|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I'm not sure with whom you are disagreeing here. Other than the fact that, as far as I know, 'Lyellian' does not necessarily exclude deposition in shallow continental seas. I also think you need to clear up the 'continental' and 'marine' definitions. [This message has been edited by edge, 05-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: The flood conotation is deceptive. If we are to accept that, any continental areas covered by water are in a state of flood. This would include the present.
quote: Rather a gross simplification. We know that some layers were no longer soft sediments.
quote: Nope, impossible. The Grand Canyon was carved in lithified sediments. If not, then we are wasting a lot of time and money protecting workers in trenches and tunnels and such. Heck, if soft sediments can support thousands of feet of canyon walls, we shouldn't need to worry about ground support at all in mines and quarries.
quote: I understand what you mean, but your wording 'marine-continental' deposits is a bit ambiguous. Marine sediments are deposited in the sea ... that would include shallow epeiric seas that cover parts of a continent. Marine deposits overlying continental crust could be called just that. I have heard them called 'shelf deposits' or 'shelf seas,' but perhaps there is a sedimentologist here who has a better handle on such terminology. They would be represented by the continental shelf and shallow seas such as the Baltic. Marine deposits would also include the pelagites and turbidites of the abyssal plains. Non-marine would be sediments deposited generally above sea level, including glacial, eolian, fluvial lacustrine deposits and others. While these are more subject to local deposition and subsequent erosion, there are substantially large deposits in some instances. Transitional environments would be deltas, tidal marshes and coral reefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Of course you take heart from it. The problem is that this ignores all of the rest of the geological data.
quote: Usually, sediments would be very weak 400 days after deposition. And you did say they were soft. That means weak. That means they cannot support steep walls, but will flow.
quote: This would be a silly comparison, but we hear it all the time. If the MSH valleys were thousand of feet deep, the walls would not stand.
quote: Are you admitting that carving the GC took longer than the standard creationist line? I suppose that by some miracle the rocks of the GC suddenly lithified and the rate of erosion decreased just before it was observed by humans. This is sort of like the speed of light decreasing until the 1960's when we first obtained the ability to make accurate measurements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I remain uncertain as to what your point is. Why do you keep repeating this point? Is there some controversy?
quote: You have never provided any evidence for this. Why do you think that continuous parallel layering is diagnostic of flood deposits?
[QUOTE]PS - I've read quite a lot on the early geolgoists. It is fascinating stuff and I'm not just in it for the flood geolgoy. I like the science of it too. I'm a fan of Hutton, Smith, Lyell, Cuvier, Mantell and Buckland etc. I have my own ideas of why the 'creationist' geologists failed to see the flood in the strata. The main reason IMO was that no-one expected that you could get layering from rapid deposition - they all thought it only happened due to cyclical seasonal events. I'm not sure who you are talking about here. Who has said that you cannot get layering in storm deposits or rapid deposition? If you are talking about early geologists, I am sorry, but they are not here. You are stuck with us. Why is it that creationists like to pick on the dead guys?
quote: I'm not sure that there was a reason to. However, why don't you address what we say about it?
quote: You mean marine transgressions and regressions? No they didn't know about that in the early days of geology. So what? We do now, and it is a part of mainstream geological theory. You have made it a part of your scenario to give it an air of reality, but you are required to ignore major tracts of geological evidence. You are very adept at making sweeping assertions about the geological column and sedimentation, but are seriously short on evidence. Could you please provide some evidence that supports your scenario at the exclusion of mainstream science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Joe - go write those proposals. ...Modern flood geology can easily accomodate all of the basic features of the geological column: 1. The vast marine strata (on land) formed by transgressions [/QUOTE] And so what is your diagnostic evidence that discriminates between biblical flood and mainstream geology? Let's talk about data not stories.
