Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV?
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 117 (10447)
05-28-2002 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
05-27-2002 7:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
And as I said, we all knew this although I find that mainstream geolgoists and textbooks emphasize the smaller Lyellian features on some occassions completely neglecting to mention the major role played by the epeiric seas. Most continental formations are marine so it is no surprise.
I will state it as such: much of the continental geological column was laid down by epeiric seas. The key word that might be new for some is 'much'.
I'm not sure with whom you are disagreeing here. Other than the fact that, as far as I know, 'Lyellian' does not necessarily exclude deposition in shallow continental seas.
I also think you need to clear up the 'continental' and 'marine' definitions.
[This message has been edited by edge, 05-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-27-2002 7:50 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-28-2002 1:22 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 8 of 117 (10469)
05-28-2002 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
05-28-2002 1:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
From the non-mainstream POV we would say that the flood surges generated the continental epeiric sea layers (which is much of the geological column).
The flood conotation is deceptive. If we are to accept that, any continental areas covered by water are in a state of flood. This would include the present.
quote:
Each regression was followed by erosion of these soft layers via fresh water.
Rather a gross simplification. We know that some layers were no longer soft sediments.
quote:
At the end of the flood we have the final regression generating, eg Grand Canyon etc, out of soft layers, and then 4500 years of Lyellian gradualism.
Nope, impossible. The Grand Canyon was carved in lithified sediments. If not, then we are wasting a lot of time and money protecting workers in trenches and tunnels and such. Heck, if soft sediments can support thousands of feet of canyon walls, we shouldn't need to worry about ground support at all in mines and quarries.
quote:
Is there something wrong with talking about marine strata on continents? Is there a better way to put it? Wait - I said that 'most continetal formations are marine'. I was hoping that that was not ambiguous - I meant: most formations on continents are actually marine. Is there a better way to say this.
I understand what you mean, but your wording 'marine-continental' deposits is a bit ambiguous. Marine sediments are deposited in the sea ... that would include shallow epeiric seas that cover parts of a continent. Marine deposits overlying continental crust could be called just that. I have heard them called 'shelf deposits' or 'shelf seas,' but perhaps there is a sedimentologist here who has a better handle on such terminology. They would be represented by the continental shelf and shallow seas such as the Baltic. Marine deposits would also include the pelagites and turbidites of the abyssal plains.
Non-marine would be sediments deposited generally above sea level, including glacial, eolian, fluvial lacustrine deposits and others. While these are more subject to local deposition and subsequent erosion, there are substantially large deposits in some instances. Transitional environments would be deltas, tidal marshes and coral reefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-28-2002 1:22 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 12:59 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 117 (10560)
05-29-2002 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
05-29-2002 12:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, my main point is that much of the geological column was laid down as marine beds on land. We would be silly not to point this out as subscibers to flood geology and take some heart from it!
Of course you take heart from it. The problem is that this ignores all of the rest of the geological data.
quote:
Three comments on your point about the Grand Canyon etc being cut out from lithified sediments:
(i) We presume this was one of the later episodes of the 400 day event.
Usually, sediments would be very weak 400 days after deposition. And you did say they were soft. That means weak. That means they cannot support steep walls, but will flow.
quote:
(ii) Mt St Helens displays sharp canyons cut out of soft layers (and yes there are of course scale differences here).
This would be a silly comparison, but we hear it all the time. If the MSH valleys were thousand of feet deep, the walls would not stand.
quote:
(iii) It's possible that a lot of the canyon collapsed due to it being soft and that 4500 years of Lyellian processes has worn down the collapsed edges through both erosion and landslides.
Are you admitting that carving the GC took longer than the standard creationist line? I suppose that by some miracle the rocks of the GC suddenly lithified and the rate of erosion decreased just before it was observed by humans. This is sort of like the speed of light decreasing until the 1960's when we first obtained the ability to make accurate measurements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 12:59 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 8:19 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 117 (10561)
05-29-2002 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tranquility Base
05-29-2002 1:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
From the first order sea level curves it does seem to me that the continents have spent a lot of time underwater. Having said that the main piont for me is that most of the geological column on land is marine regardless of how long it took. If anything we would totally agree with you on the orogenic pulses - that much of the geological column tells a story of uninterputed deposition for thousands of vertical feet at a time (you would probably not say 1000s of feet I suspect).
