Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby webolife » Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:32 pm

This back and forth is becoming tiresome...
1. What mistake did I make? I know the geologic column principle was being formulated during the same time that the evolutionary hypothesis was developing. You know that Charles Darwin is the offspring of evolutionists right? That the column's basic present structure was published before the Origins is not being debated, in fact I said that in my last post.
2. Yes, in terms of evolution a whale is a mammal adapted to the sea. So you are saying that based on evolution, the whale fossil's position in the strata supports evolution. Claims derived from presuppositions. A whale is not an index fossil, by the way.
3. The general progression supports a variety of models, two of which I have described in earlier posts, and the exceptions to the general progression do not support evolution. But Morton doesn't mention those, and you don't either.
4. Burrowing doesn't prove slowness of deposit. In fact it is difficult to conceive how burrows could remain for very long [eg thousands of years?] in mud, then be filled up with mud much later. If on the other hand they are like sandworms on the beach [I'm an avid clammer] their burrows can fill up with loose sediment immediately as they burrow down. The mud filling the burrow is always just slightly finer due to the sorting that happens as they burrow. Same with clams, that's why when you step near them they leave a small indentation in the surface when they dig downward. In a rapid flood scenario, burrowing worms would wriggle downward, upward or in several directions [which is what is seen in fossil worm molds], then their holes would be filled by the finer muddy sediments.
5. Fanciful? Have you examined diatomite beds, or chalk beds, which are supposedly laid down over very long periods of time. Yet we find in those deposits the remains of the fine microscrystaline shells made by those organisms, despite the fact that silica and calcium carbonate dissolve in water. As does salt. If it is going to take as long as you imagine, why doesn't it just go back into solution?
6. The great flood is described as a series of events happening over a relatively short time, so your repeated straw man of a "single event" is moot.
7. Different species did not have time to avoid being swept up together. Have you ever been to Dinosaur Nat'l Monument, or researched other fossil graveyards containing hundreds of different families, and multiple classes of organisms? The order you are persuaded exists because of your belief in the imaginary geologic column, simple does not explain what we see in the field. Unless you use it to explain what you see in the field. Presupposition leads to claim.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2488
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby chrimony » Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:31 pm

webolife wrote:This back and forth is becoming tiresome...


On that, we agree.

Yes, in terms of evolution a whale is a mammal adapted to the sea.


As evidenced by basic biology.

So you are saying that based on evolution, the whale fossil's position in the strata supports evolution. Claims derived from presuppositions.


It's this simple-minded denialism that is so tiring. There's no particular reason whales can't be found with the earliest fish, given the state of human knowledge before geology and evolution. But evolution would break down if this were the case. The fact is, despite all your hemming and hawing, and absurd explanations, the progression fits with evolution.

A whale is not an index fossil, by the way.


Regardless, whale fossils aren't found before mammals and with the earliest fish.

The general progression supports a variety of models, two of which I have described in earlier posts, and the exceptions to the general progression do not support evolution.


You've been all over the map, sometimes doggedly defending Noah's Flood myth as an explanation for the strata, other times bizarrely referring to Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium, which is an evolutionary theory. At times it seems like you were arguing in favor of progressive creationism.

Fanciful? Have you examined diatomite beds, or chalk beds, which are supposedly laid down over very long periods of time. Yet we find in those deposits the remains of the fine microscrystaline shells made by those organisms, despite the fact that silica and calcium carbonate dissolve in water. As does salt. If it is going to take as long as you imagine, why doesn't it just go back into solution?


Obviously it don't dissolve instantly, or there wouldn't be any shells in the first place. Deposit rates have been measured in the current oceans, so it would seem that the calcium carbonate is trapped in the sediment layer or perhaps the shells themselves. Whatever the case, chalk beds are forming now, no flood needed.

Now about that salt, you're the one that has to explain how 300 feet of salt was evaporated out by geothermal activity in the middle of a world-wide flood while also depositing strata above and below via horizontal currents, with no trace of the geothermal activity in the immediate strata.

