Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rapid generation of layers in the GC
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 103 (9872)
05-17-2002 2:49 AM


Here's extracts from mainstream sedimentology texts I dug up myself last (southern hemisphere) summer on rapid formation of layers and also one quote I found on the internet from a geology journal:
quote:
p132 "Many strata must have been deposited very rapidly. In terms of geological time, they represent essentially instantaneous events, usch as floods, that had durations ranging from a few seconds to several days."
p135 "In the past there has been a tendancy to interpret each lamina as produced by a separate sedimentation event - for example, a tidal cycle, the swash and backwash of a single wave, or a single bed load avalanche. It is now clear, however, that laminae may also be produced by strong flow, particularly during traction on a plane bed in the upper flow regime."
H Blatt, GV Middleton & RC Murray Origin of Sedimenary Rocks Prentice-Hall (New Jersey) 1980
'It is reasonable to postulate a very rapid rate of deposition; that is a single lamina [or layer] would probably be deposited in a period of seconds or minutes rather than in a period of hours....There is factual evidence from both field observation and experiment that laminae composed of bed material are commonly deposited by current action within a period of seconds or minutes.'
Alan V. Joplin, Dept. of Geology, Harvard, 'Some Deductions on the Temporal Significance of Laminae, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 36, No. 4, from pp. 880-887
I'm not trying to say this necessarily proves anything but it is part of our 'thesis'. It certainly proves that mainstream researchers are willing to admitt that layers do not have to represent annual/seaonal bands or even point to great age at all.
------------------
You are go for TLI

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by edge, posted 05-17-2002 11:16 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 103 (9873)
05-17-2002 2:58 AM


Here's a quote from a mainstream journal, presumably from a mainstream geologist chiding his fellow geologists to take on some more catastrohpism back in 1972 (it sounds to me anyway). He's talking cyclothems and polystrate fossils:
quote:
[The] tree was 43 feet high with hundreds of layers surrounding it, just as well preserved at the top as at the bottom. Now, can you look at that and imagine 2700 years a foot?... And in another illustration in a similar article, we see 50 trees described. Now this was from France. Now what would possibly explain this kind of phenomena? You see trees buried standing upright with huge amounts of sediment. No, it takes something like a large flood - a catastrophic flood - to bury a forest and cover the trees and then form into rock rapidly in order to preserve the detail that we see in these trees as well at the top as at the bottom... I think that's an excellent description and estimate of what happened and it fits best with the evidence. . . This tree standing upright in the sediment actually extends through two cyclotherms. A cyclotherm is a series of ten different rock units where we find coal forming. And this sequence - this series - of ten rock units repeats some 50 to 100 times. Trying to explain those cyclic deposits by normal uniformitarian processes gets very entertaining. I think the tidal forces of a huge flood are much better at explaining the cyclic forces. But if we look at the picture and notice that we've got coal down near the bottom that extends through numbers of layers up into another layer of coal above, what we're seeing there is a picture that demonstrates you can't form coal over hundreds of thousands of years. It has to be basically a catastrophic event that deposits this sediment and covers it and forms it into rock rapidly or you don't get this kind of picture with the tree standing upright well preserved from top to bottom in it. Actually, experiments with the formation of coal show, contrary to what we read and hear continually, does not take a long period of time [to form].
George R. Hill, Dean of College of Mines & Mineral Industries, Chemtech, May, 1972, p. 292
I admittedly found this one on the Internet but I don't think a context is necessary is it? Go read the article if you need the context. I'd be interested if this guy got sacked or not or was ever allowed to publish again
.
Again all this proves is that what used to be thought of as taking millions of years has in some instances, even by mainstreamers, been agreed to have taken only a matter of hours/days/weeks. Millions of years reduced to days. And of course Austin et al would immediately, for good reason, point to the flood and floating mats. Of course it could have been a huge non-Noah flood but it still begs the question that if thousands of feet of the GC are at least possibly due to a big flood then maybe the creationists have a point.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-17-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Joe Meert, posted 05-17-2002 11:55 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 47 by Joe Meert, posted 05-20-2002 12:13 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 3 of 103 (9883)
05-17-2002 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
05-17-2002 2:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm not trying to say this necessarily proves anything but it is part of our 'thesis'. It certainly proves that mainstream researchers are willing to admitt that layers do not have to represent annual/seaonal bands or even point to great age at all.
Are you actually comparing varved sediments to storm deposits, or mudflows, or other local catastrophic sedimentation events? Do you really think that geologists have not thought about these things? Do you really think that catastrophism is not recognized as part of the uniformitarian concept?
You see, this was all explained to me in my very first Geology course. That's something you miss by going straight to the professional papers and monographs ... the background to be able to critically analyze what you read. As a result you have been sucked in by the professional creationists who give you only a part of the story. I am sorry that they have taken advantage of you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-17-2002 2:49 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

