Jump to content


Photo

Single Depostion Geology


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

#1 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 12 November 2011 - 04:56 AM

I was watching a show on Discovery Channel http://dsc.discovery...ld-rush-alaska/ last night, when I saw a jackpot of cobbles and bouders in the mix of sediment they were digging through. They had to pump the water out of the old Alaska gold "hole" first, and I'd say it was at least 40 feet deep at one part. The neat thing was there were cobbles and some bolders all through the stuff. And there was a lack of pancake layering. Oh I'm sure you're going to find some stratification and lamination on closer study, but we have already showed on this site that this can be done rapidly in current, in still water, and I have seen with own eyes (more than once), in single depostions.

We know that the smartest geologist in the world was not there to observe how all those big rocks and cobbles got mixed in with the sediment? But let's see what Discovery Channel says about it?

Posted Image
The location of the glory hole — a name given to deposits at the base of ancient waterfalls...


Did you read the caption under the picture? A classic example of media indoctrination. It is completely wrong, and geologists know it. But is to lead the common man to believe everything happens s-l-o-w-l-y. The sediment rock mix was the result of waterfalls! Really? You mean like the waterfalls I used to swim under in North Carolina or currently hike through in Louisiana? I didn't see any cobbles or boulders coming over the falls. A flood? Oh yeah, a flood could bring those boulders...

Posted Image
...Do you sse mud slurries under falls or in moving current after a flood? You see rocks but sediments are washed away by the flood and the current after the flood. But you say "well, the cobbles were laid then the water slowed down and slowly covered them with mud." Okay, then what happens at the next flash flood? The sediment washes away. The water forms a current. If it reaches even medium regime speed, it washes loose sediments, and leaves rocks.

Scour from the interstitial spaces in cobble-bed riversV Jonker1* and A Rooseboom2
Abstract
The periodic removal of sand from the interstitial spaces between cobbles is extremely important for ecosystem functioning
in cobble-bed rivers. In order to flush fine sediments from the interstitial spaces between cobbles in river reaches downstream
of dams, specific dam releases known as flushing flows or sediment maintenance flows are utilised. This paper describes the
development and calibration of a mathematical model to predict the equilibrium depth of scour of fine sands from between
cobbles in terms of applied stream power principles. The model was developed with the aid of physical model experiments
and is founded on a stream power model which defines the condition of dynamic equilibrium in a deformed sand-bed river.
Calibration was done in the laboratory under clear water conditions and with uniform cobble sizes. The scouring of fine sands
in cobble-bed rivers is associated with an increase in absolute bed roughness and an associated decrease in the unit stream
power applied along the bed as the cobbles become exposed. When scour ceases, the sand particles on the bed are at the movement
threshold and critical conditions exist. In order to establish the relationship between equilibrium scour depth and bed
particle characteristics, the power which is required to suspend sand particles under laminar boundary conditions is equated ith the turbulent power being applied along the bed.
http://www.wrc.org.z...008_03_2068.pdf

Here's an example...

Posted Image
Here's Bennington Vermont--Where's the mud?


Also, if all these rocks were from waterfalls, we would find evidence of deep erosion holes (like the falls I swimmed in), or a channel following the falls. As I said, I also go hiking in Louisiana. I go by several waterfalls. Do I see anything like the pictures above? NO. I see where the erosion has caused big soft "mud" boulders. But they are in a very limited area in SOME of the canyons, and they follow a narrow path. They aren't dispersed all over the place. But the rocks up in Alaska are mixed all through the sediment. I say this is a mud slurry that had enough force to carry all these rocks to one final depostion. The result of a huge and powerful catastrophe.

Geode "already knows" this stuff in Alaska is from catastrophe...or will he hold with DC--waterfalls? There seems to be a pardigm war in geology. Someone told DC the rocks are from "ancient waterfalls." But then you have papers like the following that acknowledge catastrophe.

