Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Life Science Discussions Biology, Natural History, etc.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-06-2008, 12:56 PM   #246520  /  #1
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 13,087
Dave Hawkins
Default Exclusive Engagement: Origin of Grand Canyon Strata

This discussion is between myself and 'Stretchkev' who works for the Indiana Geological Survey ...
Quote:
BS in Geological Science Indiana University 2005
MS in Hydrogeology Indiana University 2007
Currently employed at the Indiana Geological Survey
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=580
I am a creationist blogger, author at Kids4Truth International, and amateur science enthusiast (BS Electrical Engineering, Univ of Texas at Arlington 1986) interested in better understanding the details of the conventional view of the origin of GC strata and, by extension, the origin of similar strata all over the world. There are various aspects of the conventional view which seem impossible to me and seem to be better explained by the Creationist/Diluvialist view ... but perhaps this is only because no one has explained the conventional view to me is sufficient detail. We shall see. Link to previous discussion on this topic with Jet Black, who initially agreed to discuss the conventional view, then decided not to after all.*

The first topic I would like to discuss is the following ...

WHY IS THERE SO LITTLE EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS?
This is what the layers look like now ...


This is what they should look like (it seems) if the conventional view is correct ...


My understanding of the conventional view is that the layers were deposited over millions and millions of years of shallow ocean deposition with the exception of the Coconino Sandstone, which supposedly was deposited by wind. If we consult a paleogeographical map resource like THIS ONE, we see that there were supposedly periods of time when the area was under water and other periods when it was above water.

We can see from the above link that during the Late Precambrian (550 MYA) this area was DRY ... continuing through geologic time, we have ...

550 MYA ..... DRY
510 MYA ..... WET
400 MYA ..... DRY
360 MYA ..... WET
300 MYA ..... DRY
260 MYA ..... WET
245 MYA ..... DRY

and so on ... I didn't check beyond this yet ...

So as you can see, in this 300 million year time span, there are several alternating wet and dry periods. My understanding is that the WET periods were the ones that deposited the layers. But no one has explained to me what has occurred during the dry periods. Obviously, we are in a DRY period NOW. And recent research indicates that the Grand Canyon itself was carved relatively recently. So what the Grand Canyon represents is RECENT, MASSIVE erosion which cut through ALL the layers.

But why don't we see similar erosion between ALL the layers? Or at least some of them? Am I to believe that there was virtually no erosion at all during these ~40 million year dry spells? Shouldn't we expect that, at least during some of these dry spells, we might find some gashes like the Grand Canyon? OK ... maybe not as big ... but at least they should be significantly bigger than the tiny little one depicted in the first diagram (top of the Muav).

Your thoughts?


* Mod Note:

This characterization of Jet Black's position is rejected by Jet Black. It is highly inappropriate to be making this kind of accusation in a thread where the person you're smearing is excluded from responding. Regard this as a "Support or Retract" request, AND notice that any further instances of this sort of behavior and the EE status of this thread will be revoked.

VoxRat
E&O Moderator
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.

Last edited by VoxRat; 11-06-2008 at 10:57 PM.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 11-06-2008, 04:34 PM   #247103  /  #2
VoxRat
humble rodent
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 39,807
VoxRat
Exclamation Mod Note

This thread is set aside as an "Exclusive Engagement" thread to try to bring some focus to the discussion.
Posts on extraneous issues, particularly sniping about moderation, or about other TR members excluded from this thread will be moved to here.

Thank you.
__________________
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.' - Bertrand Russell

"I already know the answer of course, being scientific" - F X
VoxRat is online now   topbottom
Old 11-06-2008, 08:09 PM   #247538  /  #3
Stretchkev
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 61
Stretchkev
Default

Let me first start off by stating that the first Strataigraphy diagram that you provided are general pictures of the area that help geologist familiarize themselves with the general names and locations of the major formations that make up the canyon. They help us determine if we are up or down section and what way we need to move to get to where we want to go. They do not provide detailed information as to what the unit is comprised of or the contact relationships between formations. They are in essence a set of guidelines that are used to help geologist further discussion about the canyon. Sort of like a street map you draw for someone on a napkin when trying to give directions, although Stratagraphic charts/tables are a bit more sophisticated then that.

An example of how these charts a lacking in detail I’ll start with the description of the first major formation grouping of the canyon. The Unkar Group consists of the unnamed sills and Dikes, Dox Formation, Escalante Creek Member, Shinumo Quartzite, Hakatai Shale, Bass Formation, and Hotauta Conglomerate Member.

Just to show an example of how a rock unit is described the Escalante Creek Member Gray, light-brown to dark-brown, cliff-forming, fine- to medium-grained sandstone and interbedded dark-brown to green, slopeforming shale and mudstone. Includes gray contorted sandstone beds in lower part similar to those in underlying Shinumo Quartzite and small-scale, tabularplanar cross-bedded and graded-bedding sets. Conformable contact with the underlying Shinumo marked at lowest shaley slope of the Dox. Incomplete exposure due to erosion of upper part. Exposed thickness about 200 ft (60 m).

