Jump to content


Photo

Dr. Walt Browns Hydroplate Theory – Returning Material


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#41 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 31 January 2011 - 08:21 PM

I would think that a common worldwide flood sedimentation layer ~4000 years old would do the trick...but it just ain't there.

View Post


It might also leave an erosional event in places where the sedimentation was not presentl. But once agin, this is not found. Geologic investigations have shown that the world-wide flood did not occur.

#42 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

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

Posted 31 January 2011 - 09:07 PM

Aeolian sandstone could easily be deposited by water, it would just take alot of water pressure and current, because wet sand is heavier that dry.


Aeolian sandstone, by it's very definition, is deposited by wind/air...not water.

Water deposited sand and wind/air deposited sand have specific characteristics.

Limestone is unarguably ocean caused...


Partly true...it is deposited in an aqueous environment.

...and because many laggerstatten are limestone, yet full of well preserved fossils, this shows it was deposited quickly...


Er..No...

The avg deposition rate of limestone under optimal conditions is ~.5-1.5m/1000years.

Carbonate Sedimentology Chapter 2.2.1 Organic productivity and sedimentation rates

#43 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 01 February 2011 - 03:17 AM

I agree that a miracle would leave results behind. We don't see them in terms of a worldwide flood, so you would have to invoke another miracle to hide the traces it should have left behind.

Eolian sandstone can form one way, deposition by wind. A lot of water pressure and current would not produce the tell-tale signs of wind deposition. How do you think this can be done, with frosted grains,etc. Creationists just dismiss the obvious on this because it doesn't fit in with "flood geology" ....this a terrible way to approach science.

No, limestone is not inarguably deposited in oceans as there are fresh water limestones. Limestones are for the most part deposited slowly and those that are rapid are deposited far more slowly than they would have to be in a Flood concept. Well preserved fossils also does not indicate this sort of rapid deposition. This is shown in modern environments and sediments deposited in historic times that occur thousands of years after any so-called flood.

None of that grab bag of things you list points to The Flood. Transgressions are shown in the stratigraphic record over and over and are not inventions of men. There is solid evidence in outcrops from various ages and in various litholigies that consistently point to the validity of the interpretation of such transgressions which follow geologic principles, unlike all the bending and breaking of such principles as is necessary to make "flood geology" work.

Just what laboratory evidence are you thinking of here? That false interpretation of sedimentation that made a mockery of true stratigraphy concocted by Berthault?

View Post

Geode,

As for frosting, no one said that the grains had not been on land before the flood. Wouldn't a ww flood predict the transportation of desert and beach sands also? That just shows it's origin, not the nature of it's deposition.

There is evidence of mass transport of sands in the southwestern U.S. I have read articles that say some of it is from the Appalatian area. Wind doesn't do that. That leaves only one alternative--water, and that means it covered the U.S.

Many of the grains are hematite stained. How did ground water stain these so evenly? And where did the iron come from? Do you find free universal iron throughout sand?

I would think that a common worldwide flood sedimentation layer ~4000 years old would do the trick...but it just ain't there.

That would go into radiometric dating and index fossils. That has been addressed many times here and by creationists. As well some of the hypotetical reasons why 14C dating could be showing older dates because of the mass plant death in the flood. 14C readings should not be next to supposedly billions of years old rocks, but they are. They are explained away by novel radiation in the earth. Anomolies and variations in radiometric dating abound. The ages, and causes of found parent/daughter ratios are assumed.

As for one sedimentation layer, Julienne's work shows multi layer / strata building in water is possible. Rapid multi strata building by floods is in the literature of geology.

It might also leave an erosional event in places where the sedimentation was not presentl. But once agin, this is not found. Geologic investigations have shown that the world-wide flood did not occur.


Would water gaps be one erosional event? For instance, the Gand Canyon and other water gaps that are considered by standard geology to be slowly formed. Just like the scablands water gaps were thought to be slowly formed 100 years ago.

