Jump to content


Photo

Uluru--a Flood Composition


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
48 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 10 November 2010 - 08:46 AM

It is my conviction that Uluru, or Ayers Rock is one the most amazing pieces of forensic evidence for flood geology. The reason is that it is not just a "rock." Underneath the surface lies an 18,000 to 20,000 foot deposition of arkose, a type of sandstone.
C. R. Twidale, “On the Origin of Ayers Rock, Central Australia,” Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie Neue Folge Supplement no. 31 (1978)

Posted Image

There are several striking features of the composition and the formation of the sandstone. The layers in the rock are over eighty degrees. If they were less than 30 degrees, most likely old earthers would claim it to be petrified sand dunes, and it would be end of subject. Because of this great angle, another formation story is required.

The origin is generally thought to be a leftover of eroded mountains--thus the high angles are the result of orogeny, followed by erosion--a common uniformintarian (as opposed to "actualist, which claims to acknowledge catastrophe) approach to unconformities and potential "flies in the ointment."

Massive Water Deposition
But there is plenty of evidence to build a water transport deposition, accompanied by following diagensis and/or metamorpism because of the volcanism that many creationists believe accompanied the breaking up of the "fountains of the deep."

So is there other evidence of water? Yes, the rock is classified as arkose. Arkose contains calcite, which acts as an initial cement. This would have most likely come from the ocean's diatomic and planktonic organisms that mixed with the sand underwater.

Also there are ripples and cross bedding found in the rock.

Features related to deposition of the sediment include cross-bedding and ripples, analysis of which indicated deposition from broad shallow high energy fluvial channels and sheet flooding, typical of alluvial fans.[5][6]  Wiki--look under age and origin.


I don't want to deviate into alluvial fans, but is the 18000 feet of sandstone a result of water run off for a canyon??? That is what they are suggesting here! It is enough to make me sick--sorry! :D

Posted Image

Since by common sense we can rule out any possibility of canyon water run off, we must conclude by the sheer volume of arkose, and the upturn that we are looking at the results of cataclysm, involving both high regime current, earth movement, and volcanism. This is consistent with the Biblical account of ALL the fountains of the deep were broken up.

The arkose also contains 25 % conglomerate rock, which would lend secondary support to turbidity currents.

Average composition is 50% feldspar, 25–35% quartz and up to 25% rock fragments.... Look under composition section


Vocanism

The evidence of volcanism is high, by the presence of feldspar (50%), and mica. Also it contains pieces of basalt--indicating extrusive lava that was then covered by sand. Basalt is what is on the oceanic ridges, and formed the Hawiian islands.

There is no talus (broken eroded sediment) at the foot of Ayers Rock, because there are no joints (cracked openings), indicating the rock is not only cemented by calcite, but in part welded by the contact metamorphism caused by the volcanic heat within the sandstone.

Why No Talus

As I mentioned before, I will do so again for the purposes of this question. If the massive sub-surface deposit at Uluru is the result of eroded mountains, where are the signs of the erosion? There should be talus around Ayers Rock. Metamorphism welded the rock to make it a unit, so that there are no joints. This is a sign of a LACK of erosion--and an indication that the rock is relatively young.

Severe Uplift Would Cause Joints and Faults
I am not saying there were no earth movements at all, but bedding angles are caused by severe uplift and turning from oregenic events, as claimed by standard geology, why does the large Ayers rock contain no faulting or joints. You would think that if the layers are strata laid originally horizontal, and then turned nearly vertical on such a gargantuan scale, there would be faulting and joints-but there is none!

Evidence of Transport

The grains are jagged, supporting rapid transport, rather than slow run off through a canyon, which would tend to produce more eroded rounded grains.

Posted Image


"ALL the fountains of the deep were broken up."
Genesis 7:20


#2 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 13 November 2010 - 02:10 AM

There are several striking features of the composition and the formation of the sandstone. The layers in the rock are over eighty degrees. If they were less than 30 degrees, most likely old earthers would claim it to be petrified sand dunes, and it would be end of subject. Because of this great angle another formation story is required.


Actually the angle of the sandstone “layers” found here would probably never be confused by geologists as being due to coming from sand dune formation even if under 30 degrees. Eolian sandstones are largely identified by diagnostic cross-bedding, usually between 20-30 degrees, which is set at an angle to the bedding you describe here as “layers.” Also the nature of the grains in the sand dunes is very unlike windblown deposits in terms of being poorly sorted. There are also conglomerates, and I doubt “old earthers” would try and say that these were windblown. Winds that can carry pebbles do not allow for the creation of sand dunes. The grains are not frosted and are angular. This also is not typical of windblown sediment. Geologists are not trained to jump to conclusions using only one line of evidence, and ignoring other evidence in doing so although I do see creationists do this rather frequently. The angle of inclination to the beds really has nothing to do with the composition of the actual sandstones or the nature of the depositional environment in which they formed.

The origin is generally thought to be a leftover of eroded mountains--thus the high angles are the result of orogeny, followed by erosion--a common uniformintarian (as opposed to "actualist, which claims to acknowledge catastrophe) approach to unconformities and potential "flies in the ointment."


Once again the “high angles” of the beds have little or nothing to do with the presumed provenance or source of the sediments. There is not a direct relationship as you imply here. The source is thought to have been from eroded granitic rocks still found in the remnants of eroded mountains to the south after the mountains were created in the Petermann Orogeny. This basically is more about the proper study of the sandstones than holding to uniforitarianism. It is the composition of the sandstones that ties the rocks to their source, not the high angles of the beds in Ayers Rock. The inclined bedding would have come by different orogenic activity than that which produced the sediments. Inclined beds are not “flies in the ointment” any more than unconformities are in terms the application of the science of geology. These are fies in the ointment for YEC ideas.

I notice that you have now generally shifted away from using the term uniformitarianism for a concept you want to attack in favor of actualism. Unlike the inclination of the bedding, your attempted slam of geologists who hold to uniformitarian concepts falls flat. There is essentially no difference between the modern concept of “uniformitarianism” as used in the 20th or 21st centuries and “actualism” in fact I made it all the way through grad school studying geology before anyone started to use a term other than uniformitarianism for the general nature of how we use present processes active on the planet to interpret past earth history. The presence of occasional catastrophic occurrences has been well known in modern earth environments and taken to be something that occurred in the past, sort of like punctuation to the general slow and uniform processes at work. We have not held to the slow and very uniform rates that Sir Charles Lyell tended to embrace in the 19th century. We have known that the name was not the best for the concept, but it had long usage and it didn’t bother most of us since earth processes are far more uniform than the alternative discredited “catastrophic” school which fails miserably to explain much of the evidence found in the rocks. I do not use the term actualist out of past habit, but do accept that I hold to an uniformitarian viewpoint. Basically in geology after the 19th century Uniformitarianism= actualism and all that occurred was a name change used by some for greater clarity. Some are sticklers for keeping the historical context of uniformitarianism as it was held by Lyell when using the word, I am not one of them. If you find a geologist today that claims to accept uniformitarianism it will most likely be the same concept as actualism.

But there is plenty of evidence to build a water transport deposition, accompanied by following diagensis and/or metamorpism because of the volcanism that many creationists believe accompanied the breaking up of the "fountains of the deep."

So is there other evidence of water? Yes, the rock is classified as arkose. Arkose contains calcite, which acts as an initial cement. This would have most likely come from the ocean's diatomic and planktonic organisms that mixed with the sand underwater.