Other descriptions of the rock units for this group can be found at:http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/coloradop...nkar_group.htm

In this description you can see that a single formation may be made up multiple rock types from shales to sandstones. Implying different deposition environments (i.e. changing water levels and differences in the influx of sediments.) Interbedding of rocks units implies that there is erosion and deposition within these layers as the sediments accumulate. The picture below is a good example of what I mean. The wavy contact between the dark and light layers implies that there was erosion and then deposition. It’s particularly evident in the dark layer where there is wavy erosional contact on the top and bottom of this layer. Depositional environments are much more dynamic then just shallow seas and swamps. With just the slightest of changes greatly affects the outcome.

Forgive my ignorance the picture I want to use is too big but I don't know how to post a smaller one so I'm going to just link to it. If someone could tell me how to properly post it, I will be glad to edit it later.

Here's the Picture I'm referring to:


Towards the end of the description there is a characterization of the contact between the nature of the contacts between formations (a formation by the way is defined as a major change in the makeup of rock units and does not indicate a change in depositional environment) which states that the Escalante Creek Member is conformable with the Shinumo Quartzite. This just means that there wasn’t a major interruption in the sequence of deposition not that the layers show no evidence of erosion (it’s easy to confuse conformability which is that there is no evidence of erosion or non-deposition with conformity that some geologist use interchangeably).

As for the second diagram, it appears to me that someone with a sharpie drew an upside down mountain next to the Stratagraphic column. Either enlarge the diagram so I can see what was done to it, or provide an explanation as to what it is suppose to show. As of right now that diagram implies that you know for a fact that the units below the Redwall limestone are not laterally continuous and you know exactly how and where they pinch out.

As for what was occurring during the Dry periods (some of which weren’t so dry in the actual area of the canyon itself as told to us by the rocks and not a generalized map of the average sea level change if you had read the accompany texts to the sight you would know this of course) there are two major unconformities within the canyon itself There's an entire 250 million years of geology missing at the angular uncomformity. And another period of missing time during the Ordovician and the Silurian,some 165 million years. Now Unconfomities can represent serious amounts of erosions or Non-deposition of a whole lot of nothing at least that is all we geologist can infer. If you want to speculate perhaps there was a massive canyon during the last uncomformity, we have no proof of that of course because the material is either gone or was never there in the first place. As an advisor once told me "Sometimes you got to be comfortable with uncertianty." But without evidence of a large drainage basin like a river (think the network of the Mississippi) there can be No Canyon Formation. As far as I know there is no evidence to support a river running through the area before the Colorado River changed its course. A detailed geologic history of the river can be found at http://www.durangobill.com/Paleorivers_preface.html and http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004AM/fin...sion_13164.htm

My best explanation for that lenticular sand body you extended is that perhaps it was deposited by a small stream channel that didn't have the eroding power of the Colorado River. As long as the rate of erosion doesn't exceed the rate of accumulation then there is no possibility for canyon formation. Lacking the evidence I would say its hard to discern exactly what went on at this boundary. Proving that is body is little more than a stream channel running parallel to the canyon (since their is no exposure of it in the canyon) has little to do with what kind of erosional forces have acted on the canyon itself.

We have been lucky enough to stumble across a few examples of Ancient Canyons now submerged in the Gulf of Mexico and off the African Coast, thanks in part to geophysical data. a simple google search on Ancient Submerged Canyons will give you plenty of examples, but here are abstracts to two recently found canyons.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://search.datapages.com/data/doi...45000102C1865D

Last edited by VoxRat; 11-06-2008 at 11:07 PM. Reason: Minor typo fixes
Stretchkev is offline   topbottom
Old 11-06-2008, 11:08 PM   #247915  /  #4
Stretchkev
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 61
Stretchkev
Default

I think it is only fair Dave if we are going to discuss models that you answer a few questions I have for the creation model. Since you failed to provide one, I will use Stephen Austin's model if you will permit.

Now that I have done a little reading for the creation model I have a couple of questions for you Dave.

Quote:
The creationist case for the formation of the Colorado Plateau rocks is best made by Steven A. Austin of the Institute for Creation Research. ......

Argument can be found here <edit JB>

....... There is only a vague indication that he thinks it was deposited in much the same way as the Muav Limestone. Is this the total extent of the creation model? How can you justify this as a complete framework to work from?
It seems to me that this theory leads to a dead end.

Last edited by Jet Black; 11-18-2008 at 04:54 PM. Reason: removed unattributed text
Stretchkev is offline   topbottom
Old 11-06-2008, 11:36 PM   #247938  /  #5
Martin.au
Science n00b
 
Martin.au's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,649
Martin.au
Default



Smaller version of Stretchkev's image. This should load for everyone.
__________________
"There probably is no teapot. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
Humber: You say that Goodman's cart travels faster than windspeed, so how do you explain that adding mass to that cart, will stop that happening?

