Summations Only

Sweeping statements like this make me "nervous". Rather an unsupported assertion and at least in certain situations, flat out wrong.Article title and abstract:

quote:

---

Lithification of Modern Marine Carbonate Sediments at Yellow Bank, Bahamas

​

Abstract:
The mineralogy, chemistry, distribution of grain size, diagenesis, and ages of modern carbonates accumulating on the New Providence Platform, Bahamas, have been studied.

​

Lithification by aragonite cement is taking place beneath sixteen feet of sea water. These marine sediments have never been exposed to fresh water as determined by virtual absence of low-magnesium calcite and lack of recrystallization of aragonite and high-magnesium calcite. Depth of water and abundance of plant life appear to localize lithification at sites we have termed bioherms.

​

Significant vertical variations in facies have been found in the modern carbonates that overlie the recrystallized, biosparite, chemically dissolved Pleistocene bedrock. Silt- and clay-sized particles of unconsolidated modern carbonates rest unconformably on the biosparite and increase progressively in size toward the surface. Where modern lithified material is present, rarely is it found deeper than three feet below the water-sediment interface.

---

My "bolding". Source (abstract, link to PDF)Source (complete PDF)Definitely not "under great pressure after being deeply buried."Adminnemooseus

I. BASIC REQUEST:

1. I've read through the last thirty posts (starting from Message 601), and since there is a lot of miscommunication I would appreciate it if we could all slow down and take more time with each post we write and aim at trying to clarify whatever isn't clear.
   ​
2. I'd also very much appreciate it if ALL quips, accusations, potshots and all the remarks about my motives, my intelligence, my knowledge of science, what I've supposedly been told many times but supposedly ignored, and so on, be put on hold while clarification is the focus.

I obviously have a big clarification task to do if I can, lots of questions to answer just in these thirty posts.II. TERMINOLOGY PROBLEMS:
Edge raised a couple of terminological problems I could start with: "landscape" and "strata."

1. LANDSCAPE
   As he points out, the definition of "landscape" doesn't necessarily include "livable," so I can use "livable landscape" instead of just "landscape" if that would make it clearer. Any objections?
   ​
2. STRATA, GEOLOGICAL COLUMN, GEOLOGICAL TIMESCALE
   I use "strata" to refer only to the geological column, but that too is a challenged term. I've tried to clarify by saying "THE strata," since I'm not talking about all the forms of stratification in nature, but that hasn't seemed to accomplish anything either. If I use a particular example of the geological column, such as the walls of the Grand Canyon illustrate so well, I'll be challenged about how there are "lots of " geological columns and it's an abstraction anyway and I can't define it by the Grand Canyon and so on. But I DO mean ONLY the "strata" that belong to the "geological column" which is the basis for the Geological Timescale as well. Please find me a way to say what I mean about these things to avoid confusion.
   ​
3. TIME PERIOD
   I'm also told that a rock is not a time period, but this too is a concept I absolutely must use so I need a way to say it that won't cause confusion. It simply is a fact that time periods ARE assigned to particular layers and formations of rocks, not rocks as composed of particular sediments but rocks that occur in a certain order in the geological column in whatever form and wherever it is found.
   ​
4. "STRAIGHT" and "FLAT" ETC.
   From time to time other objections to my language will also come up, such as what I mean by "flat and straight" and "tight contacts" -- as if I'm talking about some kind of absolutely geometrically perfect straightness and flatness and tightness between layers of the strata. Please don't do this to me. We're talking about Nature. Nature is never absolutely perfect (except perhaps at the atomic level). Please assume I'm talking about RELATIVE flatness, straightness and so on. Please don't deny that these terms describe what IS seen in the Grand Canyon walls where they have not been tectonically disturbed. All that does is REALLY make communication impossible.
   ​
5. ORIGINAL HORIZONTALITY
   Also in this category is the idea of original horizontality. Well, I operate from Steno's principle as I understand it, that ALL the strata in the geological column were originally horizontal. I find this concept in all official geological sources too, in textbooks and online sources. The only case I recall that anyone has mentioned against this idea is cross-bedding but wherever we see cross bedding in the Strata it is part of a layer of sandstone that has a flat horizontal top and bottom. I checked Dr. A's textbook and find him making the useful distinction between the cross-beds themselves and the SETS of crossbedding which ARE flat and horizontal surfaces of the rock as a unit, while the cross beds occur in the texture of the rock at an angle to those surfaces.
   ​
   1. I realize I need to mention another instance where the concept of original horizontality was questioned, and that was on another thread when we got into whether a layer could be deposited on a slope, and Percy and I both did an experiment in small containers and found out that apparently it can. I'm not sure what to do with this situation since I don't believe the principle can be overthrown that easily, and I'm going to continue to assume original horizontality altered by tectonic deformation wherever I find a sloped layer. This thread is probably not the place to try to sort all that out, but it did need to be mentioned, and if there is a clear simple way of dealing with it please suggest it.

