Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata

Faith in another thread makes the assertion that the modern geologic concept of the deposition of strata makes no sense:

quote:

---

But the idea that the strata could have built up over billions of years is ridiculous on the face of it. A few feet of perfectly horizontal evenly deposited sediments is supposed to have occurred over a few million years? What, at a rate of a millimeter a century? No rain, no wind, no flooding, no erosion, no earthquakes, no disturbances? Over huge swaths of planet earth? In all the mountains that were pushed up after it formed, in all the deserts, everywhere one looks? Then precisely sharply demarcated from another similar formation of a different kind of material equally homogeneous and neatly laid down bit by tiny bit for another umpteen million years with another neat horizontal demarcation and so on and so forth and that's taken as real?

---

I don't understand their objections, for two reasons:1) The strata do show indications of all of the above processes occuring, and yet, there they are. And of course, the strata are neither perfectly homogenous, nor perfectly horizontal. Nor is the column the exact same over all of Planet Earth. So clearly a number of her objections stem from the fact that she clearly doesn't know what the geologic column is.2) It's your assertion that flooding, among other things, would have prevented strata from forming; your alternate model, therefore, is that the geologic strata were laid down... by a flood? Did that make sense to you when you came up with it?Like I said, I don't understand these objections. I hope Faith will join us here to elaborate on them. The only things that seem ridiculous on the face of it, to me, are her ill-conceived objections.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

quote:

---

I don't understand their objections, for two reasons:

​

1) The strata do show indications of all of the above processes occuring, and yet, there they are. And of course, the strata are neither perfectly homogenous, nor perfectly horizontal. Nor is the column the exact same over all of Planet Earth. So clearly a number of her objections stem from the fact that she clearly doesn't know what the geologic column is.

---

I know all those things. Perfection isn't the point. Forces have acted on them SINCE they formed in some parts of the world but they are clearly horizontal in origin. There is no process that could have created such formations over billions of years, and if this isn't intuitively obvious I think there is a wilful blindness going on.

quote:

---

2) It's your assertion that flooding, among other things, would have prevented strata from forming; your alternate model, therefore, is that the geologic strata were laid down... by a flood? Did that make sense to you when you came up with it?

---

This is not a matter of "marks" that can be "detected" as you put it on the previous thread. ANY of the usual weathering conditions planet earth experiences ANYWHERE over a single year would simply destroy any neat deposition of sediments. These occurring sporadically all over the planet over billions of years would simply have prevented the formation of anything like the geologic column. The only reasonable explanation of such horizontal layers is the tidal action of an enormous quantity of water that ultimately drained away.

quote:

---

Like I said, I don't understand these objections. I hope Faith will join us here to elaborate on them. The only things that seem ridiculous on the face of it, to me, are her ill-conceived objections.

---

Your not understanding them bodes very ill for any attempt to discuss them.

And what weathering processes are at work, say, in the abyssal plain 500 miles off Virginia, or, for that matter, in the center of Lake Huron? Or 50 miles out from the Mississippi Delta? Sure, there is rapid weathering up here on land, but that isn't where most deposition happens.Do I have to drag Lake Suigetsu into this discussion?

Well if you understand what you are saying perhaps you can help me out with a few questions.Depositional environments are often (AFAIK usually) underwater. How are rain and wind relevant in that situation ?How do you know that erosion is not taken into account ? Are you claiming that erosion must always overwhelm the rate of deposition everywhere ? Can you support that claim ?Do oyu have evidence that rain and wind are ignored in those depositional environments where they might apply (e.g. that the effects of wind are ignored in dealing with strata believed to be deposited under desert conditions) ?

Come out to the Texas Panhandle to Palo Duro Canyon and look around. There are hundreds of horizontal layers exposed there that alternate between red siltstone and white gypsum. Gypsum is slightly soluble in water, and only gets deposited in lakes/seas that are drying up. And, again, there are hundreds upon hundreds of layers of it in that canyon alone. How many times did that enormous quantity of water drain and dry?

quote:

---

ANY of the usual weathering conditions planet earth experiences ANYWHERE over a single year would simply destroy any neat deposition of sediments.

​

And what weathering processes are at work, say, in the abyssal plain 500 miles off Virginia, or, for that matter, in the center of Lake Huron? Or 50 miles out from the Mississippi Delta? Sure, there is rapid weathering up here on land, but that isn't where most deposition happens.
Do I have to drag Lake Suigetsu into this discussion?

