Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1141 of 1304 (733077)
07-13-2014 7:00 PM


All sedimentation anywhere on Earth is on top of the geologic column and immediately forms an infinitesimal portion of that column and the geologic time scale. Time flows and the column and time scale grow with each second.

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


Message 1142 of 1304 (733078)
07-13-2014 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1111 by Faith
07-13-2014 3:04 PM


But there is no way that sedimentation in deltas and basins could possibly account for the huge strata in the Geo Column.
That was not the intent. It was to give examples of non-tabular, non-continuous deposits. But they are still part of the geologic record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1111 by Faith, posted 07-13-2014 3:04 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1143 of 1304 (733079)
07-13-2014 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1131 by Faith
07-13-2014 4:52 PM


Re: Evidence ???
If you want to prove me wrong you are going to have to show me a place where the strata are that complete WITHOUT erosion and distortion after they were all in place but continue to build by placid deposition. I'm betting there is no such place on Planet Earth.
Actually, I would say practically all of the passive continental margins such as the east coast of North America, or the abyssal plain of any ocean. Otherwise, how could we drill deep-sea sediment cores?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1131 by Faith, posted 07-13-2014 4:52 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1144 of 1304 (733080)
07-13-2014 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1139 by Faith
07-13-2014 6:44 PM


Re: Geo Column / Geo Time Scale
The Time Scale may not have been invented to correspond to the Column but there can't be any doubt that it is associated with it, often illustrated in conjunction with it (certainly in the Grand Canyon area for dramatic instance), and unarguably based on its fossil contents.
What about other areas that were being eroded at the time the GC strata were being deposited?
For instance, during the Pennsylvanian period, erosion was occurring, but it was followed by deposition of the Mesozoic rocks. According to you, those younger rocks should not be part of the geological column because they did not climb upward from Permian rocks. Was geologic time temporarily suspended?
Please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1139 by Faith, posted 07-13-2014 6:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1145 of 1304 (733081)
07-13-2014 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1101 by Faith
07-13-2014 1:54 PM


Re: The Holocene is a time period!!!
Yeah, but it's stopped and whatever is continuing is continuing NOT on top, so say you all. End of Geo Column, end of Geo Time Scale.
This is also gibberish.
Sediment is still being deposited. It is being deposited on top of whatever is present, there being no other way for sediment to be deposited. That is what we actually all say.
I don't see how this is so hard for you to grasp. It isn't brain science or rocket surgery.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1101 by Faith, posted 07-13-2014 1:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1146 of 1304 (733082)
07-13-2014 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1139 by Faith
07-13-2014 6:44 PM


Re: Geo Column / Geo Time Scale
The Geo Column is an identifiable stack of strata that can also be identified by the order of fossils contained in some of the layers. The sediments are different from place to place and there may or may not be fossils in any given portion of the stack, but it is nevertheless an identifiable geologic structure. There shouldn't be any way to confuse it with other depositions. It's a stack, the layers are usually pretty thick, they were clearly laid down originally horizontally, and the contacts between the layers are often knife-edge close. They may be folded or otherwise distorted, but always as a block (although the whole block may not be distorted, such as in the case of the angular unconformity where the upper layers remain horizontal).
So, you don't know what the geological column is.
Perhaps you should have found out what it was before you started talking about it.
The geological column.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1139 by Faith, posted 07-13-2014 6:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1147 of 1304 (733083)
07-13-2014 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1136 by Faith
07-13-2014 6:06 PM


Re: Evidence ???
Faith writes:
If sedimentation is not adding to THE UPPERMOST SURFACE OF IT then that sedimentation is not the Geologic Column.
Rest assured that what everyone here has been saying all along is that sedimentation always adds to "THE UPPERMOST SURFACE" of the geologic column. Welcome to the club.
Actually that diagram does not show any sedimentation that is not already labeled by the Geo Time Scale...Anyway your diagram is composed of strata labeled by known time periods and shows no sedimentation that has accumulated since the most recent there.
The diagram shows land extending from Oklahoma to the Texas coastline with the Gulf of Mexico. There won't be any current sedimentation on land because it is subject to weathering and is an area of net erosion. The sedimentation is taking place in the waters that begin at the coastline, which is underlain by the same layers of the geologic column that underlie Texas. The layers underlying Texas in the diagram extend out into the Gulf of Mexico, and sedimentation occurs atop those layers in the Gulf:
I wish the diagram included the Gulf instead of stopping at the coastline, but it is well known that the Gulf is accumulating sediment from runoff from land at a prodigious rate. But if you'd like evidence of sedimentation in the Gulf it should be easy to come by.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1136 by Faith, posted 07-13-2014 6:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1148 of 1304 (733084)
07-13-2014 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1139 by Faith
07-13-2014 6:44 PM