The great flood is described as a series of events happening over a relatively short time, so your repeated straw man of a "single event" is moot.


In the course of a year, roughly half of which was the flood, and the other half was the waters receding, and you're the one relying on Berthault's flood model to explain the strata.

Different species did not have time to avoid being swept up together. Have you ever been to Dinosaur Nat'l Monument, or researched other fossil graveyards containing hundreds of different families, and multiple classes of organisms? The order you are persuaded exists because of your belief in the imaginary geologic column, simple does not explain what we see in the field. Unless you use it to explain what you see in the field. Presupposition leads to claim.


Is all this tapdancing supposed to explain how the fossils in the strata was supposedly laid down by intelligence and mobility while tidal waves several hundred meters high were sweeping over continents?
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby webolife » Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:20 pm

Whales "returning" to the sea is an excellent example of "reverse evolution" a term invented to explain the fact that the story of evolution from the sea is violated by it. There's also no reason why the "earliest fish" you like so much should appear in the lowest fossil-bearing strata, yet that they do. No billions of years of evolution to show for that sudden appearance. Which is also the case with the sudden appearances of every major phylum in those same early strata. Whales, on the other hand, generally avoid the bottom of the ocean and are significantly less prone to be buried by turbid currents of sediment. Whale evolution is a conundrum on several levels... take the skull morphology of the baleens contrasted with the toothed cetaceans; the distinctions defy an evolutionary explanation, except perhaps the "hopeful monster" version. Speaking of Stephen J Gould, he and M Eldridge devised PE to try to explain why there was such a systematic lack of progression found in the fossil record. If such a renown paleontologist could admit what is actually seen in the fossils, why can't you? The fact that Gould nevertheless maintained a strong belief in evolution is further proof of my bottom line: Conclusions are derived from presuppositions... even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. And as I said before, I've embraced the lifelong tasks of confronting presumption and honoring the evidence as it is found, which unfortunately is not often as it is found in the literature, especially the popular science writers which proclaim the paradigm while watering down the evidence so as to make it palatable for unscientific readers.
The existence of crystalline shells in diatoms [algae] and occolithophores [chalk] is because of the attribute of living cells to perform active transport and polymerization. When they die their shells presumably drop as detritus to the ocean bottom. They are in fact soluble, so the presumption that these high beds accumulate over millions of years is hardly tenable. The existence of significant accumulations of either chalk or diatoms in present day ocean bottoms is unknown. But both fossiliferous sedimentary rocks are found in association with lava flows. Salt is likewise quite soluble, so to accumulate significant depths of it would require a lot of evaporation happening rather suddenly. These accumulations are found today only in areas where a high rate of evaporation is sustained, so the observation of deep halite deposits suggests extreme rates in the past.
I'm rather tired of your "tapdancing" insults. Rather than being arrogant, how about stepping up and doing some science for yourself? Appealing to so-called authorities is never a good substitute for honest research.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2488
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:43 pm

Hey, Gordon, I have a site set up where you could work on a more complete paper on Ancient Catastrophism if you like. It's at http://improve.createaforum.com/1-4/1-9/. Unlike this site, you can edit your post as much as you want at any time. You'd have to register first. I'm working on a paper there too. If we work in the same place we may be able to help each other out a bit. What do you think? So far, I just have a sort of bibliography started with links to this site. But I found a good paper online by Oard that I think might help to get a more thorough model for ancient cataclysm completed. Oard's paper is at http://creation.com/defining-the-flood-post-flood-boundary-in-sedimentary-rocks. Maybe you've read it already.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4245
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby webolife » Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:02 pm

Thank you for the link to Oard's paper. I have generally stuck to reading standard scientific literature and research, and ferreting out the facts from the suppositions. It looks like Oard , et.al., did the same. He has asked the same questions, and come to many of the same conclusions as I did regarding the timelines, mechanisms, and results of the Flood sequence. I will spend some time looking through other articles on the site and let you know from time to time if I find anything of relevance to the EU and our discussions.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2488
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Mar 31, 2016 7:42 pm

Gordon, I'm resuming posting in the thread, Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm, at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16025&p=112564#p112564. Would you like to discuss the Oard paper and our flood models there now? I have a few questions I hope we can discuss there too.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4245
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby chrimony » Fri Apr 01, 2016 2:48 am

webolife wrote:Whales "returning" to the sea is an excellent example of "reverse evolution" a term invented to explain the fact that the story of evolution from the sea is violated by it.