Sedimentology, paleoflow dynamics and flood history of jokulhlaup deposits; paleohydrology of Holocene sediment sequences in southern Iceland sandur deposits

This paper examines the sedimentology of a series of deposits associated with catastrophic floods caused by subglacial volcanic eruptions in southern Iceland. A simple model is proposed for the interpretation of the sediments in terms of changes in flow characteristics of the fluid-sediment mix....These flood deposits alternate with, or are channeled into, more 'normal' sandur deposits, comprising heterogeneous, poorly sorted, clast-supported, imbricated, rounded cobble and pebble gravels (Type G). The dominant sediment sequences are interpreted as representing hyperconcentrated fluid-sediment mixtures, with dispersive stresses acting to create massive, poorly sorted, nongraded or inversely graded sediments, the latter characterized by large surface boulders.


I am often amazed at the language of these papers. They're using alot of jargon to tell us these "Holocene" floods caused a mud slurry. The same thing most thoughtful people with common sense can observe. By the way the Holocene is a more recent epoch, characterized by an ice age.

#2 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 November 2011 - 06:03 PM

One thing I notice is that the sediment isn't cemented into solid rock, so I'm inclined to think about a massive post flood mud slurry like we saw at Mt. St. Helens.


What do you think?

Posted Image

Old lahar deposits near site of Christmas Eve train disaster. In a nutshell, there was a catastrophic mud flow, or lahar, emptied out of Ruapehu's crater lake on Christmas Eve in 1953. The torrent destroyed the railroad bridge at Tangiwai. The Wellington-Auckland train plunged into the river, killing 151 people. Click here for more information.

http://academic.hws....z/picsnz17.html


As you pointed out, AFJ; There is no way to get boulders and mud mixed together without a sudden deposition and observing this type of deposition in lahars, certainly verifies a catastrophic origin.


In contrast, here is a dry pyroclastic flow from Mt. St. Helens.

Posted Image




Thanks.

#3 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 11:57 PM

Something else of interest is the fact that the glory hole is rich in placer gold. In theory, the evolutionist believe that the earth formed through natural processes and that the heavy iron and other metals (Gold and platinum) went into the core. Yet, The surface of the planet is covered in gold.

The only plausible explanation by uniformitairians is that it got into the mantle by meteorites.

http://www.scienceda...10907132044.htm



Enjoy.

#4 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 21 November 2011 - 03:00 AM

Something else of interest is the fact that the glory hole is rich in placer gold. In theory, the evolutionist believe that the earth formed through natural processes and that the heavy iron and other metals (Gold and platinum) went into the core. Yet, The surface of the planet is covered in gold.

The only plausible explanation by uniformitairians is that it got into the mantle by meteorites.

http://www.scienceda...10907132044.htm



Enjoy.

All things are plausible to those who believe (in evolution)? Jason, I'm waiting for the lecture on how evolution is has nothing to do with cosmology! :gilligan:

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 November 2011 - 12:21 PM

All things are plausible to those who believe (in evolution)? Jason, I'm waiting for the lecture on how evolution is has nothing to do with cosmology! :gilligan:


Do you mean you didn't trust us when we said it didn't? :lol:

I know that a lot of gold is found in quartz veins.

"In geology, a vein is a distinct sheetlike body of crystallized minerals within a rock. Veins form when mineral constituents carried by an aqueous solution within the rock mass are deposited through precipitation. The hydraulic flow involved is usually due to hydrothermal circulation."-wiki

I would think that a cosmic origin of gold would put most of it randomly throughout the geologic column not just in veins or highly concentrated locations associated with mud flows.



Enjoy.

#6 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 12 December 2011 - 06:57 AM


I was watching a show on Discovery Channel http://dsc.discovery...ld-rush-alaska/ last night, when I saw a jackpot of cobbles and bouders in the mix of sediment they were digging through. They had to pump the water out of the old Alaska gold "hole" first, and I'd say it was at least 40 feet deep at one part. The neat thing was there were cobbles and some bolders all through the stuff. And there was a lack of pancake layering. Oh I'm sure you're going to find some stratification and lamination on closer study, but we have already showed on this site that this can be done rapidly in current, in still water, and I have seen with own eyes (more than once), in single depostions.

We know that the smartest geologist in the world was not there to observe how all those big rocks and cobbles got mixed in with the sediment? But let's see what Discovery Channel says about it?

Posted Image
The location of the glory hole — a name given to deposits at the base of ancient waterfalls...


