|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Formations really do match detailed lab expts of sorting under rapid currents | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: Please explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I think you are confused about laminations, beds, formations and time. Perhaps if you took some geology courses, you wouldn't sound so silly.
quote: Here you don't seem to understand that a formation is not a time-stratigraphic unit. A formation is really just a convenient package of rocks that is useful in geological mapping. We have understood that formations can transgress time since Geology 101.
quote: Why wouldn't it be?
quote: Then show us evidence that you undstand 'this stuff'.
quote: This is just another case of 'a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Wow, I don't know where to begin!
quote: This makes no sense at all. The experiments that I am aware of simply show that sands can be laminated during high flow regimes. It says nothing about the deposition of an entire environment on the scale of a sedimentary basin. By the way, you still have to prove to me that a sand grain could be deposited before the one underneath it, or that one lamination is younger than the lamination beneath it. You are confusing relative elevation with timing here. You need to get outside the box.
quote: Once again, your statements belie you lack of training and basic understanding. You are confusing vertical position with time equivalence. This is not what superposition is all about. But then, you would know this if you had some background in the science. By the way, TB, do you really think that geologists have not recognized this feature of progradation until creationists came along to tell us about it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: In our continuing effort to educate Tranquility Base, I submit the website below as a primer on some aspects of sedimentology. As you will see, this is not a trivial subject to be mastered by reading a few advanced papers, and some background is helpful. I would like TB to pay particular attention to Walther's Law. http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/facies.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Ummmmmmm, one that gets the impression that the student is willfully ignorant?
quote: I'm not sure what current directions have to do with it, but since you bring it up why is the transgression occurring in the opposite direction of the current flow?
quote: We have been over this. Your lab experiments do not model the entire system. You do not have silts, muds and lime deposits in the flume experiments. Why is TC not backing you up on this, by the way? Oh, maybe because his references point out this fact.
quote: "Under current..." Wow! this is pretty deep 'stuff.' This does not express any kind of understanding. Check out your current directions.
quote: Yes, the time-stratigraphic unit is the lamination, not the bed. You would understand this if you got some basic training in geology.
quote: So, have you made any progress?
quote: Most of us have a terminal case of exasperation that you completely ignore any data that contradicts your mythical scenario.
quote: Then why do you not understand that a lamination is not a bed is not a time marker.
quote: THat is because your investigation is limited. If you truly understood transgressive and regressive sequences, then you would understand this. There are plenty of examples.
quote: Three beds? Three facies? Really, where do you get this stuff?
[quote]Austin estimates 0.5 to 2 metres/sec for about 3 days would generate the entire Tonto deposit. The vertical and horizontal scope is very different to your beaches.[/B][/QUOTE] No it is not ... it is happening today. Do you not read our posts? Talk about rude! So where does Nevins get his velocities? Does he realize that this is not a flood, but a mudflow? In fact it is not possible to generate limestones under such conditions. A surge that could depoosit the Tonto group in a few days could not permit the deposition of limestone with all of that suspended clastic material. It is also impossible to get evaporites. Sorry, TB, but your lack of background in this area is exposed with every sentence you post. You are getting in deeper and deeper, so to speak. And by the way, we need to talk about your grades...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: The length of Nevins' section is not material. However, his velocities are interesting. How are these calculated and in what direction are they? Remember that hydrodynamic sorting causes finer grained sediments to be deposited in a downstream direction.
quote: Actually, I don't. At least not in as simplistic a manner as you seem to be suggesting. Now you really need to question Nevins more carefully. Why does the sorting indicated an opposite direction of flow to Nevins' current?
quote: If you knew anything about geology you would understand that a bed is not a facies. You would also understand that three facies for the Tonto Group is a gross simplification of the real system that, unfortunately, makes it possible for Nevins to make wild extrapolations of the data.
quote: Then you understand that you have much to learn.
quote: Back to the classroom for you!
quote: Your posts have not shown this.
quote: Neither. The Tonto is a group of formations. The Mauv is a formation. The Mauv is made up of hundreds(?) of beds. A bed is a distinct layer with discontinuities of some kind at both upper and lower bounds. A lamination would appear within a bed and probably is the closest thing here to an actual time-bound unit. This is off the top of my head, of course and someone may have a more rigorous definition for you. You have to remember that formations are simply convenient names and may include many rock types and/or depositional facies. When we say the Mauv is a limestone, this is a generalization and it probably includes several other rock types. This has to be done or else details would swamp anyones effortst to understand them and the rocks would become impossible to map. Another simplification that Nevins employs (and must employ) is that the transgression is a nice orderly march across the continent. This is not the case. In fact, there are many sub-regressions and sub-trangressions (for lack of a better word). This is why we have feathered contacts on vertical sections and terms such as 'tongue' (primitive but very descriptive) in describing some formations. This is a detail, but it makes all of his calculations virtually meaningless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Perhaps a bit off topic, but why do we find NO such imperfections in the fossil sequence, then? Surely, if we can find gravels mixed shales, then we should be able to find at least one trout with the trilobites...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I was just pointing out the uncertainty of knowing what Austin publishes.... It's so confusing. By the way, he DID lie about his use of Nevins, so you have to wonder.