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


Message 4 of 103 (9884)
05-17-2002 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
05-17-2002 2:58 AM


I think you are missing the point. No one on here, to my knowledge, has said that every layer of sediment MUST form slowly over eons of time. Some don't and you are not getting a quibble about that. What you have done is make a giant leap (sans evidence) that ALL sedimentary layers were laid down quickly. That you have provided no evidence for whatsoever! Not one of those quotes suggests that all sedimentary layers are laid down in seconds or minutes. Further, this in an 'invented' controversy on your part since I doubt you can find one geologist who will say that every layer takes eons of time. But, let's look at some that DO take time. The navajo sandstone is a mega cross-bedded unit.
Here is a photo I took:
The Navajo is a late Triassic-Jurassic sandstone with wind directions alternating from the N to NW and it contains rare reptilian tracks. This is overlain by the continental fluviatile Morrison Fm and finally by Cretaceous marine sediments and finally by coal beds. Here's where the problem comes in for a flood scenario of Cambrian-Cretaceous age. All of these units contain reptilian fossils with the exception of the marine sediments (which interfinger with continental ones). Most importantly, these coal beds contain dinosaur trackways that are in beds above what many consider the end of the flood. Why is this important? Well, assuming the flood took one year and there were two dinosaurs on board, and the boat landed in Turkey, then it does not leave much time for the dinosaurs to repopulate the earth and walk around in the vegetation mats left by the flood. Any explanation for these observations? Can you also tell me about all the flood waters that occupied the same area before the dune deposits? None of these observations make sense to me in terms of a singl Noachian flood.
Cheers
Joe Meert
refs:
Hintze, L. Geologic History of Utah, v20, 3, BYU Geology Studies
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-17-2002 2:58 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 05-17-2002 5:56 PM Joe Meert has replied
 Message 7 by edge, posted 05-17-2002 6:39 PM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 05-18-2002 1:51 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 5 of 103 (9891)
05-17-2002 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Joe Meert
05-17-2002 11:55 AM


[QUOTE][b]Hintze, L. Geologic History of Utah, v20, 3, BYU Geology Studies[/QUOTE]
[/b]
(Off-topic question)
Isn't BYU a private college run by the Latter-Day Saints?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Joe Meert, posted 05-17-2002 11:55 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Joe Meert, posted 05-17-2002 6:07 PM gene90 has not replied

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


Message 6 of 103 (9892)
05-17-2002 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by gene90
05-17-2002 5:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][b]Hintze, L. Geologic History of Utah, v20, 3, BYU Geology Studies[/QUOTE]
[/b]
(Off-topic question)
Isn't BYU a private college run by the Latter-Day Saints?

Yes it is! But there is no ye-creation bias in the geology department.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 05-17-2002 5:56 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 05-18-2002 8:38 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 7 of 103 (9894)
05-17-2002 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Joe Meert
05-17-2002 11:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
I think you are missing the point. No one on here, to my knowledge, has said that every layer of sediment MUST form slowly over eons of time. Some don't and you are not getting a quibble about that.
But, Joe, eolian cross-beds have been shown to form in only seconds. Why, it couldn't have taken more than a couple of days to deposit the Navajo Sandstone!
(Oh yeah...
)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Joe Meert, posted 05-17-2002 11:55 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 103 (9904)
05-18-2002 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Joe Meert
05-17-2002 6:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
Yes it is! But there is no ye-creation bias in the geology department.
Cheers
Joe Meert

Wow, the several Mormons I know claim that we don't know how old the earth is, and that they can't imagine that there was enough time for evolution to happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Joe Meert, posted 05-17-2002 6:07 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by gene90, posted 05-18-2002 10:49 AM nator has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 9 of 103 (9908)
05-18-2002 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
05-18-2002 8:38 AM


