Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
119 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 115 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,057 Year: 6,169/6,534 Month: 362/650 Week: 132/278 Day: 30/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deposition and Erosion of Sediments
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 76 of 127 (193219)
03-22-2005 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Minnemooseus
03-22-2005 1:14 AM


Re: The two records of the story of the creation / Morton's Demon
My impression is that Faith is absolutely in the grips of Morton's Demon. Any further discussion with her is pointless.

Funny, that's EXACTLY my diagnosis of the blindness on the Evolution side.

They actually think they've refuted something when they bring in this or that interpretation from their own theory to answer a creationist. They wonder why creationists continue to repeat themselves. They really think that informing us of evolutionist deductions, inferences, guesses refutes anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-22-2005 1:14 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 03-22-2005 2:48 AM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 781 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 127 (193221)
03-22-2005 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
03-22-2005 2:40 AM


They actually think they've refuted something when they bring in this or that interpretation from their own theory to answer a creationist. They wonder why creationists continue to repeat themselves. They really think that informing us of evolutionist deductions, inferences, guesses refutes anything.

Tell me how an evolutionist could present any information, evidence, models, inferences, etc. that you wouldn't immediately reject because it came from an evolutionist.

I hear this all the time. When I read the Bible and tell people what it says, I'm discounted because it's my "atheist" or "evolutionist" interpretation. (Even though I'm just cut-n-pasting.) When I present evidence it doesn't matter because its "evolutionist" evidence.

I imagine you're pretty proud of the fact that no matter what we show you, you won't change your mind. That you'll resist the devil, or whatever. I imagine you're pretty proud of the fact that you've found an airtight way to dismiss any evidence put before you - no need to actually research it or construct a legitimate rebuttal; it suffices to know that its from an evolutionist, and therefore can be ignored.

I imagine you're pretty proud of that. I wonder if you can imagine how it appears to the rest of us. Probably not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 03-22-2005 2:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12814
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 78 of 127 (193225)
03-22-2005 4:16 AM


Thread Temporarily Closed, Reopening When We Have a 2nd Debater
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this.

I'm going to termporarily close this thread because:

  • As a Great Debate thread it should be between only two members.

  • It should be on-topic.

  • Especially here, the Forum Guidelines regarding keeping the debate impersonal should be followed.

If there is anyone who would like to debate this topic with Faith then please let me know at The Faith "Great Debate" sedimentation and erosion topic.

I've got to say that I've become increasingly disappointed at the increasing arrogance of the evolutionist side. EvC Forum is not supposed to be a protected environment for evolutionists. Evolutionists already have every advantage because the evidence is all on their side, and at EvC Forum you're required to argue the evidence. There is no need to engage in small-minded belittlements of the opposition. Some nuts are hard to crack, some nuts are incredibly frustrating, and some nuts are just nuts, but I would expect the side with all the advantages to maintain much better decorum. I include myself in this criticism.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12814
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 79 of 127 (193701)
03-23-2005 1:54 PM


Let the Great Debate Begin!
This topic is reopened for debate. The combatants:

Faith: YEC Creationist
Jazzns: Evolutionist

Only the combatants and moderators are permitted to post in this thread. Violators will have their posting privileges in the Great Debate forum temporarily suspended in order to prevent future such "accidents".

The question:

Does the evidence of sedimentation and erosion found in the geological record support a young-earth viewpoint?

I'm currently the moderator, but that could change. All decisions by the moderator are final.

I suggest that Jazzns be the next to post by replying to Message 62, but suggestions for how best to proceed are welcome. The combatants can make suggestions in this thread, all others should make their comments and suggestions in the The Faith "Great Debate" sedimentation and erosion topic thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3225 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 80 of 127 (193794)
03-23-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
03-20-2005 6:38 PM


Starting Out
First off, I would like to make sure that Faith is on board. I will go ahead and respond to this post and continue to bump it every time I see Faith on because I am not sure he/she has notification turned on. I would like to get at least a quick post from Faith either in this thread or (The Faith "Great Debate" sedimentation and erosion topic) letting me know if he/she plans on participating.

My original two messages to this thread still stand without response despite the fact that they answer questions that Faith had proposed. While I will respond to message 62 per Percy's request I feel that at the very least message 29 needs a response from Faith. I invested a lot of time with that one and I feel that it may clear some things up or at least get us off to a good start.

(Message 19)

(Message 29)

Now I will do my best to respond to message 62:

No, I'm working only from what you tell me, but I'll try not to be silly. The supposition was based on the fact that you had only mentioned missing dinosaur layers, no other missing layers, and mentioned no disturbances in the canyon strata that would be evidence of them, and to the naked eye it does seem to me there is a conspicuous absence of any disruption that one would expect from such prodigious erosion, erosion that would completely eliminate an extremely thick belt from the dinosaur period without leaving a visible mark of its supposed former existence in the column. The only evidence that anything is missing that you gave was the fact that such layers are found elsewhere.

Before we continue it might be best to go over some basic geology knowledge. There are three types of what are called unconformities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconformity)

In my own words:
1. A Disconformity is when there is a separation between parallel layers of sedimentary rocks either due to a lack of deposition or erosion between the deposition of the first and second layers. You can recognize a disconformity by a discrete change in the rock between two layers that are laid on top of each other in parallel but in a non uniform way. You can only usually diagnose a disconformity by looking the contact between two layers in extreme detail and over a wide area. Because they are still parallel, just looking at a cross section of layers like in the GC, it is difficult to tell the difference between the contact of two layers that is and is not a disconformity.

2. A Nonconformity is when you have sedimentary rock being deposited upon non-sedimentary rock. A nonconformity means literally that there is no conformity between the two layers of rock because they have completely different geologic meaning.

3. An Angular Unconformity is similar to a disconformity except that they layers are not parallel. An angular unconformity is obvious because the contact surface is very well defined. You basically have layer or a set of layers terminating at an angle at the beginning of the newer horizontal layer.

What is awesome about the Grand Canyon is that we have examples of all of these types of unconformities in one place.

See 1a (nonconformity), 3a (angular unconformity), 4a & 4c (disconformity) at:

Grand Canyon Geologic Column

At the bottom of the column there is sedimentary layers on top of basement granite which is a nonconformity. As you go up the column you notice that the layers are at a severe angle with respect to horizontal. Where these layers stop and the horizontal ones begin you have a great example of an angular unconformity. Then as you go up the relatively parallel layers of the rest of the column you have numerous disconformities.

Knowing this much tells us that whatever it is that created the GC was more complicated than just dumping a lot of dirt. In fact, if the creation of the GC was due to a single depositional event we should not expect to see any unconformities at all. The fact that these unconformities exist attests directly to multiple depositional events. Faith, if you are going to contest the mainstream interpretation of the formation of the GC, this is a good place to start laying some common ground from which to diverge. Do you agree that the fact of the existence of unconformities, without necessarily any admission of time, shows that with very little uncertainty that multiple depositional events are responsible for the formation of the GC?


And they were eroded away PERFECTLY...'

Eroded away "perfectly" is not a very accurate statement. The diagnosis of a disconformity comes from that fact that the contact between the two layers is explicitly not uniform over an area. There very existence of an "imperfect" contact is what tells us that erosion has happened. The fact that it is still parallel just means that the area was not tectonicly active over the period between the erosional event and the subsequent depositional event that caused the disconformity. There are plenty of places like this in the world right now, the eastern coast of the US is a great example. Since North America split from Europe (given whatever mechanism over whatever time you want), little has happened to change the tectonic landscape.

In other words, flat places are still flat. Given that, if there was an interruption in deposition for some reason such as sea level falling, then when deposition resumed there is no reason to expect that it would not continue to lay new "horizontal" layers over slightly eroded "horizontal" layers. This is in stark contrast to the west coast of the North America which is extremely active where layers are being bent, tilted, folded, etc due to tectonics. In this case we would expect there to form many angular unconformities.

Then when we find angular unconformities we know to look for other examples of tectonic activity in the geologic history of the area. In the case of the angular disconformity of the GC, this is exactly what we find. After the angular (originally horizontal) layers of the GC were laid down there was tectonic mountain building activity that caused those layers to be tilted. This evidence correlates the reason and timing for what we see with regards to angular layers in the GC.

With regards to this. Do you agree that the way we know an unconformity exists is due to the "imperfect" nature of the contact between the layers?

Negative evidence drawn entirely from the time table theory.

Science very sparingly uses negative evidence. In this case, there is positive evidence that is maybe not being explained correctly.

Layers are not uniform over wide areas. It is very easy to talk about basic geology in terms of stacks of rocks but once you learn what those stacks look like in real life it gets anything but simple. For the same layers, in one area it might be in the process of being eroded while in another the same layer might still be collecting sediment. This seems confusing at first but it makes sense when you think of an area like a shoreline. Take a beach at low tide. An area that is normally underwater piling up sand gets exposed to air and erosion for a little while. In that instant, the same layer of sand is both being eroded by the exposed beach due to low tide and deposited by the part that is still under water. Expand this example to cover the rise and fall of sea level globally and you have a decent analogy.

When we have a situation like this we can correctly infer some basic things. In one area we might see:

Layer C
Layer B
Layer A

Then nearby we might see:

Layer C
Layer A

We know layer C is continuous and Layer A is continuous because we can examine them over a wide area. So what happened to the continuity of layer B between to two samples? It either was never there or it was removed. Either way, we know B exists between A and C in one area, so the lack of B in another area easily testifies to it being "missing".

Do you agree that a missing sequence from otherwise continuous layers represents "missing" deposition?

[qs]OK, then show me where it all went please. Are there huge dinosaur beds downslope from the canyon area? (Away from the canyon of course, not in the canyon itself as that was created later, though beds there would be interesting to know about too).[qs]

If by dinosaur beds you mean fossils then the answer is probably not. Fossils are weathered just like rocks are so if the whole layers was turned to particles and moved by wind and water to different areas then we would not expect any fossils to survive either. Layers of sedimentary rock that are eroded eventually become new sedimentary rock somewhere else. It is impossible to tell where it all went because the only thing that identifies a sedimentary rock is its composition and its specific layer. Once a layer is destroyed only God knows where the material ended up. One thing is for certain though, it does end up somewhere and is part of a new different layer of sediment somewhere else entirely.

You are positing an ENORMOUS force of erosion to explain nothing but a SUPPOSEDLY missing layer for which there is NO DIRECT POSITIVE evidence that it was ever where you say it should have been. Not one dinosaur bone as I say, not one rock from that period. And the whole idea that such a layer was ever there is completely derived from THEORY.

Another point on this issue is important. We know something is missing because there is an unconformity. This is nearly impossible to deny. The way we identify that something which is missing is by examining the geologic history of the area "nearby" and by using absolute methods like radiometric dating to help identify the periods for which the erosion took place. It is kind of like taking a book from a dusty bookshelf. The imprint of where the book used to be will be in the dust and the books to either side of it will be leaning over. We KNOW a book was there so then we can continue to try to figure out what book is gone, how long it has been gone, why it is gone, etc. Maybe we can look at the books nearby to notice that they were sorted by author. Therefore we can say that the author of the missing book falls in a certain range of names. Then maybe we can look at the nearby books an notice they are all about cooking. So we can be pretty sure that the missing book is also about cooking.