But isn't it true one of the biggest reasons they don't consider the Grand Canyon a catastrophic water gap is they find no mechanism for the water. But how will they if they don't listen to the evidence of mass trasport of sands to the southwest? Neither do they allow historical writings, supposing them to be ficticious, and that their scenario is better.

#44 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

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

Posted 01 February 2011 - 06:56 AM

There is evidence of mass transport of sands in the southwestern U.S.  I have read articles that say some of it is from the Appalatian area.  Wind doesn't do that.  That leaves only one alternative--water, and that means it covered the U.S. 


...Wind doesn't do that?...blow sand? ...move deserts?

City swallowing sand dunes

In arid northern China, for example, dunes are advancing on some villages at a rate of 20 meters per year.


Mauritania Dune Migration
Posted Image

Tracing the Navajo Sandstone

Geochemist Jonathan Patchett of the University of Arizona disagrees, however, saying it is unnecessary for a river to have dispersed this sediment in the Jurassic — as it had already been done. In a 1999 Science study, he and colleagues used neodymium isotope data from shale formations to show that fine-grained sediment from the East was already swamping both sides of the continent well before the Mesozoic.

“A lot of the material from the Caledonian and Appalachian mountains got to the western side of North America a lot earlier than the Navajo sandstone, essentially 350 to 400 million years ago,” Patchett says. And, he adds, if fine-grained mud had already made it out West, then probably so too had the coarser-grained sediment that would become the Navajo sandstone. The only way a later river system would be needed, Patchett says, is if normal erosive processes transported only the mud particles and left the sand behind.



During the Jurassic, the whole Rocky Mountain area was once a giant erg.

Many of the grains are hematite stained. How did ground water stain these so evenly? And where did the iron come from? Do you find free universal iron throughout sand?


Yes...

Navajo Sandstone

The iron in these strata originally arrived via the erosion of iron-bearing silicate minerals. Initially, this iron accumulated as iron-oxide coatings, which formed slowly after the sand had been deposited. Later, after having been deeply buried, reducing fluids composed of water and hydrocarbons flowed through the thick red sand which once comprised the Navajo Sandstone. The dissolution of the iron coatings by the reducing fluids bleached large volumes of the Navajo Sandstone a brilliant white. Reducing fluids transported the iron in solution until they mixed with oxidizing groundwater. Where the oxidizing and reducing fluids mixed, the iron precipitated within the Navajo Sandstone. Depending on local variations within the permeability, porosity, fracturing, and other inherent rock properties of the sandstone, varying mixtures of hematite, goethite, and limonite precipitated within spaces between quartz grains



#45 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 01 February 2011 - 07:59 AM

Since you have made a current reply, and I think I have posted at length in reply to AFJ in different threads regarding every topic he raises yet again here, I feel no compelling need to add anything.

#46 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 February 2011 - 07:50 AM

...Wind doesn't do that?...blow sand? ...move deserts?

City swallowing sand dunes

Mauritania Dune Migration
Posted Image

Tracing the Navajo Sandstone
During the Jurassic, the whole Rocky Mountain area was once a giant erg.
Yes...

Navajo Sandstone

View Post

The iron in these strata originally arrived via the erosion of iron-bearing silicate minerals. Initially, this iron accumulated as iron-oxide coatings, which formed slowly after the sand had been deposited. Later, after having been deeply buried, reducing fluids composed of water and hydrocarbons flowed through the thick red sand which once comprised the Navajo Sandstone. The dissolution of the iron coatings by the reducing fluids bleached large volumes of the Navajo Sandstone a brilliant white. Reducing fluids transported the iron in solution until they mixed with oxidizing groundwater. Where the oxidizing and reducing fluids mixed, the iron precipitated within the Navajo Sandstone. Depending on local variations within the permeability, porosity, fracturing, and other inherent rock properties of the sandstone, varying mixtures of hematite, goethite, and limonite precipitated within spaces between quartz grains


That's classified as an hypothesis. Assuming this scenario is based on evidence, the Navaho Sandstone was so saturated by water and hydrocarbons, that it "bleached" the sand? Where did this water come from, and why was it full of "hydorcarbons?" Could the water have been rain--why then was it mixed with hydrocarbons? It seems that it would have more likely been a body of water mixed with hydrocarbons. I don't know what sort of hydrocarbons he is speaking of-- crude oil? Or would detritus from a massive catastrophe decay and provide hydocarbons in the water?