I remain uncertain as to what your point is. Why do you keep repeating this point? Is there some controversy?
quote:
I'll agree that your scenario for recording only the undisturbed sediments rather than than the actual sea floors is possible. But when the raw data tells the story of continuous parallel layering Occam's razor's first port of call is surely that the layering was continuous and rapid due to the lack of evidence of long-term habitation. Your scenaruio is possible but the dat better fits a sinlge 'storm' than many (1000s? of) storms.
You have never provided any evidence for this. Why do you think that continuous parallel layering is diagnostic of flood deposits?
[QUOTE]PS - I've read quite a lot on the early geolgoists. It is fascinating stuff and I'm not just in it for the flood geolgoy. I like the science of it too. I'm a fan of Hutton, Smith, Lyell, Cuvier, Mantell and Buckland etc. I have my own ideas of why the 'creationist' geologists failed to see the flood in the strata. The main reason IMO was that no-one expected that you could get layering from rapid deposition - they all thought it only happened due to cyclical seasonal events.
I'm not sure who you are talking about here. Who has said that you cannot get layering in storm deposits or rapid deposition? If you are talking about early geologists, I am sorry, but they are not here. You are stuck with us. Why is it that creationists like to pick on the dead guys?
quote:
The majority at least hadn't thought much about hydrodynamic sorting as a mechanism for rapid layering.
I'm not sure that there was a reason to. However, why don't you address what we say about it?
quote:
The other aspect is that no-one knew about continental drift, the sea-level cycles and the possibility of tectonically induced flood surges. This is all a part of modern flood geology and IMO it is a valid sceanrio.
You mean marine transgressions and regressions? No they didn't know about that in the early days of geology. So what? We do now, and it is a part of mainstream geological theory. You have made it a part of your scenario to give it an air of reality, but you are required to ignore major tracts of geological evidence. You are very adept at making sweeping assertions about the geological column and sedimentation, but are seriously short on evidence. Could you please provide some evidence that supports your scenario at the exclusion of mainstream science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 1:13 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 8:58 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 117 (10596)
05-29-2002 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tranquility Base
05-29-2002 8:04 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Joe - go write those proposals.
...Modern flood geology can easily accomodate all of the basic features of the geological column:
1. The vast marine strata (on land) formed by transgressions [/QUOTE]
And so what is your diagnostic evidence that discriminates between biblical flood and mainstream geology? Let's talk about data not stories.
[QUOTE]2. Large non-marine layered beds[/wuote]
Oh, you mean like the deserts of the Mesozoic that covered much of western North America in the middle of the flood?
quote:
3. Local miscellaneous non-marine formations
Examples please. You mean swamps and beaches? What about the volcanic record. How does your scenario explain subaerial volcanos in the middle of the flood? Once again, let's talk data!
quote:
IMO, mainstream geology only explains #3 well.
Right, it doesn't explain evaporites in the middle of the flood, or the presence of angiosperms only very late in the flood.
You are reaching here, TB. Blindly clinging to a perceived faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 8:04 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 19 of 117 (10598)
05-29-2002 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
05-29-2002 8:19 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Edge, I agree that the walls would have been weak and fallen and I agree that scale issues make MSH only potentially interesting. I wont agree it is a 'silly' - it is still a good model system.
Let's try and picture in our minds what would have happened if my scenario were true.
* A gully would be carved out by rushing regressions of waters. The walls would collapse near the centre of the gulley.
* Moving water would transport the collapsed walls down stream.
* Then more walls would collapse etc becasue the debris was no longer supporting the walls. This would iterate.
