Perhaps we can get back to the OP.Ã‚Â As usual, there is a debate over what the original paper says.Ã‚Â If we actually READ it, and interpret it correctly, we can see a few things.Ã‚Â
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.Ã‚Â Though there were some exaggeratedÃ‚Â statements by the creationist author, the overall theme of what he is saying is valid.
Here is the abstract from the original paper.Ã‚Â 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).Ã‚Â They are now mixed in lithified sediment (sedimentary layers).Ã‚Â
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.Ã‚Â The samples were "taken across and along the strike of the Himalaya from Pakistan to Bhutan (∼2000 km)."Ã‚Â It is imperative that we understand when it says "along the strike," it means the samples came from the bedding between the SAME layers.Ã‚Â Or at least it was at the same PLANAR level.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â 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."Ã‚Â READ the first sentence.Ã‚Â And the research went along "nearly the ENTIRE LENGTH of the an orogen" (mountain range).Ã‚Â The research took samples along the planar level for 2000 km--app. 1250 miles.Ã‚Â 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...."Ã‚Â I'm assuming they radiometrically dated some of the zircons and received different dates (an age spectra).Ã‚Â They are saying they "minimize" or can almost rule out time as a reason for the different dates on the same level.Ã‚Â 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.Ã‚Â 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.Ã‚Â And the RATE team has done well in exposing many of these assumptions.Ã‚Â 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 ofÃ‚Â "well mixed sediment" for a span that is equivalent to the distance between New York to Kansas City.Ã‚Â One can not rule out the signs of catastrophe here.Ã‚Â Zircon crystals along a 1250 mile strike of well mixed sediment.Ã‚Â Mass dispersal and mixing of sediments would best be described as sediment transport in a short period of time.Ã‚Â 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.Ã‚Â 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.Ã‚Â Most of these fossils would be marine in nature, because that's what Cambrian fossils are.Ã‚Â So again, even geotime period labels on strata are an assumption because certain animals and /or plants were buried in them.Ã‚Â Cambrian layers will be one of the first "fossil-bearing" layers and will contain marine fossils.Ã‚Â 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.Ã‚Â 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.
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.