Deposition and Erosion of Sediments

I think you threw out a clinker here.I think your sea deposits in Arizona are from sea transgressions onto the continents. The deposits were always continental, not from the ocean basins.Example of oceanic ancient crust are the ophiolite complexes, such a found on Cyprus.Moose {Edited to correct spelling of "ophiolite". Ophiolites are off-topic here.}Second edit: Nice ophiolite linkThis message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-17-2005 01:28 PMThis message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-17-2005 01:34 PM

Are we missing some pretty basic things that Faith doesn't get?Let's keep focussing in on more details.The redwall formation has been chosen. Faith suggests that it can't have been deposited over a long period of time based on the idea that it is one layer, level and consistent through out.If is my understanding that she is wrong on all counts.It is a name given to a group of layers that have distinguishing characteristics. It is generally level but is not flat and horizontal. It only looks that way in picture she is using.There are erosional surfaces in it. Several in fact.Are the above statments true. For this formation? For any of the formations?Faith, have I summarized what you think the facts are?

Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the correction.I don't think this affects my arguments, though. The Redwall Limestone layer revealed at the Grand Canyon is from a shallow sea not much exposed to the vagaries of the weather above its surface nor of the distant shores.--Percy

As long as you agree that this is an argument from personal incredulity, that's fine. You can wrestle with this for as long as you want. Most of us see no reason why there should be limits to a period of stasis. In fact, all geological data support the possibility. As we ran into this road block in a previous thread, I am reluctant to try to answer, but the quick treatment is that some processes are rapid and some are very slow. Very few encompass the entire world. But your point that erosion might remove previously deposited sediments is often correct. Those periods of erosion account for a lot of geologic time that YECs cannot seem to locate in the geological record. Perhaps you could enlighten some of them as to the importance of erosion and unconformities in abbreviating the rock record.

I am again busy today and very tired as well, and am reviewing what I wrote in response to Moose's post, #5, thinking I'd like to answer it again in a different way when I'm up to it, before I move on to jar's post, #6. I have the general plan of plodding through this thread post by post and attempting to answer all of it in order. Meanwhile new posts are accumulating and I have not yet been able to read past the first page.There have been proposals by some on other threads that only one or two of you answer me at once. Could you somehow agree among each other who should have the job of taking down the crazy creationist and the rest just not post on this topic until some further point to be decided on later? I simply can't handle it all.Thanks.

What about a Great Debate topic? That can be a one on one and can even be judged if you want it. I wouldn't mind participating as long as we don't talk politics.

I'm very sympathetic to this issue. As someone else already mentioned, a Great Debate thread is one way to limit the number of participants. We could nominate our "champion" and he could challenge you and your slingshot. One might ask why you're attracting so many responses, and I can answer by way of example. Imagine if I were to go to a Christian forum and begin arguing that Jesus was baptized by Herod the Great and that Paul was his first apostle. In no time at all that thread would attract a ton of responses as people tried to correct my misimpressions. And that's why you're attracting so many responses. Whether or not they're correct about you, to many people you look like the victim of a number of simple misimpressions, and they all want to help.Independent of whether the flood of Noah really happened, there is a field of science known as geology that has systematically studied for a couple of centuries now how sediments are layed down (among many other topics). That's not to say that makes them automatically right, but it does mean that the issues have been pretty thoroughly thought through. Arguments from personal skepticism (e.g., "I just can't believe a sea could exist relatively unchanged for millions of years") or ignorance (e.g., "In the Grand Canyon the real erosion is the canyon itself") cannot possibly carry the day against so well established a field.Understanding what geology actually says about sedimentation and erosion does not mean you have to accept it, but you have to understand it before you can effectively argue against it. We already know you don't accept it, but if these threads have taught us anything at all it's that you don't understand what it is you're rejecting. The approach you're taking isn't, "I've studied and learned the relevant principles of geology, and I reject them because of X, Y and Z." You're instead reasoning that since geology is in league with evolutionists (e.g., "geologists are in thrall to the false evolutionistic theory"), they must be wrong, and so you cast about to and fro searching for valid counterarguments. Such flailing is unlikely to be successful.I can tell by some of your posts that you're sincerely attempting to study and understand the issues. I urge patience. If geologists are wrong then the better you understand their evidence and arguments, the better you'll be able to pinpoint the errors. But if you continue to rush the discussion all you'll get is a lot of, "No, no, geology doesn't say that at all."--PercyPS - The above quotes of you are only intended as paraphrases, but I think they accurately capture your point of view.

