|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Seems to me that to turn sand dunes into a flat rock, and it IS flat and straight to the naked eye, couldn't happen by new sediments covering them over -- they would simply fall over the dunes into the valleys. Even wet sediment would do that although it might have some flattening effect, just not the VERY flattening effect that had to happen to produce the straight contact lines that are visible to the naked eye. Of course if you submerge the dunes they might flatten out some too, but then you wouldn't have that angle of repose that determines aerial deposition any more -- OR the actual flatness that exists. And you need pressure from above. You need a flattening of the sand and pressure from above. If the sand deposited in swamps how is any resultant sandstone going to be flat on the bottom? If another sediment deposits on the dry sand how is it going to be flat on the top? Seems pretty straightforward to me, but of course you're the Geologist and you just know it had to happen the way you say it happened whether it makes sense or not.
No need.I can find the video if necessary, creationist video, that says the Redwall extends across the continent and even into the UK. This picture from your own link, shows cross bedding in the Coconino being cut and planed off by the Toroweap contact. http://www.earthmagazine.org/...creationist-geologist-battle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
No, I was giving the possible scenario of DRY deposition on top of the sand first and THEN wet deposition, neither of which would flatten the dunes down to that straight-edge flatness we see at the top and bottom of the Coconino, dry deposition not at all, and wet depends on how wet.
I'm not sure what you are saying. The actual angle of repose has little to do with the erosion of the top layer of eolian dunes.
Of course if the SEA TRANSGRESSES OVER THE DUNES then there will be that washing into the valleys and there will also be the saturation of the dunes which would lose that angle of repose that shows they were formed AERIALLY.
Why is that? We are only talking about the uppermost visible layer. As a pile of sand dunes is cut by wave action, the tops are simply cut off.
So which is it, they were formed aerially or soaked in sea water? The angle of repose is different according to whether the sand was dry or wet.
Actually both. They formed subaerially and the were planed of in an erosional event at the base of the Toroweap.
The only way you could get that straight tight contact between the Coconino and the formations both above and below it is if it had been actually DEPOSITED BY WATER as one layer in a series, not just flattened by transgressing sea water.
Why do you say this? Do you have some documentation? Everytime the upper part of a crossbed is truncated, that is an erosional event.
Besides the problem of losing your aerial angle of repose, ...
Why would we lose the angle of repose? Does the layering of a cake change when you cut it?
... it would never be flattened to that degree of perfection seen in the photos (which of course is absurdly denied, Emperor's new clothes and all that, just open your eyes but oh well...).
Who is talking about flattening? I am saying it was cut. And just how can you say things like this anyway?
And besides you are forgetting that edge said the sand dunes were formed over a swampy lowland which is a fairly dippy lumpy foundation, ...
Who said that?
... yet there is just as tight and straight a contact line between that lithified lowland and the lithified sand as between the lithified sand and the lithified sediments of whatever the Toroweap is composed of above.
I'm not sure what the problem is here. When we point out erosion (unconfomrities) between different units, you deny such features, and yet now, you claim they are all highly irregular contacts... I have little doubt that there is some compaction of the different units and an apparent evening up of the contacts, but basically, there is not much original relief on most of these contacts.
Such a random process couldn't possibly form the very straight tight contact lines we see in the photos of the Coconino. You guys are just going out of your way to confuse something that is really very simple.
Your own reference belies this. See my previous post for a picture that you provided to us. And, please, tell us why this process is random.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The pictures are close enough to see that the contact lines are very straight and tight. JUST LOOK.
And yet the surface is erosional.
And I don't know if you are saying the sand was not saturated or even if it was saturated the grains would maintain the same angle of repose. But they would not according to everything I've read. If you stack them in water they have an angle of repose for being stacked in water that is different from being stacked dry. And if you are saying the sand was not saturated by a rise in the sea level that's impossible.
You do realize that being deposited and being saturated are different, don't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Say there's a desert that meets the coast. Deeply buried beneath the surface of this desert and covered by many feet of sand is an ancient sand dune with an angle of repose that could only occur on land. The sea transgresses across the desert. Does Faith believe that this deeply buried sand dune will now take on a different angle of repose?
Evidently. One thing to keep in mind is that all sand dunes are eroded at the top. You do not see an intact dune in any section of eolian sand deposits that I know of.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Yes, Faith, how? Specifically, how did processes that violate known physical laws ever happen naturally?
What is more, why do the products of such processes look exactly like the products of processes occurring today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Just so you know, I did find some protractors in a cache of art stuff I inherited from my cartoonist uncle. Now if someone wants to come and help me fold laundry so I can clear a space on the folding table... might also have to find a source of light for the area though...
