Jump to content


Photo

Lack Of Full Stratigraphy


  • Please log in to reply
193 replies to this topic

#121 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 January 2010 - 05:07 PM

When applying the Principle of Superposition, Dr. Berthault should NOT compare the topset of one layer with the DOWN SLOPE bottomset of another and then claim that the law is invalid.


Why not?That is how theories are tested.Obviously,Henke is angry again because operational science is more valid than hiding behind millions of years.

To appropriately apply the Principle of Superposition, topsets must ONLY be compared with overlying and underlying layers in a vertical direction and bottomsets with their overlying and underlying layers, also in a vertical direction (Figure 1).


Sure,only look at it his way and you'll never notice he's wrong.

He tried to misrepresent Humphrey's helium data too.

http://www.evolution...findpost&p=2446

The only person I can think of,who might be worse at distorting truth and history is Glenn Kuban.LOL




Enjoy.

#122 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 January 2010 - 10:02 PM

Scanman,

We frown on a bunch of wholesale cut and paste stuff. If you want to snip sections to debate, that's fine. But just leave the links to the whole articles instead of bringing whole articles over. People can go and read them if they want. Because when you start doing this then everyone else will too.

#123 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 01 January 2010 - 10:11 PM

Scanman,

We frown on a bunch of wholesale cut and paste stuff. If you want to snip sections to debate, that's fine. But just leave the links to the whole articles instead of bringing whole articles over. People can go and read them if they want. Because when you start doing this then everyone else will too.

View Post


I understand...I wish that everything could be in youtube videos.

I hate trying to paraphrase large articles...but I will do better next time.

Thanks for the heads up.

#124 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 01 January 2010 - 10:16 PM

Sure,only look at it his way and you'll never notice he's wrong.


It is not a matter of looking at it 'his' way...that is how the Principle of Superposition is supposed to be applied...vertically.

And you once again did not address the question concerning the carbonate, evaporite and shale deposition.

Peace & Happy New Year.

#125 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 02 January 2010 - 07:53 AM

The lab experiment of underwater dunes is not consistent with what is found in nature.

Do you have any pictures of underwater dune structures?...other then ones that are artificially produced?

Peace

View Post

Wait a minute Scanman. Your qualifying your question with an assumption taught by uniformintarian geologists. Namely that dunes are the cause of cross bedding in the sandstone.

Jason777 has laid out the data to us well. What impresses me is that there are straight horizontal "strata" being made before our eyes with cross bedding lamination of 36.7 degrees.

By Scanman (post #111)
Dunes that are formed underwater are typically less then 10 degrees, which in no way resembles the structure of the Coconino sandstone.

"We cannot emphasize too strongly that sand waves possess low to mild
slopes ... it is clear that the sides of the waves rarely dip more steeply
than 10 degress overall and can slope as little as 1 degree ..."


Allen, John R.L. 1982. Sedimentary Structures: Their Character and
Physical Basis. Volume I. Developments in Sedimentology 30A. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.


Again "present key to past" mentality rules in this argument. Allen did not tell us from where he got his data, so we can assume he is speaking about sand waves driven by tidal currents. No creation model has water flowing this slowly.

They have produced barchans in a water tank, which have at least 32 degree cross-bedding on one side.

Now a team publishing in the 23 December print issue of PRL reports it has generated miniature replicas of crescent-shaped dunes known as barchans in a water tank.... Source 1


The "sand" (150 micron glass beads) was moved back and forth to "mimic" intermittent winds on sand dunes. But isn't this also showing us that under the right conditions water can produce higher angled cross bedding?

Posted Image

As far as the tracks, walk over a sand dune in Mauritania where the wind is always blowing. Come back in a week to see if your footprints are still there. Slow eolian processes are a weak explanation compared to rapid sediment deposition over tracks that would hold their form in water-saturated sand.

#126 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 02 January 2010 - 10:15 AM

As far as the tracks, walk over a sand dune in Mauritania where the wind is always blowing.  Come back in a week to see if your footprints are still there.  Slow eolian processes are a weak explanation compared to rapid sediment deposition over tracks that would hold their form in water-saturated sand.


Prints are made in eolian sand dunes all of the time. All that is needed is a little moisture in the form of rain or dew...then new sand is blown over the impressions thus preserving them.