I don't want to be JUDGED on my arguments in this place though, which I thought was the point of the Great Debate. If not, I can consider the possibility. I would never deny anything on THAT level, observations about how sediments are laid down and so on. I'm trying to absorb the technical stuff about those things as it comes up, but none of it contradicts my basic impressions so far, just adds technical information, details, terminology. It's really very interesting. But I'm still "incredulous" about the extrapolations that are made from that kind of perfectly valid daily work of geology to historical events over a putative hundreds of millions of years. Those aren't observations, those are conceptual leaps. This would make sense except that the main problem I keep running into is the sense that what I'm TRYING to say isn't being grasped so not really answered, and that other things are being answered instead (straw man) and that real communication just isn't happening. A few seem to get the picture I'm trying to paint better than others but unfortunately I don't remember who in particular -- whoever they are should be the candidates for your "champion" as they answer the points I'm actually raising. But for instance Crashfrog SEEMED to be answering what I was saying just fine on the previous thread about the Evo Timeframe, and yet here he starts out acting as if I'd never mentioned the canyon itself as THE obvious evidence of erosion. That's just a basic communication problem and it's pretty discouraging. Again, I'm not disputing "what geology actually says about sedimentation and erosion" at all, but only how it is applied to the strata, or the Geological Time scale idea. Yes, roughly speaking I'm working from the assumption that evolution has blinded geologists, but it's more like my own shock at discovering that evolution is false made me actually LOOK at something like the Grand Canyon with new eyes and actually start THINKING about it. I know you think I need a sophisticated education in geology to think clearly about it but so far it doesn't seem that way to me, although I'm happy to pick up whatever knowledge relates to the topic. COMMUNICATING about it may turn out to require that education of course. I read some creationist books years ago and have recently read through some creationist websites as well, and they certainly give me a lot of food for thought, but it's my own ponderings about how the strata could have been formed based on the assumptions of the Geo Column -- or actually Geo Time scale -- that I keep coming back to. All the explanations that are being offered here just don't explain what is assumed by the Geo time scale notion of enormous time in relation to the actual strata it is built on. Again, it's the extrapolations, the explanations, not the basic science of sedimentation processes, not "what geology actually says about sedimentation and erosion" and so on, but how it doesn't convincingly explain what is actually there in the strata in the context of the assumptions of huge periods of time. Yes, I am learning to slow down. First I NEED to slow down. I shouldn't be taking this much time to answer you as I still have things to do and am still badly in need of sleep as well. But second, yes, since there is no pressure here to rush, it would be far better to take my time. I'm used to debate sites where there are various forms of time pressure but it's a habit I will happily break.Drat. I really didn't have plans to spend the rest of my life on geology but at least I'm finding what I AM learning to be extremely interesting. Rocks ARE cool.

That was a communication problem, and I should have been far more polite in asking than I was.In deference to your wish that you not be dogpiled, which is entirely reasonable, you won't see too much of me in this thread.

I'm probably the least powerful degreed geologist at this forum, as far as putting arguments forward. Indeed, many of the non-geo-degreed are stronger than me.In addition, I'm pretty slow at preparing responses, and thus would not be the one to overwelm you.I think we have gone away from the "Great Debate" being a judged debate, which is fine with me.In the past, there often has been a parallel "peanut gallery" thread, where others comment on the "GD" topic. In a sense, the others are still participating in the debate, and as of the most recent "GD" the side topic has been prohibited until after the "GD" is completed. As a matter of fact, I think it was Adminnemooseus that suggested (and enforced?) this restriction.Please start a Suggestions and Questions topic, if you wish to discuss a possible "Great Debate" topic further.MooseThis message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-17-2005 06:30 PM

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

You have mentioned being logical about this subject. It seems illogical to claim to be able to comment on a subject without learning about it.Actually you need just an unsophisticated education in geology. Some of the respondents here I suspect are like me, with just a freshman course in geology.I think that your blind adherence to a young earth makes you see erosion and deposition as sideshows...processes that lead nowhere because everything happened a few thousand years ago.I agree that a GD format is best. Your need to answer all respondents while avoiding a basic education in geology would indicate that having one patient and knowledgable person to spoonfeed you the pertinent details is the best approach.I'll agree with Crashfrog and sit this out."You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"ABB

Thank you for that point by point rebuttal. It was a work well above my ability and patience. The tie in with the lack of a worldwide limestone layer to YEC theory weakness was good. The formation of limestone over thousands of square miles of old ocean beds may start to meet Faith's requirement of 'flat neat layers'.Okay, time for me to be quiet. Good luck Moose.ABB

That entire post was simply rude, and thank you for sitting the rest out.

It's fine by me if it's you who do the debating, only I still want to answer some or all of the posts on this thread and that should come first. It was very frustrating that the other thread came to an end when it did, as it left comments in many posts unanswered and now too much effort to retrieve.

Thank you, Crashfrog, that was gracious of you. I really did think we were doing a better job of communicating on the other thread though. Very surprised to find out you had such a different idea of what I was trying to say.