Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
623 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Tanypteryx (3 members, 620 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,072 Year: 5,184/6,534 Month: 27/577 Week: 15/80 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")
Percy
Member
Posts: 20837
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 61 of 224 (820720)
09-25-2017 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
09-25-2017 1:48 PM


Re: Creation Science Vs Science
Faith writes:

That is way too simplistic. Darwin himself didn't even originate the idea of evolution, his grandfather had already thought of it. So you could say that Darwin worked from the Conclusion of evolution to come up with his theory of natural selection as the mechanism for how it could have come about.

Now you're confusing the fact of evolution with the theory. That the fossil record reflected change over time was a fact that was noticed well before Darwin, and not just by his Grandfather. Charles Darwin's achievement was in explaining why change over time happens.

That's really all creationists are doing. For instance we know there was a worldwide Flood some 4500 years ago...

No, you don't "know there was a worldwide Flood some 4500 years ago." You haven't an ounce of evidence to support that idea. What you have, as you admit later, is "God's Word."

And now all thinking on the evolution side begins with the Conclusions of Evolution and many of the tenets that support it.

No, you have things backwards again. Thinking on evolution does not begin with the "Conclusions of Evolutions". It begins with the theory that is supported by the evidence. Conclusions are the end point based upon facts, such as fossils or DNA evidence.

Or geology begins with the conclusions of the Old Earth and related tenets.

This, too, is backwards. Geology begins with the facts that support geological theories, such as the strata and the fossils and radiometric dating, and basic ideas like that the present is the key to the past and the Law of Superposition. Geology does not begin with conclusions.

Once you are convinced that you know how something happened everything you do is done within that framework.

Yes, you should listen to yourself, especially since in the absence of all evidence you think still think something happened just because it appears in your religious book. Belief interferes with learning, which explains why you have learned so little. I don't mean that you've learned little in the sense that you've become very little convinced by our arguments. I mean that even after all this time you have still failed to learn many of the basic facts of evolution and geology, and more generally just of science itself. This is, of course, a conscious choice you make by failing to read and understand so much of what is written to you.

There is nothing at all different about how creationists think.

Sure there is. Creationists begin with preformed conclusions and seek confirming evidence. Scientists seek evidence and follow it to whatever conclusions it leads.

We start with what we know as provided by a trustworthy source: God's Word.

This website is creationists' opportunity to prove their contention that creation science is true science, not religion. You lose the debate outright when you declare that what you know about science comes from God. Plus you give the lie to your claim that there is "nothing at all different about how creationists think." You are quite obviously beginning with a conclusion, namely whatever message you think is contained in God's Word.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 1:48 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20837
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 62 of 224 (820721)
09-25-2017 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
09-25-2017 1:56 PM


Re: an altrnative time frame
Faith writes:

As I said I've been ignoring posts that attack me personally,...

But I didn't attack you personally. Everything I said was factually true. This is just one of the many excuses you give for not responding to posts. It's an example in miniature for why you abandoned the Evidence of the flood thread.

My post was about the kind of evidence floods really leave behind, and what strata really look like that isn't like a flood, how you're wrong about Walther's Law, how you're wrong about volcanic activity, how you're wrong about what floods and flowing water (two different though not mutually exclusive things) do to the landscape.

I did also respond to all your lies and misrepresentations, which shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallanged. Let's list them, shall we:

  • You claimed to have "shown a great deal of evidence for the Young Earth." The actual fact is that you haven't presented an iota of evidence. You merely repeat your bald claims over and over, including that you've already addressed issues that you haven't.

  • You haven't defined "Kind", let alone made any successful arguments for it.

  • You claimed you made your case, despite that that isn't something you get to decide, and despite not convincing a single person in all your years here.

  • You claimed none of your arguments have been refuted, despite the many rebuttals across many threads to which you haven't responded.

  • You claimed the issue was one of paradigm when it is obviously one of religion, as is obvious from the many times you reference God and Bible.

  • You claimed you "don't dismiss or ignore evidence," despite that that is almost exclusively what you do. You're already doing it in this thread, e.g., your Message 27:

    Faith in Message 27 writes:

    I disagree, sorry.

