Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 7:28 PM
27 online now:
edge, jar, Jon, kjsimons, xongsmith (5 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,973 Year: 12,009/19,786 Month: 1,790/2,641 Week: 299/708 Day: 74/52 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
Stile
Member
Posts: 3586
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 58 of 1257 (787958)
07-24-2016 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
07-24-2016 8:44 AM


In the long, long ago
Faith writes:

Look, what we actually have is the rock strata and that's ALL we have and we have LOTS of it, and there is absolutely nothing about it that suggests anything whatever occurred between the layers of rock. One sediment got laid down and not too long afterward another, up the entire stack. The former environments imputed to those rocks simply never existed.

Pick a rock layer in the middle.

Now go back to the past, when that "middle" layer was actually the top layer.
At this time, the "rock layer" was not rock. It was dirt and sediment and such things. It likely grew plants and animals walked on it and bugs crawled around inside it. It was a landscape.

As lots and lots of time passes... the layers get covered.
As they get covered with more stuff, they get pressurized by all the weight of the stuff above them. That's when they become rock.

"All that rock strata" you see today is only rock now because it's been under the weight of all the layers above it for a very long time.
"All that rock strata" was not rock when it was the top layer. It was more like the dirt under your feet right now. It was a landscape just as you see under your feet right now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 8:44 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:47 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3586
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(3)
Message 957 of 1257 (790422)
08-30-2016 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 922 by Faith
08-29-2016 4:48 PM


Landscape to Rock
Faith writes:

If the creatures' habitat has been destroyed there's no place for them to go. Their habitat is gone, that's the end of it. The question where would they go was rhetorical. There's no place for them to go. You can't turn a habitat into a rock without depriving the inhabitants of their habitat.

This statement is true.

It takes a very long time for a livable-upon-landscape to become rock. For it to be buried deep enough, and the pressures to act on it long enough, we're talking millions of years.

So, yes.
When a landscape becomes rock, all living things that once lived on that landscape will be dead. Because living things don't live for millions of years. They would have died long, long ago. Long before the landscape became rock. Long before their habitats were destroyed.

Let's try with some average numbers.
We'll take your simple environment #1 with a realistic amount of sedimentation: About a quarter of a millimeter per year.
This means that it will take about 100 years for something to be buried an inch deep.

Try to think about that.
We have 100 years going by. Creatures are growing up, dying, decomposing. Plants are growing and being eaten, trees are getting hit by lightning. Some fall over, some keep growing. But nothing's getting buried. No habitats are being destroyed. There's simply an inch of sediment to deal with over the course of 100 years.

But... all the creatures that lived in year 1 are all dead by year 100. Most are decomposed and eaten away. One died and wasn't touched, and is now surrounded by an inch of sediment.

This whole process continues. Creatures live and die. Plants live and die. Habitats are moved or re-arranged. The sediment keeps piling up. Another hundred years, another inch surrounds our not-touched dead creature from 200 years ago.

Fast forward 2500 years.
Our not-touched creature that died in year one is now buried under 2-feet of sediment. It's starting to get crushed and flattened by the weight of the landscape above it. Everything that existed at year 1 is now long dead. Some of the habitats are destroyed, others were re-arranged over the years, others were moved completely. The surface is still only dealing with an extra inch of sediment every 100 years.

Keep going for 25 000 years.
The not-touched creature is now 20 feet under the surface. He's been flattened out pretty decent by the weight.
The surface, however, is still growing away at the surface. Plants are still growing, dying. Trees are still growing, some falling over, some destroyed in forest fires. Creatures are still scurrying about in new habitats they find/make during their time. Every living creature easily overcomes the incoming inch of sediment every 100 years.

Now we're at 50 000 years.
The not-touched creature is buried by 40 feet of sediment.
The elevation changes and the ocean starts encroaching into the land above our not-touched creature.
The ocean comes in at a rate of 0.001 miles each year. That's about 5 feet in-land each year. Plenty of time for animals to re-arrange their habitats on the surface. To move away completely. To just eat elsewhere. Or to live and die as they've been doing for 50 000 years now.

At 100 000 years, the ocean has moved in 50 miles.
Sedimentation continues.
Our not-touched creature is now 80 feet below the bottom of the ocean, 50 miles from shore.

Perhaps this habitat continues for a million years.

Our not-touched creature is now 800 feet below the bottom of the ocean, 50 miles from shore.
Ocean creatures are swimming over top of him, in the ocean. Habitats are still left to rot, or re-arranged or moved completely. The creatures are still easily dealing with the extra inch of sediment every 100 years... that's much less than the thickness of your fingernail every year to "deal with."

But the elevation changes again. The ocean starts retreating back out. Again at 0.001 miles each year.

At 1 100 000 years since year one we have:
Not-touched creature is buried 880 feet below the surface.
Ocean is back where it started.
Ocean-creatures live in the ocean.
Land-creatures are beginning to re-populate the back-to-land-again area.
Habitats are left to rot or re-arranged or moved completely
Every 100 years there's another inch of sediment in the area.

Now we're at 2 million years.
The surface landscape is back to being a lush environment.

The Not-touched dead creature is buried 1600 feet below the surface.
His landscape (1600 feet below the surface, 2 million years later) is now rock, and he's now a fossil.

