From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 20:56:01 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 121 Message-ID: <3pt86e$7la@granite.sentex.net> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article <3poq9k$s1@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, brsimmons@aol.com (BRSimmons) wrote: >Subject: Re: Possible cures for evolutionism > >tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) wrote: > >> Why should anyone accept any of the speculations of geologists, when >> their theory of uniformitarianism does not even provide an explanation >> for the common phenomenon of intersecting potholes? > >I wrote: > >> This is a joke right? You aren't putting this forward as a serious >> anti-evolutionary argument, are you? > >Douglas wrote: > >> Why, yes, I am, in fact. Potholes are supposed to be formed by processes >> occurring today, and they are easily studied, without special equipment. >> There is no excuse for geologists not having an explanation for >> intersecting potholes, since the uniformitarian approach requires that >> the potholes can actually be observed in the process of formation, in >> streams. But the notion of pothole drilling by vortices in streams fails >> when applied to intersecting or linked potholes. Either two or more >> overlapping vortices operated together without interferance, [clearly >> impossible] or the linked potholes formed consecutively; in which case, >> the later one had to be drilled by the hypothetical former stream eddies >> with part of its wall missing. This also violates laws of fluid dynamics >> as well as common sense... > >There are some geologists on t.o., any of them want to discuss pothole >formation? There has been ample opportunity to do so in recent months. Perhaps they prefer to try to prolong the delusion of uniformitarianism as long as possible, rather than admit to a flaw in the theory wrt pothole origins. But, if anyone would like to debate the origin of intersecting potholes, I welcome it. Please, "...expect your every statement to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb, every assertion to be challenged, every assumption to be questioned. Some of these actions will take the form of polite discourse..." in the tradition set forth in the t.o. Welcome FAQ. >Douglas continued: > >> So what's going to save the uniformitarian >> hypothesis? Biologists are confident that geologists have the "proof" >> that they rely upon, just as Darwin based his theory on his reading of >> Lyell. > >Dating of rock strata is based on geology, physics, and chemistry. If you >want to attack those dating methods, why not do so directly? Even if your >argument that the inadequacy of the theory of pothole formation is true, >that does not invalidate all of geology through some sort of guilt by >association, despite your sweeping claims about invalidation of the >"uniformitarian hypothesis". > >In sum, if you want to invalidate the various dating methods used in >geology, you should list them and for each one explain why it doesn't >work. If you think, for example, that radioactive half-lives are not Here's a little story: A man goes into a restaurant, and orders his meal. After a while, the waiter brings out his soup. The following exchange occurs: Man: "Waiter, there's a grub in my soup!" Waiter: "I doubt it. Maybe its a piece of mushroom." Man: "No, it's a grub. Take a look for yourself." [The waiter continues arranging the table, not bothering to look to see whether the soup does, in fact, contain a grub.] Waiter: "You customers are always complaining. Just a little grub, and you turn up your nose at the whole meal. Look at how spotlessly clean and white this tablecloth is. And how nicely set out the furniture; see the pictures on the wall over here!" Man: "I didn't come here to admire your pictures, I came to eat. Now please take this away. I'll go somewhere else." Waiter: "A little grub, and you are not going to stay for the main course? That's unreasonable!" Man: "Why should I stay and eat my dinner here, when you can't even serve up a bowl of soup properly? I'm leaving, before you bring me something worse." Waiter: "Well, I can tell you the lettuce in the salad is really crispy today. Our cook has many years of experience, and we have some really modern, expensive equipment in the kitchen!" Man: "So what?" [He leaves, while the waiter grumbles about not getting his tip.] The point of this being, if geologists (geology is here represented by the restaurant) get pothole origins all wrong, (i.e., the grub in the oup), when they are describing the effects of existing processes and easily studied phenomena, why should they be believed at all, (i.e., why patronize the restaurant?) when they tell us about things in the remote past, and far less accessible, and about data that requires special training and equipment for processing, not understood by most people? If they can't get the explanation of intersecting potholes right, what else might be wrong? >Another point, you seem to believe that Darwin based his theory on the >work of Lyell - he did not. He once said anyone who does not acccept everything Lyell said in his book, "Princliples of Geology" about the earth being of great age "may at once put down this book." (Or something similar; not an exact quote.) [...] >> These two theories/philosophical systems, uniformitarianism and >> evolutionism, stand or fall together. If one collapses, so does the >> other. > >Apart from the fact that you think there is a problem with pothole >formation theory, what specific theories in physics, chemistry, geology, >biology, paleontology, etc. do you believe are invalid and what >specifically are your objections? Please include any evidence you may >have, since objections without evidence have little weight. Well, okay, but shall we resolve the intersecting pothole thing first? -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 23:36:27 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 58 Message-ID: <3q5eqn$oco@granite.sentex.net> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article <3pob64$9nt@vlsi.ics.uci.edu>, hadley@vlsi.ics.uci.edu (Tedd Hadley) writes: >In <3pmmkt$5ko@granite.sentex.net> tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) writes: > >>Why, yes, I am, in fact. Potholes are supposed to be formed by processes >>occurring today, and they are easily studied, without special equipment. >>There is no excuse for geologists not having an explanation for >>intersecting potholes, since the uniformitarian approach requires that >>the potholes can actually be observed in the process of formation, in >>streams. >[...] >>the linked potholes formed consecutively; in which case, >>the later one had to be drilled by the hypothetical former stream eddies >>with part of its wall missing. > > I recall you mentioned that H.S. Alexander confirmed the possibility > of pothole formation by stream eddies when he performed directional > water jet experiments and showed that the resulting water flow > corresponded to the observed direction of striations on pothole > (specifically the "stream" pothole, not the weathering, waterfall, > or chemically eroded pothole) walls. Since you seem to rule out > the possibility of further erosion once two potholes intersect, I'm > curious to know what happens when a water jet is applied within one > of two intersecting, overlapping bowls. What does the resulting > water flow look like and does it "go" anywhere? I assume you've > done this experiment already (or at least know what the result would > be). H.S. Alexander performed experiments that showed it is indeed possible for a vortex or circulation to exist in a pothole shaped hole, as anyone can see when he stirs a mug of coffee or tea. Alexander also pointed out the difficulty of getting material out of such holes, once it has fallen in. This is a problem for the erosional hypothesis as deep potholes would be unlikely to form because they will fill up faster than they can be excavated. In the case of two potholes that intersect, circulation of the current cannot be maintained; this may be confirmed very simply by cutting strips out of the sides of two similar soup cans with a pair of snips and connecting them together, in the manner of two intersecting potholes. Duct tape can be used for this. Then fill with water and stir in one can. There is no rotation or eddy produced, as one might expect intuitively; the current at the perimeter flows tangentially from the point of intersection, and will enter the second hole acoss the middle. [Newton's law of inertia at work] Thus there is no circulation possible in either hole. As you correctly note, I rule out the possibility of further erosion by current eddies once two adjacent holes intersect. Such an experiment can be done even by a child and is sufficient evidence to cure one forever of belief in the absurd myth that circulation of current eddies in streams could have ever produced intersecting potholes in hard rocks by erosion. Regards, Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 23:40:53 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 112 Message-ID: <3q5f33$oco@granite.sentex.net> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article , cju@liverpool.ac.uk (Dr C.J. Underwood) writes: >: Well, okay, but shall we resolve the intersecting pothole thing first? > >: -- >: Douglas Cox > > >(Assorted garbage and an unammusing story deleted) > >What on earth are you on about? > >The term pothole can mean one of two things, neither of which reqiure >so much as a second glance, their fromation being so simple. Be careful. You deleted my statement of the problem, but you do not address the issues I raised. Your post appears to be merely an attempt to "sweep the difficulty under the carpet," pretending no problem exists. Geology profs may have been able to do this sort of thing in class situations and get away with it, but it won't work here. >Firstly, potholes can refer to holes dissolved in rocks (usually >carbonates) by waters. In this case they preferentially form along >lines of water flow aka fractures. These include faults, joints >and bedding planes. As by their orthoganal relationships, these >features wil always intersect, so do the potholes formed along them. > >Follow me so far? Indeed I do; you are suggesting that chemical dissolution was the cause of some potholes, or that chemical dissolution combined with erosion was responsible. You say joint patterns will always intersect, and so will potholes that occur along them, that were formed by chemical dissolution. But this statement does not contain an explanation of intersecting potholes; it is merely a vague association of two things that intersect; it is irrelevant unless you show how the intersection of joint patterns is related to the problem of intersecting potholes. I agree that potholes are often alligned along joints. However, intersecting potholes often occur alligned along particular joints without evidence of other intersecting joints in the vicinity. You do not specify which potholes were formed by chemical dissolution; obviously, those in active stream beds could not