Non-marine sediments

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Wehappy, I have never said there aren't aspects of the data that are not immediatley answerable (especially by me). As I pointed out in the above post we see the flood as a series of surges and their may have been aerial exposure for up to months. [/QUOTE][/b]
A period of months... repeated thousands of times for each minor unconformity? Still totally inadequate to explain complete lithification, karst, erosional surfaces, paleosols, weathering mantles, root traces, etc, etc, etc. [QUOTE][b]Whether this can account for your deposits I have no idea. In the case of salt domes etc I know creationists have proposed precipitative rather than evaporative processes.[/QUOTE][/b]
I know that, too, and I chuckle every time I read someone seriously proposing it as an explanation for evaporite deposits in the middle of a flood. These are not salt domes, BTW, just interbedded gypsum and other evaporites, with mudcracks, plant fossils, animal trackways, etc. If your "theory" cannot explain ALL the evidence, it is time to revise it or discard it... that's how science works. Your "theory" cannot come close to explaining a very large number of features in the GC... dozens of evaporite layers interbedded within the Grand Canyon strata is just one of them.

quote:

---

I've mentioned before that the conglomerates in two different formations could have been washed into both formations from the same hardened origin.

---

You've mentioned it several times now... and it still doesn't wash. These conglomerates are pieces of the underlying rock (sandstone, in this case)... rounded by erosion... and deposited in the basal layer of the overlying member. There is no mistaking these pebbles for some nebulous foreign material. The same goes for the other ones I mentioned. In fact, it is not uncommon to find fossils in well-rounded conglomerate pebbles... fossils that were supposedly formed DURING the Flood... yet had time to completely lithify, be rounded by erosion, and find their way into a stream channel within the "Flood strata"... all within a few weeks or months of sub-aerial exposure in your model. Now repeat this event thousands of times throughout the GC.Any progress on the RATE data?Do you have any data to support your proclamation that "The strata of the Cenozoic is qualitatiely differnet to that of the Mesozoic. I have seen that in print." ???

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, I would love to hear in your own words what you think Gould said about pre-PE paleontology and paleontologists and in what context?

---

Perhaps you should find the rest of Gould's quote. As I remember, he was basically arguing for PE, not against evolution. This is one of the most common out-of-context quotes used by creationists.

^ I agree!But the significance is that for most of a century they pretended that gradualism was true! If one thinks that something is true it's amazing how facts can be shoehorned to support it. That so-called 'evidence' of gradualism was transferred to evidence for evolution in general in the minds of everybody which was not justified. That is what we think happened in the whole evolution issue. I will soon start my paleontology thread and outline what I have discovered about how paleontology really works.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-04-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ I agree!But the significance is that for most of a century they pretended that gradualism was true! If one thinks that something is true it's amazing how facts can be shoehorned to support it. That so-called 'evidence' of gradualism was transferred to evidence for evolution in general in the minds of everybody which was not justified. That is what we think happened in the whole evolution issue. I will soon start my paleontology thread and outline what I have discovered about how paleontology really works.[/QUOTE]JM: Why not stick with one topic rather than try the Gish gallop through the board? The Gish gallop is quite successful in oral debate, but on these boards in tends to mute meaningful discussion. I do have some comments regarding some of the issues wehappyfew brought up here and elsewhere. One example that comes immediately to mind (having just finished a proposal) is the Vindhyanchal Supergroup of central India. This 5000+ m Precambrian sequence is of low metamorphic grade. According to you (and I am being generous) it was deposited at 0.5m/day (and rejecting your attempt to rewrite the days of the bible)! That's intriguing because this formation preserves stromatolites (blue green algae columns) that must have been growing at similar rates (can you find a modern analogue to that?). It preserves a host of sedimentary structures such as cross beds, ripple marks, load casts and trace fossils as well. The Lower Vindhyan is separated from the Upper Vindhyan by an angular unconformity. This means that ALL the lower Vindhyan was deposited, lithified and tilted prior to the deposition of the Upper Vindhyan. The Vindhyan Supergroup also contains a fine correlatable record of magnetic reversals within the group which you say occurred during the flood (as I recall). Younger overlap onto the Vindhyan is incomplete (seems weird that the flood would not be able to cover all of the Vindhyan). I dare say, you've got some problems that can be alleviated by abandoning the ye-framework and forcing the bible to fit your own bias. By the way, before you get all giddy about the Cambrian 'explosion' you might want to examine the recent literature. It seems it is becoming less and less explosive!CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 06-04-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 06-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Moose are you so sure of these (non-radioisotpoically) estimated ages for layers? I agree that geologists are very logical and thorough scientists, don't get me wrong. But the depositon rates are

​

(i) based on today's processes and
(ii) massaged to support the radioisotopic dates

​

I scientifically have no problem with this but it is also true. You just know that somehow it formed over, eg 20 million years, based on radioisotopic dating of nearby lava flows. In actual reality you have no idea how long any part of any bed took to form!