quote: To someone not trained in the field, perhaps. To someone who has actually worked in the field there is nothing counter-intuitive here.
quote: Actually, as I remember, all of Berhtaults sediments were sand. Now, I challenge you to look at any sequence in the field and tell me that the coarser sediments are farther away from the source. You are going to have to explain, in that case why shales are offshore. I am begining to see your problem here. You are taking a bench scale experiment and extending the results to regional geology. Big mistake, TB.
quote: Once again, I suggest you learn some geology before you begin to reinterpret the literature.
quote: Well, if there was a flood you could do that. The problem is that there is no correlatable unit that one can call a biblical flood deposit.
quote: Superposition has been abused and misapplied by many, but it still stands.
quote: They have a lot to answer for, but they would rather that you just read their tracts and send money. You will almost never find them here helping you out, because they know that they will be made to look like fools. So, they send you out here into the fray.
quote: Sure it does. If the shoreline got to Grants, for instance, and then went back to Las Vegas, Austin has to cover the distance 4 times and his calculations are meaningless.
quote: Yes, these are all measurable quantities. Now, how many times did the shoreline backtrack? Any ideas?
quote: But he has. He has also not accounted for the current directions as you have previously mentioned ad nauseum. As I recall he needs to move a lot of water in the opposite direction of your transgression.
quote: Of course. Let's ignore the details that Austin/Nevins finds to be distasteful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I don't find it anti-intuitive at all. I can think of a number of reasons for this. However, these experiments do not apply directly to a depositional basin. They represent only what might happen on a sandy beach.
quote: As I have been suggesting all along.
quote: And this has what to do with superposition. Even in Berthault's experiments superposition was not violated.
quote: Then you point regarding Austin/Nevins calculations was not necessary.
quote: I'm not sure if you are avoiding my point or just didn't get it. Austin has to do this DURING your transgression, not after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I regret this. I was simply trying to (tactfully at first) suggest that one learn a bit about the subject before rejecting old work and expounding new theories based on incomplete knowledge. Apparently, my strategy has failed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: No, it shows what you have when you have currents that move sand. it also does not address low velocity currents. So then, are you saying htat Berthault had limestone at the top of his flume and then muds then silts. Whatever you say TB.
quote: More nonsense. As I have indicated to you before, the lamination is a time-bound discontinuity, not the bed. Actual professional geologists know this and would not deceive you as to the importance of it. Anywhere you draw a vertical line across the laminations, the more recently deposited grains will be above a previously deposited grain. You have been deceived by a clever professional creationist.
quote: TB, I have seen the results of such flow in the field. There is really nothing new here.
quote: Good, then you can give us a quote from Julien saying that superposition is overturned. Please provide this.
quote: I understand all this but it is nothing new. We have understood how laminae form for decades and we have understood that the bedding set in which cross-beds occur overlie older beds and underly more recent beds. At any given instant in time the deposited grains define the time-stratigraphic horizon. Anything placed on that horizon is a younger deposit. It has only recently taken a convoluted creationist interpretation to distort the meaning of laminations. I suggest you look at Blatt and others and see what they say about this.
quote: In that case my caveat that his calculations are off is not irrelevant. The Mauv is contemporaneous with the Tapeats and it also overlies the Tapeats in some locations. If you were aware of Walther's Law, you would know that this is not a mystery.
quote: Actually, your earlier rant regarding paleocurrents goes against it. Remember your NW trending currents in that area?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Actually, significant discoveries usually come about by a lot of blood, sweat, tears and hard work.
quote: I agree emphatically, but usually those people know SOMETHING about the subject that they make a discovery in.
quote: Somehow, I can't equate John Nash with a creation scientist....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Please find us a quote from Julien saying something to the effect that, "... Aha, I have refuted the principle of superposition!"
quote: But that is the point isn't it? You could also draw a line in the direction of deposition, which would be more accurate, and say the same thing.