Re: Geo Column / Geo Time Scale
The term "identifiable geologic structure" seems to be a very important requirement for you before you'll consider a sedimentary layer to be part of the geologic column, but geology has no such requirement. Geology will always consider any sedimentary layer or geologic structure to be part of the geologic column, whether we can identify it or not.
Horizontality during deposition is also not a requirement for sediment to contribute to the geologic column. Any sediment accumulating anywhere in the world in any orientation will always be considered to have added to the geologic column.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1139 by Faith, posted 07-13-2014 6:44 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1149 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-13-2014 9:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1149 of 1304 (733087)
07-13-2014 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1148 by Percy
07-13-2014 8:22 PM


Re: Geo Column / Geo Time Scale
Horizontality during deposition is also not a requirement for sediment to contribute to the geologic column. Any sediment accumulating anywhere in the world in any orientation will always be considered to have added to the geologic column.
Yeah, but the layers are always flat and horizontal in the diagrams of the geological column that Faith looks at and you know how much she likes diagrams.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1148 by Percy, posted 07-13-2014 8:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 1150 of 1304 (733096)
07-14-2014 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1133 by ringo
07-13-2014 5:05 PM


Legoland
So if I have a stack of Lego blocks and I stick another one on the top, that isn't adding to the stack? Why not?
No, that IS adding to the stack. But there is no intact stack any more, it's eroded, tilted, folded, there is no place to put your Lego that would build on the original stack that once was horizontal and climbed through all the time periods up to the one where you could put your Lego. It once existed in that form, that's apparent in many places on the planet. But it's no longer in that form anywhere that I know of, so that new depositions can't build on it.
Here's another pretty diagram of what I call the Geologic Column. People are objecting to my definition, but I don't care what term is used, I'm referring to that STACK OF SEDIMENTS, different ones in different places but still this recognizable stack of sediments that was clearly originally horizontal and to which time periods in hundreds of millions of years are customarily assigned.

They stacked up one on top of another very neatly and horizontally for some time -- LOTS of layers over a LONG time by OE reckoning -- then they all got buckled and broken and eroded in a block. Where are you going to put your Lego? It isn't going to "build on" the stack, or "continue" the stack. The stack is no longer the original stack. It's over and done with.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1133 by ringo, posted 07-13-2014 5:05 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1152 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2014 5:10 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1155 by Percy, posted 07-14-2014 7:53 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1156 by JonF, posted 07-14-2014 9:23 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1180 by ringo, posted 07-14-2014 11:59 AM Faith has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 1151 of 1304 (733099)
07-14-2014 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by Faith
07-11-2014 4:44 PM


Re: Massive errosion and massive delta formation
Faith writes:
But the way things are today IS that we have extremely thick deposits of strata in many places and the clear indication that those existed in other places too but were eroded down to much less. Some of the strata span entire continents in very thick slabs. I don't get what you mean about not having enough. And we don't know how much sediment made up the original land mass, all we can do is extrapolate from what we have now anyway. If a depth of three miles of strata were originally laid down on the rock base of the continents, and a great deal of that washed into the sea, that should be enough sediment for my scenario.
Faith, if a "depth of three miles of strata were originally laid down on the rock base of the continents" how could "a great deal of that strata" have been washed down into the sea since your flood scenario requires that sedimentary layers lithify under pressure within the space of a year or less? How much sediment would have to have been "loose" at the time of the flood in order to be transported and compose the layers we see today and which you insist were all laid down in your flood? Wasn't there 1,500 years or so between the creation and the flood? Plenty of time for the strata to become solid enough to avoid being carried away by flood waters, no matter how turbulent.
I have been lurking in this thread for quite some time and have just recently caught up, so I apologize if anyone feels that the conversation has moved on from here, but I don't think this question has been answered as of yet.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Faith, posted 07-11-2014 4:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1157 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 10:04 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1152 of 1304 (733100)
07-14-2014 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1150 by Faith
07-14-2014 3:31 AM


