TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV?

I'M NOT A GREAT EXPERT ON SEDIMENTOLOGY - I MAY BE WRONG - BUT THIS IS AS I SEE IT ---This could be posted in any of several topics, but this one seems as good as any.First a definition: Marine sediments - Sediments deposited in a marine environment.Now, let me break down marine sediments into two types:
1) Chemical precipitates, and sediments having a large chemical precipitate component - Example: Limestones
2) Clastic sediments - Example: SandstonesNow, I wish to focus in on the marine clastic sediments, deposited upon the continents, during a sea transgression, stand, or regression.First of all, the vast bulk of marine clastic sediment deposits are reworkings of pre-existing sediments, be they marine or non-marine. Sometimes there may well have been multiple reworkings. But, ultimately, the origins of these sediments is rock material weathered, eroded, transported, and largely deposited in a non-marine environment. The sediments are marine in that the final deposition was in a marine environment. But even then, they probably have a substantial history prior to that final deposition.Summary - Marine clastic sediments, deposited on the continents, are largely the reworkings of what were originally non-marine sediments. These sediments were not coughed up from the deep ocean basins (and even those sediments originally came off of the continents), nor were they precipitated out of the sea water.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Some reading material for TB:The Geologic Column
and its Implications for the Flood
Copyright 2001 by Glenn Morton
[Last Update: February 17, 2001]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/Note: Glenn Morton was a prominent YEC, active in the ICR. He has now left his YEC beliefs behind.As a side note - My personal stash of C vs E links can be found at:
http://www.lakenet.com/~mnmoose/evlnkalt.htmI don't deny that there is a pro-evolution bias in this links collection.Have a nice dayMoose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I'M NOT A GREAT EXPERT ON SEDIMENTOLOGY - I MAY BE WRONG - BUT THIS IS AS I SEE IT ---

​

This could be posted in any of several topics, but this one seems as good as any.

​

First a definition: Marine sediments - Sediments deposited in a marine environment.

​

Now, let me break down marine sediments into two types:
1) Chemical precipitates, and sediments having a large chemical precipitate component - Example: Limestones
2) Clastic sediments - Example: Sandstones

​

Now, I wish to focus in on the marine clastic sediments, deposited upon the continents, during a sea transgression, stand, or regression.

​

First of all, the vast bulk of marine clastic sediment deposits are reworkings of pre-existing sediments, be they marine or non-marine. Sometimes there may well have been multiple reworkings. But, ultimately, the origins of these sediments is rock material weathered, eroded, transported, and largely deposited in a non-marine environment. The sediments are marine in that the final deposition was in a marine environment. But even then, they probably have a substantial history prior to that final deposition.

​

Summary - Marine clastic sediments, deposited on the continents, are largely the reworkings of what were originally non-marine sediments. These sediments were not coughed up from the deep ocean basins (and even those sediments originally came off of the continents), nor were they precipitated out of the sea water.

​

Moose

​

---

The above is message 27 of this topic. It was posted less than 24 hours ago. A lot has been posted since, too much to fast for me to digest yet.TB, in message 27, I was trying to stress the large significance of non-marine sedimentary processes. In message 28 you stated that you agreed with what I said in message 27.Still, the main point you seem to be trying to make, is that the marine sedimention is of vast significance, and the non-marine sedimentation is of minor significance.Comments?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Note by edit: This message duplicated the previous, so I have deleted #70. - MooseFrom TB:

quote:

---

OK, I've got your point Moose. I agree that the source of the sediments is non-marine from a mainstream POV. For us it is presumably due to both (i) catastrophic freshwater erosion (the 40 dyas of rain - condensed tectonically heated steam in our view) and (ii) catastrophic marine inundation. In either case the source material would be continental. So I agree.

---

First of all, I must presume you are totally taking the YEC position. As such you are not only compressing the 500+ millions of years of the Phanerazoic into the flood and post flood period, but are also crunching the 4 billion years of the Precambrian into the pre-flood period.Now, I must ask you. What is your vision of the pre-flood version of the earth's geology? And what what is your vision of original created earth's geology? Did God create the earth with an apparent image of great age?It would seem that the ultimate origin of all the earths sediments would have to be igneous (and metamorphic?) crystaline rocks. Now, a few thousand years of uniformitarianist processes could produce some sediments, but not remotely the volumes that you are reworking and depositing in your flood (vast mountains would have to be torn down to produce that amount).Which seems to leave Gods having produced a young but old looking earth. It doesn't seem feasible that, even if it rained 40 inches per day and the mountains were continuosly pounded by tsunamies, for a decade, that the requires amounts of sediment could be produced. Not to mention that that would be pretty tough on the ark.Or, perhaps, you could just invoke a miracle, and concede that scientific finding have no relevence to explaining the situation.Moose*******************************************************************
NOTE BY EDIT (6/2/02): I HAVE (MORE OR LESS) SPUN OFF THE QUESTIONS OF THIS MESSAGE, INTO A NEW TOPIC "YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age?" AT EvC Forum: YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age?
*******************************************************************
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 06-02-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 06-02-2002]Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fixed link that had gotten totally thrashed by the passage of time (aka software upgrades).

quote:

---

Moose, yes, I am taking almost the standard YEC position.
Good quesiton about pre-flood rocks. The standard YEC stance would be created bedrock and then non-fossil containing layering from creation day 3 when the land emerged from the sea. My personal theology on this issue is that I tend to believe (although I'm not overly dogmatic on it) that the creation days were 1000 year days as discussed in 2 Pet and Psalms (in the context of creation and the flood). This sounds like day-age stuff but I believe it for theological reasons (1000y days obviously wont allow for evoltuion etc anyway).

