Re: Fine-grained Mudstones and Current Deposition

On Jan 6, 3:31 am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"JAlexander" <godgunsgu...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:3b208459-a03b-44c4-8f03-8c7f814c6796@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Jan 5, 2:26 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:50 pm, JAlexander <godgunsgu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 31 2007, 3:03 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. They do not
necessarily support your notion that very long periods of time were
required to produce these features. Anoxic conditions and long
periods of slow deposition and preservation are not required to
produce the features you've often pointed out. 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. Where is
your argument Richard? 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. 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.

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.

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?

RF

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com-Hidequotedtext -

- Show quoted text -

Sean, would you please consider debating Richard re: fossil
orientation, lack of plant fossils, predator traps, etc. I have been
reading your interchanges for some time, and I have noticed that you
quote your evidence verbatim, whereas Richard either throws up a
bundle of links, or simply argues without citing any evidence at all.
It think it's time the Evos either put up or shut up. Don't you?

I've posted extensive references and abstracts on palaeocurrents,
here:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/54dfb85...

lack of plant fossils in the Morrison,
here:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/321f90c...

and am trying to clarify what Sean means by "the fossils of some
layers consist primarily of large meat eating dinosaurs" here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/de583fe...

Why do you think that Sean is being so evasive?

RF- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think Sean is being evasive at all. I think YOU are being
evasive. Otherwise, you would agree to debate Sean on the same. But
you won't.

[snip]

You haven't noticed much. Richard Forrest practically does nothing BUT
debate Pitman.

What an empty life you must think I lead!

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: twin patadox question
    ... >>> it your own personal opinion. ... >> that it is not without support. ... >> reference does not mean that it is without support. ... >> will not look at evidence that your statement is naive and wrong does ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Fine-grained Mudstones and Current Deposition
    ... siltstones are conclusive evidence of anoxic conditions are not well- ... Our observations do not support the notion that muds can only be ... bedload transport of flocculated mud and deposition occurs at ... reference without an actual quote from your reference to back up ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fine-grained Mudstones and Current Deposition
    ... siltstones are conclusive evidence of anoxic conditions are not well- ... bedload transport of flocculated mud and deposition occurs at ... way does this support your global flood "theory"? ... Why do you think Sean is evading my question about predator traps? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fine-grained Mudstones and Current Deposition
    ... siltstones are conclusive evidence of anoxic conditions are not well- ... Our observations do not support the notion that muds can only be ... bedload transport of flocculated mud and deposition occurs at ... Why do you think Sean is evading my question about predator traps? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fine-grained Mudstones and Current Deposition
    ... Our observations do not support the notion that muds can only be ... bedload transport of flocculated mud and deposition occurs at ... reference without an actual quote from your reference to back up ... Why do you think Sean is evading my question about predator traps? ...
    (talk.origins)