Below the surface there is about 800 feet of land-sediment.
Below that we have 720 feet of ocean-sediment.
Below that we have 80 feet of land-sediment again.
And that's where our not-touched dead creature is now... at 1600 feet below the surface. As a rock.

This is our "geological column" 800 feet of land-sediment, 720 feet of ocean-sediment, 80 feet of land-sediment again.

Does that help some, maybe?
This isn't an exact replica of everything that happens. This is a general, simplified, specific example that can very well occur in reality. If anything, my time-lines are too short. But hopefully this helps gives you a general idea of what "the geologic column" actually is. This example also sort of nullifies or ignores the concept of compression to make things easier... kind of like ignoring wind-resistance to make simple calculations easier for a thrown or falling object.

Hopefully it can lend some insight to the area you may be having issue with.

Edited by Stile, : Made new title. Because a happy Moose is a happy forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 922 by Faith, posted 08-29-2016 4:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 964 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 7:41 PM Stile has responded
 Message 967 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 10:02 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3586
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 975 of 1257 (790526)
08-31-2016 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by Faith
08-30-2016 7:41 PM


Re: Landscape to Rock
Hi Faith, you seem to have many issues with the scenario I explained. That's okay, we can get to them all eventually (I read your second post as well).

Just wanted to say again that I'm not a geologist. I'm kind of learning this as I go along as well. I thought that if you go through it, and I go through it, then we could both see (or discuss, anyway) any of the "glaring problems" we may run into.

I think the first issue you brought up is a very important one, and will lead into many of your other issues. I'd like to focus on that until we can come to an agreement, if possible.

Faith writes:

First of all if it takes 100 years to bury something an inch deep, by that time any creature would have been decomposed completely, utterly disintegrated, never having a chance to get fossilized at all. Even if it's untouched by scavengers it isn't just going to lie there waiting to be buried in sediments. At 2500 years it's only under two feet of sediment? That isn't even enough to "crush and flatten it" as you claim would be happening. It wouldn't even be recognizable at 2500 years, it wouldn't even exist any more. That would have been the case already at 100 years, even five years for that matter. Organic things that are not buried decompose rapidly. I think standard Geology has unrealistic ideas about the conditions needed for fossilization but not this unrealistic.

So, for the next while, we will only be referring to the first 2500 years of the example I explained. Once we get past that, we can expand the timeline.

I'm going to re-quote the above in smaller bits to address what's going on:

First of all if it takes 100 years to bury something an inch deep, by that time any creature would have been decomposed completely, utterly disintegrated, never having a chance to get fossilized at all.

You are correct.
My scenario was overly simplistic in order to try and keep the "unwieldyness" of it all down a bit.
I would like to remain focused on the geologic timescale and get to the stacks of rock eventually. A little leeway from your part in accepting this fossilization would be helpful.

You are absolutely correct that most land-creatures would be decomposed and "utterly disintegrated" and can't be fossilized. "Most" is even an understatement... it would be in the realm of 99.99% "most." But you do accept that sometimes fossils form, right? Can we just assume that "some form of fossilization" took place for this particular creature in order for it to eventually become a fossil? Let's say... it gets completely coated in tar so that no insects or bacteria or anything would touch it. And, also luckily for us... the fossil was in a place that was simply undisturbed for the 2500 years of it being buried 2-feet deep in the sediment.

Can you accept this for now? If so, great, we can move on. If not... just let me know and we'll have to work something else out before moving on. If you'd like, I don't even have an issue with saying that God preserved this creature from bacteria/disintegration in order to have a fossil... for now, anyway. Once we get to the geologic column stack-stuff, we can revisit this if you'd like.

Even if it's untouched by scavengers it isn't just going to lie there waiting to be buried in sediments.

I don't understand this statement.
If it's untouched by scavengers (other creatures, bugs, bacteria... untouched by all scavangers...) why wouldn't it just lie there waiting to be buried in sediments? Where would it go? What would move it if all creatures, bugs, bacteria leave it untouched? It's dead.

At 2500 years it's only under two feet of sediment?

Yes. That's correct.

100 years for "about 1 inch"
2400 years for "about 24 inches"
2500 years for 2 feet (just to keep numbers generally round-ish).

This is all from a constant deposition rate of a quarter-of-a-mm every year.
From my brief checks, this is a general, average deposition rate (when areas are in states of deposition).

If we're looking into what "mainstream geology" says about the geologic column... then we have to use the numbers and rates that "mainstream geology" uses. They say it's a very slow process.

When I googled a few things I saw deposition rates as low as negatives (erosion rates) and as high as 3-4mm per year.
I picked "1 inch per 100 years" because it was within this range and the numbers came out generally nice to look at and understand.
If you'd like, I can redo the scenario with a higher or lower rate that we both agree on, just let me know.

That isn't even enough to "crush and flatten it" as you claim would be happening.

I completely agree that 2 feet under is not enough to "crush and flatten it."
You're wrong, however, in saying that I claimed this. What I said is that this weight is enough to "start" crushing and flattening it. Not "finish" crushing and flattening it.
The idea was attempting to show was that there is some weight upon that creature at this point, and that weight would begin the flattening process. Maybe at 2-feet-under it only flattens by a few millimeters. Maybe a bit more. But the process is just starting... it won't finish until much later.

