Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 871 of 1304 (732487)
07-07-2014 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 864 by Faith
07-07-2014 4:51 PM


Re: Evaporites
Here is a discussion of dessication cracks by Glenn Morton. Some of these cracks are in salt and some in other sediments. Whatever the rock, the cracks show dessication, which, of course would not be possible under global flood conditions.
http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com/...+the+Global+Flood

This message is a reply to:
 Message 864 by Faith, posted 07-07-2014 4:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 873 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 12:45 PM edge has replied
 Message 876 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 2:07 PM edge has replied
 Message 882 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-08-2014 8:32 PM edge has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 872 of 1304 (732541)
07-08-2014 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 864 by Faith
07-07-2014 4:51 PM


Re: Evaporites
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.
My guess is you didn't find it useful. But even so, I re-posted it here Message 281 along with some additional comments.
I know you don't consider me any kind of authority on this, and that's just fine. But I am trying to explain to you WHY no one here is considering your ideas to be scientific. Whether you agree with the process or not, if you want to be considered scientific, then you have to play the game. That's how it works.
If you want to do something different, no problem. Just don't expect us to consider it scientific, that's all.
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 864 by Faith, posted 07-07-2014 4:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 874 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 12:52 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 873 of 1304 (732555)
07-08-2014 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 871 by edge
07-07-2014 9:01 PM


Re: Evaporites
Questions came to mind while I was reading that, especially when I got down to the dessication cracks in the wells:
1) I thought some of the layers of the Geologic Column were considered by standard Geology to never have become surface but were always under water, so that the next layer deposited on it under water. Yes/No/Which? That's one question.
2) Another is if you are seeing the cracks in exposed surfaces, as in the walls of a well, how do you know when the cracks formed? (Unfortunately that is one of the many pictures on that page that I'm unable to see on my computer for some reason).
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 871 by edge, posted 07-07-2014 9:01 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 892 by edge, posted 07-09-2014 2:13 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 874 of 1304 (732556)
07-08-2014 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 872 by herebedragons
07-08-2014 10:26 AM


Re: Evaporites
ABE Rewrite: I'm having a hard time reading your dissertation for many reasons. One is that you give me no credit for doing exactly what you are recommending at times. Another is that you don't distinguish between contexts in which I say various things, as if EvC were a genuine scientific establishment or half the responses I get weren't just trash.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 872 by herebedragons, posted 07-08-2014 10:26 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 875 of 1304 (732557)
07-08-2014 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 870 by Coragyps
07-07-2014 8:30 PM


Re: Evaporites
I know you know the answer before I've even begun to think about it but save it until you know what I do think, which at this point I don't even know myself. ABE: Oh and please refrain from garbage talk such as about filtering through gopher wood.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 870 by Coragyps, posted 07-07-2014 8:30 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 876 of 1304 (732563)
07-08-2014 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 871 by edge
07-07-2014 9:01 PM


please demystify "depositional environment"
Some of these cracks are in salt and some in other sediments. Whatever the rock, the cracks show dessication, which, of course would not be possible under global flood conditions.
Nor, presumably, if the layer was always under water and never at the surface, which as I said in the earlier post I thought was considered to be a common occurrence.
But I'm writing this post because as usual I get a headache when I read about depositional environments. Please translate this stuff into actual factual observational statements:
"This study shows that the mudstone was deposited in environments that ranged from saline- and dry-mudflat to distal alluvial-eolian plain, and that the dolostone formed in a Coorong-like environment.
Oh yeah? And what exactly are the observed facts that led to this bit of interpretive mystification? What is actually SEEN in the mudstone and the dolostone? And if it's seen IN the stone, what does the term "environment" mean?
New evidence shows that the lower Burr Member was deposited in an oxygen-restricted environment.
Uh huh, and that evidence would be what?
Data indicate that the environment in central Saskatchewan was more oxygen- restricted. From base to top, the depositional environment of the Neely Member changed from relatively deep, offshore settings, through higher energy, shallower water conditions represented by domical stromatoporoids, to intertidal and supratidal conditions. The Hubbard Evaporite Member was deposited in salt pan to saline mudflat environment, and the overlying First Red Bed formed in environments that ranged from saline mudflat, dry mudflat to distal floodplain. " C. Gu, Ph.D. thesis, 1998; DISS. ABSTR. INT., SECT. B v.59, no.6, p.2633-B, Dec. 1998.
There isn't a single fact about these Members in this entire paragraph. Where are the facts, in other words the evidence, that justifies the recurrent phrase "was deposited in" this that or the other "environment." Do you get the question or is this kind of mystifying jargon so standard that you can't see the facts for the interpretations that have swallowed them up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 871 by edge, posted 07-07-2014 9:01 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 877 by Coyote, posted 07-08-2014 2:19 PM Faith has replied
 Message 883 by edge, posted 07-08-2014 10:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 927 by herebedragons, posted 07-10-2014 8:43 AM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 877 of 1304 (732564)
07-08-2014 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 876 by Faith
07-08-2014 2:07 PM


