|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Long build up of Sediments | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes that is one of the charts I have. {abe; In fact I have posted the link to it many times at EvC in previous discussions}
What is the point you are trying to make? This message has been edited by Faith, 03-13-2006 12:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The miscommunications seem to be compounding and I'm trying to give this thread a rest anyway. Since that is one of my favorite diagrams of the area and I've posted it myself many times obviously you are answering the wrong question and something is not getting understood.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-13-2006 01:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
The image shows quite a bit of interesting geology has gone on outside what is visible on the valley's surface, but important to discussion at hand would be erosion of layers. You can clearly see whole sections of strata have been removed. Thus there is an example of how a layer laid down may have portions from the top removed before further deposition.
But if that is not pertinent to your question, let's not worry about that. Why not take this opportunity to clarify the question, using this specific cross-sectional map? holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: As a comment from someone who has actually "broken" in a horse to the bridle and saddle, this is a decent analogy, especially when retraining ex-racehorses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: What is the point you are trying to make? In Message 109 you expressed doubt that thick sediments could have experienced significant erosion (I've bolded the portion I was responding to):
Faith in Message 109 writes: I don't have a problem with gigantic amounts of material, I have a SPECIFIC problem with the SPECIFIC sediments in the SPECIFIC layers of the geo column, especially if I am told they USED to be a lot thicker than they are now but got eroded down to present thickness from some rather astounding former thickness. If you look on the left side of your chart at Cedar Breaks you'll see a number of layers about 1.5 miles thick that are not present on the right side of your chart at the Grand Canyon. You can't quite make out the names, but the topmost layer at Cedar breaks appears to be Brian Head, beneath that Claron, beneath that Kaiparowits, and so forth down to the thick maroon layer whose name I can't read. Those layers appear to be about 1.5 miles thick, and they are all absent at the Grand Canyon, completely eroded away. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm very aware of all that on that chart and consider it very suggestive of what happened to all the accumulated strata at the end of the flood. It appears that all over the southwest the strata built up layer by layer and then after the entire stack was in place magma pushed up from below which opened the cracks that became the canyons, and draining waters washed across the stack and eroded huge quantities of it away, leaving the Grand Staircase, leaving the Grand Canyon, and all the other odd formations of the southwest, the various pillars and so on that are everywhere. In other words massive erosion happened to the whole area at once after the whole stack was laid down. Looks to me like some massive water event laid down the layers rather neatly considering, and then at the end of it, some shift in the terrain perhaps, or just the draining of the waters away in rather a rush perhaps, removed great chunks of what had been built up.
That's a different thing from the idea that each individual layer lost great quantities of its substance by erosion before the next layer was laid down. And to look at that diagram with its neatly parallel stack of layers that cover miles of territory it is hard to believe that erosion of each layer would have left such neat regular layers. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-13-2006 11:44 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 03-13-2006 11:45 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 03-13-2006 11:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I'm very aware of all that on that chart and consider it very suggestive of what happened to all the accumulated strata at the end of the flood. It appears that all over the southwest the strata built up layer by layer and then after the entire stack was in place magma pushed up from below which opened the cracks that became the canyons, and draining waters washed across the stack and eroded huge quantities of it away, leaving the Grand Staircase, leaving the Grand Canyon, and all the other odd formations of the southwest, the various pillars and so on that are everywhere. Um, no. We are saying that erosion and non-deposition occurred during the formation of the whole package, at numerous points in the history of deposition. Even with in the layers.
In other words massive erosion happened to the whole area at once after the whole stack was laid down. Looks to me like some massive water event laid down the layers rather neatly considering, and then at the end of it, some shift in the terrain perhaps, or just the draining of the waters away in rather a rush perhaps, removed great chunks of what had been built up. And your evidence for this is?
That's a different thing from the idea that each individual layer lost great quantities of its substance by erosion before the next layer was laid down. Yes it is, but the evidence says that this happened in some cases.