I don't know what you're talking about. A whale is a mammal adapted to the sea. That doesn't violate evolution in any way.

Whales, on the other hand, generally avoid the bottom of the ocean and are significantly less prone to be buried by turbid currents of sediment.


Uh huh. Yet we do find whale fossils, and only after we find mammals, and nowhere near your beloved Cambrian explosion.

Speaking of Stephen J Gould, he and M Eldridge devised PE to try to explain why there was such a systematic lack of progression found in the fossil record. If such a renown paleontologist could admit what is actually seen in the fossils, why can't you?


Where did I deny it? I've been talking about the general progression. I've been avoiding your more specialized arguments against evolution because the debate is over long geologic times vs Noah's flood myth.

The fact that Gould nevertheless maintained a strong belief in evolution is further proof of my bottom line: Conclusions are derived from presuppositions... even in the face of incontrovertible evidence.


Or maybe Gould took into account all the things that evolution gets right and decided punctuated equilibrium was a good match for the evidence. On the other hand, whether it's debating jtb over his silly merry-go-round Moon or debating you over the cartoonish Noah's flood, I find no amount of evidence is good enough for creationists.

And as I said before, I've embraced the lifelong tasks of confronting presumption and honoring the evidence as it is found


*snort*

The existence of crystalline shells in diatoms [algae] and occolithophores [chalk] is because of the attribute of living cells to perform active transport and polymerization. When they die their shells presumably drop as detritus to the ocean bottom. They are in fact soluble, so the presumption that these high beds accumulate over millions of years is hardly tenable. The existence of significant accumulations of either chalk or diatoms in present day ocean bottoms is unknown.


Here are some references for you. One of them is even a creationist site:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/se ... halk-beds/

answersingenesis.org wrote:The oceans today cover almost 71% of the earth’s surface. About 20% of the oceans lie over the shallower continental margins, while the rest covers the deeper ocean floor, which is blanketed by a variety of sediments. Amongst these are what are known as oozes, so-called because more than 30% of the sediment consists of the shells of microorganisms such as foraminifera and coccolithophores.3 Indeed, about half of the deep ocean floor is covered by light-coloured calcareous (calcium carbonate-rich) ooze generally down to depths of 4,500–5,000 metres. Below these depths the calcium carbonate shells are dissolved. Even so, this still means that about one quarter of the surface of the earth is covered by these shell — rich deposits produced by these microscopic plants and animals living near the surface of the ocean.



http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/ ... bottom.htm
marinebio.net wrote:Biogenous bottoms are sometimes referred to as oozes depending on the most common type of shell material in the sediments. Calcareous oozes result from a dominance of calcium shells which were originally from organisms such as foraminifera, snails, and sea urchins. These calcareous oozes are never found deeper than about 4,000 to 5,000 meters because the calcium dissolves at deeper depths. Siliceous oozes result from a dominance of siliceous (glass) shell pieces made from planktonic organisms like diatoms and radiolarians. Where there are major plankton blooms with a sudden die off (tropical Pacific off South America, North Pacific off the Aleutian Islands, and all around Antarctica) there are tremendous numbers of diatoms that reproduce and die each year contributing to the siliceous material on the sea floor. This shell material may build up at the rate of 1mm to 1cm every 1,000 years depending on the productivity.


