|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3940 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Continuation of Flood Discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Already tendentious language, simply to call them lakes and deltas. Clearly they are formations that suggest these interpretations, but you are not looking at lakes and deltas, you are looking at something within the rock that is like lakes and deltas and is attributed to an earlier time period, right? Or are these phenomena exposed at surface? Can't tell from this.
Ah, so you don't trust those rascally scientists, do you? So, you have a better interpretation of the data? Do you really think that every article is going to provide all of the data? You need to go into the original literature for that; and a lot of it is there in the references section. Did you look at those? What is the evidence for this interpretation? How they "existed from" such and such to such and such a time, and how they then "spread?" All we're getting is interpretation but what are the phenomena that suggest this interpretation? The evidence in other words. Try that little "[7]" for starters. By the way, when did you suddenly become interested in evidence? Does this mean you are going to provide some from here forward?
All interpretation, where's the evidence, where are the facts? What are "lakebed sediments" and where are these seen? Where is the idea of "climate change" coming from? At least we finally get some evidence in the "beds of differing thickness and composition stacked atop one another" but obviously the emphasis is on the interpretation of the supposed "environment." This is typical of OE and Evo reports, about which I've complained before, to the usual chorus of denials, but here it is. We get "environments" we don't get facts.
Okay, so now you have that "[5]" notation. That would be the source of this data. Did you check it out? So now we have these beds of differing thickness.... I'm curious about your hyperskepticism. Do you ever apply that to your own beliefs?
Interesting that this is more or less the same sequence described in Walther's Law which I think is still the first part of this thread we're on. Only this is fresh water rather than sea water? What is the evidence for that?
Not exactly. These lakes had enclosing shorelines and, on occasion, dried up. They also had clams and molluscs of fresh-water type.
Unless those are all that happened to survive the burial. Or unless the whole shebang is just a misinterpretation.
But why would that be? Oh, that's right! It's what you want.
OK. There's my read-through.
I recommend more practice.
Obviously can't get an actual picture of what is being described here for all the interpretive fairytale laid over it. What is the phenomena, what are the facts, what are we actually looking at here? Is it surface or is it buried?
Or both. I"m not sure what the rest of your sentence means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
... and the evaporates of course you also assume were once on the surface but may never have been. (we've left this topic behind it seems but I've wondered why salt beds seen in cross section usually occur where the strata have been severely deformed, sometimes into hammock-like shapes. This sagging of the strata would have occurred of course after all the strata were in place, or otherwise they'd have been laid down horizontally as is the habit of sediments; but why does this happen so often where there is salt? Do you know?)
Yes, the ones with dessication cracks and evaporative minerals sorted out by the order in which they precipitate. And yes, they cause deformation because they either dissolve when exposed to fresh groundwaters or they deform readily under uneven loads. If you're willing I'd really like to get a clearer picture of these evaporite beds. Where are these "dessication cracks" to be found, and the evaporative minerals? And you say "they" cause deformation but I'm not sure what the "they" refers to, and where they cause this deformation. Do the strata deform (sag) because of deformation beneath them or what? I'm sure your description is good but I'm not able to picture it yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK, footnotes then, no description from you. The complaint about the interpretive presentation versus facts is a complaint I've made from the beginning here. It's typical of OE and Evo presentations as I've often said, and it serves only to mystify the reader.
So I'm not going to get any actual facts from you either, just go check the footnotes. I'll let you know if I find any facts there or just more interpretive fairytale. ABE: Guess what, the footnotes don't go to anything online, just references in books. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
OK, footnotes then, no description from you. The complaint about the interpretive presentation versus facts is a complaint I've made from the beginning here. It's typical of OE and Evo presentations as I've often said, and it serves only to mystify the reader.
It is strange that you, of all people, should make such a complaint.
So I'm not going to get any actual facts from you either, just go check the footnotes. I'll let you know if I find any facts there or just more interpretive fairytale.