Did you read the caption under the picture? A classic example of media indoctrination. It is completely wrong, and geologists know it. But is to lead the common man to believe everything happens s-l-o-w-l-y. The sediment rock mix was the result of waterfalls! Really? You mean like the waterfalls I used to swim under in North Carolina or currently hike through in Louisiana? I didn't see any cobbles or boulders coming over the falls. A flood? Oh yeah, a flood could bring those boulders...



If I read your comment about the “smartest geologist in the world” it appears that for you to accept the conclusions given you would require a geologist to have been present at the time of deposition? If we apply the same logic to the basis for the YEC concepts of geology wouldn’t one have a problem accepting the details written in Genesis in regards to the physical creation of the world and the time it took to create since nobody was present besides God during the first part? Man had not yet been created. I think the writing is usually attributed to Moses but despite his intelligence he was not present. He also did not witness the flood at the time of Noah. Since he didn’t observe what happened, how is his account credible down to the smallest detail that it must be taken literally?

Some of your other comments seem to be coming from an assumption that there is some conspiracy afoot amongst the world's geologists to purposely lie and confuse the public whenever possible. Having worked as a geologist for almost 32 years I find this kind of thinking to not fit in at all with how the geologic community works worldwide in my experience. Most geologists are far too ethical to even conceive of doing such a thing, and for the stated purpose? There would be no point because this “s-l-o-w-l-y” idea is a strawman construct of what geologists think about sedimentation, as I have posted several times before. Geologists working in the 21st Century do not hold to a concept that "everything happens slowly" but I guess it is still far easier to take exception to modern geologic thinking by casting it as what may have been thought 150 years ago than to actually argue against what geologists think about the subject. Sir Charles Lyell is known to have carried his thoughts about uniformitarianism to an extreme in terms of timing, but he is not held to have been correct in light of the gain of knowledge since his time. Taking a course in Historical Geology would show people stating this strawman that the basis of many YEC arguments (such as this one) is false and founded upon misconception. I fully understand how this comes to be since YEC sources often encourage a version of geology that is false, this idea included.

Waterfalls are by the very nature rather temporary features when it comes to geologic time. By definition deposits or erosive features assocaited with them happen rather quickly in terms of geologic time.

So how do have you come to know that the idea here is completely wrong? More than that, what possible evidence do you have that geologists know that this conclusion is wrong yet allowed it to be shared anyway? I am not sure if such a study was published outside of a mining company’s internal reports. However, the attack upon the integrity of fellow geologists is likely to be unwarranted in my opinion. Have you studied the rocks in the location the photo was taken? Neither of us have, but I most certainly will take the opinion of a trained geologist who has done so over your untrained opinion, or even mine (and I have some training), since we cannot do anything but pass judgment without really being able to study the actual data. I found your link to be totally useless in getting additional information as it is just to a video of some amateur gold prospectors complaining.

I do not know how accurate the thoughts that the boulders accumulated at the base of waterfalls might be, but do know that it is credible. If the geologists that came to this conclusion were typical of how we are trained to study a rock formation they (or he / she) would have used all the evidence available, which I guess would have included mapping out the extent of the boulder deposit instead of looking as you at one view (in 2D) and simply conjecturing that the conclusion is wrong, presumably because it does not seem to support “flood geology.” The study would have looked at the petrology of the boulders and matched them to their source. The conclusions are probably largely based upon that as well. I have personally encountered waterfalls and found boulders at the base of them. I went swimming in a pool below a fall along the Napali coastline, Kauai. The bottom of the pool was lined with boulders some with quite angular edges. This is consistent with what I think is the cause of the accumulation of boulders. With them being derived from the cliffs above. Their source was clearly the cliffs over which the water flowed.