There is a lot of variability there. I've been told by a LDS that I know that "evolution is a dirty word around my church" yet BYU's biology department teaches evolution and a church pub I read interviewed a BYU biology prof who said that evolution and BBT do not contradict their beliefs and then he went into a whole 'religion and (mainstream) science are friends' discussion. In fact I suspect that the natural science academics at BYU are probably having a large moderating effect on the entire church.
It is clear that so far YECism is not officially proscribed by the LDS church (neither is theistic evolution) but as many of their congregations are taught by laypeople (no professional preachers) Protestant Biblical literalism and therefore YECism is naturally going to infiltrate at least the lower levels of the church on an individual basis. However because the church accepts continuing prophecy a single declaration from their president could turn everything around instantly. Their future position is uncertain.
A similar example is this; you frequently point out that Catholic schools teach evolution, but I know there are some Catholic YECs running around despite this.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 05-18-2002 8:38 AM nator has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 103 (9912)
05-18-2002 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Joe Meert
05-17-2002 11:55 AM


"I think you are missing the point. No one on here, to my knowledge, has said that every layer of sediment MUST form slowly over eons of time. Some don't and you are not getting a quibble about that."
--He didn't assert this at all as a 'must', but as something that should be considered.
"What you have done is make a giant leap (sans evidence) that ALL sedimentary layers were laid down quickly. That you have provided no evidence for whatsoever! Not one of those quotes suggests that all sedimentary layers are laid down in seconds or minutes."
--He didn't say that this suggests that all sedimentary layers have been laid down quickly, but attempted to give support on his assertion that there isn't much of a problem with rapid depositions.
"The Navajo is a late Triassic-Jurassic sandstone with wind directions alternating from the N to NW and it contains rare reptilian tracks. This is overlain by the continental fluviatile Morrison Fm and finally by Cretaceous marine sediments and finally by coal beds. Here's where the problem comes in for a flood scenario of Cambrian-Cretaceous age. All of these units contain reptilian fossils with the exception of the marine sediments (which interfinger with continental ones). Most importantly, these coal beds contain dinosaur trackways that are in beds above what many consider the end of the flood. Why is this important? Well, assuming the flood took one year and there were two dinosaurs on board, and the boat landed in Turkey, then it does not leave much time for the dinosaurs to repopulate the earth and walk around in the vegetation mats left by the flood. Any explanation for these observations?"
--The C-T boundary isn't the end of the Flood on my watch, and I believe it is likewise for Tranquility.
"Can you also tell me about all the flood waters that occupied the same area before the dune deposits? None of these observations make sense to me in terms of a singl Noachian flood."
--Think I need some emphasis, or clarity. Not sure what your asking.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Joe Meert, posted 05-17-2002 11:55 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by edge, posted 05-18-2002 1:58 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 12 by Joe Meert, posted 05-18-2002 2:07 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 103 (9914)
05-18-2002 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
05-18-2002 1:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I think you are missing the point. No one on here, to my knowledge, has said that every layer of sediment MUST form slowly over eons of time. Some don't and you are not getting a quibble about that."
--He didn't assert this at all as a 'must', but as something that should be considered.
However, there is an implication that this is evidence that the geological record could be formed in a one year flood. If you do not believe this to be the case, I suggest that you make that clear and also have some words with the professional creationists who misuse this same information.
quote:
"What you have done is make a giant leap (sans evidence) that ALL sedimentary layers were laid down quickly. That you have provided no evidence for whatsoever! Not one of those quotes suggests that all sedimentary layers are laid down in seconds or minutes."
--He didn't say that this suggests that all sedimentary layers have been laid down quickly, but attempted to give support on his assertion that there isn't much of a problem with rapid depositions.
No geologist has ever said so. So what is the point?
quote:
"The Navajo is a late Triassic-Jurassic sandstone with wind directions alternating from the N to NW and it contains rare reptilian tracks. This is overlain by the continental fluviatile Morrison Fm and finally by Cretaceous marine sediments and finally by coal beds. Here's where the problem comes in for a flood scenario of Cambrian-Cretaceous age. All of these units contain reptilian fossils with the exception of the marine sediments (which interfinger with continental ones). Most importantly, these coal beds contain dinosaur trackways that are in beds above what many consider the end of the flood. Why is this important? Well, assuming the flood took one year and there were two dinosaurs on board, and the boat landed in Turkey, then it does not leave much time for the dinosaurs to repopulate the earth and walk around in the vegetation mats left by the flood. Any explanation for these observations?"
--The C-T boundary isn't the end of the Flood on my watch, and I believe it is likewise for Tranquility.
You still have the same problem. In fact, you have less time to repopulate the earth.
quote:
"Can you also tell me about all the flood waters that occupied the same area before the dune deposits? None of these observations make sense to me in terms of a singl Noachian flood."
--Think I need some emphasis, or clarity. Not sure what your asking.
I think Joe is asking where did the flood waters go so that you could have eolian deposits in the middle of a global flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 05-18-2002 1:51 PM TrueCreation has not replied

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


Message 12 of 103 (9916)
05-18-2002 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
05-18-2002 1:51 PM


quote:
--The C-T boundary isn't the end of the Flood on my watch, and I believe it is likewise for Tranquility.
JM: Then you have an even bigger problem! If the Cretaceous marine deposits are not flood evidence, then where are they? That's the end of marine deposition in the region.
quote:
"Can you also tell me about all the flood waters that occupied the same area before the dune deposits? None of these observations make sense to me in terms of a singl Noachian flood."
--Think I need some emphasis, or clarity. Not sure what your asking.
JM: There are other (older) marine-terrestrial transitions in the strata out west. Apparently, this is one region where one could escape the flood. Maybe all the flowering plants, dinosauars etc were headed to Utah? Maybe the Mormons are on to something living there.
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 05-18-2002 1:51 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 05-18-2002 7:32 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 103 (9939)
05-18-2002 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Joe Meert
05-18-2002 2:07 PM


"JM: Then you have an even bigger problem! If the Cretaceous marine deposits are not flood evidence, then where are they? That's the end of marine deposition in the region."
--At the end of marine deposits didn't you state that there are coal beds above these?
"JM: There are other (older) marine-terrestrial transitions in the strata out west. Apparently, this is one region where one could escape the flood. Maybe all the flowering plants, dinosauars etc were headed to Utah? Maybe the Mormons are on to something living there."
--I'm not too knowledgable on this area and its geologic compositions and all, though it seems to me that there simply were periods where marine deposits were made and when terrestrial area appeared, eolian dunes were created?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Joe Meert, posted 05-18-2002 2:07 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 05-18-2002 8:30 PM TrueCreation has replied

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


Message 14 of 103 (9941)
05-18-2002 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by TrueCreation
05-18-2002 7:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"JM: Then you have an even bigger problem! If the Cretaceous marine deposits are not flood evidence, then where are they? That's the end of marine deposition in the region."
--At the end of marine deposits didn't you state that there are coal beds above these?[/QUOTE]
JM: Yes, coal beds are not marine (or we have swimming dinosaurs leaving footprints!)
[QUOTE]"JM: There are other (older) marine-terrestrial transitions in the strata out west. Apparently, this is one region where one could escape the flood. Maybe all the flowering plants, dinosauars etc were headed to Utah? Maybe the Mormons are on to something living there."
--I'm not too knowledgable on this area and its geologic compositions and all, though it seems to me that there simply were periods where marine deposits were made and when terrestrial area appeared, eolian dunes were created?
[/b]
JM: So, you have multiple flood events in your single Noachian flood? As I said, you are faced with the peculiar feature that dinosaurs either quickly repopulated a still flooded earth or they were not killed in the flood. Lucy, you've got some splainin to do!
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 05-18-2002 7:32 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by TrueCreation, posted 05-18-2002 9:31 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 103 (9942)
05-18-2002 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Joe Meert
05-18-2002 8:30 PM


"JM: Yes, coal beds are not marine (or we have swimming dinosaurs leaving footprints!)"
--That's what I thought, but I had some speculation on whether there was another event later on in geologic history in which Marine deposition occurred. So lets see, why is this not simply explained by the fact that marine sediments were deposited as this area was submerged, and then after waters abated form this area, suspended vegetation settled and was later consolidated into coal? Seemingly according to the data given, this is what it indicates.
"JM: So, you have multiple flood events in your single Noachian flood? As I said, you are faced with the peculiar feature that dinosaurs either quickly repopulated a still flooded earth or they were not killed in the flood. Lucy, you've got some splainin to do!"
--Well no, there weren't necessarily multiple floods, and neither were the flood waters themselves direct causes of the extinction of the dinosaurs and similar animals. Though because this flood was effective on a global scale, topography as well as rapidly evolving topography, currents, and other causes of water distribution and elevation play factors in where and and at what time isolated areas would become submerged or appear terrestrial.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-18-2002]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 05-18-2002 8:30 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Joe Meert, posted 05-18-2002 9:37 PM TrueCreation 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