quote:Actually, the vast majority of mountains are volcanic, and were formed via volcanic dynamics. The Colorado Rockies for example, all volcanic. Alaska and the Canadian Rockies, volcanic. Appalachians, deep volcanic roots. The Andes, probably the highest concentration of "active" volcanoes in the world (over 2,000 in Chile alone and counting....) Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, Turkey, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Iran, France, Italy (yes, even in the Alps there are volcanic dikes and the Dolomites were forced upward via volcanic action). The Himalayas, you bet those suckers blew their lids (no one lived to see it) and were then badly eroded by denudation followed by glaciation. Just north of the mountains is the Tibetan Plateau, a huge volcanic "field". Further north, the Tian-Shan mountains were known to have volcanic activity.
Actually, volcanism is essentially a near-surface process because much of it happens on or near the surface of the earth. Perhaps you meant plutonism or tectonics rather than volcanic dynamics?
Volcanism is the process that erupts hot material onto the surface of the earth from deep inside the earth, be it molten rock or hot water/steam. Most volcanic systems are found underwater and adjacent to subduction zones.
1) the Rockies are certainly not "all" volcanic (see the Maroon Bells or the Flatirons) and were formed via tectonism;
2) the Appalachians are cored by metamorphic rocks, not volcanic, and were formed via tectonism (i.e., continent-continent collision); and
3) neither the Himalayas, Alps, nor the Tibetan Plateau are volcanic systems, but also the result of tectonism.
Is volcanism wide-spread across the globe? Of course. That does not mean, however, that the vast majority of mountains across the globe are the result of volcanism.
The vast majority are, in fact, the result of tectonism.
Thesis is old news now and I couldn't be happier. Thanks for asking.
The defense was... fairly anticlimactic, actually. Afterwards, though, I thought I would want to go out and get drunk to celebrate the end of Hell. But it turns out I just wanted to go home and take a nice, long, unencumbered nap.
Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
You bring up an interesting point on sediments. I work with geotechnical engineers quite a bit on construction projects. Here, just under the topsoil, you have "sandy-silty-clay", or "silty-sandy-clay" or even "clayey-silty-sandy" material, and there are always boulders scattered throughout before you hit solid rock.
Haven't you ever been to a mountain river? I've seen boulders the size of buses and of course the river bed is full of sand, silt, and clay. If you've ever been to Alaska, you might see extensive braided stream systems of the same material. Nothing odd about this grouping of material, really.
Now where do you think all this material here in the Appalachians came from?
Sand - formed via mechanical (water)erosion of rocks , also formed when molten material is ejected into water as it immediately explodes into pieces.
It is very, very simple to tell the difference between glass, which is what forms from nearly instantly chilled "molten material," and minerals such as quartz, magnetite, feldspar, pyroxene, etc. Glass is amorphous (lacks internal crystal structure), while minerals have crystalline structure. As such, glass sand deposits are extremely rare and most are likely associated with impact structures. The sort of sand you are seeing in North Carolina is of the mineral kind.
Clay - bits of igneous rock flattened and mixed with water and sometimes organic material. Bentonite (as an example of a clay, not found here)in particular is volcanic and is formed as it is filtered through seawater.
Your understanding of clay is cursory.
There are two types of clay, the mineral variety (e.g., kaolinite, montmorillonite, ect.), and the particle size variety (< ~5 um). They do not have to come from igneous rocks (though much clay does), it has not been physically flattened, it does not have to come with water, and organic material is extraneous.
Bentonite, the mineral kind, is most certainly not a primary volcanic mineral, but most often forms from the alteration of volcanic-derived material such as ash. When ash (which is glass) is erupted from a volcano and happens to land on a lake, eventually it settles on the lake bed. Over time, the ash devitrifies (from amorphous to crystalline) and forms a clay mineral such as bentonite.
Silts - grain size rocks mixed with organic material, typically formed at the bottom of bodies of water.