---

I've "bolded" your "etc"! Not only would your 1000 year days not allow for evolution (biological); it would not allow for evolution (non-biological). A lot happened in the precambrian, including the production, movement, and deposition of a vast amount of sediment. Where is this sediment really coming from?!

quote:

---

The 1000 year days has a fascinating story behind it. Basically earth history can be conidered as a creative 'week' and a redemptive 'week'. The redemptive week is 7 1000 year days starting from 4000BC. We get 3 lots of 2000 year periods that align with Father, Son and Holy Spirit respectively. The 'father dispensation' begins with the father of all (Adam, 4000BC) to the father of 'all who believed' (as Abraham is called 2000BC). The 'son dispensation' begins with an only begotten son (Isaac, 2000BC) and ends with 'the' only begotten son (Christ, about 0 BC). The 'Holy Spirit' dispensation begins with the first 'outpouring' (Acts 2, 30AD) and ends, in this scenario, with the promised and in some opions begun 'last' outpouring of he Holy Spirit (about now). In Heb 4 'another' rest day like that of the creation week is described and this is clearly the Millenium = 1000y of Revelations. So in this scenario we could possibly, although non-dogmatically, expect the creation week to be 7000 years as well. This would give possibly enough time to generate the layers as the earth came up out of the sea on day 3. Standard YECs would probably insist this occured in a literal 24 hr day whereas my opinon would be that it occurred in a 1000 year 'day' as hinted at in Heb 4, Rev 22, Psalms and 2nd Pet. So that's a theological reason for having more time to create vast pre-flood sedimentry formations. It also has more important consequences for some Christians obviously. It's obviously hooey for a lot of other people of course.

---

All I can say is, theological mumbo-jumbo, having nothing to do with the interpretation of the geologic record.

quote:

---

You think our flood couldn't have generated the flood rock sediment? Mt St helen's demonstrated carving out of hard rock as well which suprsied me.

---

The material "carved" at Mt. St. Helens was not hard rock! Much of it was flour like dust, as easily eroded as anything. And in the "book" of sediments of the earth, the Mt. St. Helens produced sediment is perhaps a "letter".

quote:

---

I am satisfied that the flood, although instigated by God, occurred thourgh primarily actualistic means. The details are yet to be worked out, sure. God seems to have a habit of 'first the natural, then the sprititual' as my triune dispensational view of earth history (above) hints.

---

Much of the details have been worked out. The evidence indicates that God's process of creation took many millions of years. Radiometric dating indicates that it took billions. What you are proposing has nothing to to with actualism.Care to visit the "Uniformitarianism" topic?,Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Catastophic weathering??? Isn't that like a catastrophic collision involving two turtles running into each other? Sounds like you're piling on miracles! What about that actualism?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

From the sites geoglossary:
http:///WebPages/Glossary_Geology.htmlOr the more direct jump:
http:///WebPages/Glossary_Geology.html#W

quote:

---

Weathering - The processes by which rocks are chemically altered or physically broken into fragments as a result of exposure to atmospheric agents and the pressures and temperatures at or near the earth's surface, with little or no transportation of the loosened or altered materials.

---

Actually, you can learn a lot of geology, just reading this glossary. I just copied it to my computer. May print it out later.Moose (soon to be Dean of Admissions, Whatsamatta U)------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Edge said:

quote:

---

I don't know. It may be attainable. It's just that most meandering streams we see occure near base level, which in this case appears to be the Pacific Ocean. Now not only do you have to develop a meander pattern by erosion/deposition (which we see occurring very slowly today), but then you have to create the Kaibab uplift and then erode the hard rocks (by your own admission) to the depth of the Grand Canyon. And all of this has to be done in less than 4000 years, in fact, probably about 2000 years.

---

I believe that the mainstream perspective is that the Grand Canyon was eroded as the plateau was uplifted over the past 2 million years (not an erosionial event initiated on an already uplifted plateau). As such, it all started as a much nearer to base level meandering stream, which became entrenched as the uplift happened.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Actually, I haven't a problem at all with the mainstream explanation, these are both just guesses. I am quite willing to interpret evidence outside of a global flood framework, edge doesn't seem to like that though.

---

You are calling the conclusions of mainstream geologic study to be "guesses"!!! You are saying said conclusions lack validity!!!Time to trot out Glenn Morton's "Complete Geological Column" again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/Let's see the "flood geology" interpretation of this variation of the geologic column.I remind all, Glenn Morton is a former YEC, who published in the context of the ICR, up until his personal enlightenment that the YEC perspective of the geologic record just didn't make sense.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe