So how did the GC get laid down from a mainstream POV? Deterministic models?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Q1. So what is the mainstream explanation for all of the strata? Do epeiric seas explain it?
Q2. And what of all of the sea level fallings and risings that repeatedly covered entire continents?
Q3. Do you really think the marine deposits are ocean floor habitats? Why so flat?
Q4. How do you address the vast beds littered with land plant and animal fossils? Coal beds the size of US states?
Q5. And what is the status of deterministic models along these lines?]

---

I agree with Joe. You've got at lot of threads in which you are entirely outgunned. You have a lot of questions to answer out there. Let's just say that there are a lot of basic texts and topical literature regarding the Grand Canyon designed for the layman out there. Pick a cheap one up from Amazon. You can read it in an hour or two. The problem we are having here is that you need so much background that we cannot really provide it in a forum such as this. TB, we spent years getting all of this stuff.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Sorry Edge, but I've read thousands of pages of that stuff you're talking about. The mainstream material does not answer my questions compellingly and that is why neither of you will even post a layman's summary IMO.

---

There are two problems here. First, you may have read thousands of pages of mainstream geology, but you have not picked up the foundations of good geological reasoning that one would get in a basic Geology curriculum. On the other hand you seem to find professional creationists more compelling. This is not logical.Second, I seriously doubt that you will ever find anything compelling outside of rigid, absolutist religious philosophy. This is what your professional creationists give you, so you believe it.

quote:

---

I can give you a layman's introdution to any aspect of molecular biology or particle physics you would care to hear about. Why can't you do that for me on what should be a bread and butter geological foundation? I am truly interested in answers from geolgoists on this board.

---

I'm sure that you can do this. One reason you could do so is that we have some background in science and you know that we will not dogmatically reject even the most basic of your premises and evidence. On the other hand, we have to show you that your assumption of simultaneity of all sedimentation based on the direction of paleocurrents completely suspends the laws of logic. We will never be able to do this because you are dogmatically convinced of it. You would be wasting our time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe and Edge, let's forget about creation/flood for a minute - ...

---

That's kind of hard to do, since it is so ridiculous, but I guess I have a minute.

quote:

---

...just what are the mainstream explanations, both qualitatively and deterministically, for the origin of the vast beds of the GC including the multiple inundations of continents by the sea and terrestial plant and animal fossil beds?

---

This reminds me of an oral examination where I was supposed to give the entire history of the Colorado Mineral Belt, name deposits, products, intrusions, ages, hosts and mining methods in seven minutes. TB, it ain't that simple. And any sketchy summary will probably be abused by yourself because it will omit details. For instance, I could tell you that one likely reason for marine transgressions is increased rate of spreading at the divergent boundaries accompanied by tumescence of the mid-ocean ridges, which would displace seawater across lower parts of the continents. Well, to you, that means that the break up of the continents and accelerated drift was related to the flood, and Baumgardnter et al. are correct, right? So I am forced to make further and further enhancements of the model until you may as well take a basic Geo course. Union rule forbid this. We could end up putting a bunch of professors out of work. We can try to give you some clues here and there, but realistically, if you think transported soils would look like normal soils, you have a ways to go.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, from your example model I can therefore assume that there is no true consensus on how the transgressions occurred or on a deterministic model that reproduces the data?

---

What do you mean by 'true consensus?' That everyone agrees? Is that your criteria for a qualitative model? Actually, this is pretty widely accepted as far as I know. It is supported by several lines of evidence, especially in younger transgressions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Schraf: I've hardly read any creaitonist sources. The RATE group book, some ICR IMPACT web artciles on rapid tectonics. A few creaionist stratigrphy pages. No, most of my reading has been mainstream geology (intro books & origin of sedimentology) and paleontology. I've read quite a lot - you can ask my wife .

---

With all due respect to your wife, I remain skeptical. You seem to understand Baumgardner and Austin quite clearly, but you cannot quite fathom a post from anyone here.

quote:

---

I wanted to see and understand the raw data of geology and paleontology for myself and it seems here that I am scolded for it simply becasue I was already a creationist and am not a professional geologist.