    What a brilliant examination of the evidence!

You have for the most part abandoned discussion at EvC Forum. You just move from one thread to the next repeating the same arguments and ignoring the rebuttals. Again, not a personal attack, just the facts.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 1:56 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1382 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 63 of 224 (820722)
09-25-2017 3:13 PM


Creation "science"
Creation "science" has no relation to real science other than dishonestly appropriating the name in hopes of stealing some of the good reputation science has built up over the centuries.

Just another example of their dishonesty.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

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" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20837
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 64 of 224 (820723)
09-25-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
09-25-2017 2:01 PM


Re: an alternative time frame
Faith in response to RAZD writes:

Yes you keep bringing up OTHER evidence and ignoring my evidence.

Ignoring your evidence is analogous to ignoring invisible, ethereal pink elephants. This was your opportunity to describe or at least reference the evidence you think is being ignored, but you say nothing. So what is that evidence, anyway. Let me guess. Strata and fossils?

I doubt you even have a clue to what I've been arguing all these years.

Since arguing in any scientific sense requires evidence and adhering to known physical laws, you're the one with the least clue of what you've been "arguing all these years."

I've acknowledged some of yours as belonging on the plus side for evolution and the old earth, yes "good evidence for your side" and I leave it at that, because my evidence is very good for MY side, conclusive in my opinion.

There is no evidence for your side. Every time you claim evidence it gets rebutted. You ignore the rebuttal and then that's the last we hear of it until in the next thread where you again claim the same evidence, which gets rebutted again. And you again ignore the rebuttal. No personal attack, just fact. Prove me wrong - go back to the Evidence of the flood thread and start replying to all the rebuttals you ignored.

About the "conclusive in my opinion" part, whether something is conclusive isn't something you just decide in your own mind. "Conclusive" is a quality that evidence and argument take on only after they've convinced a great many people (and then there's still tentativity). So far you've convinced a group of one - yourself. This is probably a good time to throw in a mention of that old canard that the easiest person to fool is yourself.

Meaning yours is going to have to be adjusted.

Actually, whose interpretation of the evidence will have to be adjusted is what discussion is supposed to decide. But discussion is what you're doing your very best to avoid.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 2:01 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20837
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 65 of 224 (820724)
09-25-2017 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
09-25-2017 2:05 PM


Re: Creation Science Vs Science
Faith writes:

The rejection of the Flood hypothesis was wrong, based on a failure to imagine the sheer magnitude of such an event.

Well, then, why don't you explain to us how the sheer magnitude of the Flood:

  • Sorts material into different strata.

  • Sorts strata out of order regarding density.

  • Sorts fossils out of order regarding fossil size/density.

  • Sorts fossils by order of increasing difference from modern forms with increasing depth.

  • Sorts strata by increasing radiometric age with increasing depth.

  • Maintains tracks and burrows.

  • Creates unconformities.

  • Creates angular unconformities (don't forget to include where all the missing material went)

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 2:05 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 66 of 224 (820731)
09-25-2017 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
09-24-2017 11:03 PM


Re: an alternative time frame
Faith writes:

I believe I have shown a great deal of evidence for the Young Earth, especially for rapid deposition of the strata,

What features would a geologic layer need in order to be inconsistent with rapid deposition in your model?

If you are going to claim that a layer was rapidly deposited no matter what features it has, then you have no evidence. You simply have dogma.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 09-24-2017 11:03 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20837
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 67 of 224 (820732)
09-25-2017 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
09-25-2017 2:25 PM


Re: an altrnative time frame
Faith writes:

How do sediments get progressively deposited as the water rises according to Walther's Law? I would guess they are depositing with each rising of the water.

Wow, you really don't understand Walther's Law. Walther's Law is (put most simply) about transgressing and regressing seas. A transgressing sea is when the seacoast moves inland, while a regressing sea is when the seacoast moves outward from the land.

Taking the example of a transgressing sea, the seacoast slowly and gradually moves inland. It could be because the sea is rising, or because the land is subsiding, it doesn't matter which. The key point is that the seacoast gradually moves inland, perhaps at the rate of a foot per year. This seacoast represents an environment. There's the actual boundary area between sea and land, which is sandy and where sediments that become sandstone are deposited. Further offshore is where the mud and clay that becomes slate and shale are deposited. Further offshore than that is where sediments that become limestone are deposited.