Also there are ripples and cross bedding found in the rock.


So because many creationists believe volcanism accompanied the “great fountains of the deep” you conclude that metamorphism is present? I would think a better approach would be to only cite what evidence has actually be found, not to conclude it is there because your model predicts it should be there.

Arkoses do not usually contain calcite as a primary clastic component. Although calcite cement is commonly found, it is not an essential ingredient for a rock to be called an arkose. They are sometimes informally called “dirty sandstones” due to their large non-quartz content. While there is ample evidence that the sediments were water-lain, there is no evidence I have seen that shows these rocks were deposited by ocean waters. As far as I know these rocks do not contain much in the way of fossils, which is something typical of terrigenous rocks. Diatoms are not present as far as I have heard, but if so they would leave behind silica and not calcium carbonate (calcite). Material from planktonic organisms mixing with the sand underwater during a catastrophic flood?...there is no evidence of this at all. Calcite cements are not exclusive to sediments deposited by oceanic waters. They are often not primary either, but part of the diagenetic process. Ripples and cross-bedding are often found in fluvial deposits.

I see you have invoked the now nearly ubiquitous creationist usage of the “great fountains of the deep” which are commonly cited to fill in several holes in creationist flood geology. They are used to provide great volumes of water, they are used to provide tectonism, and they also are sometimes linked to volcanism. Did they also slice and dice rocks like a Vegamatic? Did they emit gases that cured the common cold for a term as well? I’m sure with a little imagination other phenomina can be explained by invoking “the great fountains of the deep” whatever they actually were.

I don't want to deviate into alluvial fans, but is the 18000 feet of sandstone a result of water run off for a canyon??? That is what they are suggesting here! It is enough to make me sick--sorry! 


Don’t you think you may be exaggerating a little in terms of the thickness involved? Although I have seen estimates of multiple kilometers of thickness, the present Ayers Rock is a bit over 1,100’ and although the exact depth the beds reach below the surface is unknown, I think it is most commonly speculated to that 1/2 to 2/3 cannot be seen. That would put the thickness closer to 4,000’ or less.

I would recommend to stop being sick and do some more research into the geology involved with alluvial fans, one of the more common methods of accumulating great thicknesses of sediment. Your problem seems to be that your “worldview” ….as you would term it, does not allow for you to add the time element that is part and parcel for such thick accumulations. Several “layers” are present and they would have been formed by repeated pulses of sedimentation on individual alluvial fans or coellescing fans accumulating through time. The sedimentation on these is often in sheet floods or related flash flooding events so you are basically arguing against a straw man that you have constructed about slow flow through canyons. Go out and look at the sediment accumulated on such a fan. They will not likely be very rounded as you seem to be saying in a couple of places. Alluvial fan deposits are more typically angular.

I once was hiking on Miyajima, a small Japanese island, and arrived just after some heavy rainfall. The streams were literally choked with “granite wash” and it appeared that there was almost as much sediment as water in the flow. Lots of pink and white feldspar. This would have formed a rather thick bed of sand down and off the slope. Nothing all that slow about it, and certainly nothing catastrophic about it. I survived my hike without even getting my feet wet.

Although finding many sands in a section is generally a good thing in an oil and gas well since it provides reservoirs, we sometimes drill into sequences like this for thousands of feet that lack traps and seals. We term failed wells of this sort “sand piles”…a couple of exploration wells drilled here a few years ago failed for just such a reason. Oil and gas had been generated an migrated through the sands present, but it kept on going updip to traps formed by faults and sealed by shales across the boundary line of the concession.


Since by common sense we can rule out any possibility of canyon water run off, we must conclude by the sheer volume of arkose, and the upturn that we are looking at the results of cataclysm, involving both high regime current, earth movement, and volcanism. This is consistent with the Biblical account of ALL the fountains of the deep were broken up. 


Common sense favors the possibility shown by all the evidence that can be used in making conclusions. The evidence does not lead in the direction of cataclysm, but more mundane geological processes such as those found in river and alluvial fan deposition.

Being consistent with something nodody can really explain? Those very useful “fountains of the deep” put in yet another appearance. Volcanism cited again with no real evidence of any being involved in the tectonic tilting of the beds. Some minor amounts of basalt have been found in the sediments, but that is all. Actually common sense after an actual study of the rocks would not rule out alluvial fans at all, since the sediments involved are rather diagnostic of such features. Ruling something out just because you do not understand it is not a very good scientific approach. In fact it is one of the more dangerous ways to approach science if a correct conclusion is the goal. What common sense rules out is deposition of 18,000’ of sandstone in one world-wide flooding event over a few weeks time. Trying to conceive of that makes me dizzy, not sick.

First of all you have to produce all that sediment through erosion. The action of even the most rapid flood waters would not allow for even a fraction of the sediment to be produced from the erosion of the granites with a year’s time. Then the flood waters would be required to transport it all and deposit it with bedding surfaces, and as you have pointed out, ripples and cross-bedding. Not much chance of strong currents after all the mountaintops are covered so I would guess we are limited to when waters are raging down due to heavy rainfall, and then when the waters receded. What does the Bible give us as a time frame for all of this? Well, the waters decreased enough that by the seventh month the ark came to rest on ground and decreased steadiliy until the tenth month. Then after another month Noah sent out the bird to test for dry ground. So by the furthest stretch as I can see it, all of this had to accomplished in eleven months. About 330 days. If we say all the sediment was eroded already by the start of the flood, which is not likely due to a lack of the action of rains, etc. and the fact that the sediment could not have been accumulating for a long time prior to deposition due to the unweathered nature of the grains, we would have deposition would have to average about 55’ a day. Ripple marks and cross-bedding are very hard to preserve in the high flow regimes that would be necessary. So the presence of these bedforms goes against your hypothesis of deposition through a massive flooding event.

The arkose also contains 25 % conglomerate rock, which would lend secondary support to turbidity currents.


No it wouldn’t. I don’t think the conglomerates present are part of a graded-bedding Bouma sequence that would be found in a turbidite.

The evidence of volcanism is high, by the presence of feldspar (50%), and mica. Also it contains pieces of basalt--indicating extrusive lava that was then covered by sand. Basalt is what is on the oceanic ridges, and formed the Hawiian islands.

There is no talus (broken eroded sediment) at the foot of Ayers Rock, because there are no joints (cracked openings), indicating the rock is not only cemented by calcite, but in part welded by the contact metamorphism caused by the volcanic heat within the sandstone.


I think evidence of some regional volcanism is present, but not evidence for the creation of the actual rocks in Ayers Rock, which is shown by only small amounts of basalt fragments within the sandstones. Other than that, the arkosic sands are mostly typical of a granite wash in terms of grain size and sorting. With rather rare exception feldspar or mica grains from a volcanic source would be much smaller than seen here. Basalt also commonly forms on land. So if sand covered the lava, where is the lava now? Was it ever really present, or is it hat your model would predict it should be there so you assume it is there?

Where did you find reference to metamorphism in the sandstones? I have never seen any mentioned nor any volcanism causing alteration. You would plainly see this in “baked zones” yet Ayers Rock has none that I have ever seen reported. The unweathered arkoses are grey in color and not showing the typical red color caused by the heat of nearby igneous activity.

