Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (9005 total)
228 online now:
(228 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,189 Year: 12,937/23,288 Month: 662/1,527 Week: 101/240 Day: 29/35 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 90 of 519 (485909)
10-12-2008 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Architect-426
10-08-2008 12:41 AM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
quote:
Actually, the vast majority of mountains are volcanic, and were formed via volcanic dynamics. The Colorado Rockies for example, all volcanic. Alaska and the Canadian Rockies, volcanic. Appalachians, deep volcanic roots. The Andes, probably the highest concentration of "active" volcanoes in the world (over 2,000 in Chile alone and counting....) Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, Turkey, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Iran, France, Italy (yes, even in the Alps there are volcanic dikes and the Dolomites were forced upward via volcanic action). The Himalayas, you bet those suckers blew their lids (no one lived to see it) and were then badly eroded by denudation followed by glaciation. Just north of the mountains is the Tibetan Plateau, a huge volcanic "field". Further north, the Tian-Shan mountains were known to have volcanic activity.

Actually, volcanism is essentially a near-surface process because much of it happens on or near the surface of the earth. Perhaps you meant plutonism or tectonics rather than volcanic dynamics?

Volcanism is the process that erupts hot material onto the surface of the earth from deep inside the earth, be it molten rock or hot water/steam. Most volcanic systems are found underwater and adjacent to subduction zones.

In addition:

1) the Rockies are certainly not "all" volcanic (see the Maroon Bells or the Flatirons) and were formed via tectonism;

2) the Appalachians are cored by metamorphic rocks, not volcanic, and were formed via tectonism (i.e., continent-continent collision); and

3) neither the Himalayas, Alps, nor the Tibetan Plateau are volcanic systems, but also the result of tectonism.

Is volcanism wide-spread across the globe? Of course. That does not mean, however, that the vast majority of mountains across the globe are the result of volcanism.

The vast majority are, in fact, the result of tectonism.

Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Edited by roxrkool, : Better terminology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Architect-426, posted 10-08-2008 12:41 AM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by edge, posted 10-12-2008 11:38 PM roxrkool has not yet responded
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2008 9:34 AM roxrkool has responded
 Message 109 by Architect-426, posted 10-16-2008 6:13 PM roxrkool has responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 93 of 519 (485965)
10-14-2008 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
10-13-2008 9:34 AM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Thesis is old news now and I couldn't be happier. Thanks for asking.

The defense was... fairly anticlimactic, actually. Afterwards, though, I thought I would want to go out and get drunk to celebrate the end of Hell. But it turns out I just wanted to go home and take a nice, long, unencumbered nap.

Hey, Edge. Got your email. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2008 9:34 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 101 of 519 (486097)
10-15-2008 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Architect-426
10-15-2008 6:34 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
You bring up an interesting point on sediments. I work with geotechnical engineers quite a bit on construction projects. Here, just under the topsoil, you have "sandy-silty-clay", or "silty-sandy-clay" or even "clayey-silty-sandy" material, and there are always boulders scattered throughout before you hit solid rock.

Haven't you ever been to a mountain river? I've seen boulders the size of buses and of course the river bed is full of sand, silt, and clay. If you've ever been to Alaska, you might see extensive braided stream systems of the same material. Nothing odd about this grouping of material, really.

Now where do you think all this material here in the Appalachians came from?

The Appalachians??

Sand - formed via mechanical (water)erosion of rocks , also formed when molten material is ejected into water as it immediately explodes into pieces.

It is very, very simple to tell the difference between glass, which is what forms from nearly instantly chilled "molten material," and minerals such as quartz, magnetite, feldspar, pyroxene, etc. Glass is amorphous (lacks internal crystal structure), while minerals have crystalline structure. As such, glass sand deposits are extremely rare and most are likely associated with impact structures. The sort of sand you are seeing in North Carolina is of the mineral kind.

Clay - bits of igneous rock flattened and mixed with water and sometimes organic material. Bentonite (as an example of a clay, not found here)in particular is volcanic and is formed as it is filtered through seawater.