As the seacoast moves inland the regions where sandstone, shale, slate and limestone are deposited moves inland with it. This is how, say, an extensive layer of sand is deposited, not by sand being deposited all across a huge region of water, but by sand being deposited all up and down a coastline that gradually moves inland. As the coastline moves inland, the area where sand is being deposited moves inland with it.

In other words, the sand is deposited along the narrow strip of coastline, but as the coastline moves inland the strip where sand is deposited moves inland with it. Gradually the region where sand has been deposited becomes more and more extensive. Naturally the regions more out to sea where slate and shale and limestone are deposited moves in the same inland direction as the coastline, gradually broadening them in extent also. It should also make sense now why these deposits are not level, since they follow the contour of the land that gradually increases in height.

The formation of the sediments that comprise sandstone, slate, shale and limestone take a considerable time to form. They're made up primarily of the remains of life and runoff from land. Take sand, for example. Sand is the result of water action at the coastline where finer materials are carried out to sea before sinking (the water is more active near the coast), while the heavier particles are ground and smoothed in the surf and fall out of suspension at or near the coast - sand. It takes a long time for sand to form. It is not a renewable resource on human timescales.

Water moving quickly across a landscape, as in your Flood scenario, would not have time to create sand. Or slate or shale or limestone. There is simply insufficient time for them to form.

Yes, all there is for the ancient unwitnessed and untestable past is such conjectures, lots of conjectures.

But we know that the same geologic processes we observe around the world today have been taking place for millennia. We can observe these processes in real time and understand how they work. And the same sedimentary layers being produced by these processes today were produced the same way in the past. We know this because we can compare them. In a lot of ways it's like the forensics program you liked, where they deciphered what happened in the past by examining the evidence left behind.

See, I know the Flood occurred so I'm trying to explain it.

You don't have any evidence of a world-wide Flood 4500 years ago.

You think it didn't occur so you are trying to debunk it.

We know the Flood didn't occur because of the complete absence of evidence for it, and because of all the evidence of slow geologic processes taking place for millions and billions of years.

You don't know what degree of turbulence was involved but it makes you happy to think there was more of it than would facilitate the depositing of the strata.

You not only don't know what degree of turbulence was involved in the flood, you don't know anything about it at all that derives from real world evidence.

Perhaps if you put your geologically educated mind to the task of explaining instead how it could have happened you'd come up with something really interesting.

Explaining observed geology in terms of a world-wide Flood failed over a couple hundred years ago. In the intervening interval no evidence has come to light supporting the Flood.

Why not? Fountains of the deep, turbulent water, huge quantities of sediments from the land all rising up over the land.

It's a nice story consistent with the Bible until you get into the evidence. Explain to us again how the Flood did the things I listed in Message 65?

There is a reason that sediments accumulate where they do ... it's because they have reached a low energy environment and the eroded sediments can settle out in the ocean basins. So, why would they move back up-gradient to travel across the continent?

This basin idea is nonsensical.

Your ignorance is showing again. "Ocean basins" is what we call the entire sea bottom of the oceans.

The strata show no signs of being deposited in basins, they are huge flat horizontal expanses, they aren't shaped within rims of basins.

Ocean and sea basins are mostly "huge flat horizontal expanses".

Again, Walther's Law shows that sediments do move "up-gradient" as sea level rises.

No, this is incorrect. The sediments are carried down off the land and into the sea. They aren't moved "up-gradient".

My guess is that you are overlooking the necessary evidence because you don't expect to find any.

Given that you haven't identified any evidence so far, what leads you to believe any evidence is hiding out there?

Well, there is plenty of evidence for that scenario that I've shown many times already.

You've never introduced any evidence that wasn't rebutted, then you ignore the rebuttals, then you simply repeat the claim that you've presented the evidence, and you repeat this empty claim over and over again. Who do you think you're fooling?