* At some point, as the flow decreased, enough debris would remain for long enough to hold up the walls long enough to not collapse. The flow, gradually settling to modern levels could ultimately remove the debris without further risk of major collapsing.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, won't work. The sediments are not only unconsolidated, but they are water saturated, by definition. They have virtuall zero strength. You also need to explain why the erosion follows existing fracture systems. Do you think that the draining water predicted what these directions would be and preferrentially eroded them?
quote:
I think you have to ask yourself what the Grand Canyon would look like in your opinion if it were carved out of soft sediments.
I have. It's not a pretty sight.
quote:
Surely at some point you reach non-collapsed walls!
TB, you could not even hope for angle of repose.
quote:
You could argue that we should see partially collapsed walls or walls with curved layers but it's also possible, that due to criticality, that the walls would shear off over time ultimately leaving sharp walls with non-curved strata.
Yes, this is what happens when you excavate lithified sediments. Perhaps you could argue that the sediments were only unlithified in the area of the Grand Canyon.
quote:
And flow can move the debris. This would be difficult to deterministically simulate but not impossible.
I'm quite sure you are wrong about this. I used to play in the dirt quite a bit. Saturated sediments do not stand. A friend of mine very nearly died in a 5' trench in unsaturated material.
quote:
I don't think it's something you can 'pronounce' from intuition. We have no perfectly analogous model for this as you yourself pointed out.
Quite a problem. How do you get people to believe in something that cannot, and never has been seen?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 8:19 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 9:02 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 23 of 117 (10608)
05-30-2002 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tranquility Base
05-29-2002 8:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, my point about the epeiric seas is that mainstream geolgoists, and sedimentology texts in particular, tend to emphasize that the geological column got here by modern day observed means. But in fact, the majority of the column got here by epeiric seas which I have quoted mainstream researchers saying do not have anything like modern counterparts (in size). That is not necesarily a problem (the earth's modes change due to tectnoic action - fine) and that is why it is non-controversial for you.
But the modern observed examples are producing exactly what the previous epeiric seas did. There is no material difference. I finally have your misunderstanding in focus after all of these posts. You think that modern epeiric seas are different from the previous ones! It isn't so. The processes are the same.
quote:
A little bit of convtroversy comes from the following. I have recently read from cover to cover three 'Origin of Sedimentary Rock' books and the sedimentary/geological column sections of probably a half dozen university geology books and they almost invariably do not point out clearly that most of the geolgoical column was formed by epeiric seas.
That is because they focus on specific environments within those epeiric seas. It is understood, and in fact inescapable, that the seas were covering continental crust.
quote:
It is absolutely undeniable that 95% of the text in any of these books covers the miscellaneous local environments (eolian, glacial, fluvial, deltaic, lacustrine etc). A tiny proportion of the text will be spent telling us that most of the geological column was formed in marine neritic (?) or shelf environments on land due to multiple transgressions of the sea and showinf us wher ethese sediments are.
Not at all. Much of my texts is devoted to marine deposition.
quote:
To me that is a little disturbing and maybe you can tell me why this disproportionately small amount of time is spent on such a large proportion of the geological column?
Not disturbing at all. If you had a little better background and actually took a Geology course it would make more sense to you.
quote:
My (non-cynical) guess: because there are so many different non-shelf enviornments? Fair enough but then why the (typical but not always) silence in the geolgoical column sections on epeiric seas?
Surely you are imagining this. It cannot be hidden that the deposition occurred in relatively shallow seas overlying continental crust. Do you thin we just noticed this recently?
quote:
I personally think you guys don't like admitting that much of the geolgoical column was generated by marine transgressions onto land but to each his own.
I learned all of this in Geology 101. I'm not sure why you can't understand this.
quote:
I'll tell you one consequence of this. The naive layman (as I was and am becoming less and less) walks away with the impression that the layers around the world were all generated in swamps, river deltas and lakes. And I'm still convinced that the paelocurrents tell a story of rapid transgressions not your placid epeiric seas.