It wouldn't even be recognizable at 2500 years, it wouldn't even exist any more. That would have been the case already at 100 years, even five years for that matter. Organic things that are not buried decompose rapidly. I think standard Geology has unrealistic ideas about the conditions needed for fossilization but not this unrealistic.

The rest of your issues goes back to the fossilization of the not-touched creature.
Are you okay with accepting that this creature gets-fossilized-one-way-or-another at this point? (and we can move onto more of the geological-column issues...)
Or would you like me to describe and amend the scenario to adopt a more detailed account of how the fossilization could occur here? (and we will focus on this 2500 year period for a longer time...).

Also, it is important to note that for this entire 2500 years, there is "a landscape" at the surface. Animals are living and dying (most decomposing and disintegrating as you suggest). Plants and trees are growing and dying as well. The environment is changing in the sense that generations are going by, but not-changing in the sense that living things exist and "a landscape" exists. The living things simply deal with the incoming rate of sedimentation (1 inch per 100 years) and go about their lives.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 7:41 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 989 by Faith, posted 09-01-2016 3:43 AM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3586
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 996 of 1257 (790599)
09-01-2016 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 989 by Faith
09-01-2016 3:43 AM


The Very Slow Burying of a Chunk of Lead
Faith writes:

Well, I fear you've lost me completely. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I can't get past the idea that any dead thing could remain undisturbed under the conditions you describe, as you keep saying. Perhaps here is where my Floodist perspective makes it too difficult to follow you. That event would have provided perfect opportunities for fossilization of the billions of things in the rocks, by rapidly burying everything in wet sediment and subjecting it to compaction soon after burial, thus providing the ideal chemical environment for fossilization.

Having said that, I gather you just want me to accept that this creature was undisturbed for 2500 years? Well, let's see how far I can go with that.

No worries.

In fact, I was thinking that we should just get rid of the fossil entirely in the scenario.
The point of having "something in the dirt that gets buried" is to have a marker... one that stays with the dirt that was there while the landscape was thriving and then follows the dirt as it gets buried deeper and deeper.

I originally thought that having a fossil would be a great, natural way to identify this and we could follow it down. However, maybe there's too many other contentious issues with "a fossil" that should really be covered in other topics.

What I want is a marker. So how about this.
Let's say we have a tiny asteroid lump of lead (say... 6" across) that makes it through the atmosphere.
At year 1 this asteroid lands on the surface of the landscape.
Say it busted through some trees and slowed down just enough to land on the ground without causing a crater.

Can we work with that?
This way we can ignore fossils entirely and we can focus on the landscape changing to rock. Once we get through that... maybe we could get into fossils later.

So now we have a chunk of lead that sits on the ground.
It goes undisturbed for 2500 years.
It gets buried by 2 feet of the sediment.

Let me redo the beginning of the scenario:


We'll take your simple environment #1 with a realistic amount of sedimentation: About a quarter of a millimeter per year.
This means that it will take about 100 years for something to be buried an inch deep.

We have 100 years going by. Creatures are growing up, dying, decomposing. Plants are growing and being eaten, trees are getting hit by lightning. Some fall over, some keep growing. But no living things are being buried. No habitats are being destroyed. There's simply an inch of sediment to deal with over the course of 100 years.

But... all the creatures that lived in year 1 are all dead by year 100. They are all decomposed and eaten away by scavengers, bugs and bacteria.
During year 1, an asteroid dropped onto the surface, leaving a chunk of lead 6" across. This chunk of lead just sits there. Nothing touches it, nothing moves it. There's no reason for any living creature (even bugs/bacteria) to take any interest in it.
After 100 years, this chunk of lead is surrounded by 1 inch of sediment.

This whole process continues. Creatures live and die. Plants live and die. Habitats are moved or re-arranged. The sediment keeps piling up. Another hundred years, another inch surrounds our chunk of lead from the asteroid 200 years ago.

Fast forward 2500 years.
Our piece of lead from year one is now buried under 2-feet of sediment. Everything organic that existed at year 1 is now long dead. Some of the habitats are destroyed, others were re-arranged over the years, others were moved completely. The surface is still only dealing with an extra inch of sediment every 100 years.
The surface itself, though, still contains a thriving landscape. It still contains creatures and plants and trees. They live and die and decompose. They still go about their business of "dealing with" the extra inch of sediment every 100 years.

Obviously, the trees and creatures that exist within the similar landscape at 2500 years are not the same trees and creatures and existed before. These trees and creatures are simply long-long-descendants of the ones alive during year 1. Yet they live very similar lives... just dealing with the extra 1 inch of sediment every year. Trees and plants grow faster than that, so they stay perfectly fine at the surface. Creatures move around so they just stay on top of the incoming sediment.


Does this all still make sense? Or any more questions for our 2500 year length of time?

We have a chunk of lead on the surface at year 1.
We have a thriving landscape of creatures and plants and trees at year 1.
We have a thriving landscape of creatures and plants and trees at year 2500.
There has been a thriving landscape of creatures and plants and trees straight through from year 1 to year 2500.
These creatures, plants and trees simply "deal with" the incoming extra inch of sediment every 100 years during their lives and remain on the surface. Living, having off-spring, dying. Living, having off-spring, dying.

The chuck of lead is (clearly) not alive. It can't move. It cannot "deal with" the incoming sediment. It gets buried.
Year 100 - chunk of lead is surrounded by 1 inch of sediment.
Year 2500 - chunk of lead is buried 2 feet under the surface of the currently-existing landscape.