In desert environments such as on the Colorado Plateau you can see a similar situation with talus. Some studies indicate that if weathering of produced talus dominates the creation of more talus not much will be found at the base of cliffs. Joints have been noted and small caves appear to form near there. But having joints or not is not evidence of calcareous cementation. This is also not evidence of metamorphism.

As I mentioned before, I will do so again for the purposes of this question. If the massive sub-surface deposit at Uluru is the result of eroded mountains, where are the signs of the erosion? There should be talus around Ayers Rock. Metamorphism welded the rock to make it a unit, so that there are no joints. This is a sign of a LACK of erosion--and an indication that the rock is relatively young.


You seem to be confusing two erosional events. One would be the erosion of granitic mountains located some 60 kms away, as shown by the included sediment types. The erosion of the beds that formed into rocks would be a separate issue. The pictures you have provided very plainly show features caused by erosion, including what appear to be ventifacts from wind erosion. The ribs show differential erosion rates of the beds present. The very color of Ayers Rock is evidence of erosion. Again you lead with metamorphism. Please supply a citation that such is present or I will continue to assume that you are simply jumping to a conclusion.

Posted Image

Severe Uplift Would Cause Joints and Faults

I am not saying there were no earth movements at all, but bedding angles are caused by severe uplift and turning from oregenic events, as claimed by standard geology, why does the large Ayers rock contain no faulting or joints. You would think that if the layers are strata laid originally horizontal, and then turned nearly vertical on such a gargantuan scale, there would be faulting and joints-but there is none!


So you have studied Ayers rock to the point that you know that there are no faults or joints in it? Geologists have found faults and joints associated with Ayers Rock, it is just that they are far less common than usual. I have heard it is bounded by major faults on some sides and that the material on the other sides of the faults was less resistant to erosion and has since vanished. There are sheeting joints where blocks of the sandstone is separating from the dome. Some caves are thought to be associated with joints.

Evidence of Transport

The grains are jagged, supporting rapid transport, rather than slow run off through a canyon, which would tend to produce more eroded rounded grains.


The angularity of the grains is evidence of deposition following relatively little transport. This fact does not come about due to the speed of the transport per se. If a stream carries such grains at a rate of 1 meter a minute and deposits them relatively close to where they were eroded you will still see this angularity. But once again you try and force fit mainstream geologic work into an unrealistic uniformitarian straw man.

By the way, the photomicrograph shows no signs of metamorphism that I can detect, and I have looked at metamorphic in such sections. There is no binding at grain contacts at all. There is no undulation to the surface of the grains.

Posted Image

#3 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 13 November 2010 - 05:45 PM

Actually the angle of the sandstone “layers” found here would probably never be confused by geologists as being due to coming from sand dune formation even if under 30 degrees.

View Post

I was not necessarily talking about geologists. I am talking about people I debate. There have been those on this site that have argued for aeolian processes on the basis a angle. That was all I was saying.

Eolian sandstones are largely identified by diagnostic cross-bedding, usually between 20-30 degrees, which is set at an angle to the bedding you describe here as “layers.”

View Post

As I said--30 degrees. What would you like me to call the layers? It seems we have had this conversation before.

Also the nature of the grains in the sand dunes is very unlike windblown deposits in terms of being poorly sorted. There are also conglomerates, and I doubt “old earthers” would try and say that these were windblown. Winds that can carry pebbles do not allow for the creation of sand dunes. The grains are not frosted and are angular. This also is not typical of windblown sediment. Geologists are not trained to jump to conclusions using only one line of evidence, and ignoring other evidence in doing so although I do see creationists do this rather frequently.

View Post

Please, Geode. Any geologist who does not share your old earth view would take ALL the same data into consideration. The intitial paper I read was by Snelling, which mentioned all the afore mentioned. He didn't use "one line of evidence."

In case you are saying he has assumptions, I could say the same for unis. They are commited to the geotimecale framework, and will shape their research and conclusionsm according to it's paradigm.


The angle of inclination to the beds really has nothing to do with the composition of the actual sandstones or

View Post

Did you get the impression I thought this? What statement did I make for you to think this? I hear what you are saying though. Again you are a geologist. Some that I debate are not.

I guess I disagree with the last part--"the nature of the depositional environment in which they formed...."

Let's get the record straight. Snelling accounts them as one side of an eroded syncline.

Once again the “high angles” of the beds have little or nothing to do with the presumed provenance or source of the sediments. There is not a direct relationship as you imply here. 

View Post

You need to read my quote again. I implied nothing. I said plainly that because the angles are more than 30 degrees, another story of formation is needed.

Many sandstone formations are attributed to petrified sand dunes, when water can sort, erode the grains, and cross bed just like wind, depending on the current speed. For instance, if memory serves correct, the coconino sand stone is attributed to wind. It is sandwiched between marine layers--limestone and shale. Also, many of the layers intermingle, shale in sandstone, sandy limestone, limestone and shale, etc.

The source is thought to have been from eroded granitic rocks still found in the remnants of eroded mountains to the south after the mountains were created in the Petermann Orogeny.

View Post

I'm asking now. The sand would be quartz, would that have come from granite?

I'm going to have to get back later.

#4 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 13 November 2010 - 08:05 PM

Geode: "Actually the angle of the sandstone “layers” found here would probably never be confused by geologists as being due to coming from sand dune formation even if under 30 degrees."

I was not necessarily talking about geologists. I am talking about people I debate. There have been those on this site that have argued for aeolian processes on the basis a angle. That was all I was saying.


Most geologists are what you termed "old earthers"....and most people actually considering an eolian origin for rocks would be geologists, others would simply be taking reports from geologists to use in debate.

Geode: "Eolian sandstones are largely identified by diagnostic cross-bedding, usually between 20-30 degrees, which is set at an angle to the bedding
you describe here as 'layers'...."

As I said--30 degrees. What would you like me to call the layers? It seems we have had this conversation before.


Layers is a term that was used by one of the favorite sources on this board "Drama in the Rocks" (that you and others have cited frequently) to make false claims about geologic evidence. They were attempting to substitute new terminology such as "layer" and define it in such a way to cloud a discssuion of the deposition of sedimentary rocks and to make falacious points. I found this a very dishonest approach that was designed to confuse people. This is a pitfall in "learning" geology from creationist sources. They must be checked carefully to avoid falling into the trap of taking what is written as being correct about the science. I would suggest sticking to standard geologic terminology.

Geode: "Also the nature of the grains in the sand dunes is very unlike windblown deposits in terms of being poorly sorted. There are also conglomerates, and I doubt “old earthers” would try and say that these were windblown. Winds that can carry pebbles do not allow for the creation of sand dunes. The grains are not frosted and are angular. This also is not typical of windblown sediment. Geologists are not trained to jump to conclusions using only one line of evidence, and ignoring other evidence in doing so although I do see creationists do this rather frequently."

Please, Geode. Any geologist who does not share your old earth view would take ALL the same data into consideration. The intitial paper I read was by Snelling, which mentioned all the afore mentioned. He didn't use "one line of evidence."

In case you are saying he has assumptions, I could say the same for unis. They are commited to the geotimecale framework, and will shape their research and conclusionsm according to it's paradigm.


Much of your post appeared to me to be making points based upon one line of evidence, and ignoring contrary evidence (alluvial fans for instance). In the articles in AIG and ICR I have found this is rather routine. Creationist geologists routinely ignore important data that does not fit into their all encompassing "flood" model. I'll bet Snelling did the same in his discussion of Ayers Rock.

