Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
484 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 479 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,608 Year: 5,254/14,102 Month: 175/677 Week: 34/26 Day: 6/10 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 4 of 1304 (731262)
04-19-2014 3:18 PM


Your OP is intended to be an answer to the discussion about the supposed continuation of the Geologic Timescale at the bottom of the sea that came up on the Why Is Evolution Controversial thread. I raised the topic bof how it seems to me the Timescale has come to an end, which is dramatically pictured in the GC area at least. So the answer was given that no, it's continuing at the bottom of the ocean, as well of course as on the land but on a much smaller scale than the existing geo column.

I appreciate that you seem to be disputing that idea, since even if the ocean floor is being layered, in order for it to be a continuation of the geologic timescale, besides somehow becoming continental surface which is a physical impossibility, it would have to accumulate fossils of post-mammalian evolution and not just marine organisms. That's what the timescale tells us of course, we're moving up the sedimentary ladder from the marine stuff to the land stuff to the dinosaurs to the mammals to homo sapiens and supposedly onward to yet new evolutionary expressions etc.

Or maybe we're all going to live under the sea in the near future and that's going to make the nonsensical claim make sense.

ANYWAY, I know you didn't intend your picture to be a perfect representation of the idea but I can't really figure out what it's saying. What's needed is a way to show what Geology says about how the strata formed for instance in the Grand Canyon area. There the strata appear to be fairly horizontal and not on a tilt like those in your picture, which would make a difference to the height to which sea level wojld have to rise. But the tilt may not be intended to represent physical reality, only the sequence of depositions, it's hard to tell.

What's needed is understanding how the sea level rose to form the strata that are considered to be marine in origin, on the assumption that the whole column represents time periods at that very location.

The way it is determined which were formed where is by the fossil contents in the sediments. If they are the sort of thing that normally forms in shallow coastal water then the assumption is that shallow coastal water existed at that level so that they could form. I don't know if anyone has bothered to figure out if the geographical extent of a particular supposedly coastally-formed layer might suggest that the coast continued for the entire expanse of the continent or not, but some of the layers did extend to such a distance. Then above such a layer we may find fossils that normally live on land, and THEREFORE goes the prescient Geological reasoning, the sea must have receded so that that particular layer was high and dry for the duration. Then another layer on top of that, let's skip up to the Permian, is said to have formed in deep water (yes this was said on HBD's link to a Grand Canyon site way back there) so now we have the sea rising to that level and actually beyond that level so that particular limestone can form at the bottom of the ocean, now a mile higher than the lowest rocks in the current Grand Canyon. And all this is implied without anybody raising a question about how such a scenario could be physically possible.

And it's all built on speculation and assumption, yet treated as fact so that anyone who raises a question about it is considered to be unable to think scientifically. The "evidence" is the dead things in the strata, that's supposed to suffice for scientific procedure.

HOWEVER, I'm getting away from the topic, and what you are discussing is something called Walther's Law, which the diagram is intended to illustrate.

Basically, Walther's Law is that, in sea transgressions/regressions, the coarsest clastic sediments (sand to become sandstone) are deposited nearest to the shoreline. As you go further from shore (and deeper) the clastics get progressively finer to silts (siltstone) and then clays (shale). As you get far enough from shore the clastic sediments become less and less until what sedimentation you have left happening is carbonate (limestone).

For a sea transgression, this results in a vertical sequence of upward fining - Sand at the bottom, carbonate at the top. For the sea regression, the order is opposite - Carbonate at the bottom, sand at the top.


But does this sequence correspond to the sequence of depositions say in the Grand Canyon area? I find it interestingly suggestive, especially for a possible explanation of what the Flood might have done --- first a long transgression followed by a long regression --- but someone needs to explain how it relates to the specific strata in the GC canyon area.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 1304 (731263)
04-19-2014 3:55 PM


Or, would somebody please translate and explain this statement of Walther's Law:

The principle that facies that occur in conformable vertical successions of strata also occur in laterally adjacent environments. [A vertical progression of facies can be found corresponding lateral facies changes.]
They must have left out a word somewhere.

HERE

I get the general idea but I need to see it. It also seems rather obvious so it would help if someone also explained its significance. It also doesn't sound like what Moose is illustrating above.