Also I find it interesting that no mechanism is given for how the iron precipitated from the water under the sand? There is variation in the western red sands and sandstone, but one could characterize it generally as an even saturation. The saturation from the top down would seem to be more likely than displaced underground water. The permeability would have been greater before any of the grains cemented.

#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 02 February 2011 - 09:02 AM

The iron in these strata originally arrived via the erosion of iron-bearing silicate minerals. Initially, this iron accumulated as iron-oxide coatings, which formed slowly after the sand had been deposited. Later, after having been deeply buried, reducing fluids composed of water and hydrocarbons flowed through the thick red sand which once comprised the Navajo Sandstone. The dissolution of the iron coatings by the reducing fluids bleached large volumes of the Navajo Sandstone a brilliant white. Reducing fluids transported the iron in solution until they mixed with oxidizing groundwater. Where the oxidizing and reducing fluids mixed, the iron precipitated within the Navajo Sandstone. Depending on local variations within the permeability, porosity, fracturing, and other inherent rock properties of the sandstone, varying mixtures of hematite, goethite, and limonite precipitated within spaces between quartz grains


Scanman,

I wanted to check sources before I answered some of the questions I asked. The main weakness I see with this hypothesis is that the hematite "precipitated" up through sandstone. This is a faulty premise which defies chemistry, and fluid mechanics.

Hematite is ferric iron (FeO+++), and is not water soluable. It turns the water reddish brown--it's rust basically. Hematite and water are a reversible colloid This is opposed to ferrous iron (FeO++), which is water soluable, and completely dissoves in water. The result is that FeO++ does not dye the water--it will remain clear, because it is completely dissolved. http://www.idph.stat...eets/ironFS.htm

"Iron is mainly present in water in two forms: either the soluble ferrous iron or the insoluble ferric iron. Water containing ferrous iron is clear and colorless because the iron is completely dissolved. When exposed to air in the pressure tank or atmosphere, the water turns cloudy and a reddish brown substance begins to form. This sediment is the oxidized or ferric form of iron that will not dissolve in water."
http://www.idph.stat...eets/ironFS.htm[/url]
http://en.wikipedia....Iron(III)_oxide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematite

The argument is then strong against upward "precipitation" of FeO+++ into the sands and sandstones. The hematite in the water, which is what caused it to turn reddish brown, would have been a colloid. The "rust" and the water would have been seperate similar to oil and water, only the rust is a heavy metal, and solid. The heavier hematite, in standing water, precipitates downward, not upward. This is how conventional geology believes the banded iron formations were formed--a settling of FeO+++ on a lake or sea bed.

"The conventional concept is that the banded iron layers were formed in sea water as the result of oxygen released by photosynthetic cyanobacteria (bluegreen algae), combining with dissolved iron in Earth's oceans to form insoluble iron oxides, which precipitated out, forming a thin layer on the substrate, which may have been anoxic mud...." http://en.wikipedia....rmation#Origins

In order for an emulsion or colloid to be blended there has to be aggitation of the mixture, just like vinagrette salad dressing. If you leave it set, it will again seperate. How do you propose aggitation of water and hematite under highly compacted and pressurized sands. So one could say that the concept of upward "precipitation" of already existing hematite in groundwater below the sands would defy gravity and chemistry. It is falsified by the principles stated above.

