Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Long build up of Sediments
Mallon
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 180 (294474)
03-12-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
03-12-2006 7:17 AM


Re: Still concerned with the abrupt shift in sediments
Faith wrote:
quote:
Are these unconformities ever seen dividing the SAME rock type, right through a layer instead of between layers? Why would nondeposition always occur only at the end of a long long period of deposition of one kind of sediment and not during?
Yes, we see unconformities even between same rock types.
But just to clarify, when you're talking "same rock types" are you referring to entire sequences such as the "Devonian Period" or the "Triassic Period"? Because I get the impression that you think these sequences all contain exactly the same type of rock. They don't. Cretaceous rocks, for example, may contain a whole slew of different sediments layered on top of one another, including marine sediments, terrestrial sandstones, mudstones, bentonite, etc. These major sequences are typically classified based on a particular pattern of sediment they might show (facies), or based on the kinds of fossils they exhibit, or any number of other objective factors (geochemical signatures, etc.). It might do you some good to do some reading about 'facies concepts', for starters on this issue.
quote:
Interesting. I thought the order of fossil deposition always had the more "primitive" on the bottom.
If we look at the entire geologic column from top to bottom, yes, that is how it appears. But the example I just gave you (about the fossilization of the Western Interior Seaway) is just a VERY small slice of the pie. In this instance, we don't see major new body types developing in this slice of the Cretaceous. At this level, we see species and faunal turnover, as the terrestrial rocks gave way to more marine rocks (a sign that the WIS was encroaching on the land). Also, don't make the fatal mistake of assuming that just because some particular species are confined to the ocean, that that somehow makes them more 'primitive'.
quote:
And of course an inland sea fits well with a global flood.
Not if the strata suggesting the presence of such a sea are bordered above and below by terrestrial sediments (as they are). Also, if the sea were left by the Flood, then we would expect to find more than just a few certain types of marine fossils in the sediments. The flood ought to have killed more terrestrial animals, than anything. How could a flood possibly deposit marine animals on top of terrestrial animals on top of marine animals, etc? One would expect all the different types of marine and terrestrial animals to mix during such an event; but we don't see that in the fossil record.
This message has been edited by Mallon, Mar-12-2006 10:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 7:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 10:51 AM Mallon has replied

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


Message 77 of 180 (294476)
03-12-2006 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Mallon
03-12-2006 10:34 AM


Re: Still concerned with the abrupt shift in sediments
But just to clarify, when you're talking "same rock types" are you referring to entire sequences such as the "Devonian Period" or the "Triassic Period"? Because I get the impression that you think these sequences all contain exactly the same type of rock. They don't. Cretaceous rocks, for example, may contain a whole slew of different sediments layered on top of one another, including marine sediments, terrestrial sandstones, mudstones, bentonite, etc. These major sequences are typically classified based on a particular pattern of sediment they might show (facies), or based on the kinds of fossils they exhibit, or any number of other objective factors (geochemical signatures, etc.). It might do you some good to do some reading about 'facies concepts', for starters on this issue.
I'm ONLY trying to keep the sediments in mind, don't want to get too far into fossils or anything else. I assume that even if there are mixtures of sediments that the dominating sediment exists in dramatically large proportions in the entire layer. Is this false?
Interesting. I thought the order of fossil deposition always had the more "primitive" on the bottom.
========
If we look at the entire geologic column from top to bottom, yes, that is how it appears. But the example I just gave you (about the fossilization of the Western Interior Seaway) is just a VERY small slice of the pie. In this instance, we don't see major new body types developing in this slice of the Cretaceous.
I really have no idea what you are saying here, sorry.
At this level, we see species and faunal turnover, as the terrestrial rocks gave way to more marine rocks (a sign that the WIS was encroaching on the land). Also, don't make the fatal mistake of assuming that just because some particular species are confined to the ocean, that that somehow makes them more 'primitive'.
I figure it's up to the evolutionists to define primitive, but I did have the impression that the bottom layers of the geo column are mostly small marine creatures.
And of course an inland sea fits well with a global flood.
======
Not if the strata suggesting the presence of such a sea are bordered above and below by terrestrial sediments (as they are).
Why not?
Also, if the sea were left by the Flood, then we would expect to find more than just a few certain types of marine fossils in the sediments.
YOu mean just in this inland sea or everywhere? And why?
The flood ought to have killed more terrestrial animals, than anything.
It killed everything living. Presumably the land animals more frequently simply decomposed rather than being buried and fossilized.
How could a flood possibly deposit marine animals on top of terrestrial animals on top of marine animals, etc? One would expect all the different types of marine and terrestrial animals to mix during such an event; but we don't see that in the fossil record.
No, we see sorting, which some creationists explain in terms of water currents and waves carrying different kinds of cargo to their ultimate destination.
This is the problem with imaginative expectations. I find it just as hard to imagine how the strata could have formed by tiny steps over hundreds of millions of years as you do to imagine how the flood explains it. There are problems on both sides. I'm trying to raise some questions about the evo side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Mallon, posted 03-12-2006 10:34 AM Mallon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Mallon, posted 03-12-2006 12:04 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 83 by edge, posted 03-12-2006 1:07 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 78 of 180 (294478)
03-12-2006 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by edge
03-12-2006 9:26 AM


