Strictly speaking you are right but the sequences associated with transgresssion and regression are a paradigmatic example, and the terminology has been used loosely in past discussions. My understanding of those sequences is that they are primarily produced by the sediments typically available in the environment - it is essentially a gradual process. This would not apply in a model of rapid deposition produced by a flood. Especially when we take the fact that the boundary moves with time - and does so for both cases.
In the case of rapid deposition by flood the sediment carried by the water should only change due to larger and heavier material dropping out - and even that would probably need to be associated with a loss of energy to permit finer material to be deposited.
I don't doubt that an ad hoc scenario could be invented to explain it - at the usual level of discussion here (I am far from certain that it would hold up to a detailed examination) and I have severe doubts about the idea that such a scenario should be a common event in the geological record.
The YEC case is very muddled here. On the one hand, they want sediments washed up from the ocean to be deposited on the continents, and yet the continents are also being eroded severely by torrential rain.
The question asked here seems to be, 'would Walthers' Law be applicable to a flood deposit'? In a superficial and simplified way, I suppose so, but it leaves a lot of questions in the minds of people who observe nature.
I would say that, first of all, there are a lot of other things happening on earth than just rising sea level. We do have mountains eroding and volcanoes erupting, etc. To me, this is where Faith's scenario really breaks down. The eroding Appalachians proveded detritus to create the Mesozoic erg deposits whether you believe in an eolian origin or not.
The next problem is time. There is simply not enough time to erode all of the material to produce the various advancing seashore deposits for 6 megasequences in the sedimentary record.
The rain came first, forty days and nights of it, and did the severe erosion of the land, which I would suppose even you would acknowledge as a very likely consequence of such an event. Then we have the sediments washing into the ocean water, killing all the marine life we now find fossilized; and then the sediments both from the land and whatever was also in the ocean water, the calcareous ooze etc, started getting deposited onto the land at some point as the water rose or after it fully covered the land or both.
Problem is that you have less and less sediment available for erosion on to the continents because the continents are both eroded and inundated by the sea. Your source of sediments simply disappears.
And now you have to move sediment from the sea onto the continents. How does that happen? Why would sediments move up onto the land? And how would they do that while making nice neat layers that you refer to?
This simply isn't making sense.
The Flood would have been basically the ocean rising over the land, the rising of which is the cause of the sedimentary deposits according to Walther's Law, although in a different time frame.
Okay, so you've got a declining source of material creating thick, continental scale deposits. Sorry, not buying.
The question is WHEN things happened. I think there is evidence that volcanic activity began about the same time as the tectonic movements divided the continents, concurrent with the Flood's starting to recede. So all those events including the erosion of mountains, are post-Flood in my scenario.
That does not follow.
Why could you not have multiple tectonic movements such as what we see in the geological record?
Well, forty days and nights of WORLDWIDE pounding rain ought to be enough time to erode most of the land mass, wouldn't you think? Then we have the limestones that originated in the ocean itself, which seems to be pictured by Walther's Law -- they also get deposited as the water rises in that scenario so why not also in the rising ocean water of the Flood? Of course I don't believe there were any megasequences, and whatever the evidence is that is interpreted in those terms had to be the result of the Flood itself. The theory that the eroding Appalachians provided the detritus for any of the strata needs some reexamination.
The water carries them over the land and deposits them in those neat layers, such as we see occuring with rising sea water according to Walther's Law, but perhaps also by precipitation when the water has risen to its height. There is all this heavily sediment-laden water over the land, rising over the land, standing over the land, both, and the sediments get deposited from that water. How are we having such difficulty communicating about something so simple?
So, how do you keep all of that sediment suspended in the water as it's carried all the way across the continent?
The kind of turbulence necessary to do that would not facilitate nice, even, tabular, sorted deposits of the kind that we see. Basically, you are talking about a mudflow. Have you ever seen a mudflow deposit? How many thick limestone layers are there?
This is all silly nonsense. There is no reason for this quantity of sediments to suddenly be ripped off the ocean floor and cast onto the continents. There is a reason that sediments accumulate where they do ... it's because they have reached a low energy environment and the eroded sediments can settle out in the ocean basins. So, why would they move back up-gradient to travel across the continent?
In fact, the kind of turbulence that you would need would also leave behind some kind of diagnostic evidence. What is that evidence? Why did it suddenly stop to settle out in neat fashion? How far would boulders and gravel be carried across the continent in what is essentialy an uphill direction?
You're jacking the data into an impossible scenario.
I don't see how Walther's Law could apply to a flood deposit, not even in a "superficial and simplified way." Walther's Law states that vertical successions of strata result from lateral changes in environment, such as a coastline that is moving inland or outland. Floods don't cause lateral changes in environment. The water level change is temporary, so any flood deposits are not part of Walther's law.
Strictly speaking, yes.
It's been a long time since I learned Walther's Law, but I remember it having something to do with the observation that adjacent depositional environments will also be above or below each other.
Here is a definitions from encyclopedia.com:
Walther's law (law of correlation of facies) An important statement relating to the manner in which a vertical sedimentary sequence of facies develops. Walther's law of facies implies that a vertical sequence of facies will be the product of a series of depositional environments which lay laterally adjacent to each other. This law is applicable only to situations where there is no break in the sedimentary sequence.
