So how did the GC get laid down from a mainstream POV? Deterministic models?

I have not come across a ref that explains how the GC (= Geological column NOT Grand Canyon) arrived from a mainstream POV. I have seen a lot of ancient sedimentary environments matched with contemporary couterparts but this usually involves small formations and typically ignores the vast beds that traverse sub-continental regions. I have not seen mainstream explanations of what specifically caused the vast beds of each geological period and if this can be explained deterministically to any extent.In the mainstream literature I discovered that 'epeiric seas' which supposedly generated the vast beds that characterise the geological column no longer exist anywhere on earth (due to plate tectonics):R.C. Shelly Ancient Sedimentary Environments 4th Ed Chapman & Hall (London) 1996
p197 "It is difficult to use modern shelf seas as analogues for their ancient counter parts for two reasons. First, at the present time, the earth lacks the vast sub-horizontal shelves that existed in previous times. For example, it is possible to trace a remarkable (sic) uniform Paleozoic stratigraphy in marine formations across much of modern North america. Similarly it is possible to trace antoher uniform stratigraphy in shallow marine Mesozoic formaitons across much of Arabia. These are examples of sediments deposited on broad shelves, commonly referred to as 'epeiric seas', the like of which are absent today. This reflects the fact that the earth is now in an unstable and exciting phase of its history, in which the vast continental plates of the past have been rifted and drifted apart."Q1. So what is the mainstream explanation for all of the strata? Do epeiric seas explain it?
Q2. And what of all of the sea level fallings and risings that repeatedly covered entire continents?
Q3. Do you really think the marine deposits are ocean floor habitats? Why so flat?
Q4. How do you address the vast beds littered with land plant and animal fossils? Coal beds the size of US states?
Q5. And what is the status of deterministic models along these lines?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-22-2002]

Let's not conduct a Gishian gallop. You've got plenty of other threads going on this topic and starting another one merely deflects focus.CheersJoe Meert

I think that this topic deserves treatment in it's own right. I have spent the last 6 months trying to uncover the answer to these questions and IMO it is very poorly understood from a mainstream POV. This is not a sideline to the purpose of this BBS and neither should it be tucked away in discussions on 'rapid generation of layers in the creationist model'.I want to know about YOUR model. I have done a lot of reading and I can't find out about this aspect specifically.

You've already a thread going on GC stratigraphy. No need to start a new one.CheersJoe Meert

^ In the interest of clarity I would like this topic treated separately. Joe, if you don't wish to take part in this thread I'm disappointed but that's your right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ In the interest of clarity I would like this topic treated separately. Joe, if you don't wish to take part in this thread I'm disappointed but that's your right.

---

JM: I think I'll stick to the original thread. You can start as many new threads as you like, it's a good technique in debate boards.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Q1. So what is the mainstream explanation for all of the strata? Do epeiric seas explain it?
Q2. And what of all of the sea level fallings and risings that repeatedly covered entire continents?
Q3. Do you really think the marine deposits are ocean floor habitats? Why so flat?
Q4. How do you address the vast beds littered with land plant and animal fossils? Coal beds the size of US states?
Q5. And what is the status of deterministic models along these lines?]

---

I agree with Joe. You've got at lot of threads in which you are entirely outgunned. You have a lot of questions to answer out there. Let's just say that there are a lot of basic texts and topical literature regarding the Grand Canyon designed for the layman out there. Pick a cheap one up from Amazon. You can read it in an hour or two. The problem we are having here is that you need so much background that we cannot really provide it in a forum such as this. TB, we spent years getting all of this stuff.

Sorry Edge, but I've read thousands of pages of that stuff you're talking about. The mainstream material does not answer my questions compellingly and that is why neither of you will even post a layman's summary IMO.I can give you a layman's introdution to any aspect of molecular biology or particle physics you would care to hear about. Why can't you do that for me on what should be a bread and butter geological foundation? I am truly interested in answers from geolgoists on this board.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Sorry Edge, but I've read thousands of pages of that stuff you're talking about. The mainstream material does not answer my questions compellingly and that is why neither of you will even post a layman's summary IMO.