http://www.letsgo.co...os/77035?page=2

But I think you are barking up the wrong tree in terms of your observations about waterfalls in terms of geology. You seem to assume that geologists are claiming that cobble and boulders are transported by rivers and streams and then come over the falls. Quite frankly few geologists work much with waterfalls, myself included, but common sense on its own will lead to what is happening. Charles Lyell was told that Niagara Falls were receding at a rate of about 3 feet a year when he asked locals in the area. He miscalculated how long it had taken them from their inception to a position closer to Lake Erie. He had a bias towards “slow” just as you have a bias towards “rapid” which would probably preclude you from estimating the proper length of time just as it did to him for the 7 mile retreat. He guessed 35, 000 years when more modern estimates using other lines of reasoning place it at something like 7 to 9,000 years. But that is not really the point I wish to make. The boulders are a result or erosion of the cliffs the falls pour over. Where do the boulders end up? At the base of the falls. Both of us will probably agree that they would tend to remain at the base of the falls as the river would have trouble transporting them further. Perhaps the study in Alaska showed a string of boulders in a channel as a waterfall receded? This would help pin the deposits as being associated with falls. Why would the deposits have been studied? Well, the erosion caused by the falls through gold bearing veins could have released the gold into the river system and placier deposits could accumulate I the plunge pools at the base of falls.

Falls often form when a resistant cap rock stands out as a bluff. Sometimes these are limestone or dolomite. You have posted how you feel such rock formed during the flood, but it stands out because it is more resistant and has been deposited over pre-existing deposits that are softer. Such as shale. Then boulders are formed and then more sediment on top. To do this with a flood takes stretching processes to an extreme that is probably impossible to effect.


Posted Image
...Do you sse mud slurries under falls or in moving current after a flood? You see rocks but sediments are washed away by the flood and the current after the flood. But you say "well, the cobbles were laid then the water slowed down and slowly covered them with mud." Okay, then what happens at the next flash flood? The sediment washes away. The water forms a current. If it reaches even medium regime speed, it washes loose sediments, and leaves rocks.


Here's an example...

Posted Image
Here's Bennington Vermont--Where's the mud?



The mud has been carried away by the river, as it would originally have been carried away by vigorous water at the base of a fall. But I walked over some sediments at the mouth of a canyon where I was thinking about buying a house in the Los Angeles area. I found boulders, some the size of VWs, surrounded by sand and clay deposits. Debris flows with boulders and mud all together are a known feature of the area. Just this past month I witnessed another way to get boulders in a mud matrix. I had pebbles and boulders in my driveway. When the “great flood” this year put them under water for several days. They now have mud in the available pore space. Should another flood occur it could put another layer of mud on top of that and the result would be pebbles and boulders in a mud matrix.

Also, if all these rocks were from waterfalls, we would find evidence of deep erosion holes (like the falls I swimmed in), or a channel following the falls. As I said, I also go hiking in Louisiana. I go by several waterfalls. Do I see anything like the pictures above? NO. I see where the erosion has caused big soft "mud" boulders. But they are in a very limited area in SOME of the canyons, and they follow a narrow path. They aren't dispersed all over the place. But the rocks up in Alaska are mixed all through the sediment. I say this is a mud slurry that had enough force to carry all these rocks to one final depostion. The result of a huge and powerful catastrophe.

Geode "already knows" this stuff in Alaska is from catastrophe...or will he hold with DC--waterfalls? There seems to be a pardigm war in geology. Someone told DC the rocks are from "ancient waterfalls." But then you have papers like the following that acknowledge catastrophe.

I am often amazed at the language of these papers. They're using alot of jargon to tell us these "Holocene" floods caused a mud slurry. The same thing most thoughtful people with common sense can observe. By the way the Holocene is a more recent epoch, characterized by an ice age.



How do you know that there is not evidence of the plunge pools or channels? I think such a hole caused by erosion was interpreted as shown in the photo caption. Why else term it a “glory hole”? I think this term refers to a deposit below a waterfall when used in placer gold mining. Gold is found associated with the base of waterfalls in such erosive features. What I see in the picture is a big hole dug out by a “steam shovel” and would have to actually do field work to ascertain more. I also do not see rocks mixed all through the sediment in the picture you supply. I see a pile of boulders with some matrix material, but that could have occurred after the falls were not present. The void spaces in accumulations of boulders is commonly filled with interstitial fine sand and clay material in a similar way to the flooding in my driveway when deposition is now longer associated with channelized flow.

The successful mining of gold here is probably also evidence of the waterfall origin of the deposits. Presumably it was the discovery of what appeared to be such a deposit that led to the mining operation in the first place, probably a triumph for proper geology done using proper geologic principles.

