Jump to content


Photo

What Mechanism Created The Layers In The Column?


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

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:07 AM

We all know that the geologic column has layers. But what I never hear is the evolutionist's idea of the mechanism that caused the layering.

The water mechanism for layering can be shown and repeated with the same results. Making the layering by water (flood) an empirical mechanism for causing this to happen. And since the Flood was worldwide, we would expect to see the layering worldwide as well. And that is what we see. Here are some demonstrations of how layering with sand makes art.





You can take sand and put it in a jar of water. Shake it up and it will sort the sand into layers every time just like the sand in the sand pictures above. So what mechanism did this over time for the geologic column that would be better then the empirical evidence I show here?

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 September 2011 - 12:17 AM

3 days, over 50 views and no mechanism that would sort the layers over millions of years? Anyone care to take a guess?

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 September 2011 - 02:12 AM

I guess this proves that it does take faith to believe in evolution. The Holy Grail of how it works cannot even be explained.

#4 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 19 September 2011 - 01:48 PM

The way I understand uniformitarian geologists, the layers in the "geologic column" are sediments that have been collected there "over millions of years".
http://en.wikipedia....igraphic_column
http://www.talkorigi...faqs/geocolumn/

But now that you are mentioning this, they are not to eager to explain how this formed. And I just wonder how one gets relatively homogeneous layers for a couple of foot and then different homogeneous layers for another couple of foot, each layer forming homogeneously over a couple of million years.

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 September 2011 - 09:33 PM

The way I understand uniformitarian geologists, the layers in the "geologic column" are sediments that have been collected there "over millions of years".
http://en.wikipedia....igraphic_column
http://www.talkorigi...faqs/geocolumn/

But now that you are mentioning this, they are not to eager to explain how this formed. And I just wonder how one gets relatively homogeneous layers for a couple of foot and then different homogeneous layers for another couple of foot, each layer forming homogeneously over a couple of million years.


But what sorted the layers like we see them?

#6 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 20 September 2011 - 12:06 AM

The layering you speak of is the result of two things: different methods of deposition and compression over time. Different layers will have different compositions based on the conditions present at the time they were laid down and the method by which they were laid down (river silt, volcanic eruption, etc). Changes in deposition method can be expected to be reasonably abrupt as they would most often be the result of relatively rapid phenomenon - floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. This would be the mechanism which creates the 'layered' effect we see.

A counter question for you the YEC'er. Given that in a YEC chronology the entire geological column was laid down simultaneously and was then exposed simultaneously, why are the strata not globally consistent and - given essentially identical erosion patterns - why are different types of rock exposed in different places even within a relatively confined area such as the Continental United States.

For example, here is the geological map of a section of the North Eastern US (Cap Cod is clearly visible)

Posted Image

Please provide an empirical mechanism whereby we would expect to see such varied geological strata in such a small space given a time-period of 4360 years.

Here is a link to the Key for the map, so you can tell what type of rock is where:

http://www.ldeo.colu...ty/map/key.html

#7 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 September 2011 - 06:59 PM

The layering you speak of is the result of two things: different methods of deposition and compression over time. Different layers will have different compositions based on the conditions present at the time they were laid down and the method by which they were laid down (river silt, volcanic eruption, etc). Changes in deposition method can be expected to be reasonably abrupt as they would most often be the result of relatively rapid phenomenon - floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. This would be the mechanism which creates the 'layered' effect we see.


But your process is not observable or repeatable.

A counter question for you the YEC'er. Given that in a YEC chronology the entire geological column was laid down simultaneously and was then exposed simultaneously, why are the strata not globally consistent and - given essentially identical erosion patterns - why are different types of rock exposed in different places even within a relatively confined area such as the Continental United States.

For example, here is the geological map of a section of the North Eastern US (Cap Cod is clearly visible)

Posted Image

Please provide an empirical mechanism whereby we would expect to see such varied geological strata in such a small space given a time-period of 4360 years.

Here is a link to the Key for the map, so you can tell what type of rock is where:

http://www.ldeo.colu...ty/map/key.html


Easy. The area where the run off was longer as the water went into the earth's crust, did not allow the strata to form like it did everywhere else. Also, there is no way the sediments could have spewed up the same exact amount all over the world. So if more sediments were to settle and sort would make a different strata, where there was less was a different strata. And it did not take 4360 years, because the flood did not last that long.

Another scenario is what kind of sediments came up, and how much would determine how they would settle and layered.

In the time-line of evolution, time is always the hero. You cannot show empirically how it was done, so time, reason, and logic did it. Don't believe me? Here's what you said:

The layering you speak of is the result of two things: different methods of deposition and compression over time.



I can show an observable repeatable process for this, and time is why you cannot. But yet time did it. Time does not solve the issues of non-observable processes. But time does require interpretation which is only a conclusion, not something that is better then empirical evidence. If you want to debunk this, explain why this observable, repeatable process is not empirical?

#8 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 21 September 2011 - 02:14 AM

But your process is not observable or repeatable.

Easy. The area where the run off was longer as the water went into the earth's crust, did not allow the strata to form like it did everywhere else. Also, there is no way the sediments could have spewed up the same exact amount all over the world. So if more sediments were to settle and sort would make a different strata, where there was less was a different strata. And it did not take 4360 years, because the flood did not last that long.

Another scenario is what kind of sediments came up, and how much would determine how they would settle and layered.

