Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 8:24 PM
397 online now:
14174dm, DrJones*, edge, Meddle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 392 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,572 Year: 10,178/21,208 Month: 3,265/2,674 Week: 681/961 Day: 143/151 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
36NextFF
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3488
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 1 of 533 (724524)
04-17-2014 9:49 PM


This attempt at a new topic is a result of message 347 at the "Why is evolution so controversial?" topic. That topic has a pretty good discussion going. Unfortunately that discussion has wandered very far from the original topic theme.

That message 347 writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

Minnemooseus writes:

Pretty damn bogus reply.

I can't see AT ALL how the deep ocean basin deposition model really has anything to do with any with the sediment deposition of the Grand Canyon area rocks. At best, MAYBE the bottom-most pre-Cambrian rocks that are now high grade metamorphics MIGHT have some sort of deep ocean origins. MAYBE.

Maybe you are right.

I assumed that the limestones and shales were from an ocean deposition and I thought the sandstones were from deposition closer to continental shelf. Obviously, the crossbedded sanddune deposits were deposited when it was dry land.

Can you tell me what the depositional environment was?

Faith writes:

The accumulations of sediment you can point to here and there are paltry little collections by comparison.

It seems to me that deposition happening in the present in the Pacific cannot be described as here and there or paltry on a timescale of millions of years.

thanks.

Now, some of the sediments of the Grand Canyon and are are of non-marine (above sea level) origin, but here I'm going to try to focus on depositions of on to/off of the continents sea transgressions/regressions.

A (the?) central focus of said are sedimentary facies and Walther's Law. I've tried in the past to find good Walther's Law references and graphics, and have never been real happy with what I've found. Go ahead and Google "Walther's Law" and see what you can find.

One (sort of) good starting point I did find is facies. Please also look at this.

Basically, Walther's Law is that, in sea transgressions/regressions, the coarsest clastic sediments (sand to become sandstone) are deposited nearest to the shoreline. As you go further from shore (and deeper) the clastics get progressively finer to silts (siltstone) and then clays (shale). As you get far enough from shore the clastic sediments become less and less until what sedimentation you have left happening is carbonate (limestone).

For a sea transgression, this results in a vertical sequence of upward fining - Sand at the bottom, carbonate at the top. For the sea regression, the order is opposite - Carbonate at the bottom, sand at the top.

The transgressive sequence:

ADDED BY EDIT - The above diagram is deceiving in that the silt, clay, and carbonate symbology implies that the bedding planes are parallel to the contacts. The bedding planes are horizontal or near horizontal. See the diagram in Percy's message 9 for a clearer (and better annotated) illustration. Also (for the non-geologist types), note that the diagram has a substantial vertical exaggeration (The vertical distances are actually small relative to the horizontal distances). - END OF ADDED BY EDIT

Source is "Please also look at this" link, above. There are also other diagrams and explanations at that site.

Well, not a prize winning PNT, but perhaps it will work to get geology discussion back into a geology topic.

Moose

Added by edit: Some maybe relevant messages at Dr. Adequate's "Introduction To Geology" topic:
Nearshore Sediments
Marine sediments
Turbidites

Edited by Minnemooseus, : "vertical sequence of upward fining" not "vertical sequence of upward coursing(sic)"

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : ADDED BY EDIT.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-18-2014 10:59 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 3:18 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2014 1:43 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3768
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 533 (724526)
04-17-2014 10:06 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

OK, I didn't want to be promoting my own topic, but there isn't now any other admin around to launch this sucker.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Post promotion comment.


Or something like that.

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1348
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 3 of 533 (724589)
04-18-2014 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
04-17-2014 9:49 PM


Moose,

Thanks for the links and information. I read Dr. A's Geology thread back when he was first posting it, but now I clearly need to read the whole thing again.

I always wanted to take a good geology course in college but I was focused on biology and entomology and never got around to it.

I spent most of last May travelling around the Southwest and photographed gobs of interesting geological formations.

