Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So how did the GC get laid down from a mainstream POV? Deterministic models?
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 64 (10310)
05-23-2002 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Joe Meert
05-23-2002 10:58 AM


Thanks Joe. I'll read your web site page carefully.
In this thread I really am trying to find out the fundamental processes that led to the multiple trasngressions/regressions of the sea onto land. Why? Because I'm wanting to point out that even in the standard mainstream framework it is these cyclical events that generated the majority of the strata. The vast beds across North America or Africa for example. Even the mainstream view is that these formed via transgressions/regressions of sea onto land, not via river deltas etc.
From a look at the titles of the papers you have listed I can see that these are typical Lyellian analyses which I don't doubt. But what I'm saying is that that is not the bread and butter of the geological column. These erosional and depositional feautres are superimposed on top of the vast beds generated via transgressions. I know that mainstream geolgoists know this but I sometimes think they fail to point out the qualitative differnece of the vast beds generated by transgressions to the Lyellian feautures that formed after each regression.
I very much understand the gravitational reason why sediments are flat. However, IMO we should only expect them to be very flat when they are rapidly laid down. Normal continental shelf floors are not flat like the Grand Canyon marine strata! I've scuba dived - I know and I can also look at Grand Canyon sections (or the road cuttings near my house) for a comparison.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Joe Meert, posted 05-23-2002 10:58 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Joe Meert, posted 05-25-2002 1:55 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 05-25-2002 10:22 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 58 by wehappyfew, posted 05-25-2002 10:25 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 47 of 64 (10311)
05-23-2002 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Tranquility Base
05-23-2002 8:27 PM


quote:
I'm genuinely intreted in how the transgressions/regressions occured. So transgressions occurred due to more rapid build up at the mid-oceanic ridges.
JM: More correctly, due to the dynamic topography generated via increased spreading rates.
quote:
What about my simple idea (based on what you've told me so far) of delayed subduction of oceanic plates under continental plates? Wouldn't this explain the data? You have semi-continuous sea-floor spreading at mid-oceanic ridges. This causes the regression onto continents via displacement of water by folded oceanic crust.
JM: I don't know how to say this, but you are making no sense!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-23-2002 8:27 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 05-24-2002 9:58 AM Joe Meert has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 53 of 64 (10315)
05-24-2002 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Joe Meert
05-23-2002 8:53 PM


Joe, TB,
Do we know how much plate tectonics re. subduction is affect by plates being sucked (for want of a better word) down at the subduction zones, rather than pushed at the ridges? It may have a bearing on the issue.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Joe Meert, posted 05-23-2002 8:53 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Joe Meert, posted 05-24-2002 10:24 AM mark24 has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 54 of 64 (10316)
05-24-2002 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by mark24
05-24-2002 9:58 AM


We know that the earth maintains a 'rough' balance between spreading and subduction. However, in terms of driving forces, subduction is not driven by ridge spreading per se, it is due to the negative buoyancy of the slab. I think (but my post was snipped last night for some reason) that TB has a somewhat twisted view of the process (talk of folded oceanic crust). Subduction is not 'delayed' during increased spreading events.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 05-24-2002 9:58 AM mark24 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 55 of 64 (10342)
05-25-2002 12:13 AM