Image
"Ocean bottom sediment map. Lithogenous areas are mauve, biogenous areas are purple and brown (purple = siliceous ooze, brown = calcareous ooze), and hydrogenous areas are blue."

http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/dpseabiogenic.htm
geology.uprm.edu wrote:The depth at which surface production of CaCO3 equals dissolution is called the calcium carbonate compensation depth (CCD). Above this depth, carbonate oozes can accumulate, below the CCD only terrigenous sediments, oceanic clays, or siliceous oozes can accumulate. The calcium carbonate compensation depth beneath the temperate and tropical Atlantic is approximately 5,000 m deep, while in the Pacific, it is shallower, about 4,200-4,500 m, except beneath the equatorial upwelling zone, where the CCD is about 5,000 m. The CCD in the Indian Ocean is intermediate between the Atlantic and the Pacific. The CCD is relatively shallow in high latitudes.


webolife wrote:Salt is likewise quite soluble, so to accumulate significant depths of it would require a lot of evaporation happening rather suddenly.


I don't understand. If an inland sea evaporated over a long time, where would the salt go? Wouldn't the sea become progressively more salty, until just the salt remained?

These accumulations are found today only in areas where a high rate of evaporation is sustained, so the observation of deep halite deposits suggests extreme rates in the past.


Still waiting for the evidence of geothermal activity in the adjacent strata that was enough to evaporate out 300 feet worth of salt in a short period of time. Some kind of "hopeful monster", I suppose?

I'm rather tired of your "tapdancing" insults. Rather than being arrogant, how about stepping up and doing some science for yourself? Appealing to so-called authorities is never a good substitute for honest research.


Well, that's rich. You continue to bluster in response to a straightforward challenge, puffing yourself up as an authority, while denigrating references to actual scientists who publish their research instead of personal anecdotes on a backwater forum. The question, which you are tapdancing around: how the fossils in the strata were supposedly laid down by intelligence and mobility while tidal waves several hundred meters high were sweeping over continents, instead of being swept up together.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:23 pm

To me, webolife seems like a very patient person.

how the fossils in the strata were supposedly laid down by intelligence and mobility while tidal waves several hundred meters high were sweeping over continents, instead of being swept up together.
Tidal waves sweeping over continents are not going to effect the fossils deep in rock strata below.

But there are also fossil deposits which are very chaotic with combined marine and land animals fossils packed densely together. These would seem to be the result of tsunamis of great magnitude.

A quick look at Australia's Simpson desert on Google Earth shows evidence of a flood, or floods, that swept across Australia. South of the Simpson desert are huge salt lakes.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby webolife » Fri Apr 01, 2016 9:34 pm