[QUOTE]2. Large non-marine layered beds[/wuote] Oh, you mean like the deserts of the Mesozoic that covered much of western North America in the middle of the flood?
quote: Examples please. You mean swamps and beaches? What about the volcanic record. How does your scenario explain subaerial volcanos in the middle of the flood? Once again, let's talk data!
quote: Right, it doesn't explain evaporites in the middle of the flood, or the presence of angiosperms only very late in the flood. You are reaching here, TB. Blindly clinging to a perceived faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Edge, I agree that the walls would have been weak and fallen and I agree that scale issues make MSH only potentially interesting. I wont agree it is a 'silly' - it is still a good model system. Let's try and picture in our minds what would have happened if my scenario were true. * A gully would be carved out by rushing regressions of waters. The walls would collapse near the centre of the gulley.* Moving water would transport the collapsed walls down stream. * Then more walls would collapse etc becasue the debris was no longer supporting the walls. This would iterate. * At some point, as the flow decreased, enough debris would remain for long enough to hold up the walls long enough to not collapse. The flow, gradually settling to modern levels could ultimately remove the debris without further risk of major collapsing.[/QUOTE] Sorry, won't work. The sediments are not only unconsolidated, but they are water saturated, by definition. They have virtuall zero strength. You also need to explain why the erosion follows existing fracture systems. Do you think that the draining water predicted what these directions would be and preferrentially eroded them?
quote: I have. It's not a pretty sight.
quote: TB, you could not even hope for angle of repose.
quote: Yes, this is what happens when you excavate lithified sediments. Perhaps you could argue that the sediments were only unlithified in the area of the Grand Canyon.
quote: I'm quite sure you are wrong about this. I used to play in the dirt quite a bit. Saturated sediments do not stand. A friend of mine very nearly died in a 5' trench in unsaturated material.
quote: Quite a problem. How do you get people to believe in something that cannot, and never has been seen?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: But the modern observed examples are producing exactly what the previous epeiric seas did. There is no material difference. I finally have your misunderstanding in focus after all of these posts. You think that modern epeiric seas are different from the previous ones! It isn't so. The processes are the same.
quote: That is because they focus on specific environments within those epeiric seas. It is understood, and in fact inescapable, that the seas were covering continental crust.
quote: Not at all. Much of my texts is devoted to marine deposition.
quote: Not disturbing at all. If you had a little better background and actually took a Geology course it would make more sense to you.
quote: Surely you are imagining this. It cannot be hidden that the deposition occurred in relatively shallow seas overlying continental crust. Do you thin we just noticed this recently?
quote: I learned all of this in Geology 101. I'm not sure why you can't understand this.
quote: Not at all. You have a mistaken impression that could be corrected. I am sorry if you got a wrong impression, but really, this is not what is happening. I really don't think that we try to hide the fact of pelagic sedimentation or continental slope sedimentation.
quote: I think you are misunderstanding once again. I can't even envision what you are trying to describe.
quote: Actually, we don't need any storms at all for the basic geological record. We just know that they happen and can often see them in the record. Lots of them.
quote: Well, I'll have to defer to your expertise on that.
quote: Yep, and animal footprints being made right in the middle of it! Under thousands(?) of feet of water! Yes, TB, your model is soooo much better.
quote: Excuuuuse me! How do you know this? How are you qualified to judge this? You have shown an incredible aptitude for misunderstanding geological theory.
quote: Not at all. That is just a happy coincidence. The geological record is complex but decipherable.
quote: I have never said that I didn't. I just don't believe that ALL sedimentation was rapid.
quote: Well, you can debate with the dead guys all you want. I have no problem with this. The point is that not all sediments were deposited this way. Neither does you scenario account for erosion nor time between deposition of the layers. It is so simplistic as to be utterly silly.
quote: Modern geological theory accomodates epeiric seas more than adequately. I still don't see why you pick on Lyell. In fact, I think he refers to shallow seas anyway. He may just not have had the word for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Edge you keep having a go at our Mt St Helen's model becasue we can't orchestrate a full scale Grand Canyon event for you to see today and then you say: ... It clearly is an issue of quantitative extent. Mt St Helen's proves that you can get 100 foot high sharp canyons from month old sediments! But you prefer to use your experiences in the sand pit ahead of a very good model system that is tainted by creationism.[/QUOTE] No. It is a matter of material strength. That, and the fact that you cannot compare an unsaturated volcanic deposit that was probably emplaced while hot, with saturated muds and sand.
