Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
33 online now:
caffeine, DrJones*, Faith, Hyroglyphx, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Theodoric (9 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,956 Year: 21,992/19,786 Month: 555/1,834 Week: 55/500 Day: 13/42 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3779
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 3 of 224 (820598)
09-24-2017 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
09-17-2017 1:17 AM


For related discussion, I also recommend reading upthread and/or downthread at the message 1 original source topic (link in message 1).

Percy writes:

Faith believes that a flood incursion onto land would deposit sedimentary layers identical to those deposited by a gradually transgressing or regressing shoreline following Walther's Law, indeed, that a flood incursion *is* a demonstration of Walther's Law.

Actually, Walther's Law is not a sedimentation model - It's a statement of the lateral vs vertical relationships of sediments deposited in a migrating environment (OSLT).

But I do think that some variation of the sea transgressing/regressing depositional model is valid for what would be expected to be found as a result of "THE FLOOD".

If the Young Earth flood geology actually had happened, I would expect to see a basement geology of the original created Earth, covered by some variation of a single transgressive/regressive sequence. The FLOOD deposit stratigraphy would be very simple, not that vast complexity of sediments (and other geologic process affects) that we actually see.

Moose

Note: This message originally posted using the Adminnemooseus ID, in the Proposed New Topics forum. I am going to try to edit things back to the Minnemooseus ID, after I promote the topic.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change message ID to being by Minnemooseus.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Tweak.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 09-17-2017 1:17 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 09-24-2017 3:36 AM Minnemooseus has responded
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2017 12:11 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3779
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 6 of 224 (820602)
09-24-2017 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
09-24-2017 3:36 AM


The geologic "created kind"
The nature of the precise erosion and deposition model of THE FLOOD is dependent on the nature of the "created kind" Earth.

Presumably, there can be an element of apparent age in God's creating of an Earth complete with all the various mineral resources included. A complete ecosystem of earth ("rock and dirt") and water and vegetation and animals. I guess the question is, would an intelligent design and creation of the Earth's crust include the impression of long and complex processes? After all, the mark of quality design and construction is simplicity and functionality, not a "Rube Goldberg" complexity and dubious functionality. The Earth's crust sure seems like bad design to me?

What would be a quality design and construction of a planet be, to support life?

Or could there be a deliberate complexity designed it, just for the geologist to have fun with?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 09-24-2017 3:36 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 09-24-2017 5:11 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 09-24-2017 10:56 PM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3779
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 72 of 224 (820743)
09-26-2017 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
09-24-2017 10:56 PM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Well, this topic has turned into a mess real fast. I guess that was my mistake, in opening up the topic just before I was going to have minimal internet time available for a couple of days.

There are so many things I could comment on, from so many messages. I'll start with Faith's message 10.

My remarks exploring the flood first must assume that God miraculously ex nihilo created a huge amount of water, and then de-ex nihiloed it. So, for this discussion, there were vast rainfalls and fountains of the deep, which I understand to be the only real Biblical flood mechanisms.

You are probably confusing the condition of the Earth at Creation with its condition as a result of the Fall and the Flood, which had to have rearranged things tremendously.

You are invoking a flood of such miraculous powers, that it could mimic producing the results of every known geologic mechanism.

Nobody knows what the original Created Earth looked like beyond a few conjectures based on hints in the Bible, but something far more orderly than its tumble-down appearance now would be a good guess.

For a divine creation, my expectations would agree with that guess. But maybe God wanted some disorder in the creation.

It's probably the disorderliness that is being interpreted as "long and complex processes" and the "Rube Goldberg" effect.

Again, you're invoking a flood of miraculous powers, that could mimic...

Look, your flood is a marine transgression and regression onto and off of the continents. Your 40 days and nights of (world wide?) intensive rains would strip the Earths surface of anything that wasn't solid rock, and send it all washing to the sea. There the sediments would be deposited in some grungy version of what is being called a "Walther's Law sequence", as the ocean levels rose. Then the seas would recede, leaving behind a single "Walther's Law sequence".

Bottom line - Your flood would leave a pretty simple layer of sediments, progressively thicker seaward, the base of which would be the "mother of all unconformities".

The land surfaces would be devoid of any soil covering and any life form, plant or animal. The ultimate "anti-Eden". God would need to do a miraculous "fixer-uppering" to make the Earth livable again.

