Jump to content


Photo

Continent Wide Dispersion Of Sediment And Boulders


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

#21 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 12 October 2010 - 03:37 AM

Okay, you do have valid points. It would be nearly impossible to have all of that extra water weight without volcanic activity... but yes that is speculation.
I used to think that all YE views were ridiculous. How much have you read? Some of the hypotheses really make sense... more so than mainstream science.

Come out of the ark? I don't think that would be possible.

I thought I found all of these in Psalms 104 but apparently not. lol anyway they are good don't you think?
5 He has founded the earth upon its established places;
It will not be made to totter to time indefinite, or forever.

 6 With a watery deep just like a garment you covered it.
The waters were standing above the very mountains.

 7 At your rebuke they began to flee;
At the sound of your thunder they were sent running in panic—
 8 Mountains proceeded to ascend,
Valley plains proceeded to descend—
To the place that you have founded for them.

6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
    the waters stood above the mountains.

7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
    at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;

8 they flowed over the mountains,
    they went down into the valleys,
    to the place you assigned for them.

9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
    never again will they cover the earth.

Psalms 97:5 seems to indicate something as well.

View Post


I'm not sure what the effect of the weight of water would be. Generally this is the subject of isostasy. An additional overburden of water should have caused land to sink to a lower elevation, then rebound when the water receded. Perhaps this would be what the Psalm references as it appears that the mountains ascending followed the "fleeing" of the waters.

Would this trigger volcanism? I guess it could if it involved fracturing into a reservoir or magma.

#22 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 12 October 2010 - 04:55 AM

I would like to say first, the points you make about the paper itself--nowhere does it say (in the abstract)  geologists were baffled, nor anything about boulders being transported.  The dating was done on zircon crystals found along the strike of mountain layers.

But concerning the point above---you are claiming these episodes are evidence when they are based on actualist assumptions.  The reasoning is circular.  Different dating methods are not consistent as has been shown by the RATE team, and therefore not reliable as sure evidence.  Also the samples from the same rocks from the same area many times show anomolous dates.

I do not want to deviate into dating--there are other threads for that.  The issue, in my opinion, is that the deluge is absolutely precluded--ruled out beforehand---as an explanation, because there is an alternate timescale.  It is treated as a legend for simpletons, when in fact they are blundering by not allowing eyewitness testimony into their mental processes.  Instead they accept the assumptions of educated atheists who took over higher education.

View Post


AFJ, first of all I thank you for actually posting something that is on-topic for the thread.

The article claims that the proportions of zircons goes up in unison with the occurence of the orogenic events. Both the zircons and these events have been calibrated using independent means, that of biostratigraphy. I don't think there is circular reasoning here. The zircons were not used to date the orogenies. The dating of the orogenies would have been in other studies, found in the body of geologic literature.

I think you are basically stating an opinion about how accurate radiometric dating might be by bringing up the RATE work. But I don't know what apsects of this that you are thinking of here. However, the majority of radiometric work done with proper techniques yields consistent results within a bracket of error that would be good enough for the basis of this paper as far as I understand the situation in the study. The analytical techniques used are discussed at the start of the paper using procedures given by... Williams, I.S. 1998, U-Th-Pb geochronology by ion microprobe, in McKibben M.A., Shanks, W.C. III and Ridley, W.I. eds. Applications of Microanalytical Techniques to Understanding Mineralizing Processes: Reviews in Economic Geology, v. 7 p. 1-35.

No, the paper did not conciously preclude "the deluge" either beforehand or during the study as far as I can tell. But the study was designed to build upon the results in previous work that already indicated several orogenic events with relatively quiescent periods in between. The flood model does not fit what had already been found, as it cannot account for the alternating orogenic and erosional episodes that resulted in a rock record with biostratigraphic zonation of unique fossil ranges throughout the resulting strata that were within the constraints of the study.

