of earth history. And we will know, even as we are
known. We can look forward to that.
Exodus 14:13
Karen
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:31:40 -0600
From: "Karen G. Jensen" <kjensen@calweb.com>
Subject: Re: Halite layers, and GVS
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for sharing more on those salt deposits. Very interesting!
I'll be interested in more on Lake McLeod if you find the book.
>
>> And now, to get back to the GVS:
>>
[....]
>> The Great Valley Sequence is 10 to 20 km thick. The lower part is
>> considered to be Tithonian (Upper Jurassic) and the higher parts Turonian
>> and on up to Maastrictian (Upper Cretaceous) and even Danian (Lower
>> Paleocene). This is usually described as representing about 80 million
>> years. The folded areas I saw were in a locality in the lower portion, but
>> the folding probably happened in conjunction with the tilting of the entire
>> sequence (after it had finished being laid down horizontally). Do you
>> believe induration could wait many millions of years?
>
>Several components here to your question. As I understand you, your
>argument runs
>like this: The thin limestone beds are not brecciated. Thus they must
>have been
>soft when deformed. Yes, it is possible for sediments to remain
>uncemented for
>many millions of years,
many millions? you really believe that? by faith in radiometrics?
especially if only shallowly buried. Obviously not the
>case with your sediments though (12 km is not shallow burial to me!). You
>say that
>the sequence was completely deposited before deformation began.
The current (as far as I know) interpretation of its geological history is
that it was deposited horizontally offshore -- the distance is debated, one
view based on paleomag is that it was a little south of the paleo-equator!
- -- then it was accreted to North America as the "conveyor belt" of seafloor
spreading and subduction brought it up against California.
With 12 km of
>burial I imagine things would be quite lithified but at those sort of depths
>brittle beds start deforming in a ductile manner. Your rocks should have been
>metamorphosed to lower greenschist metamorphic facies. Is this the case?
>
No, it is called "monotonous" clear to the bottom, but overlies metamorphic
seafloor materials -- mafics.
>
>> To me it looks like mega-deposition and mega-tilting, but not mega-time.
>> Consistent with Genesis 7-8.
>
>No Karen, not consistent with Genesis 7-8, but with only what with your
>reading is
>of it. My Bible does not say anything about mega deposition or mega tilting.
>
It says water prevailed for 150 days, and covered the highest hills. Water
on a whirling sphere can be expected to do geological work. That is why I
think mega-deposition and mega-tilting are consistent with it.
And it says that the ordeal passed in about a year. That is why I say it
is not consistent with mega-time.
Your sister in Christ,
Karen
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:31:38 -0600
From: "Karen G. Jensen" <kjensen@calweb.com>
Subject: Re: Flood Model and dinosaur tracks
>Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>
>> You ignored the most serious error of all.
>
>Actually, one of the most serious problems for flood geology has yet to be
>brought up - nesting sites. There are spots in Montana, Argentina, China and
>many other places that have large dinosaur nesting sites, inclusing multiple
>nesting sites in different strata. So we are to imagine, somehow, that in the
>midst of this global flood, after the deposition of thousands of feet of
>sediments already, large groups of dinosaurs managed to congregate and mate,
>build nests, lay eggs, hatch them and raise them, then return there
>several more
>times to complete the process all over again. Obviously this cannot be
>explained
>by saying that all of the land had not yet been scoured clean, because the
>sites
>lie on top of sediments that were supposedly laid down from the PC/C
>boundary to
>the jurassic and triasic. It also cannot be explained by any hydrological
>sorting hypothesis like size and differential mobility. It simply cannot be
>explained using flood geology.
>
Unless you recognize that pregnant female dinosaurs would have to drop
their eggs at some time during a stressful year, that the nest sites were
water-laid, indicating inundation of the areas, and that the multiple
layers show repeated inundations.
Karen
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:04:19 +1100
From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: The Deep Hot Biosphere
Terry
Thomas Gold is a well known original thinker, remember the deep lunar dust
theory? Steady State Cosmology? Gold has been associated with all those
unpopular ideas.
With respect to oil and gas, pity that Glenn is still in communicado. While
there is evidence for abiological methane in volcanic gases, the link between
oil and buried biological matter is too strong for Gold's theory to have any
validity. Try any introductory book on petroleum geology. There will be
discussion of things like biomarkers, and how different oils can be linked to
particular source rocks by biochemical traces. Further more, different oils
have different organic sources, source rocks derived from terrestrial plants
have a different composition to those from marine plankton, and they differ
from those derived from lake algae.