I really know nothing of the sort from what you have posted. There is no reason to invoke any catastrophe from what I see in the picture. There also is no “paradigm war” in geology that I am aware of as you state. You are simply taking two different sets of rocks resulting from two sets of quite different conditions but assuming that they had the same cause of formation, then you force this interpretation upon the geology in the articles and say they are in conflict. Did you miss that the second has volcanism involved due to all the “jargon” used that confused you? Floods are in fact invoked here, but by using the melting of a glacier to accomplish this which is not exactly the most common set of circumstances.

Like any subject, there is terminology that allows clear and concise communication between geologists. So you wish a technical journal to use only layman terms even though the terminology used here is basic and understood by geologists worldwide? I guess that might decrease the evidence for your conspiracy theory. There is quite a bit more that is communicated here than you indicate, and although some of the deposits might be the result of a slurry others were not.

The Holocene is not characterized by an ice age. It is defined as having started at the after the end of the last ice age so it is also not best called “a more recent epoch” it is the most recent epoch that we are now existing within.

#7 Ophiolite

Ophiolite

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Peripatetic

Posted 13 December 2011 - 02:34 AM

I would think that a cosmic origin of gold would put most of it randomly throughout the geologic column not just in veins or highly concentrated locations associated with mud flows.


Perhaps, you have not thought about the matter enough, then. Recall that the bombardment of meteorites, which the researchers have suggested is responsible for much of the gold, would have occurred almost 4 billion years ago. The gold would have been disseminated randomly within the primeval crust and the upper mantle. But there was then 4 billion years for a variety of igneous, metamorphic, hydrothermal and sedimentary processes to concentrate it in those places we see it today. Indeed, based upon what we know of these processes we would be very surprised if gold was still randomly distributed within the crust.

It is not surprising that this hypothesis recognises that non-random distribution. The hypothesis builds on prior observations and theory, seeking to account for unanswered questions. Geochemists are reasonably comfortable about how what gold there is in the crust and upper mantle becomes concentrated into commercial deposits. (Although, see my last paragraph.) What puzzled them, as the topic link notes, was why most of this gold was not trapped with other siderophile (iron loving) elements during core formation. This new hypothesis provides a plausible explanation.

Now a YEC will necessarily dispute these findings, or certainly the conclusions. I understand that. It would be a pleasant basis for future discussion if they could concede that the data give the appearance that this explanation is plausible. (I promise, on this occasion, not to ask why God would do such a deceitful thing and accept the counter argument - God moves in mysterious ways.)

You will note I have used the word plausible twice in describing this hypothesis and rightly so. Firstly it is plausible; secondly, we need to see validation through other measurements and we need to explore other possible explanations for the observations. In short, science must ask – are these observations valid? Is the explanation for these observations the only one, or the best one of those available? Based on those answers the hypothesis can be rejected, modified, or provisionally accepted. In the latter case it is incorporated into the larger body of Earth theory that considers the formation and evolution of our planet.

There are two minor points that are separate from the main argument I wish to address.

You used a phrase ‘Yet, The surface of the planet is covered in gold. I imagine this was rhetoric, but it could give the wrong impression to casual readers. Gold is rare. Even in a ‘rich’ seam the concentration is measured in ounces per ton. All the gold mined in the history of man would occupy a cube 20m x 20m x 20m.

Secondly, there is some evidence that concentrations of gold may have been facilitated by microbes. We know this works for some other metals and apparently it may also work for gold. ( Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC93011/) This has no impact on the discussion topic, but it is quite interesting.

#8 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 17 December 2011 - 01:45 AM

Perhaps, you have not thought about the matter enough, then. Recall that the bombardment of meteorites, which the researchers have suggested is responsible for much of the gold, would have occurred almost 4 billion years ago. The gold would have been disseminated randomly within the primeval crust and the upper mantle. But there was then 4 billion years for a variety of igneous, metamorphic, hydrothermal and sedimentary processes to concentrate it in those places we see it today. Indeed, based upon what we know of these processes we would be very surprised if gold was still randomly distributed within the crust.

It is not surprising that this hypothesis recognises that non-random distribution. The hypothesis builds on prior observations and theory, seeking to account for unanswered questions. Geochemists are reasonably comfortable about how what gold there is in the crust and upper mantle becomes concentrated into commercial deposits. (Although, see my last paragraph.) What puzzled them, as the topic link notes, was why most of this gold was not trapped with other siderophile (iron loving) elements during core formation. This new hypothesis provides a plausible explanation.