Facies of course means "face" so we're talking about a visible presentation of strata as in the picture at that site, but exactly what "laterally adjacent environments" refers to I'm not sure.

Thank you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 7 of 1304 (731265)
04-19-2014 7:10 PM


Please stop referring to YECs as if we were some inferior species of ape. Thank you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 1304 (731269)
04-21-2014 1:26 AM


I recognize this illustration but I've never paid much attention to it before. If I don't reply to something it may be because my mind is elsewhere and I don't see the relevance of a particular post, especially one that requires quite a bit of time to think through. Sorry if that throws some psychoanalyses of my motives out of whack, such as Roxy's. Another reason I may not reply is because I ignore insulting posts, more and more lately. That includes an awful lot of Percy's recently. However, this one is neutral in tone.

The illustration is clear enough in relation to the previous posts about how strata are laid down although I'm not sure what people think I need to get from this, and I need to think about it a lot more anyway. Surely you know I'm going to apply it to the Flood, which it already suggests to my mind.

So I am to understand that the layers "farther from the coast" are under water? But then eventually the water regresses and the layers are now on the land.

I'd really like to know what distances we're talking about, and of course what lengths of time, and I'd like to see actual examples of phenomena that this diagram explains. Can you relate this sequence to the strata in the GC area for instance? Off the top of my head the sequence of sediments there doesn't suggest such an orderly progression.

ABE 4/21: I HAVE NO REASON WHATEVER TO OBJECT TO ANY OF THIS AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY ANYONE WOULD THINK SO. Edge keeps putting words in my mouth that have nothing to do with my point of view.

The sequences are interesting and could be valuable for the creationist model since after all the Flood was basically the ocean transgressing the land to a great depth and then regressing. /ABE

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 1304 (731274)
04-21-2014 10:21 PM


... I'd like to see actual examples of phenomena that this diagram explains. Can you relate this sequence to the strata in the GC area for instance?

Sure.
Eroding Land -> (unconformity) -> sandstone -> siliciclastic muds -> carbonate sediments.

Precambrian basement -> great unconformity -> Tapeats Sandstone -> Bright Angle Shale -> Mauv Limestone.

Thank you very much, I'm thrilled by this topic and really want to get further into it if I can. I hope others will find it interesting enough to contribute to it.

Yes, I know... you simply can't believe it.

I have no reason not to believe it.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 17 of 1304 (731275)
04-22-2014 12:03 PM


sedimentary sequence GC and GS
I was pondering the sequence of sediments in the Grand Canyon through the Grand Staircase, and really don't see an identifiable pattern to the sequence.

The Grand Canyon seems to be more dominated by limestones than the Grand Staircase which seems to be dominated by sandstones.

Grand Canyon:
Tapeats ---Sandstone
Bright Angel ---Shale
Muav ---limestone (shaly limestone)
Temple Butte ---limestone
Redwall Formation--- limestones
Supai Group Watahomigi ---limestone and small amt of mudstone
. ........ Mankacha ---sandy limestone, small amt mudstone
.......... Wescogame ---massive crossbedded sandstone, sandy limestone
...........Esplanade--- sandstone
Hermit ---shale
Coconino ---sandstone
Toroweap formation ---gypsum and shale
Kaibab ---limestone

Grand Staircase:
Moenkopi --- red sandstone
Chinle Formation --- Sandstones, siltstones, shales, conglomerate sandstone
Moenave & Wingate --- siltstone, mudstone, fine sandstone
Kayenta--- interbedded sand, silt, conglomerate
Navajo Sandstone
Carmel -Page --- siltstone
Entrada --- sandstone
Morrison --- mudstone, sandstone, siltstone, limestone (dinosaurs)
Dakota --- sandstone, intermittent mudflat sediments
Tropic Shale
Straight Cliffs --- "fluvial (river systems), paralic (swamps and lagoons), and marginal marine (shoreline) siliciclastic strata."
Wahweap --- sandstone and mudstone
Kaiparowits --- "formed from alluvial floodplains of large rivers in coastal southern Laramidia; sandstone beds are the deposit of rivers, and mudstone beds represent floodplain deposits. It is fossiliferous, "
Claron --- limestone

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 1304 (731280)
04-27-2014 8:57 PM


So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Another reason I may not reply is because I ignore insulting posts, more and more lately. That includes an awful lot of Percy's recently.