Comingfrom,
Thanks for the nod.
But I am trying to explain weaknesses in Chrimony's position from a scientific standpoint, and indicating some of the presumptions in his quotes. He is returning the favor by ridiculing my position and trying to address the arguments I'm setting forth from what he thinks is a scientific standpoint.
My claims depends upon the possibility of catastrophic flooding on a scale we will never see in our lifetime.
Chrimony's position depends upon gradualistic mechanisms that assume a great long time that makes it impossible in a lifetime to observe the kind of rock structures, epochs of fossilization, formation of coal, etc. let alone the unobservably slow rate at which evolution must have happened in order to accumulate the 100's of billions of randomly generated mutations required by Chrimony's belief to produce the biodiversity of the world.
Hence we both [inevitably] rely on systems of thought that enable us to construct a story to explain the structures and fossils we see. Chrimony has his belief base and his stories, and I have mine.
So what's next? In science we must do our diligence to understand the world in its vast array of intricacies and clues. Observing patterns and formulating hypotheses. Testing and refining our hypotheses in natural observation or in the lab... Which reminds me of:
1. Berthault's flumes demonstrating horizontal deposition of multiple layers of sorted sediment
2. Petrifaction experiments demonstrating the appearance of millions of years of permineralization in a matter of hours under the "right" conditions
3. Coal formed quickly under extremes of pressure and/or heat in natural settings [buried railroad trestle roots].
4. Oils produced under the "right" conditions
5. Epigenetics and observed rates of genetic drift [supporting rapid adaptive processes in natural selection -- no mechanism yet seen for phylogenetic progression]
6. Preponderance of deleterious mutations, no beneficial mutations observed in a lab setting other than those engineered by intelligent scientists...
7. Fossils not found according to the "general progression" expected in the evolutionary model
8. Fossil graveyards containing multiple classes and families of animals, defying the requirement that fossils demonstrate evolution from simple to complex
9. Historical, even current, lava eruptions dated as being millions of years old by standard radiometric methods
10. Amino acid experiments that fail to produce the types of substances required for life as we know it
11. Genetics and embryology that demonstrate the uniqueness of different classes and phyla of living things -from their very inception/conception, while showing an underlying common pattern of cause and effect... and significantly, of intelligence. [Evolutionists must explain this away by claiming "appearance of design", then dismissing/ignoring the lack of mechanisms by which complex interdependent structures must have been able to randomly develop, according to their theory.] [ID sees irreducible complexity as what it is, without presumption that every intermediate between structures must have been more fit than the previous more simple form.]
12. The illogic of minute incremental development required by the theory of evolution [except for the hopeful monster version] which requires that every new mutated form be successively more viable than the previous form, this despite the presence today of many levels of complexity of living systems, yet the most adapted [and fit?] of all is the simplest of all, the lowly bacteria from which the "progression of fitness" was alleged to have begun... and also despite the persistence of #6 above. Furthermore the self-contradictory assumption that a huge variety of organisms [increasingly complex informational systems, DNA, genomes] derived from a mechanism that by definition only reduces, ie. selects, from available information.
Bottom line here: What we see in the present is probably inadequate to explain the record of the past, unless we apply a set of assumptions and speculations. Upon whatever set of assumptions we stand, we will make our claims.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2488
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby chrimony » Sat Apr 02, 2016 7:07 am

Notice how the long regurgitation that follows has no responses to anything in my last post. More tapdancing by somebody that claims to be following the evidence and not his creationist agenda. Should I recount now all the black and white claims you were wrong on? All the unmet challenges? No, I'm tired of repeating myself. This is a good point for me to leave this debate.

webolife wrote:Comingfrom,
Thanks for the nod.
But I am trying to explain weaknesses in Chrimony's position from a scientific standpoint, and indicating some of the presumptions in his quotes. He is returning the favor by ridiculing my position and trying to address the arguments I'm setting forth from what he thinks is a scientific standpoint.
My claims depends upon the possibility of catastrophic flooding on a scale we will never see in our lifetime.
Chrimony's position depends upon gradualistic mechanisms that assume a great long time that makes it impossible in a lifetime to observe the kind of rock structures, epochs of fossilization, formation of coal, etc. let alone the unobservably slow rate at which evolution must have happened in order to accumulate the 100's of billions of randomly generated mutations required by Chrimony's belief to produce the biodiversity of the world.
Hence we both [inevitably] rely on systems of thought that enable us to construct a story to explain the structures and fossils we see. Chrimony has his belief base and his stories, and I have mine.
So what's next? In science we must do our diligence to understand the world in its vast array of intricacies and clues. Observing patterns and formulating hypotheses. Testing and refining our hypotheses in natural observation or in the lab... Which reminds me of:
1. Berthault's flumes demonstrating horizontal deposition of multiple layers of sorted sediment
2. Petrifaction experiments demonstrating the appearance of millions of years of permineralization in a matter of hours under the "right" conditions
3. Coal formed quickly under extremes of pressure and/or heat in natural settings [buried railroad trestle roots].
4. Oils produced under the "right" conditions
5. Epigenetics and observed rates of genetic drift [supporting rapid adaptive processes in natural selection -- no mechanism yet seen for phylogenetic progression]
6. Preponderance of deleterious mutations, no beneficial mutations observed in a lab setting other than those engineered by intelligent scientists...
7. Fossils not found according to the "general progression" expected in the evolutionary model
8. Fossil graveyards containing multiple classes and families of animals, defying the requirement that fossils demonstrate evolution from simple to complex
9. Historical, even current, lava eruptions dated as being millions of years old by standard radiometric methods
10. Amino acid experiments that fail to produce the types of substances required for life as we know it
11. Genetics and embryology that demonstrate the uniqueness of different classes and phyla of living things -from their very inception/conception, while showing an underlying common pattern of cause and effect... and significantly, of intelligence. [Evolutionists must explain this away by claiming "appearance of design", then dismissing/ignoring the lack of mechanisms by which complex interdependent structures must have been able to randomly develop, according to their theory.] [ID sees irreducible complexity as what it is, without presumption that every intermediate between structures must have been more fit than the previous more simple form.]
12. The illogic of minute incremental development required by the theory of evolution [except for the hopeful monster version] which requires that every new mutated form be successively more viable than the previous form, this despite the presence today of many levels of complexity of living systems, yet the most adapted [and fit?] of all is the simplest of all, the lowly bacteria from which the "progression of fitness" was alleged to have begun... and also despite the persistence of #6 above. Furthermore the self-contradictory assumption that a huge variety of organisms [increasingly complex informational systems, DNA, genomes] derived from a mechanism that by definition only reduces, ie. selects, from available information.
Bottom line here: What we see in the present is probably inadequate to explain the record of the past, unless we apply a set of assumptions and speculations. Upon whatever set of assumptions we stand, we will make our claims.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby webolife » Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:14 am

