Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
61 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat, vimesey (4 members, 57 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 140 of 224 (820904)
09-28-2017 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Faith
09-28-2017 3:04 PM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
It's been explained to all here many many times that erosion between the layers would distort them in visible ways that that idiotic excuse of a rebuttal photo does not demonstrate.

PLease describe this distortion. I mean since that since it is so obvious and all.

Why is the photo idiotic?

It's been explained to you all many many times that if the time scale were true there would not be a wall of strata at all, it would at least be riddled with deep cuts and visibly massively irregular contacts, not even the hint of a straight line, but really there shouldn't be even any strata at all. There shouldn't be discrete sediments at all. That's been explained over and over.

Once again, you need to look at other parts of the world. There is no such 'wall of strata' that is global.

I have urged you to look at the Paradox Basin and the Uncompahgre Uplift, not far from the Grand Canyon to get a different perspective. You have evidently failed to do so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 3:04 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 141 of 224 (820906)
09-28-2017 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
09-28-2017 9:36 AM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
I believe I said that angular unconformities are the only exception to the rule of deformation in blocks of strata, and I'm also talking about STRATA, not granite and schist.

The GC Supergroup is not schist, nor is it granite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 9:36 AM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 146 of 224 (820911)
09-28-2017 7:54 PM


I believe that I have shown this image before, but it bears repetition.

What it shows is two trilobite assemblages, the lower one being Olenellus(in blue) and the upper one including Glossopleura (in red).

Each of these would be time-stratigraphic horizon, in other words a 'landscape' or seafloor interface. One is obviously older than the other.

Notice that the Olenellus line does not extend across the page. We infer that is because it died out before the end of Tapeats deposition around the monadnocks.

Later, the Glossopleura zone extended all the way across the region in the Bright Angel Shale, getting closer and closer to the lower boundary of the formation as you go to the east.

One take-away here is that neither formation is of the same age everywhere. As sea level rose, the Tapeats Sandstone unit simply moved east. Time-transgressive formations such as this do not lend themselves to a rapid, one-time depositional event. If so, both biostratigraphic horizons would continue horizontally across the section and remain at the same level within the Tapeats and the Bright Angel.

You will also notice the schematic representation of late Cambrian limestones being much thicker in the west (understanding that there is vertical exaggeration). I'm wondering if this disqualifies them from being 'strata' in the Faith usage.


  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 150 of 224 (820915)
09-28-2017 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
09-28-2017 8:48 PM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
You live in Nevada. Here's an image of the Ruby Mountain Range viewed from the plains surrounding it:

The mountains in the distance will never be preserved in the geological record. That's because mountains are regions of net erosion, not deposition.


Interestingly enough, the Nevada mountain ranges are mostly tilt blocks similar to the GC Supergroup strata of the Grand Canyon. The deformed rocks are preserved but are certainly planed off to some base level in most ancient mountain ranges.
This surface is still somewhat irregular in the GC since the harder quartzites have not been completely planed off and form the 'monadnocks' that we have been discussing.

One thing that I find curious in this discussion is the large number of flat landscapes such as the pediments and valley fill deposits in the Ruby Range image.

The mountains are being gradually eroded away into fine particles that are eventually deposited on the very flat plains you see in the foreground.

Like waterfalls and volcanoes, mountain ranges are just temporary features on the surface of the earth. This will always be the case until plate tectonics stops and there is no more erosion. It will be a dead planet.

The only elements in this image that have even a prayer of being preserved in the geological record (i.e., buried) are the flat plains. Lake and sea bottoms, also mostly flat, have an even better chance of being buried and preserved in the geological record. That's why the strata you see are mostly flat.

If you look at the effects of seashore erosion you will see that the ultimate surface is pretty flat. Wave erosion is ferocious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 09-28-2017 8:48 PM Percy has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2017 12:39 AM edge has replied
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 1:34 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 151 of 224 (820916)
09-29-2017 12:05 AM


As long as we are talking about erosion and mountains going to the sea, here is what happened to El Capitan today.

http://www.latimes.com/...kfall-yosemite-20170928-story.html

Does anyone doubt the effects of erosion?