Uniformitarian Geologists insist that the types of layers represent a certain period in geologic time. The layers are identified by their physical properties like chemical composition.

Isn't that assuming that only one sort of physical process chemical deposition did occur during certain periods in "geologic time"? That's not what we would be observing today. Right now all kinds of physical processes and deposition of different minerals and elements is occuring.

Time won't really be the question, but the volume of water and sediments plus the forces that would be involved.

#9 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 21 September 2011 - 10:21 PM

Easy. The area where the run off was longer as the water went into the earth's crust, did not allow the strata to form like it did everywhere else. Also, there is no way the sediments could have spewed up the same exact amount all over the world. So if more sediments were to settle and sort would make a different strata, where there was less was a different strata. And it did not take 4360 years, because the flood did not last that long.


So, what you're saying is that the topography of the Earth underneath the flood-waters remained in place? That some features like mountains or hills which had been there before the flood were still there and affected the amount of time it took for the waters to recede from that particular point? This does seem to be born out by Genesis 8:4 and 8:5, which reference mountains, and mount Ararat in particular.

I guess the question then is: what caused the geological layering in those topographical features which existed pre-flood, which still exist today? And if there are fossils in those layers, what creatures do we find in them? And where can we find these layers? And what kind of evidence exists for the point where the flood would have covered these pre-flood geological features?

Unless you want to claim that the entirety of the geological column was laid down during the flood, in which case you're going to have to come up with a mechanism for the formation of solid rock in a span of a few months underwater. And, of course, this mechanism will have to be repeatable.

#10 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 22 September 2011 - 09:19 PM

So, what you're saying is that the topography of the Earth underneath the flood-waters remained in place? That some features like mountains or hills which had been there before the flood were still there and affected the amount of time it took for the waters to recede from that particular point? This does seem to be born out by Genesis 8:4 and 8:5, which reference mountains, and mount Ararat in particular.

I guess the question then is: what caused the geological layering in those topographical features which existed pre-flood, which still exist today? And if there are fossils in those layers, what creatures do we find in them? And where can we find these layers? And what kind of evidence exists for the point where the flood would have covered these pre-flood geological features?

Unless you want to claim that the entirety of the geological column was laid down during the flood, in which case you're going to have to come up with a mechanism for the formation of solid rock in a span of a few months underwater. And, of course, this mechanism will have to be repeatable.



I first noticed the ability of sand to layer in Africa in an old sand pile, which had been dumped for the intentional use of concrete, but never used. The exterior was brittle, as proof of it's long exposure to the elements. But there were broken off clumps where the inside was exposed, showing layers. Obviously, this pile, approximatley four foot high was "dumped" in one swath, and not layered over millions of years.

I saw the same exact thing in my nearby city park, where they are doing construction, only the sand pile is much larger. It is approximately twenty feet high, and the pile produces an "outcrop" clifflike shape--in which it is quite easy to see layers. Where are the geologists on this? Look up Sandy Stripes , I think it will help to see what I'm talking about. I have seen this obvious phenomenon twice in my life, with my own eyes. Where are the geologists on this one? Where is Geode? No more general talk. Will somebody get specific? Let's talk about THIS.

I've looked at limestone that has statified portions inside of homogenous non stratified cliffs. They were parallel to the ground, so they weren't pre-existing rocks inside of other depostions--they were upright and level stratified limestone inside and adjacent to other limestone that was not stratified at all. These same series of limestone passes Iwent through over hundreds of miles showed evidence of unfractured folding, just like as reported in creationist literature. Since the area I travelled is south of St. Louis and adjacent to the Mississippi River is reported to be limestone, it is apparent that water covered the middle of our continent. And that the matching folds thoroughout the verticle layers in the limestone, being unbroken, show that, unless one can prove that there are hundreds of feet of marble, or another metamorphose, the bending layers were indeed wet simultaneously laid at one event.

So I'm saying there are many different different facies throughout the limestone. This is answer to your question as to how to explain the many different sedimentary situations.

And you see the video-- how that the sand falls randomly, yet organizes itself into angles, or other different facies. They appear to be totally different in superposed relationship. Yet it happens in seconds, not millions of years.

It is my conviction that the ONLY reason geologists can not accept many possibilities of flood geology is that they can not accept the supernatural cause of the flood. They see the evidence of water caused sediments. They try to replace them with as many aeolian caused sediments as possible, which they suppose, will eclipse the water. But it is because they start with their own mind, as if God did not exist. They can not endure the possibility of the flood as set forth in Genesis.

#11 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 24 September 2011 - 08:21 PM

ikester7579
Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:07 AM
We all know that the geologic column has layers. But what I never hear is the evolutionist's idea of the mechanism that caused the layering.

The water mechanism for layering can be shown and repeated with the same results. Making the layering by water (flood) an empirical mechanism for causing this to happen. And since the Flood was worldwide, we would expect to see the layering worldwide as well. And that is what we see. Here are some demonstrations of how layering with sand makes art.


Evolution is within the realm of study by those in the life sciences. The study of layers of rocks is the realm of the physical or earth sciences and under the banner of stratigraphy. Stratigraphers (who are geologists) are aware that most layered rocks, but not all, are the result of deposition in water. They also agree that layered rocks are and have been created by flooding events. They also would agree that layered rocks occur worldwide, but not that any individual layers persist in worldwide extent as none have been found that can be traced as such. Through extensive study of the earth's surface they have come to realize that sedimentary layers were not deposited upon all the surface of the earth during any defined period of the earth’s history, for although oceans have covered the majority of the earth’s surface throughout much of its history, there is no evidence that they covered all of it at any one time. Such of course is the case today where there are emergent areas that are currently subject to erosion and not deposition. There are also areas where sand dunes are found, that do show layering if one looks at a section through them. Such is what is found in the stratigraphy of the earth, which is a record of past earth history.

