Jump to content


Photo

Layers Of Rock


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

#41 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:18 AM

I find this topic of interest, and would like to ask a question about it. I am new to this whole geologic timescale notion, but I do believe in the Genesis flood. I just haven't grasp how a flood could deposit the strata. Can somebody clarify that to me? I thnk they formed underwater but how? Thanks, would be grateful to hear all explanations.

Get a bucket of water and sand and dump it in a tank. Repeat a few thousand times. That's kind of how thin layers were built up. But there are numerous other means by which other types of deposits were formed. The key element with all of them is water and speed. All rocks, without exception, were lithified by the removal of their water. And in almost every case, there is clear evidence that it happened swiftly (weeks, days or hours).

#42 Seeker25

Seeker25

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • NC

Posted 30 April 2012 - 07:15 PM

Get a bucket of water and sand and dump it in a tank. Repeat a few thousand times. That's kind of how thin layers were built up. But there are numerous other means by which other types of deposits were formed. The key element with all of them is water and speed. All rocks, without exception, were lithified by the removal of their water. And in almost every case, there is clear evidence that it happened swiftly (weeks, days or hours).


Pretty cool. So how should I apply this to the Grand Canyon? Grand Canyon has many layers though. Are these layers formed at one time in a single flood event, or as you mention by other means? And how do I tell which layer are laid down by water and which are not? I heard limestone are laid down by water, but where exactly do I find this layer in the Grand Canyon?

#43 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 01 May 2012 - 07:47 AM

Pretty cool. So how should I apply this to the Grand Canyon? Grand Canyon has many layers though.

The GC is pretty much the bucket thing. But the dumping of the sediment is done by tsunami (after a fashion).

Are these layers formed at one time in a single flood event, or as you mention by other means?

Over a time during the flood event - to word it more precisely. There are things that upset the regular deposition of layers, but those are not depositional.

And how do I tell which layer are laid down by water and which are not?

They're all water deposits, down till you hit the granite.

I heard limestone are laid down by water, but where exactly do I find this layer in the Grand Canyon?

There are a few different layers called limestone in the GC. But really, all the layers have limestone in them. When the cement percentage is high enough, the rock formed is called limestone.

#44 Seeker25

Seeker25

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • NC

Posted 05 May 2012 - 09:32 AM

The GC is pretty much the bucket thing. But the dumping of the sediment is done by tsunami (after a fashion).


Ok. One objection is that the GC shaped vertically and not slope. If this were the bucket water thing, then there should be slope angle but it isn't.

That's something I've heard, so I'd thought I would bring that up. Thanks for replying they are great information.

As time go, I'm sure I will learn something I never have before. Very interesting.

#45 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 05 May 2012 - 09:43 AM

I find this topic of interest, and would like to ask a question about it. I am new to this whole geologic timescale notion, but I do believe in the Genesis flood. I just haven't grasp how a flood could deposit the strata. Can somebody clarify that to me? I thnk they formed underwater but how? Thanks, would be grateful to hear all explanations.


Here is an experiment for you.



Posted Image

#46 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 05 May 2012 - 01:23 PM

Ok. One objection is that the GC shaped vertically and not slope. If this were the bucket water thing, then there should be slope angle but it isn't.

Not sure what you're saying. Can you explain a little more?

Whoa! That was awesome! Thanks!

#47 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 05 May 2012 - 02:49 PM

Stripe,in reference to to the previous post-- I believe what seeker is saying is that the sides of the Grand Canyon are relatively vertical, and are not sloped (though some parts of it is sloped, but this is irrelevant to seeker's error). Perhaps seeker does't understand that there were different stages of the flood. The strata were laid, and then during an uplift the catastrophic water drained off the Colorado Plateau, creating the numerous canyons throughout the region. The Grand Canyon is just the biggest canyon!

http://en.wikipedia....olorado_Plateau
http://en.wikipedia....n_National_Park
http://en.wikipedia....n_National_Park
http://en.wikipedia....f_National_Park
http://en.wikipedia....s_National_Park

#48 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:29 PM

Uhm... Maybe you're right. :)

The story I find most compelling is the one you suggest. Flood deposits layers, lake breach ~500 years after the flood carves the canyon. But if reference is to the cliffs in the inner canyon, those are not from water action.

#49 Seeker25

Seeker25

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • NC

Posted 09 May 2012 - 07:03 AM

Thanks Jason, pretty neat video.

#50 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 17 May 2012 - 09:29 AM

There is no mechanism whatsoever that lays down seperated/filtered materials into colored/shaded layers of rock strata over long periods of time. The only known mechanism is the action/inaction of water and the relationship that materials.have to water. Such as, temperature, flow rate, depth, stillness, specific gravity, precipitation, solubility, salinity etc.

The problem with the naturalism theory of sedimentation is that it premises that there existed, somehere in the land before time as we know it, a world, in which, a very particular and peculiar kind of environment existed, in which evironment, only a very particular and limited set of materials existed and where available for deposition.

The notion is of course by its nature, blatantly absurd.

Then the naturalism adherent adds to that notion concerning just one layer of rock strata and episodic array of thousands of such era's of peculiar conditions and limited resources.

The notion that, over a even greater span of eons of time, there came to pass slowly a whole diverse set of manifold eras denotable by extremely peculiar, diverse, and very particular evironments with very limited sets of available deposition materials in each eviron, and commonly over vast areas.

Again, can anyone defend such odd expectations? (even in disregard of science?)

In the face of these impossible scenario's we fomd presented to all of us, the "any one can do it" sedimentation experiments in water tanks showing how naturally (which ought to please any real naturalism adherent, seems to me) water performs all the necessary seperation of materials into diverse, filtered bands of shades and colors, is easil and repeatably obtainable, and with results directly correraltble visually to all the huge sedimentary layers found to exist on the global scale, as though the only difference is the need for a global size water tank, er...flood.

Since when did intelligent men accept such bizarre theories, and ever changing stories about lands before time, as if they were a trump over common sense, and valid, repeatable, scientific experimentation?

Where did geologists ever get the notion that global sedimentary features are to be critiqued by local features?

These errors in reason are profound, and it seems that only profound biases can be responsible.

The typical response to sny presentation causing an sudden realization of the absurdity of reasoning being used today to produce a required belief in what appears to me, to be merely, new myths, being promulgated worldwide as an advancement in science thinking, or conjecture, is either, silence, or, "I don't understand what you mean."
  • Stripe likes this

#51 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 17 May 2012 - 09:56 AM

The problem with any of the limestone deposits as evidence that fits some naturalism notion of matter, physics and time, is two fold.

1. The deposits lying on the surface of the earth above the sea level do not at all compare correctly with any submarine deposits on the ocean floor.

And, no, the "ocean floor is a treadmill sweeping all inconvenient data under the rug" (continents) doesn't work, since, if that were even acceptable to someone (which I can't see how) then, how come the continental limestone strata's weren't wisked away down into the maw of the earth where all inconvenient dirt is swept to nowdays?
(I suppose one could just theoretically add some new amazing underground, or old timey facts to the storyline)

Since, the ocean floor sediment today is only hundreds of feet thick, and not the thousands of feet as is found, thousands and thousands of feet up in the air on top of the continents, where they shouldn't be expected unless all the earth was once under water.

Maybe its the rock cycle of the eart?. (If you can believe that one)

You know? where rocks that erode away, or fall down mountains and other great prominent heights to lower levels somehow return back up to the top of the earth?

A kind of magic with rocks geology science thing.

2. The purity of the deposits of limestone require a purity machine or pure source incorruptible by any admixture.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users