What kind of crazy logic are you following anyway? Does it really make sense to you that the person with the least knowledge of geology, the person who ignores the most evidence, the person who avoids the most discussion, the person who is the least stable and who throws the most temper tantrums, the person who can't even convince a single one of her own Bible believers, is the person who has somehow arrived at the right answer? Do you really believe that knowledge suddenly forms out of ignorance?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 2:25 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 68 of 224 (820733)
09-25-2017 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
09-25-2017 1:46 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
Faith writes:

NO, I ACTUALLY SEE IT, AND I'VE POINTED IT OUT ON MANY CROSS SECTIONS. I COULDN'T POSSIBLY JUST "DECIDE" TO SEE ANYTHING, I ACTUALLY SEE IT AND I'VE SHOWN THAT IT IS THERE, MANY MANY TIMES. I'VE INDICATED IT ON THE CROSS SECTIONS, CLEARLY SPELLED OUT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT AND CLEARLY EXPLAINED HOW THAT EVIDENCE POINTS TO MY CONCLUSIONS.

As we have already seen, there is no evidence that we could ever show you that would not point to your conclusion because your theory is not falsifiable. For example, we have this graph that shows settling rates for various grain sizes:


The smaller the grain size the slower it settles out. This is a physical law. There simply is not enough time for things like extremely fine grained slates and silts to settle out in a rapid fashion. It is physically impossible. Does that stop you from just blindingly going into a rage and claiming that these things can settle out quickly against all laws of physics? Nope, you blindly rage ahead and flatly claim that it supports your theory with absolutely no explanation as to how it actually supports your theory.

In the end, all you have is bluster.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 1:46 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20837
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 69 of 224 (820734)
09-25-2017 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
09-25-2017 2:27 PM


Re: Creation Science Vs Science
Faith writes:

I guess you missed the discussions of the genetic bottleneck that prove you wrong.

There were no such discussions. You are making things up. There is no evidence of a human genetic bottleneck 4500 years ago. The number alleles of many genes renders that mathematically impossible.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 2:27 PM Faith has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 681 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 70 of 224 (820737)
09-25-2017 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
09-25-2017 2:01 PM


Re: an alternative time frame
Yes you keep bringing up OTHER evidence and ignoring my evidence. I doubt you even have a clue to what I've been arguing all these years. I've acknowledged some of yours as belonging on the plus side for evolution and the old earth, yes "good evidence for your side" and I leave it at that, because my evidence is very good for MY side, conclusive in my opinion. Meaning yours is going to have to be adjusted.

So give me one (1) →ONE← piece of evidence that you think is good evidence for a young earth.

Give me your best shot.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 2:01 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20837
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 71 of 224 (820739)
09-25-2017 6:47 PM


All Faith's Evidence
Faith continually claims to have described evidence, so here in this message I list every piece of evidence Faith has described in this thread. I'm not talking about claims to have already described evidence someplace else, and I'm not talking about declarations without evidence of what Faith think happened, but evidence actually described in this thread:

  • <nothing>

That's all there is and there ain't no more.

Here's a list of all Faith's claims for having described evidence, or of referencing evidence that she doesn't describe and doesn't say how to find:

  • I think there is evidence that volcanic activity began...

  • ...and whatever the evidence is...

  • I believe I have shown a great deal of evidence for the Young Earth, especially for rapid deposition of the strata, the absence of any actual evidence for the time periods in those strata and in fact the logical impossibility of the whole Old Earth Geological Time Scale.

  • I also believe I've shown evidence for rapid evolution within the Kind that is genetically limited to the Kind.

  • Showing evidence for the Young Earth has been the aim of many of my threads...

  • NO, I ACTUALLY SEE IT, AND I'VE POINTED IT OUT ON MANY CROSS SECTIONS... AND CLEARLY EXPLAINED HOW THAT EVIDENCE POINTS TO MY CONCLUSIONS.

  • AND YES I HAVE SEEN AND I HAVE SHOWN THE EVIDENCE.

  • ...my evidence is very good for MY side, conclusive in my opinion.

  • Well, there is plenty of evidence for that scenario that I've shown many times already.

If Faith actually described evidence half as often as she claims she'd be well ahead of the game.