  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 153 of 224 (820919)
09-29-2017 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Minnemooseus
09-29-2017 12:39 AM


Re: Ruby Mountains side note
The Ruby Mountains are actually much more than your common variety of basin and range fault block mountains (also much prettier - See photos at link below).

As sheared up as it is, the Ruby Range has to be eroding more rapidly than similar mountain ranges. One gets a strange feeling about the land forms as you go up Lamoille Canyon, to me it's kind of glacial, but not ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2017 12:39 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2017 1:22 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 164 of 224 (820946)
09-29-2017 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Minnemooseus
09-29-2017 1:22 AM


Re: Ruby Mountains side note
There is a substantial glacial modification there. There is a small moraine at the end of a side valley at the campground area and a lot of cirque lakes at the heads of other valleys. Probably some hanging side valleys also.

Oh, it's definitely glaciated, and relatively recently, IIRC. The thing is that the bedrock is so tectonized that some of the common glacial features look different from the typical Rocky Mountain glacial valleys that we usually see in images. It's an interesting topic.

I think the pertinent point is that the mountain range will erode away, and perhaps quite rapidly in geological terms.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2017 1:22 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 165 of 224 (820947)
09-29-2017 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
09-29-2017 1:34 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
In my scenario most of the mountain ranges were tectonically pushed up at the end of the Flood, just as in my scenario the Great Unconformity was also pushed up. And the fact that the strata above follow the contour of the pushed-up Supergroup keeps being ignored but it is the main evidence that the strata were already in place when the GU was formed. That means the monadnocks pushed up into the strata at the same time. And all of this of course proves that the Geo Time Scale is false. Then of course if you add the flat flat strata with their tight tight contacts you have evidence of rapid deposition. Flood, not vast ages of time.

That's a nice story, but you have given us no evidence. For instance, if the quartzite strata were thrust up into the overlying Cambrian rocks, then there should be some indication of this.

One thing *I* find curious is that the erosion of motley sediments from mountains onto a plain that isn't anywhere near flat like the strata is made to account for the strata.

Well, the point is that this is an unconformity and it is quite flat compared to the mountain ranges that you want us to show you in the geological record.

This idea makes me feel like Geology is a big joke you are all playing on us. It's really hard to believe that you believe such an idea. Being subjected to this kind of intellectual deceit doesn't inspire me to care a lot about the debate.

You even emphasize this big joke when you say:

Pretty flat" does not describe the strata except after they've been subjected to a few thousand years of settling. Here is a picture of one place where the original flatness of the strata is very apparent:

The vertical surface has been severely eroded leaving the original strata clearly visible in their pristine horizontality with their very tight contacts. This is a location where the tectonic upheaval didn't twist the strata for some reason, but something certainly knocked off a humongous amount of material to leave the mountain there.


I don't remember calling those bedding planes unconformities, certainly not erosional or angular unconformities.

There simply is not enough time for this scenario to play out. The mountains can erode quite a bit but will never erode flat in the time allotted to this planet.

Again, this is just an assertion on your part. First of all, there is a lot of time and secondly erosion is relatively rapid compared to deposition and orogeny.

Most of the mountains were pushed up by the great tectonic upheaval that separated the continents and played some big role in the receding of the Flood waters.

Another unsupported assertion.

The amount of erosion that can be seen on some formations such as the hoodoos of the Southwest has to have occurred since their formation in the Flood, and what that amount of erosion shows is a few thousand years' worth.

Thank you for making my point that erosion can be rapid.

Some of the more delicate formations in that area have eroded to the point of breaking and falling apart, but that would happen in a few thousand years, not millions. And that would of course be the amount of erosion that's happened to the Ruby Mountains and all other formations since they all originated either in the Flood or by the tectonic activity afterward.

