|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Serg-antr Junior Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: |
No, think about this. I do not mean "the same", but a correlation. Certainly rocks can be different depending on environments, but the boundaries between layers should correlate in all the world. After all, the sea level fluctuations necessarily lead to changes in the rocks. Remember that those places would not all be exactly at the same level. One of them could perfectly well be underwater while the other was dry land. What changes is the sea level, in each particular place the depth to which it was submerged (or wasn't) would be a function of that (and of local subsidence and uplift, if any). And even when two of them are both below (or above) sea-level, the nature of the sediment would depend on local factors, there's no reason why you shouldn't have limestone in one place but shale in another, or peat swamps in one place and a river delta in the other. So we wouldn't expect the stratigraphy to look the same in two different places.
The rest of the answers later, sorry, I am very busy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If you're talking about sequence stratigraphy, there is a correlation. Which is, in fact, used to reconstruct sea-level curves. But again that doesn't mean that we will find corresponding unconformities in different places which are at different altitudes.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Serg-antr writes: Certainly rocks can be different depending on environments, but the boundaries between layers should correlate in all the world. Again, it doesn't sound like you've thought this through. A region that is subsiding at a land/water boundary will record a layer boundary. Another region that at the same time is also subsiding but is well above sea level will not record a layer boundary - it will just keep recording the same type of layer. Yet another region that at the same time is uplifting and being eroded away will not even appear in the geological record. Now, taking this new information into account, tell us again how you're correlating layers around the world? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Serg-antr Junior Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: |
You say that the uplifts were there "according to geologists." Can you please tell us who these geologists are and provide references to their work? Here are the links and citations.
Quantification of the control of sequences by tectonics and eustacy in the Dniepr-Donets Basin and on the Russian Platform during Carboniferous and Permian A comparison of local and global second-order stratigraphic sequences, allowing an estimation of the ratio of the importance of eustatic to tectonic processes controlling subsidence in each basin, demonstrates that eustacy controlled sedimentation in the Moscow Basin and tectonics prevailed in the Dniepr-Donets Basin. Dnieper-Donets depression , , . --- "For coal deposits typical is rhythm, which is a consequence of pulsating tectonic movements during which uplift interspersed with subsidence." More in this thesis ‘ (it is in Ukrainian, I can not to translate into English) specify the nature of these motions.
How do you know it's a flood layer and not just a normal marine layer? I'm not saying that this is the flood deposits, I'm trying to figure out whether they could be formed by the flood.
But Bishop Ussher was a great scholar, and you are not, so rather than just asking us to take your word for it maybe you could provide some, oh, I don't know, evidence in support of your position? How long ago did time become relative? We know that a hundred years ago was the year 1912, and a thousand years ago was the year 912, and two thousand years ago was the year 12, and three thousand years ago was the year 989 BC, and so forth, but you're claiming that at some point we don't actually know how long ago anything was. How far back in time do we stop knowing how long ago things were because "time is always relative"? How was this fact established? How come no one but you knows about this? We can not say anything about the duration of events, especially in the distant past (beyond the historical period), not knowing the properties of time. And that time has properties that can be changed, and not only at the quantum level, as far as I know, has already proven physics. About the dynamical inhomogeneity of time can be found for example in the article written by my fellow countrymen. Time, what is it? Dynamical Properties of Time. Quote from there:" Thus, any material system is capable to influence the course of time in that region of space, where it is placed."Perhaps because an ignorance of the properties of time now a mess with the dating, such as the age of dinosaur soft tissue that could not survive in the soil for more than 10,000 years (Schweitzer MH, Zheng W, Organ CL, et al. Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis / / Science. 2009 May 1, 324 (5927) :626-31) How is the limestone being deposited on the floors of shallow quiet seas today different from the limestone layers of the Donets basin? Today the limestone is not formed, now formed the lime mud. The lime mud can accumulate over time but can be collected from a large area, and sorted by flow. As a result from this the limestone "stream" may be similar to the limestone "many years."
But you said that erosion broke up the coal layers. If the layers of the Carboniferous were uplifted then only the top layer would be exposed. Erosion could not affect the still deeply buried coal layers. Yes, the continental erosion dissects the terrain and makes intermittent horizontal layers, but marine clastic flow washes away the large width of rocks parallel to the horizon.