You can take sand and put it in a jar of water. Shake it up and it will sort the sand into layers every time just like the sand in the sand pictures above. So what mechanism did this over time for the geologic column that would be better then the empirical evidence I show here?



Actually you can take sand and put it in a jar of water, shake it well, and you will not be likely to get layers such as shown in the pictures. The conditions are too different. In one case you have sedimentation from virtually one very restricted “point” that moves and the sand descends through quiescent water through a relatively longer “column” of water that is restricted into a thin space between two planes of glass. It also is evident that particles of different colors have different densities or specific gravity. In the case of the jar the sediment would be dispersed throughout, and have a varying but shorter distance through which to settle, but always less. The layering that would result would be rough, more crude or incomplete, or basically non-existent in many cases.

In the sand picture we also see the demonstration of the “angle of repose” where there is a maximum angle that the sand grains can be arranged to form a slope.

The mechanism shown could account for some of rocks in the geologic column, where calm, quiescent water is found and a sediment supply with particles of different specific gravities rains down though the water. That is what is causing the layering here. In one word the layering is caused by gravity and the sorting caused by the size and density of the particles and the viscosity of the fluid it falls through. In the case of the “sand pictures” the water has increased viscosity due to the addition of a detergent or soap. In the case of wind-blown sediments the viscosity is of course much lower.

Time is a factor in the sand pictures or layered rocks forming in various depositional environments on the surface of the planet.

Chanzui
Posted 20 September 2011 - 12:06 AM
The layering you speak of is the result of two things: different methods of deposition and compression over time. Different layers will have different compositions based on the conditions present at the time they were laid down and the method by which they were laid down (river silt, volcanic eruption, etc). Changes in deposition method can be expected to be reasonably abrupt as they would most often be the result of relatively rapid phenomenon - floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. This would be the mechanism which creates the 'layered' effect we see.


Composition usually affects layering because of different densities being involved. Compression through time is generally termed compaction and does not usually have much effect on the actual formation of layers. Conditions present during deposition have a great affect upon the resulting sedimentary rocks formed. Volcanic rocks are sometimes layered, such as in basalt flows, or products of volcanic eruption such as ash can be deposited into water and form layers in that way. But changes in layering are not always the result of mechanisms that interrupt the ongoing sedimentation such as volcanism, earthquakes or floods. This can happen through something as calm as normal progradation of sands in a delta over pre-deltaic clays.

Chanzui, on 20 September 2011 - 12:06 AM, said:
"The layering you speak of is the result of two things: different methods of deposition and compression over time. Different layers will have different compositions based on the conditions present at the time they were laid down and the method by which they were laid down (river silt, volcanic eruption, etc). Changes in deposition method can be expected to be reasonably abrupt as they would most often be the result of relatively rapid phenomenon - floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. This would be the mechanism which creates the 'layered' effect we see."


Ikester replied: "But your process is not observable or repeatable."


Such processes are quite observable in the current day and are studied. Steve Austin’s work in layered deposits from the eruption of Mt. St. Helen’s fall completely within what Chanzui describes. Storm events deposit layers that are routinely observed and studied.

Chazui said:
"A counter question for you the YEC'er. Given that in a YEC chronology the entire geological column was laid down simultaneously and was then exposed simultaneously, why are the strata not globally consistent and - given essentially identical erosion patterns - why are different types of rock exposed in different places even within a relatively confined area such as the Continental United States.

For example, here is the geological map of a section of the North Eastern US (Cap Cod is clearly visible)

Please provide an empirical mechanism whereby we would expect to see such varied geological strata in such a small space given a time-period of 4360 years."

Ikester replied: "Easy. The area where the run off was longer as the water went into the earth's crust, did not allow the strata to form like it did everywhere else. Also, there is no way the sediments could have spewed up the same exact amount all over the world. So if more sediments were to settle and sort would make a different strata, where there was less was a different strata. And it did not take 4360 years, because the flood did not last that long.

Another scenario is what kind of sediments came up, and how much would determine how they would settle and layered."


This strikes me as conjecture and not in the realm of empirical mechanisms. Where is the evidence that water went into the earth’s crust? How did longer run-off form different strata, and how are they different? What is the mechanism of spewing up sediments, and in differing amounts? More sediment settling and sorting would result in a greater thickness, but how it is result in a different type? Where are the sediments coming up from?

Ikester posted: "In the time-line of evolution, time is always the hero. You cannot show empirically how it was done, so time, reason, and logic did it. Don't believe me? Here's what you said:"

'The layering you speak of is the result of two things: different methods of deposition and compression over time.'

"I can show an observable repeatable process for this, and time is why you cannot. But yet time did it. Time does not solve the issues of non-observable processes. But time does require interpretation which is only a conclusion, not something that is better then empirical evidence. If you want to debunk this, explain why this observable, repeatable process is not empirical?"