The evidence found in the samples obtained fit in well with the previous studies, and simply did not indicate that a single deluge took place and was a potential explanation of the data sampled and evaluated. Do you feel that every scientific paper must specifically address the deluge or it is not objective? There are many aspects of geology not addressed in the paper. It does not discuss turbidites, it does not discuss eolian deposisitional processes. It does not discuss the possible effect of glaciation in sedimentation. It does not discuss the effect of earth tides caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. It is a ten page paper. To cover every possible process of sedimentation would have taken up many pages and then include a discussion of blind allies. As it is they cut corners off the discussion that some other authors would have included, as I already posted.

It is treated as a legend for simpletons, when in fact they are blundering by not allowing eyewitness testimony into their mental processes.  Instead they accept the assumptions of educated atheists who took over higher education.


As I have already posted, there is precious little geologic evaluation that can be taken from the accounts of the flood by eyewitnesses in scripture. If there had been evidence of a single major flooding event in all or even part of the samples studied I am sure that the authors of the paper would have pursued this with further work as it would have been far more interesting than what they were able to conclude. As it is the inclusion of the word "extraordinary" appears to be a bit of an attempt to sensationalize their findings.

My geology professors were often rather devoutly religious. This was most certainly the case in grad school where all of them were quite religious and believed in God. I guess it helps you to type all those scientists who hold to the validity of an old earth and evolution as atheists, but this simply is not the case. Some that I studied with would even discuss religion in class sessions and most would get around to doing so on field trips.

But, this paper said nothing about legends, or people being simpletons. On the other hand the creationist reviewer of the paper wanted his readers to believe that geologists do not know their own science by using the crack "geologists were baffled" which of course he totally made up out of whole cloth.

#23 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 12 October 2010 - 05:51 AM

Perhaps we can get back to the OP.  As usual, there is a debate over what the original paper says.  If we actually READ it, and interpret it correctly, we can see a few things. 

A confusing thing is that there is an article in the OP written by a creationist author, but there is an original journal paper from which he is quoting.  Though there were some exaggerated  statements by the creationist author, the overall theme of what he is saying is valid.

Here is the abstract from the original paper.  This is the paper the article in the OP uses.

I'm sure Geode will correct me if I'm wrong, but this means that the zircon samples were broken grains (detrital) or larger crystals from rocks of differing ages (as it assumed and will be addressed later).  They are now mixed in lithified sediment (sedimentary layers). 


Yes, the zircons were once part of igneous or metamorphic bedrock that was eroded. That is implicitif not outright stated in the discussion they made and the list of conditions that were provided about the erosion of the grains which were then transported to where they were deposited in sedimentary rocks (i.e. sandstones, shale, and siltstones). However, they also could be derived from metasedimentary rocks where the grains had already been through a cycle of erosion and transportation.

Now, this is the important fact I want to bring to your attention.  The samples were "taken across and along the strike of the Himalaya from Pakistan to Bhutan (∼2000 km)."  It is imperative that we understand when it says "along the strike," it means the samples came from the bedding between the SAME layers.  Or at least it was at the same PLANAR level.   If we use the law of original horizontality (the strike probably folds, inclines and declines in places), the crystals should have been laid at pretty close to the same time--because they dispersed "along the strike."


No, that is not what the authors meant when they said samples were "taken along strike"...this only means that the sampling was done in the strike direction rather than the dip direction of the Himalaya chain. In other words along a line that would roughly be traced in the "long" direction of the mountain chain which is roughly east-west. It would be the direction you would take to walk along the mountains rather than up and over them. It says absolutely nothing about the samples being taken "between the same layers" ....they were not even taken fron the same formations or lithologies. If sampling had not been done in the strike direction their sampling would only have been able to let them reach conclusions about transport over about 200 kms, not what they were hoping to test. The samples were purposely taken at various stratigraphic levels within the constraints of the interval they wished to sample as defined by biostratigraphy.

This means that the strike is considered to be "one time intervul."  READ the first sentence.  And the research went along "nearly the ENTIRE LENGTH of the an orogen" (mountain range).  The research took samples along the planar level for 2000 km--app. 1250 miles.  Therefore statements to the contrary on this thread are in direct opposition to the apparent reading of the abstract.


