Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV?
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 117 (10592)
05-29-2002 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Joe Meert
05-29-2002 2:25 AM


Joe - go write those proposals.
I've read about 5 different accounts of the uniform/catastoph debates (eg in Hallam's 'Great Geological Conroversies' etc). I stand by my two points above at this satge. It seemed that all that Lyell et al needed to do was show that there were compelling potential modern counterparts to fromaitons in the geolgoical column and the creationists of that day gave in. 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
2. Large non-marine layered beds
3. Local miscellaneous non-marine formations
IMO, mainstream geology only explains #3 well.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Joe Meert, posted 05-29-2002 2:25 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by edge, posted 05-29-2002 8:26 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 117 (10595)
05-29-2002 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by edge
05-29-2002 10:55 AM


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.
I think you have to ask yourself what the Grand Canyon would look like in your opinion if it were carved out of soft sediments. Surely at some point you reach non-collapsed walls! You could argue that we should see partially collapsed walls or walls with curved layers but it's also possible, that due to criticality, that the walls would shear off over time ultimately leaving sharp walls with non-curved strata. And flow can move the debris. This would be difficult to deterministically simulate but not impossible. I don't think it's somehting you can 'pronounce' from intuition. We have no perfectly analogous model for this as you yourself pointed out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by edge, posted 05-29-2002 10:55 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by edge, posted 05-29-2002 8:38 PM Tranquility Base has replied

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


Message 18 of 117 (10596)
05-29-2002 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tranquility Base
05-29-2002 8:04 PM


[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:
3. Local miscellaneous non-marine formations
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:
IMO, mainstream geology only explains #3 well.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 8:04 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

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


Message 19 of 117 (10598)
05-29-2002 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
05-29-2002 8:19 PM


[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 think you have to ask yourself what the Grand Canyon would look like in your opinion if it were carved out of soft sediments.
I have. It's not a pretty sight.
quote:
Surely at some point you reach non-collapsed walls!
TB, you could not even hope for angle of repose.
quote:
You could argue that we should see partially collapsed walls or walls with curved layers but it's also possible, that due to criticality, that the walls would shear off over time ultimately leaving sharp walls with non-curved strata.
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:
And flow can move the debris. This would be difficult to deterministically simulate but not impossible.
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:
I don't think it's something you can 'pronounce' from intuition. We have no perfectly analogous model for this as you yourself pointed out.
Quite a problem. How do you get people to believe in something that cannot, and never has been seen?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 8:19 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 9:02 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 117 (10599)
05-29-2002 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by edge
05-29-2002 11:09 AM


Edge, my point about the epeiric seas is that mainstream geolgoists, and sedimentology texts in particular, tend to emphasize that the geological column got here by modern day observed means. But in fact, the majority of the column got here by epeiric seas which I have quoted mainstream researchers saying do not have anything like modern counterparts (in size). That is not necesarily a problem (the earth's modes change due to tectnoic action - fine) and that is why it is non-controversial for you.
A little bit of convtroversy comes from the following. I have recently read from cover to cover three 'Origin of Sedimentary Rock' books and the sedimentary/geological column sections of probably a half dozen university geology books and they almost invariably do not point out clearly that most of the geolgoical column was formed by epeiric seas.
It is absolutely undeniable that 95% of the text in any of these books covers the miscellaneous local environments (eolian, glacial, fluvial, deltaic, lacustrine etc). A tiny proportion of the text will be spent telling us that most of the geological column was formed in marine neritic (?) or shelf environments on land due to multiple transgressions of the sea and showinf us wher ethese sediments are. To me that is a little disturbing and maybe you can tell me why this disproportionately small amount of time is spent on such a large proportion of the geological column? My (non-cynical) guess: because there are so many different non-shelf enviornments? Fair enough but then why the (typical but not always) silence in the geolgoical column sections on epeiric seas? I personally think you guys don't like admitting that much of the geolgoical column was generated by marine transgressions onto land but to each his own.
I'll tell you one consequence of this. The naive layman (as I was and am becoming less and less) walks away with the impression that the layers around the world were all generated in swamps, river deltas and lakes. And I'm still convinced that the paelocurrents tell a story of rapid transgressions not your placid epeiric seas.
If you think your 'each storm sheared of the seas floor habitat parallel with a current layer' is better than a rapid single continuous layering for marine beds - go ahead. I personally think that our scenariuo wins hands down on that. Your scenario is the one that needs the evidence of the 1000s of storms not ours! We don't see evidence of the 1000s of storms (via a lack of uneven unconfromities) and so we say the data talks of continuous deposition. The paleocurrent data even speask of long term rapid flow! It's your scenario which reads something into the data which is not necessarily there. You believe in your scenario simply becasue the long-age paradigm requires it. In this instance it is our scenario which is more natural.
If you accept rapid deposition of layers - great. I have mainstream refs I have already posted here showing that, not that long ago, this was not beleived by the majority. And rapid layering clearly occurrs via hydrodynamic sorting - why do you say it doesn't?
Why do I point out the eperic seas? I personally believe that if epeiric seas had been understood back in Lyell's time that the creationists would have stood a better chance than they did then.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 05-29-2002 11:09 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by edge, posted 05-30-2002 12:34 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 117 (10600)
05-29-2002 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by edge
05-29-2002 8:38 PM