However, a moving water current can suspend rust, just as our drinking water does in old water systems, where it has had time to form. The fact that water and FeOlll are a reversible colloid predicts that standing water, unlike moving water current which suspends the rust, will cause a downward precipitation of the rust to a bottom surface. It will remain there unless sufficiently aggitated. Unless the hypothesizer can provide a realistic mechanism whereby the rust/ water mixture were aggitated in the highly pressurized sands and sandstones, the hypothesis, which is seriously accepted science, contrarily has no scientific footing at all.

If the hypothesis of millions of years and that the hematite went downward initially were true, a more realistic result is that it would have stained the underneath materials. But to think that it went up through rock, to make a rather even staining on such large areas in the southwest doesn't work.

#48 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

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

Posted 02 February 2011 - 10:07 AM

   The main weakness I see with this hypothesis is that the hematite "precipitated" up through sandstone.  This is a faulty premise which defies chemistry, and fluid mechanics.


Where do you read that the hematite precipitated 'up' through the sandstone?

It says that the the iron precipitated 'within' the Navajo Sandstone

There is nothing that precludes groundwater from actually being level to the sandstone formation.

Diffusion/Osmosis can take place in all directions.

#49 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 February 2011 - 10:29 AM

Where do you read that the hematite precipitated 'up' through the sandstone?

It says that the the iron precipitated 'within' the Navajo Sandstone

There is nothing that precludes groundwater from actually being level to the sandstone formation.

Diffusion/Osmosis can take place in all directions.

View Post

If the sand was bleached that means a presence of hematite at a certain point in time, and an absence of hematite at a later point in time. The hydrocarbon filled water took it down or away somwhere.


How did the iron precipitate within the sandstone? How did the unsoluable iron get there initially? It doesn't stay in the water for millions of years without settling on things.

The fact that sandstone is cemented indicates it was saturated with liquid. The ubiquity of red sand in some areas indicates the sand was saturated. How did the sand get saturated?

A. The water had always been there up to surface level. How the hematite initially mixed with the water we don't know.
B. The water was from underneath or from another area, and pressure pushed the water to the surface, or gravity caused the groundwater to find it's way all around the western United States. The unsoluable hematite remained suspended in the water through rock and pressurized sand for millions of years.
C. The sand was filled with iron filled rocks for cubic mile after cubic mile. Rains and local flooding eventually dissolved any evidence of the iron concentrations, so as to diuffuse it all so well, it made a homogenous coloring through the sand.
D. The hematite (along with calcite) was suspended in moving water and saturated into the sands, staining the sand grains and the sides of canyons.
D seems the most realistic. But that would require alot of water to be on the continental surface, the hematite is suspended, rather than dissolved in the water. Or the iron in the water could have initially started as soluable FeO++, was oxidized in the moving water, and became FeO+++.

To saturate and stain the sands from the top down would require the Biblical flood. Even though this explanation makes sense, and is possible, it is considered "pseudoscience." One of the non-evidences unis often insist upon.

#50 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 02 February 2011 - 10:08 PM

Scanman,

I wanted to check sources before I answered some of the questions I asked.   The main weakness I see with this hypothesis is that the hematite "precipitated" up through sandstone.  This is a faulty premise which defies chemistry, and fluid mechanics.

Hematite is ferric iron (FeO+++), and is not water soluable.  It turns the water reddish brown--it's rust basically. Hematite and water are a reversible colloid This is opposed to ferrous iron (FeO++), which is water soluable, and completely dissoves in water.  The result is that FeO++ does not dye the water--it will remain clear, because it is completely dissolved.  http://www.idph.stat...eets/ironFS.htm

"Iron is mainly present in water in two forms: either the soluble ferrous iron or the insoluble ferric iron. Water containing ferrous iron is clear and colorless because the iron is completely dissolved. When exposed to air in the pressure tank or atmosphere, the water turns cloudy and a reddish brown substance begins to form. This sediment is the oxidized or ferric form of iron that will not dissolve in water."
http://www.idph.stat...eets/ironFS.htm[/url]
http://en.wikipedia....Iron(III)_oxide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematite

The argument is then strong against upward "precipitation" of FeO+++ into the sands and sandstones.  The hematite in the water, which is what caused it to turn reddish brown, would have been a colloid.  The "rust" and the water would have been seperate similar to oil and water, only the rust is a heavy metal, and solid.  The heavier hematite, in standing water, precipitates downward, not upward.  This is how conventional geology believes the banded iron formations were formed--a settling of FeO+++ on a lake or sea bed.