Now a YEC will necessarily dispute these findings, or certainly the conclusions. I understand that. It would be a pleasant basis for future discussion if they could concede that the data give the appearance that this explanation is plausible. (I promise, on this occasion, not to ask why God would do such a deceitful thing and accept the counter argument - God moves in mysterious ways.)

You will note I have used the word plausible twice in describing this hypothesis and rightly so. Firstly it is plausible; secondly, we need to see validation through other measurements and we need to explore other possible explanations for the observations. In short, science must ask – are these observations valid? Is the explanation for these observations the only one, or the best one of those available? Based on those answers the hypothesis can be rejected, modified, or provisionally accepted. In the latter case it is incorporated into the larger body of Earth theory that considers the formation and evolution of our planet.

There are two minor points that are separate from the main argument I wish to address.

You used a phrase ‘Yet, The surface of the planet is covered in gold. I imagine this was rhetoric, but it could give the wrong impression to casual readers. Gold is rare. Even in a ‘rich’ seam the concentration is measured in ounces per ton. All the gold mined in the history of man would occupy a cube 20m x 20m x 20m.

Secondly, there is some evidence that concentrations of gold may have been facilitated by microbes. We know this works for some other metals and apparently it may also work for gold. ( Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC93011/) This has no impact on the discussion topic, but it is quite interesting.


Yes, all good and intriguing points. No matter how uniformly distributed in early earth history, mechanisms have been at work to concentrate gold in some places compared to others. The density of gold has resulted in enriched deposits in placer settings.

#9 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 17 December 2011 - 05:42 AM

Perhaps, you have not thought about the matter enough, then. Recall that the bombardment of meteorites, which the researchers have suggested is responsible for much of the gold, would have occurred almost 4 billion years ago. The gold would have been disseminated randomly within the primeval crust and the upper mantle. But there was then 4 billion years for a variety of igneous, metamorphic, hydrothermal and sedimentary processes to concentrate it in those places we see it today. Indeed, based upon what we know of these processes we would be very surprised if gold was still randomly distributed within the crust.


When asked why we don't see the evidence for the bombardment period most of the answers include the concept that the earths outer layer is being recycled. If this is true and the earths surface is constantly being drawn back down to the interior to be melted and then replaced at the surface why would any of the heavier elements come back up? Once a material is liquified then it will tend to stratify with the densest material displacing less dense matter closer to gravitational center. Thus logically if gold was placed on the suface billions of years ago and the earths surface has been being recycled in a continuous fashion then really what should we expect to see in the new material that comes back up to form its surface? Logic would dictate that we should see the lightest elements being primary as they would have been displaced at the lowest levels in a liquid by stratification.
A quick look at the atomic chart should give us a good idea of what elements should be resurfacing in the crust. Gold would not logically be one of the elements expected as a resufacing element.

#10 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 18 December 2011 - 05:51 AM

When asked why we don't see the evidence for the bombardment period most of the answers include the concept that the earths outer layer is being recycled. If this is true and the earths surface is constantly being drawn back down to the interior to be melted and then replaced at the surface why would any of the heavier elements come back up? Once a material is liquified then it will tend to stratify with the densest material displacing less dense matter closer to gravitational center. Thus logically if gold was placed on the suface billions of years ago and the earths surface has been being recycled in a continuous fashion then really what should we expect to see in the new material that comes back up to form its surface? Logic would dictate that we should see the lightest elements being primary as they would have been displaced at the lowest levels in a liquid by stratification.
A quick look at the atomic chart should give us a good idea of what elements should be resurfacing in the crust. Gold would not logically be one of the elements expected as a resufacing element.