have been formed by such a process. You did not specify what the characteristics of such potholes, formed by a process of chemical dissolution, might be. By introducing chemical dissolution as an alternate mechanism for pothole formation, you are in fact confirming my claim that the conventional theory of pothole drilling by stream eddies is inadequate. How would you distinguish between potholes formed by chemical dissolution and those you think were formed by mechanical erosion? Would you limit chemical dissolution processes to certain rock types? For example, do you think potholes in sandstone or quartzite could have been formed by chemical dissolution? Potholes are in fact a most interesting phenomenon, and in the study of them, we are at the frontiers of science. To diminish the importance of potholes as an inferior subject, while a very old trick, (the kind employed by Plato, I believe) is in fact an anti-science strategem, and pseudo-science, and this kind of rhetoric belongs to the dark ages; in fact use of such methods is symptomatic that uniformitarian geology is still in the dark ages and has never experienced the kind of revolutionary insights that Isaac Newton brought to science. >The second set of features called potholes are formed by physical erosion, >usually by flowing water, over a hard rock. As rocks are never uniformly >hard (see above), they tend to erode (usually by sand/grit blasting, >NOT water alone) irregularly. OK for you? You suggest sand/grit "blasting" was the method of erosion - do you discount the idea of "grinding stones" drilling deep potholes? Again, what characteristics would distinguish between pothole surfaces formed by such a "blasting" process and those drilled by "solution" or by "grinding-stones"? >As these irregularities form on the surface of a rock, they get pebles inside >them, at first for only short periods. As water flows over the top, eddies >in these hollows cause the pebbles to go clankety-clankety around the >hollow, enlarging and deepening it.As several of these potholes grow close >together, they often intersect. As pebbles are not of uniform size, weight, >hardness or shape, and the base rock is never uniform, the growth of some >potholes is faster than others, and so 'capture' af other holes and thus their >enclosed pebbles is commonplace. Once two neighboring holes intersect, there can no longer be a vortex in either hole, as any rotating current flow at the perimeter of one hole will tend to continue tangentially from the perimeter of the first hole into the other one, carrying along the "tools", etc. into the other hole, so there would be no enlargement of pothole diameters once potholes began to intersect. But the facts show otherwise. Where potholes intersect, there is often a considerable overlap in plan. This proves conclusively that the vortex or current eddy hypothesis for pothole erosion is flawed and should be abandoned. >Difficult to immagine, is'nt it? > >NO. IMHO, your concept of pothole origins is full of holes. You have not explained how intersecting potholes could have increased in diameter after they began to intersect. > >Charlie > > Regards, Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 1995 19:18:46 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 101 Message-ID: <3qq2r9$msv@granite.sentex.net> References: <3pt86e$7la@granite.sentex.net> <3q6h0m$oe0@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article <3q6h0m$oe0@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae) wrote: ... >> >Douglas wrote: >> > >> >> Why, yes, I am, in fact. Potholes are supposed to be formed by >> >> processes occurring today, and they are easily studied, without >> >> special equipment. There is no excuse for geologists not having an >> >> explanation for intersecting potholes, since the uniformitarian >.. >> >specifically are your objections? Please include any evidence you may >> >have, since objections without evidence have little weight. >> >> Well, okay, but shall we resolve the intersecting pothole thing first? > I will make you a deal, Douglas. If you will come up with a >plausible, specific explanation for cross bedding -- a structure found in >practically all sedimentary strata in large volumes, and which can be >observed in *active* formation at practically any river or beach, and >which has been extensively documented in its many specific geometries and>scales (e.g., 2D and 3D ripples and dunes, hummocky cross stratification, >trough and planar-tabular cross bedding, wave and current ripples and >dunes, aeolian ripples, etc.) in the field and in the lab, then I will >make a greater effort to determine what the explanation is for your >occasional, uncommon, intersecting potholes. I find it ridiculous that >you claim geologists can not address this triviality ^^^^^^^^^^ Andrew refers to the explanation of intersecting potholes as a mere "triviality." But he has not offered an explanation of them; instead he proposes to make a "greater effort" to determine what the explanation is, if I, in turn, offer an explanation for cross bedding. He cannot just pull out a geology book, or an encyclopedia, or a published article which provides an explanation of the dilemma posed by intersecting potholes. The problem, as in so many things about the earth, is that geologists have yet to recognize that a serious problem exists! That is the first step towards solving it. They have not even noticed the flaw in their much touted stream eddy theory of pothole origins, or if they have, they have attempted to cover it up. Any attempt by geologists to portray intersecting potholes as a triviality, smells a lot like a cover-up attempt to me. If, as Andrew suggests, this problem is a mere "triviality," then he should have no problem coming up with the answer; all he would have to do is post it. Have you checked out georef, Andrew? Why not go down the hall and ask a geography prof to write a one-paragraph explanation for you, that will clear up the whole mystery, and then post it here? You would sure be considered a hero if you posted a solution, and this thread would no longer be needed. About the 'deal' you proposed, it is hardly necessary for us to make such a deal, as discovering the true explanation for cross strata in sandstones and drift has been a long-time interest of mine, and this problem of pothole origins, and intersecting potholes, etc., is directly connected with the disintegration mechanism I have proposed for the drift. In short, I aim to do that anyway, deal or not. In the disintegration theory, the intersecting potholes are easily and naturally explained. The process of disintegration of rocks acted in the past during rapid release of pressure as the floodwaters retreated, and where newly lithified sediments were rapidly eroded by the currents. The process of disintegration favoured areas where the pressure gradient was highest at the time these events occurred. In my theory, much of the drift was the product of disintegration. Drift in potholes was formed in place where the process penetrated downwards in small areas. Sometimes these areas would intersect with adjacent areas that were also subject to disintegration. The circular plan, and cylindrical form of potholes was due to minimizing of surface area. My theory suggests the original, undisturbed drift in many potholes may exhibit patterns of cross stratification. The potholes in stream beds were not formed by eddies or currents, but streams were merely agents of erosion that exposed the bedrock and the potholes in it. > while you seem unable >to present a specific explanation for one of the most common sedimentary >structures present in the geologic record -- a structure that is easily >observed in the process of formation today. Some structures classified as cross strata are sedimentary in origin, some are not. Often, there are non-sedimentary structures classsified as cross strata, included with sedimentary structures in the geologic literature, that have been caused by mechanisms for producing laminations, (crystallization in successive layers, for example) that have affected sediments. What you are suggesting here is that all these structures, and all types of stratification previously labelled as "cross stratification" are in fact sedimentary, apparently because geologists have previously (mistakenly) explained them that way. There needs to be a distinction made between those features included in cross bedding that are sedimentary in origin, and those of non-sedimentary origin. The study of the configuration of the laminations around pebbles would be a good place to begin; in a non-sedimentary process, there is no reason for stoss-and-lee effects or other directional effects in the vicinity of pebbles, while the cross laminations caused by current action should include stoss and lee effects around all embedded objects. -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 07:21:35 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 97 Message-ID: <3qa8qk$vm@granite.sentex.net> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article <3q5438$p6m@badger.3do.com>, jjh@dragon.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Joel Hanes) writes: > tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) writes: >> >> But, >> if anyone would like to debate the origin of intersecting >> potholes, I welcome it. > >Intersecting potholes are formed by stream eddies >swirling a load of abrasive gravel, just as solitary >pothoes are The presence of gravel at the bottom of a pothole would tend to protect the rock surface from further erosion, and the roughness of the gravel at the bottom would increase turbulence and diminish the effectiveness of the hypothetical eddy in the pothole. Because of shearing, the speed of eddy currents within a pothole will decrease to zero at the bottom and sides, where the work is to be done to erode the rock surface and enlarge the pothole. Addition of stones or other debris to the pothole from outside would be cumulative; once in, the stones have no way to escape. All these facts discredit the plausibility of the above proposed mechanism of pothole erosion. > -- but intersecting potholes are formed >serially over time, rather than all at once. > >River and stream courses are among the most evanescent >of geological features; the flow regime along a particular >bankside spot may change, dramatically, within the span >of a single human life. > >As the course of the river evolves, eddies in succesive >floods appear in slightly different places. > >In the simplest case of two overlapping potholes, posit that >one initially forms in the eddy of an upstream rock. Time >passes, and the rock shifts, or cracks, or a drift log fetches >up against it, or a tributary is captured upstream -- >for any of a host of reasons, the eddy position moves, by >a few inches or a few feet, and a new pothole is ground >into the rock, overlapping the first. You assume that stream eddies are capable of drilling deep holes in hard rocks, and that a shift in the eddy position means a pothole will be drilled in the new position. While this is easy to say, IMHO it is simply a myth; why do you believe