quote: Most tributary drainages follow pre-existing fractures. One of these is the Bright Angel Fault. Why would there be such a pattern of fractures in soft sediment? Why would the fault penetrate, as a plane, both the soft sediment and the underlying metamorphic rocks? Your model needs to explain this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Of course they are not the same size. Sea levels are lower. But what's the problem here? The processes are the same. Besides I think you might have an exaggerated idea of how continuous shelf formations are. Do you really think that the Oneonta Formation is identical to the time-equivalent Genesee Formation only a couple hundred miles away, much less the Guilmette Formation on the other side of the continent? Do you think the Mancos Shale covered all of the interior of North America? Do you realize that the Cretaceous inland sea had several different facies that do not extend over the entire epeiric sea? Your viewpoint is too simplistic, TB. It will not explain the details.
quote: I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about here. Some ancient beds are planar and others are contorted.
quote: I thought that you said they were all the same. However, the paleocurrent data showed otherwise. Are you actually reading these posts, TB? We have been over this time and again and you keep bringing up the same old stories.
quote: It is understood by people who have actually studied geology and not just read about it.
quote: Okay, then what? How many times do you have to say this in your text? You are making up a problem that does not exist.
quote: I have a text full of such data.
quote: A mainstream Geology course on the web... great! What do you mean by not unconformities? There are thousands of unconformities int the geological record. In fact, we live on one of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Just what is your procedure for lithification such that the entire sequence, including sediments at the top became just as lithified ast those at the bottom? How can a "rock" (in this case, as sediment) be lithified as it is eroded? How long did this take? Once a soft sediment begins to run, you won't stop it until the slope has achieved it's own natural profile, which in this case, would be virtually flat.
quote: So now the sediments are partly lithified, eh? Still doesn't work. You need to have rocks that can support vertical walls in some cases. There are lots of bona fide rocks that cannot do this. They are simply too weak. If these sedimenst were exposed by erosion prior to (full) lithification how did they become lithified just sitting at the surface? If I leave a pile of sand in my yard for a thousand years, it will still be a pile of sand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Edge, I thought a lot of the MSH layering was formed by mudslides and ash?[/QUOTE] Yes, ash can actually weld and produce "hard" rock in a matter of hours. Generally, water lain sediments do not do that. Possibly, but the fracture would be of a different nature. Normally, a soft sediment cannot hold a fracture open or maintain a distinct weakness in a fault zone. You are grasping as straws, TB.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, because it does not explain the details at all. Not even close.
quote: And your point is? In case you don't know it there are eolian deposits and carbonate platforms that can cover several states. This is not evidence for a flood. I don't expect individual formations to do this either, but there should be some geological model that shows a single event that covered the entire earth.
quote: As I remember there are footprints, and various fossils in the GC rocks that show active habitats. Perhaps you could repost the reference.
quote: Do you really think that there are no currents on the modern continental shelves?
quote: There are some. What is your point?
quote: Well, how many times of nondeposition and erosion and sand dunes do you want in the middle you your flood? How many are acceptable before you will admit that there really wasn't a global flood?
quote: We have been over this. Do you not read my posts?
quote: Yes, many periods of continuous deposition. They are simply interrupted. This is not what your professional creationists will tell you. Do you realize how many of those websites I have read and not one of them tells you that there is erosion within the fossil record? Do you know that they do not tell you about the gaps that have been created in the record between your rapid depositional events (and slow depositonal events)?
quote: So, you admit that in the middle of your glodbal flood that covered the entire earth, there were 8 times that the land was above water. And you did all of his uplift and depression of the continent in one year?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I do not. But there are no ignimbrites in the Grand Canyon. I also know that other pyroclastic flows are also hot and can set up in a very short time. Besides, what are we talking about for canyon walls at MSH? A hundred feet max? And how long do you think they actually held? The comparison is not a good one but I'm sure I'll see it again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]TC - good point. The flatness of the Grand Canyon plateaus supports catastrophic run-off too rather than miscellaenous low energy events which would have carved out gullies etc.[/QUOTE] Hmm, so high energy environments wouldn't produce channels... I guess you haven't seen the channeled scablands from the outlet of glacial Lake Missoula.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024