Geologists do change their explanations and models, and sometimes this is due to their use of uniforitarianism when they discover an unknown or forgotten modern example that helps explain something seen in the rock record. Just because creationists limit their research to only what they want to find in terms of the flood, does not mean that geologists doing more proper science do likewise. That leads to dogmatism and perpetuated mistakes. That is part of the reason for peer review.

Geode: "The angle of inclination to the beds really has nothing to do with the composition of the actual sandstones or

Did you get the impression I thought this? What statement did I make for you to think this? I hear what you are saying though. Again you are a geologist. Some that I debate are not.


I just assumed that you were seriously linking the composition of the sandstones to the inclination of the beds from what you said here:

"There are several striking features of the composition and the formation of the sandstone. The layers in the rock are over eighty degrees. If they were less than 30 degrees, most likely old earthers would claim it to be petrified sand dunes, and it would be end of subject. Because of this great angle another formation story is required."

You started by describing the composition and formation of the sandstone and then launched into a discussion of the inclination of the beds. My mistake, I guess you were saying that sand dunes have nothing to do with this. I got lost by your inclusion of a red herring that was simply there to denigrate non-YEC people, or "old earthers"

I guess I disagree with the last part--"the nature of the depositional environment in which they formed...."

Let's get the record straight. Snelling accounts them as one side of an eroded syncline.


Sorry, I don't follow what you are saying here. I don't understand what Snelling's opinion about there being a syncline (as unlikely as that might be) is relevent.

Geode: "Once again the 'high angles' of the beds have little or nothing to do with the presumed provenance or source of the sediments. There is not a direct relationship as you imply here. 

You need to read my quote again. I implied nothing. I said plainly that because the angles are more than 30 degrees, another story of formation is needed.


Yes, I got lost by your red herring.

Many sandstone formations are attributed to petrified sand dunes, when water can sort, erode the grains, and cross bed just like wind, depending on the current speed. For instance, if memory serves correct, the coconino sand stone is attributed to wind. It is sandwiched between marine layers--limestone and shale. Also, many of the layers intermingle, shale in sandstone, sandy limestone, limestone and shale, etc.


Actually it is rare for sands deposited in water to share all the diagnostic criteria for wind-blown sands. Eroded grains are a general description and frosted grains more specific. I don't follow your "interminge" discussion.

Geode: "The source is thought to have been from eroded granitic rocks still found in the remnants of eroded mountains to the south after the mountains were created in the Petermann Orogeny. "

I'm asking now. The sand would be quartz, would that have come from granite?


Why not? Quartz is an essential part of any true granite by definition.

#5 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 13 November 2010 - 09:13 PM

Mr. Geode,

Because someone disagrees with your interpretation and beliefs about Earth's past, does not make them dishonest. Because they have different presuppositons, which causes them to ask different questions, they might use different terminology, because they are using them in a different context.

If Julienne uses a real time "layer" the context justifies the usage, I see no dishonesty. Just because you don't agree with his science, doesn't make him dishonest. And not only that, but if the strata was actually laid out like what was clearly evidenced in the lab, then he is altogether honest. I certainly do not agree with your reasoning.

Now, after having read a little more, I realize I was premature on suggesting metamorphism by basalt peices in the arkose. Arkose is sedimentary and mainly a conglomerate, so I do apologize for that. Unless there is proof of metamorphism, the basalt is pre-existant rock. It is basically a conglomerate. However, according to Snelling there are up to 5 foot boulders in the mix.

So the point is that this was water--I say catastrophe. I assume you will say that flash flooding moved the boulders. It would take alot of concentrated pressure over a very large area, to move the bolders, cobbles and sediment.

Uluru and Kata Tjuta are connected by the same strata, and they are about 30 km apart. The strata run under the desert sand, and they are one formation.

Posted Image


The strata are very thick. According to Snelling, (and the paper citation in the OP) he writes about Kata Tjuta....

The rock layers here only dip at angles of 10–18° to the southwest, but are enormous. Their total thickness is six kilometres (3.75 miles), and they extend under the desert sands to other outcrops for over 15 kilometres (9.5 miles) to the north-east and for more than 40 kilometres (25 miles) to the north-west.


I read in another article (which I forgot the title now) that it was 18000--20000 feet which is around the 3.75 miles thick.


Funny you brought up uniformintarian, because the standard explanation on the web is that this started as lake/basin and then parts of it raised in oregenic events twice. Nice and slow, Snelling says 50 million years for the second orogeny. That doesn't account for the 5 foot boulders, nor the massivness of this formation. It took lots of power to move all that boulder and cobble laden alluvium.

#6 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 13 November 2010 - 10:31 PM

Mr. Geode,

Because someone disagrees with your interpretation and beliefs about Earth's past, does not make them dishonest.  Because they have different presuppositons, which causes them to ask different questions, they might use different terminology, because they are using them in a different context. 

If Julienne uses a real time "layer" the context justifies the usage, I see no dishonesty.   Just because you don't agree with his science, doesn't make him dishonest.  And not only that, but if the strata was actually laid out like what was clearly evidenced in the lab, then he is altogether honest.  I certainly do not agree with your reasoning.

Now, after having read a little more, I realize I was premature on suggesting metamorphism by basalt peices in the arkose.  Arkose is sedimentary and mainly a conglomerate, so I do apologize for that.   Unless there is proof of metamorphism, the basalt is pre-existant rock. It is basically a conglomerate.  However, according to Snelling there are up to 5 foot boulders in the mix.

So the point is that this was water--I say catastrophe.  I assume you will say that flash  flooding moved the boulders.  It would take alot of concentrated pressure over a very large area, to move the bolders, cobbles and sediment.

Uluru and Kata Tjuta are connected by the same strata, and they are about 30 km apart.  The  strata run under the desert sand, and they are one formation. 

Posted Image

The strata are very thick. According to Snelling, (and the paper citation in the OP) he writes about Kata Tjuta....

I read in another article (which I forgot the title now) that it was 18000--20000 feet which is around the 3.75 miles thick.

Funny you brought up uniformintarian, because the standard explanation on the web is that this started as lake/basin and then parts of it raised in oregenic events twice.  Nice and slow, Snelling says 50 million years for the second orogeny.  That doesn't account for the 5 foot boulders, nor the massivness of this formation.  It took lots of power to move all that boulder and cobble laden alluvium.

View Post


It is true, people can honestly disagree. However, the writers and producers of "Drama in the Rocks" did not take an honest approach but purposely distorted the science of geology. The way they defined "layer" was not adhering to geologic standards and it was apaprent that this was in an attempt to sound convincing to people that that do not know enough geology to know that they are being flim-flamed. It was not the discussion by Julienne that I am talking about, it was in an explanation at the beginnig by the narrator...and I think he did so again in a couple of other places.

I have personally seen boulders in a wash subject to flash floods in California, on a modern alluvial fan. One was the size of a VW. This has been witnessed in modern environments....even by me. But I don't think there are five foot boulders in the sediments of Ayers Rock, only up to pebble size.

The arkoses are not predominantly conglomerates. The arkoses are sandstones.

I don't undersatnd your discussion of orogeny and boulders. I saw the boulders
I mentioned at the floot of the San Gabriel Mtns. which are the result relatively recent orogenic movement.

I do not think the simplified structure that Snelling shows has been shown to be what exists in the subsurface.