The process of emplacement of gold from magma is not part of a process of individual elements sorting in depth according to their density. This is an article proposing a theory of gold being brought to the surface in aqueous fluids.

http://www.nature.co...l/ngeo1064.html

Magmatic–hydrothermal origin of Nevada’s Carlin-type gold deposits
John L. Muntean, Jean S. Cline, Adam C. Simon2 & Anthony A. Longo

Nature Geoscience, Volume: 4, Pages: 122–127, 2011

The Eocene epoch in the Great Basin of western North America was a period of profuse magmatism and hydrothermal activity. During that period, the Carlin-type gold deposits in Nevada were produced, Earth’s second largest concentration of gold after deposits in South Africa. The characteristics of the Carlin-type deposits have been documented, but a widely acceptable explanation for their genesis is outstanding. Here we integrate microanalyses of ore minerals, experimental data that describe metal partitioning, and published age and isotopic data, to suggest that the gold is sourced from magma. We relate gold deposition to a change from shallow subduction to renewed magmatism and the onset of extension. We propose that upwelling asthenosphere impinged on a strongly modified subcontinental lithospheric mantle, generating magmas that released gold-bearing fluids at depths of 10 to 12km. The rising aqueous fluids with elevated hydrogen sulphide concentrations and a high ratio of gold to copper underwent phase changes and mixed with meteoric water. Within a few kilometres of the surface, the fluids dissolved and sulphidized carbonate wall rocks, leading to deposition of gold-bearing pyrite. We conclude that the large number and size of Carlin-type deposits in Nevada is the result of an unusual convergence of a specific geologic setting, together with a tectonic trigger that led to extremely efficient transport and deposition of gold.




#11 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 25 December 2011 - 05:48 AM

The process of emplacement of gold from magma is not part of a process of individual elements sorting in depth according to their density. This is an article proposing a theory of gold being brought to the surface in aqueous fluids.

http://www.nature.co...l/ngeo1064.html



I would have to agree with you on this one, the gold was placed by aqueous fluids. However, the gold at the Canadian site in the OP is mixed in with sediments containing the cobbles and boulders. You can see from this picture below how water weathering has smoothed the larger boulders. This shows transport from subariel locations, not subsrface --by very high regime currents.

Question: Could the catastrophic transport of the rocks polished them, as in a rock tumbler?



Posted Image

#12 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 December 2011 - 10:01 PM

Perhaps, you have not thought about the matter enough, then. Recall that the bombardment of meteorites, which the researchers have suggested is responsible for much of the gold, would have occurred almost 4 billion years ago. The gold would have been disseminated randomly within the primeval crust and the upper mantle. But there was then 4 billion years for a variety of igneous, metamorphic, hydrothermal and sedimentary processes to concentrate it in those places we see it today. Indeed, based upon what we know of these processes we would be very surprised if gold was still randomly distributed within the crust.


Precambrian strata can be found all over the planet. Why is there no gold in them? If meteors deposited the gold, then these still consolidated strata should have evidence of gold in them. The same can be said for all of the strata that is still cemented into solid rock from then to present. As it turns out: It is only found in quartz veins and unconsolidated mud deposits.

If gold got reworked and concentrated then so would all of the fossils in the rocks and we would find dinosaurs from the bottom to the top of the geologic column as well.

It is not surprising that this hypothesis recognises that non-random distribution. The hypothesis builds on prior observations and theory, seeking to account for unanswered questions. Geochemists are reasonably comfortable about how what gold there is in the crust and upper mantle becomes concentrated into commercial deposits. (Although, see my last paragraph.) What puzzled them, as the topic link notes, was why most of this gold was not trapped with other siderophile (iron loving) elements during core formation. This new hypothesis provides a plausible explanation.

Now a YEC will necessarily dispute these findings, or certainly the conclusions. I understand that. It would be a pleasant basis for future discussion if they could concede that the data give the appearance that this explanation is plausible. (I promise, on this occasion, not to ask why God would do such a deceitful thing and accept the counter argument - God moves in mysterious ways.)


Why would anyone expect to find gold distributed within flood layers? If sediments sort themselves by particle density ( As experimental data shows), then we would expect the gold to concentrate as observed. A conformation of a prediction can hardly be interpreted as a deception.


You used a phrase ‘Yet, The surface of the planet is covered in gold. I imagine this was rhetoric, but it could give the wrong impression to casual readers. Gold is rare. Even in a ‘rich’ seam the concentration is measured in ounces per ton. All the gold mined in the history of man would occupy a cube 20m x 20m x 20m.


