Summations Only

Tree rings do just fine for this.There are several other very nice methods as well. Your objections are overruled by the evidence.

Yes, that would be doing geology. Actually, the transition to terrestrial deposition in the Mesozoic is a major change in style. Much of the Paleozoic represents major transgression and regression, starting with the Tapeats Sandstone. After the early transgression, starting in the Cambrian, there was a long period of continental seas with occasional erosion due to sea level changes and very lilttle terrigenous input (sand, gravel, etc.).Then in the late Paleozoic we see some terrigenous sediments in the Supai, the Hermit and the Coconino. But there were some marine sediments up until the Moenkopi/Chinle time in the Triassic. After that the Colorado Plateau entered a prolonged period of terrigenous sedimentation and erosion that continued essentially to the present.The Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary formations have much less areal extent compared to those of the larger Paleozoic transgression. Even the Navajo Sandstone is not continental in extent, but probably was as large as Texas. That is nothing compared to the Tapeats that correlates with sandstones on the east coast and even on other continents. This was a turning point in the earth's history. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It's funny how people just take the dating system for granted as if you could know how old something is yourself and agree out of your own knowledge.

---

Of course, even those of us who are neither geologists or archaeologists can have an understanding of the methods and an appreciation of the work that has gone into making them reliable.Which is why we are not going to be easily convinced that they do not work. Mere assertion or that fact that the dates contradict beliefs with little to no supporting evidence are hopelessly inadequate as arguments.

I don't. Luckily for me I had one of the foremost Geochronologists in the world, being one of my undergraduate lecturers, explaining very patiently how he dated some of the "rocks" found in the Barberton Greenstone Belt. Over many years going through the basics from formation of "rocks", crystallography, geochemistry, metamorphisism, physics, etc, etc, But, Faith, I certainly can know that. Old earth models work. Very, very well. That's why old earth models work for every single one of the exploration and mining companies in my country. Geology works. Old earth models work.

No need to wonder about it. The Permian is not a rock layer.You still don't get it. The Permian is not a layer. Get it into your head. The Permian is not a layer. The Permian is not a rock layer. The Permian is not a rock layer. I know that it's not something you can try to do after all the years of indoctrination by creationists, but try to get it into your head. Here we go again. The Permian is not a rock layer. The Permian is not a rock layer. The Permian is not a rock layer.

First I want to say thanks, thanks very much, for being willing, at least at times, to communicate a lot more than you used to do. That was a very informative post and you didn't talk to me like what I say is not worth your time either. That could change any second I know, including in the first words you say in response to this, but I appreciate any bit of good will I encounter here.I still think the way the terrestrial sediments are shown to have been laid out continuously above the marine sediments in that cross section indicates a continuing mode of deposition and not some major change. I understand your point that the areal extent of the depositions changed enormously, but I don't see why that indicates a great turning point in earth's history.But of course I always think in terms of the Flood and to me what happened must have to do with the fact that the Flood is reaching its zenith and has less sediment to deposit. The earlier depositions spanned the continent, many continents but now the water is much higher, covering all the lower levels of the land, and there isn't that much continental land still exposed.In any case, for some reason, Navajo Sand(stone) is continuously deposited for shorter distances than earlier depositions like the Tapeats, and from what you are saying so are other Mesozoic layers as well, though clearly for sufficient distances to build the strata above the Permian/Kaibab level in the GC area to a great height over many thousands of square miles. Then blobs of Navajo Sand are deposited here and there, without succeeding depositions to keep them flattened in layers.In any case if the strata continue to build in the same way at all, as flat layers one on top of another, I don't see a change in depositional environment, don't see a lake or a delta or a river, just the usual laying out of sediment in the usual way, with less sediment to work with. Where's a delta-shaped layer for instance? Is there such a thing? A river-shaped layer? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I would think that the change from mostly marine sediment deposition to a terrestrial environment for long periods of time would be a major change in landscapes, life and continuity of geological formations. Both are common and I have provided images previously.Here is a picture of a coal mine in New Mexico. On the left wall, at the very left edge of the image, there is a lozenge shaped body of sand with large scale cross-beds indicative of a sand bar. These bodies, when mapped, follow a narrow band that looks for all the world like a channel cutting through most coal fields. Some of them in Illinois can be traced for tens of miles.It is important to understand these things because they present certain hazards to mining. The next image is a cross section of the Paradox Basin in which sedimentary fans continually feed into the basin from highlands to the right of the diagram. In the lowest part of the basin (part of the landscape), out beyond the clastic fans, you can see that salt was being deposited at the same time. Even farther out to the left, you get into marine sediments of the type that you commonly refer to ... some of the Grand Canyon formations.ETA: You will note the relatively rapid lateral changes of depositional environment typical of terrestrial sedimentation; in other words, NOT the continental scale geological formations. Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Here is a better image of a sand bar in a coal field setting. These rocks are late Cretaceous to Paleocene in age. Note the cross bedding dipping to the right. This indicates that the streams was flowing toward the viewer or away (can't tell from here). The stream cut down to the thin coal layer (probably a bunch of organic debris at the time) as it meandered toward the right.The process was terminated as this meander was abandoned and the channel was filled by mud and silt shown in the upper right of the image.So, the sand bar was frozen in time until exposed by mining millions of years later. The image has a lot more information in it that could be discussed, but that should do it for now.