Your understanding of clay is cursory.

There are two types of clay, the mineral variety (e.g., kaolinite, montmorillonite, ect.), and the particle size variety (< ~5 um). They do not have to come from igneous rocks (though much clay does), it has not been physically flattened, it does not have to come with water, and organic material is extraneous.

Bentonite, the mineral kind, is most certainly not a primary volcanic mineral, but most often forms from the alteration of volcanic-derived material such as ash. When ash (which is glass) is erupted from a volcano and happens to land on a lake, eventually it settles on the lake bed. Over time, the ash devitrifies (from amorphous to crystalline) and forms a clay mineral such as bentonite.

Silts - grain size rocks mixed with organic material, typically formed at the bottom of bodies of water.

It is not accurate to call silt a "rock." Silt is predominantly individual minerals. Neither is silt "formed at the bottom of bodies of water," but is instead formed from the physical break-down of rocks, which is then transported via fluvial, glacial, glaciofluvial, eolian, etc. processes, and deposited subaerially or in submarine environments.

They are simply smaller sand grains.

Boulders - well we all know what a boulder is but you should see some of the monsters we dig up. You have to ask, "now how did that 10 ton mass get there?" Then I have to get more money from the client to remove it....

Conclusion - mass destruction and flooding.


Sure, a large flood can move large boulders, but so can glaciers. This is still not enough evidence for a global flood if that is what you are suggesting.

Depending on the sediments, you might have evidence for a local flood. If you could trace your gravel deposit continuously across the entire country and throughout every continent, then you might have a good global flood argument.

Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Edited by roxrkool, : Better quotes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 6:34 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 104 of 519 (486100)
10-15-2008 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Architect-426
10-15-2008 10:59 PM


Re: Misconception Concerning Igneous Rock
You are confused and now I'm confused by your statement.

An "eruptive" rock that didn't erupt? Huh? edited to add: Ahhhh... I see what you mean. You mean an IGNEOUS rock that didn't erupt. You mean plutonic rocks.

A volcanic rock is one that has been erupted onto the surface of the earth or cooled in the near-surface environment and typically contains finer-grained crystals.

A plutonic rock is an igneous rock that cools and solidifies deep within the earth and typically contains coarser grained crystals.

BOTH are igneous rocks, but only volcanic rocks are eruptive.

Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 10:59 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 111 of 519 (486270)
10-17-2008 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Architect-426
10-16-2008 6:13 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
It seems to me you should first address those posts where your statements have been rebuked as wholly inaccurate.

Or does your silence signify concession on those matters?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Architect-426, posted 10-16-2008 6:13 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Architect-426, posted 11-18-2008 4:12 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 117 of 519 (486449)
10-20-2008 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Coyote
10-20-2008 3:33 PM


Re: The date of the flood - not necessary yet?
There are several problems, however:

1) Forcing YECs to pin down a date for the flood or identify sediments/rocks that mark the beginning and ending of the flood is virtually impossible. You are not going to get a concrete date.

2) YECs discount absolute dating techniques at their convenience (except when it happens to support a Biblical event).

3) Compressing the entire 4.5 billion year geologic record into a 10,000 year timeframe (+/- 4,000 to billions of years), results in geologic and geomorphologic events becoming issues that demand explanation.

4) Finding a YEC that understands even the very basics of the various sciences he or she is arguing is also virtually impossible, and this accounts for much of the frustration exhibited in these discussions. That's why they suddenly jump to other subjects -- they've exhausted their knowledge-base in those particular areas.

And those are just the tip of the iceberg.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 10-20-2008 3:33 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by petrophysics1, posted 10-20-2008 10:58 PM roxrkool has responded
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 10-21-2008 8:46 AM roxrkool has responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 119 of 519 (486455)
10-21-2008 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by petrophysics1
10-20-2008 10:58 PM


Re: The date of the flood - not necessary yet?
I'm a [CS] Mines grad myself. :)

Best of luck to your wife!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by petrophysics1, posted 10-20-2008 10:58 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 121 of 519 (486520)
10-21-2008 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Percy
10-21-2008 8:46 AM


Re: The date of the flood - not necessary yet?
I agree, Percy.