The results of a sea transgression/regression is a pretty simple, straight forward thing.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 09-24-2017 10:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 09-26-2017 8:54 AM Minnemooseus has responded
 Message 76 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-26-2017 3:02 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 3:20 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3779
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 79 of 224 (820767)
09-27-2017 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
09-26-2017 8:54 AM


Stripping the Earth' surface and moving the material to the sea
Percy writes:

I'm going to modify this next quote extensively to remove ambiguity:

Minnemooseus, modified writes:

The ocean levels rose with their loads of sediment and began washing over the land. The sediments were deposited on the land in some grungy version of what is being called a "Walther's Law sequence". Then the seas receded, leaving behind a single "Walther's Law sequence".

That may be Faith's vision, producing the sediments out of the ocean basins, but my hallucination produces the sediments from the land surfaces exposed to the waterfalls of rain.

My original paragraph:

Minnemooseus writes:

Look, your flood is a marine transgression and regression onto and off of the continents. Your 40 days and nights of (world wide?) intensive rains would strip the Earths surface of anything that wasn't solid rock, and send it all washing to the sea. There the sediments would be deposited in some grungy version of what is being called a "Walther's Law sequence", as the ocean levels rose. Then the seas would recede, leaving behind a single "Walther's Law sequence".

Percy writes:

Calling this a "grungy version of Walther's Law" is misleading because it isn't Walther's Law at all. Walther's Law requires an environment that stays in place long enough to produce and deposit sediment types unique to that environment. Seacoast environments produce sand, further offshore produce shale, further offshore produce slate, further offshore produce limestone (in warmer climes), further offshore or other climes produce calcareous ooze.

(Side note: That extraneous "slate" should be excluded.)

My hallucination is the "Walther's Law" sedimentation process in hyperdrive. Massive amount of sediments being washed off the land, into a rapidly rising sea. The results would be similar to the standard non-hyperdrive deposits, except I would expect the sands to be much less mature (meaning that the sands would include much more rock fragments and less chemically and abrasionally resistant minerals, as opposed to a mature sand being more purely quartz).

The limestones and calcareous ooze are biochemical precipitates, having nothing to do with the land derived detritus. Indeed, in the standard model, these precipitates exist as such only because their deposition areas were not swamped with detrital materials. In the hallucination model, the "Walther's Law" package would exclude the biochemical precipitates - They are still very much a "need a lot of time to happen" items.

Percy writes:

So for example, a particular section of sandstone strata was once a spot that was seacoast for a very long time. It takes seacoast a very long time to produce significant amounts of sand. Sand is produced by the normal slow runoff from the land that is acted upon by the agitated waters of the seacoast, like on beaches and such. Sand isn't on beaches because it's been carried there from somewhere else. Sand is on beaches because beaches are where sand is produced. We know it was produced there (and not carried there) because it is made up of the same particles that run off from the land at that particular location.

My hallucination sand is produces by the abnormal massive runoff from the land, in such volumes that it piles up faster than the seacoast agitated waters can have much effect. Thus you get an immature ("dirty") sand.

Percy writes:

Hawaii has beaches where the sand is fine volcanic rock. Australia has some beaches made of ground up coral.

Immature sands, formed in areas lack a quartz grain source. Without a constant supply of new detritus, the seacoast agitated waters would reduce those sands to mud.

Percy writes:

A transgression occurs when the coastline slowly moves inland, either because of rising waters or subsiding land or a combination. The movement inland has to be slow because it takes a very long time to produce sand in the quantities seen in sandstone strata.

The movement inland is slow because the sea rise rate is slow. It does take a very long time to produce mature ("clean") sand in the quantities seen in sandstone strata. In the hallucination model, the rapid sea rise and transgression rates preclude the sand getting cleaned up. Thus you get what I called "some grungy version of what is being called a "Walther's Law sequence"".

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fixed spelling error in subtitle (stripping, not striping).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 09-26-2017 8:54 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 09-27-2017 8:53 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3779
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 152 of 224 (820918)
09-29-2017 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by edge
09-28-2017 11:45 PM


Ruby Mountains side note
Interestingly enough, the Nevada mountain ranges are mostly tilt blocks similar to the GC Supergroup strata of the Grand Canyon.

The Ruby Mountains are actually much more than your common variety of basin and range fault block mountains (also much prettier - See photos at link below).

quote:
The Ruby Mountains are part of the Basin and Range Province that formed as a result of extension of the North American plate. Normal faults on the eastern and western flanks of the range separate it from the basins on either side of it. The Ruby Mountains are an example of a metamorphic core complex, and middle and lower crustal rocks have been exhumed to the surface in the footwall of a large detachment fault. A mylonitic shear zone can be traced along the fault on the western margin of the Ruby Mountains, marking the contact between the igneous and metamorphic rocks in the core complex and the undeformed sedimentary rocks around it.