Yes this is going nowhere. I am not asking about CONTAINING the sediments, about basins and whatnot. I am asking about how the sheer volume of sediments could possibly have been produced by the methods you have mentioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by edge, posted 03-12-2006 9:26 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 79 of 180 (294480)
03-12-2006 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by edge
03-12-2006 9:26 AM


Apparently you have seen fit to ignore what anyone else says on this thread. This is disrespectful and hopeless. It doesn't really bother me; you can beleive what you want, but I do feel that I have wasted my time here.
I am not intentionally ignoring anything that seems to relate to the topic. If I don't get something and it doesn't seem relevant to what I'm talking about I pass over it and try to get an answer to what I AM asking that doesn't seem to have been addressed. There's simply a limit to what I can deal with here.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 11:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by edge, posted 03-12-2006 9:26 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Silent H, posted 03-12-2006 11:31 AM Faith has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 80 of 180 (294486)
03-12-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
03-12-2006 11:12 AM


From an earlier post...
I am asking about how the sheer volume of sediments could possibly have been produced by the methods you have mentioned.
Clear your mind for a moment and forget about implications of theories. Imagine a mountain being formed by lava or magma pressing up from the mantle and spilling out to the surface (slowly).
Then imagine all that material (a mountain) being eroded by wind and rain into small particles and washed away. Doesn't it seem possible with enough mountains (or enough magma pressed upward) over a long time there would be a massive amount of sediment washed out into a huge flat strata? Is that problematic to you?
If I don't get something and it doesn't seem relevant to what I'm talking about I pass over it and try to get an answer to what I AM asking that doesn't seem to have been addressed.
Isn't it possible that you are passing over an answer, because you are not taking the time necessary to read and so recognize something as relevant?
If you are seriously interested in this issue, it will take some time and effort to understand what has led geology to where it is right now. Perhaps grasping concepts that do not (on the surface) seem to be relevant.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 11:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 5:04 PM Silent H has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 81 of 180 (294490)
03-12-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
03-12-2006 9:05 AM


Faith, geology is such a complex and dynamic science that it is impossible to offer explanation for such vague statements.
It would help immensely if you could offer an example of what you are referring to - a real-world example. Are you thinking about sediments in the Gulf of Mexico? Because I honestly do not know of any formation that is kilometers thick and consists of a discrete mineralogy or rock type.
The rocks deposited in the Cretaceous Seaway are possibly 10,000 feet thick (guesstimate) cumulatively, making it what... 3 kilometers or so thick. However, there are probably a good two hundred formations, members, units, etc. that make up the Seaway stratigraphy that are mostly based on rock types, such as shale, silty shale, calcareous shale, shaley limestone, limestone, calcarenite, siltstone, sandstone, chalk, marl, mudstone, etc., ad nauseum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 9:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 4:37 PM roxrkool has replied