This thread was broken but should now be fixed. Please let me know of any additional problems via email to admin@.
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by TrueCreation, posted 05-25-2002 3:01 PM Percy has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 56 of 64 (10346)
05-25-2002 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Tranquility Base
05-23-2002 8:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Thanks Joe. I'll read your web site page carefully.
JM: I would hope you would read your books carefully as well.
quote:
In this thread I really am trying to find out the fundamental processes that led to the multiple trasngressions/regressions of the sea onto land. Why? Because I'm wanting to point out that even in the standard mainstream framework it is these cyclical events that generated the majority of the strata. The vast beds across North America or Africa for example. Even the mainstream view is that these formed via transgressions/regressions of sea onto land, not via river deltas etc.
From a look at the titles of the papers you have listed I can see that these are typical Lyellian analyses which I don't doubt. But what I'm saying is that that is not the bread and butter of the geological column. These erosional and depositional feautres are superimposed on top of the vast beds generated via transgressions. I know that mainstream geolgoists know this but I sometimes think they fail to point out the qualitative differnece of the vast beds generated by transgressions to the Lyellian feautures that formed after each regression.
JM: And so it goes:
TB: Well what about the 'vast beds'
Meert, Edge and others: Examples, pubs, corrections and web site links
TB: No, I mean the REALLY VAST BEDS.
Meert, Edge and Others: Examples, pubs, corrections, web sites.
TB: Not the Lyellian stuff, I mean THE MEGA REALLY VAST BEDS
sigh! You dismissed a suite of references sans reading--yet you claim to be a "Phded" scientist. Poor scholarship (refusal to read) cannot help this discussion continue.
[QUOTE]I very much understand the gravitational reason why sediments are flat. However, IMO we should only expect them to be very flat when they are rapidly laid down. Normal continental shelf floors are not flat like the Grand Canyon marine strata! I've scuba dived - I know and I can also look at Grand Canyon sections (or the road cuttings near my house) for a comparison.[/B][/QUOTE]
JM: And so it goes:
TB: What about the flat layers?
JM: Here's how they form.
TB: No I mean the REALLY flat layers.
Others (JM gives up): Here's the explanation and observations found in any elementary textbook.
TB: Yeah, but I mean THE SUPER REALLY FLAT LAYERS. Now those can only form quickly!
JM: What an absurd extrapolation! What (other than a misinterpretation of Genesis) could lead you to conclude that the only way to get SUPER REALLY FLAT LAYERS is through a flood?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-23-2002 8:44 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 57 of 64 (10349)
05-25-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Tranquility Base
05-23-2002 8:44 PM


Perhaps an experiment with an aquarium would help. Create a "sea floor" that is half flat, half tilted (or any configuration you think would be informative), fill the aquarium with water, then once the water is clear drop sediment into the aquarium. You'll need two different colors of sediment so you can switch back and forth and observe the layers, perhaps differently dyed ground limestone? A sifter used for flour in the kitchen might be a good device for releasing the sediment. Maybe Joe has some better ideas along these lines.
A flood seems to me the best bet for getting a non-flat layer because there are huge amounts of sediment everywhere that will rapidly deposit out when turbulence declines. Slow deposition, on the other hand, would seem to me to have a tendency to first accumulate at the lowest levels first, simply because there's plenty of time for sediment to migrate downslope, possibly the cause of the "pinch-up" effect Joe mentioned.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-23-2002 8:44 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 64 (10350)
05-25-2002 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Tranquility Base
05-23-2002 8:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Even the mainstream view is that these formed via transgressions/regressions of sea onto land, not via river deltas etc.
There are large amounts of fluvial deposits (river deltas, etc) forming VAST, FLAT LAYERS found in many area of N. America - like the Moenkoi Formation in this picture...
"The Moenkoi Formation, which is about 1,800 ft at its thickest, is composed of fluvial (stream) deposits of silt, sand and mud in the east, which grade westwardly into marine limestone. In areas where large paleostreams can be reconstructed, they appear to have flowed to the west and to the north...Raindrop prints and salt casts are present on some bedding planes also (Chronic, 1990, p. 195). The bulk of the Moenkopi sediments appear to have been deposited by streams moving west-northwest from a cratonic area of low relief (Lemon, 1993, p. 324)."
(from Triassic Strata of the Colorado Plateau)
Why are these strata so quickly dismissed from your consideration? Is is because your YEC framework is hopelessly inadequate to explain their presence and formation?
quote:
These erosional and depositional feautres are superimposed on top of the vast beds generated via transgressions. I know that mainstream geolgoists know this but I sometimes think they fail to point out the qualitative differnece of the vast beds generated by transgressions to the Lyellian feautures that formed after each regression.
This is pure fantasy on your part, TB. The VAST BEDS contain innumerable "Lyellian features" ... incised river channels, hogback ridges, deep and extensive weathering mantles, saprolites and laterites... the list is extensive... all within and part of each VAST, FLAT LAYER.
quote:
I very much understand the gravitational reason why sediments are flat. However, IMO we should only expect them to be very flat when they are rapidly laid down. Normal continental shelf floors are not flat like the Grand Canyon marine strata! I've scuba dived - I know and I can also look at Grand Canyon sections (or the road cuttings near my house) for a comparison.
Now you are becoming nearly incomprehensible. You say continental shelfs are NOT FLAT?????
What is you definition of flatness?
Using any measure I can think of, the continental shelf is about the second flattest area on the planet. Only the abyssal plain is flatter. Layers of sediment are being deposited today on continental shelfs that extend unbroken for thousands of miles laterally and tens to hundreds of miles offshore. All flatter'n a pancake.
What you see while scuba diving on a reef should be compared to reef analogs found on land... like El Capitan in New Mexico. There are numerous other reef structures in the West you could look at. Some form VAST, FLAT BEDS by the widespread accumulation over a large area of small reef structures, sort of like the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Try to think in the dimension of time as well as space when dealing with geology. Imagine what the Great Barrier Reef would look like if sea-levels slowly rose or fell a few hundred meters...
Since the continental shelf is SO FLAT, such a change in sea level will move the coastline hundreds of km. If the reef-building continued along the way as the coastline moved, the Great Barrier Reef would become a VAST, FLAT BED of limestone composed of a succession of overlapping reef structures.
In fact, there are really HUGE layers in N. America composed entirely of the broken fragments of crinoids - a dominate reef building animal in the past.
Have you had any luck extracting actual data on helium diffusion from the RATE book? All the links you have provided so far have been consistently content-free as far as numbers, examples, samples and such. Is the basic contradiction contained in this YEC argument beginning to sink in yet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-23-2002 8:44 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 64 (10355)
05-25-2002 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
05-25-2002 12:13 AM