Unlike you, I do not know every detail. I accept the interpretation of authors because it fits with what I do know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So I guess for now I'll have to do without getting a better picture of the phenomena under discussion since the footnotes go nowhere and you don't have the information either.
How about the evaporites then? Do you have some answers for my questions there, or some footnotes to send me to? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It is strange that you, of all people, should make such a complaint. I suppose it would be to you since you are fond of your idea of the clueless creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
If you're willing I'd really like to get a clearer picture of these evaporite beds. Where are these "dessication cracks" to be found, and the evaporative minerals? And you say "they" cause deformation but I'm not sure what the "they" refers to, and where they cause this deformation. Do the strata deform (sag) because of deformation beneath them or what? I'm sure your description is good but I'm not able to picture it yet.
Why is it that when you want deeper detail on our posts, you are willing to go beyond the scope of a discussion board, but when we ask for even a tiny bit of evidence you clam up like Fort Knox? Basically, salt can dissolve on contact with fresh water. This creates voids which then can collapse, disrupting the layers above. However, salt is also plastic and will flow under uneven loads. So, if there is more weight on one part of a salt bed, it will try to relieve the stress by flowing away from that excess load. Again, this causes upper layers to sag and deform, commonly to the surface. Here is a word from Wiki about the formation of evaporite deposits. (Evaporite - Wikipedia)
Although all water bodies on the surface and in aquifers contain dissolved salts, the water must evaporate into the atmosphere for the minerals to precipitate. For this to happen, the water body must enter a restricted environment where water input into this environment remains below the net rate of evaporation. This is usually an arid environment with a small basin fed by a limited input of water. When evaporation occurs, the remaining water is enriched in salts, and they precipitate when the water becomes supersaturated... Note that some kind of an enclosed basin is necessary. An example woudld be the Great Salt Lake or the Dead Sea, for instance. This is the order of precipitation of minerals from a marine source of water. For lakes it would be a little different, but halite and anhydrite would dominate. A similar zoning is found around salt domes also.
The first phase of the experiment begins when about 50% of the original water depth remains. At this point, minor carbonates begin to form.[2] The next phase in the sequence comes when the experiment is left with about 20% of its original level. At this point, the mineral gypsum begins to form, which is then followed by halite at 10%,[2] excluding carbonate minerals that tend not to be evaporates. The most common minerals that are generally considered to be the most representative of marine evaporates are calcite, gypsum and anhydrite, halite, sylvite, carnallite, langbeinite, polyhalite, and kainite. Kieserite (MgSO4) may also be included, which often will make up less than four percent of the overall content.[2]
These phases will plot around a lake from center to edge and top to bottom, so that the last material to precipitate would be from the most concentrated brines. This is seen in the Green River and Piceance Basins in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
However, salt is also plastic and will flow under uneven loads. So, if there is more weight on one part of a salt bed, it will try to relieve the stress by flowing away from that excess load. And before you say that this is only conjecture or imagination, Faith, go see the people at Morton Salt in Grand Saline, Texas or at the WIPP project over near Carlsbad, New Mexico. They mine salt. They watch it deform. WIPP was built in salt beds to take advantage of this creep to be sure our radioactive waste gets encapsulated. And yes, there is gypsum in beds beneath the salt. All evaporates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why is it that when you want deeper detail on our posts, you are willing to go beyond the scope of a discussion board, but when we ask for even a tiny bit of evidence you clam up like Fort Knox? 1. I keep thinking I've answered this but I guess not sufficiently from your point of view, but that leaves it as a puzzle for me. 2. I think I've provided evidence, as much as I have, so when you keep on demanding evidence I just take it as a form of dismissing anything I say, so what can I do but press on anyway. I don't know if it's just that you don't regard the evidence I've given as evidence or what. 3. Maybe you think it should be possible to produce this evidence you think I haven't produced so I'm just stupidly not doing something that should be easy to do, something you think YECs should and could be doing that we're just strangely not doing. HBD seems to think something of the sort, says he even gave me advice about how to go about it. Maybe I saw his advice and didn't see anything usable in it or maybe I didn't see it, I don't know, but this whole complaint from you guys is incomprehensible so I just keep on pressing on as best I can. I just figure you know you are asking for the impossible -- basically just another form of ridicule or taunt -- and it gives you an excuse to continue the insults.
