Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Formations really do match detailed lab expts of sorting under rapid currents
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 130 (25623)
12-05-2002 4:47 PM


As pointed out by the creationist geologists S. Austin (Grand Canyon: A monument to Catastrophe, 1994) and G. Bertault (Experiments in Stratificaiton AIG video) the theories, obserations and experiments on stratificaiton by
* J. Walther (on prograding coastal deposits),
* G. Berthault (J geol. Soc. France)
* P. Julien (Colorado State Univ)
* D. Rubin (Sed. Geology) &
* J. Suthend (Sed. Petrology)
provide a far better explanation (than geological eras) of the formations anywhere in the world inlcuding those at Grand Canyon.
The Tonto group in the Grand Canyon is about 1000 feet thick and is comprised from top to bottom:
Muav limestone
Bright Angle Shale (clay)
Tapeats sandstone
This formation covers 800 kilometres horizontally and in the current flow direction (that laid down these strata) each layer disappears one at a time in a prograding sequence. So you get these sub-formaitons side-by-side.
It turns out that this exactly matches the types of prograding patterns one gets at a beach and what one gets in laboratory (warehouse actually) 'flume' experiments as discovered by the, mainly non-creationists presumably, researchers I cited above.
What these people discovered is that under current one gets sorting by particle type and size and the layers are generated both vertically and horizontally at the same time. The lower layers at the end of the flow direction are formed after much of the top layers at the start of the flow area but the layers are trackable from start to end. Changes in flow velocity instigate new layers forming and sorting is partially ordered by frictional effects of whatever layer is currently immediately below the local flow.
What this means is that when we see 300 foot of sandstone, 300 foot of shale and 300 foot of limestone we should immediately htink of these experiments, not sedimentation under zero flow. In the flow case one can automatically get sorted beds without having to argue that the source site of sediment has changed what it is yielding.
In the experiments, and in a coastal prograding seqeunce, what one gets is sorting from a mixture. While this should not be too surprising what this means is the 1000 feet of the Tonto group at Grand Canyon can be explained in detail (see Austin, 1994) by deposition from a 0.5 to 2 metre/sec flow in a few days rather than 70 million years during the Cambrian period. Of course no-one has ever seen that sort of flow over 800 km for 3 days but straight forward extrapoloation from the flume experiments, as well as Rubin's data (see above), demonstrates that this is what one gets.
The point is instead of arbitrary series of events over 70 million years the entire formaiton is explained by the same sort of sorting process that occurs at every beach and has been studied in detail in flumes.
I can't emphasize enough that the three sub-beds of the 1000 foot thick Tonto group looks geometrically, and from a particle size, just like the facies one gets from currents in the lab or at a beach. It's just on a bigger scale. Mainstream geologists have to completely ignore the powerful mechanism of hydrological sorting to explain a 1000 foot bed with particle variation becasue it immediately reduces their 70 million years to a single catastrophe.
I strongly recommend the A$10 or A$20 outlay for Berthault's video "Experiments in Stratification" from AIG (and Austin's Grand Canyon).
Sedimentology had always been assumed to yield the principles of superposition but that is only true in near-zero flow.
The best explantion of the beds anywhere in the world is catastrophic flow, each for days at a time, over vast areas. This is the Genesis flood folks.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-05-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by wehappyfew, posted 12-05-2002 8:03 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 12-05-2002 8:20 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 7 by edge, posted 12-05-2002 9:46 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 130 (25646)
12-05-2002 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
12-05-2002 4:47 PM


Your post is a good example of someone gradually beginning to understand some bare rudiments of geology. A lot of this material is impossible to explain over the internet, especially without lots of diagrams, pictures and fieldtrips to moderns sedimentary equivalents. I'm glad you found a video to explain some of these basic concepts. Too bad they have to cloak it in the usual Creationist mumbo-jumbo to make it palatable for you. But if you sort through the propaganda, you might find some small glimmers of reality peeking through.
Like this one:
quote:
It turns out that this exactly matches the types of prograding patterns one gets at a beach...
and this one:
quote:
I can't emphasize enough that the three sub-beds of the 1000 foot thick Tonto group looks geometrically, and from a particle size, just like the facies ... at a beach.
Now that wasn't so hard to figure out, was it? Modern shoreline environments do indeed create very distinctive sedimentary structures. These exact same structures are found in the Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale and Muav Limestone:
"Close up of the Tapeats at the same Verde River outcrop, showing crossbedding from underwater marine dunes that are interbedded with coarse flat bedded conglomerates from shore line wave deposits."
More from the same site:
"Appearing as a browinish to light tan in color, it contains almost shaley sandstone up to coarse conglomerate. Much crossbedding occurs in the Tapeats, because it is a tidal marine deposit, and includes the deposits right up to the shorline, but not beach dunes or eolian deposits. The material for the Tapeats was derived from the underlying Precambrian granites and metamorphic rocks found in the region. It is easy to see how a pounding marine surf can separate out the constituents of such basement rocks, and form beach sands and highly winnowed tidal deposits." (source)
Keep up the good work. More research like this will make it much easier for you to understand real world geology. All you have to do is learn enough to be able to seperate the outlandish claims from the real data. Sort of like with Humphrey's zircon/helium "research." He claims the data supports a young Earth, but closer examination has shown exactly the opposite.
In this case, you've finally begun to understand a fundamental concept in sedimentology - the transgressive sequence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-05-2002 4:47 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-05-2002 8:38 PM wehappyfew has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 3 of 130 (25647)
12-05-2002 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
12-05-2002 4:47 PM


