Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
644 online now:
dwise1, nwr, PaulK, ringo (4 members, 640 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,081 Year: 6,193/6,534 Month: 386/650 Week: 156/278 Day: 24/30 Hour: 1/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deposition and Erosion of Sediments
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 127 (191951)
03-16-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus
03-16-2005 2:07 PM


Question for you Moose or anyone one else.
Would it be worthwhile to go into the fact that what we see today is simply the NET remaining deposit? If there is a layer that was laid down over 1 million years, what we see today is simply what remains after being deposited, compressed, eroded, moved and twisted?

The initial deposit may well have been considerably thicker and was subject to being deposited and eroded throughout the period. What remains is simply the NET difference between deposition and erosion. Is that correct?

If a layer is (all simply asumed numbers for explanation) 1000 feet think and was supposedly laid down over 1000 years, that does not mean 1 foot per year but rather that deposition averaged 1 foot per year more than erosion. Is that correct?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-16-2005 2:07 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-16-2005 4:54 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 17 of 127 (191981)
03-16-2005 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
03-16-2005 5:15 PM


Is the GC laid out in nice even layers?
I found a couple drawings that might help you visualize the Grand Canyon in another way. These take two slices through the canyon and the surrounding lands, one north-south and the other east-west. It only looks at the major sections but you will see similar signs of change and erosion within each major section.


Click to enlarge

You can find the images and write up here

Interestingly, IIRC, you'll find whole sections of rock missing in the Grand Canyon itself. For example, all of the rock from the time of the dinosaurs eroded away and simply isn't present. We know it must have been there at one time because if we wander over into Utah or Montana we can find it present. But erosion eliminated that whole massive section in the Grand Canyon itself. That's why the only dinosaur remains ever found in the Grand Canyon are those that washed in.

So what is seen in the Grand Cayon cannot be the result of one incident. There are pieces parts missing. It's not a neat, continuous act of creation, rather it's,like life itself, a random record ofconstruction and destruction carried out over billions of years.

This message has been edited by Admin, 03-17-2005 09:26 AM


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 03-16-2005 5:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 03-19-2005 11:43 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 59 of 127 (192706)
03-20-2005 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
03-19-2005 11:43 PM


Re: Is the GC laid out in nice even layers?
OK, tell me more. Are you talking about rock that was originally in layers like all the others, and is found in layers in Utah and Montana?

Yup. I'm talking about whole layers that are missing. They are present in other areas and not in the Grand Canyon. The were eroded away.

And if so, can you explain how entire parallel layers happened to disappear out of a stack of layers without doing irreparable damage to the overall parallel configuration?

The same way it always happens. They were eroded.

Erosion happens in different places and in different times and can be caused by different things. The same is true about deposition.

What we find when we look at a column (I hate the idea of a Geological Column, that is only a hypothetical idea and will never be the same in any two locations) is the net results over time.

There are several things at work. There is deposition. It can be from material worn down from somewhere else, material built up by living organisms, layers of magma or conglomerates of other stuff (for example a layer of coal).

When we take a slice at one point you can see the layers. But if we drove 500 miles away and took a second slice, it will be different than the first.

OR, conceivably, the record of one humongous catastrophic Flood. Seems to me what you have offered here in fact supports that kind of event a lot better than it supports the scenario you just sketched out.

Nope. Can't be.

Here's why.

When we compare slices from all over the world what we find is different parts missing. If the missing parts were caused by any one thing, they would show the same layers missing where ever we looked. But that is simply not the case.

Different areas show different events and different results.

{Edit to add afterthought: If the idea is that the "missing" layers were eroded away after the underlying layers were formed but before the overlying layers had formed, that's a ferocious lot of erosion being implied there, and what's remarkable about it is that it so neatly removed some layers, but didn't cut a canyon or in any way disturb the parallal configuration beneath.

You might have a point if anything you said was accurate, but other than the fact that some layers are missing, nothing in the above quote is accurate.

When you look at a period of millions of years you will find a bodacious amount of erosion. And a bodacious amount of buildup as well. And it varies depending on where you look. Every site is different and unique.

There is simply NO evidence of a world-wide flood and lots of evidence that it never happened.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 03-19-2005 11:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 03-20-2005 9:29 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 61 of 127 (192771)
03-20-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
03-20-2005 9:29 AM


I'm sorry Faith
but your last post is so full of errors I'm overwhelmed. I find it impossible to address so many, many mistakes in any real way.

The only possibility is to try to take one basic error and deal with it. Maybe if we can deal with some of the basics it will be possible to move on.

If we gan get the very basics down on what happens and how it happens we will be able to make some progress on the rest.

Let's start with this one.