While that's fair as a working mode of thinking, it is not fair when the positive evidence that is missing for your theory is in fact good evidence for the opposing theory but you stubbornly deny it. "Missing Layers" should go in the CON column for evolutionism and the PRO column for creationism.

Missing layers of geologic history has nothing to do with evolution. That genes mutate and selection acts upon those mutations is neither supported nor falsified by missing layers of sediment.

Layers are missing and we know they are missing by what they do and do not leave behind. This is a fact not an interpretation. Any theory that explains the geologic history of a given area MUST take this fact into consideration in its explanation.

Again, where is it? That much stuff ought to show up in an incoherent unlayered pile of sediments and bones somewhere nearby I would think.

The rules of physics that cause layers to form in the way they do originally also apply to re-eroded sediment. Any given sedimentary rock may have its source of sediment from igneous rocks (mountains, volcanoes), metamorphic rocks (cooked sedimentary rock), or other sedimentary rocks.

There would be no bones because what weathers the rock into sediment again will also weather the fossils too. Fossils are only preserved because they are buried. As soon as they are unburied they are destroyed just like the rock is.

Large enough nevertheless to raise reasonable questions about how it could disappear and leave no meaningful evidence that it was ever there.

The evidence that something was there is very meaningful. It is a fact.

No, but I'm referring to the fact that the strata remain intact to the naked eye. This appearance of the strata is infact evidence. You point to disturbances of a lesser magnitude than would disrupt this parallel appearance, so let me hasten to allow that I'm sure that is the case, that there are many such disturbances you could show me, but I am trying to suggest that an event of the magnitude of the complete erasure of such quantities of material as you describe would have made it impossible for the column to continue to build in as neat parallel layers as it in fact did TO THE NAKED eye at the very least.

Part of the problem with this statement is that it uses quite a bit of very subjective terminology such as "neat" and unquantifiable things that simply are not true such as "complete erasure", "lesser magnitude". What is "neat" to the "naked eye" in terms of an unconformity might actually be a drastic non uniform contact between to layers. The fact that they are relatively parallel just means that no tectonic activity tilted the rocks at any point. In the case of an angular unconformity it is CLEAR evidence that something is missing and it most certainly is NOT "neat".

It is very easy to take a superficial look at the GC and say that all these things are too "neat" to have formed over a long period of time. It takes quite a bit of mental gymnastics and sometimes outright fantasy to say that the actual content of the layers are anything close to "neat" to begin with. The problem is that they layers are not "neat". They are eroded in between, they are tilted in between, there was volcanic activity between layers, all indicating that geologic history of the area is anything but "neat" in the sense that you are using this term.

Apparently you are saying that all eroded areas were just filled in with new deposits and that maintained the overall structure, and I can see that for depressions, but erosion that would have erased whole deep layers had to make sloping troughs or gullies for the exiting of all that material it seems to me and that would have made further visibly level sedimentation on top of it extremely difficult and I'd say impossible. In summary, you can point to many areas of disruption but not to anything of the magnitude that the erosion you are describing would have caused IMHO.

In actual geology you have these things and they have been described to you before. In some places there are missing layers while nearby they are not missing. This is exactly the picture of a topological depression into the system over an area. These things that you are claiming do not exist actually do exist. They just don't exist in a postcard picture of the GC. A photograph of the GC with the granularity necessary to see the layers will never show you the kind of geologic data you need to see that the geologic history of the whole area for hundreds of square miles is actually very complicated.


A decent 2D picture of the GC column over area. See Figure 1.8

Look at the diagram you posted. Of course it's idealized. Of course lots of discontinuities could be shown to exist within it on a more realistic view, but for the parallel structure to be exhibitable AT ALL as presented there after entire layers were washed away just doesn't compute by the physical laws of this universe.

It just so happens that what you see in a cross section of the GC is a very tiny, insignificant portion of the geologic history of an extremely large area. If enough of the canyon wall eroded back enough you might get a radically different set of layers due to the history of erosion and sedimentation at that specific location. Moreover, that "new" set of layers will still look parallel to "the naked eye" because it is a cross section.

This is what I was trying to get at with my failed cake example. Things that are not necessarily parallel or neat will look very much neat and parallel in cross section. You cannot just take a cross section of something and expect to get a coherent picture of the geologic history of an entire area. All it gives you is a basis to start figuring out what happened at that very specific location and one piece of evidence for the detailed geologic history of the area.

Lets try this picture instead...

I tried to draw it similar to the 2D images from the last site I linked. Do you see how the layers are NOT parallel across the area but ARE parallel in cross section?

YES. Erosion has OBSERVABLE EFFECTS over VERY SHORT PERIODS OF TIME. I've based most of my complaints about the strata on this fact. I suppose they may be filled in and covered up by new deposits in some places under some conditions, but erosion does have the effect of obliterating structures even if new ones are later formed. This is OBSERVED all the time on planet earth in normal human time frames. The question is why it didn't do more damage to the layers in the strata during the enormous long periods of their formation, how they could have remained layers over millions of years during which long periods of exposure to the elements are also postulated.

There is a very easy answer to this. Erosion only affects what is currently at the surface. If it were not for the grand canyon cutting very deep into the layers of that area all you would have is the top few most layers being exposed to erosion and many hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock perfectly protected from erosion. This "massive" and "drastic" erosion that you are postulating, even if destructive over long periods of time, will still only affect the topmost layers of any particular geologic column. Over a long time it might even get rid of a few layers but it does not affect all the layers at once like you seem to say it does. This is exactly why we would expect to see some kind of unconformities in a place that has such a large amount of geologic history such as the GC because it is nearly impossible for one place to be immune from erosion for a billion years. In fact this is exactly what we see. The GC layers were often exposed to erosion and also often exposed to environments that were appropriate for deposition. Each time it changed from one to another we expect an unconformity and that is exactly what we find.

Some washes away, some fills in but how can that process have gone on for millions of years -- or even thousands -- and yet retained the overall parallel appearance. YES IT HAS AN OVERALL APPEARANCE OF HORIZONTAL PARALLEL LAYERS. To keep denying that with pictures of the Grand Canyon showing its dramatic parallel layering is RIDICULOUS.

You will not be able to get a meaningful representation of the geologic history of any area from one cross section of the geologic column. You appearance of "perfect parallel layers" is very much just a tiny sample of a much large geologic system and as I have said before, cross sections of stacked things make them look very straight to us humans who cant see them in 3d.

The Flood was a reality whether or not physical evidence for it is ever affirmed.

I am going to try to keep this discussion simply about sedimentation, sedimentary rocks, and associated geologic features. If you choose to argue from a position that the flood is a cause for any of these things then I will leave it up to you to include it as part of this conversation.

This message has been edited by Jazzns, 03-23-2005 07:34 PM


FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 03-20-2005 6:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 03-25-2005 10:19 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 04-03-2005 1:05 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3225 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 81 of 127 (194438)
03-25-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
03-20-2005 6:38 PM


Bump for Faith
Have some interesting new things to ponder about sediment depositional environments and, inspired by your recent dive into fossil sorting, some questions about sediment sorting that are relevant. All of this, of course, if you still want to participate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 03-20-2005 6:38 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 03-26-2005 5:16 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 82 of 127 (194554)
03-25-2005 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Jazzns
03-23-2005 9:33 PM


Re: Starting Out
I would like to get at least a quick post from Faith either in this thread or (The Faith "Great Debate" sedimentation and erosion topic) letting me know if he/she plans on participating.

I'm going to try to work my way through this now. Still have no idea whether I'm committed to this conversation or not but we'll start and see. I'm a "she" by the way.

My original two messages to this thread still stand without response despite the fact that they answer questions that Faith had proposed. While I will respond to message 62 per Percy's request I feel that at the very least message 29 needs a response from Faith. I invested a lot of time with that one and I feel that it may clear some things up or at least get us off to a good start.

All right. I'll go there then and get back to this later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Jazzns, posted 03-23-2005 9:33 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 127 (194618)
03-26-2005 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Jazzns
03-25-2005 12:31 PM


and now...
Content deleted. Only Faith, Jazzns and moderators are permitted to post to this thread. --Admin

This message has been edited by Admin, 03-27-2005 07:16 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Jazzns, posted 03-25-2005 12:31 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 84 of 127 (194620)
03-26-2005 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jazzns
03-16-2005 5:57 PM


Re: Deposition on dry land
OK I started a reply to this Message #19 and had to park it for a while. meanwhile I looked up information about the Grand Canyon area and got quite involved in it. Found some terrific photos of the whole area on up into Utah and a great diagram of the underlying strata of that whole area of fantastic and beautiful formations.

It got me back to Square One, back to my very first observation about these formations, that it is very odd to think that the layering that is so conspicuously displayed in all these formations was built up slowly over millions and millions of years, some of which time it was exposed to the air and not underwater and yet only in "recent" times has it been so dramatically eroded as we now see it.

And besides that, the whole shebang looks like a planet that was drowned in water at one time.

Grand Canyon, especially clear photos, at least on my old computer:
http://www.und.edu/instruct/mineral/101intro/grandcanyon/pics.htm
Grand Staircase:
http://www.stonecanyoninn.com/grand-staircase-1/pictures.html
Bryce Canyon site. Scrollable diagram of the whole region down the page:
http://www.nps.gov/brca/geology_grand.html

Sorry you've been kept waiting for me to get back to this, but it's still hard to get focused on it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 03-16-2005 5:57 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 85 of 127 (194760)
03-27-2005 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jazzns
03-16-2005 5:57 PM


Re: Deposition on dry land
quote:
You seem to have the largest problem with sedimentary depostion on dry land. Is this correct?

It's one of the problems. It just seems to me it couldn't maintain its form as a recognizable layer over a million or so years of exposure to normal weathering, but I also have a problem with the building up of sediments under water over such an enormous period of time, first one kind for a million or so years, then suddenly a completely other kind and so on. It's the millions of years part that boggles me most.

quote:
I will go ahead and proceed assuming that it is.

The first thign to note is that most deposition does happen under water. The majority of the layers of the grand canyon were formed under water so there is no problem with those. When a particle of silicate falls to the bottom of the ocean there is not much that will necessarily move it and it will likely get buried. Just so we are clear, do you have any issues with this basic fact?


Not with that basic fact, no, just a problem with the idea of a million years of buildup of one particular kind of particle followed by a million years or so of buildup of a completely different kind of particle on top of the earlier buildup, followed by a million or so of yet another and so on.

quote:
Do you recognize that as material enters calm water it will settle out and pile up over time? Do you recognize that it is very difficult for a natural process to remove material from the bottom of a body of water?

