From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.fan.publius,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: glaciers
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 06:00:35 GMT
Organization: TCC
Lines: 300
Message-ID: <4jek7i$6rk@granite.sentex.net>
References: <4j3qav$9eh@granite.sentex.net> <4j52hg$5oo@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>
Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net

In article <4j52hg$5oo@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca
(Andrew MacRae) wrote:

>In article <4j3qav$9eh@granite.sentex.net> tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox)  
>writes:

...

>> The drumlin patterns cover wide areas, and show flow patterns
>> consistent with flooding, but not ice movement. The flow is uphill in
>> many areas, and may even be from out of the sea, as in Scotland and
>> Northern Ireland.

>	As discussed, there are circumstances when ice can move "uphill".

In the glacial theory, though, this uphill motion is often invoked
where it is unwarrented. For example, saying the ice moved uphill in
New York south of Lake Ontario, and at the same time, moved uphill
over the Niaraga Escarpment in a northwesterly direction on the
opposite side of the lake, seems to be contradictory. What caused the
thrust in this instance? How did the ice get piled up so high, as it
would need to do, in the basin of Lake Ontario? And, how is it that at
the higher elevations, the ice appears to have increased in velocity,
causing drumlins that are more intricately streamlined, longer, having
steeper sides, and narrow crests? How did the ice presumably move
faster than the ice at the rear, causing the push? The flow patterns
and variations in drumlin form are consistent with flow of water
currents, which do increase in velocity over higher ground, where the
depth is less, because of the principle of continuity. But this does
not work for ice, being pushed from behind, up a slope. So, the
variations in drumlin form in Southern Ontario and in New York
discredit the glacial hypothesis. 

>	The main ice cap in Europe was in Scandinavia.  The coastal areas  
>of Scotland were "down" compared to these altitudes, and the North Sea was  
>a nice, flat plain.  There were smaller, local ice centres in Scotland and  
>Ireland too, but I am not sure where the junction between the ice sheets  
>was.

>	Oh, incidentally, the dips around the North Sea Basin are  
>inconsistent with your model in southern Ontario.  On the Norway/Sweden  
>side, the ice direction indicators go into the sea and are in the same  
>direction as the bedrock dip (i.e. same as southern Ontario for the  
>bedrock).  On the Scotland side, they came in the opposite direction,  
>because you are on the opposite side of the North Sea Basin.

There is a similarity between the Canadian and Scandinavian Shields,
and the orientation of drumlins in the vicinity. In each case, the
flow direction was away from the Shield areas, suggesting these two
areas were the centers of rapid uplift at the end of the flood, and
the currents generated by uplift eroded the sedimentary cover and
exposed the basement. Drumlins are seen in the regions surrounding the
Precambrian shields, eroded into the sediments, that must have been
unconsolidated at the time the drumlins were formed. 

>> This suggest currents of water were the cause, not ice sheets.

>	I do not see why water flowing "uphill" is any more likely than  
>ice.  They both happen.

The mechanisms that can produce uphill flow of water, such as
hydraulic pressure, as in a hose, or a tunnel, do not work for ice.
The momentum that can produce uphill flow of water is not available
for something that moves as slowly as ice. There may be some
circumstances where ice can flow uphill, but the distance would have
to be very limited, and this seems to have been greatly exaggerated in
some of the explanations invoked in the glacial theory. 
 
>> >>While the drumlins in some areas are composed of stratified drift
>> >>gravel, others consisit of bedrock. Still others are part drift, and
>> >>part bedrock; that is, there is a mantle of drift overlying a rock
>> >>core in some of them, or the stoss end of a drumlin may be bedrock,
>> >>while its tail consists of drift. All these types may occur together,
>> >>in the same drumlin swarm, having the same general size and shape, and
>> >>the same orientation pattern.

>	Yes, sounds pretty "complicated", Douglas.

The facts are complex, but the explanation is simple; the drumlins
were streamlined by fast currents of the retreating flood waters, and
there was subsequent disintegration of the surface rocks to varying
depths.

>> >>It is very curious, IMO, that a glacier
>> >>could erode drumlins consisting of hard bedrock into the same form as
>> >>others in the vicinity that were presumably being formed from
>> >>unconsolidated gravel and delicately stratified sands.

>	The common feature is streamlining, just like your model.

But, in the case of streamlining in a watery environment, due to fast
currents generated by vertical movements of the earth's crust such as
my model requires, the streamlining can actually occur; it is caused
by longitudinal vortices formed in the currents. The physics involved
here is well understood; it is possible to calculate the current
velocity that is required for such effects to occur. OTOH, for a
glacial interpretation of the drumlins, the idea of vortices in ice is
completely absurd. The glacialists are unable to explain the drumlins,
even after more than a century of effort. Their theories have failed
to even begin to explain them.  

