Non-marine sediments

Are there any geologists out there who can tell me something about the non-marine sediments in the geological column? How thick can fossil bearing non-marine sedimentary beds be and how conformable (= continuously parallel stacked) are they? How conformable are they with the interfacing marine beds?The reason I'm asking is that I'm a YEC and I'm often making statements about alternating marine and non-marine beds and was wondering how conformable they are - how continuous is the sequence of layers? I know about cyclothems and coal beds but what of the typical non-marine amphibian/reptile/mammal fossil bearing rocks where, eg, dinosaur fossils are found, what are these sequences like?------------------
You are go for TLI

No comments? BUMP.

I'd like to resurrect this thread if possible. So Joe - we have the full spectrum of terrestial (land) strata do we - some neatly layered and some not? That makes sense I guess.Certainly at Grand Canyon there are large non-marine formations that are comprised of neatly stacked layers. How is that explained in a mainstream context? If it's flood after flood there should be thousands of unconformaties (interfaces with gullies and erosion) as we travel down the local column in these beds disrupting the neat parallel stacking. Surely conformable non-marine sequences, such as those at Grand Canyon, argue for a single event for that bed as argued by flood geologists?PS - Joe: I've given you my pre/syn/post-flood boundaries elsewhere as coinciding with TC and most ICR/AIG publicaitons although I'm prepared to admit I have no professional scientific opinion other than to say that I would link the flood deposits to the epeiric sea formations at the very least and this is typically Cambrian to Cretaceous worldwide.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-27-2002]

I would love to go on some field trips. Having said that, isn't it true to say that:(i) There exist large non-marine beds with hundreds of feet of neat parallel stacked layering (eg that are visible in the Grand Canyon cutting as well as your examples).
(ii) If these were formed gradually on land (eg by either normal rain or big storms) the conformity would be disrupted and we would see hundreds and thousands of unconformities?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-27-2002]

Thanks - Moose - I'm aware of this but it's good to have it sitting in front of us. What I'm trying to point out is that in the non-marine beds of the Grand Canyon series there are very few 'genuine' unconformities - ie where there is erosion visible - gullies etc. I would actually normally expect gradually formed non-marine beds to be pretty messed up.So what is the mainstream understanding of the nicely layered non-marnine formations like at Grand Canyon?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-28-2002]

I'm not saying that non-neatly layered terrestial fromations don't exist. But for the neatly layered ones that do exist, such as Hermit Shale or Supai how did they from from a mainstream POV? And the Redwall is a marine formaiton isn't it? I'm aware that some of these formations are a mixture of marine and freshwater of course.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-29-2002]

The marine merging into non-marine fits our scenario too.But here's the important point. In your vast layered non-marine Grand Canyon deposits why do we get land plant fossils strewn throughout these hundreds of thousands of square miles of strata? Why not just at the lake/sea edges? There is nowhere on earth where vast quantities of land plants get dragged hundreds of miles out to sea? I think you'll find that layered non-marine beds will not have very good mainstream explanations Edge - but surprise me. We think a vast flood explains this data very nicely - not to mention cyclothems and coal.

Wehappyfew, I have posted references along with some of my claims. Other claims I have made becuase they are general impressions I have gained and I agree I ultimately need refs but I also hoped that there would be people here who knew the answers. But I am still at it, this is a work in progress.I'll give you an example. I made the simple statement in the other thread that 'I knew' that much of the geological column was laid down by epeiric seas. Do you think anyone here came and said - we agree, now continue. No, I had to go find the evidence. That's fine, I learnt a lot doing it.OK, this case I am claiming, is based on general reading and no specific reference, that there are vast terrestial beds with terristial plant and animal fossils strewn horizontally throughout the strata. Why don't we together find out? I'm searching, but some of you are geologists and either already know the answer or can find out easier than I can. I brought it up so I should prove it but I reserve the right to comment on a general impression in the case that someone here does know the answer of the top of their head! That's all that I'm doing. I am not trying to incite anything. I'm telling you my impression of the data, the mainstream sceanrio, the creationist scenario and my own synthesis of it.What I have based the claim on is books I've read about Grand Canyon strata. And these state that strata are dominated by confiers, ferns etc etc. If you think they are only at 'edges' then you equally need to show that with refs. I perfectly understand how one expects to get a 'diagonally' travelling sea edge during transgression/regression. But when we hear that a partilcular stratum is 'dominated' by conifers and ferns then I will usually assume that it is not just along a lake boundary. We both need refs to show this, in particular for Grand Canyon non-marine strata. I don't deny there are genuine 'lake edge' phenomena but, from my reading, that is not the case in the vast layers of the fresh water depoists that overlap with the epeiric seas (in terms of plant fossil locations).I don't believe I have made mistake after mistake here. I have honestly offered you my current understanding and you have all contributed to my educaiton in geolgoy, yes, but, IMO, it hasn't changed my basic thesis.We explain coal as occurring via the burial of state sized floating mats of vegetation uprooted catastrpohically. The next surge could have deposited sandstone and limestone.The Hermit Shale is in itself neatly layered, as is the Supai. There is a very flat unconformity separating the two formations but there is no evidence for 1000s of non-marine events within these formaitons. I can only assume that you guys think that some how these were fresh water coastal lakes or river deltas and may not have considered why there are land plant fossils horizontally throughout strata.Unless I'm mistaken, I've never seen cross bedding and ripple marks described as unconformities. These type of phenomena occur pwithin stratum. Unconformities typically generate relief traversing multiple strata.Can you explain your Redwall issue again. I have no problem with there being an unconfromity at the top of this sequence. Why couldn't conglomerates have been transported in?I think you overstate the significance of the layers narrowing. There is nothing in our scenario which states that layers don't gradually disappear horizontally! We think big but no one expects layers to be universal.Your hunreds and thousands of unconformities? Any layman looking at the Grand Canyon strata knows that there are almost no interfaces which look like the current topgraphy of the earth with the Grand Canyon strata. We are arguing extents here. I have not even mentioned the trivial relief that occurs at the boundary of the Carboniferous Redwall Limestone and the supposedly much older Cambrian Muav Limestone. Trivial relief and 200 million years of missing time!I agree, let's look for refs but I think you'll find that I am right on the vast non-marine layers, at least in Grand Canyon. There is good support for the floating mat model of coal formation and the vast non-marine, non-coal bearing layers are essentially the same phenomenon - rapid freshwater flooding carrying plant material across vast temporarily flooded regions.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-30-2002]