Been assuming it as a matter of fact but I appreciate your confirmation.

quote:
No on to the dry land sediment which you claim cannot build up because it is doomed to be eroded. First of all, the one dry land layers of the GC that I can think of off the top of my head has ample evidence of erosion. The Coconino sandstone is cross-bedded showing that wind moved around the sand particles in a way that creates that feature like how we think of sand dunes in a desert. The reason this layer was preserved is that the wind did not erode the sand into other locations faster than sand was being put into the environment by other types of weathering. We can see this happening today in deserts that are near mountain ranges. Let me explain.

A high profile area like a mountain is subject to much more weathering than a flat coastline or plain. Because of this a the rate of erosion on a mountain is much greater than the rate of erosion on a plain. So if the source of material for the desert that created the Coconino sandstone was a more high profile area then the desert that produce the Coconino sandstone then it is likely that more sand was ending up in the desert then was being removed by wind, rain, etc. This is how depostion works. If more sand HAD been removed the Coconino sandstone would not have existed and we would be looking at an erosional disconformity in the GC rather than a layer of sandstone.


This formation keeps coming up in conversation here, in terms of its representing a sandy "landscape." I did find some good photos of this formation closeup and now I recognize it in the Grand Canyon wall from a distance. I have trouble understanding how it got compressed into stone over such a distance in such a horizontal configuration, flat on top and so on, but I grasp that it was formed of blown sand somehow.

Nice clear shot of Coconino Sandstone layer:
http://www.kaibab.org/mc96/mc96imga.jpg
Closeup of same:
http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=131328
Wonderfully clear photos of specific formations in the Canyon, some with the Coconino identified:
http://www.und.edu/instruct/mineral/101intro/grandcanyon/pics.htm

quote:
Key note here. No is is saying that the all the sand that ever got dumped into the desert that produced the Coconino sandstone stayed there. All the layers tell us is that, overall, deposition was greater than erosion at and between the layers of sediment at the GC when it was being deposited.

A basic understand of this does not have to be difficult. All it takes are a few key concepts.

1. Weathered material settles in low places.
2. Over a very wide area the tendency of settling material is to spread flat with respect to the area. This is easily observable today in modern lakes, oceans, deltas, and deserts.


OK, that's informative, thanks.

quote:
3. The rate of weathering in these low areas affects how much weathered material will stick around. Material in calm bodies of water like the ocean or lakes experiences the least amount of weathering so most of the material that makes it here will stick around.
4. When the type of material changes all it does is begin to cover up the material already there. When this happens for a long enough period of time a differnt type of layer is made on top of the old one.

Of course. The problem is explaining how just one sediment could continue depositing for millions of years as just that one material, and then how there could be an abrupt change after all that time to a completely different kind of material which is deposited over more millions of years. It's the millions of years part and the change and the maintenance of horizontality. Even thousands of years. Maybe even hundreds, but hundreds is getting more comprehensible, though so far there still hasn't been clear evidence of such an ongoing layering that is like that in the geo column.

When do you see a CHANGE from one kind of sediment to another in any depositional environment? What time frame is involved in such a change if it occurs? Do you see actual layers building up anywhere to the depth of those in the geo column? Where? How many layers? What depth? What explains the change from one kind of sediment to another? How long to get how deep a deposit? (Taking into account compression factors or whatever else). How common is such an event as the layering I'm talking about if it occurs at all anywhere? If a total change in "landscape" is postulated, how does the horizontality remain? This last question is hard to formulate. I may have to figure out how to ask it better later.

quote:
5. As long as the rate of deposition is greater than the rate of erosion, material will pile up and bury older material. We can watch this happening today in modern depositional environments.

OK. Where is it seen and how similar is it to the strata?

Still the main problem is accounting for horizontality. Also depth of deposition of one kind of sediment, relatively even thickness of the deposition, change to different kind of sediment and depth of that sediment and repeat of the process. I understand you are focusing only on erosion and I accept your ratio, but there's more to the problem in my mind than just the idea that erosion would destroy the horizontal configuration of any given layer. Actually that's still a question too. The material may be replaced more or less, but how is the shape maintained? If underwater no problem for the shape but then erosion doesn't occur underwater anyway. But how do SAND DUNES become compressed to a horizontal layer in the geo column?

quote:
6. If the rate of erosion is higher then the rate of deposition then layers are removed rather than formed. This is also happening today in high profile areas. At the top of Sandia peak where I live are old layers of limestone. It is very hard for material that falls on top of the limestone to stick around because the rate of weathering is extremely high. Eventually, the evidence that that limestone exists will be destroyed.

Faith's argument boils down to this. Faith believes that no where on dry land does there exist a place where the rate of erosion is less than the rate of deposition for any significant period of time.


Not really. The idea is that erosion carries material AWAY, which changes the shape of the eroded area but our layers have to end up as layers to fit with what is seen in the Grand Canyon strata and indeed for miles toward the north and east from the Canyon from what I've been reading (and seeing in the photos above). The Coconino seems to be relatively even in thickness from a distance, very horizontal, and it's hard to imagine that for millions of years there was this steady erosion plus deposition effect that maintained any such coherence over any large area.

I found this really informative site about depositional environments with very helpful pictures, and I find it very hard to extrapolate from any of these types of deposition to the enormous scale and original horizontality of the strata of the geological column. Only the playas come close to both the scale and horizontality both. I haven't found any pictures of currently-forming layers of different sediments anywhere. Some posters have informed me that these are seen in rivers. I'd like to see pictures of that sometime.

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~millerm/depenv.html

Also in the case of something like the Coconino what would have caused it to harden into sandstone since it wasn't formed under water, and at what point in the millions of years?

quote:
Unfortunatly for Faith this is not true. I happen to live in an environment where more deposition is happening than erosion.

The Rio Grande Valley is sitting on top of many layers of ancient alluvial fans. ...
Basically, the only material leaving the valley is via the river. Because the mountain weathers MUCH faster than the river can carry away the results, the net result is that alluvial fan after alluvial fan have been buried over the course of time.


The basic information is very helpful, thanks. And here are some pictures of alluvial fans I found that helped too.

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~millerm/fan.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 03-16-2005 5:57 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Jazzns, posted 03-27-2005 12:02 PM Faith has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3225 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 86 of 127 (194824)
03-27-2005 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
03-27-2005 12:20 AM


Re: Deposition on dry land
Happy Easter!

Here we have a bunch of really great questions. Some of these questions I believe are answered in some way or another by one of my other posts.

(Message 29)
and
(Message 80)

I'll post briefly on those and answer the ones that seem new. If you still have the question after reading all 3 posts please let me know and I can clarify further.

Not with that basic fact, no, just a problem with the idea of a million years of buildup of one particular kind of particle followed by a million years or so of buildup of a completely different kind of particle on top of the earlier buildup, followed by a million or so of yet another and so on

This was discussed before and I think I mentioned it in passing for a particular limestone in the GC. Basically you can have "limestone" in general but in detail you are going to have a lot of differences just in one layer. Limestone can be very pure, or "shaley" or "sandy" and all of this can change back and forth between the start and end of one layer. So even in one layer it isn't as simple as "buildup of one particular kind of particle". Since most of it is limestone we know that the environment was mostly friendly to limestone deposition. A major change happens when something major changes like an overall rise or fall in sea level. If sea level falls too far then limestone can't form any more and we are going to get more sand instead. It is not like we didn't get any sand before but now we are getting much more sand then we are little sea critters so the layer starts to look very different. It takes a long time for sea level to change that drastically so any one depositional environment has a significant amount of time to be collecting sediment before a change may occur.

When do you see a CHANGE from one kind of sediment to another in any depositional environment?

In terms of a "live" system the best that I can think of is the Black Sea. There is a great book that you should read called Noah's Flood by William Ryan & Walter Pitman. Basically what they discovered was that both the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea both had instances in their history where they suddenly changed from dry land or fresh water to salt water due to natural dams breaking due to the rise in sea level after the end of the last ice age. When they drilled into the Seas they found layers of non-marine deposits and fossils immediately followed by marine deposits and fossils all laid down in a span since human existence. All part of a "live" system.

As an aside, they postulated that human witness of these events, especially the Black Sea, might be the source of the many flood mythologies around the world. Great read.

Other than that it is going to be hard to see too much of a change in a deposition environment in our lifetime or even in "live" systems since they take so long to happen normally. The example of the Black Sea is good because it was a sudden change and it was pretty recent. It sort of makes me wonder what is underneath the Mississippi river delta.

What time frame is involved in such a change if it occurs?

Answering this question helps because since the time frame is pretty well established to be very long, we don't expect to see major depositional environment changes within any meaningful span of human life. You can start to see the beginnings of some future changes though.

Sea level is currently rising and eventually, many places in the SE corner of the US will be under ocean where it was not before.

Sandy beaches will be replaced by deep ocean:
* Sea creatures and silt will start to bury sands.
* Limestone/Shale will be above Sandstone.

So basically, you can answer this question for yourself with the following:

How old is any given beach, river, desert, delta? What would it take in terms of the environment of the these places to change so that it is NOT a beach, river, desert, delta? How much time would it take for this to happen?

Since we don't see rivers drying up or changing course over night or even over 1000s of years; since we don't see beaches become ocean bottom over night or even over 1000s of years; since we don't see big lakes drying up or being created overnight or even over 1000s of years; since we don't see oceans lifting up over night or even over 1000s of years; we know these things take longer than even that.

Do you see actual layers building up anywhere to the depth of those in the geo column?

Sure. Somewhere someone talked about the depth of the Mississippi river delta. I believe it was Percy and it might have been the previous thread before it closed down after 300 posts.

Where? How many layers? What depth?

The east coast of North America is a great place because it is very quiet in terms of tectonics. The Mississippi river and its delta, the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Coast are all good examples. Also like I mentioned before, the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, etc. Drill into these and you will get soft loose layers followed by more compacted of the same layer followed by an even more compacted of maybe a different layer, etc. The depth I would have to look up but I recall someone providing the depth of the Mississippi delta to be nothing trivial.

What explains the change from one kind of sediment to another?

Simple. Change in depositional environment. We know this happens because we can find evidence of it "live" systems that correlate to the layering we see in rocks.

How long to get how deep a deposit? (Taking into account compression factors or whatever else).

The thickness of a deposit may or may not have any correlation to the time it took to deposit it. Some places drop more sediment than others and over many years will build up sediment much higher than a place with even a little bit lower rate of deposition. Was there evidence of an abundance of source material nearby? Was there a mountain nearby? These are all good questions to ask when talking about any one particular area. If you are talking about the middle of a deep ocean then we know that it takes a long time for silt to settle and it even takes longer for creatures to live, grow, and die in order to make 1000s of feet of limestone.

The existence of limestone is very difficult for a young earth when you start to look into the nitty gritty details. For starters there is WAAAAY too much of it.

It is hard to posit a different mechanism for limestone deposition when there is so much of it going on in "live" systems today. Why would the exact same deposits we are seeing form today form differently in the past?

From www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

How were limestone deposits formed? Much limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the Flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? Roughly 1.5 x 10^15 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor each year. [Poldervaart, 1955] A deposition rate ten times as high for 5000 years before the Flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits.

And also a good Corollary from Coragyps at Message 66 which basically shows that the creation of so much limestone in a short time even if there was enough critters alive to do it would have had other devastating impacts on the world. There are many arguments that follow the same principles of trying to fit millions of years of something into just a few thousand but this is the only one I could think of off the top of my head that has to do with sedimentation and deposition.

Basically, we know that limestone takes a long time to form. If it did not then there are some pretty serious consequences which include the eradication of an atmosphere hospitable to life.

How common is such an event as the layering I'm talking about if it occurs at all anywhere?

The GC is extremely unique in that it was once an ocean. Most of the time ocean sediments get destroyed by tectonics so the sediment we have today in the oceans only go back a couple hundred million years as far as I know. The ocean where the GC was laid down though was actually just part of a large continental depression and a very high sea level. In this case instead of destroying it, tectonics uplifted it when the Rockies were formed. This is why the GC is so very interesting to geologists. We have an ancient coastline extremely far inland and a well preserved set of uplifted ocean sedimentary rock.

Most of the time the layering is not as well preserved as it is in the GC as far as I know. Usually the geologic history of an area includes a lot of faulting, volcanoes, bending of the strata, etc. The GC is a large example of very well preserved strata. But even within itself you see evidence of how tectonics can muck up the horizontal layers in the mere existence of a very distinct angular unconformity near the "bottom" of the canyon.

If a total change in "landscape" is postulated, how does the horizontality remain?

Part of the problem is that you need to start thinking about layers that are horizontal with respect to the layers above and below. Take a look at that 3d drawing in my previous post. See how in some instances the layers are not horizontal but if you took a cross section at a different location they would still be horizontal with respect to the other layers. Horizontal is just how things get laid down and always with respect to the other layers in the system.

But how do SAND DUNES become compressed to a horizontal layer in the geo column?

Compression happens upon burial. The sand dunes that make up the Coconino sandstone were buried by other sediment before they hardened into sandstone. If you are worried about the topography of a sand dune then that is a little bit different. Remember perfect horizontal layers don't really exist but rather horizontal layers with respect to the layers near it and also over an area. Modern deserts are essentially "flat" when you look at the big picture.

Also in the case of something like the Coconino what would have caused it to harden into sandstone since it wasn't formed under water, and at what point in the millions of years?

The lithification occurs when a sediment is buried. The more a sediment gets buried the more it keeps getting compacted until it is hard like a rock. Sedimentary rocks don't usually form at the surface and I would be willing to say never do except that I am not a real geologist and I cannot imagine all scenarios where lithification might occur at the surface.

This message has been edited by Jazzns, 03-27-2005 10:03 AM

This message has been edited by Jazzns, 03-27-2005 10:04 AM


FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 03-27-2005 12:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 03-28-2005 8:14 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 87 of 127 (195041)
03-28-2005 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Jazzns
03-27-2005 12:02 PM


Re: Deposition on dry land
quote:
Happy Easter!

And I hope you had a Happy Easter / Resurrection Day yourself.

I wanted to answer this post first briefly but although I did skip some points it still ends up being an awfully long post. It will probably take me a while to get back to the others now.

Yes, I keep forgetting that the assumption of great lengths of time for the creation of the Geo Column means that actual evidence of any ongoing layering that occurs in the same way isn't going to be found.

quote:
Since we don't see rivers drying up or changing course over night or even over 1000s of years; ...

Actually there is at least one rather striking example of a major river's changing course in just a hundred years. This change in the course of the Missouri River was the reason it was hard to locate the remains of a steamboat that had traveled the river in the 19th Century and sank there, which was the subject of a PBS program some years ago. It was finally located a mile or more from the current riverbed by tracking the changes in the river's course over the years. http://glswrk-auction.com/102.htm
{Edit to add some more refs: http://yankton.net/stories/012605/community_20050126030.shtml
Book on the Missouri
http://www.peacecorpswriters.org/pages/2004/0403/403rvrvsofchng.html

I have to ask, how would anyone KNOW whether or not these things have happened in thousands of years: "we don't see beaches become ocean bottom ... even over 1000s of years; ... we don't see big lakes drying up or being created ... even over 1000s of years; ... we don't see oceans lifting up ... even over 1000s of years; [and that] ... these things take longer than even that ?

Actually if the Flood occurred there would probably have been many huge lakes left behind that hadn't been there before, that either dried up or drained away in the last few thousand years and maybe within the first few hundred after the Flood.

This in a nutshell is the problem I keep running into in evolutionist reasoning. For anything we “see” or "don't see" that goes back before we have actual verifiable evidence, all you have is inferences from the present state of things and no other independent evidence and yet it is described as if it were observed fact. In the case of the changing course of the Missouri River there are historical documents and drawings to show at least that it had changed over time and even many times, and with some heavy thinking applied to these documents it was eventually figured out roughly where the steamboat actually sank. Just looking at the current situation of the Missouri an evo might postulate that it may have changed course at some time or other in the past but the time frame would probably have been a million or at least thousands of years, not many times in a hundred years.

Back a thousand or two thousand years we MAY still have some written documents on SOME geological formations in the world, I don't know, but without such documents any generalizations you make will have no independent evidence to confirm or disconfirm them. All anyone can ever actually “see” experimentally is what is going on NOW. The best evidence available about the past is what somebody has written about it who witnessed it at the time. That's not perfect either, but it's better evidence than guesses based on current events. Even the MOST intelligent extrapolations to the past from the present have no way of being tested or proved, and without independent evidence in the form of testimony from the time of the event being described all you have is an unfalsifiable more or less intelligent guess. And of course the farther back you generalize the less reliable your guesses are.

You have a principle called Uniformitarianism which ASSUMES that things always happened pretty much as they are happening now, but there is no proof of the validity of this principle. You have radiometric dating which is claimed to tell the age of something calculated by the rate of decay of radioactive content, but while it’s a reasonable theory there’s no way to prove that it actually works as it is unknown whether the rate of decay may vary under certain circumstances, and again there is no independent testimony from the time being measured to confirm or disconfirm a date. If science must be testable, replicable and falsifiable, this is not science. And you have the fossil record which APPEARS to be sorted according to age of the fossils, but again there is no way to confirm or disconfirm this. It’s plausible on the face of it but that’s all it is or ever can be.

Over and over the reasoning that is required in these fields is not scientific reasoning according to the official definitions. Science certainly produces working plausibilities, but science can also ultimately confirm or disconfirm them with well constructed experiments. When dealing with what happened in the past there is no experiment that can be done. History does not lend itself to scientific method. The most reliable history has written documents to support it, but geological and biological history must do without that kind of evidence for all periods when there is no written report to be had.

You want to show me that an understanding of what ACTUALLY happened in the formation of the strata would change my mind about the reality of a worldwide Flood. But what you are forced to rely on in your presentation of evidence of What Actually Happened is the assumptions of the very theories I am questioning. This is in fact Begging the Question, or what creationists are always being accused of, Circular Reasoning. But creationists in the case of the Flood at least do have the independent witness of the Bible, a witness from the time in question, while evolutionists have nothing but their current speculations to go on.

This is why ALL the evidence that is offered from your side is just plausibilities, and why when a creationist offers counterplausibilities they are always rejected. There is no way of proving either, but the evos have the politically correct views and simply declare the creos wrong. My birds perching on dinosaurs was a pretty silly guess in the wrongheaded attempt to place birds with dinosaurs, but no sillier than the idea of dinosaurs dying once in a great while and being carried downriver to join a whole pileup of dinosaurs that somehow all bunched up together even though each corpse arrived after long passages of time and was buried individually. No sillier than the idea that the Carboniferous is not just a layer of coal but an actual period that was a landscape covered in coal. There is no way to PROVE OR DISPROVE any of these suppositions. The method is ONLY imagination, plausibility, and ridicule for the opposition’s thinking done by the same methods.

My entire method here has been questioning evo plausibilities and offering creo plausibilities. This is all anyone can do with questions about what happened in the past. I’m always answered that I need to know more. Of course I do. My plausibilities are necessarily pretty limited for lack of knowledge. But knowing more will accomplish nothing either as Creationist scientists know more than most of the evo posters here but nothing they have to say is considered worthy of attention here. It is all ridiculed.

quote:
We also wouldn't see the big changes that had to occur during at least the first few hundred years after a worldwide Flood.

And here is one of these statements made as if it were absolute fact which is based on the suppositions I mention above and is untestable and unfalsifiable.

If I ask you for proof of this statement what would you tell me? Nothing from the time of the Flood for sure, but only inferences backwards from currently observed processes, assuming that things were happening at the same rate then and so on.

Do you see actual layers building up anywhere to the depth of those in the geo column?

quote:
Sure. Somewhere someone talked about the depth of the Mississippi river delta. I believe it was Percy and it might have been the previous thread before it closed down after 300 posts.

It sure seems odd to me that this kind of fact wouldn’t be considered to support rather than challenge the Flood idea. The time frame evos would postulate for the delta’s accumulation would of course be astronomically greater than what creos would postulate but as usual neither could be confirmed or disconfirmed scientifically, merely extrapolated from assumptions (including assumptions about the validity of radiometric dating under all conditions). But the fact that it is only in very specific local environments that you see evidence of layering similar to that in the Geo Column should in itself suggest that the Geo Column which is considered to be a worldwide phenomenon by all geologists, not just by creationists, can only be explained by something on a tremendously greater scale than a few deltas around the world.

What explains the change from one kind of sediment to another?

quote:
Simple. Change in depositional environment. We know this happens because we can find evidence of it "live" systems that correlate to the layering we see in rocks.

I guess you assume that even the ongoing deposits have taken millions of years then. No way to prove any of it though.

If you are talking about the middle of a deep ocean then we know that it takes a long time for silt to settle and it even takes longer for creatures to live, grow, and die in order to make 1000s of feet of limestone.

The existence of limestone is very difficult for a young earth when you start to look into the nitty gritty details. For starters there is WAAAAY too much of it.

It is hard to posit a different mechanism for limestone deposition when there is so much of it going on in "live" systems today. Why would the exact same deposits we are seeing form today form differently in the past?

Well, there are many reasons according to creationist thinking. And there is no objective basis for assuming they formed the same way.

How were limestone deposits formed? Much limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the Flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? Roughly 1.5 x 10^15 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor each year. [Poldervaart, 1955] A deposition rate ten times as high for 5000 years before the Flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits.

And also a good Corollary from Coragyps at Re: sorting & biomass (Message 66 of Thread Evidence for and against Flood theories in Forum Geology and the Great Flood) which basically shows that the creation of so much limestone in a short time even if there was enough critters alive to do it would have had other devastating impacts on the world. There are many arguments that follow the same principles of trying to fit millions of years of something into just a few thousand but this is the only one I could think of off the top of my head that has to do with sedimentation and deposition.

Basically, we know that limestone takes a long time to form. If it did not then there are some pretty serious consequences which include the eradication of an atmosphere hospitable to life.

Limestone isn’t only organic but can also be inorganically formed under certain conditions. Some Creationists say this is how it is formed in limestone caves. They also say that most of the limestone in the strata is inorganic. Evo best guess is that great quantities produced all at once would eradicate the atmosphere, but you don’t know for sure and there’s no way to test it. May depend on other factors that are also unknown. Also maybe it was already produced before the Flood rather than during. Nobody knows for sure and there is no way to test it for sure.

Creationist sites on limestone formation:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-079.htm
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Limestone3.html

Again I’d just point out that the theory is only as good as its best guess, and there is no way to test that best guess. It can’t be replicated, it can’t be falsified, because it’s in the past. The best you can do is compare processes going on now with the contents you see in particular strata and guess that the same processes produced it. Certainly some guesses make more sense than others, but you can’t KNOW your best guess is right, and again there is no way to test it, replicate it or falsify it. All either side of the dispute can do is offer possibilities, plausibilities, possible scenarios to explain a given formation. The science involved is the same on both sides. The same scientific principles are used, the same chemical and biological processes are used to make the case.

How common is such an event as the layering I'm talking about if it occurs at all anywhere?

quote:
The GC is extremely unique in that it was once an ocean.

And here, Jazz, is another excellent example of what I’m talking about. The flat unequivocal statement that “it was once an ocean.” Of course that idea comes from considering contents and qualities of the strata and extrapolating from ongoing processes and chemical processes to the period of its formation, as usual. This is sensible of course. It’s the only thing that CAN be done in the attempt to reconstruct the past, but again, it can’t be tested, replicated or falsified. The best that can happen is that a more plausible explanation can come along. This isn’t a scientific fault, it’s just that anything that occurred in the past is not subject to proof by scientific method. The geologic timetable is not and the theory of evolution is not subject to that kind of proof. Neither is the Flood. Only processes that can be replicated -- intentionally repeated -- in the present are subject to proof or disproof by scientific method. History can’t be.

A creationist COULD say, “Of COURSE the GC was an ocean, the whole world was once an ocean for about a year, good of you to see the evidence at least in one place” but you’d ridicule that answer on the basis of all the other suppositions about the formation of all the other strata as if all that were established fact too, when it’s all only unprovable, untestable, unreplicable, unfalsifiable educated guesses like all the rest. Yes, again, evos may correct a particular guess by a more plausible guess. I’m sure that happens all the time. But that’s not testability, replicability, falsifiability. And it’s exactly the same kind of thinking creationists do too, both sides competing with plausible scenarios, yet evos ridicule creationists for using the same methods they use. That’s the only REAL edge evos have -- they are the Establishment so they get to call the shots. They get to make the Judgment Call, which is what ALL the conclusions are based on.

Overall the BIG plausibility problem with evo theory is the assumption that all things occurred in the past as they are occurring now.

Most of the time ocean sediments get destroyed by tectonics so the sediment we have today in the oceans only go back a couple hundred million years as far as I know. The ocean where the GC was laid down though was actually just part of a large continental depression and a very high sea level. In this case instead of destroying it, tectonics uplifted it when the Rockies were formed. This is why the GC is so very interesting to geologists. We have an ancient coastline extremely far inland and a well preserved set of uplifted ocean sedimentary rock.

As usual with evo theory, what we get above is the theory itself given as if it were fact. What led geologists to the idea that the GC was once an ocean is not given, I'm just expected to accept the evo scenario as fact. It is assumed and presented as fact that tectonic destruction of sediments today is fairly extrapolated to the formation of the strata, but that assumption can be questioned as tectonic activity is figured by creationists to have STARTED with the Flood and what we are seeing now is a later development. Again your next statement is also presented as simple fact as if anybody had seen it with his own eyes that “the ocean where the GC was laid down …was actually just part of a large continental depression and a very high sea level” feeling no need to give the actual observations that led to this educated guess about what happened. It may be a very plausible educated guess, but again there is no way to test it, prove it, replicate it or falsify it. It’s even hard to find out the reasoning process, but even if one has it, it’s still not testable. It remains the most plausible educated guess until a better educated guess comes along. Again, this is the only kind of reasoning that can be used with events in the past, but since it is in the nature of the situation that none of it is subject to the usual scientific methods of proof it SHOULD be treated as far more tentative than conclusions that CAN be tested, replicated, falsified etc. Actually to look at the diagram of that whole region, the altitudes involved, the maintenance of the parallel layering, it does seem it was all uplifted at one point. That’s no doubt a plausible scenario that Creationists can agree with easily enough although the time frame wouldn’t be accepted.

Most of the time the layering is not as well preserved as it is in the GC as far as I know. Usually the geologic history of an area includes a lot of faulting, volcanoes, bending of the strata, etc. The GC is a large example of very well preserved strata. But even within itself you see evidence of how tectonics can muck up the horizontal layers in the mere existence of a very distinct angular unconformity near the "bottom" of the canyon.

Yes of course. They explain that unconformity as having occurred before the layers above it were laid down, but actually the diagram of the whole area would suggest that it probably occurred after – not the layers of that lower section of course, just the tilting of the whole block of layers -- although in that case how it managed not to disturb the layers above is a puzzle. The diagram I posted shows a great swelling that uplifted and distorted the layers north of the canyon just a bit without breaking them, which is explained as magma pushing upward that didn’t erupt through, that had to have occurred after the layers were formed (and were no doubt still damp in order to bend and not break), and that great unconformity at the bottom of the canyon appears to have been pushed by that magma into its current condition. Not being a geologist how would I know of course, but I’d guess the layers were still a bit damp when these tectonic forces occurred so that the upper layers exerted enough counterforce to keep from being disrupted, and enough to redirect the underlying strata diagonally along with the force of the magma.

If a total change in "landscape" is postulated, how does the horizontality remain?

quote:
Part of the problem is that you need to start thinking about layers that are horizontal with respect to the layers above and below. Take a look at that 3d drawing in my previous post. See how in some instances the layers are not horizontal but if you took a cross section at a different location they would still be horizontal with respect to the other layers. Horizontal is just how things get laid down and always with respect to the other layers in the system.]

Jazz, I have not misrepresented the horizontality at any point. My visualization and spatial relationship faculties are excellent and I haven’t said anything that requires such a basic correction. I can SEE that the canyon was laid down in horizontal layers all with respect to each other as well as with respect to the horizon of the earth in the case of the canyon, and I’m also aware of Steno’s Law which SAYS that all such layers were ORIGINALLY horizontal. Even after being distorted by tectonic movements they remain PARALLEL in the greater canyon area and their original horizontality is easily inferred from this. Your diagram may certainly be the case in local areas, though as presented it is merely an abstract hypothetical, but for the canyon itself and the greater canyon area, if YOU will look at the diagrams given of the entire extended area to the north of the canyon you will see that the PARALLEL configuration of the strata is maintained over a magma swelling and on up into Utah beneath higher layers WITHOUT BREAK. Jar posted a diagram of the area on the original sediment thread and I posted one above, which I’ll link here again as well:

Scrollable diagram down page

But how do SAND DUNES become compressed to a horizontal layer in the geo column?

quote:
Compression happens upon burial.

Is the sand at the bottom of existing sand dunes hardened to stone? Or are you talking about burial by other layers accumulating above? Because if so remember that the layers are supposed to have taken millions of years to form. So IF the Coconino remained dunes all that time and IF dunes don’t become sandstone in their lower regions under their own weight, then that process would only have begun when the next sediment started depositing on top and compression couldn’t have been early in that process as there wouldn’t be enough weight. But wouldn’t the new sediments from above conform to the dune shape beneath and preserve it? Wouldn’t they settle in the depressions of the dunes? Wouldn’t they in fact have been blown as the dune sand was? Or were they washed in by water, flattening the dunes and soaking them through?

The sand dunes that make up the Coconino sandstone were buried by other sediment before they hardened into sandstone. If you are worried about the topography of a sand dune then that is a little bit different. Remember perfect horizontal layers don't really exist but rather horizontal layers with respect to the layers near it and also over an area. Modern deserts are essentially "flat" when you look at the big picture.

Jazz, LOOK at the Coconino: It is a thick hard layer of sandstone FLAT on top, FLAT on the bottom, not PERFECTLY for pete’s sake but VISIBLY FLAT. It does NOT have the SHAPE of DUNES at any point. It retains its basic flatness THROUGHOUT the entire region on up into Utah as illustrated on the diagrams. I have NEVER been talking about PERFECTION, ONLY observable visible parallel strata that in the canyon are also horizontal, and STENO AGREES WITH ME!

I can accept that because of the configuration of the sand grains in the layer, the crossbedding as it is called, that they were once shaped by the same forces that shape dunes. That is a reasonable supposition. But you still have to explain how that whole thick layer became a flat horizontal layer on the notion that it took millions of years to build it up and then more millions to build up the layers above it, without preserving its dune wave shape in the process of filling in its depressions etc., if it started out as dunes and stayed dunes for millions of years.

Also in the case of something like the Coconino what would have caused it to harden into sandstone since it wasn't formed under water, and at what point in the millions of years?

quote:
The lithification occurs when a sediment is buried. The more a sediment gets buried the more it keeps getting compacted until it is hard like a rock. Sedimentary rocks don't usually form at the surface and I would be willing to say never do except that I am not a real geologist and I cannot imagine all scenarios where lithification might occur at the surface.

Again I would just repeat that this burying process supposedly took millions of years, so the lithification would have been correspondingly slow as the weight would not have been sufficient in the early stages. Also was the layer above formed in water or not? If formed in water then don’t we have to imagine the entire column being submerged at once and the dunes being soaked as well as the new-forming sediment layer? How does a new “landscape” form slowly on top of an old one without disturbing it? But the Coconino is clearly undisturbed sandstone neatly compressed into flatness above and below.

This message has been edited by Faith, 03-28-2005 08:29 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Jazzns, posted 03-27-2005 12:02 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Jazzns, posted 03-29-2005 4:47 PM Faith has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3225 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 88 of 127 (195253)
03-29-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
03-28-2005 8:14 PM


Re: Deposition on dry land
Actually there is at least one rather striking example of a major river's changing course in just a hundred years.

You need to think in terms of environment. I was not clear so I apologize. The Missouri's course changed yes but the fluvial environment did not. We can see sea levels rising and falling all the time but it takes quite a lot to put Florida at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. We are talking about total environment change not just a river changing course.

I have to ask, how would anyone KNOW whether or not these things have happened in thousands of years

Because over the course of recorded human history which spans many thousands of years we have never seen something to the equivalent of Florida becoming an ocean bottom. Big lakes, deserts, rivers, etc have all been witnesses by human for longer than a thousand years.

Just looking at the current situation of the Missouri an evo might postulate that it may have changed course at some time or other in the past but the time frame would probably have been a million or at least thousands of years, not many times in a hundred years.

As an aside, please don't use the word evo as I will try to refrain from the phrase creo or creationist. I am in fact a creationist just a different type than you. What we are talking about has nothing to do with evolution but rather geology and the age of the earth which was established before the rise of evolutionary theory. An appropriate short would be OE for old earther.

With regards to the comment about the Missouri, no geologist in their right mind would ever postulate that one river would ever run the same course over a million years. The evidence from stratigraphy often shows that rivers to change course over the length of geologic time. The point was, and maybe I wasn't clear enough, that the river environment did not change for that long. In fact, this is one of those things that becomes more difficult for a YEC to explain once you get into the nitty gritty details. Why would evidence of a rivers course changes exist in a layer in the middle of the geologic column?

You have a principle called Uniformitarianism which ASSUMES that things always happened pretty much as they are happening now, but there is no proof of the validity of this principle.

Incorrect. Uniformitarianism is supported by the ancient things we see that are extremely similar to the things we see happening today. Uniformitarianism is not an assumption it is a conclusion.

You have radiometric dating which is claimed to tell the age of something calculated by the rate of decay of radioactive content,

Also not quite correct but maybe not your fault. Radiometric dating tells the time of closure for a particular radioactive element which may or may not be the age of the formation of the rock. At best it is a minimum age of the rock. Often times it may tell us the last time that rock experienced some kind of geologic conditioning such as metamorphism.

but while it's a reasonable theory there's no way to prove that it actually works as it is unknown whether the rate of decay may vary under certain circumstances

Actually it is very well known that decay rates do not vary under even extreme conditions and have not varied for an extremely long time. If you are curious about this I recommend starting up a short subjects or GD topic with JonF or Loudmouth about this. Since this thread is about sedimentary rocks I will not go into this here.

and again there is no independent testimony from the time being measured to confirm or disconfirm a date.

Also not correct. Radiometric dating has been tested using rocks of known age collected appropriately by geologists without an agenda to prove radiometric wrong. Dates from historical eruptions such as Mount Vesuvius match extremely well with radiometric dating. Once again, if you wish to go into this further I suggest making a note and bringing it up again later were it is on topic for a given thread.

And you have the fossil record which APPEARS to be sorted according to age of the fossils, but again there is no way to confirm or disconfirm this. It's plausible on the face of it but that's all it is or ever can be.

The fossils being sorted by age is a conclusion from geology. The hard thing to explain is the fact that the fossils are sorted by morphology and phylogeny. This is where geology ties into evolution a little bit so I won't go into it much I just wanted to make sure you knew that geology does not use this to date the earth. Fossils give you good guesses when you are doing field work but radiometric dating and relative positioning are the bread and butter of giving something an age.

Over and over the reasoning that is required in these fields is not scientific reasoning according to the official definitions. Science certainly produces working plausibilities, but science can also ultimately confirm or disconfirm them with well constructed experiments. When dealing with what happened in the past there is no experiment that can be done. History does not lend itself to scientific method. The most reliable history has written documents to support it, but geological and biological history must do without that kind of evidence for all periods when there is no written report to be had.

We are going to have to go into this a little bit because even though it is not on topic its lack of resolution will prohibit a constructive discussion.

Geology is a legitimate method of inquiry in the same way that forensics is. The repeatability in this science is repeatability of observation. When someone commits a crime you cannot repeat the crime in order to solve it. What you have to do is take clues (i.e. observations) about the crime and apply logic (i.e. science) to them. When the dna from the victim matches the blood on the suspects shoes this is an observation. No one "saw" the blood get there and no one can repeat the blood getting there but both the prosecution and defense can take the same samples to different labs with different technicians and get the same result that the dna matches.

Notice, all this says is that the dna matches, it does not mean that the victim was really killed by the suspect. All it is is evidence that supports the case against the suspect. Once you have enough of these independently verifiable observations you can conclude one way or another if the person is probably guilty. That is all geology does. It does not claim to have the absolute truth about the earth and everything in it. All it is saying is that the observations we have made thus far support beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth is old.

If you do not accept that this logical method of inquiry is valid then the discussion and pretty much any discussion you have at this forum will have no groundwork from which to advance. You can continue to argue that the conclusions are wrong, that something evidence is being missed, etc but we must continue with the presumption that inquiry such as forensics and geology are valid ways to discover knowledge. Notice, if you don't agree with this it also destroys any YEC conclusions based on the same method of inquiry.

We will never be able to produce the earth in a lab and watch what happens over eons. We CAN use geologic forensics to determine things that give us strong insight to what did happen in the geologic history of the earth.

You want to show me that an understanding of what ACTUALLY happened in the formation of the strata would change my mind about the reality of a worldwide Flood. But what you are forced to rely on in your presentation of evidence of What Actually Happened is the assumptions of the very theories I am questioning. This is in fact Begging the Question, or what creationists are always being accused of, Circular Reasoning. But creationists in the case of the Flood at least do have the independent witness of the Bible, a witness from the time in question, while evolutionists have nothing but their current speculations to go on.

I don't pretend to think that I am ever going to change your mind. I have been here long enough to know that it is unlikely. I am here because this is an interesting discussion and I myself would like to know why you think the way to do to either validate my own conclusions or invalidate them. If you change your mind during the process of the discussion then I might call it more fruitful then I originally expected. Also there is a notion of the audience in this debate. If I can present my case more convincingly than you then there are people out there who might be Christians who are confused about this whole issue. It might comfort them to see two Christians having a civil discussion and to know that the issue of their faith in Christ can be separate from their stance on this one issue. I didn't have that luxury so I want to make sure it is at least available so others can.

Most of the assumptions you are claiming are actually conclusions. Like I said before, those conclusions may be wrong in the light of new evidence but they are conclusions none the less. I think the reason you think they are assumptions is simply that you lack exposure to what they are really trying to say. My hope was to help with some of that so at least your arguments can be grounded in why geology concludes what it does rather than simply claiming that everything is an assumption. Proceeding in the way you and others have done over many threads only serves to propagate this misunderstanding. I want to clarify it.

My plausibilities are necessarily pretty limited for lack of knowledge. But knowing more will accomplish nothing either as Creationist scientists know more than most of the evo posters here but nothing they have to say is considered worthy of attention here. It is all ridiculed.

I promise not to ridicule you. I want this thread to be about discussion and teaching each other. Where my knowledge is lacking I hope you would correct me and I will do the same. I know we are starting a little uneven because I do have formal geology training but I think we can get you up to speed about what geologists actually conclude with patience and civility.

It sure seems odd to me that this kind of fact wouldn't be considered to support rather than challenge the Flood idea. The time frame evos would postulate for the delta's accumulation would of course be astronomically greater than what creos would postulate but as usual neither could be confirmed or disconfirmed scientifically, merely extrapolated from assumptions

The age of the Mississippi delta is not as important as the "fact of" the Mississippi delta. If you feel that the delta got a kick start because of the flood then that is fine. What that does nothing to show is why we would expect to see the same kinds of delta deposits buried in the middle of the geologic column.

What the Mississippi delta does show is that sediments DO accumulate flat with respect to each other at the mouth of rivers. What it does show is that fossils ARE formed via slow accumulation of sediment. What it does show us is that sediment does get buried and hardens due to slow burial and accumulation. These are all facts we can derive from "the fact of" the Mississippi delta gained by observing it in action and also drilling into the sediments to see what is there. Uniformitarianism is then therefore a conclusion based on these evidences.

(including assumptions about the validity of radiometric dating under all conditions)

The validity of radiometric dating is not assumed it is evidenced by scientific trial and correlation. If these trials and correlations were incorrect then science would not use radiometric methods to date anything. Remember, that radiometric dating works is a conclusion based on different science (physics) before it was widely used as a diagnostic in geology.

But the fact that it is only in very specific local environments that you see evidence of layering similar to that in the Geo Column should in itself suggest that the Geo Column which is considered to be a worldwide phenomenon by all geologists, not just by creationists, can only be explained by something on a tremendously greater scale than a few deltas around the world.

You are going to have to help me here. I am beginning to think that you are confusing the geologic column with the geologic time scale. What do you think the geologic column is? What do you think the geologic time scale is? Answer these questions before you read further as I am going to start the beginnings of what the two are and where they do and do not work together.

Please forgive me if this is actually something you know. I am going to explain it as I would if I was talking to someone who knows nothing about the basics of geology. I don't want to offend by seemingly speaking down to you.

The geologic time scale is to geology what a ruler is to geometry. It is just a scale that that measures things when you line it up. It does not care what you are measuring. It could be used to measure the age that certain layers were laid down like we have been discussing. It could be used to place an event like a volcanic eruption. It could be used to indicate when certain creatures were alive based on when we find the fossils. It could be used to chart ice ages, sea level, properties and changes of the earth's magnetic field, the shape of the earth's orbit, changes in the atmosphere, and probably a ton of other things I cannot think of. It is just a measure and nothing more.

The geologic column is the rocks and other geologic features of a column cross section at a specific location. The geologic column were I live is different from the geologic column of the GC, etc. It does not just include sedimentary rocks like we have been discussing but also faults, magma intrusions, bending of the strata, etc. My particular location is similar to that of the GC in that many of the layers in the column were also deposited under the ocean. In fact, the conclusion from geology is that New Mexico was under the same ocean as Arizona so we should expect a similar geologic column. The key here is, even though it was the same ocean the columns are slightly different. While Arizona was under deep water New Mexico might have been a bit more shallow so more large grained deposits were settling out more than fine grained ones.

So you take the layer here in New Mexico that is in the same "geologic position" (Note: This has nothing to do with current depth) as another layer in the GC and we know that these were laid down at the same time (Notice no admission of age). This is an observation and therefore one of the facts we use to reach a conclusion about the geologic history of the area as a whole.

So while there is a limestone layer in Arizona there is a sandstone layer here in New Mexico. These both fit into a time scale, in the case of classical geology it would be the geologic time scale, as being deposited at the same time yet are part of different geologic columns.

Here we can begin to see how the two concepts are used together. Using other evidence to determine their age, we fit both of these layers into the same place in the geologic time scale as the time they were deposited. What the geologic time scale does not do is determine what layers constitute the geologic column of a given area.

I hope that makes sense and I hope that it was not too naive for your current knowledge of geology. This is just my attempt to teach without knowing where you are at in terms of your current knowledge.

Jazzns previously writes:

It is hard to posit a different mechanism for limestone deposition when there is so much of it going on in "live" systems today. Why would the exact same deposits we are seeing form today form differently in the past?

Well, there are many reasons according to creationist thinking. And there is no objective basis for assuming they formed the same way.

Limestone isn't only organic but can also be inorganically formed under certain conditions.

The organic origin of limestone is a fact recognized by one of the two YEC references you give below. Please continue reading for more clarification.

Some Creationists say this is how it is formed in limestone caves. They also say that most of the limestone in the strata is inorganic.

One link does, the other does not. The ones that claims that limestone is originally inorganic does not pose a mechanism for formation. If I misread then you may have to show me where I missed it.

Also maybe it was already produced before the Flood rather than during. Nobody knows for sure and there is no way to test it for sure.

Most limestone we know is organic for sure because it is entirely made up of marine fossils. The ones that are not entirely made of fossils are extremely dense with marine fossils. More explanation is below based on snippets I took from the articles you linked to.