I vary my approach seeking what works best. You ignored so many of my posts in the Why the Flood Never Happened thread that when you hijacked the Why is evolution so controversial? thread to discuss the flood I decided to try a more direct approach. That didn't work either, so the search for your light bulb's on-button continues.

I wish you success in your worthy endeavor.

The illustration is clear enough in relation to the previous posts about how strata are laid down although I'm not sure what people think I need to get from this,...

What we all hope you "get from this" is that the sedimentary processes we see taking place today are the same ones that created the sedimentary layers we see in places like the Grand Canyon.

Although you seem to be laboring under the mistaken notion that I wouldn't like this idea, in fact I like it very much and hope I will be able to recognize it. So far I haven't seen the pattern.

We know this because the sedimentary layers of the geologic column are identical in character to sedimentary layers we see being deposited today, except that those of the geologic column have been subjected to great pressure and so have turned to rock.

I'm sorry but I'm completely unable to understand this paragraph. Identical how, and what does turning to rock have to do with it?

...and I need to think about it a lot more anyway.

While you think about this it should help you a great deal if you could incorporate into your thinking that your supposedly natural scenarios have to obey the laws of nature. When you claim scenarios that require flood water to sort by isotopic concentration (which you must acknowledge they do whether you accept the dating conclusions or not), or to deposit denser material above less dense material, or to sort fossils by difference from modern forms, or to transport burrows and worm tracks and footprints and egg clutches undamaged, then you're invoking processes that violate the physical laws of the universe.

Well, somehow all of that was accomplished due to the Flood, the question only remains how. I've given some reasonable ideas whether you like it or not, some of which come from some eminent Creationists, but perhaps this model of deposition being pursued in this thread will prove clarifying.

Surely you know I'm going to apply it to the Flood, which it already suggests to my mind.

We're aware of your flood bias, but to what end are you confessing this bias while claiming to be scientific, where one must remain unbiased and just follow the evidence where it leads.

I have tons of evidence which I've been pursuing, so sorry you are blind to it, apparently willfully so. One does not "remain unbiased" when one HAS knowledge, or even a reasonable theory. And since all you have is a theory, not even a reasonable one, you might speak to yourself about keeping an open mind.

That you can't devise scenarios that don't violate physical laws is telling you something - it's just that you're not listening.

I don't listen to false accusations and if this keeps up I'm not going to bother with any more of your post. Nothing I've said violates physical laws, but plenty you have said has done so as I've pointed out before. Listen up yourself.

So I am to understand that the layers "farther from the coast" are under water?

Yes, that's correct. As sea transgresses onto land the older deposits become further and further from the coast and, of course, remain submerged. Here's the diagram again (click to enlarge):

O jolly good. I rather like that diagram.

Much of the rest is clear enough so I'll skip to


...and I'd like to see actual examples of phenomena that this diagram explains.

You'd like an example of transgression of the sea onto land?

No, examples of the order of deposition wherever that has occurred.

...I'd like to see you apply the same skepticism to the flood.

Believe it or not, it's not skepticism, I just want to get a grip on this phenomenon, which would involve seeing it played out. And especially in the Grand Canyon.

Have you ever seen any actual examples of a flood sorting by isotopic concentration or by evolutionary distance?

I've never used the term "isotopic concentration" and have no idea what you are talking about. I've never claimed to understand HOW the Flood sorted its cargo, only that it did and suggested a few facts that apply. Henry Morris had some theories about it, various experiments show that under some circumstances water sorts sediments, and apparently rivers sort them into layers as well. I've figured that for the Flood it has something to do with the currents and layers and tides and breaking waves of oceans, and I am of course aware that oceans do sort things, since they are so consistent about depositing sand sand sand on beaches, and your own model right here in this thread purports to show how they sort sediments. This is of course why I'm interested in it.

Have you ever seen a flood scoop up burrows and footprints and transport them elsewhere?

You are making up the usual straw man nonsense now. All I've suggested about burrows is that creatures got buried and sought a way out, and footprints show a similar attempt to flee rising water. Never said a word about transporting them, Percy, and your misrepresenting me is a HUGE reason I don't respond to your posts.

Have you ever seen a flood deposit a series of different strata? Have you ever seen a flood deposit fine sediment?