"We know that the earth maintains a 'rough' balance between spreading and subduction. However, in terms of driving forces, subduction is not driven by ridge spreading per se, it is due to the negative buoyancy of the slab."
--Is it? I had the impression that plate divergence was the product (or atleast the main consequence) of mantle convection. This also if incorrect may attribute some speculation on the speed at which the mantle convects. Maybe my speculation is just the cause of reading some slightly older material.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 05-25-2002 12:13 AM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 60 of 64 (10361)
05-25-2002 3:38 PM


This thread still has some minor problems, so I am closing it while I fix them. Should be fixed soon.
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 61 of 64 (10364)
05-25-2002 5:08 PM


The problem was not with this thread but with the Perl CGI code. I was able to fix an obscure bug of longstanding that only affected threads with multiple deleted messages.
The bug has now been fixed and this thread has been reopened for posting messages.
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 64 (10380)
05-26-2002 9:04 PM


Thanks everyone for considering my claims and for your useful comments.
Yes it does sound like everytime you show me something I say - but what about the really big/flat formations. Joe, I agree some of the later refs you listed do cover some large formations.
But - in the mainstream model all of the continents have spent a lot of time with large proportions under water. All I'm trying to say is that surely this would explain the vast layers I'm talking about (eg the layers talked about in the quote in the first post of this thread) better than rivers/deltas etc? Isn't this the true mainstream view? It would be consistent with the paelocurrents too.
And anyway, this is what Shelly says in the 1996 ref I posted!
I'm not trying to say there weren't vast layers ever formed by large river deltas but from my reading it seems that the really big formations were caused by the transgressions and regressions of epeiric seas (as mentioned in Shelly). Is this or is this not true? Do you seriously deny that much/most of the marine sedimentary rock of North America was generated by transgressions/regressions of the sea?

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 63 of 64 (10419)
05-27-2002 1:42 PM


I've once again brought this thread back to life. I'm not sure what went wrong, but examination of the code brought to light another obscure bug, possibly but not necessarily related. Please report any problems to admin@.
--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 64 of 64 (10619)
05-30-2002 1:48 AM


Just though I should insert a note.
Because of the technical problems this thread has been having, the discussion has continued at a new thread, which can be found at:
http://207.36.64.70/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000023.html
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024