The weathering, erosion, and depostion takes a LOT of time
The evidence pf the Flood in bazillions of fossils in a miles-deep stack of water-deposited sediments over thousands of square miles is in-your-face evidence. It takes a bizarre level of denial to pretend there isn't any.
To have a source for that vast volume of sediments (not all water deposited by the way) one must have a source at a higher elevation. In other words, mountains or at least a lot of substantial hills. Those mountains must be weathered and eroded to produce the detritus that is then transported to the deposition site. Short of a massive miracle (hyper-weathering and hyper-erosion by the will of God), such is going to require a LOT of time - Certainly way more that a one year event.
And that is just covering the detrital (rock fragment) sedimentation. The biochemical sedimentation (limestones) is another very time consuming process. To get the Calcium carbonate into solution to then be biochemically precipitated also requires a lot of weathering/dissolving of pre-existing material.
These are but two examples of geologic processes that require a LOT of time to happen.
I'm not sure if you're one of them, but a lot of young Earth creationists want to deny that those mountains even existed "pre-flood". No mountains, no detrital sediment source.
If I had the gung-ho, there are a lot of details in many messages of both sides of the debate I could quibble over. But I don't.
Re: Quartzite (from a Faith message a bit back) - Strictly speaking, a quarzite is any quartz sandstone that is so well silica cemented that it will sometimes break through the grains rather than between the grains. This is independent of it being metamorphosed or not. Also, even in the scientific literature, the term has been misused to include quartz sandstones that do not not actually qualify as real quartzites (or did meet the definition before, but no longer does). An example is the "orthoquartzite", which used to mean a nearly pure quartz sandstone of any degree of cementing. The preferred modern term for such a "non-real quartzite" is a quartz arenite.
quote:
"...and its equivalents" means it's all one continuous layer, so what's the problem?
It more likely means that it isn’t all one continuous layer. You have got to stop misrepresenting your sources.[
The same sedimentary unit may have different names at different location, regardless of whether it was once continuous or not. Maybe it was once continuous, but no longer is because of erosion. Also, it may be continuous but not visibly continuous because of being covered by later sedimentation.
Re:
I'm sure that the unit (or equivalent) can be found over the area as illustrated. But not continuously. Probably parts of that area have been eroded away, and I'm confident that quite a bit of that area is covered by later sedimentation.
And it does not cover four states, only parts of four states - according to Wikipedia: northern Arizona (Grand Canyon), central Arizona, southeast California, southern Nevada, and southeast Utah.
ABE and another important point. This is part of a transgressive sequence, so it will cover a larger area than the beach covered at any particular point in time. That’s what Walther’s law is really about.
Big kudos to bring up Walther's Law. Saved me having to do it.
That huge reef structure washed in from somewhere else
Clams that grew where they are found are very different from clams that were transported.
The more glaring and undeniably (although Faith will try) non-transportable item is a huge burried reef structure in the middle of the "Flood" deposits.
You're forgetting that, as in most geologic diagrams, that the vertical dimension is exaggerated. This is more accurate:...
It appears, per the vertical and horizontal scales, that even your less vertically exaggerated version still has roughly a x4 vertical exaggeration.
Regardless, I would be cautious about over-interpreting that diagram. I suspect to some degree it is a "cartoon" - Something to illustrate relationships while not actually being precisely accurate.
OSLT.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Accidentally submitted while doing scaling experiment.
Slope retreat in the Grand Canyon (the rate of erosion of the canyon walls) is 1.6 feet per thousand years. If the Grand Canyon is seventeen million years old then the total amount of slope retreat for both canyon walls is about 10 miles, which also happens to be the average width of the canyon.
There is no info presented about how this slope retreat rate is calculated.
Anyway, you are presenting the equation: 10 miles = 1.6 ft/Kyears x 17 Myears
I suspect the calculated method was something along the lines of: 1.6 ft/Kyears = 10 miles / 17 Myears
I don't have the time or enthusiasm to post much here.
Faith says that the contact's nature argues against there being a "millions of years" gap represented there. I don't recall anyone advocating that there is any major time gap represented there. As Edge posted uptread somewhere, even if the Coconino has been tagged with a age "millions of years" younger than the Hermit, that does not mean that the contact represents a "millions of years" time gap.
Yes, of course. That's one of the possible scenarios I described. Let me be more clear about this. These are the possibilities I see (there may be more, but these are the ones I see):
The inch-wide something is a transition layer between the Hermit below and the Coconino above. There are two contact lines, one at the top of the inch-wide something at the boundary with the Coconino, and another at the bottom of the inch-wide something at the boundary with the Hermit.