Rivers deposit layers, your own model here shows that rising ocean water deposits layers. As for fine sediment I've said over and over and over and over and over again that THE Flood is not to be compared to ordinary floods, this was a rising of the ocean to cover all the land mass in the world with sediments from all over the world. Get a clue Percy, stop this nonsensical stuff you've been doing. Clearly you aren't interested in the topic under discussion, only in confusing my arguments with your absurd straw men.

The answer to all these questions must be no. Not only has no one ever witnessed events like these, there's no evidence of any of them ever happening, and they all violate various physical laws as we understand them.

Well, you don't have a terrific record of understanding physical laws. Would it be possible to get back to the topic?


Can you relate this sequence to the strata in the GC area for instance?

Edge's answer in Message 15 was a good one, but I'll put it in vertical stratigraphic order:

Edge's answer was fine for the few lowest layers. After that the pattern doesn't seem to hold up.

•Mauv Limestone

•Bright Angle Shale

•Tapeats Sandstone

•great unconformity

•Precambrian basement

Uh, yeah, that's as far as he got.

Off the top of my head the sequence of sediments there doesn't suggest such an orderly progression.

When the sea retreats from the land then the now-exposed layers can be eroded away. If erosion takes the landscape down to a limestone layer and then the sea transgresses again then you can have a sandstone layer deposited upon a limestone layer, but of course the limestone layer was deposited long before. We see this at the Grand Canyon where the Supai Group consisting mainly of sandstone overlies the RedWall Limestone.

Um, this sure sounds like galloping ad hoccism to me. And it must wreak havoc with the handydandy Geologic Timescale that they all represent. And anyway, you'd have to be specific about each of those layers, showing the risings and fallings and the erosions and all of that. Otherwise this is just a meaningless wild guess. And besides, this ISN'T the terms in which the deposition of the GC layers is normally discussed.

Skipping some more irrelevant nonsense in here, the usual misrepresentations, misreadings, accusations and general nonsense, not to mention evasion of the topic, let us proceed to:

The sequences are interesting and could be valuable for the creationist model since after all the Flood was basically the ocean transgressing the land to a great depth and then regressing.

Your flood washed across the landscape in a short period of time and for most of its duration covered all the land and had no coastlines.

It had coastlines in transit, in transgression and then in regression. But the fact of the water's standing for so long could explain why the strata in the GC DON'T fit the model as well as you're claiming, requiring all that made-up adhoccing about retreats and erosion and all that. Where's your evidence, Percy? Na, just a lot of ad hoc blather.

How did this flood deposit coastal sedimentary layers like sandstone and shale that take eons to form?

Have you ever seen these things form over aeons? Of course not. Then don't ask me what I've seen. Pure theoretical hooha there. But there were stages to the rising of the Flood waters, most likely deposition as they rose, then as they stood, then as they regressed.

A coastline has to exist for a considerable period of time to produce all the sand in sandstone layers and all the silt, mud and clay of shale layers. How did this flood deposit miles of very finely grained limestone layers that require warm quiet seas ("quiet" because active waters will keep fine grains suspended in the water rather than depositing them) for eons.

I was asking how you explain the layering of the Grand Canyon by your model, Percy. Obviously you don't have a real answer, just your silly adhoccism. You'd much rather blather on about nonsense trying to discredit a Flood theory of deposition I haven't even thought about yet. You erect your own straw man Flood and shoot down your straw man. As usual.

Who knows how "active" the water was when it was standing? You don't. And how can you possibly explain such enormous depths of sediments on any OTHER model than something on the scale of the worldwide Flood? And again, you haven't a clue about how many "aeons" any of this should take.

You need answers to these questions that don't violate the laws of nature. You can't just say, "This was a flood like no other and wouldn't behave like normal floods." It wouldn't be acceptable to you if we were to say, "Our planet's geologic record was created from processes that have never before been observed and that appear to violate known physical laws, but we know they happened anyway," so why are you asking us to accept such answers from you?

Well, a worldwide Flood WOULD be like no other. Duh.

Why are you carrying on about these things instead of trying to show how your model fits the Grand Canyon or any other depth of strata?

We understand you're convinced the flood doesn't require magical processes, but the validity of one's ideas is their power to convince others. By this measure your ideas have no validity.

Tell that to all the scientists in history who had the devil of a time getting their ideas accepted. Boy was that a ridiculous comment, Percy.