All good?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 989 by Faith, posted 09-01-2016 3:43 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 997 by Faith, posted 09-01-2016 1:11 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3586
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(3)
Message 998 of 1257 (790611)
09-01-2016 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 997 by Faith
09-01-2016 1:11 PM


Re: The Very Slow Burying of a Chunk of Lead
Nice.

Okay, now we're going to extend the timeline up to 50 000 years.

So here's the scenario so far, the italicized stuff is simply the year 1 to 2500 stuff I wrote above copied down again for easy reference, feel free to skip it. The non-italicized stuff is the year 2500 to year 50,000 stuff.


We'll take your simple environment #1 with a realistic amount of sedimentation: About a quarter of a millimeter per year.
This means that it will take about 100 years for something to be buried an inch deep.
We have 100 years going by. Creatures are growing up, dying, decomposing. Plants are growing and being eaten, trees are getting hit by lightning. Some fall over, some keep growing. But no living things are being buried. No habitats are being destroyed. There's simply an inch of sediment to deal with over the course of 100 years.

But... all the creatures that lived in year 1 are all dead by year 100. They are all decomposed and eaten away by scavengers, bugs and bacteria.
During year 1, an asteroid dropped onto the surface, leaving a chunk of lead 6" across. This chunk of lead just sits there. Nothing touches it, nothing moves it. There's no reason for any living creature (even bugs/bacteria) to take any interest in it.
After 100 years, this chunk of lead is surrounded by 1 inch of sediment.

This whole process continues. Creatures live and die. Plants live and die. Habitats are moved or re-arranged. The sediment keeps piling up. Another hundred years, another inch surrounds our chunk of lead from the asteroid 200 years ago.

Fast forward 2500 years.
Our piece of lead from year one is now buried under 2-feet of sediment. Everything organic that existed at year 1 is now long dead. Some of the habitats are destroyed, others were re-arranged over the years, others were moved completely. The surface is still only dealing with an extra inch of sediment every 100 years.
The surface itself, though, still contains a thriving landscape. It still contains creatures and plants and trees. They live and die and decompose. They still go about their business of "dealing with" the extra inch of sediment every 100 years.

Obviously, the trees and creatures that exist within the similar landscape at 2500 years are not the same trees and creatures and existed before. These trees and creatures are simply long-long-descendants of the ones alive during year 1. Yet they live very similar lives... just dealing with the extra 1 inch of sediment every year. Trees and plants grow faster than that, so they stay perfectly fine at the surface. Creatures move around so they just stay on top of the incoming sediment.

Keep going for 25 000 years.
The chunk of lead is now 20 feet under the surface. The surface, however, is still growing away as a lush landscape. Plants are still growing, dying. Trees are still growing, some falling over, some destroyed in forest fires. Creatures are still scurrying about in new habitats they find/make during their time. Every living creature easily overcomes the incoming inch of sediment every 100 years.
At this depth of 20 feet, though... all the sediment at this depth is starting to compress together due to the weight of the 20 feet of sediment on top of it. This 20-foot-deep sediment used to be at the surface 25 000 years ago when the chunk of lead fell onto it. 25 000 years ago this sediment was the landscape... it had trees, creatures and all sorts of stuff living on it. Now, however, all this year-1 sediment is buried 20 feet under, along with our chunk of lead. And it's starting to get pressed together by the pressure on top of it caused by 20 feet of sediment.

Now we're at 50 000 years.
The chunk of lead is buried by 40 feet of sediment.
The sediment at the same level (40 feet under) has even more pressure on it, and it starts to squeeze out the little bits of moisture that are still in it. This process is still just starting. No rock yet. Just very compressed, pressurized sediment with 40 feet of sediment weighing down on top of it.
At this 50 000 year mark, at the surface, we still have a lush landscape. Still growing and dying with creatures and living things simply dealing with their extra inch of sediment every year.


Everything still okay here?
This is, basically, just the year 1-to-2500 stuff extended over a longer period of time. That's all. So hopefully this is still making sense.

I'm about to get into having the ocean start encroaching into the land, so just wanted to pause here and make sure you're still okay understanding that a continuously living (and dying, and having off-spring for more living...) lush landscape has constantly been at the surface for 50 000 years now.
As well, the dirt that was at-the-landscape (surface) at year one, along with the chunk of lead is now all 40 feet deep and beginning to feel some weight and pressure on it from the 40 feet of sediment above it.

Feel free to make any comments or bring up any issues-so-far.

Unfortunately, I'm not generally around much on the weekends for posting. My next post may have to wait until Monday. Which means my walkthrough is going nearly as slow as the sedimentation rate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 997 by Faith, posted 09-01-2016 1:11 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 999 by Faith, posted 09-01-2016 7:43 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3586
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1106 of 1257 (790831)
09-06-2016 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 999 by Faith
09-01-2016 7:43 PM


Re: The Very Slow Burying of a Chunk of Lead
Hi Faith,

Sorry I took so long. I kinda just post here when I have a few minutes during break and such at work.
Hope you had a good Labour Day weekend. I played video games with my wife all weekend and had a blast

I've read through all the new posts since my last update, and I'm just going to continue where we left off.
I'll answer your questions from my previous post.