quote:
What this means is that when we see 300 foot of sandstone, 300 foot of shale and 300 foot of limestone
Did I hear you say "limestone?" Answer me, please, in the "general flood topic," this forum, post 17 and thereafter. Where does limestone come from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-05-2002 4:47 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 1:59 AM Coragyps has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 130 (25651)
12-05-2002 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by wehappyfew
12-05-2002 8:03 PM


You do a good job of condescension Wehappy and assume that just becasue we claim there are three sub-beds to the Tonto that it is as simple as that. And I've understood about transgressive sequences all year.
You think that posting a 'just-so' paragraph on the Tapeats removes what we are saying? We're saying that the entire Tonto is one big prograding sequence, just like at a beach but 1000 foot thick. The 300 feet of sandstone, 300 feet of shale and 300 feet of limestone is the gross sorting that occurred.
If I understand it correctly, your explanation instead requires millenia of sandstone, then millenia of shale and then millemnia of limestone, completely arbitarily. (EDIT: I have assumed that you guys would not apply the prograding sequence idea to the 3 components of a 1000 foot thick formaiton, but I may be wrong).
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by wehappyfew, posted 12-05-2002 8:03 PM wehappyfew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 12-05-2002 9:24 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 6 by wehappyfew, posted 12-05-2002 9:32 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 5 of 130 (25653)
12-05-2002 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
12-05-2002 8:38 PM


quote:
If I undersatnd it correctly, your explanation instead requires millenia of sandstone, then millenia of shale and then millemnia of limestone, completely arbitarily.
I wouldn't say completely arbitrarily. We have many modern examples of similar sequences that seem to be forming agonizingly slowly. Show me a way to form a lot of that limestone quickly. Or shale, for all that...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-05-2002 8:38 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 2:25 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 130 (25654)
12-05-2002 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
12-05-2002 8:38 PM


TB writes:
If I undersatnd it correctly, your explanation instead requires millenia of sandstone, then millenia of shale and then millemnia of limestone, completely arbitarily.
This sentence of your reply illustrates quite clearly that you do not yet understand a prograding transgressive sequence.
All three types of sediment are deposited simultaneously in a transgressive sequence. The shoreline at a particular place and time is the basal unit of the TS. It commonly contains conglomerates composed of the underlying sequence, and is always unconformable to it. At the same time the Tapeats sandstone is being deposited, farther offshore the tidal and beach sands grade into the silt and shale of the Bright Angel shale, just like passive margins today. Farther still, the water is deep enough and far enough from siliclastic sources to allow carbonate platforms to accumulate, like the South China Sea, for example.
As eustatic sealevel rises, the entire assemblage migrates uphill. Shales are deposited on top of sand, lime mud on top of shale, while the new shoreline cuts into higher ground pC basement rock, creating more siliclastic source material for the whole system.
There is nothing arbitrary about sequence stratigraphy. It is a well developed branch of sedimentology. It is quite useful in petroleum geology. Modern examples of transgressive sequences are common, and very well studied and understood. But not by any Creationists. You are being mislead again, just like the Paluxy mantracks, galacto-centrism, and the Gentry zircons and helium. Creationist propaganda peddlers who know some geo-buzzwords and are careful to show you only a small part of the picture can weave a believable tale around the Noah myth. As you learn more, you will become better and better at seeing through the deception.
I am honestly not being condescending in saying that. I applaud your efforts to learn this material. You have made some real progress in the last year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-05-2002 8:38 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 2:08 AM wehappyfew has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1784 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 7 of 130 (25656)
12-05-2002 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
12-05-2002 4:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The Tonto group in the Grand Canyon is about 1000 feet thick and is comprised from top to bottom:
Muav limestone
Bright Angle Shale (clay)
Tapeats sandstone
This formation covers 800 kilometres horizontally and in the current flow direction (that laid down these strata) each layer disappears one at a time in a prograding sequence. So you get these sub-formaitons side-by-side.
It turns out that this exactly matches the types of prograding patterns one gets at a beach and what one gets in laboratory (warehouse actually) 'flume' experiments ....
So, they got limestone deposited in flume experiments? Really, TB, not only is your geological foundation rudimentary, but you are extremely careless in your writing.
By the way, I would really like to see your answer to coragyp's questions above. Think you could try that?
quote:
Sedimentology had always been assumed to yield the principles of superposition but that is only true in near-zero flow.
Please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-05-2002 4:47 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 1:57 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 130 (25669)
12-06-2002 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by edge
12-05-2002 9:46 PM