Basically, salt can dissolve on contact with fresh water. This creates voids which then can collapse, disrupting the layers above. Thank you, I was pretty sure it had to be caused by the salt itself.
However, salt is also plastic and will flow under uneven loads. So, if there is more weight on one part of a salt bed, it will try to relieve the stress by flowing away from that excess load. Again, this causes upper layers to sag and deform, commonly to the surface. Here is a word from Wiki about the formation of evaporite deposits. (Evaporite - Wikipedia)
Although all water bodies on the surface and in aquifers contain dissolved salts, the water must evaporate into the atmosphere for the minerals to precipitate. For this to happen, the water body must enter a restricted environment where water input into this environment remains below the net rate of evaporation. This is usually an arid environment with a small basin fed by a limited input of water. When evaporation occurs, the remaining water is enriched in salts, and they precipitate when the water becomes supersaturated... Note that some kind of an enclosed basin is necessary. An example woudld be the Great Salt Lake or the Dead Sea, for instance. OK. Thanks for all that. How it causes the strata to sag is the part that was puzzling me and I'm glad to have the answer to that. The order of precipitation is also interesting but of course my task as a YEC is to figure out how the water from which it all precipitates got there after all the strata above were already in place. Clearly they were already in place when the salt dissolved and left the void that caused the deformation, so presumably the strata were deposited when the salt was dry. Or hadn't yet precipitated out of the water, or the water itself, as a body of water contained in a basin, wasn't there yet. Next questions would have to do with the particular sediments above and below the salt, whether there is anything predictable about that or not. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't have any reason to doubt any of that; it's the interpretations that are the problem, the time period scenarios, not the actual physical facts. I always appreciate it when real facts are presented, such as petrophysics gave in his account of how he goes about his work, I think in this thread earlier. (No it was in the thread about historical versus observational science: HERE.)
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If you're willing I'd really like to get a clearer picture of these evaporite beds. Where are these "dessication cracks" to be found, and the evaporative minerals? One example I've shown you before:
The neat thing is that there is about a thousand feet of rock above those evaporative minerals. Love to see the model, method or process that one of the Biblical Floods might create what is seen in real life.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
The order of precipitation is also interesting but of course my task as a YEC is to figure out how the water from which it all precipitates got there after all the strata above were already in place. And while you are figuring, figure out a place for many thousands of tons of water vapor per acre to go while it is covered in damp but nearly solid or at least kinda firm sediment. Or if you can figure a way for fresh water to escape in the liquid form from the salt it once had dissolved in it by, say, filtration through limestone or osmosis through gopher-wood membrane - that would be nearly as good. So your task is to 1) float some strata on mildly salty water and 2) remove the water alone, leaving the salts behind in layers. "The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If I were an admin I'd suspend you for a while for confusing things with a stupid mockery of a post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 428 From: Vancouver Island Joined:
|
A block of sandstone, flat on all sides, is not shaped like a dune. Would think that pretty obvious myself. And the blocks of wood in my workshop are not shaped like trees. Yet by looking at them, I can tell you what kind of tree they are from, what that tree was shaped like, which parts of the wood grew in "good" years and which in "bad", and on and on. Yet the blocks of wood are not shaped like trees. How can this be? Could it be because I have taken the time to actually learn something about trees and the boards they are sometimes turned into? Could it be that those who study geology have similarly learned how to recognise the characteristics of dunes in the blocks of sandstone they sometimes become? PS: If you have some big trees that you want to move from one place to another after you've killed them, the Hayes HDw in my avatar photo is one hell of a tool for accomplishing that task.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
How do evaporites form without evaporation, Faith? Or how does evaporation proceed under layers of rock? What am I confusing there, Faith?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024