#7 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 13 November 2010 - 11:03 PM

It is true, people can honestly disagree. However, the writers and producers of "Drama in the Rocks" did not take an honest approach but purposely distorted the science of geology. The way they defined "layer" was not adhering to geologic standards and it was apaprent that this was in an attempt to sound convincing to people that that do not know enough geology to know that they are being flim-flamed. It was not the discussion by Julienne that I am talking about, it was in an explanation at the beginnig by the narrator...and I think he did so again in a couple of other places.

I have personally seen boulders in a wash subject to flash floods in California, on a modern alluvial fan. One was the size of a VW. This has been witnessed in modern environments....even by me. But I don't think there are five foot boulders in the sediments of Ayers Rock, only up to pebble size.

The arkoses are not predominantly conglomerates. The arkoses are sandstones.

I don't undersatnd your discussion of orogeny and boulders. I saw the boulders
I mentioned at the floot of the San Gabriel Mtns. which are the result relatively recent orogenic movement.

I do not think the simplified structure that Snelling shows has been shown to be what exists in the subsurface.

View Post

The show is to laymen. If he had filmed this to geologists, then you would have every reason to criticize him. The layer I saw, was an was a time layer--the line being an actual path of the grains. There was a differentiation between these "layers" and "strata." Otherwise, I don't recall another contradiction. I was mostly concerned with the mechanics of the strata being laid in current. This is never taught to the general public, which constantly hear about slow sedimentation.

The image is on the web and is not from Snelling. I just search engined it, and got it from the images. I realize it's extremely oversimplified.

About the boulders. How big were they? And were they in a canyon? I would say there has to be a concentrated pressure on 5 foot boulders. I have seen flash flood in creeks and I doubt they would move a five foot boulder.

Also, the standard theory of a basin/lake would be inconsistent with high current on such a grand scale. They are not being clear. Maybe there are several hypotheses, but you can't always intermix models. If you have alluvial fans from canyons, you will need alot of canyons, because there is alot of sq kilometers of area. And you should have some clue as to their whereabouts. If you have a lake and then uplift, you cover the area, but not the concentrated power of a flooding canyon. The biblical flood covers both of those conditions.

Do you think the basalt could have melted the arkose, or was it pre-existant?

#8 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 13 November 2010 - 11:59 PM

The show is to laymen.  If he had filmed this to geologists, then you would have every reason to criticize him.  The layer I saw, was an was a time layer--the line being an actual path of the grains.  There was a differentiation between these "layers" and "strata." Otherwise, I don't recall another contradiction.  I was mostly concerned with the mechanics of the strata being laid in current.  This is never taught to the general public, which constantly hear about slow sedimentation.

The image is on the web and is not from Snelling.  I just search engined it, and got it from the images.  I realize it's extremely oversimplified.

About the boulders.  How big were they? And were they in a canyon?  I would say there has to be a concentrated pressure on 5 foot boulders.  I have seen flash flood in creeks and I doubt they would move a five foot boulder.

Also, the standard theory of a basin/lake would be inconsistent with high current on such a grand scale.  They are not being clear.  Maybe there are several hypotheses, but you can't always intermix models.  If you have alluvial fans from canyons, you will need alot of canyons, because there is alot of sq kilometers of area. And you should have some clue as to their whereabouts. If you have a lake and then uplift, you cover the area, but not the concentrated power of a flooding canyon. The biblical flood covers both of those conditions.

Do you think the  basalt could have melted the arkose, or was it pre-existant?

View Post


Good and honestly explained geology is good and honestly explained geology whether or not simplified for laymen or not. It was the attempt to differentiate "layers" from "strata" that was dishonest. If I remember it correctly they applied the term "layer" in two different ways and hoped that nobody would miss their doing this. Their whole premise about the deposition of sedimentary rocks is based upon this sleight of hand trick.

I saw the boulders I was posting about in a wash that was on the surface below a canyon. A housing subdivsion had been built on top of the sediment. This was no longer confined to a creek, but the boulders came down the canyon from above. Seeing is believing. Of course in flash floods there are the mechanics of the whole system, mud and other sediments in train provide for less frictional resistance from the substrate. Once they get moving it is eaier to keep them moving.

The general public still has not seen much about the mechanics of sedimentation, but if they did the rather abnormal case shown that video should not ne the first they should watch. It had one sediment type and size and a not typical flow rate. From this the video implied that all rocks form this way. That is also dishonest. It was also dishonest to distort the way The Principle of Superposition is applied. That was an insult to Steno and everone else that values true and honest science.

There is no evidence that I have read about that indicates high currents on a grand scale. There is a clue about the source, the provinance area was identified from the mix of minerals in the sandstones. I don't remember anything about lakes. You are holding the mainstream explanation to a standard you do not for The Flood. Creationists invoke fast and slow currents, mountains present or not on whim. Tahat is the problem with flood geology, it has no real unifying concepts except the flood is responsible for everything.

The basalt fragments were also primary clasts in the arkoses. The basalt was transported from elsewhere. They is no melting noted.

#9 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 14 November 2010 - 08:23 AM

Good and honestly explained geology is good and honestly explained geology whether or not simplified for laymen or not. It was the attempt to differentiate "layers" from "strata" that was dishonest. If I remember it correctly they applied the term "layer" in two different ways and hoped that nobody would miss their doing this. Their whole premise about the deposition of sedimentary rocks is based upon this sleight of hand trick.

I saw the boulders I was posting about in a wash that was on the surface below a canyon. A housing subdivsion had been built on top of the sediment. This was no longer confined to a creek, but the boulders came down the canyon from above. Seeing is believing. Of course in flash floods there are the mechanics of the whole system, mud and  other sediments in train provide for less frictional resistance from the substrate. Once they get moving it is eaier to keep them moving.

The general public still has not seen much about the mechanics of sedimentation, but if they did the rather abnormal case shown that video should not ne the first they should watch. It had one sediment type and size and a not typical flow rate. From this the video implied that all rocks form this way. That is also dishonest. It was also dishonest to distort the way The Principle of Superposition is applied. That was an insult to Steno and everone else that values true and honest science.

There is no evidence that I have read about that indicates high currents on a grand scale. There is a clue about the source, the provinance area was identified from the mix of minerals in the sandstones. I don't remember anything about lakes. You are holding the mainstream explanation to a standard you do not for The Flood. Creationists invoke fast and slow currents, mountains present or not on whim. Tahat is the problem with flood geology, it has no real unifying concepts except the flood is responsible for everything.

The basalt fragments were also primary clasts in the arkoses. The basalt was transported from elsewhere. They is no melting noted.

View Post


I am not disagreeing about Drama in the Rocks, nor defending Berhault's motives. But I won't accuse either. I'm not sure what specific double standard he used on "layers." When I get time (lol) I'll watch it and try to see what you ae talking about. Was it Berthault or Julienne or both?

Also, the video was summary. It wasn't being dishonest. The paper is more extensive, and shows they used several different sediments, grain sizes, and mixtures over a good period of time. There is a graph in the paper of the results. Keep in mind that varying current speed was found to ba mechanism of the start of simultaneous strata deposition.

If the strata had no fossils in them I would tend to agree with you about the flood. One size fits all would be hard to believe, because there is so much variation in the strata--there are different facies in many formations. That is what I saw in the MO limestone, and have seen it in other exposed outcrops. (It is the variation that in many cases shows turbidity currents and transport.)