Source

The Rubies are more along the lines of being a less eroded version of the GC Supergroup AND the Vishnu Schist complex. Much younger also.

Amazing what THE FLOOD was capable of doing.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Tweak pseudoHTML effort.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by edge, posted 09-28-2017 11:45 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by edge, posted 09-29-2017 12:59 AM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3779
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 154 of 224 (820920)
09-29-2017 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by edge
09-29-2017 12:59 AM


Re: Ruby Mountains side note
One gets a strange feeling about the land forms as you go up Lamoille Canyon, to me it's kind of glacial, but not ...

There is a substantial glacial modification there. There is a small moraine at the end of a side valley at the campground area and a lot of cirque lakes at the heads of other valleys. Probably some hanging side valleys also.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by edge, posted 09-29-2017 12:59 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by edge, posted 09-29-2017 9:06 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3779
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 178 of 224 (820992)
09-29-2017 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
09-29-2017 6:10 PM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
There are different portions or versions of the Stratigraphic Column in different locations, but there is still only one Stratigraphic Column, to which is attached the Geological Time Scale, illustrated thusly:

That is NOT a stratigraphic column, paired with the geologic time scale. It IS the geologic time scale, annotated with some of the fossils that are characteristic of the various time periods. The annotation does not include any specific information about rock type, which would vary from location to location. There is no such thing as THE STRATAGRAPHIC COLUMN.

And by the way it goes up to the present time and it stops there with every indication that it is completed.

In essence, you have an illustration from a (geologic) history book. And just like any history book, it only goes to (at most) the present. Just because you don't find the future in history books, doesn't mean that nothing is happening in the present or going to happen in the future.

...if it ("the stratagraphic column") isn't continuing it proves that it was the result of the Flood.

Whether or not "it" is continuing has nothing to do with the mode of formation.

And yes the claim that a stretch of desert could become strata is so ludicrous you should give it up immediately. Strata are FLAT, ALL of them are originally laid down FLAT and the picture I posted is a nice illustration of that.

The sediments of that stretch of desert is strata. In the future, further erosion and/or deposition will modify the surfaces nature.

TO ALL - NOW - WHAT WAS AND IT MY INTENT FOR THIS TOPIC:

"The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")

I apologize for not making topic theme clearer. I should have done something beyond just using that sentence as the topic title. God knows, no one ever looks at what the topic title is.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Spelling error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 09-29-2017 9:58 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 09-30-2017 2:53 AM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3779
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 182 of 224 (820997)
09-30-2017 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Faith
09-30-2017 2:53 AM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
...the stack of strata on which the Geological Time Scale is built.

The geological time scale is a timeline, a calendar of geologic history. Informations about "the stack of strata" are anotations on the geologic timeline. Divisions of the geologic timeline are chosen because of special events that happened at that time.
Major time period divisions (eg Paleozoic/Mesozoic) are based on major extinction events, more minor time period divisions are based on more minor events.

The geologic timeline is open ended at the present, just like the timeline of our lives is open ended.

THAT stack of sediments is over and done with, there is nothing building on it since the so-called "Holocene."

As PaulK as already replied to you, we are living in the Holocene. The Holocene is the current open ended time period. Saying that "nothing is building on it" (aka "geologic processes have stopped") since the Holocene is like saying that nothing in our current world history has happened since the end of September (note: this message posted September 30th).

And geologic processes have not stopped.

...the obvious evidence for the Flood are not going to be heard then.

The intent of this topic was to explore what sort of erosion and deposition would be expected to result from a single extreme sea transgression/recession event. I am proposing that the sedimentary deposits would be a widespread but geologically simple horizon that has (erroneously) been given the name of a "Walther's Law deposit".

You are incorporating all sorts of other types of geologic processes and affects (including a wide variety of sedimentary deposits) that have absolutely no reasonable/rational connection to what would be expected from a sea transgression/regression.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 09-30-2017 2:53 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 09-30-2017 6:25 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3779
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 198 of 224 (821216)
10-03-2017 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Taq
10-02-2017 4:23 PM


Re: River Deltas
Our standard "Walther's Law" model of land/sea margins sedimentation has the land/water boundary being a beach.

In the "what if' great flood model, there is massive rainfall runoff and sediment load, into a rapidly rising sea. As such, I see the into the seas sedimentation as being dominated by deltaic deposits, to some degree modified by beach formation.

Now, in a steady sea level situation, the delta formation advances into the sea. What happens when a sea level rise overwhelms the delta formation? That's a good question.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Taq, posted 10-02-2017 4:23 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019