Faith writes:

The sketch of the first 2500 years is accepted as foundational (although I believe the original landscape would already be rock and any buried creatures already fossilized, but that's not an objection I want to make at this point; For now I'm accepting the scenario as given).

Understood.
If you'd like, we can consider this entire example as "how geologists see the rocks."
It isn't necessary to consider this example as "reality" if you don't want to.
The point is to show that what geologists think is an idea that is continuous and can stand on it's own.
The point isn't to convert you to "geologism" or "evolutionism" or anything like that.

So, to be clear, the twenty feet beneath this thriving landscape is all just accumulated sediment, right?

Right.

And you haven't defined what kind of sediment for some reason -- the same as the original landscape's?

I haven't defined what kind of sediment because I don't know what the different kinds mean and I am hesitant to claim something I don't understand.
I am hoping that there is some sort of "terrestrial sediment" that you acknowledge exists, and we can consider it to be that.

If you think this is an important sticking point, we would have to take a side-track into the "rock cycle" (sort of like the "water cycle" but with rocks) and sort of start to understand where sediment comes from and add to the scenario to incorporate those specifics.

But if you just want to look at the sediment becoming rock without destroying the surface, I think we can proceed if you're okay with accepting "sediment is accumulating."

Here we start to have problems it seems to me. If the original landscape has begun to compress under twenty feet of sediment, then under forty feet of sediment it should not only be more compressed but sediment right above it should also be compressing quite a bit since it is under almost forty feet of sediment too.

You're absolutely right.

In my scenario, we have rock at 2 million years and 1600 feet deep. Let's say that is "100%" finished becoming rock.
Then at 50 000 years and 40 feet deep we would be 2.5% of the way there.
At 25 000 years and 20 feet deep we would be 1.25% of the way there.
At, say, 37 feet deep (46 250 years) we would be about 2.3% of the way there.

The entire process is ongoing and continuous if the sediment accumulation has no break in it.

This example is very simplified because it uses a rate of sedimentation that never changes. However, in any real-life areas there is no "steady rate of accumulation" that lasts forever or all of earth's history (that I'm aware of). There can be a bunch of sedimentation, then some erosion, then some stagnancy, then some more accumulation, or any other conceivable order. Each change of state will add complexity to the required explanation.

I was going to get into things like that after we look at (and possibly agree on) how "at least one rock" could form with this simple example.

Again, the numbers used in my scenario are made up by me, only taken from what I can see are "generally accepted" values from the geological community. I understand that these values are very slow and maybe even "seemingly impossible" for you to accept... but they are what geologists say are required to explain the things we see.

This is one problem I've mentioned a few times in relation to the idea of lithification of a landscape under accumulating sediments: at some point those lithifying sediments must start to get lithified as well. But as I've thought about it, they don't belong in the stratigraphic column that the original landscape is to end up in, so they would have to be eliminated at some point. Which becomes problematic if they are lithified as well. I recall that you are going to include them in the column eventually, but you haven't given any justification for this yet. But let's continue and see how things develop.

Right.
And the problem is because the "column" generally discussed isn't created under the extremely simple constant-rate of sedimentation I've used for this example.

Again, I'm only using this constant-rate for this first example in order to show how "a landscape can become a rock."

Once we agree on how geologists say such a thing can occur, we can then add things to the scenario to create "stacks of rock" and even "stacks of rock at the surface" and other such things.

But those are more complicated, so I thought it would be best to start with the most simple starting example - creating "one rock from a landscape."

Well I'm following you but starting to have questions about it all in relation to the final result of the stratigraphic column.

Good.
I think you have in mind a specific stratigraphic column that is created by a series of events that will be more complicated that this first, simple example.
That's okay, and we can get into that later.
For now, I suggest that we finish this current simple example and understand the stratigraphic column that is created by it and then we can move onto a more complicated one. Does that sound acceptable?

(Aside: I would expect it to be thoroughly lithified by now myself, not just "beginning to feel some weight and pressure on it..." due to the great length of time probably more than the weight of the sediment, but I'm not making this an issue here.)

I understand your issues with "accepting longer geological timescales" and such.
I think we should simply consider my examples as "the way geologists think it happened" as opposed to some sort of firm "accept this as reality or I'm going to be angry" thing.

I would like to alter the numbers to accommodate you here, but I don't think I can. If we're going to go through things to see how geologists view things, I think we'll have to use numbers at least acceptable to geologists. Let me know if this is going to be a problem.

Okay, let me know if we're still on the same page or not and we'll move on from there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 999 by Faith, posted 09-01-2016 7:43 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1107 by Faith, posted 09-06-2016 12:10 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3586
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 1110 of 1257 (790846)
09-06-2016 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1107 by Faith
09-06-2016 12:10 PM


Re: The Very Slow Burying of a Chunk of Lead
Faith writes:

I guess I'll have to take my break later.

Ha ha, don't let me get in the way of you keeping your health up. If you feel like taking a break... take a break. I just left for 4 days, right?

There is another problem in that the rocks are generally made up of a fairly uniform kind of sediment, all sand, say, or all clay and so on, which is not the case with landscapes. Even though there are some exceptions and there is some mixture in the strata here and there, for purposes of this discussion I think we should think of them as all clearly different from each other, since they are different enough to make that statement, so we can't go with some kind of generic soil. Whatever it is has to be what we see in the rock in which the clues are found to this particular landscape. Again it is a sediment, not a soil, and that is already a bit of a problem for the idea of the rocks being a representation of a landscape, since landscapes, at least landscapes with a variety of plants and animals, are not single sediments; but for now let's just leave that too.