it? Of course, it is stated in many geology books, which, I suggest, merely shows how gullible the uniformitarian folks are. This notion is the product of philosophical dogma which rules out a major catastrophe in the earth's history such as the Noachian flood. Have you noticed that some of the other posters have moved away from the stream eddy hypothesis? Now they are saying that other processes, such as solution, cavitation, "sand blasting," "grinding stones," etc were responsible for potholes, and that all potholes need not have been formed by stream eddies. They also talk about the "waterfall" and "moulin" mechanisms. Why do you suppose they invoke these alternate mechanisms? Could it be they have doubts about the effectiveness of stream eddies? Intersecting potholes are particularly troubling for the stream eddy hypothesis, since for potholes to be drilled to depths of 10 to 20 meters in hard rocks such as basalt, (as at Interstate Park, Minnesota) a vortex would have to be immensely powerful; it would have to stay rigidly fixed in position (in this area, at the top of a cliff above the St. Croix River) for an immense period of time; it would have to co-exist with many other pothole-drilling vortices in close proximity, and the whole scenario strains credulity of any clear-thinking person. Even if such an improbable array of vortices existed, it does not follow that any potholes would result; certainly none 20 meters deep and 4 meters wide. In their commitment to the uniformitarian dogma of C. Lyell, geologists have come up with whopping tall stories to account for pothole phenomena. They are prisoners of their own thinking; as in a prison cell where the view of the outside is restricted to a narrow slit of a window, their concepts of geologic processes in the past are restricted to those seen acting at the present time. They are stuck with their stream eddy hypothesis for intersecting potholes even though it is demonstrably flawed. The truth is, existing processes are insufficient to account for the effects seen in potholes. >I simply don't understand Mr. Cox's difficulty in apprehending >these rather obvious (and testable) phenomena. Try testing your own idea: model two intersecting potholes, and see if you can even get circulation of an eddy. > >--- >Joel Hanes > > -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 03:35:44 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 56 Message-ID: <3qdq2r$mla@granite.sentex.net> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article , dbreslau@world.std.com (Daniel Breslau) writes: >tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) writes: > >> To diminish the importance of >>potholes as an inferior subject, while a very old trick, (the kind >>employed by Plato, I believe) is in fact an anti-science strategem, and >>pseudo-science, and this kind of rhetoric belongs to the dark ages; in >>fact use of such methods is symptomatic that uniformitarian geology is >>still in the dark ages and has never experienced the kind of >>revolutionary insights that Isaac Newton brought to science. > >To use intersecting potholes as a diversionary tactic, so as to cast >doubt on completely unrelated fields of geophysics, is a very old >trick This thread is about the problem of intersecting potholes. To say that discussing the subject for which this thread was started is "diversionary" is a rather peculiar statement, don't you think? Or do you have a problem with that subject being brought up for discussion? And isn't the subject of intersecting potholes a good one for applying the principles of Newtonian physics to dispell the ignorance and superstition that surrounds the subject, like "whirling, swirling columns of water" that are sometimes invoked for drilling deep holes in the hardest rocks? > (the kind employed by many creationists), and is most certainly >an anti-science strategem. It is not anti-science to examine any phenomenon of nature, or to subject geologic theories to critical scrutiny. OTOH, objecting to such examination could indeed be anti-science. > This kind of rhetoric belongs in the dark >ages (which didn't really exist, but that's another news group.) > >(I'm not suggesting the problem can't be solved, just that it's >not relevant here.) Why not? Is there something to hide? What better place to discuss intersecting potholes, where everyone can contribute, and evaluate what is said? If you have a solution to the problem, why not present it? I very much doubt that you will be able to. If you were any kind of a scientist, you would know that identifying a problem is the first step to making a discovery, and discovery of the truth is what science is about. >Now, can we get back to geological dating methods? By all means, discuss them all you want, be my guest; there are other threads where that subject is under discussion, I believe. -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 15:20:44 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 256 Message-ID: <3qhnnp$cd4@granite.sentex.net> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article <3qdpcm$skg@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae) writes: >In article <3qa8qk$vm@granite.sentex.net> tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) >writes: >> In article <3q5438$p6m@badger.3do.com>, jjh@dragon.NoSubdomain.NoDomain >> (Joel Hanes) writes: >> > tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) writes: >> >> But, >> >> if anyone would like to debate the origin of intersecting >> >> potholes, I welcome it. >> >Intersecting potholes are formed by stream eddies >> >swirling a load of abrasive gravel, just as solitary >> >pothoes are >> The presence of gravel at the bottom of a pothole would tend to protect >> the rock surface from further erosion, and the roughness of the gravel >> at the bottom would increase turbulence and diminish the effectiveness >> of the hypothetical eddy in the pothole. Because of shearing, the speed >> of eddy currents within a pothole will decrease to zero at the bottom >> and sides, where the work is to be done to erode the rock surface and >> enlarge the pothole. Addition of stones or other debris to the pothole >> from outside would be cumulative; once in, the stones have no way to >> escape. All these facts discredit the plausibility of the above proposed >> mechanism of pothole erosion. > We have been through this before, Douglas. Yes, the presence of >pebbles and other sediment will tend to protect the bottom. Yes they will >tend to accumulate most of the time. BUT FLOW REGIME DOES NOT REMAIN >CONSTANT. Maybe 90% of the time the pothole is filled with sediment and >doing little, if anything. This is probably when it is usually observed. Yes, I agree with this. >Then a seasonal flood occurs, the flow rates go up by an order of >magnitude, the sediment is stripped out, and erosion proceeds for days or >longer because sand and pebbles are kept in suspension or traction near >the bottom of the stream, even in the potholes. Then the flood subsides, >the sediment fills in the pothole, the water level lowers, and someone >walks out there and says, "Gosh, nothing happened." The idea that all the fill or sediment can be washed out of potholes in times of flood needs to be looked at carefully. I think there is likely a limit to how much of it would be removed, even in optimal conditions. The depth to which the fill might be excavated may well be a function of the diameter at the top. It is also likely limited by the size of any large boulders, and the coarseness of the gravel. My guess is that depths deeper than about one diameter are unlikely to be excavated by most floods. >> > -- but intersecting potholes are formed >> >serially over time, rather than all at once. >> >River and stream courses are among the most evanescent >> >of geological features; the flow regime along a particular >> >bankside spot may change, dramatically, within the span >> >of a single human life. > Or even a single year, month, week, or year. I can't believe >Douglas, Mister non-uniformitarian, doesn't get this. I have no problem with this. > >As the course of the river evolves, eddies in succesive >> >floods appear in slightly different places. >> >In the simplest case of two overlapping potholes, posit that >> >one initially forms in the eddy of an upstream rock. Time >> >passes, and the rock shifts, or cracks, or a drift log fetches >> >up against it, or a tributary is captured upstream -- >> >for any of a host of reasons, the eddy position moves, by >> >a few inches or a few feet, and a new pothole is ground >> >into the rock, overlapping the first. >> You assume that stream eddies are capable of drilling deep holes in hard >> rocks, > Observed. What else is abrading the encrustations of algae, >weathering rinds, and other structures off active potholes? Inactive ones >higher on the banks of rivers do not count. I agree that current or wave action can clean rock surfaces, and roll pebbles about, and wash away algae, etc. It may also wear rock surfaces to some extent, but IMO the potholes were not formed by erosion; they have merely been exposed by erosional processes acting at the present time, and not formed by them. >> and that a shift in the eddy position means a pothole will be >> drilled in the new position. While this is easy to say, IMHO it is >> simply a myth; why do you believe it? Of course, it is stated in many >> geology books, which, I suggest, merely shows how gullible the >> uniformitarian folks are. > Why? Why is this so implausible? The position of vortices will >change with changes in the material in the river bottom. I do not >understand your objection. Stream eddies occur where there is shearing between two currents of water. Even if eddies occur in a stream flowing above a pothole, there is no reason for such an eddy to extend into the pothole below, and I know of no evidence that such eddies do, in fact, extend into potholes below. It is one of those questions that need to be investigated. Stream eddies typically decrease in speed with depth, and any vortex that managed to extend into a pothole in the stream bed and produce circulation would have limited erosion potential. Such a vortex in a pothole must be powered by the current entering at the top; the flow that enters the pothole must equal that which leaves. Only very fine material can be removed according to experiments conducted by H.S. Alexander. So a sorting process will occur; larger pebbles will remain while fine sand is removed. The production of a vortex inside a pothole requires the jet entering the pothole be introduced at one side, at an oblique angle, which would be a rather unlikely circumnstance during any particular flood. >> This notion is the product of philosophical >> dogma which rules out a major catastrophe in the earth's history such as >> the Noachian flood. >> Have you noticed that some of the other posters have moved away from the >> stream eddy hypothesis? Now they are saying that other processes, such >> as solution, cavitation, "sand blasting," "grinding stones," etc were >> responsible for potholes, and that all potholes need not have been >> formed by stream