As I have explained, I believe that the Rubys are eroding more rapidly than most mountain ranges and I have explained why. Do you understand that the hoodoos are very recent in age and composed of relatively soft sedimentary and volcanic rocks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 1:34 AM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 166 of 224 (820948)
09-29-2017 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
09-29-2017 8:09 AM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
The Stratigraphic Column is a very particular stack of sedimentary rocks, it is not just any sedimentary layers.

Only in Faith's world.

We have explained to you repeatedly that every location on earth has a stratigraphic column. Do you really think that they are all the same?

Those forming now are not connected to the Stratigraphic Column in any way and I do consider it some kind of deceit to try to claim they are when they do not occur in the right places, they are not large enough, they are nothing like those in the Stratigraphic Column. I'm sick of arguing this.

As are most of us.

You do not get to define geological terms.

Yes it IS obvious and I've utterly lost patience with the ridiculous tall tales being palmed off as evidence of the column's continuation.

So, you have lost patience.

Is that your best evidence?

For anyone to look at the picture of the stratified mountainside I posted and think those strata could possibly have been formed by slow sedimentation on a plain like the one in the picture of the Ruby Mountains, or on a sloping seashore either, is another case of deceit, perhaps self-deception but the idea is so OBVIOUSLY absurd there is no point in wasting my time producing some kind of proof. The debate is a sham. To be honestly convinced of such ideas would mean being so self-deceived there is no point in talking to such a person.

So, it's obvious.

Is that your next-best piece of evidence?

And now I'm being challenged on the time it took for the hoodoos to erode to their present condition. I did think the rate of erosion was pretty standard knowledge but now I have to substantiate it. Sorry, I can't do it, I'm not up to it, and again it's OBVIOUS that that degree of erosion did not take millions of years, or even a hundred thousand. The expansion and contraction of the rock with seasonal temperature changes causes grains to fall off, forming the hoodoo shape. The same occurs with all the formations of the American Southwest. That rate of erosion alone shows that the strata of which they are composed was laid down just a few thousand years ago, supporting the Flood, not the Geological Time Scale.

So, the rate of erosion tells you the age of the earth.

Please explain.

The actual appearance of the strate of the Stratigraphic Column proves the Flood. And I'm sick to death of having to argue with idiotic objections to obvious points. So suspend me already, it would be a blessing.

And the appearance of rocks proves the flood.

Is that another piece of evidence for your story?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 8:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:10 PM edge has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 202 of 224 (821456)
10-07-2017 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by RAZD
10-07-2017 11:35 AM


Re: The Faith pattern repeats?
It would appear that Faith is holding to her usual pattern of arguing repeatedly for her opinion, and when the evidence and arguments mount up she abandons the thread (usual personal persecution claims).

We can expect the same arguments on the next flood thread together with claims that she refuted all the arguments presented here.


It's kind of too bad because there is a lot of potentially interesting stuff here. For instance, Moose's tangent on deltas and their effect on the idealized Walther's Law sequence could be really fascinating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2017 11:35 AM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 10-08-2017 7:27 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 204 of 224 (821464)
10-08-2017 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Percy
10-08-2017 7:27 AM


Re: The Faith pattern repeats?
Worse, and I'm reluctant to be so critical but will anyway, I think Walther's Law may be something that many participating in this thread do not understand. I reached this conclusion from the many, many times Faith said that the Flood moving across the landscape would leave behind sedimentary layers just like Walther's Law says it should, and there was almost always no rebuttal to this claim.

Well, I think that the response was actually bewilderment. The idea proposed by Faith is so outlandish that it's hard to confront. It's like suddenly finding yourself in a mental hospital.

An inundation event with that much turbulence (to keep sediments suspended, including gravel) to happen that suddenly (to meet the YEC timescale) is not only unsupported by facts, it cannot even be imagined by anyone with a background in science.

As to a rational discussion, I think that some observations about real systems would tell us a lot. Having the satellite images is a good place to start.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 10-08-2017 7:27 AM Percy has seen this message

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 212 of 224 (821526)
10-08-2017 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Percy
10-08-2017 4:59 PM


What is the source of your chart? The chart's title is "Mineral assemblages of common igneous rocks and their relation to the interior structure of the Earth", but it includes many non-igneous rocks, like limestone and sandstone and shale and slate. Also, I can't make sense of the chart's organization - is it actually three separate charts? And why are there notes at the bottom about the moon?