This summer my grandson and I are going back for a month of photography, dragonfly hunting and Geology. We will be armed with a set of the Roadside Geology books and a copy of
Geology of the American Southwest: A Journey through Two Billion Years of Plate-Tectonic History by W. Scott Baldridge.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-17-2014 9:49 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2014 1:46 AM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24442
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 4 of 533 (724685)
04-19-2014 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
04-17-2014 9:49 PM


Your OP is intended to be an answer to the discussion about the supposed continuation of the Geologic Timescale at the bottom of the sea that came up on the Why Is Evolution Controversial thread. I raised the topic bof how it seems to me the Timescale has come to an end, which is dramatically pictured in the GC area at least. So the answer was given that no, it's continuing at the bottom of the ocean, as well of course as on the land but on a much smaller scale than the existing geo column.

I appreciate that you seem to be disputing that idea, since even if the ocean floor is being layered, in order for it to be a continuation of the geologic timescale, besides somehow becoming continental surface which is a physical impossibility, it would have to accumulate fossils of post-mammalian evolution and not just marine organisms. That's what the timescale tells us of course, we're moving up the sedimentary ladder from the marine stuff to the land stuff to the dinosaurs to the mammals to homo sapiens and supposedly onward to yet new evolutionary expressions etc.

Or maybe we're all going to live under the sea in the near future and that's going to make the nonsensical claim make sense.

ANYWAY, I know you didn't intend your picture to be a perfect representation of the idea but I can't really figure out what it's saying. What's needed is a way to show what Geology says about how the strata formed for instance in the Grand Canyon area. There the strata appear to be fairly horizontal and not on a tilt like those in your picture, which would make a difference to the height to which sea level wojld have to rise. But the tilt may not be intended to represent physical reality, only the sequence of depositions, it's hard to tell.

What's needed is understanding how the sea level rose to form the strata that are considered to be marine in origin, on the assumption that the whole column represents time periods at that very location.

The way it is determined which were formed where is by the fossil contents in the sediments. If they are the sort of thing that normally forms in shallow coastal water then the assumption is that shallow coastal water existed at that level so that they could form. I don't know if anyone has bothered to figure out if the geographical extent of a particular supposedly coastally-formed layer might suggest that the coast continued for the entire expanse of the continent or not, but some of the layers did extend to such a distance. Then above such a layer we may find fossils that normally live on land, and THEREFORE goes the prescient Geological reasoning, the sea must have receded so that that particular layer was high and dry for the duration. Then another layer on top of that, let's skip up to the Permian, is said to have formed in deep water (yes this was said on HBD's link to a Grand Canyon site way back there) so now we have the sea rising to that level and actually beyond that level so that particular limestone can form at the bottom of the ocean, now a mile higher than the lowest rocks in the current Grand Canyon. And all this is implied without anybody raising a question about how such a scenario could be physically possible.

And it's all built on speculation and assumption, yet treated as fact so that anyone who raises a question about it is considered to be unable to think scientifically. The "evidence" is the dead things in the strata, that's supposed to suffice for scientific procedure.

HOWEVER, I'm getting away from the topic, and what you are discussing is something called Walther's Law, which the diagram is intended to illustrate.

Basically, Walther's Law is that, in sea transgressions/regressions, the coarsest clastic sediments (sand to become sandstone) are deposited nearest to the shoreline. As you go further from shore (and deeper) the clastics get progressively finer to silts (siltstone) and then clays (shale). As you get far enough from shore the clastic sediments become less and less until what sedimentation you have left happening is carbonate (limestone).

For a sea transgression, this results in a vertical sequence of upward fining - Sand at the bottom, carbonate at the top. For the sea regression, the order is opposite - Carbonate at the bottom, sand at the top.


But does this sequence correspond to the sequence of depositions say in the Grand Canyon area? I find it interestingly suggestive, especially for a possible explanation of what the Flood might have done --- first a long transgression followed by a long regression --- but someone needs to explain how it relates to the specific strata in the GC canyon area.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-17-2014 9:49 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 3:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24442
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 5 of 533 (724687)
04-19-2014 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
04-19-2014 3:18 PM


Or, would somebody please translate and explain this statement of Walther's Law:

The principle that facies that occur in conformable vertical successions of strata also occur in laterally adjacent environments. [A vertical progression of facies can be found corresponding lateral facies changes.]
They must have left out a word somewhere.