Re: Legoland
It's no longer even clear what you're trying to be wrong about, or how you're trying to be wrong about it. Yes, if sediment was laid down on top of the structures in that diagram, this would produce an angular unconformity such we can often see in the geological record. What of it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1150 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 3:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1158 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 10:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 1153 of 1304 (733102)
07-14-2014 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1018 by Faith
07-12-2014 1:53 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
/
Faith writes:
Meanwhile if sediments are collecting somewhere else entirely such as at the bottom of the ocean far from the stack in question, they are clearly not and never will be part of the Geological Time Scale OR the Geological Column.
Yes, those depositions at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico or the Amazon Basin will never be on top of the geologic column as represented by your pet site at the Grand Canyon, but they are certainly on top of other layers that are within the geologic column you think has ended based on diagrams. You seem to think that the Grand Canyon represents the end-all-be all of time and you are trying to make it fit into your small world. However, there are layers underneath the topmost layer in river deltas, at the bottom of the ocean, low-lying prairies, deserts, and swamps, etc. The topmost layers of the uplifted regions we currently see will eventually erode and become low lying regions with more deposition, but the current basins will continue the geologic column because they are accumulating new layers which can be added to the layers we see today and some will eventually be uplifted again. If we were not here to arrange them into neat little diagrams which can be misrepresented by small minds that haven't even seen them in person, they would still go on.
Faith writes:
The kind you can see, yes, but not the kind you imagine, the ones you call "gaps" where you assume a layer used to be but got eroded away before the next deposited. No, those I do not believe exist.
How could a layer of exposed, lithified sediment exist without layers that used to exist on top of it (since it is lithified and all)? If the flood can arrange fossils and sediments, why do some strata columns represent more "complete" timelines, while others seem to skip time creating those "gaps?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1018 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 1:53 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1160 by edge, posted 07-14-2014 10:41 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 1154 of 1304 (733105)
07-14-2014 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1131 by Faith
07-13-2014 4:52 PM


Re: Evidence ???
Real quick here ...
But you'd have to show that this deposition that is going on today builds on the existing Geo Column but all the examples given are not of that. Just because deposition continues in the present doesn't mean it is continuing to add to that time-honored structure so dear to the hearts of Old Earthers and Evos.
Not totally sure what you are asking for here. It seems you have some ambiguous qualifiers that make it impossible to meet the demands. But try these interesting images from Canada:
quote:
A 6 m long core sample taken from the deep sea floor shows fine grained mud layers alternating with sandier layers. The latter are interpreted to have been deposited from submarine landslides triggered by g reat earthquakes. The mud layers formed by the slow continuous rain of finer sediment settling from the ocean. The volcanic ash at the bottom is dated as 7700 years old.
quote:
A trench cut through a coastal intertidal marsh exposes a peat layer, the remains of a former, now buried, marsh. The marsh abruptly subsided 1/2-1 m in a great earthquake about 300 years ago. The sand above the buried peat layer was swept into the subsided coastal region by the waves of the resulting great tsunami.
HBD

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 1131 by Faith, posted 07-13-2014 4:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1155 of 1304 (733106)
07-14-2014 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1150 by Faith
07-14-2014 3:31 AM


Re: Legoland
Hi Faith,
Were this region of the world to sink beneath the waves and become a region of net deposition:
Then after a few million years of sedimentation it might look something like this and form an angular unconformity:
The bottommost new layer should actually conform to the topology of the surface landscape upon which it was deposited, but I'm using Microsoft Paint, and using that tool to draw at that level of detail would have taken more time than I have, so just imagine that it conforms to the current landscape, just like diagrams of unconformities at the Grand Canyon.
The new sedimentary layers would be considered by geologists to be part of the geologic column, and they would exist within the geologic time scale.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1150 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 3:31 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