I agree with this issue. And this example isn't going to deal with it very well.
I'm not going to say "...and this is clay!" or "...and this is limestone!" At the end of this example, it will just be "rock" that was formed "from the accumulating sediment."

If you want to get into those other specifics, we should be able to do that later. Just not with this first, simple example.

Okay, let's move on a bit and see where we go. Again, the italics is just a copy of the stuff we've already gone over in more detail, and the normal text is the next-step.


We'll take your simple environment #1 with a realistic amount of sedimentation: About a quarter of a millimeter per year.
This means that it will take about 100 years for something to be buried an inch deep.
We have 100 years going by. Creatures are growing up, dying, decomposing. Plants are growing and being eaten, trees are getting hit by lightning. Some fall over, some keep growing. But no living things are being buried. No habitats are being destroyed. There's simply an inch of sediment to deal with over the course of 100 years.
But... all the creatures that lived in year 1 are all dead by year 100. They are all decomposed and eaten away by scavengers, bugs and bacteria.
During year 1, an asteroid dropped onto the surface, leaving a chunk of lead 6" across. This chunk of lead just sits there. Nothing touches it, nothing moves it. There's no reason for any living creature (even bugs/bacteria) to take any interest in it.
After 100 years, this chunk of lead is surrounded by 1 inch of sediment.

This whole process continues. Creatures live and die. Plants live and die. Habitats are moved or re-arranged. The sediment keeps piling up. Another hundred years, another inch surrounds our chunk of lead from the asteroid 200 years ago.

Fast forward 2500 years.
Our piece of lead from year one is now buried under 2-feet of sediment. Everything organic that existed at year 1 is now long dead. Some of the habitats are destroyed, others were re-arranged over the years, others were moved completely. The surface is still only dealing with an extra inch of sediment every 100 years.
The surface itself, though, still contains a thriving landscape. It still contains creatures and plants and trees. They live and die and decompose. They still go about their business of "dealing with" the extra inch of sediment every 100 years.

Obviously, the trees and creatures that exist within the similar landscape at 2500 years are not the same trees and creatures and existed before. These trees and creatures are simply long-long-descendants of the ones alive during year 1. Yet they live very similar lives... just dealing with the extra 1 inch of sediment every year. Trees and plants grow faster than that, so they stay perfectly fine at the surface. Creatures move around so they just stay on top of the incoming sediment.

Keep going for 25 000 years.
The chunk of lead is now 20 feet under the surface. The surface, however, is still growing away as a lush landscape. Plants are still growing, dying. Trees are still growing, some falling over, some destroyed in forest fires. Creatures are still scurrying about in new habitats they find/make during their time. Every living creature easily overcomes the incoming inch of sediment every 100 years.
At this depth of 20 feet, though... all the sediment at this depth is starting to compress together due to the weight of the 20 feet of sediment on top of it. This 20-foot-deep sediment used to be at the surface 25 000 years ago when the chunk of lead fell onto it. 25 000 years ago this sediment was the landscape... it had trees, creatures and all sorts of stuff living on it. Now, however, all this year-1 sediment is buried 20 feet under, along with our chunk of lead. And it's starting to get pressed together by the pressure on top of it caused by 20 feet of sediment.

Now we're at 50 000 years.
The chunk of lead is buried by 40 feet of sediment.
The sediment at the same level (40 feet under) has even more pressure on it, and it starts to squeeze out the little bits of moisture that are still in it. This process is still just starting. No rock yet. Just very compressed, pressurized sediment with 40 feet of sediment weighing down on top of it.
At this 50 000 year mark, at the surface, we still have a lush landscape. Still growing and dying with creatures and living things simply dealing with their extra inch of sediment every year.

The elevation changes and the ocean starts encroaching into the land above our chunk of lead.

The ocean comes in at a rate of 0.001 miles each year. That's about 5 feet in-land each year. Plenty of time for animals to re-arrange their habitats on the surface. To move away completely. To just eat elsewhere. Or to live and die as they've been doing for 50 000 years now.

Each year, 5 feet of our surface-terrestrial-landscape dies off and is ruined by the incoming ocean.
Each year, 5 feet of more-ocean is created as the beach-area moves further and further inland.
Just as creatures can easily deal with the extra inch of sediment every 100 years... they are also able to deal with the 5-feet less of their landscape every year. They just move further inland as well.

At 100 000 years, the ocean has moved in 50 miles.
Sedimentation continues.
The sediment more-than-50-miles inland is still the same "terrestrial sediment" accumulating from before.
However, the sediment above our chunk of lead is now "marine sediment" that is different from terrestrial sediment.

The landscape is still on-going, with creatures and trees and plants living and dying. It's just not going on like this over our chunk of lead anymore. It's going on like that "50 miles inland" and beyond that, now.
The "landscape" above our chunk of lead is now a marine-scape (I don't know the word?) it has fish and other ocean-creatures living above it now.

The fish swim around, and continue with their lives and deaths and off-spring, dealing with the extra inch of sediment every 100 years.

Our chunk of lead is now buried 80 feet below the bottom of the ocean, 50 miles from shore.


Alright. Let's see what comes up now that we have the water move in overtop our chunk of lead.