Edge, I have seen eoloian pronouncements reveresed in the literature, I have seen the difficulty of eolian/aqueous identifications explained and I have seen evidence of amphibians in your eolian sediments. You want refs - give me some time.The point about land plant fossils is that they are, from my reading, strewn throughout thousadns of square miles of layered deposists without unconformities internal to the series. That is a flood in anyones' language, and a big one at that.I am not ignoring your posts. We are having a back and forth discussion where we each clear up each others misunderstandings. I don't have a problem with shore lines! Even our vast formations have boundaries. The point is that within the neat layered compnent there are vast land plant fossil containing strata.You can keep side-tracking to the sea boundaries if you want but I'm talking about the component of it that I don't think you can easily explain! I'm not talking about the boundaries because I already understand how that could have arisen via mainstream mechanisms. You continually misrepresent my posts as misunderstandings when often I already understand the component that you are trying to explain as if it was news to me. You think I don't understand that seas have boundaries?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-30-2002]

I'll eventaully post some stuff on the eolian issues since I agree it is an important distinguishing point for the two scenarios. As you may know the creationists studied tracks and they best matched amphibians impedded by flowing water. And it was a mainstream reversal of assignment I was talking about.Are you saying every layer in the Hermit shale is an unconformity? That's news to me! If that is the mainstream view I'll put it down to interpretaiton due to necessity with long ages not to the data! We obviously can't proceed along this line because we can't agree that there is no evidence for aerial exposure. We may as well give up. In my own geological fossickings, when I see neat layering I will continue to interperet as continuous, uninterrupted layering unless there is another reason to suspect so. I susgest you should do the same. I really can't fathom how you could say that. I think you are violating a near stratigraphical law that neat layering indicates continuity.My point is that since these are land plant containing non-marine layers your scenario requires off and on freshwater flooding that should be given away by genuine unconformities. They are not there - your claim that neat layers are unconformities is simply incorrect IMO.I know you claimed one of the Grand Canyon formations was generated by swamps. Can you show me that this is the mainstream view. I didn't think the bed composition was consistent with that?Inland sea boundaries can't be used as evidence for the flood, agreed, but land plant material strewn thoughout a thousands of square mile area stratum is diagnostic of the flood.I really haven't misunderstood much at all actually. If anything I like some of the newer geology books which emphasize the epeiric sea level contributions to the origin of the geological column. In the past I had really thought the geological column was primarily the result of non-stop local flooding.I understand how it works now and that (i) most of it is marine and (ii) most of the rest is vast non-marine beds consistent with the flood. Nothing you have said has changed this impression I have recently gained.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-30-2002]

