Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(4)
Message 445 of 519 (812181)
06-15-2017 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by JonF
06-15-2017 9:31 AM


Re: Crabs
quote:
Water does not sort things in the manner we see in the fossil record. It sorts similar things together. But we do not see similar things together in the fossil record.
Exactly. It's kind of strange that trilobites are not only sorted exclusively into the Paleozoic, but that olenellus sp. Is always at the bottom.
For such turbulent transport up from the bottom of the ocean, after "stirring" by the fountains of the deep, to not mix them up with their Permian "cousins" is beyond belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by JonF, posted 06-15-2017 9:31 AM JonF has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 447 of 519 (812191)
06-15-2017 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 438 by Pressie
06-15-2017 4:23 AM


Re: where the sediments came from
Nope. The material settle to form one single 'layer' grading from the coursest and heaviest material at the bottom to the smallest and lighter material at the top. Separate layers don't form at all.
This is a good point that hasn't entered the discussion previously. Turbidites form what are known as Bouma sequences. They consist of individual 'fining upward' beds showing continuous grading of sedimentary grains in the upward direction. The point is that these are individual density flows showing distinct points in time and reflect the passage of time with continued events.
Turbidite - Wikipedia
Here is an image of an ideal turbidite.
Notice that the base is almost perfectly flat and usually consists of deep sea organic mud onto which the turbidite layer is deposited.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Pressie, posted 06-15-2017 4:23 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-16-2017 1:09 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 451 of 519 (812438)
06-16-2017 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by Minnemooseus
06-16-2017 1:09 AM


Re: where the sediments came from
After I posted my last message last night, it occurred to me that vast areas of repeated Bouma sequences might be the expected result of Faith's (very iffy) stirring up of ocean basin sediments / slopping the water and sediment onto the continents scenario.
Well, the known mechanism for a Bouma sequence is a sediment-loaded current (density current) flow downslope onto the floor of the ocean.
The Faith scenario is that the sediments have to flow upslope onto the continent. I don't know of a mechanism for this unless we repeal gravity.
Perhaps one could imagine a mud-volcano type of event, but that would not produce widespread, even and parallel layers in anyone's imagination.
The only thing that really makes sense is a continuous but irregular transgression of the sea working sediments that move down from the land mass. And this is what we see today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-16-2017 1:09 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 1:20 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 453 of 519 (812446)
06-16-2017 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 450 by Faith
06-16-2017 1:19 AM


Re: Sediment source
How is the expected result of worldwide rain for forty days and nights a miracle?
Well, first of all, the atmosphere cannot hold that much water vapor.
A few days of heavy local rain can produce catastrophic mudflows, therefore worldwide rain for over a month should be expected to produce some pretty "catastrophic weathering" in pretty short order.
Actually, no. You speak of two events: weathering and transport. Most of what we talk about erosion here is the latter, but typically, rocks must be weathered extensively before they turn to sand and silt.
Mudflows form from the saturation and destabilization of previously weathered material.
What Moose correctly observes, is that weathering precedes erosion and can take a very long time. A rainstorm even for years will not turn granite into sand and mud. It takes millennia to form a soil on bedrock and to produce miles of soil would take millions of years of chemical reactions.
The conclusion is that, even if you transport such amounts of sediment into the sea and then back onto the land in a year, you could not possibly have created that much sediment by weathering between the creation of the earth and the flood.
But why "rocks?" I'm supposing mostly fertile soils and packed sediments supporting lush vegetation in the pre-Flood world, all fairly easily subject to erosion by such a downpour of rain.
Sure, but you cannot produce miles of thickness of soil prior to the flood unless the earth was millions of years old. Even then, I kind of doubt that it could happen.
Granites exposed in the Colorado high country show only minor chemical attacks even though they have been exposed to the atmosphere along fractures for thousands of years.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 1:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 7:00 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 455 of 519 (812461)
06-16-2017 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by Faith
06-16-2017 1:20 PM


Re: where the sediments came from
First, beach sand gets deposited on a slight upslope.
Well, I'd say that it depends on which direction you are looking.
But actually, I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Second the Flood water is what rose over the land carrying the sediments.
I'm beginning to see how you've got Walther's Law all bollixed up.
Can you show us streams that carried the sediments up-slope onto the land?
Stir sediments into a vessel of water and let them settle out. They will settle out in layers.
Not exactly. You get grading of sediments, not layering. Layering occurs when you wait for a while (maybe a few hundred years) and then do it again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 1:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 6:57 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 462 of 519 (812484)
06-16-2017 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Faith
06-16-2017 7:00 PM