Heh, heh ...

If someone wanted to confuse the layman about the structure of the earth, this is an excellent diagram to use. The important boundaries here are in the blue color. The main horizontal one would represent the boundary between crust and 'supracrustal' rocks (the ones we are familiar with as being deposited on the earth now.

Moving horizontally into different columns, you see different compositions and characteristics such as mineralogy, metamorphism and even some physical properties such as density, mass, etc.; representative of each layer within the earth.

As to comments about the moon and other oddities in the chart, someone is just showing off.

Same thing with the lack of concern for significant figures and geophysical jargon.

Way too complicated and some important things are left out. It's a chart that tries to explain everything and ultimately explains nothing.

Just my opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 10-08-2017 4:59 PM Percy has seen this message

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 213 of 224 (821527)
10-08-2017 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
10-08-2017 2:44 PM


Re: Walther's Law and Delta Formations
About the siliciclastic muds, what you uncovered so far is already far more detailed than anything I know. I just assumed that they formed from the runoff from land, and that they occur further out from the coast than beach sand because they're smaller, lighter particles and will only fall out of suspension in quieter waters (i.e., no waves crashing through a surf onto a beach).

Yes, it takes higher velocities to keep larger grains either in suspension or moving in traction as a bed load.

The term siliciclastic is a compound term meaning it is of silicate composition (including clay minerals, quartz grains, feldspar grains, mica grains ... anything with silica in it) broken down from a previously existing rock.

Most sandstone beaches are eroded from siliceous rocks carried to the sea and abraded by rivers and wind, and sometimes eroded directly by wave action. Some beaches are carbonate (limestone) and others are 'black sand' (magnetite) and even green (dunite) all depending on the source rock. Quartz is the most common.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 10-08-2017 2:44 PM Percy has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2017 4:26 PM edge has replied
 Message 215 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2017 5:29 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 216 of 224 (821616)
10-09-2017 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by RAZD
10-09-2017 4:26 PM


Re: Walther's Law and Delta Formations
So would I be correct in assuming that the division between "sands" and "siliciclastic muds" is more due to the definitions of "sand" and "silt" than any major difference in other characteristics?

Yes, however, you will find that the finer fractions will tend toward more phylosilicate minerals such as clays. And that is fine. The final products of weathering are quartz and various species of clay.

Would I be correct in aligning "Carbonate sediments" with Calcereous ooze and "coccolith/foram ooze" with Siliceous ooze?

Essentially, yes. A real sedimentologist could probably tell you all of the exceptions and ramificatins, but that would be my understanding.

So the boundary between them is defined by the carbonate compensation depth (which Dr A described in his awesome Introduction To Geology thread)?

That is a major global factor.

This would mean that the boundary between sands and siliciclastic muds is mostly a matter of particle size definition, but the boundary between them and the pelagic oozes is based on biological/organic traces (of 30% or more) in the later, with the pelagic oozes further subdivided into carbonate and non-carbonate deposits, yes?[/qs]
That would be accurate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2017 4:26 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 217 of 224 (821637)
10-09-2017 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by RAZD
10-09-2017 5:29 PM


Re: What I expect from Walther's Law for Delta Formations
I would expect the sediment load from rivers to deltas to consist of mostly sands and siliciclastic mud, graded by distance from the river mouth to the widening plane of the delta as the river velocity dropped.

Here is a river delta, the Ebro, which show how the river transports sand to the delta where it is deposited and then redistributed into spits and bars by longshore current.

The ocean is just reworking the deltaic sediments at the interface.

I would not expect pelagic oozes in the delta formations.

Correct, deltaic deposits are simply an extension of fluvial deposition.

Rivers are temporary. Oceans are not.

Perhaps more tomorrow...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2017 5:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2017 10:28 PM edge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022