But the fact that a great amount of flora and fauna was covered, and well preserved. And if you notice they find alot of "peices," not whole skeletons. Just like a while back, on a show they had a well preserved alligator head with no body that was found. When they do dino digs, they find tibias, teeth, toe bones, etc. Alot of it is broken up.

In some cases, yes, it is that the fossils did not well preserve. But in many, the fossils are just broken period. Alot of them. Then at the same time, the smaller ones, like fish, arthropods, and soft bodies are found well preserved.

All of this is in combination with many layers of limestone and shale (we can leave sandstone out for now) in the strata, the directional "paleo"current indicators, the ubiquity of calcite cement in the rocks, which problably origniated from diatomic and algal remains, or pre-existant calcic sediments made at creation. The fact is that the calcite is so mixed in with the sediment it universally crystallized, and /or cemented. In my opinion, it would not have so uniformly crystallized without saturation (i.e. as opposed to leeching by groundwater), and subsequent evaporation.

Having said that, I don't think a case for the layers being laid in differing currents in the different stages of the flood is out of the question. If you then start with these presuppostions, you are then asking completely different questions--because you are in in different paradigm. Both models have unanswered questions, so the model in which you are working causes you to ask questions the other side doesn't ask, because they don't need to.

A good example is the discrepancy between 14C dating, and radiometric dating. Unis are looking for contamination and other reasons for 14C results in fossils, and creationists are extrapolating from helium quantities in surficial rocks, and the implications of polonium radiohalos. Both sides are being guided by the belief that their respective models are indeed reality. With old earth, it is more sub conscious, because it judged "legitimate." So there is funding, a system, backing by the government. Creationism is grass roots, and must be done privately--as in by their own means. That's why alot of research is through researching papers. Field research is only now growing (e.g. RATE team).


And just one final thing, when I am using uniformintarian, actualist, and gradualist, I am attempting to identitify old earth believers. There is no foundational shift. The reason is that some object to uniformintarian, and prefer actualist, because of signs of catastrophe and current in the record. So I am using the terminology loosely. Creationist see it as uniformintarian, because of the shift that was made by "enlightenment" acedema in the 1800's from flood geology to gradualistic philosophy. This was advanced by people like Hutton and Lyell, and it is from these roots that modern geology grew.

#10 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 14 November 2010 - 03:10 PM

It is true, people can honestly disagree. However, the writers and producers of "Drama in the Rocks" did not take an honest approach but purposely distorted the science of geology.


The science your intentionally misrepresenting here is a faith based assumption about past events. Julienne's lie, on the other hand, was an empirical experiment, filmed and documented, which is a science fact that can't be refuted.

"The experiments invalidate the identification of superposed rock strata with successive sedimentary layers and thus also the principles of superposition and continuity upon which the geological time-scale was founded. They shed light upon the mechanism of stratification and also show that bedding plane partings are not necessarily sedimentary hiatuses, but could be due to dessication."

‘experimentation is now recognised as a valuable and necessary contribution to our understanding of the petrology of sedimentary rocks and their structures.’


http://www.answersin...ation_reply.asp



Thanks.

#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 14 November 2010 - 03:37 PM

It is true, people can honestly disagree. However, the writers and producers of "Drama in the Rocks" did not take an honest approach but purposely distorted the science of geology.


The science your intentionally misrepresenting here is a faith based assumption about past events. Julienne's lie, on the other hand, was an empirical experiment, filmed and documented, which is a science fact that can't be refuted.

"The experiments invalidate the identification of superposed rock strata with successive sedimentary layers and thus also the principles of superposition and continuity upon which the geological time-scale was founded. They shed light upon the mechanism of stratification and also show that bedding plane partings are not necessarily sedimentary hiatuses, but could be due to dessication."

‘experimentation is now recognised as a valuable and necessary contribution to our understanding of the petrology of sedimentary rocks and their structures.’
http://www.answersin...ation_reply.asp
Thanks.

View Post


Jason,
Thanks for the link. I found exactly what Geode and I have been discussing--Julienne's difference between "layer" and "strata."

To have a complete view of the mechanism revealed by our experiments, reference should be made to the ‘Abstract’ of the report which says:

    ‘Over time, a thick stratum of coarse particles thus progresses between two strata of laminated fine particles, continuously prograding upward and downstream’....7

The report points out that the ‘thick stratum’ is a ‘cross-stratified bed’....

In the resumé which accompanies the video, Fundamental Experiments on Stratification, Julien explains the distinction between ‘layer’ and ‘stratum’. He says:

   ‘A sediment layer denotes the sediment deposit between two consecutive times. Strata define preferential accumulation of coarse or fine particles. The formation of a delta in the laboratory demonstrates that sediment layers are not identical to strata. Isochrones correspond to the interface between successive layers, and not the interface between strata. The chronological formation of the sedimentary deposit is therefore correlated to layers, not strata.’


So in my book, as long as you are defining your terms, and using them equivalently, you should be able to make honest extrapolations for hydraulic capabilities.

So the issue at hand is more honest, and does not cloud the issue in this context....

A sediment layer denotes the sediment deposit between two consecutive times.


This is good science because it gives a definition by which one can now measure, and in so doing make extrapolations.

Isochrones correspond to the interface between successive layers, and not the interface between strata.


Isochrones are "an imaginary line or a line on a chart connecting points at which an event occurs simultaneously or which represents the same time or time difference."

The "layer" in the context of prograding strata is the amount of sediment that follows the isochrone and it's shape in relation to the stratum.

Thus Juliennes diagrams using T1 and T2 form lines that are the actual deposition of sediment through a period of time. These isochrones are closely related to "layers." Represent the shape of the "layers" as used in the context of prograding sediment in current.

As long as they are used consistently--one can use them as a scientific principle in the given context. Just because someone says you can't does not deviate from the math. Isochrones are the layers in this context for the purpose of showing the mechanics of sediment deposition in current!

So they are saying that "layers" that follow the isochrones, or the actual path of the sediment depositions though a period, correspond to each other--they "interface" each other--not the stratum. Perhaps Julienne could call these "isochrone layers" to distinguish them from just "layers."

These isochrone layers he calls "layers" to challenge the idea that the interface of one complete strata is with the others BY TIME!! That is the complete point. We have been fed the intuitive for 150 years, that the "layers" or "strata" (synonymous) form slowly upward layer by layer. But the flume showed that crossbedded layers are prograding isochrones and that two consecutive strata can form simultaneously.

#12 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 25 November 2010 - 05:49 AM

It is true, people can honestly disagree. However, the writers and producers of "Drama in the Rocks" did not take an honest approach but purposely distorted the science of geology.


The science your intentionally misrepresenting here is a faith based assumption about past events. Julienne's lie, on the other hand, was an empirical experiment, filmed and documented, which is a science fact that can't be refuted.

"The experiments invalidate the identification of superposed rock strata with successive sedimentary layers and thus also the principles of superposition and continuity upon which the geological time-scale was founded. They shed light upon the mechanism of stratification and also show that bedding plane partings are not necessarily sedimentary hiatuses, but could be due to dessication."

‘experimentation is now recognised as a valuable and necessary contribution to our understanding of the petrology of sedimentary rocks and their structures.’
http://www.answersin...ation_reply.asp
Thanks.

View Post



I do post with intention, but I don't think that I have intentionally misrepresented what was in that video or in the experiment it showed. I am not making a faith-based assumption at all, but posting from experience as a stratigrapher. What was shown and recorded in the experiment does show science that cannot be refuted. As I have posted rather exhaustively in a different thread, it shows evidence that affirms the Law of Superposition as well as some other aspects of sedimentation. I posted what it did show about this, and how to observe the results of the experiment to do so.