"The conventional concept is that the banded iron layers were formed in sea water as the result of oxygen released by photosynthetic cyanobacteria (bluegreen algae), combining with dissolved iron in Earth's oceans to form insoluble iron oxides, which precipitated out, forming a thin layer on the substrate, which may have been anoxic mud...." http://en.wikipedia....rmation#Origins

In order for an emulsion or colloid to be blended there has to be aggitation of the mixture, just like vinagrette salad dressing.  If you leave it set, it will again seperate.  How do you propose aggitation of water and hematite under highly compacted and pressurized sands.  So one could say that the concept of upward "precipitation" of already existing hematite in groundwater below the sands would defy gravity and chemistry.   It is falsified by the principles stated above.

However, a moving water current can suspend rust, just as our drinking water does in old water systems, where it has had time to form. The fact that water and FeOlll are a reversible colloid predicts that standing water, unlike moving water current which suspends the rust, will cause a downward precipitation of the rust to a bottom surface.  It will remain there unless sufficiently aggitated.  Unless the hypothesizer can provide a realistic mechanism whereby the rust/ water mixture were aggitated in the highly pressurized sands and sandstones, the hypothesis, which is seriously accepted science, contrarily has no scientific footing at all.

If the hypothesis of millions of years and that the hematite went downward initially were true,  a more realistic result is that it would have stained the underneath materials.  But to think that it went up through rock, to make a rather even staining on such large areas in the southwest doesn't work.

View Post


Your entire argument falls apart because you have not understood the quote to which you make your reply and the chemistry involved.

The iron in these strata originally arrived via the erosion of iron-bearing silicate minerals. Initially, this iron accumulated as iron-oxide coatings, which formed slowly after the sand had been deposited. Later, after having been deeply buried, reducing fluids composed of water and hydrocarbons flowed through the thick red sand which once comprised the Navajo Sandstone. The dissolution of the iron coatings by the reducing fluids bleached large volumes of the Navajo Sandstone a brilliant white. Reducing fluids transported the iron in solution until they mixed with oxidizing groundwater. Where the oxidizing and reducing fluids mixed, the iron precipitated within the Navajo Sandstone. Depending on local variations within the permeability, porosity, fracturing, and other inherent rock properties of the sandstone, varying mixtures of hematite, goethite, and limonite precipitated within spaces between quartz grains


What this says is that when iron bearing waters (from the erosion of iron-bearing minerals) came into the sand in an oxidizing environment they first created coatings of iron-oxide. The compounds coating the grains were later reduced, which by your own explanation made them far more soluable in water. Then the waters with the dissolved iron encountered oxidizing groundwater and the process was reversed causing precipitation again. The iron was not transported as particulate matter but in solution, and therefore all your speculation about agitation and up and down due to gravity is basically not applicable to what actually existed within the affected sands.

#51 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 04 February 2011 - 10:04 PM

Your entire argument falls apart because you have not understood the quote to which you make your reply and the chemistry involved.
What this says is that when iron bearing waters (from the erosion of iron-bearing minerals) came into the sand in an oxidizing environment they first created coatings of iron-oxide. The compounds coating the grains were later reduced, which by your own explanation made them far more soluable in water. Then the waters with the dissolved iron encountered oxidizing groundwater and the process was reversed causing precipitation again. The iron was not transported as particulate matter but in solution, and therefore all your speculation about agitation and up and down due to gravity is basically not applicable to what actually existed within the affected sands.