And to this I would add that Creationism is a perfect example of truthiness.

Some people need the Bible to represent absolute truth so much, that they are forced to will facts into existence.

This is a powerful foe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 10-21-2008 8:46 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 129 of 519 (488784)
11-17-2008 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Architect-426
11-16-2008 2:56 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Virtually all rocks, with the exception of some sedimentary rocks, were at one time molten, and had to be “placed” in their current position by a huge mechanism. If this is true, then technically all rocks are “volcanic”. Not all erupted out of a conical volcano, but were spread across the face of the earth in a “volcanic” fashion.

I am having a hard time figuring out what exactly you are saying here.

What is your definition of volcanic and what do you mean by "placed" and "spread across the face of the earth?"

Obviously, the first rocks on earth had to be igneous. Once the earth had land masses, the igneous rocks could start weathering, eroding, and breaking down into gravel and sand deposits. Once those gravels or sands harden by being cemented together, they are called sedimentary rocks. While the individual minerals and rock fragments of these sands and gravels technically started out as igneous phases, the new rocks are not termed igneous and were never molten.

Once the earth had bodies of water and had cooled sufficiently, carbonates started to precipitate and were interbedded with clays, siliceous oozes, iron, etc., to form marine deposits. These certainly were never molten, either.

With the advent of plate tectonics, rocks started getting smashed, ground, subducted, heated/cooked, all of which results in metamorphism. These are the only rocks that may locally reach a partially molten stage.

So where do geologists conclude rocks originate from if not via a volcanic mechanism?

Sedimentary rocks are identified as such based on composition, appearance, internal structures. These rocks form on the surface of the earth (on land or underwater) and record the conditions that existed therein, including water temperature, water chemistry, climate, atmospheric chemistry, etc. Sandstones, conglomerates, shales, limestones, volcanic ash fall, cherts, etc. all comprise sedimentary rocks. Geologists rarely have difficulty identifying sedimentary rocks or where in the geologic cycle they formed.

Metamorphic rocks are identified as such based on composition, appearance, and internal structures. Metamorphic rocks form from other rocks that have been subjected to new conditions. These rocks most often form below the surface of the earth under increased temperature and pressure, but also at contacts with igneous bodies where the original rock gets heated by the incoming magma body. These rocks are often very easy to identify, but occasionally have a similar appearance to igneous rocks.

Igneous rocks are identified as such based on composition, appearance, internal structures. These rocks formed either under the surface of the ground (intrusive, plutonic rocks) or were erupted onto the surface of the earth (volcanic rocks). They are derived from deep within the earth, were molten, and upon reaching cooler temperature regimes, hardened into rocks. Intrusive/plutonic igneous rocks tend to be coarser grained while extrusive/volcanic igneous rocks tend to be finer grained. They often have very well defined and intergrown crystalline structure. These rocks are rarely confused for anything other than metamorphic rocks on occasion.

While sedimentary rocks form on the surface of the earth, metamorphic and intrusive igneous rocks (because they are typically deep-seated) must be exposed to the surface in order to be revealed. This is accomplished through tectonics and weathering.

Rocks form in many different environments and by simply looking at the mineralogy, we can see under what conditions they formed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Architect-426, posted 11-16-2008 2:56 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 148 of 519 (488916)
11-19-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 10:53 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Are you aware that modern geology accounts for much land terrain or shores near seas as being caused by mini, isolated events of fountains of the deep suddenly bursting open and upward?

Hmmmm... I've been a geologist for 15 years and I have never ever heard of this. We do generally feel that portions of the geologic record are the result of 'mini' catastrophic events, such as localized flooding. How much of the geologic record is represented by these mini catastrophic events, however, is arguable.