Not at all. You have a mistaken impression that could be corrected. I am sorry if you got a wrong impression, but really, this is not what is happening. I really don't think that we try to hide the fact of pelagic sedimentation or continental slope sedimentation.
quote:
If you think your 'each storm sheared of the seas floor habitat parallel with a current layer' is better than a rapid single continuous layering for marine beds - go ahead.
I think you are misunderstanding once again. I can't even envision what you are trying to describe.
quote:
I personally think that our scenariuo wins hands down on that. Your scenario is the one that needs the evidence of the 1000s of storms not ours!
Actually, we don't need any storms at all for the basic geological record. We just know that they happen and can often see them in the record. Lots of them.
quote:
We don't see evidence of the 1000s of storms (via a lack of uneven unconfromities) and so we say the data talks of continuous deposition.
Well, I'll have to defer to your expertise on that.
quote:
The paleocurrent data even speask of long term rapid flow!
Yep, and animal footprints being made right in the middle of it! Under thousands(?) of feet of water! Yes, TB, your model is soooo much better.
quote:
It's your scenario which reads something into the data which is not necessarily there.
Excuuuuse me! How do you know this? How are you qualified to judge this? You have shown an incredible aptitude for misunderstanding geological theory.
quote:
You believe in your scenario simply becasue the long-age paradigm requires it. In this instance it is our scenario which is more natural.
Not at all. That is just a happy coincidence. The geological record is complex but decipherable.
quote:
If you accept rapid deposition of layers - great.
I have never said that I didn't. I just don't believe that ALL sedimentation was rapid.
quote:
I have mainstream refs I have already posted here showing that, not that long ago, this was not beleived by the majority. And rapid layering clearly occurrs via hydrodynamic sorting - why do you say it doesn't?
Well, you can debate with the dead guys all you want. I have no problem with this. The point is that not all sediments were deposited this way. Neither does you scenario account for erosion nor time between deposition of the layers. It is so simplistic as to be utterly silly.
quote:
Why do I point out the eperic seas? I personally believe that if epeiric seas had been understood back in Lyell's time that the creationists would have stood a better chance than they did then.
Modern geological theory accomodates epeiric seas more than adequately. I still don't see why you pick on Lyell. In fact, I think he refers to shallow seas anyway. He may just not have had the word for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 8:58 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 1:20 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 117 (10609)
05-30-2002 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tranquility Base
05-29-2002 9:02 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Edge you keep having a go at our Mt St Helen's model becasue we can't orchestrate a full scale Grand Canyon event for you to see today and then you say:
...
It clearly is an issue of quantitative extent. Mt St Helen's proves that you can get 100 foot high sharp canyons from month old sediments! But you prefer to use your experiences in the sand pit ahead of a very good model system that is tainted by creationism.[/QUOTE]
No. It is a matter of material strength. That, and the fact that you cannot compare an unsaturated volcanic deposit that was probably emplaced while hot, with saturated muds and sand.
quote:
PS - tell me more about the fracture systems.
Most tributary drainages follow pre-existing fractures. One of these is the Bright Angel Fault. Why would there be such a pattern of fractures in soft sediment? Why would the fault penetrate, as a plane, both the soft sediment and the underlying metamorphic rocks? Your model needs to explain this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-29-2002 9:02 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 1:28 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 29 of 117 (10637)
05-30-2002 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tranquility Base
05-30-2002 1:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I would be interested to see a careful comparison of the layering in ancient epeiric sea formations vs modern shelves. I have read that:
(i) The modern shleves are not at all comaprable in size
Of course they are not the same size. Sea levels are lower. But what's the problem here? The processes are the same. Besides I think you might have an exaggerated idea of how continuous shelf formations are. Do you really think that the Oneonta Formation is identical to the time-equivalent Genesee Formation only a couple hundred miles away, much less the Guilmette Formation on the other side of the continent? Do you think the Mancos Shale covered all of the interior of North America? Do you realize that the Cretaceous inland sea had several different facies that do not extend over the entire epeiric sea? Your viewpoint is too simplistic, TB. It will not explain the details.