View Post

First, we are wasting our time because I initially made a point about red sand grains being coated with hematite. I'm not really sure why the Navaho (white) Sands are going to make a contrary point about red sands. Can you explain the entire point here, because I must be missing something?

Are you making a point about red sands? Am I hearing you correctly--are you saying that ironll, dissolved, coated the grains? Iron ll is not as abundant in nature as iron lll. The fact that iron lll is not water solable, and is red or grey, says that the water would need to be moving to hold the red hematite in suspension.

I find it interesting that the iron sources in a slow scenario are assumed with little mention as to their provenance. Hematite (ironlll) is the greatest source of iron ore, found in banded iron formations.

Keep in mind we are not talking about some sand in the foothills of a mountain, we are talking about sand throughout the western US. http://www.google.co...iw=1161&bih=553

#52 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 04 February 2011 - 10:32 PM

First, we are wasting our time because I initially made a point about red sand grains being coated with hematite.  I'm not really sure why the Navaho (white) Sands are going to make a contrary point about red sands.

Am I hearing you correctly--are you saying that ironll, disolved, coated the grains?  Iron ll is not as abundant in nature as iron lll. The fact that iron lll is not water solable, and is red or grey (grey indicative of standing water origin), says that the water would need to be moving to hold the red hematite in suspension.
 
I find it interesting that the iron sources in a slow scenario are assumed with little mention as to their provenance.  Hematite (ironlll) is the greatest source of iron ore, found in banded iron formations.

View Post


I saw your response to a quote that in a way did reference "red sand grains being coated with hematite"... and then responded to your fallacious set of points about the presence or absence of hematite in the Navajo Sandstone.

You seriously need to study redox reactions. We are indeed wasting time until you do so and realize that your whole discussion is wrong from the standpoint of the chemistry that is involved. Iron was precipitated from solution to coat grains and form a red color. Such a situation in rocks can be validated by thin-section analysis. It is shown that the hematite chemically formed around quartz grains and is not present as matrix material as would be the case with your suspended particles of hematite idea. The abundance of one form of iron oxide versus another in nature is irrelevant to this discussion except that they are all common, and dissolved iron in ground waters is also common. The source of the hematite in the standard scenario (the one backed by the actual evidence in the rocks) is at least as thought out as in a flood model. All you are saying is that hematite in the form of particles was suspended in flood waters and then percolated down through the sands giving them a red color (this is not supported by thin-section analysis). The standard model has dissolved iron in ground waters flowing through the sand and at some point precipitated to form coatings on sand grains (this is supported by thin-section analysis). I don't see either model stating the provenance of the iron any more fully than the other.

Hematite no longer is the most commonly mined iron ore in the United States, mainly due to so much of the available deposits being used during WW II. But this is all irrelevant to the discussion or red colored sandstones.

#53 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 05 February 2011 - 01:16 AM

First, we are wasting our time because I initially made a point about red sand grains being coated with hematite.  I'm not really sure why the Navaho (white) Sands are going to make a contrary point about red sands.  Can you explain the entire point here, because I must be missing something?

Are you making a point about red sands?  Am I hearing you correctly--are you saying that ironll, dissolved, coated the grains?  Iron ll is not as abundant in nature as iron lll. The fact that iron lll is not water solable, and is red or grey, says that the water would need to be moving to hold the red hematite in suspension.
 
I find it interesting that the iron sources in a slow scenario are assumed with little mention as to their provenance.  Hematite (ironlll) is the greatest source of iron ore, found in banded iron formations.