As for the "fountains of the deep" portion of your statement. You have been misinformed. That is absolutely not true at all.

RAZD: your explanation of plates jutting ever upward makes ancient sea floor the mountain tops of today. If true then said mountains should be filled with layer after layer of fossilized marine life----not just the tops. How do you explain this alleged inconsistency?

First of all, mountains do not jut up ever upward. They can only get so high because of erosion and isostasy. Second of all, some mountains are in fact full of fossils. Some mountains also have fossils only at their bases. Some mountains only have fossils in their middles. You again have been misinformed regarding the location of fossils and mountains

Since the phenomena in question is at the tops, and only the tops, it is still better explained as the result of one great upheaval, instead of one uniform process drawn out over immense time.

Your argument has no merit since you obviously lack knowledge regarding the location and placement of fossils within mountains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 10:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 4:02 PM roxrkool has responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 155 of 519 (488926)
11-19-2008 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Cold Foreign Object
11-19-2008 4:15 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Obviously Ray, you need to define what "Ridged terrain sea shores" are because no one seems to know what the heck you are referring to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 4:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 156 of 519 (488927)
11-19-2008 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object
11-19-2008 4:02 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
rox: Hmmmm... I've been a geologist for 15 years and I have never ever heard of this.

Then you are out of touch.


I certainly could be uninformed regarding terminology used outside my area of expertise, however, my statement stands. I have never heard of ridged terrain sea shores.

And I never said a word about "mini catastrophic events" or "localized flooding."

You wrote:

"being caused by mini, isolated events of fountains of the deep suddenly bursting open and upward"

Those sudden bursts are "mini catastrophes" and unless you are referring to sudden bursts of air or gas, a sudden burst of water upon the surface of the ground would cause localized flooding.

You are out of touch. Ridged terrain sea shores is now known to be caused by fountains of water bursting upward out of the sea.

I've searched through several of my sedimentology, sedimentary environments, and facies models books and not one of them references "ridged terrain sea shores" or "fountains of the deep." Please define the terms and cite modern relevant references.

No one said they did. You need to develop better reading skills.

You did in fact make that statement. YOU stated, "your explanation of plates jutting ever upward makes ancient sea floor the mountain tops of today."

RAZD stated no such thing. YOU did. So stick that friggen' obnoxious blowhard attitude where the sun don't shine.

RAZD and I are discussing layers of fossilized marine life at the tops, attempting to determine the best explanation of said phenomena. If the phenomena was caused by plate conflict, as RAZD asserts, then I have asked why the entire mountain is not embedded with such phenomena since mountains, according to the so called natural explanation, are raised sea floor?

Yes, and since you are obviously aware of the fact that fossils don't solely occur at the tops of mountains, why is this line of questioning important?

RAZD says said layers could not have been formed in a year, that they were formed in a time scale corresponding to uniformitarian expectations. But if the phenomena at issue is only located at the tops then catastrophic upheaval is certainly a viable explanation.

Again, if fossils don't only occur on tops of mountains, why is this important?

Of course, as far as I am aware, science does not know how a wide spectrum of rocks and material behave in churning waters, and how the same settles.

If you want to know what geologists know, take some classes or pick up some books. Geologists have been modeling these things for decades. The science of geology has a pretty good idea of how rocks, sediment, debris, etc. behave in all sorts of water environments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 4:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-19-2008 6:22 PM roxrkool has responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 163 of 519 (488976)
11-20-2008 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by DevilsAdvocate
11-19-2008 6:22 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
The only think I can think of that even comes close to CFO's "ridged terrain sea shores" ("caused by fountains of water bursting upward out of the sea") are mud volcanoes.

Some links:

Mysterious Phenomena Fascinate Scientists and Tourists
Here's the dirty truth about mud volcanoes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-19-2008 6:22 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 167 of 519 (489168)
11-24-2008 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by edge
11-23-2008 11:21 AM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Please email me and let me know how he's doing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by edge, posted 11-23-2008 11:21 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020