Wehappy - My geological column thread took about 3 days to establish that much of the geological column was deposited by epeiric seas and it was me that found the quotes stating that 'much of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras' were epeiric sea deposits. I'm glad that you agreed with me but I've got a feeling I came up with those quote first.I can understand that much of what I am saying is non-controversial. I'll carefully read all of your quotes and at the end of the day I might have to agree that the non-marine strata are consistent with your long-age scenario. At this point I think that catastrophic flooding is at the very least, a better scenario.I'm not saying that conifers only grow along shore lines. If I read that a certain stratum is dominated by conifer fossils my first assumption is that this is true for much of that stratum not just a lake edge. So I infer a difficulty for non-catastrophic explanations. You don't because you can imagine state sized deltas etc. I can imagine state sized deltas too but I don't think one would get conifer fossils throughout state sized layers non-catastrophically.Your Redwall issue may be explained by hydrodynamic sorting. In our catastrophic scenario we don't just get layers one after the other over eons but instead we (i) not only speed up the process but (ii) hydrodynamic sorting can act to sort material over vast vertical sequences unlike in your model where hydrodynamic sorting has nothing to do with strata seperated by 'millions of years'.I get your point about the varying vertical levels now. In our scenario the rapidity of deposition or rapidity of tectonic activity might explain the different vertical levels.I can agree with you that the mainstream sceanrios are possible. What I am saying is that it is also possible that these ancient environments were (i) rapidly laid and (ii) rapidly eroded out of soft sediments. What you see as long ages we can see as the flood.It's possible we both overstate our cases. I still think a lot of your sceanrios are 'just so' scenarios just as much as you say mine are. The only way to better resolve it would be for me to become a geologist and even then we would still probably have to agree to disagree. IMO the non-marine layers of the geological column generally speak of continuous deposition and the inserted millions of years of missing time with little evidence of disruption are perhaps not impossible but are certainly not a selling point for your arguement.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-31-2002]

Wehappy, if you are professionally convinced that the vast non-marine beds are no different to some of the huge contemporary environments then, being a non-geologist, I certainly can't argue against that. I personally believe that this is probably not entirely correct but I will continue my literature research to back this up so that this is not just a pronouncement.Why would I leave some room to doubt your claims and the other professional geologists here?(i) Because I believe the flood is a good model so far and I doubt it would leave exactly the same signiture as gradualism, so I put down some of your explanations as 'just so' stories just as you do for us.
(ii) In some instances I believe mainstream geology has ignored flood evidence. The paleocurrent data for the marine beds simply does not support the placid epeiric sea concept. If mainstream geology were really non-biased the descriptions of epeiric seas should at least mention the possibility of catastrophic flooding as empirically demonstrated via paleocurrents. These currents are so fast that they ordered the orientations of conical seashell fossils in the sme direction for 'millions of years'. Some geologists (on this board eg) dislike polystrate fossils to the extent that they claim that none of the examples are really fossilised trees. I'm not a field geologist, I can't prove it but I think this is simply evidence of incredible bias. At least some mainstream geologists here seem to deny that neat conformable strata are, in the first instance, evidence of continuous deposition (I have no problem with secondary interpretations but people here wont agree on primary interpretations). Coal formation? If you guys truly believe your state sized swamps that's fine . But to deny that floating mats is a good alternative smacks of bias.PS - I would be interested in the names of modern non-marine environments that look like the Grand Canyon formations. Any refs/links demonstrating the similarities? Is there anywhere (eg on the web or a review paper) that a true sectional/3D topographical impression of these strata can be gained without mounting my own expedition?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-02-2002]

Edge, I am aware of Morton, but there are flood geologists that used to be mainstream geologists too.How could what I say be interpreted as not believing in unconformities? What I am saying is that there are about a dozen major formation/formation unconformities in the Grand Canyon (and even these have relatively small relief). Within the formations the sequences are remarkably free of major unconformities! Some here are trying to say that every layer is an unconformity and that is simply not true - no sedimentologist would agree with that. IMO, in the non-marine formations you guys should have a lot more unconformities than you do although Wehappyfew claims that continuous deposition on land is currently generating non-marine strata indistinguishable in basic character from the Supai or Hermit. I personally doubt this and would like to see the actual refs that claim this.

Wehappy, I am reading a lot of mainstream stuff. the stuff on paleocurrents is very accesible. I am finding it difficult to uncover the precise nature of the vast non-marine beds world-wide. I will keep 'digging'.The strata of the Cenozoic is qualitatiely differnet to that of the Mesozoic. I have seen that in print. It shouldn't surprise either of us - the Cenozoic is dominated by glacial sea level curves as opposed to tectonic efects.I am demonstrating some differnces between the models. Just looking at the Supai and Hermit I am convinced that they tell a catastophic story. You don't agree, fine. I truly doubt there is anything forming today that will look like the Supai or Hermit. We'll see how my lit search turns out. Do you think you've proved the reverse?Paeleocurrents - I've also posted continent sized map links too somewhere here. My readings on paleocurrents gave the distinct impression that these results were typical all around the world. Where ever you have vast neatly layered epeiric sea deposits, more often than not:(i) the currents are rapid
(ii) there is a continent sized general uniformity
(iii) there is amazing consistency though time.Polystrate fossils - the best I can do is post links to images and I will. You guys can judge. I must admit before coming here I wasn't aware that the mainstream view was that polystrate fossils don't exist!Austin got a mainstream PhD on floating mats. That doens't prove it but it is mainstream to that extent. Mt St Helen's gave us an inkling of what these mats might look like. Just picture that with the leaves still on.I will get to the RATE helium stuff.

And can anyone show me a continental shelf floor today where there are cone shells, dead or alive, preferentially aligned - eg 80% lining up in one direction? This is a typical paleocurrent observation. Other observations involve ripplemarks and pebble orientations. The epeiric seas were nothing like what gradualists imagine.If researchers took the data at face value they would reconstruct catastrophic transgressions that essentially are the flood.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]