eddies. They also talk about the "waterfall" and >> "moulin" mechanisms. Why do you suppose they invoke these alternate >> mechanisms? Could it be they have doubts about the effectiveness of >> stream eddies? > BECAUSE, Douglas, the real world is complex. People are not >"moving away from the stream eddy hypothesis" because it fails. They are >proposing other mechanisms because *sometimes* conditions are different. >*Sometimes* multiple processes are operating simultaneously. Obviously >solution is going to be less effective as a mechanism in areas of basalt >than limestone. But most importantly, there is often *independent* >evidence for the occurrence of these other processes. > Sheesh, Douglas, how many processes can create a cliff? Or how >about a trough-shaped depression? Or how about a hill? Potholes are a >term applied to a variety of structures that are basically holes in the >ground. It is often restricted to roughly vertical cylindrical structures >in bedrock in present or former river beds produced by abrasion caused by >vortices, but this is not the only structure to which this term is >applied. Every time someone attempts to explain the structures refered to >by the broader terms, which can involve many distinct processes from >abrasion to cave collapse, sometimes simultaneously, you go back to one >specific type. Everytime someone explains that, you say, "What about >these ones -- eddies can't explain these", referring to a superficially >similar structure produced by some other process. You keep playing this >game -- back and forth. No, I have been quite specific in identifying the potholes under discussion. The type localities I have mentioned are Interstate Park, Minnesota; Watkins Glen, New York; Rockwood, Ontario; Lion's Head, Ontario, and Devils Lake, Wisconsin. All but the last location, I have examined myself. >> Intersecting potholes are particularly troubling for the stream eddy >> hypothesis, since for potholes to be drilled to depths of 10 to 20 >> meters in hard rocks such as basalt, (as at Interstate Park, Minnesota) > And like the ones in the Maligne Canyon in Jasper National Park, >right? The ones you mentioned as being typical of "lateral potholes"? [2. >B.R. MacKay, 1952. Geology of the National Parks of Canada in the >Rockies and Selkirks. Canadian Geographical Journal, XLIV:4, >p. 145-177 (See esp. p. 161). From article: >From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) >Newsgroups: talk.origins >Subject: Maligne Canyon potholes >Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 22:20:35 GMT >Message-ID: <3mc14e$ja3@granite.sentex.net> ] > I checked your documentation for this one. It is very weak >(Canadian Geographic is not a particularly technical journal, and this >description is in a very generalized guide to the geology of all the major >parks in the Rocky Mountains -- i.e. it is an article written for a >non-expert audience, and not at all detailed). In fact, from the short >description (there is no illustration) it is simply a deep gorge incised >into the limestone bedrock by the migration of a waterfall upstream -- >roughly analogous to Niagara Falls. Everyone knows waterfalls often dig >deep pools at their base. Wow. Real problem there. At Niagara Falls, most of the gorge was not caused directly by the present Niagara River; there is a deep layer of drift below the river in the Whirlpool Rapids area of the gorge. The present river and falls have merely re-excavated a pre-existing drift filled valley. There are others in the vicinity which have not been excavated, such as the St. Davids buried valley. So yes, this is very much in agreement with what I am saying about potholes; in most cases, present day streams are merely re-excavating the potholes formed in former conditions which no longer exist. > Frankly, I do not know how you can make the claims you do on the >basis of the information presented in that article. There is hardly any >information, and what there is does not sound anything like your other >examples. I was going to drive out there and see for myself, but after >pulling out the literature and realizing this is probably nothing like >your other examples, I can not see the point. I stated that the potholes of the Maligne Canyon, in the conventional theory, would appear older at the downstream end than those upstream. And the pothole tops should appear older than the bottoms. In my interpretation, the age of pothole surfaces at one end of the gorge would appear to be about the same as at the other, and the tops as old as the bottoms, so here are some specific predictions to check out. Surely someone has studied these? I agree that the information in the reference I gave was meagre. However, perhaps there is a field guide to the area or something that could offer a better description. >> a vortex would have to be immensely powerful; it would have to stay >> rigidly fixed in position (in this area, at the top of a cliff above the >> St. Croix River) for an immense period of time; it would have to >> co-exist with many other pothole-drilling vortices in close proximity, >> and the whole scenario strains credulity of any clear-thinking person. >> Even if such an improbable array of vortices existed, it does not follow >> that any potholes would result; certainly none 20 meters deep and 4 >> meters wide. >> In their commitment to the uniformitarian dogma of C. Lyell, geologists >> have come up with whopping tall stories to account for pothole >> phenomena. They are prisoners of their own thinking; as in a prison cell >> where the view of the outside is restricted to a narrow slit of a >> window, > We are imprisoned by your constant bait-and-switch game, and you >fall into the same "uniformitarian" trap when you claim "cumulative" >sediment infill is a problem for pothole formation. Geologists do not >fall into that trap. >> their concepts of geologic processes in the past are restricted >> to those seen acting at the present time. They are stuck with their >> stream eddy hypothesis for intersecting potholes even though it is >> demonstrably flawed. The truth is, existing processes are insufficient >> to account for the effects seen in potholes. > No, we are not stuck with the stream eddy hypothesis. You are >just wrong on this point. Anyone who has looked for a discussion of the formation of intersecting potholes in the scientific literature will notice that this subject has only been rarely discussed. This is not because this phenomenon is rare; in fact, in one of the few discussions I have seen, by O.D. von Engeln, it is stated that intersecting holes probably outnumber regular ones. Reference: von Engeln, O.D. 1942. Geomorphology. Macmillan Co., N.Y. pp. 171 - 172. -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 1995 14:10:05 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 39 Message-ID: <3qmsdc$sbm@granite.sentex.net> References: <3qhnnp$cd4@granite.sentex.net> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article , sarima@netcom.com (Stanley Friesen) wrote: >In article <3qhnnp$cd4@granite.sentex.net>, Douglas Cox wrote: >> >>The idea that all the fill or sediment can be washed out of potholes in >>times of flood needs to be looked at carefully. I think there is likely >>a limit to how much of it would be removed, even in optimal conditions. >It doesn't *all* have to come out. >If the flow regime is such that a high-intensity eddie forms, >the remaining sediment will be in traction within the hole, >and will act like a grinder, and actually *aid* hole formation. The ideal case for the above to work is that, say, three or four fist-sized stones or pebbles of some hard rock type remain in the bottom of the potholes, while all the other pebbles and boulders are removed. You can put another number (say n) in here, it makes no difference to my argument. This number n might change for potholes of larger size. These should be quartzite, or perhaps diamonds. It would help if they were angular in shape. The n stones might be moved about at maximum speed by any swirling current in the pothole, whereas if there were any more than this optimum number of stones, the pothole would tend to be clogged up and deepening would not occur. So, how likely is it, that out of the tons of stones and pebbles that fill typical potholes, all of them will be removed during floods, except the n stones which are optimal for the uniformitarian hypothesis of pothole grinding by stream eddies or vortices to work? I say such events are so unlikely as to be properly called miracles. Thus in uniformitarianism, all potholes are evidence for magic and miracles. That is why I call such theories superstitions. IMHO, it is as unlikely that n stones are left in the bottom of a pothole during a flood, as it is that each of these will be diamonds! -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 1995 17:47:56 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 56 Message-ID: <3qshso$1tt@granite.sentex.net> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article <3qmkq0$t5r@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Laurence Gene Battin) writes: >In article <3qhnnp$cd4@granite.sentex.net>, Douglas Cox >(tcc@sentex.net) wrote: >[snip, snip] >> The idea that all the fill or sediment can be washed out of potholes >> in times of flood needs to be looked at carefully. I think there is >> likely a limit to how much of it would be removed, even in optimal >> conditions. The depth to which the fill might be excavated may well >> be a function of the diameter at the top. It is also likely limited >> by the size of any large boulders, and the coarseness of the gravel. >> My guess is that depths deeper than about one diameter are unlikely >> to be excavated by most floods. >Guess all you like. Do you think that uniformitarian geologists are >somehow required to do your work for them? If you have a mathematical >model that supports your guess then you have some reason to say that the >currently accepted models should be replaced. But if you _don't_ then >you aren't playing the game of Science, Hmmm, a mathematical model for pothole erosion? What an interesting idea. All my model would have to do is show that stones and boulders do not generally hop out of deep potholes, once they have fallen in. Quite a challenge :) OTOH, by your rules, the uniformitarian geologists, to be regarded as doing 'Science,' need to come up with a mathematical model that shows the rate at which stones and boulders hop out of potholes (or otherwise escape) is somewhat faster than the rate at which they fall in. And, such models should not violate the 2nd Law, of course. >any more than any >garden-variety creationist who thinks that the "proof" of Creationism >is achieved by displaying the "flaws" of Evolution. >"Put up or shut up," is how this concept is commonly expressed. >It would certainly be more amusing to Those Of Us Who Mainly Lurk to >see you offer something more substantive than "guesses" to indicate a >Big Problem with Modern Uniformitarianism. If Those Who Mainly Lurk, and, Those Who Mainly Smirk, as well :) are really looking for a "Big Problem with Modern Uniformitarianism," consider