​

I can give you a layman's introdution to any aspect of molecular biology or particle physics you would care to hear about. Why can't you do that for me on what should be a bread and butter geological foundation? I am truly interested in answers from geolgoists on this board.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-22-2002]

---

JM: Given what you think about Helium in the atmosphere, I am not sure I want to hear you lecture on particle physics .

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Sorry Edge, but I've read thousands of pages of that stuff you're talking about. The mainstream material does not answer my questions compellingly and that is why neither of you will even post a layman's summary IMO.

---

There are two problems here. First, you may have read thousands of pages of mainstream geology, but you have not picked up the foundations of good geological reasoning that one would get in a basic Geology curriculum. On the other hand you seem to find professional creationists more compelling. This is not logical.Second, I seriously doubt that you will ever find anything compelling outside of rigid, absolutist religious philosophy. This is what your professional creationists give you, so you believe it.

quote:

---

I can give you a layman's introdution to any aspect of molecular biology or particle physics you would care to hear about. Why can't you do that for me on what should be a bread and butter geological foundation? I am truly interested in answers from geolgoists on this board.

---

I'm sure that you can do this. One reason you could do so is that we have some background in science and you know that we will not dogmatically reject even the most basic of your premises and evidence. On the other hand, we have to show you that your assumption of simultaneity of all sedimentation based on the direction of paleocurrents completely suspends the laws of logic. We will never be able to do this because you are dogmatically convinced of it. You would be wasting our time.

Joe and Edge, let's forget about creation/flood for a minute - just what are the mainstream explanations, both qualitatively and deterministically, for the origin of the vast beds of the GC including the multiple inundations of continents by the sea and terrestial plant and animal fossil beds?Joe, I'm afraid your mistaken on the helium issue (and your thinnly veiled personal attacks are wearing thin BTW) - that is a well known mainstream result that 'the helium budget' is a problem. The detailed models have not been able to explain the low abundance of helium in the air. There are two main competing efects: radiogeneic helium into the air from igneous rocks and escape from the atmosphere via Boltzman (his distribution). Escape from the atmosphere has not been able to explain it. Creationist explain it easily becasue we have found where the helum is! It hasn't had time to diffuse out of the rocks. I'm not saying that there will not be a mainstream solution, but there currently isn't one and there is a creaitonist one.Refs: The RATE book (see last link) has the diffusion calc in it (I've read it), the mainstream Gentry ref records evidence of vast excess helium in zircons, the web links contain mainstream refs to the helium budget problem, and I link to the RATE site where they report that the experimental helium diffusion rate backs up their previouls argon extrapolation:R.V. Gentry, G.L. Glish and E.H. McBay (1982) Geophys Res Lett 9:1129-1130
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1401.asp#r7
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n2_helium.asp
http://www.icr.org/headlines/ratereport.htmlI have absorbed much of the basic backgound of geology although I do not deny I make mistakes of jargon and cannot compete with a real geologist. If you made even the simplest attempt to appeal to a general audiance I would be able to understand what you are saying. I have read most of Chernicoff and three sedimentology texts from cover to cover! If you can't talk to me who can you talk to!

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe and Edge, let's forget about creation/flood for a minute - just what are the mainstream explanations, both qualitatively and deterministically, for the origin of the vast beds of the GC including the multiple inundations of continents by the sea and terrestial plant and animal fossil beds?

​

Joe, I'm afraid your mistaken on the helium issue (and your thinnly veiled personal attacks are wearing thin BTW) - that is a well known mainstream result that 'the helium budget' is a problem. The detailed models have not been able to explain the low abundance of helium in the air. There are two main competing efects: radiogeneic helium into the air from igneous rocks and escape from the atmosphere via Boltzman (his distribution). Escape from the atmosphere has not been able to explain it. Creationist explain it easily becasue we have found where the helum is! It hasn't had time to diffuse out of the rocks. I'm not saying that there will not be a mainstream solution, but there currently isn't one and there is a creaitonist one.