The first link you provide refutes a non-marine origin of limestone:

The first step for the formation of a cave is obviously to deposit the limestone. Most major limestone strata appear to have accumulated during the Flood.

If limestone caves get their calcite from limestone deposits then you are just pushing the problem back. The calcite still comes from sedimentary structures created by oceanic biomass. Even if you still claim that limestone can be formed in an alternate way like your second link does yet does not tell us how, you have to consider why limestone is either entirely composed of or completely littered with marine fossils.

The second link partially confirms this but fails to account for the quantity:

Some limestone must also have come from shallow, preflood sea bottoms, because today limestone deposits often contain abundant fossils of corals, crinoids, bryozoans, and foraminifers. These shallow-water animals must have lived before the flood in the presence of limestone. During the flood, that limestone was eroded, transported, and deposited with those animals entombed.

Remember, even if the preflood rate of growth and deposition were many orders of magnitude greater than today you would still have only a fraction of the amount of limestone we find. To presume that all limestone was created pre-flood in just a few thousand years is, first of all contradicting your first link, second simply impossible given the time constraints of a young earth. Almost unimaginable amounts of sea critters would have had to lived and died in under 2000 years to create all that limestone pre-flood. Uncompacted and all alive you would have a hard time seeing the oceans for all the life in them. Consider also that many YECs think that the oceans were much smaller to account for the "where did all the water come from" question and you have multiple lines of very conflicting YEC speculation; two just in the links you provided.

I repeat that limestone is composed of marine fossils; often that is what constitutes the entire structure of the rock. Claiming that limestone is not of marine origin is just simply incorrect. You can try to pose a different time frame but the fact is that limestone is the product of marine biomass. This is not something that is an interpretation of classical geology it is an observation.

Again I'd just point out that the theory is only as good as its best guess, and there is no way to test that best guess. It can't be replicated, it can't be falsified, because it's in the past. The best you can do is compare processes going on now with the contents you see in particular strata and guess that the same processes produced it. Certainly some guesses make more sense than others, but you can't KNOW your best guess is right, and again there is no way to test it, replicate it or falsify it. All either side of the dispute can do is offer possibilities, plausibilities, possible scenarios to explain a given formation. The science involved is the same on both sides. The same scientific principles are used, the same chemical and biological processes are used to make the case.

As I said before, this is more appropriate for this "Is It Science?" forum but without getting thorough this here we cannot have a very productive discussion. You need to recognize that the repeatability talked about here is repeatability of observation and examination. The repeatability is NOT that one needs to repeat the event that left the evidence behind. If that were true then very little scientific inquiry could ever proceed.

A creationist COULD say, "Of COURSE the GC was an ocean, the whole world was once an ocean for about a year, good of you to see the evidence at least in one place" but you'd ridicule that answer on the basis of all the other suppositions about the formation of all the other strata as if all that were established fact too

I should have been much more clear and I will try to be in the future. The GC was built by an ocean environment which includes a coast and the recession and transgression of sea level and many other things that contribute to the formation of sedimentary rocks. That "the GC was an ocean" was too simplistic and I apologize for my error. If it were true that it was as simple as just "an ocean" then we would have as hard a time as YECs trying to explain the non-marine sediments found in the GC and why there should be any disconformities at all.

when it's all only unprovable, untestable, unreplicable, unfalsifiable educated guesses like all the rest.

Just to try to strike it home. We will never be able to remake the GC. That does not preclude us from ever knowing anything to extreme confidences about it though.

Yes, again, evos may correct a particular guess by a more plausible guess. I'm sure that happens all the time. But that's not testability, replicability, falsifiability. And it's exactly the same kind of thinking creationists do too, both sides competing with plausible scenarios, yet evos ridicule creationists for using the same methods they use. That's the only REAL edge evos have -- they are the Establishment so they get to call the shots. They get to make the Judgment Call, which is what ALL the conclusions are based on.

The difference is not that of different guesses. The difference is that the conclusions of classical geology are falsifiable while the conclusions of YECism are not. YECs are historically not willing to provide a statement that if shown to be true would falsify their conclusion that a flood is responsible for the creation of all or most of the sedimentary rocks around the world and the fossils therein.

This is exactly why YECism is not treated as a real science and is often subject to ridicule. Your conclusion must be able to be wrong if certain properties are later found to be true. Because the conclusion cannot be assigned conditions that would make it false, YECism cannot claim to be a science.

In classical geology there is no such problem. The theory that proposes how layers are formed can be directly falsified by showing that layers do form in a manner completely different to what is known. A scientist at the end of publishing a paper on geology can directly cite the observations and evidences that if found would negate his/her contribution. This is how science is done.

As usual with evo theory, what we get above is the theory itself given as if it were fact.

Here are the facts:

1. Marine fossils are found in most layers of the GC.
2. Alternating layers of fine to large grained deposits are found similar to that of a repeated advancing and retreating coast.
3. The Rocky mountains are currently being pushed up due to tectonic activity at the Pacific coast.
4. The surface inland of the Pacific is rising higher and higher as time goes by.

What led geologists to the idea that the GC was once an ocean is not given, I'm just expected to accept the evo scenario as fact.

No one is saying that the GC was once an ocean is a fact. It is the best theory we have given the evidence that is extremely well verified and treated as certain because there is very little doubt.

The idea that the GC was once an ocean is a theory derived from some of the above facts. We know that since the surface is being pushed up that it was once lower at some point in time. We know that since the rocks of the GC contain marine fossils that it probably was under water. Combine that with the alternating layers and you have the start of a theory that the GC was an ocean that retreated and advanced over time. Dig much deeper into geology for which there is too much to write in this one post and your theory becomes more and more the best explanation of how the GC was formed.

It is assumed and presented as fact that tectonic destruction of sediments today is fairly extrapolated to the formation of the strata, but that assumption can be questioned as tectonic activity is figured by creationists to have STARTED with the Flood and what we are seeing now is a later development.

That tectonics manipulate and destroy sediments is a fact no matter what time frame or mechanism you propose. This is something that we observe today and have evidence that it has happened in the past due to the fact that we find destroyed sediment. If you want to learn more try Structure of an Accretionary Wedge or look up "subduction zones" or "convergent boundary" in google.

Yes of course. They explain that unconformity as having occurred before the layers above it were laid down, but actually the diagram of the whole area would suggest that it probably occurred after not the layers of that lower section of course, just the tilting of the whole block of layers -- although
in that case how it managed not to disturb the layers above is a puzzle.

Actually, if you are proposing that the layers at the bottom were tilted after the upper layers were laid down then you have a larger problem then I think you realize. Remember, these layers are tilted without disturbing the layers on top and then have an erosional contact between where they end and the first horizontal layer begins. I highly doubt that even the most ambitious YEC geologists would even support something like this. You are better off with just saying that it somehow hardened, got tilted, then eroded in the middle of the flood before the next layers were laid down. At least this is no harder to support as some of the other things that are as unlikely to happen in the middle of raging waters such as fine particle sedimentation and reverse hydraulic sorting of fossils.

The diagram I posted shows a great swelling that uplifted and distorted the layers north of the canyon just a bit without breaking them, which isexplained as magma pushing upward that didn't erupt through, that had to have occurred after the layers were formed

Yes, a very good fact due to the law of superposition.

(and were no doubt still damp in order to bend and not break)

Rock has been shown to bend without breaking in the lab. The YEC claim that sediments must be soft to bend has been refuted by live testing and also by the deformation of the fine structure of the rock that would have no reason to deform if the sediment was soft.

and that great unconformity at the bottom of the canyon appears to have been pushed by that magma into its current condition. Not being a geologist how would I know of course, but I'd guess the layers were still a bit damp when these tectonic forces occurred so that the upper layers exerted enough counterforce to keep from being disrupted, and enough to redirect the underlying strata diagonally along with the force of the magma.

I am not quite sure I understand this scenario completely but I don't see anywhere the explanation of the fact of the erosional contact between the tilted layers and the subsequent horizontal layers. Please explain.

Jazz, I have not misrepresented the horizontality at any point. My visualization and spatial relationship faculties are excellent and I haven't said anything that requires such a basic correction.

My apologies. If we are just talking past each other then I am willing to invest the patience needed to clarify these sometimes complex concepts over a difficult medium.

I can SEE that the canyon was laid down in horizontal layers all with respect to each other as well as with respect to the horizon of the earth in the case of the canyon, and I'm also aware of Steno's Law which SAYS that all such layers were ORIGINALLY horizontal. Even after being distorted by tectonic movements they remain PARALLEL in the greater canyon area and their original horizontality is easily inferred from this. Your diagram may certainly be the case in local areas, though as presented it is merely an abstract hypothetical, but for the canyon itself and the greater canyon area, if YOU will look at the diagrams given of the entire extended area to the north of the canyon you will see that the PARALLEL configuration of the strata is maintained over a magma swelling and on up into Utah beneath higher layers WITHOUT BREAK.

Then I guess I don't see why this is such a problem for classical geology. The layers were laid relatively horizontal as we would expect. In most places where tectonics and rising magma have not touched them they are still that way. In places where it has they have been modified like in your example. If all you are contesting is the time frame then I think I need more detail about what you would expect to happen different over the time that is normally attributed to the GC, say 1 billion years.

Is the sand at the bottom of existing sand dunes hardened to stone? Or are you talking about burial by other layers accumulating above? Because if so remember that the layers are supposed to have taken millions of years to form. So IF the Coconino remained dunes all that time and IF dunes don't become sandstone in their lower regions under their own weight, then that process would only have begun when the next sediment started depositing on top and compression couldn't have been early in that process as there wouldn't be enough weight.

Pressure increases linearly with depth so I would expect there to be a gradient of less compact to more compact as you go down. I don't know if we can tell how much sooner the bottom of the Coconino Sandstone hardened the top but it certainly did. If it was more sand that did it or the new deposition that did it does not matter. It got buried because we see it today. I think you agree based on what you said but I can't tell. Please clarify.

But wouldn't the new sediments from above conform to the dune shape beneath and preserve it? Wouldn't they settle in the depressions of the dunes? Wouldn't they in fact have been blown as the dune sand was? Or were they washed in by water, flattening the dunes and soaking them through?

There is marine deposits immediately on top of the Coconino sandstone. So first off no they should not show evidence of cross-bedding because that does not happen under water at least at that scale. Water is a good leveler so that would be my best guess not knowing for sure why there is no drastic dune topography. I would also expect compression to minimize any topography that is left over from having waves iron out the majority of it. In reality I do not know for sure but those are my best guesses. If the fine details show that there is actually evidence of dune topography still present I would not be surprised. I just don't know and couldn't find any reference for that. When we get out of this GD we should ask one of our resident real geologists about this detail. Over the larger area it would still be parallel with respect to the other layers in any given sample column and that is what really matters.