Keep in mind we are not talking about some sand in the foothills of a mountain, we are talking about sand throughout the western US.  http://www.google.co...iw=1161&bih=553

View Post


Since my explanation didn't seem to register here is one online. This is a dumbed-down explanation of the chemistry involved:

The Crimson Source

What is the origin of the red pigment in sandstone? The origin of the color is due to a chemical reaction similar to rusting of a nail. An iron nail appears silver in color andmetallic. When a nail rusts due to the addition of water molecules and oxygen, two or three iron electrons are lost to oxygen (the iron is oxidized). The remaining electrons, 5 together with the oxygen, absorb all of light’s colors except red and brown. But iron nails don't color sandstones red. Sandstone originates from the breakdown of older rocks, a process called weathering. Granite, for example, is a type of igneous rock that commonly breaks down in weathering to produce sand grains that later make up sandstone. The older “parent” rocks often have minerals that contain some iron, but these minerals are green or dark brown. Water in contact with the atmosphere absorbs oxygen. Dissolved oxygen in water is very aggressive in removing electrons from iron to produce rust (oxidized iron). As the iron-bearing minerals weather and react with oxygen and water from the atmosphere, the iron is released and forms very thin, paint-like coatings of hematite on the quartz sand grains. Iron in hematite that has lost three electrons absorbs most of the visible colors of light and only red is transmitted to produce the mineral’s red coloration. Sands deposited in deserts gradually redden as iron minerals break down and lend their red coloration to the sand. The reddening continues after burial as more overlying sedimentary units are added. Over millions of years, these loose sand grains are compressed and cemented into the rock called sandstone. In these red sandstones, microscopic, oxidized iron films of the mineral hematite spread and coat the quartz grains. The amount of hematite is very small, but since iron is a powerful pigment a little red goes a long way!

Big-Time Bleaching

What happened to make normally red sandstone white? Sandstone is porous and permeable because there are holes or spaces between sand grains. Sand dunes make particularly permeable sandstone because wind effectively sorts the grains to create a homogeneous deposit with uniform grain size and not much fine-grained pore fillings. Given enough pressure and force, water moves relatively easily through porous sandstone almost like water through a sponge. Even during heavy rains with much surface runoff, some water infiltrates the sandstone. Under certain conditions, iron pigment will dissolve in water and be removed, or be rendered colorless by chemical reactions with the water. This is much like a bleaching detergent permeating a red cloth, removing color as it spreads. (However, household chlorine bleach won’t take out iron rust stains because chlorine is not chemically able to move iron).

How does bleaching happen chemically?

Some waters contain reducing agents (electrons are added to the iron atom and oxygen is removed) that make the iron soluble (dissolvable) in water. To make iron
soluble, the water can restore one of the electrons that was lost by iron during early weathering and oxidation. Fluids such as hydrocarbons (petroleum), weak acids (vinegar-like), or those with hydrogen sulfide (gas that smells like rotten eggs) can also restore an electron to iron, thus these are called reducing waters. This water can dissolve and remove nearly all of the hematite and bleach red sandstone to white.


Red-colored sandstone

#54 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 06 February 2011 - 06:10 AM

Since my explanation didn't seem to register here is one online. This is a dumbed-down explanation of the chemistry involved:
Red-colored sandstone

View Post

It's not that it did not register. I understand the redox and oxidation Geode. I also agree that there's a possibility that the ironll was dissolved in the water, and oxidized into hematite after it coated the grains. I was actually asking for the clarification on the point being made by the bleaching.

And I did not initially look up Navaho Sands. Your link helped me understand about the alternating colors within it. However, I don't know how alternating white and reddish strata within one of the formations is going support old earth, though it could falsify my hypothesis of a hematite and water "fountain of the earth," in that area at least.

In an old earth scenario, if the reducing ground water reached a certain level, it should have also saturated the layer underneath. At first glance, one could assume the alternating strata were a result of the iron mixing throughout the sand. The only thing that made me suspect the reducing scenario is the alternatingly colored strata.

Perhaps if we want to continue this discussion, we should start another thread, we have derailed this one.

#55 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 13 February 2011 - 03:09 AM

It's not that it did not register.  I understand the redox and oxidation Geode.  I also agree that there's a possibility that the ironll was dissolved in the water, and oxidized into hematite after it coated the grains.  I was actually asking for the clarification on the point being made by the bleaching.