And yet it appears you also invoked time in your explanation….....”run-off was longer”……

Chanzui, on 21 September 2011 - 10:21 PM, said:

"So, what you're saying is that the topography of the Earth underneath the flood-waters remained in place? That some features like mountains or hills which had been there before the flood were still there and affected the amount of time it took for the waters to recede from that particular point? This does seem to be born out by Genesis 8:4 and 8:5, which reference mountains, and mount Ararat in particular.

I guess the question then is: what caused the geological layering in those topographical features which existed pre-flood, which still exist today? And if there are fossils in those layers, what creatures do we find in them? And where can we find these layers? And what kind of evidence exists for the point where the flood would have covered these pre-flood geological features?"

Unless you want to claim that the entirety of the geological column was laid down during the flood, in which case you're going to have to come up with a mechanism for the formation of solid rock in a span of a few months underwater. And, of course, this mechanism will have to be repeatable.


MarkForbes replied:

Uniformitarian Geologists insist that the types of layers represent a certain period in geologic time. The layers are identified by their physical properties like chemical composition.

Isn't that assuming that only one sort of physical process chemical deposition did occur during certain periods in "geologic time"? That's not what we would be observing today. Right now all kinds of physical processes and deposition of different minerals and elements is occuring.

Time won't really be the question, but the volume of water and sediments plus the forces that would be involved.


Even some YEC geologists such as Steve Austin insist that the layers represent of certain period in geologic time, albeit periods of shorter extent. The layers that represent periods of geologic time may be described in a locality by their physical properties, but such is not how they are related to the periods of geologic time. This is done by their fossil content. Although some geologic time units were named for lithologic characteristics, such as the Creataceous being named after chalk, a geologist does not expect that all Cretaceous rocks will be identified by this lithology which has a physical property or chemical composition that is typical for it. I was involved with a well offshore Kenya where thousands of feet of Upper Cretaceous rocks were penetrated and it was all green claystone or shale. No chalk was found at all. Similarly not all Carboniferous rocks are coal bearing, and not all Triassic rocks consist of a pattern of three units involving red sands followed by chalk and black shale.

If the strata were identified only by physical characteristics it would be assuming that only one sort of physical process occurred during certain periods of “geologic time” but this is an argument that I have really only seen creationists make. You are correct in stating that this is not what is observed today, and within uniformitarian thought as it is held by geologists today that is why we expect to find rocks formed by various processes and of various lithologies within the various periods of geologic time. On this very board Derek Ager has been quoted from his book “The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record” about the widespread occurrence of chalk in the Upper Cretaceous as if they proved a worldwide event of chalk deposition (such as a great worldwide flood might cause). Dr. Ager actually pointed out several widespread similar lithologies associated with a particular unit of geologic time such as the basal Cambrian quartzite. He stated it this way. “At certain times in earth history, particular types of sedimentary environment were prevalent over vast areas of the earth’s surface. This may be called the Phenomenon of the Persistence of Facies.

Dr. Ager also makes the point that much of the stratigraphical record is the result of rapid sedimentation. I think this is very valid as single flooding events can deposit several meters of sediment in rather discontinuous processes similar to punctuated equilibria as compared with the small thicknesses accumulated during slower continuous processes.

AFJ replied:

I first noticed the ability of sand to layer in Africa in an old sand pile, which had been dumped for the intentional use of concrete, but never used. The exterior was brittle, as proof of it's long exposure to the elements. But there were broken off clumps where the inside was exposed, showing layers. Obviously, this pile, approximatley four foot high was "dumped" in one swath, and not layered over millions of years.

I saw the same exact thing in my nearby city park, where they are doing construction, only the sand pile is much larger. It is approximately twenty feet high, and the pile produces an "outcrop" clifflike shape--in which it is quite easy to see layers. Where are the geologists on this? Look up Sandy Stripes , I think it will help to see what I'm talking about. I have seen this obvious phenomenon twice in my life, with my own eyes. Where are the geologists on this one? Where is Geode? No more general talk. Will somebody get specific? Let's talk about THIS.


Layering through rapid sedimentation is observable in many places for anyone to observe and not at all remarkable.

I have seen such features termed here as “Sandy Stripes” in beach berms a few times in my life, most notably on Montara Beach on the California coast. About seven years ago Montara was in the phase of a summer profile, where the sand is piled up higher due to lessened wave action. But in that period a strong storm set of waves had hit the berm causing an eroded face as is reported here. This is usually not the case, and the face is usually not so abrupt and cliff-like. Yes, the laminations were plainly visible and the berm itself was just a few weeks old. It was completely natural and not the result of sand being artificially introduced. This is well understood coastal geomorphology and such berms have been documented well since the classic “Beaches by Bascom” which involved research on a beach just about five miles south of Montara. In my immediate postgraduate study I measured beach berms on Montara and their change over the course of a semester. The berms were not as dramatic that year, which would have been 1973.

That article you provided is basically just another example of a straw man argument that is fallacious. It is heavily implied that geologists assume that all laminations or layering in sediments takes millions of years to form, yet all of us would have said that the laminations shown were produced rapidly. I think its account of how the laminations formed is likely wrong. It appears to me when looking at the photos that what is present is a beach where the features in the sand were formed by wave action. The supplied sand was re-worked by wave action to form the laminations, most likely over a period of days.

The straw man argument about time and uniformitarianism is weaving itself throughout much of this thread.