And the layers above the coal layers could not have been eroded away down to the coal layers because, obviously, they're still there. Or were you trying to say something else when you said that erosion broke up the coal layers?
Unusual in the sense that there is no evidence that it ever happened. Maybe the coal layers can be the proof of it.
Why wait? Let's consider the neighboring regions now. How did the layers of the Donets basin bob up and down like a pogo stick while the adjacent layers did nothing? Or is it your idea that all the layers around the world were bouncing up and down in synchrony?
No, my idea is that they are transferred, sorted, accumulated, eroded powerful flow.
I think you're going to have to explain to us in English just what you think each diagram is showing. Do not understand the question. Regarding the Carboniferous period diagram this shows only the names of stages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Serg-antr Junior Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: |
But thin layers of coal are not. This is why the Ocean Drilling Project never finds any coal. Because these layers are tightened by tectonic conveyor into the mantle. Coal shall remain only on the continents.
Why? Is there some sort of probability theory relating to the size of peat swamps of which I was previously unaware? Reality is a such theory. Where in the modern world there are such large homogeneous marshes with perfectly flat terrain how on Donbass?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Here are the links and citations. Quantification of the control of sequences by tectonics and eustacy in the Dniepr-Donets Basin and on the Russian Platform during Carboniferous and Permian A comparison of local and global second-order stratigraphic sequences, allowing an estimation of the ratio of the importance of eustatic to tectonic processes controlling subsidence in each basin, demonstrates that eustacy controlled sedimentation in the Moscow Basin and tectonics prevailed in the Dniepr-Donets Basin But that doesn't say what you think it does. It says that tectonic events caused subsidence in the Carboniferous, not uplift. And then "Subsequent subsidences ended with uplift during the Sakmarian" --- which is in the Permian (which is just where the diagram I showed you puts it). So if they are right, then the Carboniferous deposits are due to repeated episodes of subsidence caused by rifting, not by alternating episodes of uplift and subsidence. I can't comment on stuff written in the Cyrillic alphabet, but the paper in English contradicts rather than supports your claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Serg-antr Junior Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: |
Why are you still discussing the Carboniferous in relation to the global flood? Here's an example of what radioisotope dating can give any result.
As I pointed out in Message 42, the Carboniferous ended about 300 million years before modern humans evolved. How can you reconcile an error of that magnitude?
: K-Ar According to the results of dating the age of the "young" rocks of crest of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge are 1687 million years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Serg-antr Junior Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: |
But that doesn't say what you think it does. It says that tectonic events caused subsidence in the Carboniferous, not uplift. And then "Subsequent subsidences ended with uplift during the Sakmarian" --- which is in the Permian (which is just where the diagram I showed you puts it). So if they are right, then the Carboniferous deposits are due to repeated episodes of subsidence caused by rifting, not by alternating episodes of uplift and subsidence. The article compares the Moscow and Donets Basin. In the abstract states that the sedimentation at the Moscow basin was controlled by eustatic sea level, and at the Donetsk basin by tectonics. So eustatic fluctuations in the Donets Basin had no effect on the sedimentation. I can't comment on stuff written in the Cyrillic alphabet, but the paper in English contradicts rather than supports your claims.The conclusions about the frequent uplift and subsidence of the Donbas done by changing rocks: limestone - mudstones - coal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The article compares the Moscow and Donets Basin. In the abstract states that the sedimentation at the Moscow basin was controlled by eustatic sea level, and at the Donetsk basin by tectonics. So eustatic fluctuations in the Donets Basin had no effect on the sedimentation. But if they are right, nor did uplift, which happened in the Permian, which is after the Carboniferous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And here's a website proving you wrong about everything. Well, so far as I know, 'cos I don't actually speak Urdu.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
It does no good to point out one date that does not conform, while tens of thousands of others provide consistent results. But that seems to be a typical creationist tactic.
And links in Russian don't do me any good either.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Serg-antr writes: You say that the uplifts were there "according to geologists." Can you please tell us who these geologists are and provide references to their work? Here are the links and citations.