  
Mallon
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 180 (294492)
03-12-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
03-12-2006 10:51 AM


Re: Still concerned with the abrupt shift in sediments
Faith wrote:
quote:
I assume that even if there are mixtures of sediments that the dominating sediment exists in dramatically large proportions in the entire layer. Is this false?
I wouldn't say that's false, no. I wouldn't use the term "dramatically large proportions", though, either. Again, these major rock sequences aren't so much distinguished by a single type of rock as by a recognizable pattern or succession of rock types.
quote:
I really have no idea what you are saying here, sorry.
I am simply saying that the progression from "primitive" to "advanced' body forms are only seen when we look at the fossil record from a broad perspective.
quote:
I figure it's up to the evolutionists to define primitive, but I did have the impression that the bottom layers of the geo column are mostly small marine creatures.
Scientists typically avoid using terms like "primitive" or "advanced" because of the connotations they carry with them. I am using them here to simplify things for you (otherwise I would use terms like 'synapomorphy', 'plesiomorphy', etc.). But you're right, at the very bottom of the geologic column, we find small, simple marine creatures -- amongst the earliest forms of life on earth. And in those marine strata preserved higher up in the column (such as in the WIS strata I've been alluding to), we find much more advanced marine creatures (mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, turtles, etc.). You will never find, say, a turtle in the lowest Cambrian rocks.
quote:
Why not?
Because a worldwide Flood does not deposit terrestrial strata. We would not expect to find footprints from terrestrial animals deposited during a flood, and yet we do find them. So either (a) the terrestrial animals were walking along the bottom of the floodbed as the water towered above them, or (b) the Flood is not preserved in the rock record.
quote:
YOu mean just in this inland sea or everywhere? And why?
Let's keep it simple and refer only to the one inland sea I brought up. And I explained to you earlier why would not expect to see the type of sorting that we do: catastrophic floods do not distinguish between terrestrial and marine animals as they are deposited. If you think otherwise, please explain why. If I threw a bunch of dead dogs, cats, fish, turtles, birds, and clams into the water, would you really expect all the terrestrial animals to settle out at different rates than the marine animals?
quote:
It killed everything living. Presumably the land animals more frequently simply decomposed rather than being buried and fossilized.
This is a big presumption to make. Why would that be so? All marine and terrestrial animals would be subject to the same environmental conditions as they lay dead at the bottom of the Flood floor.
quote:
This is the problem with imaginative expectations. I find it just as hard to imagine how the strata could have formed by tiny steps over hundreds of millions of years as you do to imagine how the flood explains it.
The difference is: we have evidence and experiments that can back up our claims. I have a hard time understanding math, as you do geology. But that doesn't pose a threat to the mathematical principles that have been in use for hundreds of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 10:51 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 83 of 180 (294510)
03-12-2006 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
03-12-2006 10:51 AM


Re: Still concerned with the abrupt shift in sediments
I'm ONLY trying to keep the sediments in mind, don't want to get too far into fossils or anything else.
Of course not. They might provide actual evidence against your position. How inconvenient.
I assume that even if there are mixtures of sediments that the dominating sediment exists in dramatically large proportions in the entire layer. Is this false?
So, 'dominating sediment' would be found in 'large proportions'. Very interesting. I'm not sure I understand.
No, we see sorting, which some creationists explain in terms of water currents and waves carrying different kinds of cargo to their ultimate destination.
They do? Please document and/or explain.
This is the problem with imaginative expectations. I find it just as hard to imagine how the strata could have formed by tiny steps over hundreds of millionsof years...
Do you have the same problem with all things that happen slowly? Are you one of those who wonders why we didn't build the space shuttle hundreds of years ago?
...as you do to imagine how the flood explains it.
Well, no YEC has given and explanation of where the flood starts and ends in the geologic record. If they did, I would assure you that I would at least read their position.
There are problems on both sides. I'm trying to raise some questions about the evo side.
The fact that you have dismissed answers with a hand wave of incredulity suggests to me that you have not asked your questions in good Faith. YOu have betrayed the judgement that your question(s) are some of the best ever put forth on EvC by not being serious about the answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 10:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 84 of 180 (294515)
03-12-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by purpledawn
03-11-2006 7:44 AM