It is not accurate to call silt a "rock." Silt is predominantly individual minerals. Neither is silt "formed at the bottom of bodies of water," but is instead formed from the physical break-down of rocks, which is then transported via fluvial, glacial, glaciofluvial, eolian, etc. processes, and deposited subaerially or in submarine environments.
They are simply smaller sand grains.
Boulders - well we all know what a boulder is but you should see some of the monsters we dig up. You have to ask, "now how did that 10 ton mass get there?" Then I have to get more money from the client to remove it....
Conclusion - mass destruction and flooding.
Sure, a large flood can move large boulders, but so can glaciers. This is still not enough evidence for a global flood if that is what you are suggesting.
Depending on the sediments, you might have evidence for a local flood. If you could trace your gravel deposit continuously across the entire country and throughout every continent, then you might have a good global flood argument.
1) Forcing YECs to pin down a date for the flood or identify sediments/rocks that mark the beginning and ending of the flood is virtually impossible. You are not going to get a concrete date.
2) YECs discount absolute dating techniques at their convenience (except when it happens to support a Biblical event).
3) Compressing the entire 4.5 billion year geologic record into a 10,000 year timeframe (+/- 4,000 to billions of years), results in geologic and geomorphologic events becoming issues that demand explanation.
4) Finding a YEC that understands even the very basics of the various sciences he or she is arguing is also virtually impossible, and this accounts for much of the frustration exhibited in these discussions. That's why they suddenly jump to other subjects -- they've exhausted their knowledge-base in those particular areas.
Virtually all rocks, with the exception of some sedimentary rocks, were at one time molten, and had to be â€œplacedâ€ in their current position by a huge mechanism. If this is true, then technically all rocks are â€œvolcanicâ€. Not all erupted out of a conical volcano, but were spread across the face of the earth in a â€œvolcanicâ€ fashion.
I am having a hard time figuring out what exactly you are saying here.
What is your definition of volcanic and what do you mean by "placed" and "spread across the face of the earth?"
Obviously, the first rocks on earth had to be igneous. Once the earth had land masses, the igneous rocks could start weathering, eroding, and breaking down into gravel and sand deposits. Once those gravels or sands harden by being cemented together, they are called sedimentary rocks. While the individual minerals and rock fragments of these sands and gravels technically started out as igneous phases, the new rocks are not termed igneous and were never molten.
Once the earth had bodies of water and had cooled sufficiently, carbonates started to precipitate and were interbedded with clays, siliceous oozes, iron, etc., to form marine deposits. These certainly were never molten, either.
With the advent of plate tectonics, rocks started getting smashed, ground, subducted, heated/cooked, all of which results in metamorphism. These are the only rocks that may locally reach a partially molten stage.
So where do geologists conclude rocks originate from if not via a volcanic mechanism?
Sedimentary rocks are identified as such based on composition, appearance, internal structures. These rocks form on the surface of the earth (on land or underwater) and record the conditions that existed therein, including water temperature, water chemistry, climate, atmospheric chemistry, etc. Sandstones, conglomerates, shales, limestones, volcanic ash fall, cherts, etc. all comprise sedimentary rocks. Geologists rarely have difficulty identifying sedimentary rocks or where in the geologic cycle they formed.
Metamorphic rocks are identified as such based on composition, appearance, and internal structures. Metamorphic rocks form from other rocks that have been subjected to new conditions. These rocks most often form below the surface of the earth under increased temperature and pressure, but also at contacts with igneous bodies where the original rock gets heated by the incoming magma body. These rocks are often very easy to identify, but occasionally have a similar appearance to igneous rocks.
Igneous rocks are identified as such based on composition, appearance, internal structures. These rocks formed either under the surface of the ground (intrusive, plutonic rocks) or were erupted onto the surface of the earth (volcanic rocks). They are derived from deep within the earth, were molten, and upon reaching cooler temperature regimes, hardened into rocks. Intrusive/plutonic igneous rocks tend to be coarser grained while extrusive/volcanic igneous rocks tend to be finer grained. They often have very well defined and intergrown crystalline structure. These rocks are rarely confused for anything other than metamorphic rocks on occasion.