Last edited by Martin.au; 11-06-2008 at 11:41 PM.
Martin.au is online now   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 12:41 PM   #248566  /  #6
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 13,087
Dave Hawkins
Default

I do realize that the diagrams I posted are not detailed descriptions, but they don't need to be for the observation I am making. Again, my observation is that there seems to be very little erosion (maybe I should say 'channeling') between the layers. As I explained in the first post, the second picture is the first picture doctored with a sharpie to depict one example of what I might expect the layers to look like if the standard model is correct. The picture is meant to illustrate my point that if you have several ~40 million year dry (non-submerged) spells in between the wet (submerged) spells, you should have significant evidence of erosion (maybe I should call it chanelling?) between the layers. Here's another drawing I made to illustrate what I'm talking about ...

Here's what we actually have ...


And here's my additions to the diagram to illustrate my idea of what it SEEMS that we should have if the standard model is correct ...


To state this more simply, what we have in the geological record is a very extensive series of sedimentary rock layers (~2 miles thick) all over the world with canyons originating ONLY in the top layer. We NEVER find canyons originating in lower layers (for example, we don't find canyons cut into the Redwall Limestone which were subsequently filled with the overlying strata as illustrated above). And it seems clear that we SHOULD find such canyons in lower layers if we really had ~40 million year non-submerged periods punctuating the submerged periods.

SUBMERGED CANYONS
You mentioned submerged canyons and this is a good point to bring up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think these are filled only with not-yet-lithified sediments, are they not? My view of these submerged canyons is that they were cut during the Receding Phase of the Flood, then filled with water and sediment at the time of 'The Big Melt' after the (single) Ice Age.

CREATIONIST MODEL OF GEOLOGY
This brings us to the Creationist Model which, I'll be the first to admit, is incomplete. When you only have a few thinly spread scientists working on the model, it takes awhile to develop. But I will say that they have made excellent progress considering their small numbers. The Creationist Model is basically Catastrophic with variation in the details. John Baumgardner's Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT) is one model and Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory (HPT) is another. Both involve a worldwide cataclysm initiated by the breaking up of the 'Fountains of the Deep.' I invite you to search this phrase on my blog at http://truthmatters.info/ to see several examples of other solar system bodies besides earth which may have had (or currently have) 'fountains of the deep' also. Both involve a relatively rapid separation of the continents, a lowering of the pre-Flood sea floor and rapid orogeny, followed by a plate stabilization where continents are no longer submerged. Both also involve massive volcanism and massive climate change over a very short period of time (~1 year). Both assert a much more uniform global pre-Flood climate than we have now, followed by a single Ice Age, then a 'Big Melt' in which ocean levels rose by ~300 feet. The Receding Phase of the Flood would have been the period where all the worlds canyons were formed by catastrophic outflows from lakes dammed by debris/ice/etc.

SUMMARY
To me, science requires us to observe how the world works NOW and apply these processes that we can observe to historical studies, such as historical geology. So if we canyons in the top most layers that we have NOW, we should be able to extrapolate whatever process created them back in time and infer that canyons should have been forming and being infilled throughout geologic history. The fact that we do NOT find evidence of this seems to be a piece of evidence against the standard model.

(Added later)
'MISSING' LAYERS
I forgot to discuss the 'missing layers' that you speak of. Some people say that this answers my question of 'where is all the erosion in the lower layers' but it does not. First of all, a 'missing layer' is not evidence that there even was one in the first place. Maybe there was, but maybe there was not. Secondly, there obviously are SOME missing layers as is clear from the angular unconformity in the GC. But this evidence of removal gives us no reason to believe that it took millions of years to remove those layers. In fact, complete removal (decapitation if you will) of a formation is more consistent with a catastrophic erosion event than with slow processes over millions of years. If you say that the GC was formed by the slow erosive power of the Colorado River, then I assume you believe that this is pretty much how all canyons are formed. And the obvious question remains ... why didn't lots of other canyons form in lower strata in this way over millions and millions of years?
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.

Last edited by Dave Hawkins; 11-07-2008 at 01:31 PM. Reason: Added more
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 02:42 PM   #248710  /  #7
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,160
Mike PSS
Default

I'm requesting "rights" (kind of like finder rights) for inclusion in this thread. I answered Dave's original challange and will join in on this discussion in the only thread that should be open on the subject.

Dave replied with this in my original thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Hi Mike ... since you say you are up to it, why don't you read my OP with Stretchkev and answer it right here in this thread? You and I can go back and forth while I'm waiting on him. (her?)
http://www.talkrational.org/showthre...?t=7954&page=2

I will answer the OP in the EE thread where it belongs.

More posts to follow from me in this thread unless someone has a hissy-fit.