The topic of this thread is how the stratigraphic sequence reflects Walther's Law. Faith has already revealed she hasn't a clue of how Walther's Law works, and I think she should start by trying to understand it. I attempt to describe Walther's Law in detail in Message 67, so that would be one possible place to start.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3881
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 72 of 224 (820743)
09-26-2017 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
09-24-2017 10:56 PM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Well, this topic has turned into a mess real fast. I guess that was my mistake, in opening up the topic just before I was going to have minimal internet time available for a couple of days.

There are so many things I could comment on, from so many messages. I'll start with Faith's message 10.

My remarks exploring the flood first must assume that God miraculously ex nihilo created a huge amount of water, and then de-ex nihiloed it. So, for this discussion, there were vast rainfalls and fountains of the deep, which I understand to be the only real Biblical flood mechanisms.

You are probably confusing the condition of the Earth at Creation with its condition as a result of the Fall and the Flood, which had to have rearranged things tremendously.

You are invoking a flood of such miraculous powers, that it could mimic producing the results of every known geologic mechanism.

Nobody knows what the original Created Earth looked like beyond a few conjectures based on hints in the Bible, but something far more orderly than its tumble-down appearance now would be a good guess.

For a divine creation, my expectations would agree with that guess. But maybe God wanted some disorder in the creation.

It's probably the disorderliness that is being interpreted as "long and complex processes" and the "Rube Goldberg" effect.

Again, you're invoking a flood of miraculous powers, that could mimic...

Look, your flood is a marine transgression and regression onto and off of the continents. Your 40 days and nights of (world wide?) intensive rains would strip the Earths surface of anything that wasn't solid rock, and send it all washing to the sea. There the sediments would be deposited in some grungy version of what is being called a "Walther's Law sequence", as the ocean levels rose. Then the seas would recede, leaving behind a single "Walther's Law sequence".

Bottom line - Your flood would leave a pretty simple layer of sediments, progressively thicker seaward, the base of which would be the "mother of all unconformities".

The land surfaces would be devoid of any soil covering and any life form, plant or animal. The ultimate "anti-Eden". God would need to do a miraculous "fixer-uppering" to make the Earth livable again.

The results of a sea transgression/regression is a pretty simple, straight forward thing.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 09-24-2017 10:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 09-26-2017 8:54 AM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 76 by Phat, posted 09-26-2017 3:02 PM Minnemooseus has taken no action
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 3:20 PM Minnemooseus has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20837
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 73 of 224 (820745)
09-26-2017 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Minnemooseus
09-26-2017 3:45 AM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Minnemooseus writes:

Look, your flood is a marine transgression and regression onto and off of the continents. Your 40 days and nights of (world wide?) intensive rains would strip the Earths surface of anything that wasn't solid rock, and send it all washing to the sea.

This has a couple fatal problems, but fine, we'll start with this as an assumption.

I'm going to modify this next quote extensively to remove ambiguity:

The ocean levels rose with their loads of sediment and began washing over the land. The sediments were deposited on the land in some grungy version of what is being called a "Walther's Law sequence". Then the seas receded, leaving behind a single "Walther's Law sequence".

Calling this a "grungy version of Walther's Law" is misleading because it isn't Walther's Law at all. Walther's Law requires an environment that stays in place long enough to produce and deposit sediment types unique to that environment. Seacoast environments produce sand, further offshore produce shale, further offshore produce slate, further offshore produce limestone (in warmer climes), further offshore or other climes produce calcareous ooze.

So for example, a particular section of sandstone strata was once a spot that was seacoast for a very long time. It takes seacoast a very long time to produce significant amounts of sand. Sand is produced by the normal slow runoff from the land that is acted upon by the agitated waters of the seacoast, like on beaches and such. Sand isn't on beaches because it's been carried there from somewhere else. Sand is on beaches because beaches are where sand is produced. We know it was produced there (and not carried there) because it is made up of the same particles that run off from the land at that particular location. Hawaii has beaches where the sand is fine volcanic rock. Australia has some beaches made of ground up coral.