Good point Edge.
What Julien's and Rubin's data givesis particle size/velocity sorting statistics. they didn't get limestone, correct. One still has to have the raw products (mixed together is fine) before sorting. So what was the source of the limestone? Obviously weathered shells etc but creationists also propose the precipitation of calicum from inorganic sources as well.
Nevertheless the point is that the empirical data, carefully collected for particle size, velocities etc suggests that hydrological sorting is a perfect and natural explanation of such facies, as big as they are. The lower layers at the end of the flow would have been layed after much of the top layers at the start of the flow even though the layers track over the distance.
My comment on the principle of superpositon is that because of the prograding issue we can't assume that all of a lower layer was laid before all of the upper layer. If we apply this to the Tonto then assumptions of 70 million year differences could be completely incorrect.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by edge, posted 12-05-2002 9:46 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by edge, posted 12-06-2002 11:29 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 130 (25671)
12-06-2002 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coragyps
12-05-2002 8:20 PM


Coragyps
See my answer to Edge on calcium sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 12-05-2002 8:20 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 12-06-2002 9:24 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 130 (25672)
12-06-2002 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by wehappyfew
12-05-2002 9:32 PM


Wehappy
I actually understand the situation perfectly for prograding seqeunces at a beach and in the creaitonist interpretation of the Tonto.
Are you really admitting that, although the strata within the Tonto facies are sperated by bedding planes (essentially by definition) that a particular stratum, or facies for that matter, was not laid down at a fixed geological time even though the startum, or at least groups of strata, can be tracked for hundreds of kilometres? So the 70 million years traversed by the Tonto is not really true? Are you saying that some of the Mauv limestone was laid before some of the Tapeat sandstone? I of course believe that but I can almost gaurentee you that your fellow geologists would put a near 70 million gap between those formations. You are clearly distancing yourself from the principle of superposition in this case and I applaude that.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by wehappyfew, posted 12-05-2002 9:32 PM wehappyfew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by wehappyfew, posted 12-06-2002 4:46 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 130 (25673)
12-06-2002 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coragyps
12-05-2002 9:24 PM


Coragyps
Do yuo get anything like 300 foot facies of stuff forming on top of 300 foot beds on top of 300 foot beds today? If that's the case then the idea of dating by stratigraphical level is pointless. In the case of the Tonto group the strata are supposedly seperated by about 70 million years.
If your agreeing with us on the hydrological sorting mechanism that is great but I don't see that ackowledged by the stratigraphic dating guys.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 12-05-2002 9:24 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-06-2002 3:01 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3946
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 12 of 130 (25675)
12-06-2002 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tranquility Base
12-06-2002 2:25 AM


Sheesh TB, read this again -
From wehappyfew's message 6:
quote:
All three types of sediment are deposited simultaneously in a transgressive sequence. The shoreline at a particular place and time is the basal unit of the TS. It commonly contains conglomerates composed of the underlying sequence, and is always unconformable to it. At the same time the Tapeats sandstone is being deposited, farther offshore the tidal and beach sands grade into the silt and shale of the Bright Angel shale, just like passive margins today. Farther still, the water is deep enough and far enough from siliclastic sources to allow carbonate platforms to accumulate, like the South China Sea, for example.
As eustatic sealevel rises, the entire assemblage migrates uphill. Shales are deposited on top of sand, lime mud on top of shale, while the new shoreline cuts into higher ground pC basement rock, creating more siliclastic source material for the whole system.
This verbally explains the methodology of stratagraphic succession about as good as can be done - short of having some nice diagrams.
As sea level rises, what is deposited in the deeper waters is now deposited in the newly deepened waters, on top of what was deposited in more shallow waters. This results in the transgressive sequence - shallow water deposits on the bottom, deeper water deposits on the top.
A sea level fall causes the opposite vertical sequence - deeper water deposits on the bottom, shallower water deposits on top. That is a regressive sequence.
Perhaps you need to visit your local geology department, and have someone diagram lateral sedimentary facies changes, and the resultant vertical columns for a transgressive sea, and for a regressive sea.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 2:25 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 3:41 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 130 (25683)
12-06-2002 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minnemooseus
12-06-2002 3:01 AM