Coconino tetrapod prints:
Posted Image
Posted Image

Link

The following information was summarized from Middleton, et al., 1990.

While there are no body fossils in the Coconino, there are trackways of at least 10 invertebrate ichnospecies and 16 vertebrate ichnospecies. Fossil tracks similar to those left by modern-day tarantulas and wolf spiders have been identified on the basis of experimentation (looking at spider footprints in sand) and fossil trackways similar to those left by modern-day scorpions, millipedes, and isopods have also been identified (and studies of these trackways showed that the tracks would only be made if the sand was dry!). With regard to all of the tetrapod vertebrate tracks, including those identified as being left by synapsid reptiles, it's useful to remember that these animals commonly live on land and not underwater.


The main question is how were all of these prints being made by land animals, under thousands of feet of water while the Toroweap and Kaibab were being deposited on top of them?

And then there are the raindrop impressions.

Coconino Raindrops
Posted Image
Posted Image


And I still have had no answer concerning carbonate, evaporite and shale deposition while all of this is going on.

Why?..because carbonate (Limestone), evaporite (salts) and shale cannot be deposited under catastrophic flood conditions.

#127 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 02 January 2010 - 10:49 AM

They have produced barchans in a water tank, which have at least 32 degree cross-bedding on one side. 
The "sand" (150 micron glass beads) was moved back and forth to "mimic" intermittent winds on sand dunes.  But isn't this also showing us that under the right conditions water can produce higher angled cross bedding?  

Posted Image


Regarding the Barchan experiment...

Barchan Article Link

The machine alternately jerked the tray forward quickly and then pulled backward slowly enough to keep the beads in place, simulating intermittent winds. Barchans formed automatically, at 1 to 10 centimeters long and 1 to 10 millimeters high--1/1000 the scale of those in the desert. The proportions matched those of real dunes, and the team's detailed measurements of dune size and motion apparently confirm the existence of a flux saturation length.


The whole experiment as mentioned in the PRL article, was to simulate wind-formed Barchan dunes. They could not do it using sand, so they came up with the idea of glass beads.

The only underwater 'Barchan' type formations of any significant size, that I am aware of, are in the form of gravel 'dunes'...not sand.

An Indepth Analysis of Barchan formations

Peace

#128 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 02 January 2010 - 01:12 PM

The main question is how were all of these prints being made by land animals, under thousands of feet of water while the Toroweap and Kaibab were being deposited on top of them?

And then there are the raindrop impressions.


http://www.evolution...indpost&p=47416

Prints are made in eolian sand dunes all of the time. All that is needed is a little moisture in the form of rain or dew...then new sand is blown over the impressions thus preserving them.


Thats fine until you try it,then you find out that wet sand does'nt blow.


Why?..because carbonate (Limestone), evaporite (salts) and shale cannot be deposited under catastrophic flood conditions.


C'mon,your ignoring operational science for long held OE assumptions again.I can tell you as a reef aquarists that you can dump a large tub of salt water on a pile of sand and it will filter out the salt leaving behind salt layers.LOL


The occurrence of limestone deposits that are so great and so uniform defies explanation except by massive precipitation from chemical-rich waters, consistent with catastrophism, not uniformitarianism. Dolomite sediments are not being formed at all today; they also require an exceptional explanation.

Source: Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 104.


I also know from many years of reef experience that an aquariums Alk. and Calcium level have to be in equillibrium or it will cause calcium carbonate precipitation.(see above quote)

There are also very strong dissimlairities between modern lime muds and ancient ones

There are strong dissimilarities, however. Modern "shallow water" lime muds are dominated by "silt sized" crystals (approximately 20 microns in diameter) of the mineral aragonite (most contain 60 to 95% aragonite, and O to 10% calcite) derived from disaggregation or abrasion of skeletons of marine organisms.Ancient lime mudstones ("micritic limestones") are abundant in Grand Canyon, and are dominated by "clay sized" crystals (less than 4 microns in diameter) of the mineral calcite (nearly 100% calcite and/or dolomite) with "sand sized" and larger skeletal (shell) fragments floating in the fine crystal matrix.