---

"(i) based on today's processes" - Yes, there's that uniformitarianism again. A solid, fundimental geological principle."(ii) massaged to support the radioisotopic dates" - I try to not emphasize radiometric dating, for it leads to the popular (mis)preception that it is the only age determaning method. But, yes, radiometric dating is indeed a powerful tool. And, yes, you are correct in that the radiometric dating only provides beginning and ending time boundries. It says nothing about the rates of details between those boundries. It does give a minimum rate for the entire interval, but that is all.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

[QUOTE]Originally posted by minnemooseus:
[B] "(i) based on today's processes" - Yes, there's that uniformitarianism again. A solid, fundimental geological principle."(ii) massaged to support the radioisotopic dates" - I try to not emphasize radiometric dating, for it leads to the popular (mis)preception that it is the only age determaning method. But, yes, radiometric dating is indeed a powerful tool. And, yes, you are correct in that the radiometric dating only provides beginning and ending time boundries. It says nothing about the rates of details between those boundries. It does give a minimum rate for the entire interval, but that is all.[/QUOTE]JM: What is going to be particularly disconcerting for creationists is when radiometric dating starts to be applied systematically to sedimentary rocks. I just finished an excellent paper on some Neoproterozoic glacial rocks in China (phosphorites) that were dated using U-Pb and Lu-Hf methods. Radiometric dating on interbedded volcanics has already estasblished itself as a useful chronometer in the Phanerozoic.CheersJoe Meert

Wehappy, I started this whole thread becasue I wanted to know what the true nature of the non-marine beds was. I have gone out on a limb to say that I expect some to be only explained by a large flood. Others will be unsorted. And I whole-heartedly agree there should not be too many aerial exposures in our model.It is very difficuly to have this discussion without knowing what the gross nature of these beds really is. How many multiple aerial exposures, what is the vertical distribution? How many unconfromities? etc etc. Quite understandably no-one here knows the details. It will be far easier to talk if we knew what we were up against. Just showing me refs that there exist footprints or evaporites somewhere in a formation is not really enough to go on. We need to see the whole story. I agree this processed data may not exist. If anyone can find such data let me know.I agree your points raie problems for the flood. Can I discuss them properly? Not really and it's not just my fault. How thick are your evaporite beds for example?

Joe, I'm sorry my multiple threads feels like a 'Gishian gallop' but there is also good reason to first look at the forests and then look at the trees. But I'll agree with you that I can't keep up with it so I'll stick to what I've started for a while!Where do you get 0.5 m/day from?You'll have to educate me (or I'll read on it tonight) on precambrian evolution and stromatolites. Is it agreed that algae definitely evolved in the Precambiran and didn't seep/migrate there?I take your point about the unconformity but are you sure it's not just mainstream expectation that makes you think you need lithification before tilting and creation of the unconformity? Don't jump on me here, I'm just raising the question. Alternatively 1000y might be a reasonable time for partial lithificaiton. We of course claim that the paelozoic etc lithified in under 4500 years.

Dating of sedimentary rocks will give the 'age' of the igneous particles making up the sedimentary rock. unles I am missing something, this will esentially give geologists a handle on the origin of the sediment. Sounds scientifically interesting for both sides IMO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Dating of sedimentary rocks will give the 'age' of the igneous particles making up the sedimentary rock. unles I am missing something, this will esentially give geologists a handle on the origin of the sediment. Sounds scientifically interesting for both sides IMO.

---

JM: You need to hit those textbooks again as you are incorrect! Look up the term authigenic. You might also want to see how one determines igneous minerals from sedimentary or metamorphic. It makes interesting reading. As for the 0.5m/day, I was being generous to ye-creationism. Your 1000 year day is quite outside the mainstream and reads more like an excuse than anything else. You also need to read about stromatolites, there is no doubt these are in-situ and to argue otherwise you'll need to show some field evidence.CheersJoe MeertCheersJoe Meert

^ OK, so authigenic minerals form in situ. And the crystalization traps decay products? It still sounds great for both sides. We have already ackowledged that the halos etc record actual decays, we admit that 'millions of years of decay' have occurred. So dating of actual sedimentary rocks wont be a problem becuase I actually already agree with the dating of sedimentary rock by lava flow anyway (in as far as they give a measure of amount of decay). I admit that we have to appeal to the phenomenon of accelerated decay via evoltuion of universal physical constants.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
But the significance is that for most of a century they pretended that gradualism was true!

