Re: Evolution Deniers


al wrote:
<snipped>
> Are you saying that a large influx of water (100 ft tsunami) into say a
> valley cannot cause a bone cache?
> al

Yes, I am.

A tsunami is a wave, and a wave relies on the medium in which it
travels to propogate. When a tsunami wave approaches a shoreline, it
increases in height as it slows, so by the time it reaches the shore,
it is a wall of water several tens of meters high. This wave collapses
on hitting the land, so the inrush of water is simply this pile of
water collapsing. The effects decrease quickly as it moves inland, and
tsunamis have little if any effect more than a few hundred meters at
the most from the shoreline.

The slowing wave also picks up material from the seabed as it
approaches the shore. Because the water at the bottom of the wave may
be moving very quickly it can pick up objects as large a small house.
In the initial stages after reaching land the water speed is still very
high, so the wave carries a mixture of sea-floor material and material
from the shore and areas immediately adjacent, and the turbulence of
the wave mixes this mass of disparate material into a random jumble
which is deposited inland as the speed of the wave decreases. Some
finer material may be carried further inland, but as the water slows
rapidly, most is deposited in a high-tide line not far from the
shoreline.

If there were a handy herd of iguanadon browsing on the sea-shore in
front of a valley leading inland, the effect of the wave would be to
scatter the herd, not concentrate them into one place: there is little
if any sorting effect in such deposits, and high degrees of turbulence.
Furthermore, bone fossilises well in deposits which are anoxic, or
subject to fine sedimentation in the presence of particular bacteria.
These are not the conditions you will find in the mass of disparate
material dumped inland by a tsunami.

So not only will a tsunami not concentrate bone deposits, it won't
fossilise the bones either. You could have found this out for yourself
if you had bothered to do any research, but evidently you prefer to
look ignorant. Fine - that's your choice.

More to the point, do you honestly think that the geologists and
palaeontologists who study these deposits are so stupid that they can't
recognise a tsunami deposit when they see one? Why reason do you have
to think that geologists don't know anything about geology?

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Effects of Thera explosion revised upward
    ... Krakatau model, this final event produced the largest tsunami, ... Evidence of the tsunami is found in deposits close to Santorini. ... the wave arrived within 30 ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >> And I suggest you do some research on the nature of tsunami deposits. ... > valley cannot cause a bone cache? ... A huge wave hitting a coast drags up all sorts of material from the sea ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New archaeological evidence casts doubt on mega-tsunami theory of Minoan collapse
    ... >evidence to demonstrate that a large tsunami propagated throughout the ... >eastern Mediterranean circa 3,500 years BP." ... between the dozen or more peaks in the wave train was 15 minutes. ... Evidence of the tsunami is found in deposits close to Santorini. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: water pressure
    ... > make the water so move fast ... A tsunami is a so-called shallow-water wave i.e. where the ... internet for the underlying physical mechanisms. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: New archaeological evidence casts doubt on mega-tsunami theory of Minoan collapse
    ... >>the original tsunami hypothesis indicates that there is insufficient ... > between the dozen or more peaks in the wave train was 15 minutes. ... > Evidence of the tsunami is found in deposits close to Santorini. ...
    (sci.archaeology)