The main points for the rock-formation are as follows:
-the rock is now 80-feet deep, with 80 feet of sediment above it (40 feet of terrestrial-sediment, and 40 feet of marine-sediment).
-the sediment around the chunk of lead is now 5% along it's way to becoming rock.

The main points for the non-destroyed surface (the "landscape") are as follows:
-the landscape continues on land... now 50 miles away from the chunk of lead... still growing trees and plants and creatures as happily as ever
-the marine-scape continues above the chunk of lead... still swimming fish and other ocean dwelling creatures. They are also happy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1107 by Faith, posted 09-06-2016 12:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1114 by Faith, posted 09-06-2016 11:14 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3586
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 1144 of 1257 (790946)
09-08-2016 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1114 by Faith
09-06-2016 11:14 PM


Re: The Very Slow Burying of a Chunk of Lead
Faith writes:

Are you keeping in mind that this all has to become a stack of rocks?

Yes.

I gather that at least the upper sediment of landscape#1 is not yet rock, and now we have ocean starting to move in on top of it?

By "the upper sediment of landscape #1" I think you mean the same sediment surrounding our chunk of lead, right? The point that is 80 feet deep now.

And yes, your gathering is correct. This is still "not rock" at this point (under 80 feet of sediment, 100 000 years), it's 5% of it's way along becoming rock.

I'm wondering among other things how the extensive straight flat surface at the contact between the strata could be formed under such circumstances.

With the ocean coming in as I've described in this example, this issue may or may not become clear to you.
This example isn't formulated to show you how the "extensive straight flat surface at the contact between the strata" can form.
This example is only meant to show how 1 layer of rock can be created from a landscape without the surface being destroyed.

Faith writes:

Stile writes:

The sediment more-than-50-miles inland is still the same "terrestrial sediment" accumulating from before.

How can this be? You can't have two sediments side by side forming on this rock.

For the purposes of keeping this example simple, we are not considering the previous sediment/rock or "other sediments" outside the scenario. But yes, you are correct. My example does have marine sediment depositing directly beside terrestrial sediment at the "beach line." But I assure you that the layers will form as the example goes on.

Here's an explanation of my simplification and why I'm doing so:

One is marine sediment (anything under the ocean).
The other is terrestrial sediment (anything not under the ocean).

You are absolutely correct that I am creating a "distinct and abrupt" difference between marine and terrestrial sediment.
You would be correct in thinking that the two are not as sharply defined and separated "at the beach" as I'm talking about in my example.
But, my example is "an example" it's supposed to be simplified in order to explain how geologists see things. We can get into specifics later. For now, I hope you understand that "marine sediment" deposited out in the middle of the ocean is different and distinct from "terrestrial sediment" that would be deposited in the middle of a land mass.
This example is taking these two extreme differences and layering them right on top of each other in order to simplify things for the example.

The purpose of having this "crisp" difference is so that I can move this example along in the timeline I've picked (2 million years).
If I was going to move things along at a pace more likely to be seen with the usual "incoming of an ocean" with layers... the timeline would have to be adjusted much further out... into the 100s of millions of years. Which would make our constant-rate of accumulation sort of strange for that entire time. I thought the best way to keep the example going would be to simplify the 2 different sediments.

So I hope this is acceptable for the moment.

If you can accept that I have "marine sediment" being deposited at any location under-the-ocean and "terrestrial sediment" being deposited at any location not-under-the-ocean, we can continue.

Faith writes:

If you still have "terrestrial" sediment accumulating it would have to be accumulating IN the ocean water too -- what would prevent that? It deposited at that same location before, why would it stop?

It wouldn't stop. Not abruptly, anyway. But it wouldn't continue across the entire ocean.
Oceans have currents. Terrestrial land does not.
As Terrestrial sediment lands in the ocean some is carried away from the area by the currents.
Other sediment (from other parts of the ocean) is carried in by the same currents.
The result is that when "the sediment" reaches the bottom of the ocean floor and is deposited (no longer to move away in my example) it is a mixture of terrestrial sediment that's accumulating in the area as well as ocean sediment carried in from other currents.

I'm calling this mixture "marine sediment" as it is different from pure "terrestrial sediment."
I'm also assuming that the rate of deposition for the final marine sediment is exactly the same as that of the terrestrial sediment. This is hardly ever the case, but doing otherwise would add an unnecessary complication to my simplified example. We can assume that the ocean currents just happen to add "ocean sediment" to the area in the exact amount that the same currents carry some of the terrestrial sediment away when creating the final marine sediment mixture.

If you're able to accept "marine sediment" and "terrestrial sediment," then the following is an explanation of the layering as the ocean moves inland over the next 50 000 years up to a total of 100 000 years into my example.

In any case, you have two different "environments" side by side, which doesn't happen. You have to end up with your terrestrial rock on the bottom and a different rock on top of it formed by the ocean transgression.

I'm not forming them side by side.
I'm forming them in layers. One on top of the other.

Perhaps it may be easier if you drew yourself two pictures. One at 50 000 years and another at 100 000 years. I'll explain the two different times here:

First, let's look at things back at 50 000 years again.