I gather that this was during the time of their formation, during the millions of years during which the dinosaurs supposedly roamed? Somehow ONLY those layers were eroded away, and ONLY those layers? And they were eroded away PERFECTLY, leaving no trace of their prior existence in the stack, none whatever, no lumps to disturb the parallel profile, not an errant stubborn rock or an embedded dinosaur bone the erosion couldn't dislodge? AND despite all that severe erosive activity over millions of years that totally erased multiple thick layers lumpy with dinosaur carcasses, the erosion left the underlying layers completely intact?

This is truly miraculous!

Never have I see so many misconceptions squeezed into one small paragraph. It is truly astounding, even more than seeing the clowns emerge from the Volkswagen.

I gather that this was during the time of their formation, during the millions of years during which the dinosaurs supposedly roamed?

In the particular case of the Grand Canyon, it may have been during that period, after that period or over the extended period from somewhere during or even before the period and continuing through to today.

Somehow ONLY those layers were eroded away, and ONLY those layers?

A prodigious leap of faith. Somehow you have concocted a whole new interpretation that was not even HINTED at in anything I wrote.

What makes you think only those layers were eroded. In places the layers that should be above them are gone as well. Part of the layers beneath them, even earlier layers are missing as well.

And they were eroded away PERFECTLY, leaving no trace of their prior existence in the stack, none whatever, no lumps to disturb the parallel profile, not an errant stubborn rock or an embedded dinosaur bone the erosion couldn't dislodge?

I'm sorry but that sentence is just juvenile. It has so many errors I need to break it down and deal with them individually.

And they were eroded away PERFECTLY...

They were eroded away, gone, kaput, finished, Elvis has left the building. That's what eroded means. GONE!

...leaving no trace of their prior existence in the stack, none whatever,...

Of course there traces of their prior existence. First, they are missing. In one place we see ABCDE and in the Grand Canyon area we see ABC and in a few spots ABCE.

But the evidence is not just there. The traces are spread out over other areas, what gets eroded here gets deposited there. That's how it works. That's how over millions of years, beaches form. Every beach was once a mountain.

...no lumps to disturb the parallel profile ...

There IS no parallel profile.

... not an errant stubborn rock or an embedded dinosaur bone the erosion couldn't dislodge?

And the Grand Prize Winner!

We are looking at a whole section being eroded away. If there was a rock that couldn't be eroded when everything around it was gone it too would get moved and deposited somewhere else.

Let me summarize.

A whole section is missing.

What should be above it is missing.

Part of what should be below it is missing.

There are NO neat parallel layers.

What was once there is now somewhere else.

This did not happen over a large area, if we go up to Utah or Montana, or down into Arizona and Mexico, we see different results.

AND despite all that severe erosive activity over millions of years that totally erased multiple thick layers lumpy with dinosaur carcasses, the erosion left the underlying layers completely intact?

Of course not. No one has said that. There are signs of the exact same processes in every layer at every location in the world. The underlying layers that are now exposed are being eroded as we speak and in other areas the very, very oldest layers are being eroded away, AND covered up with new deposits.

It is an ongoing process. The very things that happened over the BILLIONS of years of records (not mere millions of years) that are exposed by the Grand Canyon continue today. Parts that are exposed wear away and others get covered.

Faith.

Please accept this as constructive criticism.

The problem is that your basic knowledge and understanding of the world and what goes on is so completely lacking that you are bound to have difficulties accepting the obvious.

You're tackling a subject without even the most basic tools need. As a fellow Christian, I have to tell you the best course is for you to step back and first get the minimal amount of knowledge needed to understand the question.

This one paragraph is an example. It's taken me about a thousand words to address the errors in a one hundred word paragraph. And I have only scratched the surface. When it comes to geology your ignorance is near complete.

That ignorance is not a problem; it's an opportunity for you. Before you try to carry this any further, can I suggest that you go back and read some of the works from a couple hundred years ago on the subject? Look at the evidence through the eyes of the geologists of the time, those who finally put the question of whether or not there was a world-wide flood to rest. These folk were mostly Christians and it was the evidence that forced them to conclude that the Bible was simply in error.

You are not stupid. You are though, blinded by your ignorance. That can be cured. But it is a difficult task.

Go back to them. They began their journey in exactly the same position you now occupy. They wanted to believe the Biblical Myth of the Flood, but what they found, the evidence written by GOD himself in the rocks of the earth, said it was just a story.

The Flood, as described in the Bible is but a morality play. It simply never happened. Period!

And also understand, once you have learned enough to begin reading what GOD wrote (the universe we live in) as opposed to what men wrote (the Bible) you will find your Faith strengthened and a vastly increased awe and wonder at the miraculous world we live in.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 03-20-2005 9:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 03-20-2005 6:38 PM jar has not replied
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 03-20-2005 8:30 PM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022