Geologists emphasize the textural, mineralogical, and chemical differences between modern lime muds and many ancient limestones:

    Micritic limestones, composed essentially of calcite, have textures quite different from those of the aragonite dominated modern lime muds that long have been regarded as their precursors.

and again:

    Modern carbonate sediments contrast sharply in their chemistry and mineralogy with ancient carbonate rocks.

Even the shapes of the grains are strongly discordant between the modern and ancient lime muds:

    Furthermore, the grain (crystal) size distribution and grain (crystal) shape characteristics of modern lime mud sediment are very different from their lithified counterparts.


http://www.icr.org/i.....ction=view...


If anybody still thinks that ancient limestone could'nt be deposited by catastrophe,then they will have a fun time explaining why these are found in them. :o

http://gsa.confex.co...tract_45610.htm






Thanks.

#129 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 02 January 2010 - 09:58 PM

Thats fine until you try it,then you find out that wet sand does'nt blow.


The impressions are made in wet/damp sand. It is dry airborne sand that is blown on to the top of the tracks...which happens today and is easily repeated by experimentation.

C'mon,your ignoring operational science for long held OE assumptions again.I can tell you as a reef aquarists that you can dump a large tub of salt water on a pile of sand and it will filter out the salt leaving behind salt layers.LOL


Evaporite layers are formed by 'evaporation'...they are not formed underwater. In your example, salt water is 'filtered' through sand, leaving behind the salt. In the 'flood' scenario, water would not be flowing through the sedimentary layers along the bottom of the 'ocean'. salts would be suspended in the water and not settle unless evaporation takes effect.

Peace

#130 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 January 2010 - 07:07 AM

Regarding the Barchan experiment...
The whole experiment as mentioned in the PRL article, was to simulate wind-formed Barchan dunes. They could not do it using sand, so they came up with the idea of glass beads.

The only underwater 'Barchan' type formations of any significant size, that I am aware of, are in the form of gravel 'dunes'...not sand.

An Indepth Analysis of Barchan formations

Peace

View Post


I am fully aware of that and said so in my post. The simple fact though, is that water did it. Under the right conditions we have seen two instances of water producing steeper angles in the cross bedding. And there are more.

I will join into the track debate after I have presented this evidence, but slot canyon formation will connect also to the tracks.

Namely to show in a cataclysmic model, that the water was not calm and the sand was not always level, so parts of it would have mounted above the rapidly moving, rising water.

The sandstone strata in the southwest U.S. record plenty of turbidity in the water. Many slot canyons are within a close proximity of the GC, making a catastrophic drainage model easy to see.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image1

Posted Image
2

Rounded areas--Slot canyon formation is not attributed to wind by scientists but water. The second picture is probably a drainage hole like formation. PLEASE KNOW I UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT DEPOSITIONAL EVIDENCE BUT EROSIONAL EVIDENCE FOR A CATACLYSMIC MODEL. The next point will connect to depositional evidence.

Vertical foliation--It is said that sandstone is not foliated, because it is sedimentary. It is my contention that it can foliate, as these layers were not laid vertically. The second and third pictures have vertical and horizontal foliation beside each other.

There is no syncline or anticline here, so tectonic movement would be a silly explanation for the vertical and winding layers in the formation. Heat and pressure couldn't cause this formation, or we would no longer have sandstone. Water is the only explanation.

Lastly, you have massive oxidation in the sand, and large boulders in the the deserts of the southwest. All a sign of alot of water when we put it together.

Therefore it my contention that all of this happened within a short period of time. There is no way slow eolian deposition can explain the vertical and horizontal layering can happen within feet of each other. The reason is this not strata but foliation, which is a chemical process in lithification. Therefore the sand was laid first and then the "layering" took place.

After the flood, there are lakes left around the GC area. An earthquake or earthquakes could have caused catastrophic outburst floods to cut through the partially lithified sediments, causing the canyon.

#131 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 03 January 2010 - 08:36 AM

I am fully aware of that and said so in my post.  The simple fact though, is that water did it.  Under the right conditions we have seen two instances of water producing steeper angles in the cross bedding.  And there are more.


