Geology- working up from basic principles.

Thanks for the replies, guys. Sounds like I'm on the right track. Moose, I haven't heard "local yokels" before but I'm sure my sister-in-law has; I'll ask her next time I see her. Her area of expertise is glacial flooding, called a Jkulhlaup.For your own interest/amusement, the creationist I've been debating with thinks that the video (erroneously) illustrating Walther's Law somehow explains all phanerozoic strata. He thinks it's evidence for a global flood too. I listed several other methods of sediment deposition for him and explained yet again what a marine transgression is. If you look at what the video is showing, it's sediment coming laterally or horizontally from the sea and settling in a kind of vertical order, the implication being that the facies would need to be read vertically with the oldest being near the shore and the youngest being furthest out. I suppose this could be close to the real scenario if the diagram were made almost horizontal rather than almost vertical. it then implies that geologists get fooled by facies that "appear" horizontal when the real ones are vertical. (The usual combination of scientific misrepresentation and the "scientists are stupid or liars" claim.)We've got brachiopod layers washing up into cracks in rocks on mountains and getting stuck too, LOL. This guy isn't too difficult for a layperson to deal with fortunately.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

That's one of my favorite words.We now return you to the topic ...

If i can politely interject as a newbie...hi!Flowing slurries can self-sort and produce simultaneous strata - ie. strata that are superimposed on one-another, but were formed simultaneously by a flowing, self-sorting slurry. One known mechanism is the "like for like" principle, where particles of similar "dynamic settleability (my term!)"...a function of size (hydrodynamic diameter, etc), shape, density (etc) will accumulate together in "layers" - stratum.An example: Page not found – Sedimentology
(this person/group has done a fair bit of experimentation on this topic, and his/their stuff is worth reading...)Hence, i would assert that for any given series of strata, it is not so much about assuming any given mechanism, but seeing what other features in and around the series are more consistent with a certain mechanism - ie. take into quality of fit with the data, but also quality of arguement.Honestly, i'm not a fan of just assuming Superposition, but believe that higher-energy mechanisms should also be included in the consideration (such as described above).Enjoy (and hello!),
Stewart

Possibly, but i would assert that it all depends on conditions...I've seen experiments with sediment in flumes where sand reaches angles of > 30 degrees.Qith a quick Google, i found this one (photo about 2/3 way down page...other experiments there too!!): Sedimentary experiments: Preliminary reportAnyhow, again, i think it's better not to assume a mechanism (if we are trying to be truly "objective" instead of "dogmatic" (both are OK IMHO!), but to see which best fits the context.Regards,
Stewart

Hello, Stewart, and welcome to EvC!You say: And I'm sure that such experiments have been done. But I don't think that you'll find many flumes supplied with sand-laden sediment out in nature. And, if I remember this thread right, we were specifically talking about the Coconino Sandstone, where other evidence, like animal tracks and etching of grains, points to being wind-laid.And don't accuse geologists of "assuming a mechanism" when they've communally spent the last 180 years or so elucidating mechanisms. Remember, those gentleman-geologist guys in England started out supporting a world flood. It was the observations and experiments that they themselves did that proved it to be mythical.Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.Edited by Coragyps, : fix same tag twice