So, you could have the superposition of different facies in a flood, but they would not be adjacent nor would it be a continuous sedimentary sequence.
Add to that the fact that flood facies look nothing like normal transgressional sequences and you are up against a hard rock and the sea. Literally.
Faith's argument is so muddled that I can hardly comment. It just makes no sense.
How do sediments get progressively deposited as the water rises according to Walther's Law? I would guess they are depositing with each rising of the water.
That wasn't the point. How do you keep the sediments suspended as they flow across the continent?
Yes, all there is for the ancient unwitnessed and untestable past is such conjectures, lots of conjectures. See, I know the Flood occurred so I'm trying to explain it. You think it didn't occur so you are trying to debunk it. That's all that's going on here. You don't know what degree of turbulence was involved but it makes you happy to think there was more of it than would facilitate the depositing of the strata. Perhaps if you put your geologically educated mind to the task of explaining instead how it could have happened you'd come up with something really interesting.
I've been trying for years to understand the YEC scenario, but I've also never heard a YEC explain it. For thousands of miles a flow has to maintain its load flowing across the landscape, not leaving a trace and then suddenly stopping and dumping a continental-scale set of layers.
All I get from YECs is "that was the flood, so there!"
quote:I think so too. The interesting thing is that, if the Hermit Shale were slid to the left, there would be an obvious discontinuity. We'd see deep water deposition "suddenly" (in geologic terms) change to aeolian deposition. So between the Hermit and Coconino would be an obvious place to look for evidence of "intermediate" layers that transitioned between deep and shallow water but are no longer there because of erosion. Or maybe evidence of a "sudden" uplift or something.
I have bolded the part in question.
The Hermit Shale is not a deep water formation. It is very much continental. Go to this page and click on the Hermit Shale interval in the strat column.
The straightness and flatness of the original (not tectonically deformed) strata and the tight contacts between many of them are evidence of rapid deposition.
Okay, let's look at where we actually see sudden deposition from turbulent currents.
That would be in mudflows and possibly in stream channels.
Do you think that those are straight, and flat, ...
and thick, ...
I don't think so.
The fact that the Geologic (Stratigraphic) Column has in fact come to a stopping point despite strained efforts to pretend it is still ongoing, is evidence of its being pretty recent.
As long as seashores advance and retreat, as long as rivers run to the sea and as long as mountains turn into plains, you are wrong.
As long as the earth 'lives' through volcanoes and earthquakes and storms, you are wrong.
You may have your uninformed opinion, but no one with any experience in the field will ever take your arguments seriously. You should expect ridicule with your over confident beliefs, so don't complain when that happens.
Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
I don't remember but I think I must have posted pictures of what I have in mind. The hard thing would be to find a case where they didn't deform in blocks. There is no such thing as one layer being deformed in a different way from the others above and below it.
But that isn't what you've been telling us for the last year. You have said that rocks below an unconformity were deformed differently from the rocks above although at the same time.
Do you now deny that?
There is no such thing as different layers all being deformed in different ways, but that is what one would expect would happen if each was laid down in a separate time frame millions of years from all the others and tectonically deformed in its own time frame.
What actually happens is that older rocks record more tectonic events over time. This is the case in the Grand Canyon section. Deeper layers record earlier deformations. Hence the Vishnu rocks record something earlier than the GC Supergroup which records something older than the Paleozoic section.
Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
Funny, I recall suggesting that the Schist was metamorphosed Supergroup and was told it's not by one of you geological experts. I still thought it was but oh well.
So, it WAS composed of strata but no longer is because it has been metamorphosed, right?
Doesn't that mean that it was deformed prior to your one singular event that happened after the entire section was deposited? I mean, the GC Supergroup did not undergo the same metamorphism and neither did the Paleozoic section, right?
Please explain how you get three different degrees of deformation in the same block of rocks, especially when the topmost layers are still soft.
You can't bend strata that no longer have the form of strata.
Sure you can. There are plenty of examples of multiple folding events presented in the same rock in the geological record.
They stop being strata when they are no longer strata but changed into a shapeless mass of schist by heat and pressure.
How do you know that it is shapeless?
Why did the Vishnu become non-strata while the overlying rocks remained strata?
Why isn't the idea of multiple deformational events a simpler solution?
Water River water Sea water Deposits separated sediments In layers That's what the Flood did That's how the Stratigraphic Column was formed It did not make a jumble It made a stack of sediments
Except that turbulent, sediment laden currents don't do that.
The idea that there were describable periods of time (Cambrian, Devonian, Permian, Triassic etc) with definable identifiable living things in some stage or other of "evolution" between the former and the next, each marked by a slab of rock, a particular kind of sedimentary rock, some covering most of a continent, most at least thousands of square miles, is so nonsensical I don't know how you all keep yourselves convinced. It can only be by some kind of strange delusion.
According to you, yes.
You keep saying I haven't provided evidence but I've provided it so many times in the past I'm too tired to drum it all up again. If I could easily find all the relevant threads I'd do it but I'm not up to that either. And besides, the kinds of utterly ridiculous rebuttals I get to anything I say is not much of a motivator. I'm SOOOOOOOO tired of arguing these obvious things to the same old answers.
Well, the paragraph above is an excellent example of an assertion without evidence.
This is all you have ever given us. All you have done is shown us a single cross-section of one small part of the world and told us how obvious it is to you.