But you are lifting your own conclusions from an experiment that was not setup to prove them. The conclusions that the scientists came up with were not about the creation of underwater Barchan dunes, but a correlation about how eolian barchan dunes would form and behave on a larger scale.
It was already stated that due to the viscosity of water, glass beads were used instead of sand.
The Coconino is made of sand, not glass beads.

Peace

#132 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 03 January 2010 - 09:06 AM

The sandstone strata in the southwest U.S. record plenty of turbidity in the water.  Many slot canyons are within a close proximity of the GC, making a catastrophic drainage model easy to see.

Posted Image1

Posted Image
2


Vertical foliation--It is said that sandstone is not foliated, because it is sedimentary.  It is my contention that it can foliate, as these layers were not laid vertically.   The second and third pictures have vertical and horizontal foliation beside each other. 

There is no syncline or anticline here, so tectonic movement would be a silly explanation for the vertical and winding layers in the formation.  Heat and pressure couldn't cause this formation, or we would no longer have  sandstone.  Water is the only explanation.


There is no vertical foliation in these pictures.

There is no foliation whatsoever.

Sandstone does not foliate.

There is however, horizontal sedimentation and/or eolian sedimentaion, depending on what sandstone strata this is.

The vertical, matte black streaks are formed by water and organic material flowing over the sandstone during times of rain.

More vertical banding caused by staining...
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image


Peace

#133 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 January 2010 - 09:46 AM

There is no vertical foliation in these pictures.

There is no foliation whatsoever.

Sandstone does not foliate.

There is however, horizontal sedimentation and/or eolian sedimentaion, depending on what sandstone strata this is.

The vertical bands and lines are from staining by the layers above.

More vertical banding caused by staining...
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Peace

View Post


When I was Africa about 13 years ago, there was a pile of sand that had been dumped for the intention (obviously) of making concrete, but had never been used. I had not studied much in geology at that time. As I walked by, it looked like a normal pile of sand, except a small potion had broken off to reveal the sand inside.

What caught my eye was "layering" in the sand. Small layers varying from about an inch to 1/2 inch. I did not know what caused this at that time. Upon closer examination, I felt that the outer layer of the pile had dessicated and was brittle--possibly 1" deep. The sand inside had formed bands that were of slightly different shades. There was a definite definition which made it appear to be "layers" of sand. It was lamination.

This was empirical evidence for me that a single deposition of sand can "layer" itself through some kind of chemical process in the grains themselves.--though I did know what had happened at that time.

Later, as I began to study about crystallization, and foliation--I began to believe at least some of the formations in sandstone were mis-attributed.

I realize that unless we do a micro photolitography of the sand in these slot canyon and in many other sandstone formations in the southwest U.S., we will never know the truth. We need to know whether the grains have turned in foliation or whether this can all be attributed to staining.

I also realize that foliation is attributed to metamorphic rock and not sedimentary. But, whether you want to call it foliation or whatever, I have a hunch that I wish to examine--that in the lithfication process of some sandstone formations there have chemical processes among or in the grains themselves which have caused them to crystallize in a certain laminated manner. I am not saying at all this would be for all sandstone formations.

If you have any hard evidence, besides quotes from uniform. scientists, that this hypothesis of mine has been falsified, then please post it. Even then, I think what I saw in the sand pile in Africa must be explained by something other than chemical processes or processes in the lithification.

#134 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 January 2010 - 10:19 AM

When I was Africa about 13 years ago, there was a pile of sand that had been dumped for the intention (obviously) of making concrete, but had never been used.  I had not studied much in geology at that time.  As I walked by, it looked like a normal pile of sand, except a small potion had broken off to reveal the sand inside.

What caught my eye was "layering" in the sand.  Small layers varying from about an inch to 1/2 inch.  I did not know what caused this at that time.  Upon closer examination, I felt that the outer layer of the pile had dessicated and was brittle--possibly 1" deep.  The sand inside had formed bands that were of slightly different shades.  There was a definite definition which made it appear to be "layers" of sand.  It was lamination.

This was empirical evidence for me that a single deposition of sand can "layer" itself through some kind of chemical process in the grains themselves.--though I did know what had happened at that time.

Later, as I began to study about crystallization, and foliation--I began to believe at least some of the formations in sandstone were mis-attributed.