Mike PSS
Mike PSS is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 02:57 PM   #248735  /  #8
Stretchkev
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 61
Stretchkev
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I do realize that the diagrams I posted are not detailed descriptions, but they don't need to be for the observation I am making. Again, my observation is that there seems to be very little erosion (maybe I should say 'channeling') between the layers. As I explained in the first post, the second picture is the first picture doctored with a sharpie to depict one example of what I might expect the layers to look like if the standard model is correct. The picture is meant to illustrate my point that if you have several ~40 million year dry (non-submerged) spells in between the wet (submerged) spells, you should have significant evidence of erosion (maybe I should call it chanelling?) between the layers. Here's another drawing I made to illustrate what I'm talking about ...
One reason why we don't see the channels you drew is simply we have no proof that there are river channels flowing perpendicular to the current canyon. They may have once been erosion similar to the canyon experiences today in the past during the few dry spells (again there are periods of wet in 40 million year time spans, please read the literature that accompanies those maps and not just click between them) It is impossible to tell exactly how thick each layer was when originally deposited. They could thousands of meters thick for all we know and erosion has left us with a very small amount of the rock that was once there. Unfortuantely we can't prove this because the material has long since disappeared. Just like Non-deposition adds nothing to the argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
To state this more simply, what we have in the geological record is a very extensive series of sedimentary rock layers (~2 miles thick) all over the world with canyons originating ONLY in the top layer. We NEVER find canyons originating in lower layers (for example, we don't find canyons cut into the Redwall Limestone which were subsequently filled with the overlying strata as illustrated above). And it seems clear that we SHOULD find such canyons in lower layers if we really had ~40 million year non-submerged periods punctuating the submerged periods.

SUBMERGED CANYONS
You mentioned submerged canyons and this is a good point to bring up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think these are filled only with not-yet-lithified sediments, are they not? My view of these submerged canyons is that they were cut during the Receding Phase of the Flood, then filled with water and sediment at the time of 'The Big Melt' after the (single) Ice Age.
No Dave they are not only filled with sediment but much of that sediment is indeed lithified. Otherwise they wouldn’t make good oil reservoirs would they? Articles written by the AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologist) don’t tend to talk about systems that could hold oil one day; they are concerned with finding oil today. Let’s ignore Submerged canyons for now. Make paleocanyons fit your model Dave. Here’s some research for you to ignore:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dUr...result#PPP8,M1

http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/...FB25849.1&ct=1Th

The Last one is just an interesting read for a discussion on how a canyon with five uncomformed boundaries would form and how that can be applied to the Grand canyon:http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&...f+Paleocanyons


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
CREATIONIST MODEL OF GEOLOGY
This brings us to the Creationist Model which, I'll be the first to admit, is incomplete. When you only have a few thinly spread scientists working on the model, it takes awhile to develop. But I will say that they have made excellent progress considering their small numbers. The Creationist Model is basically Catastrophic with variation in the details. John Baumgardner's Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT) is one model and Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory (HPT) is another. Both involve a worldwide cataclysm initiated by the breaking up of the 'Fountains of the Deep.' I invite you to search this phrase on my blog at http://truthmatters.info/ to see several examples of other solar system bodies besides earth which may have had (or currently have) 'fountains of the deep' also. Both involve a relatively rapid separation of the continents, a lowering of the pre-Flood sea floor and rapid orogeny, followed by a plate stabilization where continents are no longer submerged. Both also involve massive volcanism and massive climate change over a very short period of time (~1 year). Both assert a much more uniform global pre-Flood climate than we have now, followed by a single Ice Age, then a 'Big Melt' in which ocean levels rose by ~300 feet. The Receding Phase of the Flood would have been the period where all the worlds canyons were formed by catastrophic outflows from lakes dammed by debris/ice/etc.
The first part of your statement is a total coup-out. The theory of Neptunism has been around since Abraham Gottlob Werner est. by his work in 1787. There were also countless geologic theories of catastrophe proposed by men like Cuvier, Agassiz, Buckland, and Jameson. This remained the dominate theory of geology well after Lyell published is first edition. The Geologist that gave Darwin his copy of Lyell was a Catastrophist himself. Even after uniformitarian principles became the norm there were catastrophist right up till the mid-1950. Hell the idea of catastrophic plate tectonics isn’t even new. When Continental Drift was first proposed by Abraham Ortelius in 1596 and was fully developed by Alfred Wegener in 1912. There 1st mechanism was catastrophic in nature. Even today catrastrophism plays an important role in today’s geology: sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/reprint/143/1/171.pdf

In essence the catastrophist have had just as long if not longer time to develop even the most primitive of working theories. They have failed miserably. If their flood can’t even explain the small amount of sediment deposited above the Temple Butte limestone.Time and Time again Creationist models have been put forth and time after time the have failed.