Oh, Chrimony, too bad, sorry to see you go "just when it was starting to get fun."
Now, now... "regurgitation"? "tapdancing"? you seem to be at a loss for words. I did speak to practically every one of your rebuttals, except for the direct ad hominems, which frankly are just inappropriate. The cartoon flood [you know, that caricature of the little ark with the animals heads sticking out floating on the peaceful sea for 40 days and 40 nights?] is a skimmed off child's version of a much more detailed account; the cartoon version is incapable of producing the effects we are attributing to the cataclysm I envision. There is no evidence that any of the waves that deluged the land had to have flooded the entire land surface in one swoop. The geologic record doesn't show this, and the account gives multiple events, not just a single washover. The "sorting" you believe in is not what we see in the field, despite the idealized geologic column you hold dear. The general progression from marine bottom to terrestrial forest is exactly what is expected in a global flood event, and the fact that a good many fossil assemblages are found not in that general order is also a prediction of the flood model. The size of the tidal influx that I suggested was in response to a question from Lloyd's presentation of a much higher [I believed exaggerated] depth of flow.
I notice however that I didn't comment back about the ocean bottom oozes you alluded to, sorry about that.
I realize that I may have misspoken due to my focus on the nature of the chalks and diatomites we actual find in the field. The nature of these formations is unlike anything we see in the world today, particularly in light of the types and extent of the oozes found [mainly in the shallower waters of the continental boundary shelves and slopes]. The generalized view given in the map you quoted may be somewhat misleading in this respect. Here's another attempt:
In eastern Washington there are [or were] tens of meters thick lenses of diatomite found between lava flows that lie elsewhere directly one atop the other. The requirement that eons of pelagic detritus accumulate very slowly over the top of a basalt flow, and then the oceans evaporate away at say the currently observed immeasurably tiny rate, then the diatomite gets covered by another flow that elsewhere sits directly atop the previous one, is well... unimaginable. The unconsolidated [ie. uncompressed/uncemented] diatomaceous earth is consistent throughout the entire [up to 20 m] depth of the beds, with the except of the included layer[s] of recrystallized opal rocks described elsewhere. How can this be conceived as a slow precipitation and evaporation process?
Halite formations are equally problematic. Saltwater at pressurized depths stays in solution -- evaporation at a high rate is required for the types of formations we see. A geothermal, seismic, crust deforming catastrophe of the type we are describing is a viable mechanism for the results we find.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2488
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests