|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Long build up of Sediments | |||||||||||||||||||
Mallon Inactive Member |
I have to jump in here. Faith wrote:
quote:Here's something to think about, Faith: If we accept, as you argued yesterday, that the global Flood was only 15 cubits (~7 meters) deep, how could it have deposited sedimentary layers several kilometers thick? Please address this, as I would be very interested in hearing an explanation for this. quote:All that, yes. Anoxic environments help to prevent decomposition. And finally, diagenesis/lithification. quote:First, let's clear up another misconception you seem to hold to: Fossilization is not common. We may have found hundreds of thousands of fossils, maybe even millions, but this is only a fraction of what would have once been alive on earth. You yourself just admitted above that it takes some very special conditions for fossilization to occur (rapid burial in fine sediment, anoxicity, etc.) Typically, dead bodies don't get covered in sediment and are left to decompose in the elements. Second, your above logic fails because you keep making reference to 'average deposition rates' within an entire sequence. These rates do matter with regards to fossilization. What matters is the rate of deposition at the time the fossil was burried. Say I bury a corpse under two feet of sediment within a year, and then the rate of deposition in the area drops off to just a few centimeters a year for the next hundred years (say, due to retreating sea levels). If you average out the overall depositional rate within the entire deposit, it might seem to you that the average rate of deposition is not enough to favour fossilization, but you should be able to recognize that this isn't the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Mallon Inactive Member |
Faith wrote:
quote:No. Typically, adjacent layers of differing rock types are separated by unconformities, representing x number of years of non-deposition. quote:You're absolutely right. For example, here in North America, there once stretched a giant seaway called the Western Interior Seaway (in the Cretaceous). In a package of strata (known as the Bearpaw Fm or the Pierre Shale) found here in Canada, we can find fish, and sea-going birds, and mosasaurs, and turtles, and plesiosaurs -- all evidence that North America was once covered in a great inland sea. Note that this 'marine package' of strata that I'm referring to is bound both above and below by terrestrial strata, bearing terrestrial fossil animals (dinosaurs, little mammals, birds, lizards, etc.).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Mallon Inactive Member |
Faith wrote:
quote:Yes, we see unconformities even between same rock types. But just to clarify, when you're talking "same rock types" are you referring to entire sequences such as the "Devonian Period" or the "Triassic Period"? Because I get the impression that you think these sequences all contain exactly the same type of rock. They don't. Cretaceous rocks, for example, may contain a whole slew of different sediments layered on top of one another, including marine sediments, terrestrial sandstones, mudstones, bentonite, etc. These major sequences are typically classified based on a particular pattern of sediment they might show (facies), or based on the kinds of fossils they exhibit, or any number of other objective factors (geochemical signatures, etc.). It might do you some good to do some reading about 'facies concepts', for starters on this issue. quote:If we look at the entire geologic column from top to bottom, yes, that is how it appears. But the example I just gave you (about the fossilization of the Western Interior Seaway) is just a VERY small slice of the pie. In this instance, we don't see major new body types developing in this slice of the Cretaceous. At this level, we see species and faunal turnover, as the terrestrial rocks gave way to more marine rocks (a sign that the WIS was encroaching on the land). Also, don't make the fatal mistake of assuming that just because some particular species are confined to the ocean, that that somehow makes them more 'primitive'. quote:Not if the strata suggesting the presence of such a sea are bordered above and below by terrestrial sediments (as they are). Also, if the sea were left by the Flood, then we would expect to find more than just a few certain types of marine fossils in the sediments. The flood ought to have killed more terrestrial animals, than anything. How could a flood possibly deposit marine animals on top of terrestrial animals on top of marine animals, etc? One would expect all the different types of marine and terrestrial animals to mix during such an event; but we don't see that in the fossil record. This message has been edited by Mallon, Mar-12-2006 10:37 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Mallon Inactive Member |
Faith wrote:
quote:I wouldn't say that's false, no. I wouldn't use the term "dramatically large proportions", though, either. Again, these major rock sequences aren't so much distinguished by a single type of rock as by a recognizable pattern or succession of rock types. quote:I am simply saying that the progression from "primitive" to "advanced' body forms are only seen when we look at the fossil record from a broad perspective. quote:Scientists typically avoid using terms like "primitive" or "advanced" because of the connotations they carry with them. I am using them here to simplify things for you (otherwise I would use terms like 'synapomorphy', 'plesiomorphy', etc.). But you're right, at the very bottom of the geologic column, we find small, simple marine creatures -- amongst the earliest forms of life on earth. And in those marine strata preserved higher up in the column (such as in the WIS strata I've been alluding to), we find much more advanced marine creatures (mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, turtles, etc.). You will never find, say, a turtle in the lowest Cambrian rocks. quote:Because a worldwide Flood does not deposit terrestrial strata. We would not expect to find footprints from terrestrial animals deposited during a flood, and yet we do find them. So either (a) the terrestrial animals were walking along the bottom of the floodbed as the water towered above them, or (b) the Flood is not preserved in the rock record. quote:Let's keep it simple and refer only to the one inland sea I brought up. And I explained to you earlier why would not expect to see the type of sorting that we do: catastrophic floods do not distinguish between terrestrial and marine animals as they are deposited. If you think otherwise, please explain why. If I threw a bunch of dead dogs, cats, fish, turtles, birds, and clams into the water, would you really expect all the terrestrial animals to settle out at different rates than the marine animals? quote:This is a big presumption to make. Why would that be so? All marine and terrestrial animals would be subject to the same environmental conditions as they lay dead at the bottom of the Flood floor. quote:The difference is: we have evidence and experiments that can back up our claims. I have a hard time understanding math, as you do geology. But that doesn't pose a threat to the mathematical principles that have been in use for hundreds of years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Mallon Inactive Member |
Faith wrote:
quote:For another (very good) explanation of these sharp boundaries, besides the one I gave you (erosion surfaces), see this link: lordibelieve.org/time/age2.PDF (Happened upon it from a Google search.) Most significantly, see part 9: Sedimentary Deposition and Lithification.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024