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:
quote:
"Saturated sediments do not stand."
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.
PS - tell me more about the fracture systems.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by edge, posted 05-29-2002 8:38 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by edge, posted 05-30-2002 12:40 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 117 (10604)
05-29-2002 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Philip
05-29-2002 2:40 AM


Philip, my point about the origin of the geological column is simply that, contrary to popular misconception, the mainstream view actually is that most of the geological column on land was deposited as encroaching shallow seas (these are called 'epeiric' seas) that came and went on multiple occasions. This is not really any shock to anyone becasue most of the sedimentary rocks on land are marine formations. In between these incursions of the sea are typically large freshwater deposits. Then on top of these we see evidence of more local deposition typically by rivers. At the top of the geoogical column we see a lot of evidence of glacial melting.
So we see the vast marine layers on land as rapid incursions of the sea during the flood. Scientifically we thnk these incursions were rapid (not gradual as the mainstream view would have) because of the water flow speed data that is revealed by studying the grain, ripple and fossil orientations. The large freshwater deposits we think are due to the catastrophic rain and are not readily explained by mainstream environments. The local depositons we would say are the drainage of freshwater cutting into newly created soft sediments (although we acknowledgethat these also could have been creaed over eons of time carving out feautres from hard sediments).
After several cycles of (i) marine surges, (ii) catastrophic freshwater torrents and (iii) local deposition due to final drainage the flood subsides, carving Grand Canyon etc out of soft sediments in the last cycle. The flood was presumably tectonically generated (ie due to sea-floor spreading etc) and the vast quantity of volcanic ash in the atmosphere generates a nuclear winter scenario and thus the ice age(s). The melting of these huge glaciers as the ash falls out creates the final large freshwater deposits on earth (much of the 'tertiary' gelogical period).
Our scenario and viewpoint of the mainstream scenario goes something like that although I am not myself a flood geologist or any other sort of geolgoist.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Philip, posted 05-29-2002 2:40 AM Philip has not replied

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


Message 23 of 117 (10608)
05-30-2002 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tranquility Base
05-29-2002 8:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, my point about the epeiric seas is that mainstream geolgoists, and sedimentology texts in particular, tend to emphasize that the geological column got here by modern day observed means. But in fact, the majority of the column got here by epeiric seas which I have quoted mainstream researchers saying do not have anything like modern counterparts (in size). That is not necesarily a problem (the earth's modes change due to tectnoic action - fine) and that is why it is non-controversial for you.
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:
A little bit of convtroversy comes from the following. I have recently read from cover to cover three 'Origin of Sedimentary Rock' books and the sedimentary/geological column sections of probably a half dozen university geology books and they almost invariably do not point out clearly that most of the geolgoical column was formed by epeiric seas.
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:
It is absolutely undeniable that 95% of the text in any of these books covers the miscellaneous local environments (eolian, glacial, fluvial, deltaic, lacustrine etc). A tiny proportion of the text will be spent telling us that most of the geological column was formed in marine neritic (?) or shelf environments on land due to multiple transgressions of the sea and showinf us wher ethese sediments are.
Not at all. Much of my texts is devoted to marine deposition.
quote:
To me that is a little disturbing and maybe you can tell me why this disproportionately small amount of time is spent on such a large proportion of the geological column?
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:
My (non-cynical) guess: because there are so many different non-shelf enviornments? Fair enough but then why the (typical but not always) silence in the geolgoical column sections on epeiric seas?
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 personally think you guys don't like admitting that much of the geolgoical column was generated by marine transgressions onto land but to each his own.
I learned all of this in Geology 101. I'm not sure why you can't understand this.
quote:
I'll tell you one consequence of this. The naive layman (as I was and am becoming less and less) walks away with the impression that the layers around the world were all generated in swamps, river deltas and lakes. And I'm still convinced that the paelocurrents tell a story of rapid transgressions not your placid epeiric seas.
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:
If you think your 'each storm sheared of the seas floor habitat parallel with a current layer' is better than a rapid single continuous layering for marine beds - go ahead.
I think you are misunderstanding once again. I can't even envision what you are trying to describe.
quote:
I personally think that our scenariuo wins hands down on that. Your scenario is the one that needs the evidence of the 1000s of storms not ours!
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:
We don't see evidence of the 1000s of storms (via a lack of uneven unconfromities) and so we say the data talks of continuous deposition.
Well, I'll have to defer to your expertise on that.
quote:
The paleocurrent data even speask of long term rapid flow!
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:
It's your scenario which reads something into the data which is not necessarily there.
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:
You believe in your scenario simply becasue the long-age paradigm requires it. In this instance it is our scenario which is more natural.
Not at all. That is just a happy coincidence. The geological record is complex but decipherable.
quote:
If you accept rapid deposition of layers - great.
I have never said that I didn't. I just don't believe that ALL sedimentation was rapid.
quote:
I have mainstream refs I have already posted here showing that, not that long ago, this was not beleived by the majority. And rapid layering clearly occurrs via hydrodynamic sorting - why do you say it doesn't?
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:
Why do I point out the eperic seas? I personally believe that if epeiric seas had been understood back in Lyell's time that the creationists would have stood a better chance than they did then.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 8:58 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 1:20 AM edge has replied

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


Message 24 of 117 (10609)
05-30-2002 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tranquility Base
05-29-2002 9:02 PM


[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:
PS - tell me more about the fracture systems.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 9:02 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 1:28 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 117 (10613)
05-30-2002 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by edge
05-30-2002 12:34 AM


I would be interested to see a careful comparison of the layering in ancient epeiric sea formations vs modern shelves. I have read that:
(i) The modern shleves are not at all comaprable in size
(ii) The ancient beds are too undisturbed (and maybe? too flat
(iii) The measured paleocurrents are differnet in character
quote:
"It is difficult to use modern shelf seas as analogues for their ancient counter parts for two reasons. First, at the present time, the earth lacks the vast sub-horizontal shelves that existed in previous times. For example, it is possible to trace a remarkable (sic) uniform Paleozoic stratigraphy in marine formations across much of modern North america. Similarly it is possible to trace antoher uniform stratigraphy in shallow marine Mesozoic formaitons across much of Arabia. These are examples of sediments deposited on broad shelves, commonly referred to as 'epeiric seas', the like of which are absent today. This reflects the fact that the earth is now in an unstable and exciting phase of its history, in which the vast continental plates of the past have been rifted and drifted apart."
R.C. Shelly Ancient Sedimentary Environments 4th Ed Chapman & Hall (London) 1996, p197
"the ocean bottom is subject to too many disturbances to permit any kind of gradual undisturbed accumulation."
Edwin L. Hamilton: "The Last Geographic Frontier: The Sea Floor," Scientific Monthly, Vol. 85, Dec. 1957, p. 296.
On the whole 'epeiric sea' issue I'll agree that I should have simply equated the marine layers on continents with epeiric seas. Maybe it is my problem but it is not clearly explained in the texts whereas, IMO, it should be the bread and butter of such a chapter. All I know is that if I were writing a chapter on 'origin of the geological column' I would state very clearly that most of it is epeiric sea deposits. I would show the sea-level curves. You know I'm still yet to see a geolgoical column diagram which shows, say, 5 local geolgocial columns from around the world and points to which local beds came from which global sea-level rise. Maybe I'll put out a geology text with this sort of clarity in it
. I wont claim conspiricy then but I will claim lack of systematic clarity or true interest in where the geological column deterministically came from. The best I've seen is in Hamblin, Christensen and Hamblin. It's the only general geology textbook out of 6 that I've seen that even shows sea-level curves.
On storm deposits I've mixed you up with another poster here who claimed that the reason the layers don't look like sea-floor habitats is that the (shallow) sea floor was repeatedly sheared off by storms followed by storm depositions. So ignore what I said in that paragraph please - I'll redirect it to the other guy. BTW - one of the mainstream geolgoy courses on the web raises the issue of whether most marine sedimentaiton in the record is actaully storm deposits for the exact reason I mention. I disagree with them because there are no unconfromities.
You might be right about Lyell - it's quite likely that he did talk about the shallow seas. I like the guy. I'll stop using the term 'Lyellian' and start saying 'low-energy non-marine'. Thanks Edge, I am clearing up misconeptions through your comments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by edge, posted 05-30-2002 12:34 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by edge, posted 05-30-2002 11:11 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 117 (10615)
05-30-2002 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by edge
05-30-2002 12:40 AM