What the experiement does not show is how all sedimentary rocks were deposited, as the video seems to claim. It also did not show anything that was not already known from earlier work. It added little or nothing to the understanding of sedimentation. It did not invalidate the Law of Faunal Succession either, which is a claim that seems to be attempted at the end of that video.

The experiments invalidate the identification of superposed rock strata with successive sedimentary layers and thus also the principles of superposition and continuity upon which the geological time-scale was founded. They shed light upon the mechanism of stratification and also show that bedding plane partings are not necessarily sedimentary hiatuses, but could be due to dessication.


It did nothing of the kind. This is totally false. It actually validated the principle discussed. They simply ignored what the principle is all about and threw the rule book out in bending over backwards in an apparent attempt to disprove something felt to be in the way of their YEC concept. It showed nothing that has any impact at all on geologic time. The experiment showed nothing at all about "bedding plane partings" being due to dessication.

But once again I do not see your thoughts, but just posted conclusions from sources that you seem to accept on faith without demonstrating an understanding of the science that is involved.

#13 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 25 November 2010 - 06:10 AM

I am not disagreeing about Drama in the Rocks, nor defending Berhault's motives.  But I won't accuse either.  I'm not sure what specific double standard he used on "layers." When I get time (lol) I'll watch it and try to see what you ae talking about.  Was it Berthault or Julienne or both?

Also, the video was summary.  It wasn't being dishonest.  The paper is more extensive, and shows they used several different sediments, grain sizes, and mixtures over a good period of time.  There is a graph in the paper of the results.  Keep in mind that varying current speed was found to ba mechanism of the start of simultaneous strata deposition.


Julienne's comments adhere much more closely to valid concepts that Bethault. But his attempt to misapply superposition is not good science. These two seem intelligent enough to know better that to make such a claim. In Bethault's case he is either inept, being dishonest, or he is a victim of cognitive dissonance.

If the strata had no fossils in them I would tend to agree with you about the flood.  One size fits  all would be hard to believe, because there is so much variation in the strata--there are different facies in many formations.  That is what I saw in the MO limestone, and have seen it in other exposed outcrops.  (It is the variation that in many cases shows turbidity currents and transport.)


I have doubts that you saw evidence of tubidity currents in a limestone. I don't understand your thinking about fossils here.

But the fact that a great amount of flora and fauna was covered, and well preserved.  And if you notice they find alot of "peices," not whole skeletons.  Just like a while back, on a show they had a well preserved alligator head with no body that was found.  When they do dino digs, they find tibias, teeth, toe bones, etc.  Alot of it is broken up. 


Look at what happens to animal bodies in modern environments and you will see much the same.

In some cases, yes, it is that the fossils did not well preserve.  But in many, the fossils are just broken period.  Alot of them.  Then at the same time, the smaller ones, like fish, arthropods, and soft bodies are found well preserved.


Yes, variety in preservation is often shown in the fossil record.

All of this is in combination with many layers of limestone and shale (we can leave sandstone out for now) in the strata, the directional "paleo"current indicators, the ubiquity of calcite cement in the rocks, which problably origniated from diatomic and algal remains, or pre-existant calcic sediments made at creation.  The fact is that the calcite is so mixed in with the sediment it universally crystallized, and /or cemented.  In my opinion, it would  not have so uniformly crystallized without  saturation (i.e. as opposed to leeching by groundwater), and subsequent evaporation. 


What "ubiquity" of calcite cementation in the rocks? You have provided no support for this. There is none by the way. Calcite cementation is hardly universal. In fact it is quite rare in the thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks that I see in Gulf of Thailand wells every year. If we did we would be out of business.

Once again, diatoms leave silica remains, not calcarious remains. I don't know how you came up with this whole discussion. It is not borne out by the rocks found worldwide.

Having said that, I don't think a case for the layers being laid in differing currents in the different stages of the flood is out of the question.  If you then start with these presuppostions, you are then asking completely different questions--because you are in in different paradigm.  Both models have unanswered questions, so the model in which you are working causes you to ask questions the other side doesn't ask, because they don't need to.


Mainstream science done correctly allows for all questions to be asked that are raised by the evidence found.

A good example is the discrepancy between 14C dating, and radiometric dating.  Unis are looking for contamination and other reasons for 14C results in fossils, and creationists are extrapolating from helium quantities in surficial rocks, and the implications of polonium radiohalos.  Both sides are being guided by the belief that their respective models are indeed reality.  With old earth, it is more sub conscious, because it judged "legitimate."  So there is funding, a system, backing by the government.  Creationism is grass roots, and must be done privately--as in by their own means. That's why alot of research is through researching papers.  Field research is only now growing (e.g. RATE team).
And just one final thing, when I am using uniformintarian, actualist, and gradualist, I am attempting to identitify old earth believers.  There is no foundational shift.  The reason is that some object to uniformintarian, and prefer actualist, because of signs of catastrophe and current in the record.  So I am using the terminology loosely.  Creationist see it as uniformintarian, because of the shift that was made by "enlightenment" acedema in the 1800's from flood geology to gradualistic philosophy.  This was advanced by people like Hutton and Lyell, and it is from these roots that modern geology grew.

View Post


Once again, UNIFORMITARIANISM = ACTUALISM in the use in modern geology. The shift came when geologists actually started looking at outcrops instead of engaging doing arm-waving exercises.

Precious few fossils are dated using C14 in terms of percentages. The application of this technique is virtually useless for most geological studies.

#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 25 November 2010 - 06:27 AM

I do post with intention, but I don't think that I have intentionally misrepresented what was in that video or in the experiment it showed. I am not making a faith-based assumption at all, but posting from experience as a stratigrapher. What was shown and recorded in the experiment does show science that cannot be refuted. As I have posted rather exhaustively in a different thread, it shows evidence that affirms the Law of Superposition as well as some other aspects of sedimentation.

View Post

I think we need to respect the law of superposition, but realize the extent to which one may apply it. Even in a YEC model, the law is still effective. If you have a large formation of limestone under a large formation of shale for instance. It obvious that the vast majority of the limestone was there first.

However within the major formations, members, etc. there is every posibility that two or more strata could have been laid simultaneously. In my opinion, this would not invalidate the LOS, but subject it to limitations, and applications. By applications, I mean one can not remove the fact that one stratum is superposed upon another, but IN THE TIME that they were deposited, the LOS does not necessarily hold sway, as is suggested by most literature.

You keep saying the literature already acknowledges these things. Please provide a quote where it is stated that two strata could be deposited simultaneously, as was clearly shown in Julienne's research.


What the experiement does not show is how all sedimentary rocks were deposited, as the video seems to claim. It also did not show anything that was not already known from earlier work. It added little or nothing to the understanding of sedimentation. It did not invalidate the Law of Faunal Succession either, which is a claim that seems to be attempted at the end of that video.


There are two things at play here. First the Law of Faunal Succession is circular and is not constant. If it was, we would never read of any organism being moved back in geotime. If everytime you find a new fossil that is associated with fossils of "another period" you simply move the date back, then the LOFS is circular. You can by no means falsify it.

Of course, conversely, it is of no consquence if I find marine organisms in the upper layers, or I find a mammal, or bird mixed in. If I find a sponge next to a whale, though the sponge is a cambrian (living) fossil, it "continued" in it's niche throughout time supposedly. I have dealt with this kind of thing going through the layers of the G. Canyon already in another post.