The inch-wide something is part of the Coconino, but it is sufficiently different that there is a bedding plane contact line between the top of it and the rest the Coconino. There is another contact line at the bottom of the inch-wide something between it and the Hermit.
The inch-wide something is part of the Hermit, but it is sufficiently different that there is a bedding plane contact line between the bottom of it and the rest of the Hermit. There is another contact line at the top of the inch-wide something between it and the Coconino.
I'm not arguing for any of these possibilities. I'm just arguing that anyone who says they know for sure which it is needs to offer more evidence than just the images, because the images are inconclusive.
I thought I saw Percy somewhere advocate that the "1 inch layer" is part of the Coconino , based on it being the same color. I would be very careful about doing such based on just color.
Just looking at the surface texture of the rock face, I would include the 1 inch layer as being part of the Hermit "shale". The base of the "1 inch layer" doesn't seem to always be sharp, and the coloration sometimes appears to cross bedding planes.
I'm just arguing that anyone who says they know for sure which it is needs to offer more evidence than just the images, because the images are inconclusive.
Having a real geologist look at the rocks directly and report on the observations would probably clear up this real fast. A solid conclusion can not be gotten by looking a a picture (OK, maybe if we had a high resolution close up of that "1 inch unit').
My guess is that the "1 inch layer" is some alteration/bleaching of the Hermit "shale", long after the lithification of all the units. Perhaps there is sometime water seepage at the contact.
The "1 inch layer" might be only superficial dust from the Coconino.
Moose
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
And if we consider the Grand Canyon supergroup, the fault that splits it clearly came after the tilt - as shown by the fact that the sections divided by the fault have the same tilt.
BOGUS - From that information there is no way of telling which happened first. It could have been faulted and then tilted, or even faulted and tilted at the same time.
That the step of the fault is not at all present in the upper layers is evidence that the fault occurred before those layers were present.
Correct.
And I side note concerning the "1 inch layer":
Minnemooseus, message 1353 writes:
My guess is that the "1 inch layer" is some alteration/bleaching of the Hermit "shale", long after the lithification of all the units. Perhaps there is sometime water seepage at the contact.
The "1 inch layer" might be only superficial dust from the Coconino.
I think Faith caught what I meant by "superficial dust" - Something that could be washed off the rock face, not a penetrative coloration. Maybe there is a damp zone at the top of the Hermit, that Coconino dust would stick to. Not likely, but who's to say from just looking at the photos we have available.
I'm having trouble formulating intelligent questions, so I'll just pop some out there and see if they enable you to see what I don't understand. How can any dust form and deposit on the layer below if the two layers have already been deposited one atop the other? How can it be "dust" if it was "washed off the rock face" and is wet? If whatever that inch is atop the Hermit originated with the Coconino after both the Hermit and Coconino units were already deposited and lithified, how can it be said to be part of the Hermit?
I'm not saying the light coloration of the "1 inch layer" is part of the Hermit. I'm proposing the possibility that the light coloration is modern surface "dirt" that for some reason happened to preferentially stick to the Hermit outcrop face at the "1 inch layer". Give the "1 inch layer" a squirt of water and the light coloration might go away.
I'm not saying that the "1 inch layer" coloration is likely just surface "dirt", just that it is a possibility.
The Grand Canyon stratigraphy is NOT representitive of the Earth as a whole
edge writes:
Faith writes:
... and since I've seen so much evidence that serious disturbances did not happen until the entire geological column was laid down from Cambrian to Holocene, I have no doubt that what is shown in that diagram also happened after it was all in place.
Actually, you have seen no such thing. You have see the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon and nowhere else.
See subtitle.
(As Edge well knows) the Earth's continental geology is a vastly complex 3 dimensional mosaic of all kinds of rocks - sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic. The sequences of what happened first, then next, then next, etc. for a given area (small or large) can largely be determined by geometric relationships (eg the sediments on the bottom were deposited before the sediments above). This is entirely independent of radiometric dating considerations. This first, next, next, etc. adds up to a LOT of process and a LOT of time.
But just looking at the Grand Canyon column.
At the bottom (oldest) is the high grade metamorphic rocks. The conventional appraisal (not "God created with apparent age") is that these rocks were originally sediments that were deeply buried and subjected to quite high temperatures and pressures. High pressure means deep burial - The pressure is the pile of material on top.
Now I don't know the metamorphic grade of these rocks (nor am I a metamorphic petrologist) , but I must think that the burial depth was of the order of many miles. Then this many miles was eroded off (lots of time) to expose the metamorphics to being at the surface. This surface would become the non-conformity.