Re: Length of Flood
370 days, earth dried (v8:14)
Thanks. I've asked for this before, and only seem to get around 400 days.
You will see the relevance of this to our other discussion eh?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 03-11-2006 7:44 AM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 85 of 180 (294540)
03-12-2006 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
03-12-2006 8:23 AM


Re: Source of the sediments for the flood deposits?
Seems to me it is an enormous problem for the old earth time frame, as you have to keep having mountain building ...
Well, that's what the geologic record reveals...
-- and that's a very local thing --
Local? Are you saying that mountains don't occur all over the world? And just for the record, erosion doesn't require mountains, either, it just required land mass above sea level.
...and a lot of repeated washings of sediments into the sea, which implies one and only one sediment for millions of years and how can that be accounted for?
By mainstream geology. Estimates for eroding a mountain range to sea level, I have heard on the order of 60 million years.
And then the raising of the sea floor to become layered land, and then THAT would supposedly also erode into the sea, but I would think that would mix sediments rather than keep them so separated as is seen in the geo column. LOTS of questions.
LOts of answers, too. In many places the sedimentary section IS mixed. In fact, most of them.
Whereas the Flood explanation simply relies on the land mass already present for the amount of material that ended up in the geo column -- plus material stirred up in the sea as well probably.
And mainstream geology explains it even better since repeated uplifts means even more sediments. So, where's your problem?
In that case there is always the question how the sediments got so neatly sorted out into identifiable layers, same as how the fossils did -- but that's a question for either theory.
It may be a question, but at least mainstream geology offers an explanation. In this case sediments are neatly sorted by depositional environment with high energy regimes depositing mainly coarse sediments and very low energy regimes depositing fine sediments, coral and chemical deposits. And evolution offers an explanation of the fossil ordering by suggesting change in organic communities through time. What have you got? Some vague 'sorting' mechanism that can't really be described?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 8:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 4:59 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 86 of 180 (294586)
03-12-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by roxrkool
03-12-2006 11:59 AM


It was edge who said he thinks some strata were ORIGINALLY kilometers thick -- eroded that much according to him. I don't know which ones he had in mind. I was merely wondering where the sediment could come from to stack that much of one kind of sediment so deeply. I guess he's the only one who might have the answer.
I tend to have the Southwest US in mind when I'm talking about the strata -- the whole area from the Grand Canyon up through the formations in Utah -- not necessarily for particular questions though, just as a general reference. The same strata cover that entire territory.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 04:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by roxrkool, posted 03-12-2006 11:59 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-12-2006 5:21 PM Faith has replied
 Message 97 by roxrkool, posted 03-12-2006 8:10 PM Faith has replied
 Message 102 by edge, posted 03-12-2006 10:53 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 87 of 180 (294596)
03-12-2006 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by edge
03-12-2006 2:28 PM


Re: Source of the sediments for the flood deposits?
I think we need to recognize that we are having a problem with communication and simply give up on it, as apparently I annoy you, and I really can't see how most of what you say in answer to my posts is any kind of answer, which keeps us going in circles. But thanks for trying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by edge, posted 03-12-2006 2:28 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 88 of 180 (294601)
03-12-2006 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Silent H
03-12-2006 11:31 AM