>> >>At Rockwood, in Southern Ontario, there are hundreds of deep potholes
>> >>in dolomite rock; there are signs posted in a park in the area that
>> >>indicate the potholes formed when waterfalls called "moulins" plunged
>> >>down through crevasses in the ice, and eroded the rock below, drilling
>> >>deep, round holes, up to 20 feet in diameter. Now it seems that the
>> >>glacialists want these waterfalls or "moulins" to sometimes construct
>> >>great mounds of gravel, called "moulin kames." But here the same
>> >>process is is invoked to drill holes in the bedrock. Again, there
>> >>seems to be some inconsistency in the theory.


>	*Obviously* it depends upon the amount of sediment in the river  
>forming the waterfall.  Some waterfalls have deep pools beneath them.   
>Some are piled up with sediment.  I see no inconsistency.

So, how did the stones get up into the high levels of the ice sheet?
Do you suppose the ice within the glacier was turbulent or something,
so that it was capable of lifting up stones and sand to the surface of
the glacier as it moved? In mountain glaciers the stones on the ice
surface that are deposited as moraines are accumulated as the ice
moves along valleys beside the cliffs of the mountains, but there are
no such mountains available in Ontario. 

>	You may have good cause to be skeptical of the interpretation  
>offered by park signs, Douglas, but I would not assume that is the only  
>possible explanation, or the only explanation for all the observed  
>structures in the area.  Can you cite something a little more definitive  
>for the conventional interpretation than a park sign for this occurrence?

Unfortunately, what references I have at the moment are to some papers
that are not especially informative, as the mechanisms suggested for
their formation are rather vague. 

Panton, J.H. 1889. The caves and potholes of Rockwood, Proceedings of
the Canadian Institute. 

Kershaw, G.P. 1973. Rockwood; Resource analysis and development
proposal. (Thesis, Map Library, U. of Waterloo) 

>> >>What is really strange, though, is that the potholes at Rockwood are
>> >>very near some large drumlins, composed of bedrock; the glacial
>> >>theory, remember, says the drumlins were eroded as the hypothetical
>> >>ice sheet moved across the region. In this case, it must have come
>> >>from the southeast, and flowed northwest, climbing up out of the basin
>> >>of Lake Ontario, creeping gently over the high cliffs of the Niagara
>> >>Escarpment, towards Rockwood.

>	Yup.  Filled up the depression in Lake Ontario, and slowly  
>overtopped the barriers to the south and west.

But the evidence of variation in drumlin form suggests the velocity of
the flow increased at higher elevations; there are long, narrow
flutings, at higher elevations; in some cases the tops of larger
drumlins have been carved into several smaller ones. This is
consistent with decreasing depth of the flood waters and a
corresponding increase in velocity due to the shallower bed. It is
inconsistent with ice being the cause. 

>> >>Now, if the ice moved in this manner,
>> >>how did all those waterfalls of moulins stay in one location long
>> >>enough for all those deep potholes to be drilled? And why did hundreds
>> >>of them form in such a small area? Hmmm...

>	Because that area happens to be at the convergence between the  
>Huron, Georgian Bay, and Lake Ontario lobes of the ice sheet in southern  
>Ontario.  For a time, these lobes had advanced over much of southern  
>Ontario, but the area around Rockwood and Waterloo remained ice-free at  
>the fronts of these glacial lobes before they finally merged and advanced  
>over the entire area.

>	I doubt very much that the hundreds formed in such a small area  
>are the only ones.  The structures you have described from the Bruce  
>Peninsula are very similar and occur in the same formation.  I suspect you  
>would find them in other areas of southern Ontario, where ever the  
>overlying glacial sediments are thin enough to observe the bedrock.

There are some potholes in the gorge of the Niagara River, at Niagara
Glen. These are in isolated blocks of rock in the sides of the gorge
apparently left behind from the uppermost limestone layers as the
drift in the gorge was eroded out by the Niagara River.  In one of
these, a large pothole about a meter in diameter was drilled right
through the block, so one can look up at the sky from below; its walls
have a distinct spiral shape. In another area nearby, the potholes are
in a slab of limestone that occurs on a slope of 45 degrees, and there
are 2 cylindrical vertical potholes side by side, of similar size.

The question that arises here is how were these potholes initiated in
a slab with an otherwise flat surface that slopes at 45 degrees? It
seems implausible that vortices of the currents in the river could
have drilled such holes, or that "grinding stones" could have even
begun to do any drilling in the sloping slab, as they would simply be
swept away.  