PLEASE help with these common communication problems. I'm open to suggestions as to what terminology I should use to be as clear as possible about what I mean about these things.Now what I'd like to do is go SLOWLY back over the last thirty posts and see if I can answer questions as clearly as possible.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

On point 1: You can say "livable landscape" but unfortunately experience has shown that almost any landscape is livable. There are almost no known landscapes where we do not find life.On point 2: There is a problem there as well since there is no particular order or type of material that is unique to any period of time.On point 3: Nope, you cannot say that a particular rock is a time period. The problem is that any given rock is the result of what has happened to it over all of the period of time since it was originally at the surface.On point 4: You can say whatever you want but the reality is that the layers and intersections between layers are not like you see when viewed from a great distance. Your claim of flat or even relatively flat layers simply is not true most of the time if ever.Edited by jar, : appalin spallinEdited by jar, : last ---> originally...many locations have been buried and lithified but are now back at the surface.

That is certainly a reasonable request. Let's make it mutual. This is not the point of contention. We all agree that you cannot live on rock. The problem here is your insistence that you cannot live on a landscape onto which a very small rate of sedimentation occurs over a long period of time. If you can include clearing this up when you refer to a landscape as being "unlivable" we will all be in agreement.If you can wrap your head around that and around lithification perhaps we can at least understand each other. That may be impossible. Perhaps the miscommunication can be kept to a minimum if you refer only to the strata at a particular location such as the grand canyon, or Nova Scotia. There is no "The Geological Column" because the make up of the rocks for the same time period is completely different at different locations. Only at a particular location. This exactly the same problem as item 2. Perhaps this is a point that you could clarify further because as expressed, it is entirely confusing. I agree that Nature does not make perfectly flat surfaces of rock. The question then is whether rock is too flat for the current natural explanation. But until you understand the processes postulated for creating strata, and to date there is little evidence that you do, you have no criteria for saying that any particular layer is too straight to match the current explanation. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.

I am not convinced that miscommunication is an issue at all.With regard to terminology1) I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a completely unlivable landscape.
However the main issue here seems not to be the definition but the insistence that the entire world must regularly be reduced to either bare rock or bare sediment (presumably without the organic element found in soil). In reality neither is really an issue for mainstream geology, although Flood geology appears to propose the latter.2) In reality all strata are part of the local geological column and there are no strata that have any special claim to be part of "the geological column". So when you say

quote:

---

"...I DO mean ONLY the "strata" that belong to the "geological column" which is the basis for the Geological Timescale as well"

---

we are left guessing what you might mean, because it does not really mean anything.3) the strata are dated to the time periods when the sediment was deposited.
That dating is a product of relative dating supplemented by radiometric dates where available, and the time periods generally reflect changes in the fossils found.Because we generally do not have good markers for the divide between periods it is necessary to remember that the boundaries may be a bit fuzzy.It is not the case that we identify periods by the type of the rock. This has been pointed out multiple times, and I remember quoting a YEC source to that effect. So I really do not understand why you would say:

quote:

---

It simply is a fact that time periods ARE assigned to particular layers and formations of rocks, not rocks as composed of particular sediments but rocks that occur in a certain order in the geological column in whatever form and wherever it is found.

---

This claim is flatly wrong. It is not a fact and anyone claiming a basic understanding of geology should know better.And if this is what you mean by "the strata that belong to the geological column" I am afraid that you are talking about a figment of your imagination.4) This terminology is generally used to deny the presence of surface features preserved in the rocks (although later folding is also a problem for YEC claims)
I don't find that a useful addition to the debate.5) a comment on this: I think that the internal structure of formations is of great relevance. The whole point of the discussion is to talk about the environment in which the original material was deposited, and the structure is important information.I think that the real issue is the insistence that the entire world must be rendered uninhabitable. There no clear reason to think that is even remotely likely has been presented - especially when we consider that the Flood scenario proposed does a far more thorough job than any natural processes we might reasonably expect, and even that does not finish things off. I would have thought that providing such reasons would have been done in the first few posts - but here we are.Edited by PaulK, : Added more on points 2 and 3Edited by PaulK, : A (probably) better understanding of point 2

I did not address point 5 for some unknown reason so let me try that how.Remember Steno lived a fair time ago during the Medici period before geology reached the level of knowledge we have today. His four principles are good basics and hold true "generally" but only if the fact that they are generalities and not specifics is understood.What is called the "Law of Horizontally" means that those layers of sediment that you might find in lakes or sea bottom were laid down horizontally. The reason is that the deposition is mediated by material falling through water. It meant that they would be flat.Of course we have learned a whole lot more then Steno knew about the conditions on sea floors and even on lakes. We now know that while the mechanism is generally correct the reality is slightly more complex.Just as Steno's Second Law does not hold true for land as opposed to water sedimentation deposition there are similar surfaces in lake and sea beds that prevent the simple flat deposition Steno envisioned.Where Steno's Second Law does hold true is seen in varves and similar deposition. Where it does not hold true is in deposition on slopes, aeolian sedimentation, marine sedimentation created by flow such as ripples.It is precisely those details that help geologists determine how a particular sample was originally produced.Trying to apply Steno's Second Law to all examples simply does not work. Edited by jar, : add "is understood" in 2nd. paragraph.