quote: You are saying that Julien had a flume 300 feet high and 10 kilometers long? TB, you need to look at the actual vertical height of the forset beds in the experiment and then determine if this scale can be expanded to 300 vertical feet in nature. Now, there may be an exception somewhere in the world, but I would say that 300 ft high cross laminations and reverse graded beds are extremely rare. You have a scaling problem here. Are you really trying to tell us that the Tapeats actually represents the base of foreset bedding in the Muav? I am sorry, but your understanding of sedimentation is so convoluted that I cannot make sense of what you are saying.
quote: But then you are not talking about time-equivalent units. You are conflating vertical position with relative time position. This is invalid. At any given instant in time, the bottom of a stream bed is a time-stratagraphic horizon. That horizon may be flat or it may be irregular. It doesn't matter. Anything deposited on top of that horizon, in the next instant in time, is demonstrably a younger deposit. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. You have swallowed a clever and deceitful lie by creationists that this somehow defies superposition. It does not! You are the first person I have tried to explain this to but just cannot comprehend this concept.
quote: Want to put money on that?
quote: I had this phenomenon explained to me by a professor a long (we'll just leave at that) time ago. If you had a similar explanation in an actual classroom setting rather than a creationist propaganda show, you would no be so mystified by this process.
quote: Not really. The difference is that we have this happening millions of times with non-zero time in between events. As I have tried to get this across to you, this is not a mystery. Now, if 'non-zero' flow is so dominant, as it would be in a flood of the type you propose, when are the silts and clays and limestones ever deposited? Tell us just what grain size Julien is dealing with. Where do the finer grained particles end up?
quote: And what about the 'non-flow' mode strata? When are they deposited, and how long does it take for them to settle out of suspension? You have neatly avoided this substantial part of the geological record and looked only at sandstones. You also keep skirting the question on where the silts, muds and lime particles were deposited in Julien's experiments.
quote: Sorry to rain on your parade, TB, but as I have mentioned repeatedly, this is not a mystery except to the layman.
quote: So, if I took a picture of the process in action, there would be no difference between the deposited grains and the grains in traction? Nonsense. Besides, you are talking about processes that occur instantaneously in specific environments to specific grain sizes and then applying them to the entire geological record. This is invalid.
quote: Yes, as I have mentioned above and in prior posts, I learned about this process a long time ago in learning about cross beds during my first geology course. This was obviously an opportunity that you have deprived yourself of. What you do not understand is that the stratum (in this case a lamination) is no longer horizontal during formation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I don't really want to get too far off topic, but maybe one more post on this issue.
quote: Actually, I do understand and am a big proponent of divergent thinking. I just don't want you to get too carried away with the analogy.
quote: The 'what crew?' I agree, if we never used our imaginations, we would still be prescientific. In fact, the adoption of evolutionary theory is an example. We have now moved ahead and use this theory as a premise for continuing research. If we listened to creationists, we would be wasting time trying to prove evolution to an absolute certainty, never making any more progress. We would still be trying to identify 'kinds' rather than unlocking the genome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, let's see what Berthault says:
quote: Okay, this was written in the 1600’s? Does Berthault have anything just a little more recent on superposition? Why does he not reference a modern text? I seriously doubt that Stenon had much deep sea drilling information.
quote: Nonsense. As we have seen, and as you have agreed, in transgressional sequences this is the expected geometry of facies development. Again, Berthault picks on the 17th century guy who did not have facies models to interpret stratigraphic sections.
quote: LOL! Of course it hasn’t this is not even a prediction of Stenon. Stenon indicates that where there are boundaries to sedimentation, there will be interruptions in continuity. This is exactly what happens in the real world. Now, if there had been a flood, we WOULD expect a continuous layer of sediment because that would be the only time that there was a continuous layer of water around the entire earth.
quote: LOL again! Why does Berthault tell you nothing more about these laminae? There is a bit more to this than meets the eye, TB. I get the distinct impression that Berthault is hiding something from you.
quote: Wow, TB, this is almost getting to be comedic. To Berthault, all laminae are the same! Whether made up of sand or silt or clay, with or without any compositional differences, or contamination! This is especially funny considering that he didn't even deal with the kind of sediments that he refers to in this passage. I am not sure where to begin here. Basically, I have read Berthault’s website and watched the videos. I still see nothing to overturn superposition despite his assertions. I suspect that he is banking on your lack of training in this area to convince you that there actually was a global flood. I also continue to notice that Berthault uses only sand sized grains, even though he touts the heterogranularity of the materials. This is a joke. At the velocities he is talking about silt, clay and limestone particles will never be deposited. And yet... he wants to extend this model to the entire Tonto Group? I am sorry, TB, but this is absolute nonsense designed to hoodwink the faithful. I am not sure where Berthault learned his basic geology, but this stuff was pesented to me before I could spell 'stratigraphy.' There is nothing new or unexpainable by modern sedimentology in this material.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024