I've looked at limestone that has statified portions inside of homogenous non stratified cliffs. They were parallel to the ground, so they weren't pre-existing rocks inside of other depostions--they were upright and level stratified limestone inside and adjacent to other limestone that was not stratified at all. These same series of limestone passes Iwent through over hundreds of miles showed evidence of unfractured folding, just like as reported in creationist literature. Since the area I travelled is south of St. Louis and adjacent to the Mississippi River is reported to be limestone, it is apparent that water covered the middle of our continent. And that the matching folds thoroughout the verticle layers in the limestone, being unbroken, show that, unless one can prove that there are hundreds of feet of marble, or another metamorphose, the bending layers were indeed wet simultaneously laid at one event.

So I'm saying there are many different different facies throughout the limestone. This is answer to your question as to how to explain the many different sedimentary situations.


But this does not really give an answer to what Chanzui wrote. The map provided had metamorphic and igneous rocks on it for starters, and quite different lithologies when compared to variation within limestone.

I have replied to this argument you are attempting to make involving folded limestone before, and why your point is not valid. Many limestones show laminations and many are “massive” and do not. The very presence of the extensive limestone is of course proof that marine waters covered the mid-continent during the time of deposition. This perhaps was the Kaskaskia Sea? Apparently up to 2,000 of limestone was deposited by it. Perhaps you are describing the Burlington Formation?

Folding without fractures is commonly seen and easily explained through empirical studies of stress and strain in lab experiments. The main thing needed is not really heat but pressure. When rocks are buried deep enough the over-burden allows them to deform elastically or plastically before they rupture. The amount of pressure of burial is different for different rock types. This is taught in any basic structural geology course.

I searched on a couple of key words and found the basic explanation given in a creationist site. I kept reading it and kept wondering when it would turn away from validity, but it never did. Then at the very end I realized that it was an old earth creationist site. I have found that the geology on such sites is generally very sound, unlike the young earth creationist sites where most geological explanations are very unsound and not grounded in proper science.

Deformation of rocks

And you see the video-- how that the sand falls randomly, yet organizes itself into angles, or other different facies. They appear to be totally different in superposed relationship. Yet it happens in seconds, not millions of years.

It is my conviction that the ONLY reason geologists can not accept many possibilities of flood geology is that they can not accept the supernatural cause of the flood. They see the evidence of water caused sediments. They try to replace them with as many aeolian caused sediments as possible, which they suppose, will eclipse the water. But it is because they start with their own mind, as if God did not exist. They can not endure the possibility of the flood as set forth in Genesis.


The sand in the video falls less randomly than what is seen in actual deposition on the surface of the earyh as I have already pointed out. The sand is rather atypically supported by soap bubbles that release it slowly and generally at only one point. The result really is just one facies as it would usually be described by a geologist. I don't see the total difference you describe.

The reason we do not accept flood geology is that there is no evidence to support it and much evidence that shows that it is not valid. Evidence of sedimentary rocks deposited by water is part and parcel to standard geology. Eolian rocks are only interpreted where the evidence shows that they are present, but unlike flood geology they are easily explained in standard geology. Such sediments occur today and demonstrate the same bed forms as in the ancient rocks interpreted as such. But here you are drawing an extreme straw man in claiming that geologists think that wind-blown sediments are anywhere near as extensive as you are claiming. They are in fact relatively minor in the rock record.

I have found that whether or not God exists is not on the minds of geologists as we do our work. I as a believer rarely think about God when doing geology. Yes, they have been times when doing field work that I have been struck by the beauty of it all and perceived the hand of God but I have not felt this when doing office work, which has been about 99.9% of the time. Those geologists who do not believe in God most certainly do not think about this one way or the other when interpreting. This sounds like the common creationist claim of one conspiracy theory or another claiming that scientists consciously set out to disprove Genesis. Quite frankly most scientists don’t think about creationism at all. I would have no problem accepting the possibility of a worldwide flood if there was any evidence it its favor. I have yet to encounter any.

#12 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 25 September 2011 - 12:11 AM

MarkForbes replied:

Even some YEC geologists such as Steve Austin insist that the layers represent of certain period in geologic time, albeit periods of shorter extent. The layers that represent periods of geologic time may be described in a locality by their physical properties, but such is not how they are related to the periods of geologic time. This is done by their fossil content. Although some geologic time units were named for lithologic characteristics, such as the Creataceous being named after chalk, a geologist does not expect that all Cretaceous rocks will be identified by this lithology which has a physical property or chemical composition that is typical for it. I was involved with a well offshore Kenya where thousands of feet of Upper Cretaceous rocks were penetrated and it was all green claystone or shale. No chalk was found at all. Similarly not all Carboniferous rocks are coal bearing, and not all Triassic rocks consist of a pattern of three units involving red sands followed by chalk and black shale.

What creationists might be saying is irrelevant to the issue. If you don't identify it by by a distinctive "lithology which has a physical property or chemical composition", what then you identify the layer by.

If the strata were identified only by physical characteristics it would be assuming that only one sort of physical process occurred during certain periods of “geologic time” but this is an argument that I have really only seen creationists make. You are correct in stating that this is not what is observed today, and within uniformitarian thought as it is held by geologists today that is why we expect to find rocks formed by various processes and of various lithologies within the various periods of geologic time. On this very board Derek Ager has been quoted from his book “The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record” about the widespread occurrence of chalk in the Upper Cretaceous as if they proved a worldwide event of chalk deposition (such as a great worldwide flood might cause). Dr. Ager actually pointed out several widespread similar lithologies associated with a particular unit of geologic time such as the basal Cambrian quartzite. He stated it this way. “At certain times in earth history, particular types of sedimentary environment were prevalent over vast areas of the earth’s surface. This may be called the Phenomenon of the Persistence of Facies.