Moose
I am reading it, and I did read it, but I'm trying to see if you guys really believe that for 1000 foot beds with only three facies. This is clearly not stated in a stratigraphical dating context.
So will anyone go on the record and agree specifically that some of the top of the Mauv limestone was laid at the same time as some of the bottom of the Tapeat sandstone? Do you realise that these strata would normally be dated about 70 million years apart? (I know you know that actually).
PS - I had always thought that when you guys talked of a prograding seqeunce it was for tens of feet of sediment not a 1000 foot formaiton. Please stop assuming I don't understand this stuff. I do. And I may or may not be finding some inconsisteny. We'll see.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-06-2002 3:01 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by wehappyfew, posted 12-06-2002 10:56 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 16 by edge, posted 12-06-2002 11:13 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 14 of 130 (25712)
12-06-2002 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tranquility Base
12-06-2002 1:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Coragyps
See my answer to Edge on calcium sources.

When did those shells find time to grow? Where will you get the dissolved calcium, and what will you do with the emitted carbon dioxide, from either their growth or from chemical precipitation? "General Flood Topic", post 17 and following, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 1:59 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by TrueCreation, posted 12-07-2002 6:06 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 130 (25736)
12-06-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tranquility Base
12-06-2002 3:41 AM


TB writes:
So will anyone go on the record and agree specifically that some of the top of the Mauv limestone was laid at the same time as some of the bottom of the Tapeat sandstone?
...and...
Are you saying that some of the Mauv limestone was laid before some of the Tapeat sandstone? I of course believe that but I can almost gaurentee you that your fellow geologists would put a near 70 million gap between those formations. You are clearly distancing yourself from the principle of superposition in this case and I applaude that.
Another lightbulb turns on over TB's head. That is precisely what happens in a transgressive sequence. Although you might find that the deepest water lime muds to the west are still accumulating as the highest altitude Tapeats sands are forming to the east. That makes the middle of the Muav in the west contemporaneous with the bottom of the Tapeats in the east. At the farthest advance of the shoreline, there would be no shale or lime above the sandstone, but in the Cambro-Ordovician, the shoreline advanced across the entire PangeaI to Gondwanaland, leaving no strandline in N. America.
If you traced an individual bedding plane from east to west, you would find conglomerates unconformably overlying the pC basement in the east, grading to shoreline and tidal facies shallow water dunes, grading to slightly deeper water sand waves and point bars, grading to deeper sand, silt and shale beds interleaved by storm action, grading to deeper silt and shales (we would begin to call this the Bright Angel Shale at some arbitrary point) with storm turbidites mixed in, grading to more and more limey muds until the lime content is high enough to call it the Muav Limestone. The entire bed just described is deposited at the same time. All three formations of the Tonto Group were deposited simultaneously on any single bedding plane, but it took tens of millions of years for the transgression to advance from west to east across the N. American continent. That makes it a time-trangressive formation. The Tapeats in the west is 50 million years older than the Tapeats in the east. The Bright Angel Shale in the west is younger than the Tapeats directly below (law of superposition), the same age as some of the Tapeats to the east, but older than the Tapeats farther to the east. The individual beds do not follow the same angle as the tops and bottoms of the overall formation, they are inclined down to the east relative to the overall formation (sort of like very large scale, regional cross-bedding). Each bed of Muav in the west grades imperceptibly into a Bright Angel shale to the east, and inclines down to the east, and grades into a Tapeats farther east at a still lower level in the overall Group (but a higher absolute altitude at the time of deposition). That is how superposition is maintained.
Do you see now how hard this is to describe in words? If you tell us what sedimentology texts you have read, I'm sure one of us could give you the exact page numbers where this is described, complete with very helpful diagrams, cross-sections, pictures, and maps. This is all standard sedimentology - covered in the 2nd year of most geology programs.
TB writes:
Please stop assuming I don't understand this stuff. I do.
Sorry, but you don't, as shown by your responses here.
But you are making rapid progress just in the last few days, as shown above from your newly found understanding of time-transgressive formations.
TB writes:
Do yuo get anything like 300 foot facies of stuff forming on top of 300 foot beds on top of 300 foot beds today?
Of course we do. Time-transgressive sequences are, in fact, being formed today. How do you think sedimentologists have come to understand all this stuff? If you go to practically any passive margin today, you will find modern river delta deposits on top of shallow water silts on top of deep water shales. This is called a prograding delta. It is not the same thing as the Tonto trangressive sequence because the shallow water deposits are on top. It is formed by a different combination of sea-level, sediment supply, tectonic, and subsidence parameters. Again, all of this is standard sedimentology. You repeatedly claim to have read the standard geology texts, so how could you have missed this? Can you name a standard geology text you have read? We could then point out the pages you need to read again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 3:41 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-06-2002 7:34 PM wehappyfew has not replied
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 10:24 PM wehappyfew has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024