quote:
(ii) The ancient beds are too undisturbed (and maybe? too flat
I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about here. Some ancient beds are planar and others are contorted.
quote:
(iii) The measured paleocurrents are differnet in character
I thought that you said they were all the same. However, the paleocurrent data showed otherwise. Are you actually reading these posts, TB? We have been over this time and again and you keep bringing up the same old stories.
quote:
On the whole 'epeiric sea' issue I'll agree that I should have simply equated the marine layers on continents with epeiric seas. Maybe it is my problem but it is not clearly explained in the texts whereas, IMO, it should be the bread and butter of such a chapter.
It is understood by people who have actually studied geology and not just read about it.
quote:
All I know is that if I were writing a chapter on 'origin of the geological column' I would state very clearly that most of it is epeiric sea deposits.
Okay, then what? How many times do you have to say this in your text? You are making up a problem that does not exist.
quote:
I would show the sea-level curves. You know I'm still yet to see a geolgoical column diagram which shows, say, 5 local geolgocial columns from around the world and points to which local beds came from which global sea-level rise.
I have a text full of such data.
quote:
... BTW - one of the mainstream geolgoy courses on the web raises the issue of whether most marine sedimentaiton in the record is actaully storm deposits for the exact reason I mention. I disagree with them because there are no unconfromities.
A mainstream Geology course on the web... great! What do you mean by not unconformities? There are thousands of unconformities int the geological record. In fact, we live on one of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 1:20 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 8:40 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 31 of 117 (10669)
05-30-2002 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by TrueCreation
05-30-2002 3:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"In any case what's wrong with my detailed scenario I proposed - that the canyon continued to collapse until it was hard enough, eventually leaving a sharp edged canyon?"
Just what is your procedure for lithification such that the entire sequence, including sediments at the top became just as lithified ast those at the bottom? How can a "rock" (in this case, as sediment) be lithified as it is eroded? How long did this take? Once a soft sediment begins to run, you won't stop it until the slope has achieved it's own natural profile, which in this case, would be virtually flat.
quote:
--I would hypothesize that the formation of the Grand Canyon would have technically been a post flood event in the majority the the cataclysm. Sediment would have all been deposited and as water abated it may have left a slight indentation in the soft sediments. Some lithification would have then taken place and some time after the flood waters would have broken through a flood deposited lake (great lake?) and carved out the grand canyon.
So now the sediments are partly lithified, eh? Still doesn't work. You need to have rocks that can support vertical walls in some cases. There are lots of bona fide rocks that cannot do this. They are simply too weak. If these sedimenst were exposed by erosion prior to (full) lithification how did they become lithified just sitting at the surface? If I leave a pile of sand in my yard for a thousand years, it will still be a pile of sand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 05-30-2002 3:02 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 33 of 117 (10671)
05-30-2002 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
05-30-2002 1:28 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Edge, I thought a lot of the MSH layering was formed by mudslides and ash?[/QUOTE]
Yes, ash can actually weld and produce "hard" rock in a matter of hours. Generally, water lain sediments do not do that.
Possibly, but the fracture would be of a different nature. Normally, a soft sediment cannot hold a fracture open or maintain a distinct weakness in a fault zone. You are grasping as straws, TB.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 1:28 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 8:51 PM edge has not replied
 Message 37 by TrueCreation, posted 05-30-2002 8:58 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 36 of 117 (10674)
05-30-2002 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tranquility Base
05-30-2002 8:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, you write off our scenrio very quickly.
Yes, because it does not explain the details at all. Not even close.
quote:
It's also possible that there is detailed support for our scenario in the details too. I don't expect a vast flood to deposit exactly the same layers over entire continents. But, boy, they come pretty close to traversing across US states.
And your point is? In case you don't know it there are eolian deposits and carbonate platforms that can cover several states. This is not evidence for a flood. I don't expect individual formations to do this either, but there should be some geological model that shows a single event that covered the entire earth.
quote:
I'm fully aware that layers come and go horizontally. I really don't have a problem with that.