Or you could just read a textbook on the subject. You might even find something online, so you won't need to suffer the inconvenience of going to the library. On the other hand, you could continue to reinvent the wheel by getting a grant from the DI, maybe get a new table and a light... When you're done with that, we will send you an airplane kit so that you can prove heavier than air flight. Or not. ![]() You may think I'm terribly insensitive and rude, but the purpose here is to show you where extreme skepticism leads ... you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
ABE: IN ANY CASE the effects of such an event should be evident, and they are: strata, fossils.
Never mind that your entire argument has been flayed and hung out to dry. Okay, so what is your drop-dead best stratgraphic evidence the Fludde? And please, be a little more specific than 'fossils' or some such evasion.
ABE: Oh and I really like this model of the effect of sea transgressions and regressions too because it is the first explanation I've seen of how the sedimentary layers could have formed by the rising and falling of sea water, which is of course the method of the Flood. It needs to be worked out of course, but to say it puts the nail in the coffin of the Flood theory totally misses the point.
Wow... So how many floods have you got? And why are they all at different times? And where do you get siliciclastic sediments from during the flood? How do you get limestone formed in a flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The different times idea is an artifact of the Old Earth model; the Flood happened in about one year about 4300 years ago and maybe some day you'll bring your model into conformity with this truth.
Then you should provide us with a model to explain various regional and local transgressions.
quote:So, how do you scour land masses when there is no land? How can you have a beach with no land masses available? How do you get conglomerates when there is no land to erode the cobbles from? ...limestones would have been coughed up by the sea itself. How's that for a start?
"Coughed up"? Please describe. How do you form coral reefs in one year? How do you form limestones in deep, turbulent waters? How do the calcareous skeletons form, survive and then become deposited without significant contamination?
What's neat about this model of sea transgression/regression is not where the sediments come from but that the sea DOES deposit them in layers.
?? As far as we know, it still is. So where's the global fludde?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
What is your evidence that limestone was scoured off the sea floor, and why would limestone come from the sea floor while siliclastic sediments were scoured off the land, which makes no sense since both contain only marine fossils? Why the difference? If you're going to make stuff up you should at least try to be consistent. Of course that would require actually knowing something about the topic you're discussing.
This is an important observation. I would like to point out also that since the limestones and siliclastics are found together interbedded, in multiple layers, in most stratigraphic columns; the 'scouring' and 'coughig up' are completely incompatible with both the record and each other. The situation is impossible, a desperate, ad hoc position. Unless one just wants to declare a miracle and go home...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Apparently, the only geology that matters is the one on display in the Grand Canyon. It's not like the rest of the world is also composed of rocks or anything.
I don't think it would make much difference to Faith. She cannot even get a simple situation to make sense.Maybe it's time to discuss a new, more complex geologic section with ample evidence of tectonic upheaval? If we started throwing volcanic rocks around and complex faulting, it might a true catastrophe, right here at EvC. I'm not going to be responsible for that. I will aver, just for the record, that global geology is a lot more complex than Faith thinks, and way beyond anything we can possibly discuss here. I'd think that would have become apparent by now, but you just can't predict with these people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Faulting would have occurred during the tectonic activity at the end of the Flood and volcanic activity roughly in the same period of time.
Based on what?
Of course it's complex, but I don't address issues I can't follow, I stick to those that I can.
Heh, heh... You can?
That's why it took me so long to appreciate the implications of this model of sea transgressions and regressions, which had been posted before.
You really think you comprehend? Why do you think that there are two regional transgressions at the GC along with several minor ones? And that's just the Paleozoic... Sorry, Faith, not buying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
And I shall when I've worked it all through. This is still a new idea to me you know.
You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
Bedrock I suppose.
And that bedrock would be... land?
Scoured off doesn't mean obliterated.
So, you agree that there were land masses during the global fludde? Well, thats kind of like ... what we have ... ummm...
now.... What happened to ye global fludde? Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down. I realize there are places where this is ambiguous but it's not ambiguous in the Grand Canyon which is a main reason I like it so much.
Ah, but some occurred before.
Yep. Don't confuse disagreeing with you with not following your claims.
I differ. Your language clearly shows that you have no background in science, much less geology.
Not yet, this is new to me as I said, I'm only at the point of appreciating the implications as likely very useful to the Flood explanation.
Heh, heh... And this is just the watered down stuff. You really have no idea.
Of course you aren't buying your own straw man, which is what this is, since I haven't yet tried to apply the model to the GC, haven't even fully digested it, so this idea is coming only from you.
Well, I do kind of have to guess what you are saying. But more basically, I'm not buying anything you say about geology or your interpretations, like "It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down." I've explained this all before, but I'm not going to bother again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Everything that could be dissolved or turned into mud came off the land, I assume there was foundational rock that wouldn't. You are quite the nitpicker.
So, it appears you agree that there was emergent land during the fludde. I repeat my question: what happened to the global nature of the fludde? And actually, we know that some 'foundational rock' eroded anyway. We can see the results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
No, it was all under water.
How did beaches form with all of the land underwater, then?
Fine, I'll take that into account.
Just pointing out your lack of knowledge in the subject material.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024