As for the "Fountains of the Deep" where did the water go? We know that Sedimentary rocks can act as aquifers, we know the water content of the atmosphere, and we know the amount locked up in ice. If all this water where some how pushed to the surface there still wouldn't be enough to cover the earth (assuming the Earth pre-flood wasn't a table). Either there was no topography pre-flood, making the discussion of canyon formation mute (violating physical laws like gravity and water flows from higher elevation to lower elevation is not a good start to any theory).Judging form this site even proponents for your theory acknowledge there must have been topography. http://www.kjvbible.org/geysers.html If there was even some modern like topography then water form outside the earth had to be introduced and then removed. Since sedimentary rocks act as reservoirs this outside source better have pumped a lot of water into our system. The rest of the argument violates what you say in the very next paragraph:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
SUMMARY
To me, science requires us to observe how the world works NOW and apply these processes that we can observe to historical studies, such as historical geology.
If we don't see those kinds of movements today, tell how are we suppose to infer they happened that way in the past? Sounds like they are using an outside source to guide their thinking and no the evidence.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	trudgill20.jpg
Views:	424
Size:	121.3 KB
ID:	355   Click image for larger version

Name:	trudgill25.jpg
Views:	536
Size:	112.6 KB
ID:	356   Click image for larger version

Name:	trudgill28.jpg
Views:	477
Size:	65.2 KB
ID:	357  
Stretchkev is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 03:12 PM   #248770  /  #9
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 13,087
Dave Hawkins
Default

Alright ... one thing at a time would be good I think. How about we lay this one to rest first ... Are there, or aren't there any 'paleo-canyons' with lithified sediments? (similar to my modified diagrams) Your first link is to an entire book. Is there an example in there somewhere? Are you going to make me hunt through the entire book to find it on my own? Or will you give me a page number? I don't have access to read the paper in your second link. I'm happy to concede that there IS such a thing IF you can show it to me.
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 03:53 PM   #248838  /  #10
Stretchkev
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 61
Stretchkev
Default

Sorry i thought you could use the search function that google provides my bad.

Page 26, 362, 369, 421, 422

Not to menition the attached pictures I provided.

As for providing something like you drew out of your imagination is not something I'm willing to waste m time with. Your "observation" is flawed. It's not even an observation. Gut feelings don't count.
Stretchkev is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:02 PM   #248851  /  #11
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,160
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
This discussion is between myself and 'Stretchkev'
and 'Mike PSS' (BS in Chemical Engineering, avid reader of scientific references in all fields of study).

Quote:
I am a creationist blogger, author at Kids4Truth International, and amateur science enthusiast (BS Electrical Engineering, Univ of Texas at Arlington 1986) interested in better understanding the details of the conventional view of the origin of GC strata and, by extension, the origin of similar strata all over the world.
Don't forget the presentation and understanding of the "Global Flood of Noah" model of the earth that will be discussed here. This discussion just won't be limited to the standard model. There are online courses for that. This thread is a compare/contrast/discredit type of discussion.

Quote:
There are various aspects of the conventional view which seem impossible to me and seem to be better explained by the Creationist/Diluvialist view ... but perhaps this is only because no one has explained the conventional view to me is sufficient detail. We shall see.
Two things here Dave. It is YOU that are confused about the conventional view. It is also YOU that buys into some type of creationist/diluvialist view(I'll use the acronym CrD to describe this) . Stretchkev has requested you to begin presenting this view or at least present the specific topics in the standard view that are better explained by the CrD AND what makes the CrD a better explanation.

Quote:
The first topic I would like to discuss is the following ...

WHY IS THERE SO LITTLE EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS?
Without going into your presentation at all I would like to point out that the diagrams you posted show clear erosional events between layers. That they don't show your interpretation of what "should" be there doesn't remove the FACT that erosional between layers is represented in the diagram.

Plus, this is only a diagram. Actual rock measurements (ground penetrating radar, sonar, etc.) would be a better argument for/against the presence of erosion between layers.

Quote:
My understanding of the conventional view is that the layers were deposited over millions and millions of years of shallow ocean deposition with the exception of the Coconino Sandstone, which supposedly was deposited by wind.
This interpretation is, I would say, shallow. I'll get into a deeper explanation in another post.

Mike PSS ITEM 1: Explain to Dave the signigicance of a receding or acceding shoreline to the type and stratigraphy of depositional layers.

Quote:
If we consult a paleogeographical map resource like THIS ONE, we see that there were supposedly periods of time when the area was under water and other periods when it was above water.

We can see from the above link that during the Late Precambrian (550 MYA) this area was DRY ... continuing through geologic time, we have ...

550 MYA ..... DRY
510 MYA ..... WET
400 MYA ..... DRY
360 MYA ..... WET
300 MYA ..... DRY
260 MYA ..... WET
245 MYA ..... DRY

and so on ... I didn't check beyond this yet ...
Incorrect Dave. Those maps are generalized representations of the region, not specific mapped out terrain. Here's the generalized interpretation you could apply....

(I'm taking the region in question as the western half of the border between Arizona and Utah as a general area for the Grand Canyon deposits.)

Here's a quick reference of the Grand Canyon Stratigraphy.


550 MYA ..... Inland region, no major orogeny, drainage conditions unknown. The exposed rock here would be both the Vishnu Schist and Grand Canyon Supergroup that had/has been eroding away for up to 200MY.

510 MYA ..... Area is now a shallow sea underwater but very near the coast (within 200 miles to the east in what is now New Mexico). The deposits between 510 MYA and 500 MYA make up the Tonto Group.

400 MYA ..... There is an unconformity in deposition between ~500MYA and ~380MYA. The region seemed to be at or near the coastline varying between submerged and surfaced. It is estimated that any deposits made during this time were eroded westward along with a large part of the Muav Limestone (the top layer of the Tonto Group).