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Cora,Thanks for the hello and the response.I'll respond point by point, as it's clearer that way (no, i'm not being picky and facaetious! ):Cora said: "And I'm sure that such experiments have been done. But I don't think that you'll find many flumes supplied with sand-laden sediment out in nature." (PS...i don't konw how to use a "quote tool" )Of course! But it does mean that, give the right conditions, that such features can be produced by moving slurry/sediment - that's my point. A general point-of-view comes into play, where we scientifically obliged to consider such mechanisms.And the non-specificity (non-exactness) of an experiment should not invalidate an "in-principle" extrapolation/induction...otherwqise we start splitting hairs and invalidating a huge number of otherwise accepted notions - even if there ARE just working hypthoses.For a generally relevant and pertinent idea should not be thrown out because it is not EXACTLY what we are after! Surely it just becomes the basis for a potential new perspective, a potentially superior explanation (in terms of fit with the evidence and interal logical structure)? I personally find such notions very exciting. If it involves the changing of previous paradigms, then so be it - that's Science, afterall...Cora said: "And, if I remember this thread right, we were specifically talking about the Coconino Sandstone, where other evidence, like animal tracks and etching of grains, points to being wind-laid."I won't pretend to know too much about the Coconino Sandstone - i am an Aussie after all! But i would have thought that general experiments involving sand particles of various sizes would be at least relevant in principle? I don't understand why you seem to be suggesting they are not - is that because of the non-exactness of the tests? As i explained before, that becomes a bit of a special pleading, doesn't it?As for animal tracks: couldn't that simply imply that there was numerous events, one following another in a given local area, with sufficient time in between for tracks to be formed? I don't see why this is not a valid working hypothesis.Hence, it is not necessarily (ie. cannot be exclusively decucted logically from an "open" set of premises, as we deal with here, and in much of science about the past...) the case that it is wind-blown on the basis of this piece of evidence. I believe we have to be careful about what we call "data"/"evidence"/"fact" and what we call "interpretation"....i would call angles of repose, etching, tracks, size dsitribution, etc, etc, "data"/"evidence"/"fact", and anything more than these observables as "interpretation", where any interpretation is subject to further logical analysis/deconstruction (and that's how we like it, isn't it?!) As for etching: I would have thought that one could also invoke slurry flow tooling as an etching mechanism (ie. "high-energy" particle-particle collisions)? That is, etching/frosting as a result of transport. I thought that was an observed phenomena....?But again it makes me think: shouldn't we simply be asking "what can cause etching", and "how might tracks for preserved", and "can another mechanism (such as flowing slurry)" be invoked to form what we see?" and "Isn't it possible that an alternative mechanism might produce a logically-superior explanation?"As for "assuming a mechanism": logically speaking, data doesn't speak for itself - that's a fallacious notion. All people have the same data, and all have their starting points for logical interaction with it. If we invoke the same basic logical processes (in this case, the scientific method), a come up with a different result, then, logically speaking, it is only because we have different starting points, different starting assumptions.SOOOOO () when i say "assuming a mechanism", i'm only suggesting a logical imperative - one has to start somewhere, then develop the logic, and then see how satisfied with it they are (ie. how well it fits). So, of course people have assumed a mechanism - the data isn't self-evident, and one MUST assume premises/axioms/etc, otherwise one can't deduce anything at all.But it's just a matter of WHAT premises one chooses to start from...and i'm just suggesting that, perhaps, an assumed mechanism involving flowing slurry/moving sediment is a valid and relevant consideration, given its experiementally-verified abilities to produce the same general forms and traits that are said to be wind-blown...Isn't that a valid point of view?Regards,
Stewart

I think the easiest way to see the methodology is to use the "peek" button at the bottom of any message you see something you'd like to learn how to do. That view shows the "raw text" including all the codings.Also, to the left of all text creation or editing boxes is the "dBCodes On (help)" link. That will take you to the big list of how to use board codes.Please, no replies to this message.Adminnemooseus

Hi stewartreeve, type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: For other formatting tips see Posting TipsYes, and the preferred general point-of-view, imho(ysa)o is open-minded skepticism, where we can look at the evidence of flume created sediment profiles, and we see that the generally are high energy events in small sections under certain circumstances, and thus it is highly unlikely that they can explain all inconvenient evidence of sedimentary layers.Certainly it is incapable of explaining alternate layers of silty clay (which takes a long time to deposit) and diatom shells (which fall fast) as seen in Lake Suigetsu in Japan (see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, Message 5).This thread is about explaining the basics of geology, and is not a thread to debate the results.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : spling

---

Oh no... You're not really going to reference a Berthault article, are you? The problem here is that Berthault is conflating lithostratigraphy with chronostratigraphy. In other words, a time-horizon is not necessarily parallel to the lithological boundaries. Only at certain scales can we say this is the case.However, at the scale Berthault worked, we are practically looking at individual grains. And I can pretty much assure you that each grain was deposited prior to the succeeding grains above it.I also think he has kind of an odd wording for the principle of superposition.

The main problem I see here is that, in most places where eolian deposits are interpreted, you don't have a slurry of sediments. You have a very well-sorted, nearly pure sand deposit. In the references, they show the current-deposited result of an unsorted 'slurry' common to alluvial deposits rathet than eolian deposits. Rather wishful thnking here. Did you ever walk on a sandy creek bed? Were your tracks perserved? Or are you talking about the old wet-dry flood that oscillated back an forth between flooded and emergent conditions thousands of times during the flood? Scientist are pretty well aware of such facts. They also understand interpretations. The point is that they do not draw interpretations based on "this piece of evidence". They base interpretations on all of the evidence and not some whacky concept that "granites MUST be supernatural", as one of your reference states. Ventifacts are readily recognizable in the field. They generally form on a grain that is stationary. Do you seriously think that no one has considered such points? Do you have any background in geology? Not really. You see, YECs, for instance like to look at one little piece at a time and ignore certain inconvenient data. This is an indisputable fact. What do you think the original assumptions were? Why do scientists accept some assumptions, and do you agree that some assumptions are reasonable while others are not? Only if you ignore certain data and rationalize away certain principles.