Then imagine all that material (a mountain) being eroded by wind and rain into small particles and washed away. Doesn't it seem possible with enough mountains (or enough magma pressed upward) over a long time there would be a massive amount of sediment washed out into a huge flat strata? Is that problematic to you?
Would it all be just one kind of sediment? Would it wash down in layers of entirely different sediments, one on top of the other, which is how the geo column supposedly formed, and which are dramatically shown in the Grand Canyon and the Grand Staircase and other formations in the Southwest? Would it create the equivalent of the Redwall Limestone layer or the Coconino Sandstone or many different kinds all stacked up?
Most mountains don't even reach two miles high, so how would one get a huge broad layer (say covering the territory of Utah plus Arizona) of one kind of sediment kilometers thick (edge says he believes this occurred with some layers, most of which was then eroded away).
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 05:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Silent H, posted 03-12-2006 11:31 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Jazzns, posted 03-13-2006 11:07 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 89 of 180 (294610)
03-12-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
03-12-2006 4:37 PM


Many mountains are much more of a mess, than just being a pile of horizontal strata
It was edge who said he thinks some strata were ORIGINALLY kilometers thick -- eroded that much according to him.
I don't know the specific source of the cite information, but my impression is that you see mountains as being just tall stacks of more or less horizontal strata. While that might sometimes be the case (the Unita Mountains?), often mountain ranges are complex folded and faulted messes. You can have a mountain much higher than the stratagraphic thicknesses of the strata that make them up. There may also be substantial volumes of igneous intrusives in the mountain (research the term "Batholith" for more on very large igneous intrusives, including seeing http:///WebPages/Glossary_Geology.html#B).
Also remember, it's not a simple case of the mountains being uplifted and then being eroded down. Erosion is already happening as the mountains are being uplifted.
In northeastern Minnesota we have the remains of a very early mountain range (rocks dated at 2.7 billion years old), the area now being relatively low hills. These rocks (research topic: Ely Greenstone) have been intensely folded and faulted. Much of the strata is now vertical rather than horizontal, and there is evidence for vertical displacement by faulting of the magnitude of tens of kilometers.
A specific example in northern Minnesota, is where the Ely Greenstone is in fault contact with another formation. The EG, while being heavily folded and faulted itself, is of low metamorpic grade (it has not been subjected to very high temperatures and pressures). But the formation it is in fault contact with is of high metamorphic grade (anphibolite facies). It can be determined what temperatures and presures were required to form the metamorphic minerals of the rock. Now I'm about to pull a number out of my shakey memory, but if anything, it might well be an understatement. It is thought to have once been under pressures that indicate that it was once buried 20 kilometers (c. 60,000 feet). Now it is at the surface. This means that something like 20 kilomenters of rock have been eroded off to expose this rock. Again, I'm not real certain about that 20 km figure. It might actually be more like 40 km. Is there a metamorphic petrologist out there?
Geo-critiques of the above blathers welcome.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 4:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 03-12-2006 5:27 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 90 of 180 (294613)
03-12-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Minnemooseus
03-12-2006 5:21 PM


Re: Many mountains are much more of a mess, than just being a pile of horizontal strata
With a whole mountain chain I suppose you could get sediment kilometers thick, but I still have my questions. Would you get just one kind of sediment topped by another kind of sediment -- like those seen in the Southwest, say, etc?
I've been told that mountainbuilding is one of the ways we get the sediments that form the strata. I don't see how you get one and only one kind of sediment out of a mountain for starters, or how you get many different kinds stacked on top of each other.
I see how the rising and falling of sea level might be an explanation, at least of a stack of different kinds of sediments, although I still have trouble with the abrupt change in sediments from one to another.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 05:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-12-2006 5:21 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2006 5:48 PM Faith has replied
 Message 94 by Mallon, posted 03-12-2006 6:03 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 95 by Silent H, posted 03-12-2006 6:14 PM Faith has replied
 Message 99 by roxrkool, posted 03-12-2006 8:57 PM 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