Kinda, sorta, maybe, sometimes, some folk ...Then there are the endoliths that live inside rocks and the mosses and lichens that live on bare rocks.AbE: This is important because pioneer critters like these are a big part of returning colonization.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

So, then, my understanding would be that you now would consider this surface to be 'straight and flat': And if you saw a section throught the foreground of this picture, you might say that it was 'straight and flat', even though the layering exposed is at an angle to horizontal. Is that the case?

In that case, you are talking about a lot of rocks in a lot of places.Sure, you could talk about the geological column of the Grand Canyon, but that would be different from the geological column in Colorado or Great Britain. Consequently, the term is pretty much useless in a discussion and the application of 'the geological column' to individual strata or formations is a mistake. For instance, the Old Red Sandstone does not define all the Devonian Period in northeastern Europe, nor does it represent the Devonian at the Grand Canyon at all. And yet, all of the units that William Smith mapped and the units of the Grand Canyon are 'strata' as well as those of the Grand Canyon. There is nothing exceptional about the term 'strata'.In geology we refer to 'formations'. These are not like 'cloud formations' or any shape of rocks, but they are mappable units with some common characteristics. They may contain a number of rock types; just read any description of a formation such as the Navajo Sandstone and you will find that it includes mudstones and some conglomerates, etc.This leads to problems for laymen, but it is necessary due to the nature of the continuity of sedimentary environments.One tool used is the concept of a 'type section'. This would be where the formation was originally described such as the Morrison Formation near Morrison, Colorado. No, it's not named after Jim Morrison. Unfortunately, the Morrison Formation will look different in Wyoming or Montana than its type section because of the relative position and amount of the various rock types ranging from sandstone, to siltstone to limestone at each location. It will also have characteristic fossils wherever it is found.The Morrison is also a terrestrial rock formation exposed over 600k square miles. Morrison Formation - WikipediaSo, this would pose a conflict, according to your previous definition of 'strata' wherein it is huge in extent, but it is also very irregular in thickness and composition, with stream channels and erosional features. It also has an extensive assemblage of land fossils. In addition, it does not define the Jurassic Period of western North America. However, it is part of the Jurassic System.

I would just like to have a way of referring to the phenomena of strata wherever they are that are assigned a time period name and date in the Geological Timescale. It seems like a simple request to me.By the way I've been using the term "formation" correctly in many recent posts.And no I don't regard that picture above to be straight and flat.

The way to do that is to simply refer to the time period. All you need to do for that is then show proof that that time period did not exist.AbE:Let me try to expand for you.What you need to do would be to show the evidence that the material surrounding an Abydosaurus find actually dates to about 4500 years ago instead of 150 to 100 million years ago.Edited by jar, : see AbE;Edited by jar, : t0 ---> to

My humble request has been answered with a big zero so far. A flat rock covering thousands of square miles would not be livable for most creatures.I get the idea that there is only rock or sediment at some times by simply thinking through the logic of getting from a landscape to a rock AS SEEN IN THE GEO COLUMN as I've been using that term , and much of my argument is the attempt to describe that process. For the strata to end up as it is certain things have to happen. There's always a point n the process where the landscape associated with that time period no longer exists and there is only sediment or rock. I just want a term for the process of getting from the landscape for a particular time period Message 333 to the rock that represents it in the geological column. It seems simple to me.. But I said the exact opposite of what you think I said. I clearly said NOT the type of rock. and bolded it in the quote.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I didn't think so. However, you didn't actually answer my second question.If you saw a cross section of just the area (say in an outcrop) in the foreground, would it not look straight and flat?Oh, and did you notice in that image the presence of green plant material growing directly on the rocks?So, how about this: Here, the Old Red Sandstone, ostensibly 'strata' by your old definition, and yet here it is with a very irregular base as it overlies the Great Unconformity. I trust you would say that the contact is not 'straight and flat', correct?But in that case, how can the Old Red be classified as 'strata'?I'm just pointing out here how wrong your (old?) definition of 'strata' is in the real world. Straight and flat contacts have nothing to do with it.

Okay, so now you want to say 'landscapes unlivable for most creatures' instead of just 'strata'.I get it!But wait, it's not rocks that they live on. They live on sediments and soils, etc. How about 'burial and lithification'.Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

That's a heavily eroded angular unconformity. I would guess it was originally visibly approaching straight and flat, except perhaps for the dike. But then I don't assume as you do that the upper strata were deposited on the lower as presented.