Hey RAZD. Thanks for responding. I can heartily agree with this - anyone who calls themself a "scientist" is "philosophically obliged" to consider all proposed angles, else they are dogmatists (mind you, i think most people are dogmatists most of the time, anyhow, with the occasional idealism slipping in, not actually the other way around....!) I certainly can't disagree with that! And how could I?: It's a small scale experiment, that is certainly not anything like the scale of rock strata one is describing and investigating! It's also simplified in its complexity, it's dynamics - one would expect a real event of such magnitude to have far more complicated hydro-dynamic and geo-chemical interactions, would one not?Hence, in all honesty, i have to take your comment as trivial... But couldn't i just as easily claim that an increase in the complexity of the experiment would satisfy some of the said problems? Surely we have to be careful in denying generalised inductive logic, or we'll stall science in its tracks.... but we've also got to ask the question, because i think it's being begged: let's say that increases in the scale and complexity of the experiments produced results that are more and more like the strata we are investigating - ie. more complex, larger scale (simply because we've increased complexity and scale!)....then what? Will we continue to deny valid induction/extrapolation, if even at least as a strong basis for some serious further investigation? Or, at what point does the experiment provide a valid basis for an alternative model? Does it have to be exactly the same size as the strata under consideration, and have exactly the same components? When is enough enough?Additionally, why is the evidence "inconvient"? I'm not quite sure why you're saying that, or at least why you would be saying that at this point in the conversation. Too many people think that evidence "speaks" - but it doesn't: it's mute. Consequently, no evidence is "inconvient", merely "evidence" and merely awaiting incorporation into a model that includes experimental support. Aha...sorry, not true. Silty clay does not necessarily take a long time to deposit - this assumes a Stokian settling regime, considering dry particle hydrodynamic diameter and density only; it does not consider the very significant impact of water chemistry on these colloidal and near-colloidal size particles. But it's good you brought it up.Coagulation and flocculation (how i've made my crust for the last 6 years, water treatment) of these types of particles is actually the norm, not the exception - dissolved (both inorganic and organic) interact with the particle surfaces, and can (and usually do) cause particle agglomeration...which affects the hydrodynamic size and densities of the particles - and, thus, their settling characteristics.As a result, particles can have their settling rates increased by orders of magnitude WRT their calculated Stokes Settling rates. It has not been uncommon for me to see colloidal clays with Stokes Settling rates of years per metre accelerated to metres per minute with the appropriate water chemistry (HUGE range! normal!), and a little agitation (for particle-particle agglomeration opportunity). It's really, really easy to do, too, and happens readily.Actually, there's been some university flume work conducted on exactly this aspect...i'll find the references if you or anyone else are interested...Infact, it's such a common phenomena, that to this day i wonder why people still assert that clays have to settle really slowly? "Under what conditions?" i ask, and those conditions are almost always the exception to the rule, being quite uncommon in nature. But perhaps that's just a chemical engineer's perspective on all this....but bringing it back to the point of the thread: General Principles.A "Law" can't be a "law" if it has exceptions; that's why the Principle of Superposition is only a Principle (which is great!) but perhaps no longer even deserves such a title, given that flowing slurries (a very common phenomena!) can produce the same basic features simultaneously.A difficult pill to swallow, yes, but if a general principle is so easily shown to have exception by a relatively simple and common phenomena (in that vertically successive layers can be produced by a horizontal, simultaneous event), then surely the title of "Principle" should be brought into question, and reviews conducted? Crikeys...i think it's exciting...can't wait to do some flume work myself!Hopefully the clay-settling notion (of being slow) is also not a "Principle" (though i do hear that A LOT!), as isn't even the norm...i still scratch my head at why geos keep saying it's so....it's just not....Anyhow, hopefully my general conclusions bring my specific thoughts into keeping with the theme of this thread.Edited by stewartreeve, : No reason given.

Nonsense. Under certain conditions, laws can break down. For instance, the SLoT. It does not necessarily apply to open systems. Actually, it doesn't. See my earlier post. I hope you can do better than Juby, or whatever his name is. You know, we seldom let YECs do these things unsupervised. There's a reason for that. However, I notice that you never actualy told us the conditions under which flocculation occurs and how that is applied to large marine or fluvial systems, particularly under a current.

What it does not, apparently, provide, is a mechanism whereby thing on the bottom can settle after the things on the top.It sounds to me as though you're talking about turbidite formation or something very similar. It would be a bit of a stretch to say that this contradicts superposition. I believe that observation of actual geological processes has a lot to do with it.

Geologists and oceanographers putting sediment traps in the bottom of bodies of water and actually measuring how sediment accumulates may have a lot to do with why they say that. And ferric chloride, or polyacrylamide, or polyDADMAC aren't really that abundant in natural waters, anyway.