---

I seriously doubt this. Besides, you are scolded because you have no intention of listening to the arguments that devastate your position.

quote:

---

How much longer are people here going to deny that there is no good deterministic mainstream model for the origin of the geolgoical column and that even the qualitative mechanisms are only proposals.

---

How much longer are you going to claim that you have the background to be able to tell? Do you really think that after 200 years, there is really no substantial supporting framework for the geological column? This is what I mean when I say you have no intention of listening. You can make such assertions with no conscience whatever.

quote:

---

If you disagree with me - tell us and show us! Isn't this what this BBS is all about?

---

We are not here to provide you with an education. If you can't keep up with the discussion it is not our problem.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 05-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
IMO Hutton and Lyell (and the rest of you) have primarily demonstrated that almost all features carved out of the vast beds of the column could have been done gradually over eons. I agree. We also think it could have happened rapidly out of soft sediments.

---

Let me get this straight: you say that the erosional features that we see on the surface of the earth were cut in soft sediments?Actually, you statement might be correct ... if the sediments were soft, they could indeed be carved very quickly. The problem is that there is ample evidence that they WERE NOT soft.

quote:

---

I will categorically state that 99% of the books I have read on 'Origin of Sedimentary Rocks' do not actaully cover the issue of 'Origin of the Geological Column'. There are a dozen erosional/depostional environments that in great detail are linked in terms of ancient/current.

---

First of all, a book dedicated to sedimentation may not cover erosion of sedimentary ROCKS. They generally talk about transport deposition and lithification of sediments. I checked my sedimentology books and the do not say much about erosion and geomorphology, either. Why do you think that is?Second, the formation of the geological column is not just sedimentation. It is also magmatism, erosion and tectonics. You seem very confused on this point. Perhaps if you had a little better background you would realize that sedimentation is not necessarily the same thing as erosion.

quote:

---

On the critical issue of where did the vast beds (ie not the erosional feauteres but the alyers themselves) that characterize the continental deposits there is near silence.

---

What? I have read over my texts here and find lots of information on source rocks, transport, depositional features and lithification. You are being silly here. Here are the headings for Ch. 6 of Origin of Sedimentary Rocks:Six: Facies Models
General Principles
Paleocurrents
Paleohydraulics
Environments
Classification of Facis Models
Alluvial Fan Model
Alluvial Model
Fluvial Model
Deltaic Model
Barrier Model
Offshore Shoal
Turbidite - Deep Basin
ConclusionAnd that is just Chapter 6. Ch. 12 is on the Origin of Limestones. Ch. 20 is on Major External Controls of Sedimentation. Ch. 2 is on The Geologic Cycle.Do you wish to reconsider you statement that these things are not addressed?

quote:

---

On a few pages of these texts (Shelley, 1996 for example - see my opening post) we find the admission that there is no modern analog for the formation of these vast beds.

---

What are 'vast beds'? Which vast beds are you talking about? Please give us a quote.

quote:

---

I have no problem with that (but boy did I have to do a lot of reading to find that out).

---

I daresay you misinterpreted whatever you read. Please document.

quote:

---

I can appreciate that due to plate tectonics we live in a different world. It is still interesting that the vast beds of the geological column are not forming anywhere on this planet as they have previously.

---

LOL! I reiterate my question: "What vast beds are you talking about?"

quote:

---

It is true that Lyell made all of his claims without knowing this is it not?

---

No. That is because there are modern analogs for the beds that he saw. Are you saying that there are no coral reefs today? No beach sands? No deltaic deposits? No fluvial sedimentary systems? No glacial moraines? No shale basins? No desert dunes? I think you remain confused.

quote:

---

How did he account for lack of analogs? Lyell never really did prove where the vast beds of the geolgocial column came from and I don't think that contemporary scientists have either.

---

Utter silliness. Provenance is an integral part of strtigraphy. Yes, after 300 years of stratigraphic studies, we haven't even thought about where the sediments came from. We've just been waiting for TB to come along and point out this deficiency. TB, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it hasn't been done.Can you please explain what you mean by 'vast deposits' and give us an example of a vast deposit? Perhaps that would help clear things up. Also explain what you mean by 'where the vast beds came from.'

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 05-23-2002]