HERE

I get the general idea but I need to see it. It also seems rather obvious so it would help if someone also explained its significance. It also doesn't sound like what Moose is illustrating above.

Facies of course means "face" so we're talking about a visible presentation of strata as in the picture at that site, but exactly what "laterally adjacent environments" refers to I'm not sure.

Thank you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 3:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by edge, posted 04-19-2014 6:15 PM Faith has responded
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 04-20-2014 11:11 AM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3734
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 6 of 533 (724699)
04-19-2014 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
04-19-2014 3:55 PM


Or, would somebody please translate and explain this statement of Walther's Law:

...


Walther's Law is hard enough for new geology students to understand, but for YECs it is virtually impossible. Without going into detail, maybe I can put this into context of this thread and the one in the biology forum.

Basically, it is saying that if we have a sedimentary system such as a coastline, there are several sedimentary environments included from swamp to beach to silt to clay and limestone and eventually out to turbidites.

They are all receiving sediments at the same time. Now, Faith sees only the continental shelf sediments (such as the Grand Canyon sequence) as the 'geological column'; but deserts, swamps, limestones, deep-sea turbidites and even volcanoes are all part of the same system. They are all part of the geological column; just at different locations.

As sea level changes, these environments move around, and since we have a vertically growing succession, they start to overlap even though at any given time they are adjacent. This is the Walther's Law part of the story.

I get the general idea but I need to see it. It also seems rather obvious so it would help if someone also explained its significance. It also doesn't sound like what Moose is illustrating above.

Hopefully, this puts the discussion into context.

quote:
Facies of course means "face" so we're talking about a visible presentation of strata as in the picture at that site, ...

Actually, it is more like a 'related type' within a genetic set of rocks.

quote:
... but exactly what "laterally adjacent environments" refers to I'm not sure.

That means that if you walk far enough, you will go from a swamp to a beach to a reef to a continental slope, etc., all at the same time. They are adjacent in the horizontal direction.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 3:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 7:10 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24442
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 7 of 533 (724705)
04-19-2014 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by edge
04-19-2014 6:15 PM


Please stop referring to YECs as if we were some inferior species of ape. Thank you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by edge, posted 04-19-2014 6:15 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by edge, posted 04-19-2014 11:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3734
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 8 of 533 (724714)
04-19-2014 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
04-19-2014 7:10 PM


Please stop referring to YECs as if we were some inferior species of ape. Thank you.

Well, we are all primates, of course. However, some of us have a little more curiosity about our universe and how it got to be the way it is. If you feel inferior, I'm here to tell you that it can all be fixed with some education and training in critical analysis. We can help.

{I pried this geology topic out of a biology forum topic. It is not to turn into a biology topic. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : I pried this geology topic out of a biology forum topic. It is not to turn into a biology topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 7:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15562
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


(3)
Message 9 of 533 (724751)
04-20-2014 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
04-19-2014 3:55 PM


Hi Faith,

I think it would help if you gave Message 981 of the Why the Flood Never Happened thread another read, because even though you replied to it three times you seem to have forgotten everything it says, and it contains a great deal of information about coastal sedimentary systems. For example, it contains this illustration (click to enlarge):

When Edge talks about "laterally adjacent environments" he's referring to these from the diagram, all of which are forming simultaneously:

  • Eroding Land: Since the land is not the lowest point, it is eroding and its material flows into the sea.

  • Sands: Nearest to the coast, sand is the sedimentary material that is deposited.

  • Siliciclastic Muds: A little further from the coast, these muds are the sedimentary material that is deposited. They're mostly sand.

  • Carbonate Sediments: Still further from the coast, this is limestone that is deposited.

  • Coccolith Foram Ooze: Far from coast, I think he's referring to pelagic sediments, which occur in the open ocean.

Again, all these depositional systems are taking place simultaneously. One blends into the other, sometimes quickly, sometimes gradually. Their surface (which descends more and more deeply beneath the ocean's surface with distance from the shore) forms a single timescape, and parallel timescapes exist with increasing depth descending back into time.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 3:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by roxrkool, posted 04-21-2014 12:41 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 04-21-2014 1:26 AM Percy has responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(2)
Message 10 of 533 (724798)
04-21-2014 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
04-20-2014 11:11 AM


tried many times before
I have lost count of the posts I've made to get Faith to acknowledge the existence in the geologic record of depositional environments. However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Faith cannot do so without completely compromising her Creationist worldview.