And to look at that diagram with its neatly parallel stack of layers that cover miles of territory it is hard to believe that erosion of each layer would have left such neat regular layers. It didn't. What you are seeing is a simplification of the structures, designed to show the distribution of rock types.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Still looks like what it looks like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
without disturbing the bread?
How do you eroded layers from between two other layers, one above and one below? Wouldn't you have to erode the layer, then put the other layer on top? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Still looks like what it looks like. As has been pointed out to you many times; what you are looking at is a simplified diagram. It is not what is found when the rocks are examined as our geologist friends here have pointed out many times. It shows a general view of the organization of major parts NOT the details that need to be discussed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Astoundingly, Faith still refuses to actually step outside and look at the sediments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm sorry, let's get this straight. I absolutely refuse to believe that that carefully drawn diagram is "simplified" to the point of falsifying the basic overall impression of the parallel strata. There would be no reason for the draftsperson NOT to do as close a rendering of the actuality as possible given the scale and format. That's a cop out.
Or to sum up, FOCUSING ON THE DETAILS is a cop out. The overall structure is the point of what I'm talking about. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-14-2006 02:04 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, how could a large quantity of an individual layer be eroded from BETWEEN layers without seriously deforming the whole stack?
The most erosion possible between the layers seems to me would be from whatever water might still be getting squeezed out of the wet sediments, and, seeking an escape, might dislodge some of the surface sediments at the interface between two separate sediments. I believe the actual degree of erosion between the layers that I've seen represented at some time or other suggests just that sort of scenario. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-14-2006 01:52 AM This message has been edited by Faith, 03-14-2006 02:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I think that here is one of Faith's mistakes.
quote: Here are the simple problems with the claim that I know about: 1) Lithification involves compression - the oriignal sediment would have been thicker. 2) The Redwall limestoen has been eroded and is thinner because of that - And of course, the erosion indicates a period where there was no net depositon. 3) The Redwall is not uniform. Nor is it a single stratum as Faith seems to believe. A more detailed description is found here:
The Redwall is divided into four members: the Whitmore Wash, Thunder Springs, Mooney Falls, and Horseshoe Mesa members. The Whitmore Wash is nearly pure calcium carbonate (98% pure). The Thunder Springs member consists of alternating layers of chert and carbonate. The Mooney Falls member is once again almost totally pure calcium carbonate (99.5%). The Horseshoe Mesa member consists of thinly-bedded carbonate with occasional chert lenses
Another significant point mentioned is:
...the base of the Redwall contains a conglomerate of angular limestone and dolomite blocks derived from the underlying Temple Butte
Which clearly indicates that the lower strata mentioned had been lithified and partly broken up prior to the deposition of the Redwall formation. How does that fit into a Flood scenario ?t
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I don't have the greater context of the point, but apparently Jar is trying to point out that erosion DOES NOT happen between already in place sedimentary layers - Erosion does not happen beneath the top surface of the total sediment pile.
Now, erosion may happen during the time period after one strata is deposited and before the next strata is deposited. Indeed, in many cases erosion is happening at one spot, only to have the sediment immediately redeposited right close by. Think a modern river or beach. Sediment is moving around - If a particle is moved from a rest position, it is erosion; If a particle comes to rest from movement, it is deposition. Thus, in detail, many sediments may be chock full of errosional surfaces, which, of course, are the depositional surfaces of what lies above. Now a phrase along the lines of "errosion has happened between layers" might actually be used, but it is meaning that the existing sediments were eroded prior to the next sediments up being deposited. Very minor disclaimer to the above info: There are such a thing as sediment "volcanos" and sediment dikes (dykes to the British sorts). This happens when the sediments contain enough fluids to behave as a fluid (think quicksand). In such cases, sediments can be squeezed from locations below, either into the above sediments or even out onto the sediment surfaces. I think this is a very minor effect in the geologic record. Moose
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024