the flow from oceanic vents. How does the alleged flow of seawater through the oceanic crust towards the vents occur, without violating Darcy's Law? Mathematically, the equation for this flow has the same form as heat conduction, and saying seawater flow occurs from areas of low pore pressures to high is like saying heat flows from cold to hot. -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 1995 15:37:36 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 84 Message-ID: <3r6rml$72j@granite.sentex.net> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article <3r0iiv$r5k@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae) writes: [Much deleted; I plan to respond in another post] > Potholes >also probably go through long-term cycles of activity and eventual >inactivity as a result of the stream cutting lower into its channel. >Pothole-like erosive structures may also be produced by dissolution >processes (particularly in carbonate rocks), by collapse structures (AKA >sinkholes), plunge pools at the base of waterfalls, and by incised >meanders and/or migration of plunge pools in bedrock gorges (e.g., Maligne >Canyon). Potholes that are initially isolated could be enhanced by some >of these processes (e.g., dissolution) to the point they "intersect". I do not see how a waterfall can produce a pothole, or a series of linked potholes as you suggest above. Could you elaborate? I think that here is a good example of how uniformitarianism works to the detriment of knowledge. In places where potholes occur, along with a waterfall, the geologist and others tend to assume the waterfall has caused the features they see, whereas there is no basis for such an assumption. (The imagination kicks in, and they "see" evidence that is not there, and imagine processes that do not exist). Look more carefully at a waterfall, such as at Maligne Canyon, and see if it is indeed descending in a "whirling column of water" to drill potholes (as some have claimed occurred, to produce the pothole forms) and whether or not the water is actually causing the potholes. I say it is not; waterfalls generally do not rotate in a spiral, and they do not drill potholes, but merely expose them. > Frankly, Douglas, I have already spent a significant amount of my >time chasing down references you have provided, I have presented some of >the results here previously (Paleozoic angiosperms, Maligne Canyon, etc.), >and have been unimpressed. On the Maligne Canyon, they are referred to in: Dormer, J. et al, 1987. Quaternary of the south and central Rocky Mountains and foothills of Alberta and British Columbia, International Union for Quaternary Research guide book C-16, p 41-43. There is a map of the Maligne River valley showing the location, just a few km NE of Jasper. The account has the following: The Maligne Valley "hangs" about 90 m above the main Athabasca Valley and the Lower Maligne River has cut a deep spectacular gorge (Maligne Canyon) in the Palliser limestone as it descends to the main valley over this lip. ... Maligne Canyon is a spectacular gorge, over 50 m deep and less than 2 m wide at its narrowest point. It has excellent examples of pothole development in the limestones and its form appears to be joint controlled. > I would like to see a demonstration that you >are willing to pick up a decent conventional book on cross-bedding and >other sedimentary structures and actually address the evidence. Picking >an isolated structure that supposedly is a "problem" is simply ignoring >the mountain of other evidence you have not addressed effectively. The >only thing that will resolve these issues is more information, and I do >not see you looking for it. I have looked up some information on lateral >potholes, I probably will look up more information on lateral potholes >eventually, but I provided some references to lateral potholes and on >cross-bedding a while ago, and, as near as I can tell, you have not >acknowledged whether the references to lateral potholes were relevant, and >you still seem unprepared to discuss cross-bedding. > > I am hoping for a demonstration you are willing to put some effort >into expanding your database before continuing to do so myself. Call me >lazy or demanding if you want, but I am looking for an incentive to keep >making an effort to understand what your point is. If you do not want to >talk about cross-bedding, fine. Perhaps you could recommend some >well-documented examples from the literature of intersecting and lateral >potholes, perferably something in literature I am likely to find. Even >more useful would be the UTM coordinates for the non-Maligne Canyon >examples you allude to in Jasper National Park. I could visit them. I believe they are at Athabasca Falls, 52 degrees 39' N, 117 degrees 53' W. -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 1995 00:59:05 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 160 Message-ID: <3rd578$suc@granite.sentex.net> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article <3r9sn0$d37@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes: >Douglas Cox (tcc@sentex.net) wrote: >: If Those Who Mainly Lurk, and, Those Who Mainly Smirk, as well :) are >: really looking for a "Big Problem with Modern Uniformitarianism," >: consider the flow from oceanic vents. How does the alleged flow of >: seawater through the oceanic crust towards the vents occur, without >: violating Darcy's Law? Mathematically, the equation for this flow has >: the same form as heat conduction, and saying seawater flow occurs from >: areas of low pore pressures to high is like saying heat flows from cold >: to hot. > I need a drug that suppresses uncontrollable laughter. Do you mean the laughter of those who are amused at your intriguing idea of water "being pulled, not pushed" through rocks as you say below? I take it you mean "sucked." In a waterfall, the water could be said to be "pulled" by gravity, but this seems hardly applicable to pore fluid flow through rocks. > Darcy's Law states: The velocity of flow of a liquid through >a porous medium due to a difference in pressure is proportional to >the pressure gradient _in the direction of the flow_. Yes, and this corresponds with the law of heat conduction: the heat flow by conduction through a solid due to a difference in temperature is proportional to the temperature gradient. >In these >systems, both the pressure gradient and the porosity increase _toward_ >the vents. (I.e., the water is being pulled, not pushed.) Thus, the >velocity of flow increases with proximity to a vent. Here's how: > First of all, the heat flow anomaly measured by Wolery and >Sleep (1976, J. Geol. 84, 249-265) was the result of a difference between >theoretical conductive and average measured conductive heat flow, and >gave the direct advective heat loss into the ocean due to >the venting of hot water. Sleep and Wolery (1978, JGR, 83, 5913-5922) >presents some early models. The following is quoted from a review of >the subject obtained in a graduate school class, and is a concise >summary (Mearns 1983, copies available on request): > "...it is sufficient to regard the mid-oceanic ridge hydrothermal >system as convection cells (Fig. 2; Lister 1977 (Tectonophys. 37 >203-218)) that are recharged by geographically dispersed, slow- >moving downflow of cold seawater (which is best treated as flow >through porous medium) and discharged by relatively rapid ascent of >hot fluid through localized fracture systems (which are more >properly treated as discrete vents, Spooner and Fyfe, 1973 (Contrib. >Mineral. Petrol. 42, 287-304)). "Active" hydrothermal circulation >is driven by the rapid transfer of heat from the magma to the >water at the "cracking front" (Lister, 1974 (J. Rev. Astron. Soc., 39, >465-509; Corliss et al. 1981 (Oceanol. Acta, Proc. 26th Intl. Geol. >Congr. Geology of oceans symposium, 59-69, copies available on >request)). This implies that circulating seawater must penetrate >to magmatic depths in the rock if the convection cells are to be >continuous. Indeed, evidence of active circulation down to depths of >5 kim has been advanced by a consideration of convective cell >geometries (Lister, 1977), petrologic models of the crust (Wolery >and Sleep (1976), and by parallel investigations in ophiolites... >(reference skipped, I'm tired)... Penetration rates, or the velocity >of water entering the crust, vary greatly depending on whether it >is assumed to be occurring within the cracks of permeable rocks (2 >meters/year, Lister, 1977) or as flow through porous medium (2 x >10E-3 meters/year Ribando et al. 1976 (JGR 81 3007-3012)." > To summarize: the hydrothermal vents are replenished >by a slow downwelling (gravity-driven) and then horizontal flow >toward the hot vent area. The water that replenishes the vents comes >from a wide area of oceanic crust, so that the slow flow over a wide area >supplies the water for a much faster flow in a small area. >(Douglas is invited to visit Yellowstone National Park for a >terrestrial analogue.) Here is a little diagram to illustrate the mechanism discussed above: ---------------------------------------------------------sea level vent A D ---------------------------------/ \----------------ocean floor : | : | B.......................C ---> Sea water enters the oceanic crust at A (or over a wide area surounding the vent, here represented by A). Its descent to B, and the movement of the water along the path BC is "best treated as flow through porous medium." So Darcy's Law applies along this path. That means, along BC the pore pressure decreases in the direction of flow. Something must be sucking the pore fluids towards C. Now Jim says "both the pressure gradient and the porosity increase _toward_ the vents. (I.e., the water is being pulled, not pushed.)" The pressure gradient increases, he thinks, but he means the sucking effect increases in the vicinity of the vents, while the resistance to the flow, for some reason, decreases. Now the flow from C to D is considered as "relatively rapid ascent of hot fluid through localized fracture systems" so is roughly analogous to flow through a pipe, familiar enough to any plumber. The pressure from C to D decreases in the direction of flow, because there is friction to be overcome during the flow from C to D. The implication of the above is that at C, some location beneath the vent, there must be a pump. It is here that Darcy's law is violated, or at least overcome, in Jim's scenario, in which there is a big change in fluid pressure at C. Darcy's law is really a statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so Jim's mechanism has to overcome, or get around, this basic law of nature, too. This pump must be a very effective one. Jim suggests the pump works something like the one he uses for draining his waterbed: > The gradient in pressure that drives the system is produced by the >"pull" of the upwelling hot water in the vent zone, which draws the >cold water from the surrounding cold, porous crustal rocks. The same type >of principle is produced by standard water-flow aspirators (similar to >the type I use to drain my waterbed. The fast flow from the >faucet creates a partial