God Bless
Jonathan
Terry M. Gray wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm just finishing up Thomas Gold's book *The Deep Hot Biosphere*. Gold is
> an astronomer/cosmologist (I think) who has maintained for a number of
> years that natural gas, oil, and black coal are not "fossil fuels" but
> rather have an abiogenic origin with hydrocarbons being a primordial
> component of the deep earth (deep being >=100 km).
>
> Apparently, his hypothesis has been around for some time and this book is
> his latest effort to promote it. Included in this book is an argument for
> life deep in the rocks and he speculates on an origin of life in the rocks
> rather than on the surface.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone else has seen this book or knows something of
> Gold's views, especially anyone with a geology background. Of course,
> since Gold's views are counter-establishment, folks with a geology
> background may be biased against them. But, that's okay. I'm interested
> in hearing opinions of folks with a bit more expertise in this area than
> what I have.
>
> Thanks.
>
> TG
>
> _________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
> grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
> phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:30:52 -0600
From: "Karen G. Jensen" <kjensen@calweb.com>
Subject: Re: Out of order fossils
>Karen G. Jensen wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone on the list know about these claims of Devonian insects?
>>
>> I read about finds of centepedes, arachnids, and insect remains preserved
>> in exquisite detail in Devonian rock form upstate New York, "similar to
>> modern forms" (Science News 123:356-357, June 4, 1983) -- have these been
>> found to be contamination?
>
> Shear, W.A., Bonamo, P.M., Grierson, J.D., Rolfe, W.D.I., Smith, E.L., &
> Norton, R.A. 1984. Early land animals in North America: Evidence from
> Devonian age arthropods from Gilboa, New York. Science 224, 492-494.
>
> You might also be interested in:
>
> Whalley, P. & Jarzembowski, E.A. 1981. A new assessment of Rhyniella, the
> earliest known insect, from the Devonian of Rhynie, Scotland. Nature
>291, 317.
>
Thanks for the references!
> I'm not current with the latest discoveries since then so can't comment much
>more than to say that it's always been thought that the evolutionary
>development
>of the insects (and other land-dwelling arthropoda) was closely tied to the
>evolutionary development of land plants (a whole new ecosystem to exploit!).
>
In that light, it is a puzzle that there are so few Mesozoic insects, when
the first flowering plants to be preserved had entomophyllous pollen.
Karen
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:18:09 +1100
From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: Halite layers, and GVS
Dear Karen
Karen G. Jensen wrote:
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> Thank you for sharing more on those salt deposits. Very interesting!
>
> I'll be interested in more on Lake McLeod if you find the book.
>
> >> And now, to get back to the GVS:
> >>
> [....]
> >> The Great Valley Sequence is 10 to 20 km thick. The lower part is
> >> considered to be Tithonian (Upper Jurassic) and the higher parts Turonian
> >> and on up to Maastrictian (Upper Cretaceous) and even Danian (Lower
> >> Paleocene). This is usually described as representing about 80 million
> >> years. The folded areas I saw were in a locality in the lower portion, but
> >> the folding probably happened in conjunction with the tilting of the entire
> >> sequence (after it had finished being laid down horizontally). Do you
> >> believe induration could wait many millions of years?
> >
> >Several components here to your question. As I understand you, your
> >argument runs like this: The thin limestone beds are not brecciated. Thus they
> must
> >have been soft when deformed. Yes, it is possible for sediments to remain
> >uncemented for many millions of years,
>
> many millions? you really believe that? by faith in radiometrics?
We have been through this before! I don't "have faith" in radiometrics, but I
do
consider them capable of giving useful and consistent numerical ages of rocks.
Even without radiometric dating there is plenty of reason to believe that the
earth
is immensely old. This was recognised by the late 18th century. All
radiometric
techniques is allow us to quantify it. Even if if they are provided invalid,
there
would be no reason to go back and say that the earth is only a few thousand
years
old.
> especially if only shallowly buried. Obviously not the
> >case with your sediments though (12 km is not shallow burial to me!). You
> >say that
> >the sequence was completely deposited before deformation began.