Second, the video animated a situation where one fossil that is below another fossil is in an isochrone preceding the top fossil. Because the strata are layered in isochrones (time unit lines), it is theoretically possible for one fossil that is lower in the strata to be placed there after the higher fossil. Again, it is because the layering is determined by isochrones, not the interface of the strata.

#15 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 25 November 2010 - 06:33 AM

Jason,
Thanks for the link.  I found exactly what Geode and I have been discussing--Julienne's difference between "layer" and "strata."
So in my book, as long as you are defining your terms, and using them equivalently, you should be able to make honest extrapolations for hydraulic capabilities.

So the issue at hand is more honest, and does not cloud the issue in this context....
This is good science because it gives a definition by which one can now measure, and in so doing make extrapolations. 
Isochrones are "an imaginary line or a line on a chart connecting points at which an event occurs simultaneously or which represents the same time or time difference."

The "layer" in the context of prograding strata is the amount of sediment that follows the isochrone and it's shape in relation to the stratum.

Thus Juliennes diagrams using T1 and T2 form lines that are the actual deposition of sediment through a period of time.  These isochrones are closely related to "layers." Represent the shape of the "layers" as used in the context of prograding sediment in current.

As long as they are used consistently--one can use them as a scientific principle in the given context.  Just because someone says you can't does not deviate from the math.  Isochrones are the layers in this context for the purpose of showing the mechanics of sediment deposition in current!

So they are saying that "layers" that follow the isochrones, or the actual path of the sediment depositions though a period, correspond to each other--they  "interface" each other--not the stratum. Perhaps Julienne could call these "isochrone layers" to distinguish them from just "layers."

These isochrone layers  he calls "layers" to challenge  the idea that the interface of  one complete strata is with the others BY TIME!!  That is the complete point.  We have been fed the intuitive for 150 years, that the "layers" or "strata" (synonymous) form slowly upward layer by layer.  But the flume showed that crossbedded layers are prograding isochrones and that two consecutive strata can form simultaneously.

View Post


Explanations like this are disingenious in that they attempt to cloud true geologic principles through a confusing mish-mash of re-defined terminology. Layers is a poor term. I pointed out the correct terminology months ago in a different thread. The average person does not study or think about chronostratigraphic units vs. lithostratigraphic units so we have not really been "fed" anything in this regard in terms of the general population. Geologists have known about time-tramsgressive strata for a long time. There is no challenge. Nothing you have discussed here pertains to a claim about slow sedimentation. By definition consecutive strata cannot form simultaneously. Juliene is fine in what he claims, unless he says it refutes the principle of Superposition. His T1 and T2 is fine as far as it goes, but it does not show this. It also has no impact of the concept of geologic time. Progading sequences are well-understood and fit in completely with the concept.

#16 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 November 2010 - 06:49 AM

Explanations like this are disingenious in that they attempt to cloud true geologic principles through a confusing mish-mash of re-defined terminology. Layers is a poor term. I pointed out the correct terminology months ago in a different thread. The average person does not study or think about chronostratigraphic units vs. lithostratigraphic units so we have not really been "fed" anything in this regard in terms of the general population. Geologists have known about time-tramsgressive strata for a long time. There is no challenge. Nothing you have discussed here pertains to a claim about slow sedimentation. By definition consecutive strata cannot form simultaneously. Juliene is fine in what he claims, unless he says it refutes the principle of Superposition. His T1 and T2 is fine as far as it goes, but it does not show this. It also has no impact of the concept of geologic time. Progading sequences are well-understood and fit in completely with the concept.

View Post

Many things in science have been "redefined." You are reviewing it, and there is nothing wrong with your criticism of the terminology. I have suggested the term "isochrone layers" denoting the linear path through time, which is what an isochrone is.

Again, the paper does use "isochrones." The point of the paper is to challenge the hypothesis that layers interface on the strata. They rather interface on the isochrones.

Geode wrote...
By definition consecutive strata cannot form simultaneously.


I find it quite amazing, that in light of the fact that two superpsosed layers were forming in the flume simultaneously before all to evidently see, that you would deny the possibility of this ever happening.

If you had said "did not" instead of "can not" then I would have found that you are being guided by underlying belief in modern geology. But you said "can not," which puts into a situation where you aer arguing from non-evidence. It is quite obvious the flume experiments show your statement to be invalid.

Moreover, are you not contradicting yourself? In post # 12, the first paragraph, you wrote this.

What was shown and recorded in the experiment does show science that cannot be refuted.


Why do you then pick and choose the science you wish to acknowedge? Two strata were formed simultaneously in the video. Did you not see it?

#17 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 25 November 2010 - 08:15 AM

Forget the experiment. What about occurrences in nature?

Stratified layers up to 400 feet thick formed as a result of landslides, pyroclastic flow, mudflows, etc., during the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Fine laminae from only a millimeter thick to more than a meter high formed in just a few seconds each. A deposit more than 25 feet in thickness, and containing upwards of 100 thin layers accumulated in just one day on June 12, 1980.

http://www.nwcreatio...mtsthelens.html

On March 19, 1982 a small eruption melted the snow that had accumulated in the crater over the winter, and a resulting mud flow eroded a canyon system up to 140 feet deep. The deepest of the canyons pictured at right has affectionately been called the little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River, and is one-fortieth the size of its namesake.



#18 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 25 November 2010 - 08:26 AM

By definition consecutive strata cannot form simultaneously.

View Post

one thing that everyone seems to forget is that the flood was rising for 5 months, and wasn't over for a year. Some of the strata that is attributed to the flood could have been laid down a few months later, rather than all at once.

#19 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 November 2010 - 05:18 PM

Stratified layers up to 400 feet thick formed as a result of landslides, pyroclastic flow, mudflows, etc., during the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Fine laminae from only a millimeter thick to more than a meter high formed in just a few seconds each. A deposit more than 25 feet in thickness, and containing upwards of 100 thin layers accumulated in just one day on June 12, 1980.


On March 19, 1982 a small eruption melted the snow that had accumulated in the crater over the winter, and a resulting mud flow eroded a canyon system up to 140 feet deep. The deepest of the canyons pictured at right has affectionately been called the little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River, and is one-fortieth the size of its namesake.




one thing that everyone seems to forget is that the flood was rising for 5 months, and wasn't over for a year. Some of the strata that is attributed to the flood could have been laid down a few months later, rather than all at once.

View Post


Mama, I agree. Mt St Helens was an eye opener. I remember hearing the news of how scientists were surprised concerning the floral regrowth. They figured it would take much longer than just a year or two.

The reason I am sticking to the experiments, is that it is part of the scientific method. It strengthens the support for the rapid ocean sediment deposition over the continents during the flood.

It is counter intuitive to think that current could organize strata into an organized unit in a rapid fashion. This is the very reason the initial challenge of flood geology came in the late 1700s by Hutton and others, and later Lyell.

The experiments are a counter punch to anyone who wants to honestly look at the feasibility of rapid strata organization by water.

#20 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 27 November 2010 - 03:43 AM

Forget the experiment. What about occurrences in nature?

http://www.nwcreatio...mtsthelens.html

View Post


So how do these ash flow observations refute the Law of Superposition? That is the discussion at hand. And what relevence is what you are citing to the discussion here?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users