I realize that unless we do a micro photolitography of the sand in these slot canyon and in many other sandstone formations in the southwest U.S., we will never know the truth.  We need to know whether the grains have turned in foliation or whether this can all be attributed to staining. 

I also realize that foliation is attributed to metamorphic rock and not sedimentary.  But, whether you want to call it foliation or whatever, I have a hunch that I wish to examine--that in the lithfication process of some sandstone formations there have chemical processes among or in the grains themselves which have caused them to crystallize in a certain laminated manner.  I am not saying at all this would be for all sandstone formations.

If you have any hard evidence, besides quotes from uniform. scientists, that this hypothesis of mine has been falsified, then please post it.  Even then, I think what I saw in the sand pile in Africa must be explained by something other than chemical processes or processes in the lithification.

View Post


Posted Image

You can see the 3D effect of these "stata." Please notice the formation on the right side middle. It is definitely protruding with lamination underneath. I think one could safely say this formation is way too organized to be a simple staining effect. The laminations groove.

I believe this happened from a foliation-like effect in the sand particles themselves after being shaped by turbulent water.

We need to find out how deep this oxidation goes. At any rate--bottom line--massive water deposition by very turbid and rapidly moving water--not wind.

#135 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 03 January 2010 - 11:32 AM

Posted Image

You can see the 3D effect of these "stata." Please notice the formation on the right side middle.  It is definitely protruding with lamination underneath.  I think one could safely say this formation is way too organized to be a simple staining  effect.  The laminations groove. 

I believe this happened from a foliation-like effect in the sand particles themselves after being shaped by turbulent water.

We need to find out how deep this oxidation goes.  At any rate--bottom line--massive water deposition by very turbid and rapidly moving water--not wind.

View Post


AFJ,

One of the most famous examples of wind-eroded limestone in the world. (see erosion link below)

Located at the East Kaibab Monocline, the 'Wave' sandstone outcrops, are one of the most famous nature tourist destinations in the world...unfortunately they restrict visitation to only 20 visitors a day...by lottery.

The whole formation was formed primarily by eolian scouring processes involving saltating sand and rain on calcified compacted ancient sanddunes from the Jurassic age (Navajo sandstone)...very well documented.

Once again, sandstone does not foliate.

The Wave - Wind Erosion Link

The Wave Link

Wave wiki link

Peace

#136 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 03 January 2010 - 11:46 AM

When I was Africa about 13 years ago, there was a pile of sand that had been dumped for the intention (obviously) of making concrete, but had never been used.  I had not studied much in geology at that time.  As I walked by, it looked like a normal pile of sand, except a small potion had broken off to reveal the sand inside.

What caught my eye was "layering" in the sand.  Small layers varying from about an inch to 1/2 inch.  I did not know what caused this at that time.  Upon closer examination, I felt that the outer layer of the pile had dessicated and was brittle--possibly 1" deep.  The sand inside had formed bands that were of slightly different shades.  There was a definite definition which made it appear to be "layers" of sand.  It was lamination.

This was empirical evidence for me that a single deposition of sand can "layer" itself through some kind of chemical process in the grains themselves.--though I did know what had happened at that time.


You said that this sand had been dumped.

What was it dumped from?

How was the sand put into the vehicle that transported it?

Was it one shovelful at a time?

You are drawing what you call 'empirical evidence' from something for which you do not know the original conditions...a man-made pile of sand.

For example:

I have a wheelbarrow
I am shovelling sand striaght from the ground
Each shovelful is poured on top of the other
Each shovelful digs deeper into the sand on which I am standing,
As I dig deeper, the sand that I am digging may have subtlely different compositions
I am creating a pile of sand with different layers based on each shovelful of sand.

I am not saying that is how your sand pile came into existence...but you don't know that fact either.

You called something 'empirical' based on assumptions of a chemical process that was never tested.

Peace

#137 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 January 2010 - 01:12 PM

You said that this sand had been dumped.

What was it dumped from?

How was the sand put into the vehicle that transported it?

Was it one shovelful at a time?

You are drawing what you call 'empirical evidence' from something for which you do not know the original conditions...a man-made pile of sand.

For example:

I have a wheelbarrow
I am shovelling sand striaght from the ground
Each shovelful is poured on top of the other
Each shovelful digs deeper into the sand on which I am standing,
As I dig deeper, the sand that I am digging may have subtlely different compositions
I am creating a pile of sand with different layers based on each shovelful of sand.