Yes, one "time interval" of about 50 million years and spanning a range of levels within multiple formations and lithologies. An orogen is not a mountain range but what creates such ranges. The samples were not taken along a "planar level" for 2000 km as that is impossible, the strata involved have nowhere near that continuity. You have read the abstract in way that a geologist would not, and this was clearly written with trained geologists in mind as they do not provide any Geology 101 discussion such as what they meant by "strike" as well as some other basic geologic background. That is not what such technical articles are written for, that is the purpose of textbooks.

By the statement "we minimize time as a significant source of variance in detrital age spectra...."  I'm assuming they radiometrically dated some of the zircons and received different dates (an age spectra).  They are saying they "minimize" or can almost rule out time as a reason for the different dates on the same level.  This is why they say the zircons are detrital and are all from different rocks formed in different times.


That was a statement of how they limited the sampling before starting the study. The entire basis of the study and resulting paper is that they found different age dates for the zircons. They were apparently attempting to limit the range of dates within the time frame of the orogenic events described, as they wished to attribute the results of the sampling to those events.

(This is a side note.  You see they always have a ready reason, but that reason is based on assumptions that the principles underlying the radiometric dating are beyond doubt--quite foolhardy in my opinion.  And the RATE team has done well in exposing many of these assumptions.  Even scientific journal papers are not exempt from assumptions.)


No, I have not assumed that the age dates are correct in what I have posted, nor that I agree with the conclusions reached in the paper. I have doubts about some of their claims. From what I have read the RATE studies are flawed in some aspects, including assumptions that the RATE team made.

In other words, the zircon samples were part of  "well mixed sediment" for a span that is equivalent to the distance between New York to Kansas City.  One can not rule out the signs of catastrophe here.  Zircon crystals along a 1250 mile strike of well mixed sediment.  Mass dispersal and mixing of sediments would best be described as sediment transport in a short period of time.  If we take off the geologic timescale assumptions, this can easily be evidence for massive water transport of sediment during the flood.


Catastrophic flooding processes that have been studied have not resulted in long distance transportation of sediments. Such transportation has typically been attributed to river transportation and windblown transport as shown by available evidence. I think a violent flood such as you seem to be implying would not result in well-sorted or mixed sediments. Why would this be true?.."Mass dispersal and mixing of sediments would best be described as sediment transport in a short period of time." I don't see how time, long or short, is an obvious causual element in this.

Note this is not the only case for mass continental transport of sediments.  Many of the sediements of the southwest U.S. are considered to have once been in the Appalachian area.


No, I think it is a small proportion of sediments in the Southwest in a couple of formations that have been demonstrated to have had such a possible provinance and this only in eolian sediments limited to Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks.

Also note that "Cambrian-Ordovician" strata are in reality defined by index fossils, and not the sediments they contain.  Most of these fossils would be marine in nature, because that's what Cambrian fossils are.  So again, even geotime period labels on strata are an assumption because certain animals and /or plants were buried in them.  Cambrian layers will be one of the first "fossil-bearing" layers and will contain marine fossils.  This can easily be explained by the fact that these marine creatures were on the ocean bottom during the flood and quickly buried in sediment.  Subsequent uplift of the wet sediment explains both folds, synclines, anticlines in thick portions of land-based, unfaulted strata, and the marine fossils they contain.

View Post


Probably all of the fossils used in defining the strata were marine, whether Cambrian or Ordovician, so I don't see any relevence in your discussion here. What is saw in the discussion involved trilobites which were benthonic.

No, your soft sediment cause for deformed or folded beds in the Himalayas is not supported by what we actually find there. Also, long distance thrust faulting is hardly something explained by such "flood geology"...

You seem to have quite an interest in this subject. I would suggest taking a structural geology course. But be warned, you might come away from such a study having grave doubts about a young age for the earth and teh validity of "flood geology" concepts. Yes, you will learn about contemporaneous deformation, but it leaves tell-tale signs that allow it to be distinguished other folding.

#24 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 23 October 2010 - 12:51 AM

I would like to say first, the points you make about the paper itself--nowhere does it say (in the abstract)  geologists were baffled, nor anything about boulders being transported.

View Post


I remain mystified by the claim about boulders being transported across continents. This idea did not come from the paper being cited as not only are no boulders mentioned in the abstract, they are not mentioned in the body of the paper either.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users