---

The geologic column is worldwide. The question is how anything could have formed in neat horizontal layers over billions of years under normal conditions of surface disruptions as we experience them, normal weather being a constant source of such disruptions.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2005 14:04 AM

quote:

---

Come out to the Texas Panhandle to Palo Duro Canyon and look around. There are hundreds of horizontal layers exposed there that alternate between red siltstone and white gypsum. Gypsum is slightly soluble in water, and only gets deposited in lakes/seas that are drying up. And, again, there are hundreds upon hundreds of layers of it in that canyon alone. How many times did that enormous quantity of water drain and dry?

---

The flood theory as I understand it postulates fine sediments pulverized in the catastrophe being precipitated out in layers with tidal action over some long period of time. But I'd ask how billions of years of undisturbed deposition explains that formation better?

You were asked some very specific questions about weathering in named places. Your response gives no hint that you read them.Could you please demonstrate that you understand what is being asked?

The geologic column is incomplete in most places worldwide, though. Here under my chair there's precambrian, Ordovician, Pennsylvanian, a bunch of Permian, and a bit of Triassic rock. It was sea here when those were being deposited. For all the rest of the column, Scurry County was either not a site of deposition, or, if it was at some point, the sediments got eroded away, just as you say. That how sedimentation acts.Geologists have known about this sort of thing for about two centuries now. Deposition over here, erosion over there. I don't guess I understand your point, Faith.

quote:

---

Well if you understand what you are saying perhaps you can help me out with a few questions.
Depositional environments are often (AFAIK usually) underwater. How are rain and wind relevant in that situation ?

---

Great. You agree that it had to occur in water. You are on your way to Flood theory.

quote:

---

How do you know that erosion is not taken into account ? Are you claiming that erosion must always overwhelm the rate of deposition everywhere ? Can you support that claim ?

---

Neat horizontal buildup could not occur under normal weather conditions and other surface disruptions all over planet earth and it wouldn't be matter of taking erosion and other effects into account, it would simply prevent such a formation. Couldn't happen. But of course if you understand that water caused it all, I'm in agreement.

quote:

---

Do oyu have evidence that rain and wind are ignored in those depositional environments where they might apply (e.g. that the effects of wind are ignored in dealing with strata believed to be deposited under desert conditions) ?

---

Just logic as above. Sorry. As I said, the effects of wind and rain etc. in each of the billion years would demolish the whole edifice.

Those particular Permian redbeds are alternating red silt/sand and gypsum. The gypsum didn't come from anything "pulverized," but by growing as crystals in warm, evaporating, salty water. The same sort of thing happens today, on Interstate 20 west of Big Spring, for one example. A big flat right by the highway fills up with a few inches of water about every other year, and the dirt and sand in the water falls out soon after the rainstorm that washed it there. Over the next few months, the water evaporates and its dissolved gypsum (and salt) falls out and makes a layer over the silt. Another wet/dry cycle has to happen to build another red/white pair of layers. That pair might be a quarter-inch thick - and the redbeds at Palo Duro are a couple of hundred feet thick, red/white, red/white all the way.

quote:

---

You were asked some very specific questions about weathering in named places. Your response gives no hint that you read them.
Could you please demonstrate that you understand what is being asked?

---

You appear to be talking about underwater locations. I assume the geologic column was formed under water and the layers were not subjected to normal weathering as that would prevent any such formation whatever. Weathering is a problem for any view of its having been formed gradually over time all over the earth in similar conditions to what we now have. I don't see the relevance of referring to specific named places so I didn't give it any thought beyond recognizing that you are talking about underwater locations.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2005 14:22 AM

I don't see the relevance of specific local formations in a discussion of a worldwide phenomenon. I'm sure there are many anomalies that need separate discussion at some point, but your local situation doesn't deal with the general situation of the strata all over the earth that are visible by anyone with two eyes. The idea that they built up over billions of years is untenable to say the least given normal daily surface disruptions as we experience them.I should leave this discussion to you guys as I'm not really interested in it anyway.I have to get some work done.

So in other words rather than actually presenting the views of geologists you are presenting something you yourself made up. I think that explains why it is silly.If you've only got a vague idea about what is actually found in geology and know almost nothing about the actual explanations proposed by geologists then shallow "reasoning" of the sort you've described is not going to be of much use to you.Yet you actually have the nerve to claim:

quote:

---

my main argument is that the Geologic Time Table is such a silly idea on the face of it, just looking at the strata it supposedly explains, it should embarrass scientists to take it seriously.

---

Why are creationists so reluctant to do even basic research yet so willing to throw out unfounded attacks ?