Re: please demystify "depositional environment"
Data indicate that the environment in central Saskatchewan was more oxygen- restricted. From base to top, the depositional environment of the Neely Member changed from relatively deep, offshore settings, through higher energy, shallower water conditions represented by domical stromatoporoids, to intertidal and supratidal conditions. The Hubbard Evaporite Member was deposited in salt pan to saline mudflat environment, and the overlying First Red Bed formed in environments that ranged from saline mudflat, dry mudflat to distal floodplain. " C. Gu, Ph.D. thesis, 1998; DISS. ABSTR. INT., SECT. B v.59, no.6, p.2633-B, Dec. 1998.
There isn't a single fact about these Members in this entire paragraph. Where are the facts, in other words the evidence, that justifies the recurrent phrase "was deposited in" this that or the other "environment." Do you get the question or is this kind of mystifying jargon so standard that you can't see the facts for the interpretations that have swallowed them up?
You have cited the abstract of a Ph.D. dissertation.
That is not where data normally appears. Perhaps if you read the dissertation you would find the data there, you think? Dissertations are readily available sometimes free but otherwise for a small price. Maybe you should do some real research for a change?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 876 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 2:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 2:27 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 878 of 1304 (732565)
07-08-2014 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 877 by Coyote
07-08-2014 2:19 PM


Re: please demystify "depositional environment"
It was part of what was presented to me as is. But I pretty much know what sorts of things are interpreted as "depositional environment" anyway, I think the term itself is bogus. and serves only to obscure the facts. Present the facts if they are important, but they aren't "environments."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 877 by Coyote, posted 07-08-2014 2:19 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 879 by Coragyps, posted 07-08-2014 4:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 879 of 1304 (732572)
07-08-2014 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 878 by Faith
07-08-2014 2:27 PM


Re: please demystify "depositional environment"
So a deposit that was laid down in the middle of a Great Fludde was not laid in a flood environment?
Do you really think that silt deposited along the Nile during a flood (back before they dammed the river up) and a mud + boulder slide on the California coast are not "environments" that can be told apart from each other? Of course they are different depositional environments!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 2:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 880 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 4:21 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 880 of 1304 (732574)
07-08-2014 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 879 by Coragyps
07-08-2014 4:07 PM


Re: please demystify "depositional environment"
How's about you provide some of the missing facts in the paragraph I was complaining about and we can go from there? It shouldn't be too hard. Or even from your own examples if you prefer.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 879 by Coragyps, posted 07-08-2014 4:07 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 881 by Coragyps, posted 07-08-2014 5:48 PM Faith has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 881 of 1304 (732581)
07-08-2014 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 880 by Faith
07-08-2014 4:21 PM


Re: please demystify "depositional environment"
OK - without looking up the source, I can be fairly confident about a few parts...
Data indicate that the environment in central Saskatchewan was more oxygen- restricted. From base to top, the depositional environment of the Neely Member changed from relatively deep, offshore settings, through higher energy, shallower water conditions represented by domical stromatoporoids, to intertidal and supratidal conditions. The Hubbard Evaporite Member was deposited in salt pan to saline mudflat environment, and the overlying First Red Bed formed in environments that ranged from saline mudflat, dry mudflat to distal floodplain. "
Near the base, I would say that the sediments were very fine-grained and didn't show ripples. (Deep water, below wave action). Likely very few burrows (low oxygen, little life crawling or digging). Higher energy environments are likely larger-grained sediments (the silt washes away...) and may well have ripple marks. Stromatoporoids were relatives of our modern sponges - presumably they all died in the Flood, though.
Intertidal and supratidal deposits are going to show ripples, etc.
A real geologist can go from here....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 880 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 4:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 885 by Faith, posted 07-09-2014 12:22 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 882 of 1304 (732590)
07-08-2014 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 871 by edge
07-07-2014 9:01 PM


Dessication cracks vs. syneresis cracks
Whatever the rock, the cracks show dessication, which, of course would not be possible under global flood conditions.
Well, there is such a thing as Syneresis cracks:
quote:
Syneresis cracks are broadly similar features that form from subaqueous shrinkage of muddy sediment caused by differences in salinity or chemical conditions, rather than subaerial exposure and desiccation. Syneresis cracks can be distinguished from mudcracks because they tend to be discontinuous, sinuous, and trilete or spindle-shaped.
The main syneresis cracks wiki page
Of course, as they say, you can tell desiccation cracks from syneresis cracks.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 871 by edge, posted 07-07-2014 9:01 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 887 by edge, posted 07-09-2014 12:30 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 883 of 1304 (732596)
07-08-2014 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 876 by Faith
07-08-2014 2:07 PM


Re: please demystify "depositional environment"
Nor, presumably, if the layer was always under water and never at the surface, which as I said in the earlier post I thought was considered to be a common occurrence.
I don't understand this statement. Why would all layers be underwater at all times?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 876 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 2:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 884 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 11:50 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 884 of 1304 (732603)
07-08-2014 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 883 by edge
07-08-2014 10:46 PM


Re: please demystify "depositional environment"
Why not? That's what I thought some have said, that many layers in the column were laid down underwater and never became surface. Which ones I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 883 by edge, posted 07-08-2014 10:46 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 885 of 1304 (732609)
07-09-2014 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 881 by Coragyps
07-08-2014 5:48 PM


Re: please demystify "depositional environment"
Let's put it this way: If you have silt along the Nile then that's its depositional environment, no problem. The problem is when you have a stack of strata and you claim a different depositional environment for each layer based on its contents, as if the environment had changed from one level to the next. THAT's what makes no sense. I do expect a rational person simply to see why it doesn't make sense, and beyond that I don't know how to prove that it doesn't, so since you won't see why it doesn't there is probably nowhere to go with this from here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 881 by Coragyps, posted 07-08-2014 5:48 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 886 by Coyote, posted 07-09-2014 12:25 AM Faith has replied
 Message 889 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-09-2014 1:46 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 893 by jar, posted 07-09-2014 8:17 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024