Before I try to grapple with your information here, I have to report that I don't see that you've answered my question. Where's the delta-shaped or the river-shaped layer?

OK, on the Old Earth/Evolutionary assumptions/theory, this would be true.But if it's all just a result of the Flood then there is nothing special about a change from marine to terrestrial deposits, it would be the natural sequence expected from the rising of the water.

I see. You want actual examples and perhaps a map? For the moment, I will suggest that this gets to be too complicated of a discussion for a forum such as this. I will just say that terrestrial deltas (alluvial fans) are common and an example would be Uluru in Australia.The 'river shaped layers' are very common and present special problems in coal mining. They are composed of channel sands such as I showed in a couple of images and are, therefor, not 'layers' but strands of sandstone linked together in a fluvial system. Here is a block diagram showing how they form. Note the small buried channels (in yellow) on the far left and the far right of the diagram. Now just imagine this landscape being buried by younger sediments and eventually being lithified.

It is difficult to see how rising water would result in more terrestrial deposits.Just to annoy you further, I repeat my question regarding how trackways can be preserved in a global flood environment. Please explain how they got into the Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks if those times were 'unlivable' for land creatures. Where did they come from?

Sorry, I have it on my mental to-do list to go back and answer old posts, I just always get bogged down in the more recent ones.Anyway, I thought I'd given my best shot at this question a number of times already. I don't think in terms of a time-period landscape of course, where the creatures were living between time periods, but in terms of the surface of a newly deposited sediment that is one of a series overtaking their living environment as the water is inexorably rising. I figure creatures were frantically trying to avoid the next surge of sediment-laden water, and running for their lives each time the water receded temporarily, which I have to suppose happened with the tides as the water was rising.I saw one illustration that showed the tracks mostly occurring in the very highest strata in the Grand Staircase, or was that only dinosaur tracks? Anyway it seemed to make sense somehow that it would be in the higher levels or the last stages of the rising Flood waters that the tracks would be found. Just a supposition though. Maybe in some places there was still unflooded ground higher up so they could temporarily escape the rising water, or maybe the next surge overcame them.That's the best I can do. I don't think such isolated instances of tracks supports any idea of a temporary time-defined landscape with lots of life forms running around that are peculiar to that time period; at least I would expect in that case a lot more tracks and different kinds of tracks, and SOME other signs of a living environment, bits of plants or something I suppose -- and I'd also expect that the preservation of those tracks we see is the very special product of the very special conditions that occurred during the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You may be right of course, but I'm imagining something like this: Walther's Law governs the marine depositions as the water rises, but the higher it rises the less marine sediments it carries, though never none, and the more it picks up the land sediments and redeposits them --or something like that.

However, there is less land to cover as well. Well, then, where do the sediments come from if there is no land left to erode? Ever notice how sediments virtually always end up at a lower elevation that their source areas?