The metamorphics were then re-covered by the supergroup sediments, which were in turn folded/tilted and faulted, and then eroded. Again, much time needed. This surface that would become the angular unconformity (and it isn't a fault).
The supergroup was then covered by Paleozoic and later sediments, of a wide range of depositional environments. More time taken.
The big picture - The Earth's continental crust is a 3 dimensional mosaic of sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks, all to some lesser or greater degree deformed or otherwise modified by folding, faulting, metamorphism, and other processes. To attribute this vastly complex 3 dimensional mosaic to being entirely the result of a single flood event is silly.
NOTE: I ORIGINALLY WAS POSTING THIS MESSAGE LAST NIGHT ABOUT THE TIME THE FORUM WENT DOWN FOR THE NIGHT. I THOUGHT IT HAD POSTED, BUT i WASN'T SURE. TURNS OUT IT DIDN'T MAKE IT THEN.
-----
Percy writes:
Faith writes:
As it rises it deposits sediments, I figure in accordance with the order illustrated in Walther's Law.
You're just going to ignore every time I explain how you don't understand Walther's Law, so there's no point explaining it yet again, but you don't understand it.
My impression is that Faith is misusing Walther's Law less than Percy is misusing Walther's Law.
Walther's Law states the geometric relationship between vertical and horizontal sedimentary sequences from migrating depositional environments. Walther's Law is NOT really a depositional model (despite often being used as such at evcforum.net), and time (long or short) is not part of Walther's Law, despite Percy's repeated insistence that it is.
Walther's Law was originally formulated to describe the sediment geometries resulting from migrating stream. It also applies to transgressive and regressive sea deposits, which is the relevant thing in the here "flood" discussion.
Essentially, Walther's Law states (related to changing sea levels) that if you find a clastic sedimentary stratigraphy (stratigraphic column) at a given location and it is getting progressively finer in the upward direction, you are seeing deposits of a transgressing (rising) sea. If you find that it is getting progressively coarser in the upward direction, you are seeing deposits of a regressive (falling) sea. How fast the sea is rising or falling is not relevant.
In the old Earth model, new clasitic sediment is slowly being added as the sea rises over a long time period (thousands to millions of years). Over this long time period, a lot of sediment can accumulate.
In the young Earth model (aka Faith flood model), new clastic sediment is quickly being added as the sea rises over a short time period (a year or less?). Over this short time period, a lot of sediment can accumulate.
Either model could result in the same or similar clastic sediment geometry. Note that I'm considering clastic sediment. Accumulating a lot of chemically/biochemical sediments (eg. limestone) is a whole another issue, in that a lot of time is required.
Other young Earth problems of course are, where do you get all this water so fast and where do you get rid of it. Also something I want to pursue further - What's the fast supply of all that clastic sediment.
I spelled this out in some detail in Message 1982 though I'd have to go back years to find a really thorough presentation of the idea.
You were replying to Minnemooseus, who didn't reply. I assumed he was going to reply, which is why I didn't reply myself. I'll reply to it when I find a free moment.
I'm had that message open in a tab all this time and I very much do intend to eventually do a reply (but I'm a very slow moose). My reply will center on the two major unconformities. Percy is certainly also welcome to do a reply
In the company of nongeologists you really shouldn't use such terms as "slickensides" or "thrust faults" or "shear fabric" etc.
If you look at faults that occurred recently between dry lithified rocks you might see the shearing you keep missing at the Great Unconformity and that might be because wet rocks wouldn't behave in quite the same way. You'd have more unimpeded abrasion between dry rocks, more likelihood of producing a rubble-free sign of scraping between them.
While it's nice to try to keep the technical jargon to a minimum, I am shocked that a fault expert of your magnitude doesn't know the meaning of "slickensides" (or the other terms). Google away.
That second above quoted doesn't quite make sense to me, but the "rubble-free sign of scraping" comes pretty close to defining "slickensides".
Your conversations with Edge reminds me of a musician conversion I once heard on MTV. Singer Jon Bon Jovi was chatting with a guitarist that was guesting on his recording session, and Jon was in the process of telling the guitarist how he wanted something played. Part way through a sentence, Jon stopped and said "Here I am telling Jeff Beck how to play the guitar". . . . . .
From the Jeff Beck wikipedia page:
quote:He was ranked fifth in Rolling Stone's list of the "100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time" and the magazine, upon whose cover Beck has appeared three times, has described him as "one of the most influential lead guitarists in rock".[4] He is often called a "guitarist's guitarist".
