Long build up of Sediments

Oh for cripes' sake. I am not confusing erosion with deposition. I am following the reasoning that says that the deposition is the result of the erosion off the land. And these processes are supposed to account for the observed ABRUPT changes from one sediment to another just along the line somewhere in those hundreds of millions of years? Give me a break.To account for the sharp demarcations between the different sediments (evident all over the southwest and in any photo of the layers anywhere) I have to imagine an ABRUPT climate change rather than a gradual one, an ABRUPT upthrusting of mountains, a similarly ABRUPT change in sea level, with no long periods of transition, as there is simply no indication of transitional mixtures of sediments, only the abrupt change from one to another.The presentation of the strata is of neat straight layers -- yes not PERFECTLY neat and straight for the obsessionals out there who want to derail the point by mentioning the differences in thickness and the irregularities between the layers that are only visible very close up.You want me to believe that the deposition of one kind of sediment came to a screeching halt and was immediately followed by the deposition of some other kind of sediment as a result of mountain building etc. What in the case of the Southwest US layers, the ones that are so visible in the formations of Arizona and Utah? What ad hoc scenario has been dreamed up to explain all that? Oh right, sea level changes there. The whole area was once the bottom of the sea. In fact the sea level rose and fell many times as I recall.It seems to me that half the land area now in existence must once have been at the bottom of the sea considering how much of this layering makes up its mass and how much must be explained by underwater formation. Or what is geology's estimation of this? Climate change really explains it? How much can mountain building explain? ===I have no more obligation to discuss this than you feel to discuss your very short answer to my question how the change in sediments occurred.I'm not even sure my guess that you were talking about abrasion was correct.I think this thread is already getting too loose and unmanageable.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-11-2006 05:37 PM

It seems to me, then, that in the process of dating by fossils the problem of the discrete sediments and how to explain them was overlooked. The fact that these separate sediments characterize the time periods certainly raises questions about the timing of their deposition over the allotted time for that period. It also raises the question in my mind how just that one and only sediment COULD have characterized so exclusively a period of many millions of years, 50 to 100 million perhaps. Although the particular sediment may vary over the globe for a particular layer or time period, still it is always characterized by just one sediment (or sometimes particular sedimentary mix I think) for the entire time allotment wherever you find it. To try to explain this by local factors overlooks the global nature of this phenomenon.

Are these unconformities ever seen dividing the SAME rock type, right through a layer instead of between layers? Why would nondeposition always occur only at the end of a long long period of deposition of one kind of sediment and not during? Interesting. I thought the order of fossil deposition always had the more "primitive" on the bottom.And of course an inland sea fits well with a global flood. There must have been many such seas that remained after the flood and only gradually drained away.

I'm sorry, Holmes, I have way too much to deal with on this thread as it is, so please forgive me if I don't give your post the attention it deserves.All I want to say now is that the fact that the strata have been tectonically buckled in certain places such as the Appalachians has not escaped my attention, and isn't relevant to the building up of the strata in the first place, which obviously occurred horizontally.This is also the case with the various uncomformities people bring up. Whatever happened AFTER the layer was put down isn't relevant to what I'm saying, which is about the building up of the layer in the first place.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 07:23 AM

The global nature of the stratifications is not in doubt, Holmes. Roxrkool discussed it earlier on when she talked about how geologists all over the world had noted the same basic phenomena and there was a global effort to map it and consolidate it all into one global picture of the time periods.I am trying to keep the focus on the problems I see with the rate of sedimentation on the Old Earth model, and avoiding the Flood.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 07:28 AM

I am not BASING any ENTIRE theory of anything on anything. I'm raising questions about how discrete sediments could possibly be thought to have characterized an entire period of multipled millions of years. It's a very limited topic.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 07:52 AM