vacuum that pulls water from the waterbed >through the hose.) So, at C, Jim's mechanism postulates a mysterious pump, that sucks water from the pores of the surrounding rocks of the oceanic crust, and heats them up, and then spews these pore waters out again, up the vents, with great force. Quite simply, Jim's pump is a =magic= pump; it is "Jim's Monster Waterbed Drainer," and some such pumping mechanism is required for each oceanic vent; IMHO, this is one of the great myths, and fallacies, of modern Uniformitarianism. > Now, admittedly, the paper was from 1983, and was a > quick review of the subject. I invite Douglas to discuss the subject > using up-to-date references and a theoretical treatment based on > Darcy's Law, and to present an alternative formulation that explains > the hydrothermal vent flow. If I can't address his issues adequately, > I'll find somebody that can. The problem is, in conventional theory, it is assumed sea water is the source which feeds the oceanic vents, while the Uniformitarians sneer and scoff at the idea that the oceanic vents could be fed by the meltwater from a subcrustal ice layer. In an earth model where the oceanic vents are fed by a subcrustal supply, no violations of Darcy's Law or the 2nd Law need to be invoked, and hypothetical pumping mechanisms like "Jim Acker's Magic Monster Waterbed Drainer" are not required. -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 03:34:08 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 317 Message-ID: <3rvsu1$q32@granite.sentex.net> References: <3rd578$suc@granite.sentex.net> <3rhm9j$b71@post.gsfc.nasa.gov> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article <3rhm9j$b71@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) wrote: >Douglas Cox (tcc@sentex.net) wrote: >: In article <3r9sn0$d37@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov >: (James G. Acker) writes: >: >Douglas Cox (tcc@sentex.net) wrote: >: >: If Those Who Mainly Lurk, and, Those Who Mainly Smirk, as well :) are >: >: really looking for a "Big Problem with Modern Uniformitarianism," >: >: consider the flow from oceanic vents. How does the alleged flow of >: >: seawater through the oceanic crust towards the vents occur, without >: >: violating Darcy's Law? Mathematically, the equation for this flow has >: >: the same form as heat conduction, and saying seawater flow occurs from >: >: areas of low pore pressures to high is like saying heat flows from cold >: >: to hot. >: > I need a drug that suppresses uncontrollable laughter. >: Do you mean the laughter of those who are amused at your intriguing idea >: of water "being pulled, not pushed" through rocks as you say below? I >: take it you mean "sucked." In a waterfall, the water could be said to be >: "pulled" by gravity, but this seems hardly applicable to pore fluid flow >: through rocks. > In my haste to explicate your misunderstandings, I slightly misstated >the push/pull mechanism. As another respondent noted, the real >driving force is the heat energy of the magma below the convective >cells that form in the crust. The heat pushes the water upwards in >the vents, and that same heat is the energy input that acts to "pull" >the water in the crust toward the vents. That's what forms the >pressure gradient, Douglas, and that's what drives the system. >Heat from underlying magma. Is that clear? Obviously, Jim intends to hang on to his waterbed-drainer mechanism, as he states above that he only "slightly misstated the push/pull mechanism." As I understand it, this mechanism works on the principle called the venturi effect. It is used in labs, for example, as a convenient way to provide a suction for filtering, etc. The principle is also used in small boats, to provide a pumping mechanism while under way. (If the venturi pump is not plugged when the boat stops, though, the boat is in danger of sinking!) In this type of pump, a large volume of flow is utilized to obtain a minor amount of flow in the suction tube. How this could possibly drive a mid-ocean vent, is quite beyond my understanding. Could you clarify, Jim? >: >In these >: >systems, both the pressure gradient and the porosity increase _toward_ >: >the vents. (I.e., the water is being pulled, not pushed.) Thus, the >: >velocity of flow increases with proximity to a vent. Here's how: >: > First of all, the heat flow anomaly measured by Wolery and >: >Sleep (1976, J. Geol. 84, 249-265) was the result of a difference between >: >theoretical conductive and average measured conductive heat flow, and >: >gave the direct advective heat loss into the ocean due to >: >the venting of hot water. Sleep and Wolery (1978, JGR, 83, 5913-5922) >: >presents some early models. The following is quoted from a review of >: >the subject obtained in a graduate school class, and is a concise >: >summary (Mearns 1983, copies available on request): >: > "...it is sufficient to regard the mid-oceanic ridge hydrothermal >: >system as convection cells (Fig. 2; Lister 1977 (Tectonophys. 37 > Note the convection cells, Douglas. You can form them in a >pot of boiling water on your stove, if you want a demonstration. "Convection cells" duly noted. Buzz words, right? If boiling a pot of water is a legitimate illustration, the convection ought to occur in the material of which the pot is made. >: >203-218)) that are recharged by geographically dispersed, slow- >: >moving downflow of cold seawater (which is best treated as flow >: >through porous medium) and discharged by relatively rapid ascent of >: >hot fluid through localized fracture systems (which are more >: >properly treated as discrete vents, Spooner and Fyfe, 1973 (Contrib. >: >Mineral. Petrol. 42, 287-304)). "Active" hydrothermal circulation >: >is driven by the rapid transfer of heat from the magma to the >: >water at the "cracking front" (Lister, 1974 (J. Rev. Astron. Soc., 39, >: >465-509; Corliss et al. 1981 (Oceanol. Acta, Proc. 26th Intl. Geol. >: >Congr. Geology of oceans symposium, 59-69, copies available on >: >request)). This implies that circulating seawater must penetrate >: >to magmatic depths in the rock if the convection cells are to be >: >continuous. Indeed, evidence of active circulation down to depths of >: >5 kim has been advanced by a consideration of convective cell >: >geometries (Lister, 1977), petrologic models of the crust (Wolery >: >and Sleep (1976), and by parallel investigations in ophiolites... >: >(reference skipped, I'm tired)... Penetration rates, or the velocity >: >of water entering the crust, vary greatly depending on whether it >: >is assumed to be occurring within the cracks of permeable rocks (2 >: >meters/year, Lister, 1977) or as flow through porous medium (2 x >: >10E-3 meters/year Ribando et al. 1976 (JGR 81 3007-3012)." >: > To summarize: the hydrothermal vents are replenished >: >by a slow downwelling (gravity-driven) and then horizontal flow >: >toward the hot vent area. The water that replenishes the vents comes >: >from a wide area of oceanic crust, so that the slow flow over a wide area >: >supplies the water for a much faster flow in a small area. >: >(Douglas is invited to visit Yellowstone National Park for a >: >terrestrial analogue.) Revised diagram: ---------------------------------------------------------sea level vent A D ---------------------------------/ \----------------ocean floor : | : | B.......................C ---> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ HEAT (i.e. hot hot hot!) Ok by me to add heat to the diagram. But how does this increase the pressure? Seems to me you are going to need some valves, too. It is possible, (I have done this) to pressurize a pressure vessel filled with water by heating it. The pressure is increased because of thermal expansion of the water. But what Jim has to do, is get the water to flow into the pressure vessel or pump at C and keep it sealed up in there while he heats up the water. This requires valves of the most extraordinary sort (this appears to be the crucial part of Jim's "magical" mechanism) because the flow has to be continuous. There is no "beat" to the flow from oceanic vents, that I am aware of. Many pumps have a cycle of operation; valves open, allowing flow in, then they close, and the pressure increases, and so on, producing a "beat." >: Sea water enters the oceanic crust at A (or over a wide area surounding >: the vent, here represented by A). Its descent to B, and the movement of >: the water along the path BC is "best treated as flow through porous >: medium." So Darcy's Law applies along this path. That means, along BC >: the pore pressure decreases in the direction of flow. Something must be >: sucking the pore fluids towards C. > Yes indeed. And what could cause that, I wonder? Jim wonders what could cause the "suck" that he needs to cause the flow of oceanic water towards his hypothetical pump at C, and so do I. But there is a difference between us, as I say Jim has no mechanism to cause such a sucking effect, while he wants us to think he does; it is his venturi effect that drives his waterbed drainer. But that will not work unless there is a rapid decrease in pressure such as at D, where the flow from the vents escapes to the ocean. Here, a decrease in pressure in the top few feet of the vents might produce a venturi effect. (Is this where the sea water is introduced?). But Jim needs his sucking effect at C, not D. Besides, the waterbed drainer does not work, unless there is an already available pressurized flow, which causes a minor suction effect as it passes through a nozzle. If the faucet is turned off, the pump stops. What Jim has suggested is that the flow of the water that is being "sucked" also drives the pump that sucks it! >: Now Jim says "both the pressure gradient and the porosity increase >: _toward_ the vents. (I.e., the water is being pulled, not pushed.)" The >: pressure gradient increases, he thinks, but he means the sucking effect >: increases in the vicinity of the vents, while the resistance to the >: flow, for some reason, decreases. Now the flow from C to D is considered > The flow increases in the vicinity of the vents due to >the heat input, AND the rocks are more fractured. There's a transition >at some point from flow through porous medium to fracture flow. >You're going from older "set" rocks to younger "hot" rocks near >the vents. So how does this produce the valves that you need? How does it prevent the hot water from flowing back along CB, but instead, sends it up through the fractures towards the vent? >: as "relatively rapid ascent of hot fluid through localized fracture >: systems" so is roughly analogous to flow through a pipe, familiar enough >: to any plumber. The pressure from C to D decreases in the direction of >: flow, because there is friction to be overcome during the flow from C to >: D. >: The implication of the above is that at C, some location beneath the >: vent, there must be a pump. It is here that Darcy's law is violated, or > Pump = heat. Precisely. Nothing mysterious. That's why I wondered >what kind of problem you were having in the first place. Here again, Jim has represented his mechanism as one that has no problems, whereas I do not