While sedimentary rocks form on the surface of the earth, metamorphic and intrusive igneous rocks (because they are typically deep-seated) must be exposed to the surface in order to be revealed. This is accomplished through tectonics and weathering.
Rocks form in many different environments and by simply looking at the mineralogy, we can see under what conditions they formed.
Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Are you aware that modern geology accounts for much land terrain or shores near seas as being caused by mini, isolated events of fountains of the deep suddenly bursting open and upward?
Hmmmm... I've been a geologist for 15 years and I have never ever heard of this. We do generally feel that portions of the geologic record are the result of 'mini' catastrophic events, such as localized flooding. How much of the geologic record is represented by these mini catastrophic events, however, is arguable.
As for the "fountains of the deep" portion of your statement. You have been misinformed. That is absolutely not true at all.
RAZD: your explanation of plates jutting ever upward makes ancient sea floor the mountain tops of today. If true then said mountains should be filled with layer after layer of fossilized marine life----not just the tops. How do you explain this alleged inconsistency?
First of all, mountains do not jut up ever upward. They can only get so high because of erosion and isostasy. Second of all, some mountains are in fact full of fossils. Some mountains also have fossils only at their bases. Some mountains only have fossils in their middles. You again have been misinformed regarding the location of fossils and mountains
Since the phenomena in question is at the tops, and only the tops, it is still better explained as the result of one great upheaval, instead of one uniform process drawn out over immense time.
Your argument has no merit since you obviously lack knowledge regarding the location and placement of fossils within mountains.
Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
rox: Hmmmm... I've been a geologist for 15 years and I have never ever heard of this.
Then you are out of touch.
I certainly could be uninformed regarding terminology used outside my area of expertise, however, my statement stands. I have never heard of ridged terrain sea shores.
And I never said a word about "mini catastrophic events" or "localized flooding."
"being caused by mini, isolated events of fountains of the deep suddenly bursting open and upward"
Those sudden bursts are "mini catastrophes" and unless you are referring to sudden bursts of air or gas, a sudden burst of water upon the surface of the ground would cause localized flooding.
You are out of touch. Ridged terrain sea shores is now known to be caused by fountains of water bursting upward out of the sea.
I've searched through several of my sedimentology, sedimentary environments, and facies models books and not one of them references "ridged terrain sea shores" or "fountains of the deep." Please define the terms and cite modern relevant references.
No one said they did. You need to develop better reading skills.
You did in fact make that statement. YOU stated, "your explanation of plates jutting ever upward makes ancient sea floor the mountain tops of today."
RAZD stated no such thing. YOU did. So stick that friggen' obnoxious blowhard attitude where the sun don't shine.
RAZD and I are discussing layers of fossilized marine life at the tops, attempting to determine the best explanation of said phenomena. If the phenomena was caused by plate conflict, as RAZD asserts, then I have asked why the entire mountain is not embedded with such phenomena since mountains, according to the so called natural explanation, are raised sea floor?
Yes, and since you are obviously aware of the fact that fossils don't solely occur at the tops of mountains, why is this line of questioning important?
RAZD says said layers could not have been formed in a year, that they were formed in a time scale corresponding to uniformitarian expectations. But if the phenomena at issue is only located at the tops then catastrophic upheaval is certainly a viable explanation.
Again, if fossils don't only occur on tops of mountains, why is this important?
Of course, as far as I am aware, science does not know how a wide spectrum of rocks and material behave in churning waters, and how the same settles.
If you want to know what geologists know, take some classes or pick up some books. Geologists have been modeling these things for decades. The science of geology has a pretty good idea of how rocks, sediment, debris, etc. behave in all sorts of water environments.