The answers are pretty unsatisfactory it seems to me, as they are all quite local. Mountain building, raising and lowering of sea level, etc. We're talking a prodigious amount of sediments after all, supposely accumulated over a billion or so years. Seems to me it is an enormous problem for the old earth time frame, as you have to keep having mountain building -- and that's a very local thing -- and a lot of repeated washings of sediments into the sea, which implies one and only one sediment for millions of years and how can that be accounted for? And then the raising of the sea floor to become layered land, and then THAT would supposedly also erode into the sea, but I would think that would mix sediments rather than keep them so separated as is seen in the geo column. LOTS of questions.Whereas the Flood explanation simply relies on the land mass already present for the amount of material that ended up in the geo column -- plus material stirred up in the sea as well probably. In that case there is always the question how the sediments got so neatly sorted out into identifiable layers, same as how the fossils did -- but that's a question for either theory. I'm not sure what all it includes, but all the layers known as time periods at least. No, I understand that there are variations in types of sediments and fossil contents too that are identified nevertheless as belonging to one time period all over the globe, although I don't know all the factors that go into this or how they CAN identify it as the same time period given the differences. I have to assume that whatever length of time applies to this time period in one part of the globe also applies elsewhere even though the contents may differ, which means that the same question applies about the length of time it took to accumulate the sediment and how just one kind of sediment could characterize such a long period of time. I don't know. I'm thinking only in terms of quantities. Sorry I missed it. I'll check it out. Thanks, Moose.

I still have this question. KILOMETERS of depth of ONE kind of sediment? How can this be explained even by tectonics -- or anything else?

I don't see that you have answered my basic question about the humongous QUANTITY of sediment involved to a depth of KILOMETERS which you suggested could have occurred. No matter how the stuff was contained or behaved, subsidence or whatnot, that's a prodigious AMOUNT of stuff, and ALL ONE KIND of sediment yet (which is clearly shown by all the diagrams that associate one kind of sediment with one time period of scores of millions of years), and spread over some enormous distance horizontally too in many cases such as the Southwest USA. I do not see that you addressed this at all. Feet of uplift says nothing about it. Accommodating it is not the question. The questions are WHERE COULD IT HAVE COME FROM, and can you really think that only one kind of sediment could have accumulated at such a depth over such a broad swath of land by slow increments? (I guess I'm questioning that it ever was kilometers deep).

All limestone in one layer, all shale in another, all sandstone in another, all a different kind of limestone in another etc.

This is how geologists appear to talk about it, seeming to discuss erosion only between the layers, even talking about "horizons" and "landscapes" that occur only at the surface of a given layer or "time period."

I'm ONLY trying to keep the sediments in mind, don't want to get too far into fossils or anything else. I assume that even if there are mixtures of sediments that the dominating sediment exists in dramatically large proportions in the entire layer. Is this false? I really have no idea what you are saying here, sorry. I figure it's up to the evolutionists to define primitive, but I did have the impression that the bottom layers of the geo column are mostly small marine creatures. Why not? YOu mean just in this inland sea or everywhere? And why? It killed everything living. Presumably the land animals more frequently simply decomposed rather than being buried and fossilized. No, we see sorting, which some creationists explain in terms of water currents and waves carrying different kinds of cargo to their ultimate destination.This is the problem with imaginative expectations. I find it just as hard to imagine how the strata could have formed by tiny steps over hundreds of millions of years as you do to imagine how the flood explains it. There are problems on both sides. I'm trying to raise some questions about the evo side.

Yes this is going nowhere. I am not asking about CONTAINING the sediments, about basins and whatnot. I am asking about how the sheer volume of sediments could possibly have been produced by the methods you have mentioned.

I am not intentionally ignoring anything that seems to relate to the topic. If I don't get something and it doesn't seem relevant to what I'm talking about I pass over it and try to get an answer to what I AM asking that doesn't seem to have been addressed. There's simply a limit to what I can deal with here.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 11:13 AM

It was edge who said he thinks some strata were ORIGINALLY kilometers thick -- eroded that much according to him. I don't know which ones he had in mind. I was merely wondering where the sediment could come from to stack that much of one kind of sediment so deeply. I guess he's the only one who might have the answer.I tend to have the Southwest US in mind when I'm talking about the strata -- the whole area from the Grand Canyon up through the formations in Utah -- not necessarily for particular questions though, just as a general reference. The same strata cover that entire territory.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 04:56 PM