>
> The current (as far as I know) interpretation of its geological history is
> that it was deposited horizontally offshore -- the distance is debated, one
> view based on paleomag is that it was a little south of the paleo-equator!
> -- then it was accreted to North America as the "conveyor belt" of seafloor
> spreading and subduction brought it up against California.
Sediments are generally deposited horizontally, Steno recognised this in the
17th
century!
> With 12 km of burial I imagine things would be quite lithified but at
> those sort of depths
> >brittle beds start deforming in a ductile manner. Your rocks should have been
> >metamorphosed to lower greenschist metamorphic facies. Is this the case?
> >
> No, it is called "monotonous" clear to the bottom, but overlies metamorphic
> seafloor materials -- mafics.
The sequence may well be monotonous - thick turbidite successions usually are.
That is why they are called "flysch", an Austrian word meaning boring. Only
kidding..... Monotonous or not, have they been metamorphosed? To what grade?
> >
> >> To me it looks like mega-deposition and mega-tilting, but not mega-time.
> >> Consistent with Genesis 7-8.
> >
> >No Karen, not consistent with Genesis 7-8, but with only what with your
> >reading is of it. My Bible does not say anything about mega deposition or mega
> tilting.
> >
> It says water prevailed for 150 days, and covered the highest hills. Water
> on a whirling sphere can be expected to do geological work. That is why I
> think mega-deposition and mega-tilting are consistent with it.
Still your interpretation that the flood was world-wide in our understanding of
the
word. A year long global inundation would be expected to do geological work of
course. The problem is that the geological record does not support such an
event.
That is why geologists stopped using the flood to explain the bulk of the
geological record by the end of the 18th century. Leonardo da Vinci recognised a
lot of these in the 15th century. The sort of evidence that convinced them was
the
sort that has been discussed by Glenn, Steve, Kevin, Pim and others ad nauseum,
so
I won't repeat it here. The only people who have tried to argue otherwise do so
because their theological stance forces them to do so
> And it says that the ordeal passed in about a year. That is why I say it
> is not consistent with mega-time.
Only if you try and explain the entire geological record by the flood.
>
>
> Your sister in Christ,
>
> Karen
God bless
Jonathan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:18:04 +1100
From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: Flood Model and reefs
Karen G. Jensen wrote with respect to reef derived blocks:
> Yes. These blocks grew before the depositional event (preflood).
Unfortunately many, indeed most, of the parental reefs don't rest on bedrock,
but
occur high up in thick sedimentary and volcanic successions. The Cambrian reefs
I
have studied are underlain by 100's of m of fossiliferous Cambrian sediments,
and
many kilometres of Neoproterozoic sediments. The Devonian reefs of the Canning
Basin, although abutting against crystalline bedrock, are underlain by Early
Devonian. Lateral equivalents of the reefs in the basin are underlain by many
kilometres of Silurian and Ordovician sediments.
> But at Capitan reef although there are some sponges, little if any
> organically bound coral are found. And the line between "reef" and "talus"
> is abrupt, unlike in real growing reefs.
Unlike you I have not had the privilege of seeing these great rocks. However
the
literature says that the Capitan reef contains abundant evidence of rapid and
extensive early marine cementation which would form a rigid framework and thus
supplant the need for organic binding. However, organic binding is not always
preserved in the rock record and is only one of the criteria by which reef
facies
is recognised. Many reefs show little binding but extensive baffling of fine
grained sediments (baffling rocks - Ha!) by branching organisms (sponges,
corals,
algae, bryozoans, etc.). Other factors are important. Evidence of organically
constructed topographic relief and a rigid wave resistant structure are the most
important. Evidence of rapid seafloor cementation, organic binding, baffling,
frame construction and marginal talus aprons are some of the features that point
to
this. You should take up snorkelling or scuba diving! The line between reefs
and
fore-reef/reef margin is generally abrupt in both the geological record and in
the
modern environment. The reef-slope transition is very variable. Sometimes it
is
vertical for 10's to 100's of metres, sometimes it is more gradual. But there
is
generally a sharp boundary between the organically bound (and often cemented)
reef
environment and the fore/back reef environment which always has talus derived
from
the reef falling or sliding down the slope
>
>
> Thanks for your added info on reefs.
>
> Karen
They are fun systems to work with
God Bless
Jonathan
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1309
********************************