I am not saying that is how your sand pile came into existence...but you don't know that fact either.

You called something 'empirical' based on assumptions of a chemical process that was never tested.

Peace

View Post


I will tell you everything I can. It was approximately 5 feet high--one pile consistent with dumping from a truck--which they had there, as many of the buildings are concrete in the cities--or mud brick walls with high cement concrete coating on both sides of the walls. In Ivory Coast, they do not use gravel for their concrete work, but sand--with alot of cement. They do very good work with it.

The pile was not lumpy as though it had been shoveled. The sand is white to whitish. As I said the outer shell was brittle and about an inch thick. You could break it off with your hands, but it was not soft. I do not recall the hardness of the sand inside where I saw the lamination.

The lamination was completely horizontal. No winding. I pulled about a 10 inch "hole" off the outer shell, which did not show lamination. It looked just like a regular pile of sand otherwise.

We lived there (Yamasoukro--sp) for 1 year and the pile was there since we got there. The reason I know is it was just 4 houses down the lane and there was no construction work going on the whole time we were there. I did not even look closely at it until a small hole broke open, which exposed the lamination.

This was in Ivory Coast near the equator, with 2 rainy seasons, one in August in November. I am recalling with the help of my wife. The rest of the year was dry with a mean temp of app. 92 degrees. 98 when it was hot and down to 80 sometimes when it was cool in the rainy season.

I wish now I would have taken pictures and logged it better. I realize this will go down in the annuls of your mind as an "unconfirmed report." But since no one has intelligently answered what had happened to the sand, I have to assume it was some kind of chemical foliation starting in the sand. That is something was going on with the grain arrangement itself through possibly some kind of particle aggregation of the sand.

Please remember that quartz can be grown in water, so why would it be strange to think that quartz sand can foliate or aggregate under certain conditions. I do not know what the conditions would have to be, but I would like to find any research on this.

#138 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 03 January 2010 - 02:35 PM

Please remember that quartz can be grown in water, so why would it be strange to think that quartz sand can foliate or aggregate under certain conditions.  I do not know what the conditions would have to be, but I would like to find any research on this.


Thanks for the further detail...I think it is still rather difficult to make any definitive conclusions unless the sandpile origin and formation was fully understood.

As for foliation involving sandstone...while sandstone itself does not foliate, the boundary of sandstone with other strata of different composition can exhibit foliation.

Here is a fairly indepth paper on foliation...

Foliation PDF

Peace

#139 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 January 2010 - 08:05 PM

Posted Image

You can see the 3D effect of these "stata." Please notice the formation on the right side middle.  It is definitely protruding with lamination underneath.  I think one could safely say this formation is way too organized to be a simple staining  effect.  The laminations groove. 

I believe this happened from a foliation-like effect in the sand particles themselves after being shaped by turbulent water.

We need to find out how deep this oxidation goes.  At any rate--bottom line--massive water deposition by very turbid and rapidly moving water--not wind.

View Post


You can also see layering like the Navajo Sandstone below.

Posted Image

No desert in the world is producing layers,it is only done in water.And no desert in the world is being transported thousands of miles.The sahara desert is being formed on site,why were'nt the massive sandstone formations in the past produced the same way? ;)




Enjoy.

#140 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 03 January 2010 - 10:02 PM

...no desert in the world is being transported thousands of miles.The sahara desert is being formed on site,why were'nt the massive sandstone formations in the past produced the same way? ;) 


Incorrect...

Desert transport takes place over a matter of a few years or millenia, depending on climate conditions and soil properties...the Sahara has been in a constant state of migration. In arid northern China, dunes are advancing on some villages at a rate of 20 meters per year. Tibet, Saharan Africa, Middle East, are likewise threatened by desertification/dune migration.

No desert in the world is producing layers,it is only done in water.


Incorrect...

Eolian processes produce layering all of the time.

The Navajo Sandstone consist of lithified sand dunes produced by Eolian processes.

Trenching at White Sands NM has revealed extensive stratification and layering in non-lithified sand dune formations.

This occurs all over the world.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

White Sands Geological Overview Link

Peace




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users