​

Refs: The RATE book (see last link) has the diffusion calc in it (I've read it), the mainstream Gentry ref records evidence of vast excess helium in zircons, the web links contain mainstream refs to the helium budget problem, and I link to the RATE site where they report that the experimental helium diffusion rate backs up their previouls argon extrapolation:

​

R.V. Gentry, G.L. Glish and E.H. McBay (1982) Geophys Res Lett 9:1129-1130
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1401.asp#r7
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n2_helium.asp
http://www.icr.org/headlines/ratereport.html

​

I have absorbed much of the basic backgound of geology although I do not deny I make mistakes of jargon and cannot compete with a real geologist. If you made even the simplest attempt to appeal to a general audiance I would be able to understand what you are saying. I have read most of Chernicoff and three sedimentology texts from cover to cover! If you can't talk to me who can you talk to!

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-22-2002]

---

JM: Tell you what, I'll back off the claims a bit providing you supply me with a list of published references demonstrating that the helium problem is a real issue for the age of the earth. Creationist websites are claiming it is, but I've yet to find any peer-reviewed source supporting this argument. In fact, the websites you provide are quite vague in their descriptions using words like 'too high' (how high is too high and what are the errors associated with 'too high'. Many do not even discuss which isotope of helium they are talking about. These links do not discuss the issue scientifically, they simply suggest a problem.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe and Edge, let's forget about creation/flood for a minute - ...

---

That's kind of hard to do, since it is so ridiculous, but I guess I have a minute.

quote:

---

...just what are the mainstream explanations, both qualitatively and deterministically, for the origin of the vast beds of the GC including the multiple inundations of continents by the sea and terrestial plant and animal fossil beds?

---

This reminds me of an oral examination where I was supposed to give the entire history of the Colorado Mineral Belt, name deposits, products, intrusions, ages, hosts and mining methods in seven minutes. TB, it ain't that simple. And any sketchy summary will probably be abused by yourself because it will omit details. For instance, I could tell you that one likely reason for marine transgressions is increased rate of spreading at the divergent boundaries accompanied by tumescence of the mid-ocean ridges, which would displace seawater across lower parts of the continents. Well, to you, that means that the break up of the continents and accelerated drift was related to the flood, and Baumgardnter et al. are correct, right? So I am forced to make further and further enhancements of the model until you may as well take a basic Geo course. Union rule forbid this. We could end up putting a bunch of professors out of work. We can try to give you some clues here and there, but realistically, if you think transported soils would look like normal soils, you have a ways to go.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe, I'm afraid your mistaken on the helium issue

---

No he's not. There is no problem with the quantity of helium in the atmosphere and plenty of evidence that it can escape. For one thing, solar winds have been seen to cause fountains of oxygen, hydrogen and helium to spray into space: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast08dec98_1.htm[b] [QUOTE](and your thinnly veiled personal attacks are wearing thin BTW)[/b][/QUOTE]All part of the rough-and-tumble. As long as it doesn't turn nasty, it's half the fun of the boards. You should see what poor TC has to put up with![b] [QUOTE]If you made even the simplest attempt to appeal to a general audiance I would be able to understand what you are saying. I have read most of Chernicoff and three sedimentology texts from cover to cover! If you can't talk to me who can you talk to![/b][/QUOTE]O come on! Joe is giving you every opportunity to follow his line of thought.

According to AIG these 1977 and 1987 mainstream texts cover the problem:1. C.G. Walker, Evolution of the Atmosphere, Macmillan, 1977.2. J.W. Chamberlain and D.M. Hunten, Theory of Planetary Atmospheres, 2nd Ed., Academic Press, 1987.and the creationist Vardiman has discussed it in depth in a book devoted to the subject that is in print:3. The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research, 1990.His on-line summary of the problem is at http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-143.htm .Note that the mainstream reseachers in ref 2 said in 1987 that the helium accumulation problem "will not go away, and it is unsolved".