So you admit that the distinction is still made based on an assumed prevalence of certain materials and processes globally during a long period of time. If only creationists point out the issue I indicated, then the problem is really with the non-creationist not seeing it.

Dr. Ager also makes the point that much of the stratigraphical record is the result of rapid sedimentation. I think this is very valid as single flooding events can deposit several meters of sediment in rather discontinuous processes similar to punctuated equilibria as compared with the small thicknesses accumulated during slower continuous processes.

Again the problem is the assumed homogeneity of layers globally over longer periods of time. I am not saying they assume one material or one process, but the prevalence of a group of them. It's unlikely that it occurred that way.

#13 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 25 September 2011 - 03:55 AM

Geode, on 24 September 2011 - 08:21 PM, said:

“Even some YEC geologists such as Steve Austin insist that the layers represent of certain period in geologic time, albeit periods of shorter extent. The layers that represent periods of geologic time may be described in a locality by their physical properties, but such is not how they are related to the periods of geologic time. This is done by their fossil content. Although some geologic time units were named for lithologic characteristics, such as the Creataceous being named after chalk, a geologist does not expect that all Cretaceous rocks will be identified by this lithology which has a physical property or chemical composition that is typical for it. I was involved with a well offshore Kenya where thousands of feet of Upper Cretaceous rocks were penetrated and it was all green claystone or shale. No chalk was found at all. Similarly not all Carboniferous rocks are coal bearing, and not all Triassic rocks consist of a pattern of three units involving red sands followed by chalk and black shale.”

MarkForbes replied: What creationists might be saying is irrelevant to the issue. If you don't identify it by by a distinctive "lithology which has a physical property or chemical composition", what then you identify the layer by.



I’m afraid that you are still missing the point about what the Geologic Column actual is and what it is not. What you are defining are litho-stratigraphic units which are identified by their lithology. But the Geologic Column involves the total of a group of time-stratigraphic units that are defined by the time units in which they were deposited. They are rocks formed during a specified interval of time, with geologic systems as the basic time-stratigraphic unit. Such units are independent of rock type. In the example I gave for the Cretaceous System, the Cretaceous was represented by claystone and shale in Kenya, but by chalk in Dover.

Geode, on 24 September 2011 - 08:21 PM, said:
“If the strata were identified only by physical characteristics it would be assuming that only one sort of physical process occurred during certain periods of “geologic time” but this is an argument that I have really only seen creationists make. You are correct in stating that this is not what is observed today, and within uniformitarian thought as it is held by geologists today that is why we expect to find rocks formed by various processes and of various lithologies within the various periods of geologic time. On this very board Derek Ager has been quoted from his book “The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record” about the widespread occurrence of chalk in the Upper Cretaceous as if they proved a worldwide event of chalk deposition (such as a great worldwide flood might cause). Dr. Ager actually pointed out several widespread similar lithologies associated with a particular unit of geologic time such as the basal Cambrian quartzite. He stated it this way. “At certain times in earth history, particular types of sedimentary environment were prevalent over vast areas of the earth’s surface. This may be called the Phenomenon of the Persistence of Facies.”

So you admit that the distinction is still made based on an assumed prevalence of certain materials and processes globally during a long period of time. If only creationists point out the issue I indicated, then the problem is really with the non-creationist not seeing it.


The point that Dr. Ager was making is that certain depositional environments tend to be widespread during one geologic period or another. Warm calm seas in the Cretaceous favored the deposition of chalk to a greater extent than during other periods. But I do not see where creationists are pointing anything out that is not understood by mainstream geology.

Geode, on 24 September 2011 - 08:21 PM, said:
“Dr. Ager also makes the point that much of the stratigraphical record is the result of rapid sedimentation. I think this is very valid as single flooding events can deposit several meters of sediment in rather discontinuous processes similar to punctuated equilibria as compared with the small thicknesses accumulated during slower continuous processes.”

Again the problem is the assumed homogeneity of layers globally over longer periods of time. I am not saying they assume one material or one process, but the prevalence of a group of them. It's unlikely that it occurred that way.


When Dr. Ager wrote his book he assumed that a large number of stratigraphers would take exception to some of his observations. By his own admission he over-generalized the similarity of rock units across the globe. And yes, some stratigraphers pointed out all the variation they saw in the strata they worked upon in one locality or another. There really is not a great homogeneity of layers in a global sense, and where there is a very close match in lithology it often occurs in areas that were matched next to each other before they parted due to continental drift. There are layers in localized areas that show homogeneity through considerable time when a basin existed with little change in the paleoecology.

#14 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 September 2011 - 04:38 AM

Geode,

Are agreeing or disagreeing that the World Wide Flood did this?

#15 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 25 September 2011 - 05:31 AM

I’m afraid that you are still missing the point about what the Geologic Column actual is and what it is not. What you are defining are litho-stratigraphic units which are identified by their lithology. But the Geologic Column involves the total of a group of time-stratigraphic units that are defined by the time units in which they were deposited. They are rocks formed during a specified interval of time, with geologic systems as the basic time-stratigraphic unit. Such units are independent of rock type. In the example I gave for the Cretaceous System, the Cretaceous was represented by claystone and shale in Kenya, but by chalk in Dover.