The 'undisturbed sea-floors' I'm referring to the fact that the layers don't look lived in. Apart from burrows which we put down to one-off escape routes (supported by the lack of mixing in the sediments) the layers, at least in Grand Canyon, are remarkably devoid of evidence of habitats that we see on any shelf floor today. And I posted a mainstream ref that supported this if you read it.
As I remember there are footprints, and various fossils in the GC rocks that show active habitats. Perhaps you could repost the reference.
quote:
The paleocurrent issue. When I say different I'm obviously comparing epeiric seas to modern shelves - that was the issue we were discussing! The paleocurrents do no support the idea of placid epeiric seas. The data supports catastrophic inundation far better.
Do you really think that there are no currents on the modern continental shelves?
quote:
I'm fully aware that there are unconformities throughout the geological column. But if you go to the vast layers I'm talking about (eg in the Grand Canyon) there are hardly any major ones.
There are some. What is your point?
quote:
There are only a handful that could point to a period of non-depositon and erosion.
Well, how many times of nondeposition and erosion and sand dunes do you want in the middle you your flood? How many are acceptable before you will admit that there really wasn't a global flood?
quote:
The relief at the formaiton boundaries are generally trivial.
We have been over this. Do you not read my posts?
quote:
What I was actually talking about was no evidence of unconfomrities within the formations - this of course makes sense, many sequences are defined as appearing between unconfromities. The point is these sequences really do tell the story of continuous periods of deposition.
Yes, many periods of continuous deposition. They are simply interrupted. This is not what your professional creationists will tell you. Do you realize how many of those websites I have read and not one of them tells you that there is erosion within the fossil record? Do you know that they do not tell you about the gaps that have been created in the record between your rapid depositional events (and slow depositonal events)?
quote:
The Grand Canyon strata above the angular unconfromity tell the story of about 8 periods of continuous deposition. It's within the sequences that I am talking about lack of unconfromities (and even between these formations the relief is minimal or even non-existant).
So, you admit that in the middle of your glodbal flood that covered the entire earth, there were 8 times that the land was above water. And you did all of his uplift and depression of the continent in one year?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 8:40 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 10:06 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 38 of 117 (10676)
05-30-2002 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by TrueCreation
05-30-2002 8:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Do you have any information on lithified Ignimbrite-type rock encased in these sediments? This may indicate how strongly volcanic ash and breccia had to do with it.
I do not. But there are no ignimbrites in the Grand Canyon. I also know that other pyroclastic flows are also hot and can set up in a very short time. Besides, what are we talking about for canyon walls at MSH? A hundred feet max? And how long do you think they actually held? The comparison is not a good one but I'm sure I'll see it again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by TrueCreation, posted 05-30-2002 8:58 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by TrueCreation, posted 05-30-2002 10:29 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 45 of 117 (10688)
05-30-2002 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by TrueCreation
05-30-2002 10:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I do not. But there are no ignimbrites in the Grand Canyon. I also know that other pyroclastic flows are also hot and can set up in a very short time. Besides, what are we talking about for canyon walls at MSH? A hundred feet max? And how long do you think they actually held? The comparison is not a good one but I'm sure I'll see it again. "
--My question still is relevant to all these questions, including your assertions on how long they held, maybe lithified Ignimbrite-type rocks encased in these sediments are rapid though insufficient, thus making your first assertion a bit in favor of a catastrophic sequence.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by TrueCreation, posted 05-30-2002 10:29 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by TrueCreation, posted 05-30-2002 10:57 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 48 of 117 (10694)
05-30-2002 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Tranquility Base
05-30-2002 10:58 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]TC - good point. The flatness of the Grand Canyon plateaus supports catastrophic run-off too rather than miscellaenous low energy events which would have carved out gullies etc.[/QUOTE]
Hmm, so high energy environments wouldn't produce channels... I guess you haven't seen the channeled scablands from the outlet of glacial Lake Missoula.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 10:58 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-30-2002 11:58 PM edge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024