Quantification of the control of sequences by tectonics and eustacy in the Dniepr-Donets Basin and on the Russian Platform during Carboniferous and Permian A comparison of local and global second-order stratigraphic sequences, allowing an estimation of the ratio of the importance of eustatic to tectonic processes controlling subsidence in each basin, demonstrates that eustacy controlled sedimentation in the Moscow Basin and tectonics prevailed in the Dniepr-Donets Basin. Well, you're just floundering all over the place. Let's try to make the original question perfectly clear. Here's the chart that includes the stratigraphic sequence (click to enlarge):
Let's just pick a random coal layer, the one in the middle of the Gzhelian at just before 290 million years ago. Where in your article does it say that this coal layer was ever eroded down to? For reference here's a link to your article that works, your link isn't working right now: Quantification of the control of sequences by tectonics and eustacy in the Dniepr-Donets Basin and on the Russian Platform during Carboniferous and Permian There's nothing in that article about uplift during the Gzhelian. Here's a quote:
The tectonic subsidence rate is moderate from the Eifelian to the Famennian (48 m/m.y.), relatively low for the Tournaisian and the early Visan (26 m/m.y.), and high from the late Visan to the Gzhelian (90 m/m.y.). A period of uplift begins in the early Permian. Note that it says the subsidence rate was high during the Gzhelian and that a period of uplift didn't begin until the Permian. Now refer to the stratigraphic chart above. See the bottom white area in the Permian? That's the period of uplift that it's referring to. Notice that the white area doesn't extend down to the Gzhelian? That's what tells you that erosion has never, ever, reached the Gzhelian. If it had then the white area would be immediately on top of the Gzhelian, but it isn't, so erosion of the coal layer in the Gzhelian never happened - never! Capisce? You have some crazy ideas about how uplift and subsidence work. What you're suggesting about erosion down to the coal layer with the erosion breaking up the coal layer is impossible given the evidence. The only discontinuities in the stratigraphic column are the white areas. Everywhere else it is pretty much continuous deposition.
About the dynamical inhomogeneity of time can be found for example in the article written by my fellow countrymen. Time, what is it? Dynamical Properties of Time. Quote from there:" Thus, any material system is capable to influence the course of time in that region of space, where it is placed." That paper is talking about relativistic effects on particles. Are you proposing that the Donets Basin was moving at near light speed? Do you have any other irrelevant arguments you'd like to offer before actually answering the question about how long ago something has to be before we can't know how long ago it was, and why? I could keep going through the rest of your message but having just read it I think I'm going to give up here. I don't think you know what you're talking about no matter what language you're thinking in, and you're definitely getting way lost trying to figure out people's responses. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Serg-antr writes: I think you're going to have to explain to us in English just what you think each diagram is showing. Do not understand the question. Regarding the Carboniferous period diagram this shows only the names of stages. What the heck is your problem? The labels and the captions in your diagrams are in Russian. We can't read Russian, and we can't cut-n-paste the labels and captions into a translator because they're part of an image and are not text. Here's one of your diagrams:
Do you see the labels at the top? They're in Russian. We can't read Russian. Do you realize the labels can't be cut-n-pasted? They can't because they're part of an image. Do you see the caption at the bottom? It's in Russian. We can't read Russian. Do you realize the caption can't be cut-n-pasted? It can't because it's part of an image. Is the meaning of what I've just said clear to you, that you're going to have to translate the labels and the caption for us before we can understand your diagrams? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Here's an example of what radioisotope dating can give any result.
Age of igneous and metamorphic events in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge: interpretation of K-Ar isotopic dating According to the results of dating the age of the "young" rocks of crest of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge are 1687 million years. Google Translate gives a fairly readable translation of that paper (I changed your link above to point to the translation). They discuss the issue of "excess argon" "frozen" into the lava due to rapid cooling which produces an unrealistically old age but, (IMHO), don't provide a convincing argument that this is not a problem. They are convincing in their argument that the samples crystallized in the magma rather than being suddenly cooled, but they could well have crystallized in equilibrium with the surrounding magma and therefore included excess argon. Still, as Coyote pointed out, individual cases of disagreement aren't convincing. The overwhelming number of concordant (agreeing) dates means that the only realistic argument against radiometric dating would have to be asystemic analysis that explains the concordance (agreement) of dates obtained from different geologic formations and dated using methods which use different isotopes and decay schemes. That's no easy task, and nobody has come close to successfully attacking radiometric dating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
There is free online OCR for many languages including Russian, but the resolution of the lettering is too low to get a result.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024