It's about relative homogeneity of the layers, not absolute ones. And no, they are not "defined by the time units in which they were deposited in", It's the layers grouped together by those making up the hypothesis assuming that this represents a time unit".


The point that Dr. Ager was making is that certain depositional environments tend to be widespread during one geologic period or another. Warm calm seas in the Cretaceous favored the deposition of chalk to a greater extent than during other periods. But I do not see where creationists are pointing anything out that is not understood by mainstream geology.

Thank you, there you are pointing out what I was trying to say above. And I am pointing out something that's generally ignored, also by creationists.


When Dr. Ager wrote his book he assumed that a large number of stratigraphers would take exception to some of his observations. By his own admission he over-generalized the similarity of rock units across the globe. And yes, some stratigraphers pointed out all the variation they saw in the strata they worked upon in one locality or another. There really is not a great homogeneity of layers in a global sense, and where there is a very close match in lithology it often occurs in areas that were matched next to each other before they parted due to continental drift. There are layers in localized areas that show homogeneity through considerable time when a basin existed with little change in the paleoecology.

Again, I was talking about relative homogeneity of layers not an absolute one. Still homogeneous enough to be identified by a researcher and to be attributed to a time unit. Otherwise this would be a completely arbitrary exercise.

#16 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 26 September 2011 - 04:49 AM

Geode, on 25 September 2011 - 03:55 AM, said:

"I'm afraid that you are still missing the point about what the Geologic Column actual is and what it is not. What you are defining are litho-stratigraphic units which are identified by their lithology. But the Geologic Column involves the total of a group of time-stratigraphic units that are defined by the time units in which they were deposited. They are rocks formed during a specified interval of time, with geologic systems as the basic time-stratigraphic unit. Such units are independent of rock type. In the example I gave for the Cretaceous System, the Cretaceous was represented by claystone and shale in Kenya, but by chalk in Dover."

It's about relative homogeneity of the layers, not absolute ones. And no, they are not "defined by the time units in which they were deposited in", It's the layers grouped together by those making up the hypothesis assuming that this represents a time unit".


I stated the concept and definition of a time-stratigraphic unit correctly. This really is not a hypothesis but simply a convention used in a classification scheme. A set of rocks will require time to be deposited. If the sediment involved was sand in an hour glass calibrated to take one hour for all the sand to pass through from the top to the bottom, the time unit would be one hour and the sand deposit would be a time-stratigraphic unit physically representing that time period. It is not in doubt that it will take a measurable amount of time for any given layer to form. But there is a question about how such a period of time can be measured. It appears to me that your problem may be with whether or not the time interval can be measured and whether there is a proper means by which it is measured. This may bring into question whether or not it is measured accurately. That is really different than not agreeing with the definition of what such a time-stratigraphic unit is meant to represent.

"It's the layers grouped together by those making up the hypothesis assuming that this represents a time unit"

Such a set of layers will represent a unit of time, the problem lies in defining a usable unit of time and consistently identifying and applying it.

I really do not know what you are talking about in terms of “relative homogeneity of the layers, not absolute one.”

Geode, on 25 September 2011 - 03:55 AM, said:

"When Dr. Ager wrote his book he assumed that a large number of stratigraphers would take exception to some of his observations. By his own admission he over-generalized the similarity of rock units across the globe. And yes, some stratigraphers pointed out all the variation they saw in the strata they worked upon in one locality or another. There really is not a great homogeneity of layers in a global sense, and where there is a very close match in lithology it often occurs in areas that were matched next to each other before they parted due to continental drift. There are layers in localized areas that show homogeneity through considerable time when a basin existed with little change in the paleoecology."

Again, I was talking about relative homogeneity of layers not an absolute one. Still homogeneous enough to be identified by a researcher and to be attributed to a time unit. Otherwise this would be a completely arbitrary exercise.


Geologists don’t use the term relative homogeneity. If I understand what you are saying this is something we would most likely term gradational” when applied to lithology. When does a sandy siltstone become more a silty sandstone? If needed, one could attempt to define the two as different lithologic facies, or lump them together. The lithology could be shale, grade into siltstone, and then into sandstone and then back again showing little homogeneity taken as a whole and still be a time-stratigraphic unit. It is not necessary that the lithology be the same for it all to be grouped together. It is not necessary for a researcher to identify it as one homogeneous lithologic unit. However, this is of course one of the means used in the process of identifying a time-strat unit, but it must be used with care as his is not what the unit is based upon. This certainly was the case in the past when lithology was supposed to be diagnostic of rocks generated in certain intervals of geologic time. But geologists came to realize that lithology is influenced more strongly by environment of deposition than by age. It was also realized that the boundaries of lithologic units cut across isochronous surfaces or vice versa. And it was recognized that lithologic character is repeated over and over in the stratigraphy of the earth.

#17 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 26 September 2011 - 04:58 AM

Geode,

Are agreeing or disagreeing that the World Wide Flood did this?


In my first post in the thread I wrote this about geologists:

Through extensive study of the earth's surface they have come to realize that sedimentary layers were not deposited upon all the surface of the earth during any defined period of the earth’s history, for although oceans have covered the majority of the earth’s surface throughout much of its history, there is no evidence that they covered all of it at any one time.


I was including myself in their number. Could such deposition take place if such a flood had occured? I suppose it could have at some point if a supply of sand was placed in a column of quiet water without currents. Such a situation would most likely not be very common in such a world-wide flood if it occured.