First, gold is not rare. It can be found in almost every state in the U.S.; It simply isn't abundant. Second, the surface of the planet covered in gold isn't rhetoric it is an obvious difficulty that rules out an extraterrestrial origin, since it can't be found in any cemented strata from the Precambrian to present except in quartz veins

Secondly, there is some evidence that concentrations of gold may have been facilitated by microbes. We know this works for some other metals and apparently it may also work for gold. ( Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC93011/) This has no impact on the discussion topic, but it is quite interesting.


Quite interesting and possible, but the microbes didn't produce any gold from the Precambrian all the way up until we find recently deposited mud flows. All of the known gold in the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic are from granitoids.



Enjoy.

#13 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 31 December 2011 - 11:03 PM

Precambrian strata can be found all over the planet. Why is there no gold in them? If meteors deposited the gold, then these still consolidated strata should have evidence of gold in them. The same can be said for all of the strata that is still cemented into solid rock from then to present. As it turns out: It is only found in quartz veins and unconsolidated mud deposits.


Gold is found in Precambrian strata, not only in amphibolite or geenstone facies, but in ancient placer deposits that are not in quartz veins or unconsolidated mud deposits. Only comparatively recent placer deposits will be unconsolidated and they will not be mud.

http://www.springerl...4g61mv3115n603/

If gold got reworked and concentrated then so would all of the fossils in the rocks and we would find dinosaurs from the bottom to the top of the geologic column as well.


I don't follow the logic in this claim. Fossils rarely have the density difference that gold has compared with other particles in sedimentary environments. Fossils commonly have similar densities to inorganic sediment particles and do not concentrate in the same way gold does.

Gold is broken into smaller fragments as are fossils, yet gold is more resistant to this process since it is basically not subject to chemical weathering. It also remains recognizable in small fragments yet fossils such as dinosaurs will not.

Why would anyone expect to find gold distributed within flood layers? If sediments sort themselves by particle density ( As experimental data shows), then we would expect the gold to concentrate as observed. A conformation of a prediction can hardly be interpreted as a deception.


The concentration of gold in placer deposits is found, but these are fluvial deposits not flood deposits, and exhibit evidence of channelized flow. Rivers in flood stages leave behind sediments that are characterized by overbank deposits which are recognizably different from those left in channels. Gold is unlikely to concentrate much in overbank deposits largely due to the relatively shorter time available in flood stages versus more typical flow regimes.

First, gold is not rare. It can be found in almost every state in the U.S.; It simply isn't abundant. Second, the surface of the planet covered in gold isn't rhetoric it is an obvious difficulty that rules out an extraterrestrial origin, since it can't be found in any cemented strata from the Precambrian to present except in quartz veins


I would agree with the earlier post by Ophiolite that gold is rare as used in context. It is rare combined to most other elements. I don't see how you have given a reason that gold cannot have arrived from outside the earth. It is in fact found in rocks from the Precambrian to the present in rocks other than quartz veins. There are placer deposits that are quite cemented.

Quite interesting and possible, but the microbes didn't produce any gold from the Precambrian all the way up until we find recently deposited mud flows. All of the known gold in the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic are from granitoids.


Amphibolites are not granitoids but are far more mafic and are found in the Phanerzoic. Actually precious little gold would come from granitoids. Gold is often found in veins associated with granitic rocks rather than in them. Placer deposits are not always derived from veins associated with granitic rocks.

It is proposed that the Adola placer gold was derived, ultimately, from the ultrabasic rocks which are now represented by serpentinites and talc-schists. During the process of serpentinisation the ultrabasic rocks expelled abundant silica and available gold, which were deposited as gold-quartz veins in the overlying brittle basalts. Erosion of these basalts, now amphibolites has resulted in concentration of the gold as placers in the overlying conglomerates and soils.


http://www.springer...l12k06kj58286/

#14 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 08 January 2012 - 07:54 AM

No one has explained why the gold deposits in the OP are found associated with large boulders and cobbles. The OP, and following posts by the poster, claim transport of large boulders, and cobbles, which show signs of long term water weathering. My question is, do the many rocks in the deep hole in the first post give us evidence of a large catastrophe--in other words, were they transported from elsewhere?

If not a single catastrophe, what other processes would produce what we see in the OP? How did the large boulders and cobbles mix so deeply within the soil?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users