I can accept that because of the configuration of the sand grains in the layer, the cross-bedding as it is called, that they were once shaped by the same forces that shape dunes. That is a reasonable supposition. But you still have to explain how that whole thick layer became a flat horizontal layer on the notion that it took millions of years to build it up and then more millions to build up the layers above it, without preserving its dune wave shape in the process of filling in its depressions etc., if it started out as dunes and stayed dunes for millions of years.

I am not convinced that there is no evidence of dune topography left but even if there is I would not be surprised that a relatively minor topographical feature such as a dune would not be leveled due to compression and/or water.

Also in the case of something like the Coconino what would have caused it to harden into sandstone since it wasn't formed under water, and at what point in the millions of years?

Just because something is not deposited underwater does not mean that it does not retain water. All you really need is a little bit of water and a lot of compression to get something to lithify. I am not sure at what point in the millions of years the Sandstone completed its lithification but I am sure that it was once it was buried deep enough by the layers above it some of which no longer exist.

Again I would just repeat that this burying process supposedly took millions of years, so the lithification would have been correspondingly slow as the weight would not have been sufficient in the early stages. Also was the layer above formed in water or not?

Not. Because of the cross-bedding, the absence of marine fossils, and presence of terrestrial trace fossils. We are confident it was wind blown until another mechanism for producing cross-bedding has been shown to exist and actually do it.

If formed in water then don't we have to imagine the entire column being submerged at once and the dunes being soaked as well as the new-forming sediment layer?

Until other evidence to the contrary is found the theory states that the Coconino Sandstone is a terrestrial deposit. It does not need to be submerged to have enough water to lithify. Dig deep enough into a sand dune, it should be damp.

How does a new "landscape" form slowly on top of an old one without disturbing it? But the Coconino is clearly undisturbed sandstone neatly compressed into flatness above and below.

Maybe it didn't leave it undisturbed. Maybe it destroyed the dune topography. You can chop off the tops of the dunes and still have a nice cross-bedded body of sand left behind if it is thick enough and the Coconino, even compressed, is pretty thick. I'll try to look harder for some information about this but if I can't find it we will have to defer to one the practicing geologists here at EvC.

You have listed a few things that need explaining to understand the classical theory for the formation of sediments in the GC. I have listed a number of things that an alternate theory must also explain to be just as good.
Let’s summarize.

Outstanding Things Needing Explanation by Classical Geology:
1. What happened to the dune topography of the Coconino Sandstone?

Outstanding Things Needing Explanation by Flood Theory X
1. Unconformities of all types in the GC.
2. The time required and source of organic limestone.
3. Mechanism for fine particle deposition in torrential water.
4. Alternating layers of fine and large grained sedimentary rock in direct contradiction to hydraulic sorting.
5. Cross-bedding features in Coconino sandstone.
6. Terrestrial trace fossils in Coconino sandstone.
7. What is the statement of falsifiability of Flood Theory X?

I'll go ahead and add one more new one.

8. Formation of evaporite deposits in certain geologic columns.

The argument is on topic because it is a type of sedimentation. In particular instead of defending the classical model this thrust will be a direct assault on a flood model. The basic argument is this. Evaporite deposits are things like gypsum and salt that only form today in arid terrestrial environments with a playa lake. The best example of this is Salt Lake in Salt Lake City. When water evaporates it leaves behind the minerals that were contained in it. In a desert, lakes often fluctuate drastically between drying up and filling up during the rainy season. This leaves behind evaporite deposits where are sometimes very thick in a particular geographic column. No only does it take a long time for these to form in any large thickness, it cannot happen under water by definition.

YECs speculate that evaporite deposits are due to a chemical reaction underwater due to hydrothermal vents but no YEC that I know of has postulated how so much evaporites could form and also why there are characteristics of playa lake life and structure in nearly all evaporite deposits. These cannot be post flood creations because they are not always at the top of the geologic column of an area.

No one that I have confronted with this on this board has ever produced a response to the evaporite problem. Maybe you could give it a go since you seem to have so many original ideas about things.

You can add stuff to my list and I'll add stuff to yours. Until next time.

Thanks,

{changed [quote] to [qs] and fixed a link.}

This message has been edited by Jazzns, 03-29-2005 02:50 PM

{minor spelling and formatting}

This message has been edited by Jazzns, 03-29-2005 02:53 PM

{more formatting}

This message has been edited by Jazzns, 03-29-2005 03:02 PM


FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 03-28-2005 8:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 10:03 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 758 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 89 of 127 (195332)
03-29-2005 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Jazzns
03-29-2005 4:47 PM


Re: Deposition on dry land
Because over the course of recorded human history which spans many thousands of years we have never seen something to the equivalent of Florida becoming an ocean bottom. Big lakes, deserts, rivers, etc have all been witnesses by human for longer than a thousand years.

Didn't I cover this pretty thoroughly? Most of my points hinged on it. You can't just repeat it as if I'd never said it myself. The point is you NEED WITNESSES in order to truly prove ANYTHING in the past. If you HAVE them, fine, then you have proof, and you may indeed have them for some geological events back a few thousand years, but the farther back you go the scantier they are going to get.

But before there is any human witness to these things you have ZIP evidence, ALL you have is inference backwards, inference based on the mere ASSUMPTION that nothing was different before that, NOT PROOF, and PROOF is impossible to get.

Incorrect. Uniformitarianism is supported by the ancient things we see that are extremely similar to the things we see happening today. Uniformitarianism is not an assumption it is a conclusion.

You do not SEE "ancient things." They CANNOT be seen by definition. They are PAST. They are GONE.

What you see in the strata you ASSUME are ancient, you are not SEEING anything ancient. I am questioning the very grounds for your belief that the strata show ancient landscapes so it is begging the question / arguing in a circle to prove anything by reference to those assumptions. You cannot refer to the supposed great age of a rock to prove something else because that great age is in question. YOu cannot insist that radiometric dating has been shown to be trustworthy because there's no way to test whether this is true back before human history. THESE WERE THE POINTS I WAS MAKING. YOu cannot prove me wrong by appealing to your own theory which is what I believe to be wrong.

I don't have time to answer further, and I still have two long posts before this last one to answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Jazzns, posted 03-29-2005 4:47 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Jazzns, posted 03-31-2005 11:20 AM Faith has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3225 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 90 of 127 (195725)
03-31-2005 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
03-29-2005 10:03 PM


OT: Is it Science, Past Events? What are the facts?
Didn't I cover this pretty thoroughly? Most of my points hinged on it. You can't just repeat it as if I'd never said it myself.

Yes but you were using it to try to say that just because no one saw it happen that you cannot know that it did. This is the equivalent of the "we were not there so we will never know" argument which really doesn*t bear much fruit.

The point is you NEED WITNESSES in order to truly prove ANYTHING in the past. If you HAVE them, fine, then you have proof, and you may indeed have them for some geological events back a few thousand years, but the farther back you go the scantier they are going to get.

We can know stuff about the past even if there are no witnesses. If this were not true you would never be able to convict someone of a crime based on non-witness evidence. This is going to be a BIG sticking point as long as you are here at EVC and I would politely advice to really think about trying to use this as your major defense.

I am not accusing you of anything but I just want to warn you that using this as a broad way to invalidate all historical science may look like you are simply avoiding the details that help prove this method valid. You may still be planning on addressing the substance of my post so I just want you to know that to an outside viewer it looks like a dodge. If you end up responding to the real details presented to you in my posts that would be an easy way to show that you are sincere.

But before there is any human witness to these things you have ZIP evidence, ALL you have is inference backwards, inference based on the mere ASSUMPTION that nothing was different before that, NOT PROOF, and PROOF is impossible to get.

First of all, it is not the goal of science to prove anything. Please realize this as it has been said before. Take some time to think about it really because it feels like we are just talking past each other. Science determines things with the same confidence we use in our court systems; beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition to that, science is by definition tentative, always with finite degree of uncertainty. This is exactly why scientific conclusions must be falsifiable. If they were not then we would not have tentatively and the entire basis for the construction of scientific knowledge would be destroyed.

Jazzns previously writes:

Incorrect. Uniformitarianism is supported by the ancient things we see that are extremely similar to the things we see happening today. Uniformitarianism is not an assumption it is a conclusion.

You do not SEE "ancient things." They CANNOT be seen by definition. They are PAST. They are GONE.

I should have been clearer with this. My point was that Uniformitarianism is a conclusion born from other conclusions of classical geology. You were saying that it was the other way around; that Uniformitarianism was an assumption from which the other conclusions of classical geology are born. It is not like Uniformitarianism just showed up one day and then all geologic evidence was interpreted in light of it. The evidence OF geology LED to the conclusion of Uniformitarianism.

YOu cannot insist that radiometric dating has been shown to be trustworthy because there's no way to test whether this is true back before human history.

This is incorrect and this is part of the problem. We can test that the same state needed to validate radiometric dating now existed in the past. We have tested this and the tests have passed. I did not get into this before and I will not get into it now because I don't want to stray too far off of what is already a pretty far off topic post. If you are curious then by all means take it up in a dating thread.

THESE WERE THE POINTS I WAS MAKING. YOu cannot prove me wrong by appealing to your own theory which is what I believe to be wrong.

I am appealing to no geologic theory. There is no theory in geology that radiometric dating is correct. That ratio of radioisotopes and their daughter product is an observation (i.e. fact) that has been shown to correctly determine the date of closure for particular radiometric elements by extensive testing and correlation. That this can also be used to determine a minimum age of a particular crystalline structure is a corollary to this observation.

The theory behind radiometric dating that allows it to work comes from physics not geology. That radioisotopes decay and that we can use the half life of this decay as a metric is in the realm of physics. If it can be shown that matter operates in a different way then what has been concluded by physics, if you can show that atoms are not really the basic building blocks of matter, that they do not have different isotopic representations or that none of those representations are unstable then you can disprove radiometric dating.

I don't have time to answer further, and I still have two long posts before this last one to answer.

Please take your time but also realize that I am not trying to berate you. I really honestly feel that there is just some simple communication and lack of grounding in the basic facts of the situation that may be preventing a fruitful discussion.

No one is trying to take away your ability to conjecture about the facts (i.e. construct a hypothesis which might lead to a theory) but we must know those facts before we can talk about them. That is really why I wanted to get into this discussion with you because you are very smart and think of things that other on this board have not before. What I had hoped is that you could get to the point where these neat things you were coming up with are actually explaining what the evidence really is rather than what you think the evidence is. No one is blaming you for not being an expert in geology and you don't need to be to be able to discuss the actual facts. My formal geology training is scant compared to a geologist by trade but yet I know enough to be able to point to what is fact and what is theory. You can argue against the theory all day but the facts are the facts.

Also, if you feel that I have said something that is outrageous, ask for clarification instead of just proclaiming me wrong or claiming that my thinking is circular. Maybe there is just a misunderstanding. Let*s try to be logical, civil, and Christian about this.

This message has been edited by Jazzns, 03-31-2005 09:24 AM

This message has been edited by Jazzns, 03-31-2005 11:54 AM


FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 03-29-2005 10:03 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by AdminNosy, posted 03-31-2005 1:50 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022