Hi again stewartreeve, still having some difficulties with correlating the data?First you try to use a dynamic system to discredit sedimentary deposition, and then you attempt a totally different ad hoc explanation for the non-dynamic sedimentation in a lake (I assume this means you acknowledge that the Berthaultian slurry flury speculation does not apply to Lake Suigetsu, hence we see a different mechanism proposed): Curiously, natural mechanisms that cause floculation exist, as municipal engineers have copied them rather than created them, and I'm well aware of what is involved, but they are not universal. You are making an unfounded assumption to apply them to Lake Suigetsu, where the actual rate of deposition of the silty clay was measured.Particle agglomeration does not necessarily increase the rate of settlement dramatically, as they don't necessarily increase the density of the particles, just clump them together. Often other methods to accelerate the process are used, such as centrifugal flow separators or sand filters.Interestingly, even assuming a natural flocculation mechanism, this does not solve your problem of the alternating layers of clay and diatom shells. The diatoms fall continuously during the summer months, but they die off in the winter, when the clay layers are formed by the absence of diatoms.Just a moment...

quote:

---

To reconstruct the calendar time scale, we counted varves, based on gray-scale image analyses of digital pictures, in a 10.43- to 30.45-m-deep section, producing a 29,100-year-long floating chronology. Because we estimated the varve chronology of older than ~20,000 yr B.P. (19-m depth of SG core) by counting in a single core section, the error of the varve counting increases with depth, and the accumulated error at 40,000 cal yr B.P. would be less than ~2000 years, assuming no break in the sediment (12).

---

There are some 29,100 distinct layers produced by this process of alternating diatom and clay. The fascinating part is that there are also organic elements deposited in the bottom and embedded in the layers: leaves, twigs, insects. These bits and pieces contain carbon isotopes, including carbon-14, obtained from the atmosphere when they were living.Carbon-14 decays, so the ratio of C-14 to C-13 changes with age of a specimen after it dies. There is a very strong correlation between the age determined by counting and the age determined by C-14 dating:Just a moment... (3)

quote:

---

Fig. 1. (A) Radiocarbon calibration up to 45,000 yr B.P. reconstructed from annually laminated sediments of Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The small circles with 1s error represent the 14C ages against varve ages. For the oldest eight points (>38,000 years, filled circles), we assumed a constant sedimentation during the Glacial period. The green symbols correspond to the tree-ring calibration (2, 15), and the large red symbols represent calibration by combined 14C and U-Th dating of corals from Papua New Guinea (squares) (8), Mururoa (circles), and Barbados (triangles) (7). The line indicates that radiocarbon age equals calibrated age.

---

We are only concerned here with the open blue circles (Lake Suigetsu data) here (there is more about this on the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread, so excuse me if I seem a little brief in this explanation here). But the correlation between C-14 and varve layer count is also correlated in a third way: A 40,000-Year Varve Chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: Extension of the 14C Calibration Curve

quote:

---

Results

​

Figure 1 shows the varve and ¹⁴C chronologies as a function of depth of the SG core. Until now, the varve numbers have been counted in the 10.42-30.45 m deep section. The Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves. As shown in Figure 1 the sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial). The age below 30.45 m depth is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial (0.62 mm yr-1). The ¹⁴C ages at 10.42, 30.45 and 35 m depth are ca. 7800, 35,000 and 42,000 BP, respectively.

---

Here we see a correlation between the varve layers and the C-14 amounts in the organic specimens, and we see a correlation between the layers and the rate of depositionNote where the correlation between C-14 and depth with C-14 and varve count shows a bend at about 11,000 years ago ("BP" means "before present" with "present" defined as 1950 CE): both curves show a matching change in slope of the curves with depth. These show fairly steady rates of deposition of the clay and diatoms, as shown by relatively uniform thickness of the layers, and the change in slope indicates an overall change in the rate of deposition indicating an overall climatic change.I'm sure that, as an engineer, you are familiar with exponential curves, and also know that these are the decay curves for a number of natural systems, including radioactive decay.And, of course, you realize that one curve in this graph is from a linear system of varve counting and the other is a mathematical model based on actual measurements that are along an exponential distribution.This means that any method that speeds up the deposition of the lake varves cannot explain the correlation with the C-14 data as any natural flocculation system would not affect the rate of decay of C-14. Likewise any mechanism that could affect the rate of decay (another common creationist excuse) would not affect the sedimentation rate, and two independent systems are highly unlikely to change their rates at the same instant.So we've thrown out Berthault's curious results for consideration in Lake Suigetsu, and we've shown that there is a curious correlation between both varve layer age and exponential curve calculated C-14 age and the rate of sedimentation, a three way correlation that shows that some natural flocculation mechanism cannot cause an increased rate of deposit and explain the actual evidence. Interestingly, being open-minded does not mean continuing to believe falsified concepts, that's where the skeptic part takes over.Enjoy.

---