Re: Sediment source
You cannot impose your uniformitarian assumptions on the pre-Flood world.
Well, if you have an alternative, this would be a good time to tell us.
How was the 'pre-flood world' different?
There was water "above the firmament" before the Flood.
Evidence?
There was no granite in the pre-Flood world because no volcanoes.
So you don't believe in the 'genesis granite' of Gentry, good.
However, how do you explain granites below the Great Unconformity?
Among other things.
Like?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 7:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 463 of 519 (812485)
06-16-2017 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 459 by Faith
06-16-2017 6:57 PM


Re: where the sediments came from
Nothing I've said implies deposition upslope. That's a straw man.
Well, maybe you could add some details to make things clearer.
Okay so you want to move sediments from the bottom of the ocean up onto the continents. How do you do that without going 'up'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 6:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 8:03 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 464 of 519 (812486)
06-16-2017 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by Faith
06-16-2017 6:56 PM


Re: Sediment source
Steady heavy rain for forty days and nights ALL OVER THE WORLD? No.
Is that what the bible says?
Okay, where was there rain forty days and nights? Where was there no rain for forty days and nights? There must be some evidence of where the storm was strongest.
Or are you just making this up as you go?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 6:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 7:59 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 468 of 519 (812490)
06-16-2017 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by Faith
06-16-2017 8:03 PM


Re: where the sediments came from
You saturate the water with sediments. The water rises high over the land. What's the problem?
First of all, I'm trying to imagine the energy involved in keep entire oceans in a suspended state, including boulders, cobbles and sand.
Then I'm wondering how it maintained such a state as it lost energy flowing across the land surface.
Then I have a hard time seeing how trace fossils are transported intact to their final resting place along with other sorted fossils and sediments.
Not seeing it.
What you are talking about is a mudflow and mudflows do not form bedding, nor laterally continuous deposits. Even with highly gas-charged ash flows we see strong lateral zonation of grain sizes of the deposits and evidence of flow ... mainly down gradient.
What are you leaving out here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 8:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 8:30 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 471 of 519 (812494)
06-16-2017 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by Faith
06-16-2017 8:30 PM


Re: where the sediments came from
I'm doing my best with the facts as I understand them, both from the Bible and from the observed strata and fossils.
Actually, no.
You are force-fitting facts into a framework of what you think the Bible tells you.
Fountains of the deep whatever they were or are, would certainly have stirred up the water, mixing sediments that were both from the ocean and running off the land due to forty days and nights of rain plus the rising of the water caused by that.
Now you are going to claim that the Bible dictates that conclusion.
You don't know what the fountains are, you don't know where they are, what they look like or what they can do.
Once you've got water full of sediments rising over the land you've got the ingredients for the sorting into layers that we see. You can't debunk the Bible, it isn't going to happen.
I'm not trying to. I'm just telling you that you miss the important parts of the Bible by making a poor attempt at a science text out of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 8:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 9:17 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 499 of 519 (813078)
06-22-2017 10:47 PM


Just to stir things up a little bit, here is an image that I finally tracked down after numerous searches:
It shows several important implications for the geology of the Grand Canyon. And for RAZD, it it stays on topic by referring to trilobites. Moose will also appreciate the inclusion of a scale showing fairly gross vertical exaggeration.
First, notice the rise of the basement rocks going from west (left) to east (right). This reflects going from the ocean environment up onto the craton or higher elevation. This is probably the source of the 'hump' or 'bulge' that some have referred to earlier on the true flood history thread. It is basically a rising landscape.
The most important part here is the occurrence of two species of trilobite. The lower one (older and red) is Olenellus in the early Cambrian; while the second one is Glossopleura (younger and blue) of mid-Cambrian age.
This is a very important diagram because it shows how sedimentary formations are time-transgressive. The Tapeats Sandstone is actually older in the west than the east. This may seem odd to many, but it makes sense if you look at it from the standpoint of Walther's Law. The ocean is encroaching from the west.
And the key point for this discussion is that it is doing so gradually. In other words, it takes time, not only for the trilobite species to evolve but also for a number of fluctuations during the rise in sea level (see the comment with blue background).
I'm sure that this all supports Faith's scenario, somehow. But the explanatory powers of this empirical observation by McKee in 1945 are very powerful. Find more of the original work here:
Cambrian History of the Grand Canyon Region - Edwin Dinwiddie McKee, Charles Elmer Resser - Google Books
I don't know if this helps Faith see the actual effects of Walther's Law or why it would take time to accomplish this set of data, but perhaps it helps to clear up what a stratum is and how it relates to times and time periods.