360 MYA ..... Sea Level rise at the end of the Devonian period and the Mississippean period (385MYA to 325MYA) created a stable depositional environment to create the Redwall Limestone formation (~340MYA age). During this time the North American continent 'sutures' with (what is today) Eurasia thus forming the Appilachian mountains (and other mountain ranges).

300 MYA ..... The grand canyon area, formerly underwater, is uplifted by island arc collisions in areas further eastward. The original Rocky Mountains uplifted then began to erode and deposited the Supai Group layers (285MYA) during this time. This group exhibits a transition from east to west of fresh water to salt water deposition so the region would be coastal and receiving sediment from new mountains to the north and east. Many inland evaporite deposits (Great Salt Lake, etc.) formed at this time so sea levels were dropping.

260 MYA ..... The Hermit Shale formation (265MYA) is also a shale deposit but the deposits exhibit continued drying of the climate in this region. The overlaying layer is the Coconino Sandstone, a desert layer. Island arc impacts further west of this region caused a change in climate forming the desert that deposited the Coconino, even though there existed an inland sea further north (Great Salk Lake area). A present day analogy would be the Aral Sea in Central Asia.

245 MYA ..... The Toroweap Formation (240MYA) shows that the region went through episodic events of sea level changes reflected in the deposits.

This type of explanation of events at and near the area of concern is much more specific instead of "WET, DRY, WET, DRY....".

Quote:
So as you can see, in this 300 million year time span, there are several alternating wet and dry periods. My understanding is that the WET periods were the ones that deposited the layers. But no one has explained to me what has occurred during the dry periods.
Explained above with more to come.
Quote:
Obviously, we are in a DRY period NOW. And recent research indicates that the Grand Canyon itself was carved relatively recently. So what the Grand Canyon represents is RECENT, MASSIVE erosion which cut through ALL the layers.
Uplift Dave. The bulk of the Rocky Mountains formed ~75MYA and uplifed the region. This uplift caused incision of the rocks since water flows downhill. Since streambeds and rivers were now carving through the layers that were uplifted no new regional deposits formed since the sediments from mountain erosion were transported to the mouth of the rivers.

Another pursued theory suggests that the NA continent moved over a Mantle Hot Spot which contributed to the uplift of the region (because the warmer rocks are less dense and expand upward).

Quote:
But why don't we see similar erosion between ALL the layers? Or at least some of them? Am I to believe that there was virtually no erosion at all during these ~40 million year dry spells? Shouldn't we expect that, at least during some of these dry spells, we might find some gashes like the Grand Canyon? OK ... maybe not as big ... but at least they should be significantly bigger than the tiny little one depicted in the first diagram (top of the Muav).

Your thoughts?
I quite clearly showed that erosion between layers existed. It is your misunderstanding, misrepresentation and misreading of the subject which causes your confusion here.
Mike PSS is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:20 PM   #248881  /  #12
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 13,087
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretchkev View Post
Sorry i thought you could use the search function that google provides my bad.

Page 26, 362, 369, 421, 422

Not to menition the attached pictures I provided.

As for providing something like you drew out of your imagination is not something I'm willing to waste m time with. Your "observation" is flawed. It's not even an observation. Gut feelings don't count.
Page 26 is a list of references.
Page 362 says 'not a part of this preview'
Ditto for page 369
Finally found something on P. 421 ...



So do these paleocanyons have any lithified sediments in them? Where does it say that?
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:23 PM   #248888  /  #13
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 13,087
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretchkev View Post
Sorry i thought you could use the search function that google provides my bad.

Page 26, 362, 369, 421, 422

Not to menition the attached pictures I provided.

As for providing something like you drew out of your imagination is not something I'm willing to waste m time with. Your "observation" is flawed. It's not even an observation. Gut feelings don't count.
So you think my observation that the PRESENT surface of the earth (including the part that was recently submerged in the 'Big Melt' after the Ice Age which includes many submarine canyons) is flawed? You think it's no big deal that the PRESENT surface is littered with canyons, but the 'paleo' surfaces are not? That fact doesn't give you pause at all? You don't see that and go 'Hmmm ... why wouldn't we see this canyon phenomenon initiated in lower layers also'?
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:28 PM   #248895  /  #14
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,160
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Alright ... one thing at a time would be good I think. How about we lay this one to rest first ... Are there, or aren't there any 'paleo-canyons' with lithified sediments? (similar to my modified diagrams) Your first link is to an entire book.
Here's a .pdf about a paleocanyon in the Sierra Nevada's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cenozoic Volcanology and Structural Geology of the Carson Pass -
Sonora Pass Areas, Central Sierra Nevada, California
Over 25 km, the Miocene strata thicken westward, but locally thicken into paleocanyons
cut in Mesozoic granitic rocks. A paleocanyon along the modern Sierran crest trends
NNW-SSE from Stanislaus Pk to Sonora Pk; it is sited along NNW-SSE, steeply-dipping
faults in the Merhten Formation and filled by undeformed Stanislaus Formation latite
flows.

http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/bus...VSSACFlyer.pdf
It's filled by 'latite flows' from the undeformed Stanislaus Formation.