believe it. I say his mechanism is flawed; and the truth is, heat will not provide the pump that he needs. Jim, please elaborate some more on this pump, and especially why the heat provides the pressurization of the water that drives it up to the vent at D. What sort of valves are involved? Do you know of a working model of this? >: at least overcome, in Jim's scenario, in which there is a big change in >: fluid pressure at C. Darcy's law is really a statement of the 2nd law of >: thermodynamics, so Jim's mechanism has to overcome, or get around, this >: basic law of nature, too. This pump must be a very effective one. Jim >: suggests the pump works something like the one he uses for draining his >: waterbed: >: >: > The gradient in pressure that drives the system is produced by the >: >"pull" of the upwelling hot water in the vent zone, which draws the >: >cold water from the surrounding cold, porous crustal rocks. The same type >: >of principle is produced by standard water-flow aspirators (similar to >: >the type I use to drain my waterbed. The fast flow from the >: >faucet creates a partial vacuum that pulls water from the waterbed >: >through the hose.) > There's two things going on here, and perhaps that's why you >perceive a non-problem. The resistance to flow decreases as you >approach the vents (pore space increases, and fractures increase, >so at some point there's a transition (as I said before) from porous >medium flow to fracture flow.) At the same time, the upwelling >pressure is increasing due to the heat input near the ridge axis. >The net result is an upwelling fluid flow to the surface, where a >hot spring is found. Because water is being forced upwards by the >simple fact that hot water rises (and the pressure decreases toward >the crustal surface) water is drawn toward the vent system to replace >the upwelling flow. Yes, Jim, hot water rises in a pot on the stove, because it has lower density than the cooler water around it. But you have pressurized the water at C, remember? Even if it wasn't hot, it would flow towards the region of lower pressure. And because there is friction from the rocks of the fracture system through which it flows, it heats up. >: So, at C, Jim's mechanism postulates a mysterious pump, that sucks water > Not mysterious. Heat. Then explain the mystery about how the heat produces the high pressure, and explain the valve mechanism that allows a low pressure cold water supply to enter a pressurized region while at the same time, the high pressure, hot water is ejected. You have not explained anything yet, IMO. Why do you represent this as being "not mysterious?" >: from the pores of the surrounding rocks of the oceanic crust, and heats >: them up, and then spews these pore waters out again, up the vents, with > Magma. Are you denying that there are magma bodies in the >sub-crust? Certainly there is magma down there; there are lots of volcanoes on the ocean floor, too. Some of them seem to have sunk, along with the ocean floor, several km. Easy to explain if the subcrustal ice layer is melting, and the meltwater escaping into the oceans via the vents. >: great force. Quite simply, Jim's pump is a =magic= pump; it is "Jim's >: Monster Waterbed Drainer," and some such pumping mechanism is required >: for each oceanic vent; IMHO, this is one of the great myths, and >: fallacies, of modern Uniformitarianism. > Douglas, in my waterbed drainage scenario, the driving force >is the pressure of the community water system that forces water through >the suction aspirator. In the vents, the driving force is the heat >input that forces water upward through the vent conduit. The heat >source is present at all the spreading centers, and that explains >why the hydrothermal vents are found on the ridges! Everything >hangs together. It seems to me that you're not sure that a magmatic >heat source exists. Is that the case? If so, I know a few >oceanographers on "Alvin" that were quite glad they arrived at a >hydrothermal vent site a few days after that magmatic heat source >made itself known via an underwater eruption. Pictures of this >event are available. >: > Now, admittedly, the paper was from 1983, and was a >: > quick review of the subject. I invite Douglas to discuss the subject >: > using up-to-date references and a theoretical treatment based on >: > Darcy's Law, and to present an alternative formulation that explains >: > the hydrothermal vent flow. If I can't address his issues adequately, >: > I'll find somebody that can. >: The problem is, in conventional theory, it is assumed sea water is the >: source which feeds the oceanic vents, while the Uniformitarians sneer >: and scoff at the idea that the oceanic vents could be fed by the >: meltwater from a subcrustal ice layer. In an earth model where the >: oceanic vents are fed by a subcrustal supply, no violations of Darcy's >: Law or the 2nd Law need to be invoked, and hypothetical pumping >: mechanisms like "Jim Acker's Magic Monster Waterbed Drainer" are not >: required. > It is very much assumed that sea water is the source, and this >assumption can be proved in several distinct ways using different >chemical tracers. The "hypothetical pumping mechanism" is H-E-A-T >from the underlying magma. I assume that the subcrustal ice layer >hypothesis suffers from exposure to a heat source, so you'd have to >eliminate it from the model. Do you want to discuss the evidence >for a subcrustal heat source first, or the chemical evidence that >seawater drawn through the crust is the source of the water feeding >the hydrothermal vents? I would like to know how the pump (at C) works. From what you have written, I cannot understand how it could possibly work. And how would such a pump get started? But, by all means, lets have all the information that is relevant. What is there to hide? ;) > (Believe me, Douglas, this is a monstrous windmill to be >tilting at, but if that's what you want, fine. My squires will be >Geophysical Research Letters and Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, >with a supporting army of additional literature references.) -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 16:12:07 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 80 Message-ID: <3rhfcl$glo@granite.sentex.net> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article <1995Jun7.170156.1522@news.wrc.xerox.com>, chris@xerox.com (Chris Heiny) writes: >In article <3qq2r9$msv@granite.sentex.net>, tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) writes: >[exchange (slightly Holdeneque, with Andrew snipped] >>In the disintegration theory, the intersecting potholes are easily and >>naturally explained. The process of disintegration of rocks acted in the >>past during rapid release of pressure as the floodwaters retreated, and >>where newly lithified sediments were rapidly eroded by the currents. The >>process of disintegration favoured areas where the pressure gradient was >>highest at the time these events occurred. In my theory, much of the >>drift was the product of disintegration. Drift in potholes was formed in >>place where the process penetrated downwards in small areas. Sometimes >>these areas would intersect with adjacent areas that were also subject >>to disintegration. The circular plan, and cylindrical form of potholes >>was due to minimizing of surface area. My theory suggests the original, >>undisturbed drift in many potholes may exhibit patterns of cross >>stratification. The potholes in stream beds were not formed by eddies or >>currents, but streams were merely agents of erosion that exposed the >>bedrock and the potholes in it. >No Douglas, they are not easily and naturally explained. For example, >if the drift was formed in place, why is it frequently of a heterogenous >nature, containing rocks of radically different type (for example, >how does drift theory explain igneous and metamorphic rocks in the >drift filling a pothole in sedimentary rock?). Disintegration theory >requires that the pothole be filled with the same sort of rock as >the pothole occurs in. During the rapid release of pressure which accompanied the disintegration, there was a lot of strain energy released, and some of it, apparently, drove chemical processes which altered the rock, causing metamorphism of some nodules or pebbles; there was separation of rock components into concretions, which is how many of the pebbles and boulders in the drift have formed, according to this theory. >If the form of potholes was due to the minimizing of surface area, >then the potholes should be more frequently spherical than >cylindrical. Many of them tend to be spherical; the "barrel-shape" of typical potholes is a reflection of this tendency. But the potholes formed in a stress gradient, which caused the cylindrical form; a spherical form would be more likely where the stress was closer to hydrostatic. The bottoms of most potholes is hemispherical in shape. >If streams are not the agent of pothole creation, but simply >expose prexisting potholes, why do we see no potholes in areas >not subjected (presently or in the past) to stream action? For >example, why are no potholes found in rock unassociated with >stream action, but exposed in places such as quarries, landslides, >road/rail cuts? According to my theory, potholes are likely to be found in areas far from streams. We have had quite a bit of discussion of pothole distributions before; I have shown they are often found where streams are unlikely to have ever existed in the past. A good example is at Lion's Head, on the eastern side of the Bruce Peninsula, where there are potholes right at the edge of a high section of the Niagara Escarpment overlooking Georgian Bay. A few of them are right in the cliff face, and there are large rounded boulders still sitting in one of them, which has been dubbed the "Eagle's Nest" by local residents. Near Elk City, Idaho, some potholes were exposed in the last century when gold miners scaped off a layer of gravel from the bedrock. They were up to 5 feet deep. Near Oslo, Norway, a number of potholes were discovered in the last century beneath a layer of gravel; in this case, some of them were excavated. The work on one of the larger holes occupied three men for 50 days. Excavation of this pothole revealed an earlier pothole, that was formed in two large boudlers deep down in the middle of the pothole; this reveals how the disintegration process progressed. The initial pothole is represented by the pothole in the center; disintegration enlarged the pothole around the initial one. -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 19:54:02 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 114 Message-ID: <3rv1vf$sst@granite.sentex.net> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article <3ro5d1$trm@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae) writes: >In article <3rhfcl$glo@granite.sentex.net> tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) >writes: >> >>In the disintegration theory, the intersecting potholes are easily and >> >>naturally explained. ... >> >> In my theory, much of the >> >>drift was the product of disintegration. Drift in potholes was formed >> >>in place where the process penetrated downwards in small areas. ... >> >If streams are not the agent of pothole creation, but simply >> >expose prexisting potholes, why do we see no potholes in areas >> >not subjected (presently or in the past) to stream action? > Actually, "we" do, but they are relatively rare. Well, no, they are not rare; they are more likely to buried by drift, and thus are hidden. The potholes far from streams probably outnumber those that have been exposed by the action of streams, IMO. >> According to my theory, potholes are likely to be found in areas far >> from streams. We have had quite a bit of discussion of pothole >> distributions before; I have shown they are often found where streams >> are unlikely to have ever existed in the past. A good example is at >> Lion's Head, on the eastern side of the Bruce Peninsula, where there are >> potholes right at the edge of a high section of the Niagara Escarpment >> overlooking Georgian Bay. > > Where there have probably always been rivers, always been water >flowing, and always plenty of opportunity for dissolution of the carbonate >rocks typical of this area. Ah yes. No matter where potholes are found, even on a high cliff where no streams could have ever reasonably existed in the past, the uniformitarian geologist feels compelled to invoke former stream action. No, there could not have "probably always been rivers," or water flowing, in this particular case, which could account for the potholes. Andrew suggests a back-up mechanism; "dissolution of the carbonate rocks," which seems to be just vague hand-waving, and merely reveals his own doubts that invoking former stream action and vortices will explain the features of potholes. Let's take a look at what we find at Lion's Head. The name of the location should give a clue; "Head" refers to "headland," and the area is a high section of the Niagara Escarpment where it overlooks the deep waters of Georgian Bay. Because the dolomite of the escarpment is deeply fissured, there are no streams in this area. Potholes __ __________________________ / | | U U Lion's Head / | | / * | | | | | |__ | | | | | ---- -| | - - - - - - - | | | | | | Eagle's | | o | Nest ------> O O | | | | - - - - - - - - | | | | | | | | - - - - - - - - | Georgian Bay / ------------------------------------/ / / / / / This shows the distribution of potholes at Lion's Head. (There is a rock formation in the cliff which some have imagined resembles a lion's head; hence the name.) The "U" denotes potholes above the escarpment, some of these have trees growing in them. There are many of them, and apparently they are more numerous near the edge of the escarpment, but this may be because others are buried by a layer of drift. The "Eagle's Nest" is a large partial pothole in the cliff face, with large rounded boulders perched in it; these are the "eggs." This feature is easily viewed from a canoe or boat. There are other partial ones in the cliff nearby. My disintegration theory predicts that the potholes can be found in places such as these, where invoking former stream action is ridiculous. It predicts potholes are likely to be present in the bedrock beneath the waters of the lake. They might occur, for example, in the underwater escarpment ridge that stretches across Lake Huron from Pt. Clark, Ontario, to Michigan; or in granite along the eastern shore of Georgian Bay, below the water level (they occur along the shore); or in the rock floor of Lake Superior, and in other lake basins. -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 23:20:57 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 74 Message-ID: <3rve3c$br2@granite.sentex.net> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In article <1995Jun14.173845.1037@news.wrc.xerox.com>, chris@xerox.com (Chris Heiny) writes: >In article <3rfpkm$h9o@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca >(Andrew MacRae) writes: >>In article <1995Jun7.170156.1522@news.wrc.xerox.com> chris@xerox.com >>(Chris Heiny) writes: >[snip snip] >>> If streams are not the agent of pothole creation, but simply >>> expose prexisting potholes, why do we see no potholes in areas >>> not subjected (presently or in the past) to stream action? For >>> example, why are no potholes found in rock unassociated with >>> stream action, but exposed in places such as quarries, landslides, >>> road/rail cuts? I happen to know of several examples of potholes being exposed at quarry sites. Near Milton, Ontario, there are extensive quarrying operations where the dolomite of the Niagara Escarpment is quarried and used for crushed stone in concrete, etc. I suppose this rock is what much of Toronto is made of. Before the rock is blasted away, the thin layer of drift above it is removed. In the process, several large pothole-like depressions have been discovered. These are generally filled with drift material. In some, the material from these holes was called "muck" by the engineer in charge, who discussed them with me many years ago; he seemed quite frustrated by the expense and difficulty of excavating the holes prior to quarrying. I have pictures of some of them; the ones I saw lacked the rounded form of typical potholes, and seemed to be just holes filled with disintegrated rock and boulders. This quarrying operation is now much more extensive; it has reached the boundary of the Hilton Falls Conservation Area. A large area has been cleared of trees, etc. in preparation for quarrying. In the conservation area adjacent to this cleared area there are many examples of intersecting potholes of quite large diameter, say 20 feet or more. These may actually be quite deep but only the curved tops are exposed. Hilton Falls is distinguished by having a pothole in the vicinity, a little downstream from the falls. It is labelled a "geological pothole" and has a fine plaque all to itself, with the usual erroneous story about whirling vortices drilling into the rock, etc. This plaque is courtesy of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Another quarrying operation where potholes have been discovered is located near Kingston, along the Rideau River, where the Potsdam sandstone and granite are mined. This is near the famous "Park of Pillars" where vertical cylindrical columns of sandstone, shaped like potholes, are also found; these are familiar to many geology students in Ontario. (I have published an article which discusses these.) >> Actually, this is not correct. Potholes are known from bedrock >>outcrops in older rocks (e.g., some are known from the Old Red Sandstone >>of England, which is Devonian in age). *HOWEVER*, they are found at >>discrete surfaces representing former erosion in stream beds -- i.e. >>occasionally old stream beds that happened to have potholes are preserved >>-- but they are much less common than recently-active near-surface >>examples. There are plenty of examples of old stream channels without >>potholes too. The objections Chris raises also apply to these ancient >>examples (e.g., the infilling and shape). >That is exactly what I meant - that the only surfaces with potholes are >those displaying stream bed erosion, regardless of the age of the >potholed surface or the age of pothole. What you say above is what the uniformitarian explanation (such as there is) for potholes would require, but the facts are against you. The uniformitarian explanation does not fit the facts, as anyone who investigates potholes for himself can discover. -- Douglas Cox "Study Nature, not books" - Louis Agassiz ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Intersecting potholes (Was: Re: Possible cures...) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 16:01:33 GMT Organization: TCC Lines: 65 Message-ID: <3t0thv$nl4@granite.sentex.net> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net In a recent article with the subject title "Re: Transitional Fossils to Look up for Ted," Paul Morris wrote: > ... If you (or anyone) have WEB access then you can check out some >photos of geological formations which helped destroy my FAITH in the >theory of Evolution: > http://kafka.uvic.ca/~pmorris/evolution.html ... >The second photo of a Polystrate fossil tree in Kingston, Ontario, Canada shows >a trunk passing through layers of limestone suggesting that the tree was >covered by layers of mud over a short period of time (short compared to the >millions of years that geologists claim it should take). The first of Paul's two pictures has been discussed in the above named thread, but the second one is of interest in this thread. The picture actually shows one of the famous pillars that occur in the Cambrian Potsdam Sandstone, this one being at the Hughes farm, near the Rideau River, where an old quarry operation exposed the pillars in the quarry face. Many years ago some sections of these odd pillars of rock were displayed in a shop window in Kingston and labelled "fossil trees," but this explanation appears to be incorrect. However, these structures are a puzzle in conventional uniformitarian geology and they tend to discredit the conventional interpretations offered for cross stratification, that this pattern always formed in currents or by the wind when the sand was deposited. My interpretation is that they are related to potholes; the cross strata of the sandstone formed by a progressive crystallization of the rock, from a former amorphous state, during release of pressure due to the rapid erosion of overburden by currents of the retreating flood waters. The process initially occurred in isolated regions where it penetrated vertically, forming the cylindrical pillars. If the material in these pillars were lithified somewhat less than the surrounding matrix, a pothole with similar form and dimensions could be eroded into the rock. In this case, the material in the pillars has about the same degree of lithification as the matrix, so pillars result. Hughes told me that a pothole had been discovered in the vicinity during quarrying operations. These columnar structures have a concentric color banding; the yellow-brown color is due to hematite coating the quartz grains of the sandstone. In the explanation suggested above, the hematite coating on the quartz grains was caused by exsolution, as the quartz crystallized. This can be confirmed by study of the grains in thin section, as the hematite "dust" is typically included within the quartz grains along micro-fractures and flaws. The grains of this rock are well rounded and this also can be explained in the context of the process suggested above. No abrasion or deposition was involved. Such an interpretation also explains the high purity of sandstones such as the Potsdam. A discussion of these and other pillars in sandstone, and even more problematic, similar pillars in unconsolidated cross stratified drift, as well as related free-standing pillars, can be found in my article, "Pillars, polystrate formations, and potholes," first published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, 14:149-155, 1977, and reprinted in William R. Corliss, 1980, Unknown Earth: a handbook of geological enigmas, The Sourcebook Project, Glen Arm, Md. p. 5-15. -- Douglas Cox