---

Yeah, well... It still is!... Along with catastrophism!

quote:

---

If one thinks that something is true it's amazing how facts can be shoehorned to support it.

---

I know what you mean!

^ I'm talking about paleontological gadualism. It's amazing how modern paleontological books only list one or two transitonal forms along side the 500 vertebrate families they document in detail.I knew someone was going to make that second remark Edge!

Ummm... maybe you should start a paleo thread, but you are already spread pretty thin here...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Wehappy, I started this whole thread becasue I wanted to know what the true nature of the non-marine beds was. I have gone out on a limb to say that I expect some to be only explained by a large flood. Others will be unsorted.

---

Unsorted? What do you mean by that?It's been an interesting thread, and I've learned a lot scrounging around the web for geo-goodies. If you started it looking for information, then I have to ask... why have you spent so much posting space proclaiming and asserting what you believe, without evidence apparently, to be the cause of these geological strata?

quote:

---

And I whole-heartedly agree there should not be too many aerial exposures in our model.

---

Then your model is in serious trouble... there are hundreds of sub-aerial exposures - some very lengthy - evident in the Grand Canyon strata. [QUOTE][b]It is very difficuly to have this discussion without knowing what the gross nature of these beds really is. How many multiple aerial exposures, what is the vertical distribution? How many unconfromities? etc etc. Quite understandably no-one here knows the details. [/QUOTE][/b]
Actually the details are easy to find, but sometimes hard to understand. You've been reading the general descriptions and overviews without digging into the source material. Every one of the popular strata in the Grand Canyon has dozens of detailed descriptons published. Here's a nice list from a geologic map of the area, although it is still somewhat of an overview... GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE LITTLEFIELD QUADRANGLE, MOHAVE COUNTY, NORTHWESTERN ARIZONA[QUOTE][b]It will be far easier to talk if we knew what we were up against. Just showing me refs that there exist footprints or evaporites somewhere in a formation is not really enough to go on. We need to see the whole story. I agree this processed data may not exist. If anyone can find such data let me know.[/QUOTE][/b]
Check pages 19-21 in the link above.But you really need to start relying on the primary literature, although it's quite a bit more challenging. Here's a dissertation - almost 300 pages - devoted to describing in excrutiating detail everything that can be gleaned from just a fw dozen meters of strata in the Middle Proterzoic: Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5Part 6Seeley's dissertation uses sequence stratigraphy to uncover sedimentary environments and transgression-regression patterns. So far, you've only been exposed to the freshman level/Geology 101 material. If you get a handle on this stuff, then you will be ready for the upper level and graduate-level work. This is where Creationists commonly abandon their beliefs in favor of science and evidence.To even understand Seeley's dissertation, you will need to absorb this material:
An Online Guide to Sequence StratigraphyHere's a study of fractures and joints controlled by basement faulting. Check pages 118 and 119 to learn about more evidence the Redwall was fully lithified and subjected to sub-aerial erosion (and joint formation!) for a very long time... BASEMENT STRUCTURES AND FRACTURE SYSTEMS, COLORADO PLATEAU

quote:

---

I agree your points raie problems for the flood. Can I discuss them properly? Not really and it's not just my fault. How thick are your evaporite beds for example?

---

Depends on which ones you mean... they are spread throughout the Grand Canyon strata, in dozens of levels, probably thousands of individual layers. Many are quite thin... millimeters to centimeters... some are a meter thick or more. Many more layers are gypsiferous - containing some percentage of gypsum.Their sedimentary facies are commonly similar to modern sabkha environments where gypsum and other evaporites are being deposited today.Chek the primary literature for the details.

^ I'm very aware of the need for detailed scholarly work in any endevour. I simply made a propositon based on a preliminary look at the data and I am willing to accept your assesment that (i) many non-marine beds tell a story that may be inconsistent with the flood and (ii) I/we need to get into the details.I will still make my 'prediciton' that amongst the strata there will be unsual large beds consistent only with the flood. I will (i) keep an eye out for evidence of this and (ii) keep assessing the aerial exposure issues.Life sciences doesn't have desktop access to the geological literature tools - only the geoloogy department has. When I get time I'll stroll clandestinely into the geology library again and use Georef, always with the feeling that some faculty member is about to pull me up by the collar and perform a civilian arrest.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-05-2002]