Here's another one....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geometry of a Miocene submarine canyon and associated sedimentary facies in southeastern Calabria, southern Italy
Outcrops of the Stilo-Capo d'Orlando Formation (latest Oligocene-early Miocene) along the southeastern coast of Calabria (southern Italy) expose a cross section, orthogonal to paleoflow, of the proximal part of a turbidite depositional system. Major erosion surfaces cutting into basement rocks define several submarine paleocanyons. Paleocanyon fills consist of large, lenticular conglomerate bodies that are 200-580 m thick and 3-6 km wide.

....

The conglomeratic canyon fill and the adjacent muddy slope deposits are both overlain by a laterally continuous sequence, 160 m thick, composed of two units of fine-grained, thin-bedded turbidites alternating with two units of thicker sandstone and minor pebble-conglomerate beds.

The paleocanyons probably originated as subaerial valleys in response to a major fall in relative sea level at 30 Ma and were later submerged by a combination of relative sea-level rise and concomitant tectonic activity. The sharp transition between coarse-grained, canyon-confined conglomerate and the overlying fine-grained, unconfined thin-bedded turbidites exists throughout southern Calabria and may represent the effect of a significant rise in relative sea level. Two other cycles of relative sea-level changes, probably resulting from local tectonic control, are indicated by the upper part of the Stilo-Capo d'Orlando Formation.
http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/...C%3E2.3.CO%3B2
So yes Dave, paleocanyons exist and are documented. They are lithified and overlaid with further sedimentation.

Last edited by Mike PSS; 11-07-2008 at 04:45 PM. Reason: added link
Mike PSS is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:28 PM   #248896  /  #15
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 13,087
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Without going into your presentation at all I would like to point out that the diagrams you posted show clear erosional events between layers. That they don't show your interpretation of what "should" be there doesn't remove the FACT that erosional between layers is represented in the diagram.
Acknowledged already. The small erosion above the Muav and the VERY LARGE erosion above the angular unconformity. I already addressed those. Do you not agree with my discussion of the large one?
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:29 PM   #248899  /  #16
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 13,087
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Uplift Dave. The bulk of the Rocky Mountains formed ~75MYA and uplifed the region. This uplift caused incision of the rocks since water flows downhill. Since streambeds and rivers were now carving through the layers that were uplifted no new regional deposits formed since the sediments from mountain erosion were transported to the mouth of the rivers.
I understand. But what caused all those OTHER 'DRY' periods if not uplift also? My objection remains.
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:32 PM   #248910  /  #17
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 13,087
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike PSS View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Alright ... one thing at a time would be good I think. How about we lay this one to rest first ... Are there, or aren't there any 'paleo-canyons' with lithified sediments? (similar to my modified diagrams) Your first link is to an entire book.
Here's a .pdf about a paleocanyon in the Sierra Nevada's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cenozoic Volcanology and Structural Geology of the Carson Pass -
Sonora Pass Areas, Central Sierra Nevada, California
Over 25 km, the Miocene strata thicken westward, but locally thicken into paleocanyons
cut in Mesozoic granitic rocks. A paleocanyon along the modern Sierran crest trends
NNW-SSE from Stanislaus Pk to Sonora Pk; it is sited along NNW-SSE, steeply-dipping
faults in the Merhten Formation and filled by undeformed Stanislaus Formation latite
flows.

http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/bus...VSSACFlyer.pdf
It's filled by 'latite flows' from the undeformed Stanislaus Formation.

Here's another one....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geometry of a Miocene submarine canyon and associated sedimentary facies in southeastern Calabria, southern Italy
Outcrops of the Stilo-Capo d'Orlando Formation (latest Oligocene-early Miocene) along the southeastern coast of Calabria (southern Italy) expose a cross section, orthogonal to paleoflow, of the proximal part of a turbidite depositional system. Major erosion surfaces cutting into basement rocks define several submarine paleocanyons. Paleocanyon fills consist of large, lenticular conglomerate bodies that are 200-580 m thick and 3-6 km wide.

....

The conglomeratic canyon fill and the adjacent muddy slope deposits are both overlain by a laterally continuous sequence, 160 m thick, composed of two units of fine-grained, thin-bedded turbidites alternating with two units of thicker sandstone and minor pebble-conglomerate beds.