Edge, I thought a lot of the MSH layering was formed by mudslides and ash?
In any case what's wrong with my detailed scenario I proposed - that the canyon continued to collapse until it was hard enough, eventually leaving a sharp edged canyon?
Fractures. I think the facture issue is easy to understand. A fracture in deep bedrock might easily be expected to generate subsidence above it in soft sediments thus seeding that region for runaway gully formation.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by edge, posted 05-30-2002 12:40 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 05-30-2002 3:02 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 33 by edge, posted 05-30-2002 8:42 PM Tranquility Base has replied

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


Message 27 of 117 (10616)
05-30-2002 1:41 AM


I'M NOT A GREAT EXPERT ON SEDIMENTOLOGY - I MAY BE WRONG - BUT THIS IS AS I SEE IT ---
This could be posted in any of several topics, but this one seems as good as any.
First a definition: Marine sediments - Sediments deposited in a marine environment.
Now, let me break down marine sediments into two types:
1) Chemical precipitates, and sediments having a large chemical precipitate component - Example: Limestones
2) Clastic sediments - Example: Sandstones
Now, I wish to focus in on the marine clastic sediments, deposited upon the continents, during a sea transgression, stand, or regression.
First of all, the vast bulk of marine clastic sediment deposits are reworkings of pre-existing sediments, be they marine or non-marine. Sometimes there may well have been multiple reworkings. But, ultimately, the origins of these sediments is rock material weathered, eroded, transported, and largely deposited in a non-marine environment. The sediments are marine in that the final deposition was in a marine environment. But even then, they probably have a substantial history prior to that final deposition.
Summary - Marine clastic sediments, deposited on the continents, are largely the reworkings of what were originally non-marine sediments. These sediments were not coughed up from the deep ocean basins (and even those sediments originally came off of the continents), nor were they precipitated out of the sea water.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 1:55 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 62 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-31-2002 1:24 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 117 (10620)
05-30-2002 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Minnemooseus
05-30-2002 1:41 AM


^ I agree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-30-2002 1:41 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 29 of 117 (10637)
05-30-2002 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tranquility Base
05-30-2002 1:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I would be interested to see a careful comparison of the layering in ancient epeiric sea formations vs modern shelves. I have read that:
(i) The modern shleves are not at all comaprable in size
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:
(ii) The ancient beds are too undisturbed (and maybe? too flat
I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about here. Some ancient beds are planar and others are contorted.
quote:
(iii) The measured paleocurrents are differnet in character
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:
On the whole 'epeiric sea' issue I'll agree that I should have simply equated the marine layers on continents with epeiric seas. Maybe it is my problem but it is not clearly explained in the texts whereas, IMO, it should be the bread and butter of such a chapter.
It is understood by people who have actually studied geology and not just read about it.
quote:
All I know is that if I were writing a chapter on 'origin of the geological column' I would state very clearly that most of it is epeiric sea deposits.
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 would show the sea-level curves. You know I'm still yet to see a geolgoical column diagram which shows, say, 5 local geolgocial columns from around the world and points to which local beds came from which global sea-level rise.
I have a text full of such data.
quote:
... BTW - one of the mainstream geolgoy courses on the web raises the issue of whether most marine sedimentaiton in the record is actaully storm deposits for the exact reason I mention. I disagree with them because there are no unconfromities.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 1:20 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 8:40 PM edge has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 117 (10656)
05-30-2002 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
05-30-2002 1:28 AM


"In any case what's wrong with my detailed scenario I proposed - that the canyon continued to collapse until it was hard enough, eventually leaving a sharp edged canyon?"
--I would hypothesize that the formation of the Grand Canyon would have technically been a post flood event in the majority the the cataclysm. Sediment would have all been deposited and as water abated it may have left a slight indentation in the soft sediments. Some lithification would have then taken place and some time after the flood waters would have broken through a flood deposited lake (great lake?) and carved out the grand canyon. Went something like that in my last argument on the Grand canyon which led down to an argument from mark24 on lithification, yet to be addressed again.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 1:28 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by edge, posted 05-30-2002 8:36 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 34 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 8:48 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