>> >Hmm yourself, Douglas.  Stagnation of ice flow, as I mentioned above,
>> >has been observed many times in the field.  During a period of
>> >stagnation the ice doesn't move, permitting moulins to form.
 
>> >You really ought to familiarize yourself better with glacial
>> >theory, but somehow I doubt that you will.
 
>> On the contrary, real glaciers I have seen in the Alps of Europe and
>> in Canada deposit debris in moraine ridges consisting of angular
>> fragments, showing little or none of the characteristics of the drift,
>> with its rounded boulders and pebbles, that are characteristically
>> formed as a result of _in situ_ disintegration.

>	I do not know what glaciers you visited (the Athabaska maybe?),  
>but at least some of the ones in Arctic Canada have *plenty* of rounded  
>material in front of them.  In some cases, it is dominant.  Obviously it  
>depends upon the glacier.  In the case of many alpine glaciers, fragmented  
>material is introduced due to rock falls practically beside the place  
>where the toe of the glacier is melting and dropping sediment, so there is  
>a large supply of angular material with very little opportunity to get  
>rounded.  It does not transport far.

The illustrations of the deposits of the glaciers of the Alps by L.
Agassiz include mostly angular rocks. OTOH, the drift gravels in
southern Ontario and elsewhere contain mostly boulders and pebbles
that are well rounded and often quite smooth, although there are some
angular ones. 

A feature that distinguishes the rounded boulders of the drift is that
they may contain concentric internal structure, suggesting a
concretionary origin. There are often abundant individual iron oxide
concretions in the drift, and some of the boulders also have smaller,
fragile, iron oxide concretions on their surfaces, that indicate they
could not have been rounded and abraided by stream transport. And,
there are far too many varieties of pebbles, for them to have been
derived from the existing bedrock formations, as these are quite
limited in Ontario. Even at the perimeter of the Canadian Shield, the
drift has thousands and thousands of varieties of pebbles in it; the
character of the drift gravel changes over the border, but there is no
bedrock source available for many of the pebbles derived from
sedimentary sources, as there are only igneous rocks towards the
north. 

Many of the boulders in the drift are fragile, disintegrated rocks,
and could not have been transported by ice or streams for a great
distance.

>> Another thing about the glacial theory that seems anomalous is the
>> nature of the fossils that occur in the drift. Often the kinds of
>> animals represented are not those that would suggest a cold climate as
>> required in the glacial theory. Bones and teeth of many large, extinct
>> and extant mammals such as lion, mastodon, giant beaver, horse,
>> hippopotamus, rodents, giant deer, and bear, etc., are characteristic.

>	Perhaps the uniformitarian assumption that these animals represent  
>"warm weather" is incorrect, or the assumption that the front of all  
>glaciers is "cold" is incorrect, or the assumption that these occurred  
>anywhere near the front of a glacier is incorrect (e.g., the  
>hippopotamus).  It cold also be a bit of all three.

Anyone who has visited a glacier has probably noticed there is a drop
in the temperature of the air as one approaches the region of the ice.
A continent-sized ice sheet would certainly have a big effect on
climate. 

>> Even fossil whale skeletons have been found in materials attributed to
>> the ice, in Michigan. 

>	Yes, but none of these are particularly characteristic of warm  
>conditions.

>	Incidentally, the whale bones in Michigan are post-glacial, and  
>are not in "materials attributed to the ice".  They are on top, as near as  
>can be determined from the poor stratigraphic data on their occurrence.   
>They also date to less than 1000 years ago, and are not found in  
>association with in-situ marine fossils as the many fossils, including  
>whales, found in the Ottawa-St.Lawrence-Lake Champlain valleys are.  These  
>others were deposited in the Champlain Sea, and do represent cool or cold  
>water conditions.  See:

>http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/champlain/champlain.html

Why do you think that _humans_ might have carried a whale carcass
hundreds of km from the sea, and leave it in Michigan? 

[Re the statement at the above web page: "A few other disarticulated
bones are known from Michigan, but they may be transported by
humans..."] 

According to an article in  _Science_ 72:sup xiv, Nov 7, 1930,
[reproduced in Unknown Earth, Wm Corliss, 1980, p. 723], the whale
fossils found in Michigan gravels, one near Ann Arbor and the other in
Oscoda County were "excellently preserved".

And I understand there are marine fossils in the gravels of that
area...

>	How does your model account for these deposits?

The flood would explain the distribution of the fossil whales quite
well, IMO. Have you compared the fossil whale distributions to those
of mastodons?

--
Douglas Cox