Kalopin wrote:Nacon wrote: The NMFZ and the Embayment, due to their rather unique properties, have been the subject of many decades of qualified research and are surprisingly well understood.
I believe this statement shows your inability to understand facts. The NMSZ is NOT "well understood". No one is even sure what produced this unusual topography [except for me!].
Was it inland seas, an ice sheet, thousands of years of erosion,...? So, another unanswered question returns: Since the embayment is so "surprisingly well understood"-
Why don't you explain to me the processes that COULD form a river valley with evenly spaced rolling hills of gravel?
And, please study up on how little is understood concerning petrified wood and fossilization!:
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-decepti ... astrophism
http://www.livescience.com/110-presto-i ... d-lab.html
As I have previously stated- The trees were INSTANTLY petrified!!! 8)
Re: Bolded #1 & 2 - If you had taken the time to actually read, digest, and understand some of the previously supplied references, you would be aware that the factors mentioned above (with partial modification, see below), were all involved in the current geological history of the Embayment. In addition, further geological events also played a role. As previously noted, the geomorphology of the Embayment has a long and complex history.
To briefly address the glacial aspect: At no point during the Pleistocene did any of the four primary glacial advances (Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoisan, Wisconsin) actually reach northern Mississippi. The extent of the most extensive advance has been documented at approximately the current northern Kentucky border. However, the wasting of the various glaciations did result in sediment deposition, erosion, and remodeling of the Embayment region.
As to the larger scale of events (previously presented in more detail), the following rather concisely encapsulates current understandings:
Writing in the January 2007 issue of Scientific American, Roy B. Van Arsdale and Randel Cox of the University of Memphis offered the following explanation of the embayment's complex origin.
As Pangaea began to break up about 95 million years ago, North America passed over a volcanic "hot spot" in the earth's mantle (specifically, the Bermuda hot spot) that was undergoing a period of intense activity. The upwelling of magma from the hot spot forced the further uplift to a height of perhaps 2-3 km of part of the Appalachian-Ouachita range, forming an arch. The uplifted land quickly eroded and, as North America moved away from the hot spot and as the hot spot's activity declined, the crust beneath the embayment region cooled, contracted and subsided to a depth of 2.6 km, forming a trough that was flooded by the Gulf of Mexico. As sea levels dropped, the Mississippi and other rivers extended their courses into the embayment, which gradually became filled with sediment.
http://showme.net/~fkeller/quake/topography.htm
Further relevant geomorphological data:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1208/introduction.htm
You may also wish to study the mapping of the above. And also learn the difference between topography and stratigraphy.
Re: Permineralization - Once again, your attempts at credible citation fail. As noted by E.P., the first is a creationist site that does not, in any way, clearly present credible documentation for "instant" natural permineralization. In addition, this particular reference (as is typical of the ilk), presents such distortions as "fossilization takes millions of years". Fossilization in general, and permineralization in particular, can be subject to a number of variables that affect not only the nature of/type of the preservation, but can also affect the time factor. In some cases, permineralization can actually occur within a few hundred years. However, it is
never "instant".
The second reference deals with an experimental commercial laboratory procedure that utilized the silicate saturation of 1 cm cubes of wood, pure argon gas and ceramic ovens. Hardly reflective of a natural environment.
On your own part, it may be time for a bit of reflection. You have obviously been shopping your "speculations" around for at least some three years. In the course of this time your various "data sets" (phrase utilized
very loosely) have been addressed by a number of individuals. These "data sets" have been consistently demonstrated to be the product of what would appear to be a combination of ignorance, lack of research, an "active" imagination, and potential delusion.
Having specifically addressed what would appear to be the bulk of your more "pressing" claims, will await any further clear indications of a qualified position.
.