A transgression occurs when the coastline slowly moves inland, either because of rising waters or subsiding land or a combination. The movement inland has to be slow because it takes a very long time to produce sand in the quantities seen in sandstone strata. Inches per year would probably be a maximum average rate for coastal waters to move inland while leaving behind deposits that followed Walther's Law.

Walther's Law definitely is *not* flood waters rushing across a landscape and dropping a load of sediment.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-26-2017 3:45 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2017 11:52 AM Percy has replied
 Message 79 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-27-2017 1:51 AM Percy has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 681 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 74 of 224 (820748)
09-26-2017 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
09-26-2017 8:54 AM


Walther's law images
Well I tried to look up the images for Walther's law, and only got the nasty photobucket message, digging a little deeper I was able to find the image that was posted by roxrkool and was able to save a copy:

and I did find these from the Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law thread applying the information to the Grand Canyon:

So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?:

Take a piece of paper and make 5 colored columns

   Continental Land           Sands          Siliciclastic Muds   Carbonate Sediments Coccolith Foram Ooze
   Continental Land           Sands          Siliciclastic Muds   Carbonate Sediments Coccolith Foram Ooze
   Continental Land           Sands          Siliciclastic Muds   Carbonate Sediments Coccolith Foram Ooze
   Continental Land           Sands          Siliciclastic Muds   Carbonate Sediments Coccolith Foram Ooze
   Continental Land           Sands          Siliciclastic Muds   Carbonate Sediments Coccolith Foram Ooze

Cut the paper into strips

   Continental Land           Sands          Siliciclastic Muds   Carbonate Sediments Coccolith Foram Ooze

Take your list of Grand Canyon rocks from Message 27 and start at the bottom:

Message 40:

This is what I get (using your list) as a simple\simplistic application of the model to the Grand Canyon rocks:


.......................... Kaibab/limestone ..........................
....................... Toroweap/gypsum/shale ........................
......................... Coconino/sandstone .........................
........................... Hermit/shale .............................
........................ Esplanade/sandstone .........................
........................ Wescogame/sandstone .........................
......................... Mankacha/limestone .........................
........................ Watahomigi/limestone ........................
......................... Redwall/limestone ..........................
....................... Temple Butte/limestone .......................
........................... Muav/limestone ...........................
......................... Bright Angel/Shale .........................
......................... Tapeats/Sandstone ..........................
....................Vishnu/Zoroaster/Unconformity ....................

Now you might get a slightly different arrangement depending on how you classify some of the layer rocks (sandy limestone for instance), but you should get the general idea: when the sand is being deposited for the sandstone layers there is also mud, carbonate and ooze being deposited somewhere else at the same time.

This can, of course be tested.

followed by this reply from Jon:

Message 45
I think you may have inadvertently included the Hermit Shale in your revised version of the Coconino Sandstone, however.

I think so too. The interesting thing is that, if the Hermit Shale were slid to the left, there would be an obvious discontinuity. We'd see deep water deposition "suddenly" (in geologic terms) change to aeolian deposition. So between the Hermit and Coconino would be an obvious place to look for evidence of "intermediate" layers that transitioned between deep and shallow water but are no longer there because of erosion. Or maybe evidence of a "sudden" uplift or something.

This shows the horizontal distribution of the different deposition types.

Edited by Admin, : Replace first image.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 09-26-2017 8:54 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by edge, posted 09-26-2017 10:26 PM RAZD has seen this message
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 09-27-2017 9:19 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 681 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 75 of 224 (820751)
09-26-2017 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Minnemooseus
09-24-2017 12:25 AM


Applying Walther's Law
If the Young Earth flood geology actually had happened, I would expect to see a basement geology of the original created Earth, covered by some variation of a single transgressive/regressive sequence. The FLOOD deposit stratigraphy would be very simple, not that vast complexity of sediments (and other geologic process affects) that we actually see.

So using the model from Message 74 above we should expect basement continental land, one long transgression to cover the land and one long regression to uncover it:

   Continental Land   
       Sands       
  Siliciclastic Muds  
Carbonate Sediments
Coccolith Foram Ooze
Carbonate Sediments
  Siliciclastic Muds  
       Sands       
   Continental Land   

And we should see this arrangement everywhere, yes?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-24-2017 12:25 AM Minnemooseus has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022