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by Pressie, posted 06-23-2017 5:28 AM edge has not replied
 Message 501 by Faith, posted 06-23-2017 7:05 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 505 of 519 (813154)
06-23-2017 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by Faith
06-23-2017 7:05 AM


Re: No reason to impute enormous time to that diagram
Well, it's not the source. The cross section shows a rounded hill that goes up one side and more gradually down the other; it rises up over the Great Unconformity as shown on the section in such a way as to definitely imply that whatever pushed up the GU also pushed up the whole stack of strata into which the Grand Canyon is cut.
Surely, there is more than one factor here. How about isostatic rebound?
But what is the evidence that the lower trilobite is older than the higher one?
I would say that the facts that we never see them together, nor Olenellus above Glossopleura, and the fact that the former is always below the latter, it is strong evidence that they are in evolutionary order. Certainly Olenellus is in a lower rock layer.
Just the usual assumption about the age of the rocks?
Actually, it has nothing to do with deep time or absolute age of the fossils. We are only working with relative ages in this case.
Otherwise there is no reason to think of the different trilobites that climb the entire Geological Column as being progressively younger: If they were all contemporaries that were buried by the Flood, which of course they were, then they would have been related to each other more like cousins, ...
And your evidence that they are cousins is what? That the lived at the same time? Why?
... and there would be no reason to assume those lower on the ladder were older than those higher.
Except when there is.
(One thing that usually escapes discussion, I've noticed, is the actual location of the various fossils found in the strata. The usual illustrations make it look like they are found directly above one another, all of course neatly arranged by their particular morphology, but isn't it more likely they are found scattered throughout the world or at least a very large geographic area?)
That's the whole point. They are not scattered randomly all over the world.
Yes, that would make sense if the Geological Time Scale was true, but of course it isn't. The time scale model requires that the deposition be slow, but if the model is wrong there is no reason to assume it was slow.
And you go on to elaborate the usual model:
Well then, show us how your scenario would do the same thing.
The comment about staggered facies? Not sure why that requires huge amounts of time, but neither does anything else in the scenario. Certainly the trilobites need no time to "evolve" if they are all contemporaneous relatives of each other.
How does that feature occur in your scenario? How do the different sedimentary environments moved back and forth in a flood situation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by Faith, posted 06-23-2017 7:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by Faith, posted 06-24-2017 6:11 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 513 of 519 (813278)
06-25-2017 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 510 by Faith
06-24-2017 9:55 AM


Re: Reality is the earth is old, very very old
Actually, no, that has NOT been shown.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Both Olenellus and Glossopleura are found in the same area (the GC, for instance), but are never found in the same layer, with Olenellus always being lower.
The Time Scale illustrations make them look to be in close proximity but that is just an illusion.
Again, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Jon was discussing the map location of trilobite fossils. The relative age is always the same with Olenellus in older sediments. Just because they are close in two dimensions does not mean that they are of the same age.
You need to supply the information of where the fossils of each species have been found.
In a relative age sense, you have been told. One is older than the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Faith, posted 06-24-2017 9:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by Faith, posted 06-26-2017 10:52 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 516 of 519 (813359)
06-26-2017 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by Faith
06-26-2017 10:52 PM


Re: Reality is the earth is old, very very old
But as I just posted to RAZD, how often are they found directly above or below each other as versus some distance away horizontally?
I'm not sure what difference it makes. We are talking about the Bright Angel Shale in the Grand Canyon. I have no idea if they are stacked exactly in a vertical column. The section is what it is.
Also although the same species is found in the same layer, how often are they found close together in their group versus scattered in the layer?
Again, sounds irrelevant. I imagine both situations are common, but usually fossils are found in abundance near other fossils of the same kind. That's why fossil quarries are isolated occurrences. Not every part of a formation is productive.
Why do I get the impression you are on a hunting expedition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by Faith, posted 06-26-2017 10:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024