#18 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 26 September 2011 - 08:15 AM

While it's not completely off topic what I said, It's not my intention to district the thread for the initial question. What Mechanism Created The Layers In The Column?
One would need answers to that from the different schools of thought

Just a few remarks:

I stated the concept and definition of a time-stratigraphic unit correctly. This really is not a hypothesis but simply a convention used in a classification scheme.

One can not work with definitions when empirical proof is required. What you say does however
highlight an important problem in science and that's declaring concepts that need to be proven and demonstrated, to be part of the convention.
Convention does have it's place, but is limited to certain procedures, name giving and the like. You can't go and say "that thing is x years old", "Y represents a time unit", etc. You have to out and prove it.

...Geologists don’t use the term relative homogeneity....

I used a term that is more in line with common usage. It was about the answer to: "How does one identify layers within above mentioned classification scheme?"
For now I think we should focus on "How did those different layers emerge / come into existence?". That other subject I'd like to come back to in due course. So to bend it back, I found the following essay, which may be helpful:
http://www.detecting...ogiccolumn.html

#19 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 27 September 2011 - 04:33 AM

Posted 26 September 2011 - 08:15 AM

While it's not completely off topic what I said, It's not my intention to district the thread for the initial question. What Mechanism Created The Layers In The Column?
One would need answers to that from the different schools of thought


The initial question is one about stratigraphy and sedimentation. What schools of thought outside of geology are needed?

Geode, on 26 September 2011 - 04:49 AM, said:

“I stated the concept and definition of a time-stratigraphic unit correctly. This really is not a hypothesis but simply a convention used in a classification scheme.”

One can not work with definitions when empirical proof is required. What you say does however highlight an important problem in science and that's declaring concepts that need to be proven and demonstrated, to be part of the convention.



In this case the concept is proven. It is known that sediments are deposited. It is known that it takes time for the deposition to take place. There is empirical proof that this is the case. You can prove it to yourself by watching sediments being deposited and looking at your watch.

In practice a type section is established for a time-stratigraphic unit. This is based upon empirical evidence such as the identification of faunal zones through painstaking research. It may also be based in part upon an isochronic boundary such as a bentonite bed. When the boundaries are set the rocks between the boundaries are then taken as a “type section.” This time-stratigraphic unit can only be recognized by rock type in the type locality, where it exists by definition. Elsewhere it must be recognized by time correlation.

Convention does have it's place, but is limited to certain procedures, name giving and the like. You can't go and say "that thing is x years old", "Y represents a time unit", etc. You have to out and prove it.


The concept as I stated it is valid. Its implementation can be problematical as I already indicated. It is a fact that a unit of rock will be deposited during a period of time. In the case of the systems, etc. that have been named, type sections (stratotypes) are agreed upon. This time-stratigraphic unit represents the period of time in which they were deposited as bounded by the faunal zones, etc. The fauna did not exist before the appearance of the zone and did not exist afterward as determined through the research. How long the period of time was cannot be determined by this procedure on its own, but that is not the point. It always rocks globally, regardless of lithology, to be correlated in terms of being deposited during the same interval of time.The selected stratotype is used for global correlation using time-diagnostic features that are distinctive for the defined unit.

Geode, on 26 September 2011 - 04:49 AM, said:

“Geologists don’t use the term relative homogeneity”

I used a term that is more in line with common usage. It was about the answer to: "How does one identify layers within above mentioned classification scheme?"



I don’t remember the question being posed, but I think I addressed it anyway in my last post. When speaking about a specific discipline It is probably better to use the terminology that is used within that discipline for that allows clarity in discussion.

For now I think we should focus on "How did those different layers emerge / come into existence?". That other subject I'd like to come back to in due course. So to bend it back, I found the following essay, which may be helpful:

http://www.detecting...ogiccolumn.html


I posted about variation depositional environment being responsible for the lithology deposited. This link is more like many essays on many different topics, several of which I have seen discussed in other threads. For that reason I do not think this thread in the appropriate place for discussion of these topics. In the minute or two I spent scrolling down through it I was struck by it being a hodge-podge of topics which all appeared to center on the subject of the length of time involved for some geologic feature to form or event to happen. Most all of my discussion has been rather apart from that. As I said, some YEC geologists such as Steve Austin use the same concept of time-stratigraphy or Chronostratigraphy as mainstream geologists and use the same system names. They do of course think that these systems represent quite different amounts of time, but do agree that a set of strata can be assigned to a unit of time that is named.

#20 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 27 September 2011 - 09:53 AM

The initial question is one about stratigraphy and sedimentation. What schools of thought outside of geology are needed? ...

Like in any other scientific discipline, there are schools of thought within Geology as well. There can be difference in epistemology, assumption and preferred explanatory models. Deciding which schools fall into Geology and which not is a bit of a childish game that's also is done by Evolutionist, when they have to discuss the intelligent design hypothesis.

As for the rest I just wanted to direct the discussion back to the initial question. The other issues we can, and I would like to cover later.

In this case the concept is proven. It is known that sediments are deposited. It is known that it takes time for the deposition to take place. There is empirical proof that this is the case. You can prove it to yourself by watching sediments being deposited and looking at your watch.

OK, I think that's a good start. But I think you need to go into more detail. Perhaps pick a specific type of sediment name typical facts about it and then explain the mechanism. The timing needs also to be discussed. I think that would be setting a frame whether something can have taken X at minimum or Y at maximum to happen. Exact timing I doubt to be possible.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users