The paleocanyons probably originated as subaerial valleys in response to a major fall in relative sea level at 30 Ma and were later submerged by a combination of relative sea-level rise and concomitant tectonic activity. The sharp transition between coarse-grained, canyon-confined conglomerate and the overlying fine-grained, unconfined thin-bedded turbidites exists throughout southern Calabria and may represent the effect of a significant rise in relative sea level. Two other cycles of relative sea-level changes, probably resulting from local tectonic control, are indicated by the upper part of the Stilo-Capo d'Orlando Formation.
So yes Dave, paleocanyons exist and are documented. They are lithified and overlaid with further sedimentation.
Your second example is better explained by my Inundate/Recede-Runoff/Ice Age/Big Melt/Sea Rise model than by your model. As for your first example, I'll have to study it more thoroughly to see what we're dealing with here.
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:36 PM   #248917  /  #18
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,160
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Uplift Dave. The bulk of the Rocky Mountains formed ~75MYA and uplifed the region. This uplift caused incision of the rocks since water flows downhill. Since streambeds and rivers were now carving through the layers that were uplifted no new regional deposits formed since the sediments from mountain erosion were transported to the mouth of the rivers.
I understand. But what caused all those OTHER 'DRY' periods if not uplift also? My objection remains.
I explained this in post #11.

Did you understand the terminology I used when I said "Island Arc impacts upon the continent"? Do you know what an Island Arc is w.r.t. geology (or geography for that matter).

How does an Island Arc form? What is its relation to a continental and oceanic plate? What structures in the Western United States are the result of Island Arc impact events and how can we tell?

Is this whole discussion going to turn into a description of plate tectonics? It's turning out that way.
Mike PSS is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:37 PM   #248921  /  #19
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,160
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Without going into your presentation at all I would like to point out that the diagrams you posted show clear erosional events between layers. That they don't show your interpretation of what "should" be there doesn't remove the FACT that erosional between layers is represented in the diagram.
Acknowledged already. The small erosion above the Muav and the VERY LARGE erosion above the angular unconformity. I already addressed those. Do you not agree with my discussion of the large one?
Dave,
Please reference your points here. WHAT discussion about WHAT large one? Please be specific.
Mike PSS is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:43 PM   #248934  /  #20
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 28,740
Jet Black has disabled comments
Exclamation Mod Note

given that dave is discussing the issues with mike, I will assume that he is a participant in the EE thread.
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:44 PM   #248936  /  #21
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,160
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike PSS View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins
Alright ... one thing at a time would be good I think. How about we lay this one to rest first ... Are there, or aren't there any 'paleo-canyons' with lithified sediments? (similar to my modified diagram)
Here's another one....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geometry of a Miocene submarine canyon and associated sedimentary facies in southeastern Calabria, southern Italy
http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/...C%3E2.3.CO%3B2
So yes Dave, paleocanyons exist and are documented. They are lithified and overlaid with further sedimentation.
Your second example is better explained by my Inundate/Recede-Runoff/Ice Age/Big Melt/Sea Rise model than by your model.
THAT WASN'T YOUR QUESTION DAVE!!!!
I answered your question. Do you now agree that there ARE paleocanyons with lithified sediments?
Mike PSS is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:44 PM   #248938  /  #22
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 13,087
Dave Hawkins
Default

Look, Mike ... I don't mind if you jump in, but I started this discussion with Stretchkev and I really don't want to take the time to go chasing down references for TWO people. If he decides to quit, then I'll engage you in more detail. But as long as he lasts, I'm going to give him priority.
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:47 PM   #248942  /  #23
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 13,087
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
given that dave is discussing the issues with mike, I will assume that he is a participant in the EE thread.
I'd really prefer just myself and Stretchkev. If he quits, then me and Mike can go at it. It just gets too confusing with more than 2.
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:51 PM   #248951  /  #24
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,160
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Look, Mike ... I don't mind if you jump in, but I started this discussion with Stretchkev and I really don't want to take the time to go chasing down references for TWO people. If he decides to quit, then I'll engage you in more detail. But as long as he lasts, I'm going to give him priority.
I answered your original challange first. I still hold precedence in this whole discussion at this time. If you want to quit the discussion then fine, quit the discussion.

You don't have to chase down references since I provide links to everything I quote. So far all I've done is correct your misapplied view of what the geologic features mean. Your OP says you are "interested in better understanding the details of the conventional view of the origin of GC strata and, by extension, the origin of similar strata all over the world."

My response is "Don't forget the presentation and understanding of the "Global Flood of Noah" model of the earth that will be discussed here. This discussion just won't be limited to the standard model. There are online courses for that. This thread is a compare/contrast/discredit type of discussion."

Now, unless I stray from that OP I think I'll continue.
Mike PSS is offline   topbottom
Old 11-07-2008, 04:59 PM   #248965  /  #25
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 13,087
Dave Hawkins
Default

While the mods are figuring out if they will let others participate, let me ask Stretchkev again ... can you post ONE picture of a paleocanyon infilled with lithified sediments? I'm not looking for argument-by-link with the sure promise that I'll find that needle in the haystack if only I'd quit being so lazy and look. No, no. I'm looking for you--a real geologist--to provide me with an example of a real paleocanyon with real infilling of sediments that have lithified. And what would be great is evidence of the widespread existence of these. Can you do it?
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Closed Thread

  TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Tags
austin's model, dave hawkins, dave-tard, geology, good geology, headless chicken, hydroplates, kids4truth, lolo ferrari, moving goalposts, papers? what papers?, question-dodging dave, strata fandango, tri city ministries, troll alert, truthmatters, wonderpants redux

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org