Besides, the furious prejudice against creationists here would block many from even considering anything I have to say, and most of what I've said HAS been misrepresented too. Don't tell me how easy it should be to convince anybody here of anything. The way you garble my arguments makes this a hideous joke for starters. AND AGAIN, considering the fact that all this is "HISTORICAL SCIENCE" which is almost entirely a matter of persuasion and is not amenable to the testing methods of experimental science, you've got to be kidding that for a creationist to be right means convincing the denizens of EvC.

Would it be possible for anybody to return to the topic and try to make a case for how Walther's Law applies to the Grand Canyon area strata?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 24 of 1304 (731282)
04-27-2014 10:56 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
duplicate

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 1304 (731283)
04-27-2014 10:57 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Good grief, man, I listed all the sediments for you. I don't see a pattern there, the one Percy suggested sounds off the wall to me, I am VERY open to finding such a pattern, would really like to, so your bitter complaint that my mind is closed is out of order, and if YOU see a pattern in that list I'll first be amazed, but second, grateful.

And please try to follow what I'm saying. I didn't say I hadn't thought about the FLood, what I haven't thought about is how this model might or might not apply to it, and that is because I have not yet seen any pattern beyond the first few layers you demonstrated for the GC. I would like to see this model in action wherever it applies, not just the GC. ABE: AND I haven't quite absorbed the model itself anyway yet /ABE

ABE: All I can say about how this relates to the Flood is that I absolutely do not believe there were any significant risings and fallings of sea level except for the one great rise and fall of the Flood. So since this model obviously has something to do with a rising and falling it would be very interesting to see if the stages of the Flood could somehow be taken into account by it. /ABE

However, your bitter frame of mind doesn't bode well for any sort of discussion as usual. So perhaps someone else will come along who isn't as sensitive about OE Geology being criticized by a creationist.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 27 of 1304 (731285)
04-28-2014 12:49 AM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Right, you're way too jaundiced to even begin to have a discussion. Go take a nap or something.

ABE: So you know all the sediments and you see that pattern of deposition shown in that model in them?

Here, I even reversed the order so it will read from top down:

Grand Staircase:
Claron --- limestone
Kaiparowits --- "formed from alluvial floodplains of large rivers in coastal southern Laramidia; sandstone beds are the deposit of rivers, and mudstone beds represent floodplain deposits. It is fossiliferous, "
Wahweap --- sandstone and mudstone
Straight Cliffs --- "fluvial (river systems), paralic (swamps and lagoons), and marginal marine (shoreline) siliciclastic strata."
Tropic Shale
Dakota --- sandstone, intermittent mudflat sediments
Morrison --- mudstone, sandstone, siltstone, limestone (dinosaurs)
Entrada --- sandstone
Carmel -Page --- siltstone
Navajo Sandstone
Kayenta--- interbedded sand, silt, conglomerate
Moenave & Wingate --- siltstone, mudstone, fine sandstone
Chinle Formation --- Sandstones, siltstones, shales, conglomerate sandstone
Moenkopi --- red sandstone

Grand Canyon:
Kaibab ---limestone
Toroweap formation ---gypsum and shale
Coconino ---sandstone
Hermit ---shale
Supai Group:
......Esplanade--- sandstone
......Wescogame ---massive crossbedded sandstone, sandy limestone
......Mankacha ---sandy limestone, small amt mudstone
......Watahomigi ---limestone and small amt of mudstone
Redwall Formation--- limestones
Temple Butte ---limestone
Muav ---limestone (shaly limestone)
Bright Angel ---Shale
Tapeats ---Sandstone
Vishnu, Zoroaster, Great Unconformity etc.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 29 of 1304 (731287)
04-28-2014 1:57 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
So, why can't the record go from sandstone to siltstone and back to sandstone and stay in the same model?

Well, if you don't see a problem with that I guess I'll have to ponder it more.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 1304 (731289)
04-28-2014 2:05 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
The model suggests that there is a certain order to the depositions.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 1304 (731291)
04-28-2014 2:15 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 36 of 1304 (731294)
04-28-2014 8:00 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
I said I still need to think about the model and I will ponder it when I get to it.

They aren't merely "not exactly duplicated," they are completely jumbled with respect to the order of the model.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 464 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 38 of 1304 (731296)
04-28-2014 11:08 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
That's a good point. I'll think about it.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021