Our chunk of lead is 40 feet below the terrestrial sediment, close to the beach, but on land.
We will mark this as "Location Lead" because it's where our chunk of lead is. Location Lead is very close to the beach. (Where the ocean begins before it starts moving inland).
25 miles inland, we have "Location B." This location (at 50 000 years) is 25 miles away from the beach and under 40 feet of terrestrial sediment.
50 miles inland, we have "Location C." This location (at 50 000 years) is 50 miles away from the beach and under 40 feet of terrestrial sediment.
100 miles inland, we have "Location D." This location (at 50 000 years) is 100 miles away from the beach and under 40 feet of terrestrial sediment.

Now we'll move to 100 000 years, after the ocean has moved in 50 miles.

Location Lead - Our chunk of lead is under 80 feet of sediment, and the ocean. It's now 50 miles from the beach, under the ocean.
The sediment at this point is 40 feet of terrestrial (directly above the chunk of lead) with 40 feet of marine-sediment above it.

Location B - Also under the ocean now. 25 miles from the beach, under the ocean. It also has 80 feet of sediment, and the ocean.
The sediment at this point is 60 feet of terrestrial (it was accumulating terrestrial sediment as the ocean moved towards it).
And 20 feet of marine (after the ocean past over it, it began accumulating marine sediment).

Location C - This is where the beach is now. It also has 80 feet of sediment, but no ocean over it. All 80 feet of sediment is terrestrial sediment.

Location D - This location is now only 50 miles away from the beach. It also has 80 feet of sediment, but no ocean over it. All 80 feet of sediment is terrestrial sediment.

As the ocean moved inland, over 100 000 years... it created a slope in the difference between the layers.
None of the layers are rock. They are all sediment on-the-way-to-becoming rock (at this point in time).
If the ocean is over a location for longer (Location Lead), it will have more marine sediment.
If the ocean is over a location for shorter (Location B), it will have less marine sediment.
If the ocean never reached a location (Locations C and D) they will have no marine sediment.

But with the same rates of deposition, all areas have the same total amount of "sediment" - 80 feet.

Is this understandable?

Faith writes:

Stile writes:

However, the sediment above our chunk of lead is now "marine sediment" that is different from terrestrial sediment.

Again, apparently beside, or next to, the terrestrial sediment rather than on top of it?

No. Not beside it. On top of it. I should have said "the sediment currently depositing above our chunk of lead is now marine sediment." That would have been clearer.

Chunk of lead on the bottom (80 feet deep).
Then 40 feet of terrestrial sediment that came from the first 50 000 years.
Then 40 feet of marine sediment that came from the next 50 000 years to bring us up to 100 000 years.
Then the ocean on top of that.

Faith writes:

Stile writes:

The main points for the rock-formation are as follows:
-the rock is now 80-feet deep

The "rock" being landscape #1? If so you seem to be differentiating it from the sediments that have been accumulating above it. Yes?

Whoops. That's another mistake of mine.
I should not have called it "rock." It's only 5% of the way to becoming rock.
I should have said "-the terrestrial sediment around our chunk of lead that will one day become rock is now 80-feet deep"

Faith writes:

Stile writes:

-the sediment around the chunk of lead is now 5% along it's way to becoming rock.

This is the "terrestrial sediment" or what?

Yes.

The "marine sediment" above our chunk of lead at 40 feet deep is only 2.5% along it's way to becoming rock.
The marine sediment above our chunk of lead at 20 feet deep is only 1.25% along it's way to becoming rock.

Faith writes:

But these environments have to become rock, one on top of the other, at which point the environments will no longer exist and this is when we have to ask where the creatures went.

We have our chunk of lead, then 40 feet of terrestrial sediment above it, then 40 feet of marine sediment above that, then the ocean on top.

Fish are living, dying, having offspring in the ocean, still living happily.
Land-creatures are living, dying, having offspring over by Location C and Location D, still living happily.

Both environments-at-the-surface have habitats that are being maintained, or abandoned, or created as the fish and land-creatures see fit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1114 by Faith, posted 09-06-2016 11:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1145 by Pressie, posted 09-09-2016 8:16 AM Stile has responded
 Message 1146 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 8:34 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3586
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 1150 of 1257 (791128)
09-11-2016 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1145 by Pressie
09-09-2016 8:16 AM


Re: The Very Slow Burying of a Chunk of Lead
Pressie writes:

I completely and utterly object to this. We don't get 'chunks' of lead. We do find lead containing minerals.

I understand your objections.
I'm not going to do anything about it.

Take that!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1145 by Pressie, posted 09-09-2016 8:16 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3586
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 1257 of 1257 (793048)
10-19-2016 11:28 AM


My wee example that turned into something not so wee
I attempted to lay out a full example of how a simple, basic rock column could be formed and what the scientific view of rock formation actually entails while a living-landscape thrives at the surface the entire time.

Faith seemed to be accepting individual, specific concepts; which is why I tried to break everything down into individual, specific concepts.

Faith's last message to me indicated a willingness to continue, but just being in need of a break.

Would we have been able to put everything together by the end of the example?
Was there an individual, specific concept just around the corner that Faith wouldn't accept?

We didn't get to find out in this thread.

Faith is free to take a break for as long as she'd like, even forever if need be.

If interest is ever generated again, I'm willing to continue the example with Faith (or anyone else who found it necessary) at any time. Even in a Great Debate format if that would be more comfortable.

I certainly learned a few things going over the basic details in a simple example, anyway (I don't study such things). So I don't find the effort wasted regardless of what may or may not happen next.


    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019