Her vehement and irrational denial of what the geologic record actually shows, is evidence enough for me. I have no doubt at all that she sees and understands what we have been showing her all these years.

Her fight here is nothing more than a desperate attempt to maintain her own dignity. It's not easy admitting you've been duped.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 04-20-2014 11:11 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by edge, posted 04-21-2014 10:58 AM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24442
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 11 of 533 (724800)
04-21-2014 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
04-20-2014 11:11 AM


I recognize this illustration but I've never paid much attention to it before. If I don't reply to something it may be because my mind is elsewhere and I don't see the relevance of a particular post, especially one that requires quite a bit of time to think through. Sorry if that throws some psychoanalyses of my motives out of whack, such as Roxy's. Another reason I may not reply is because I ignore insulting posts, more and more lately. That includes an awful lot of Percy's recently. However, this one is neutral in tone.

The illustration is clear enough in relation to the previous posts about how strata are laid down although I'm not sure what people think I need to get from this, and I need to think about it a lot more anyway. Surely you know I'm going to apply it to the Flood, which it already suggests to my mind.

So I am to understand that the layers "farther from the coast" are under water? But then eventually the water regresses and the layers are now on the land.

I'd really like to know what distances we're talking about, and of course what lengths of time, and I'd like to see actual examples of phenomena that this diagram explains. Can you relate this sequence to the strata in the GC area for instance? Off the top of my head the sequence of sediments there doesn't suggest such an orderly progression.

ABE 4/21: I HAVE NO REASON WHATEVER TO OBJECT TO ANY OF THIS AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY ANYONE WOULD THINK SO. Edge keeps putting words in my mouth that have nothing to do with my point of view.

The sequences are interesting and could be valuable for the creationist model since after all the Flood was basically the ocean transgressing the land to a great depth and then regressing. /ABE

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 04-20-2014 11:11 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 04-21-2014 11:07 AM Faith has responded
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 04-26-2014 9:41 AM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15789
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 12 of 533 (724801)
04-21-2014 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
04-17-2014 9:49 PM


Added by edit: Some maybe relevant messages at Dr. Adequate's "Introduction To Geology" topic:

Also:

* http://en.wikibooks.org/...cal_Geology/Walther%27s_principle
* http://en.wikibooks.org/...ical_Geology/Sea_level_variations


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-17-2014 9:49 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15789
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 13 of 533 (724802)
04-21-2014 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tanypteryx
04-18-2014 10:59 AM


I read Dr. A's Geology thread back when he was first posting it, but now I clearly need to read the whole thing again.

The wikibook Historical Geology derived from the thread has fewer typos / errors and is generally an improvement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-18-2014 10:59 AM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3734
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 533 (724825)
04-21-2014 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by roxrkool
04-21-2014 12:41 AM


Re: tried many times before
Her fight here is nothing more than a desperate attempt to maintain her own dignity. It's not easy admitting you've been duped.

Reason and evidence cannot trump revealed truth and faith (pun intended).

I think the best one can hope for is that YECs (and lurkers?) will realize that we have answers. Otherwise this is only an exercise in entertainment.

Unfortunately, I am between contracts now and time is relatively cheap. There are about a thousand other places that would be more productive than this ...

Planning a trip to Elko in the next month or so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by roxrkool, posted 04-21-2014 12:41 AM roxrkool has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3734
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 533 (724826)
04-21-2014 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
04-21-2014 1:26 AM


... I'd like to see actual examples of phenomena that this diagram explains. Can you relate this sequence to the strata in the GC area for instance?

Sure.

Eroding Land -> (unconformity) -> sandstone -> siliciclastic muds -> carbonate sediments.

Precambrian basement -> great unconformity -> Tapeats Sandstone -> Bright Angle Shale -> Mauv Limestone.

Yes, I know... you simply can't believe it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 04-21-2014 1:26 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 04-21-2014 10:21 PM edge has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
36NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017