And I did not initially look up Navaho Sands.  Your link helped me understand about the alternating colors within it. However, I don't know how alternating white and reddish strata within one of the formations is going support old earth, though it could falsify my hypothesis of a hematite and water "fountain of the earth," in that area at least. 

In an old earth scenario, if the reducing ground water reached a certain level, it should have also saturated the layer underneath.  At first glance, one could assume the alternating strata were a result of the iron mixing throughout the sand.  The only thing that made me suspect the reducing scenario is the alternatingly colored strata.

Perhaps if we want to continue this discussion, we should start another thread, we have derailed this one.

View Post


I don't tend to think in terms of old earth and young earth unless I am on a board such as this one. I do not see the staining of quartz grains in The Navajo Sandstone as having much to do with time in general. Actually I really wouldn't think anything about it in terms of debate if it were not for YECs saying that the Navajo is of a marine origin instead of an eolian origin. I can see why this is done, for wind-blown deposits in the middle of what is credited to a big flood basically make the flood model impossible.

From what I have seen of the Navajo Sandstone there is more of a lateral variation in red staining than one of alternating strata.

I think the idea of reducing groundwater is that it was present some places and not others. perhaps that is why there is conjecture that it was hydrocarbons in the water that caused this, they could be present in waters some places after leaking out of a trap.

Yes, this does seem to be a discussion that is quite off the original topic.

#56 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:54 PM

Please allow me to introduce myself.  I'm Geno Castagnoli referred to above.

 

About a week ago, I was doing research for refutations of Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate model and happened on this forum.  As a result of this conversation, I joined the forum and posted my entire "Fire and Brimstone" analysis of the Hydroplate model.

 

Contrary to what Brown claims, I do understand what I'm talking about.  The snippet from Brown (above) is from his "Rocket Science" page and is easily refuted. 

 

Further, I'm not talking about the heat from releasing half the contents of our modern oceans from underground caverns were the water had been stored at temperatures over 700F, this is an entirely separate method of sterilizing the planet with the Hydroplate model.  This particular claim regards the material that fails to reach orbit due to the (admitted) inefficiency of Brown's launch mechanism.  Keep in mind, we convert kinetic energy to heat energy all the time.

 

I realize it has been some time, but if anyone desires to pick up this topic and discuss it, I'm more than willing.



#57 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 13 November 2013 - 12:54 PM

I am David Willis of Indpls.  I have been replying directly to Geno on this topic for about 5 years, and most of his calculations are wrong because they are based on his having a very poor understanding of Brown's theory.  Geno takes Brown's "inefficiency" term and then Geno decides for himself how much that term means...i.e. how much material falls back to Earth...first suggesting 50%, then 90% and then 99%, all of which are purely arbitrary percentages.  A launching system could indeed send up millions or trillions more weight than what might fall back to earth...it all depends on what sort of launching system it is.  To take as a given the type of "inefficiencies" we may see in internal combustion engines or rockets...and then say that must be similar (or even on the order of 1/1000th of those) to Brown's launch system, is capricious and misleading.  I'll probably do more postings on the other page where Geno is posting.  I believe it is http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=5685
 



#58 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 13 November 2013 - 01:09 PM

I am David Willis of Indpls.  I have been replying directly to Geno on this topic for about 5 years, and most of his calculations are wrong because they are based on his having a very poor understanding of Brown's theory.  Geno takes Brown's "inefficiency" term and then Geno decides for himself how much that term means...i.e. how much material falls back to Earth...first suggesting 50%, then 90% and then 99%, all of which are purely arbitrary percentages.  A launching system could indeed send up millions or trillions more weight than what might fall back to earth...it all depends on what sort of launching system it is.  To take as a given the type of "inefficiencies" we may see in internal combustion engines or rockets...and then say that must be similar (or even on the order of 1/1000th of those) to Brown's launch system, is capricious and misleading.  I'll probably do more postings on the other page where Geno is posting.  I believe it is http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=5685
 

 

Thanks, indydave. Welcome to EFF.

 

Go for it. We'd like to see this.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users