Re: Fine-grained Mudstones and Current Deposition

On Dec 31 2007, 11:03 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Dec 31, 1:25 pm, beatmastab...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Dec 31, 6:42 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.

0catch.com> wrote:
On Dec 31, 10:17 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> >

We've been over this a great deal. Your notion that mudstones and
siltstones are conclusive evidence of anoxic conditions are not well-
supported by the available evidence - to include a general lack of
bioturbation and a lack of comparable formations being created today
by non-catastrophic means.

Here's what Macquaker and Bohacs said in the journal "Science" about a
paper in the same issue by Schieber, Southand and Thaisen: On page
1760 of this issue, Schieber et al. document a mechanism for
depositing mud that is at odds with perceived wisdom." Later, "These
results come at a time when mudstone science is poised for a paradigm
shift." What they found is that "Mudstones can be deposited under
more energetic conditions than widely assumed, requiring a reappraisal
of many geologic records. . .
Many ancient shale units, once examined carefully, may thus reveal
that they accumulated in the manner illustrated here, rather than
having largely settled from slow-moving or still suspensions. This,
in turn, will most likely necessitate the reevaluation of the
sedimentary history of large portions of the geologic record. . .
Our observations do not support the notion that muds can only be
deposited in quiet environments with only intermittent weak currents.
Instead, bedload transport of flocculated mud and deposition occurs at
current velocities that would also transport and deposit sand. Clay
beds can accrete from migrating floccule ripples under swiftly moving
currents in the 10 cm/s to 26 cm/s velocity range, a range likely to
expand as flows with larger sediment concentrations are explored. . .
The results call for critical reappraisal of all mudstones
previously interpreted as having been continuously deposited under
still waters. Such rocks are widely used to infer past climates,
ocean conditions, and orbital variations." (1)

"Because mudstones were long thought to record low-energy
conditions of offshore and deeper water environments, our results call
for reevaluation of published interpretations of ancient mudstone
successions and derived paleoceanographic conditions. . . (2)

1. Macquaker and Bohacs, "Geology: On the Accumulation of Mud,"
Science, 14 December 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1734-1735, DOI:
10.1126/science.1151980.

2. Juergen Schieber, John Southard, Kevin Thaisen, "Accretion of
Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples", Science 14 December
2007:Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1760 - 1763 DOI: 10.1126/science.1147001http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1760

What on earth has this to do with the evidence for anoxic conditions
in liassic shale deposits? And more to the point, in what possible
way does this support your global flood "theory"? Are you trying to
say that because a flood involves moving water, all events which
involve moving water are the product of a flood?

As I've told you before, these features are not *inconsistent* with
series of shortly spaced even catastrophic events.

No Sean, you've *asserted* that they are. You have offered no
hypothesis which can be tested against the evidence.

They do not
necessarily support your notion

By "your notion" I presume you mean the conclusion reached by
centuries of research in geology, which is overwhelmingly supported by
evidence from numerous different sources, and which is agreed on by
every scientist working in the field?

Tell me Sean, what do you know that all those scientists don't?

that very long periods of time were
required to produce these features.

Actually, there is, Not only that, but there is plenty of other
evidence that they were formed over very long periods.

Anoxic conditions and long
periods of slow deposition and preservation are not required to
produce the features you've often pointed out.

Which "features that I've often pointed out"? Are you misrepresenting
me again, Sean? It's a very bad habit of yours. What does the Bible
say about bearing false witness?

That's the point.

Here's the abstract of a rather more recent paper co-authored by
Macquakerhttp://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/1/105

What is your point in presenting the link to this abstract.

What on earth was the point in your posting an extract from a couple
of papers?

Where is
your argument Richard?

Sean, I'm not the one proposing that all the geologists who have
worked over the past three centuries have got it wrong. You are.

You do this all the time. You present a
reference without an actual quote from your reference to back up
whatever argument you think the referenced authors support.

Why should I need to produce quotes? That is not the way in which
scientists work.

Next time
you present a reference, please also present what you think is a
relevant quote along with what you think the passage actually means.

So why did you post the extracts from the papers *you* posted? What do
you think that they demonstrate, and how do they support you "theory"
of a global flood?


Of course, I've asked you to do this before and you simply refuse.
You keep on with your worthless reference mining - something even
worse than quote mining.

What bull***, Sean! Every scientific paper uses references in the way
I do. It's standard practice in science as you well know.


Tell you what: why not read this?http://www.sepm.org/sedrecord/sedrecord1.2.pdf

Or does the idea of actually *learning* anything frighten you so much
that you'll snip the reference?

Does the idea of presenting an actual quote along with one of your own
arguments worry you? Why not try it sometime?

So the idea of actually learning something *does* frighten you. Your
ignorance of taphonomy is profound, and you won't learn anything about
it by my posting "quotations" from a few papers. You need to educate
yourself on the subject if your posts are to do anything other than
expose your ignorance. That's up to you, not up to me.

RF


RF

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Quantcast