Moose
ps - The great unconformity is not a fault. In faulting there is something called the fault plane. It is the planar surface where one rock unit moves relative to the other rock unit. The great unconformity is not remotely a planar surface.
Limestones are very much mostly of biochemical precipitate origin
Percy writes:
Faith writes:
Minnemooseus writes:
Note that I'm considering clastic sediment. Accumulating a lot of chemically/biochemical sediments (eg. limestone) is a whole another issue, in that a lot of time is required.
This has never made any sense to me. Limestone is one of the layers illustrated for Walther's Law and it is presented as exactly the same kind of layer -- same size and shape --as the sand and clay and so on. If it has to be created in place why would it look the same as the others? And why in any case can't the ingredients of limestone be transported like the ingredients of sandstone or mudstone or siltstone or any other stone anyway?
Percy writes:
The calcareous deposits that form limestone occur further from shore in warm shallow seas of possibly great extent, conducive to tiny shelled creatures living in the waters and to shelled creatures like coral and mollusk living on the sea floor.
Percy writes:
Calcium carbonate, the primary component of the shells of these creatures and of limestone, is soluble, but while Moose implies that limestone forms only by precipitation, the fact is that the contribution of precipitation is variable. Some limestone is full of the fossil shells of these creatures that rained down on the sea floor when they died, with precipitation serving as more of a cement. Some is very fine grained without fossils and probably involved a very great degree of precipitation. And a lot is probably somewhere between the extremes.
Percy writes:
I don't know why Moose said the limestone deposition rate would be very slow compared to other sediment types. My own feeling is that it is probably highly variable depending upon local conditions.
Minnemooseus (again) writes:
Accumulating a lot of chemically/biochemical sediments (eg. limestone) is a whole another issue, in that a lot of time is required.
That "chemically" would have been best left out, especially since I implied a connection to limestone formation. My understanding is that the vast bulk of limestones are of biochemical origin. And by biochemical, I mean critters forming calcium carbonate shells and such. Even where fossils in limestones are not evident, the limestone is a result of the critter calcium carbonate being reduced to being a calcium carbonate sand/silt/mud. Think of all the other critters chewing up the clams ect., eliminating there preservation as fossils and producing calcium carbonate sediment (proto-limestone).
While it is in some fanciful concept conceivable to wash huge amounts of clastic rock fragments (sand, silt, clay) off the continental land mass to be then redeposited in a relatively short amount of time, growing all those clam shells etc. does require a lot more time.
I don't think I've much if ever cited radiometric dating as evidence for an old Earth. Radiometric data puts hard age numbers on things, but even if radiometric dating didn't exist, there is still abundant geologic evidence that places the Earth's age as being vastly greater than the YEC frame.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Had reversed the Faith and Minnemooseus quote attributes in the first quote box. Now fixed.
Re: Limestones are very much mostly of biochemical precipitate origin
...growing all those clam shells etc. does require a lot more time.
Why on earth would they have to be "grown?" Why not just killed and carried in the water to be deposited on the land?
One thing is, that limestone volumes are huge (and as I said, much made up of fossil remains, be they intact or reduced to sand, silt, and mud). Bringing in all those fossils from elsewhere (which I don't buy) only moves the "time required to grow all those clam shells etc." to a different location. Different place, same problem.
More significantly(?), it can be recognized that at least much of that life (as fossils) were growing where they were found. Probably the most extreme example is huge reef structures that were not constructed by material brought in from elsewhere. Another thing is that many of the critters found as fossils are clearly too fragile to have been moved much if at all from their place of life. I present a giant crinoid (more can be found by googling "crinoid fossils"):
The crinoid stem is broken in a few places, but it is remarkably intact. And indeed, much non-intact crinoid stem fragments can be found.
ABE: By the way you quoted me for you and you for me in your first quote box.
Fixed. Those nested quote boxes can get messy if you're not real careful.
To all (esp. Percy) - There is at least one other message I know of, that I intend to reply to. But if there is a message that you feel calls for my response, please personal/private message me about it. This especially if the message was NOT a direct reply to one of mine. Messages are piling up so fast, it is hard to keep track of what I'd like to reply to.
I haven't read further downthread, but I think that a big part of the misunderstanding here is the lack of an obvious scale indicator in the photo. I think Faith is seeing that photo as a large area of substantial ridges and valleys. I see a relatively small area with a relief of maybe a couple of feet maximum.
Faith also doesn't see the "ridges and valleys" as being differentially weathered near vertical sedimentary bedding. Looks to be a slightly plunging tightly folded syncline to me. Maybe a graywacke/slate sequence.
.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
