How old is the earth?

[LOC]

You can have the points. I am already in the midst of LOC's challenge. Explain the strata. Migrating rivers?

 

http://www.creationscience.com/webpictures/grandcanyon.jpg

Following your assertion that YECism is the answer to all our questions, my challenge was for you to use the YEC model and apply your knowledge of it to a real-world situation. Here's your chance to enlighten us.

 

Additionally, Eclogite has already responded to a few points in the link you provided. I see no reason to repeat his/her work. Why don't you reply to each of Eclogite's points first. No reason to bog you down with too much geology at once.

[Eclogite]

You can have the points.

Let me be clear. You appear to be conceding that:

a) my post was not defamatory garbage disguised as jest.

:evil: I am not delusional

c) that the website describing Hydroplate theory is nonsense, containing, at best, gross misinterpretations of simple geology

d) that conventional explanations for sediments and sedimentary structures are valid.

I am already in the midst of LOC's challenge

LOC has very kindly 'ceded primary debating rights' to me on this. [Thank you LOC.] So that is no longer an obstacle.

Explain the strata. Migrating rivers?

Your abbreviated style here makes it a little difficult to interpret. You still seem to asking for an explanation of how strata form. Please consult any current text book on sedimentology for a good explanation. Feel free to contact me here for clarification of any point you feel is inadequate as an explanation, or with any data that conflicts with the explanations given.

And yes, migrating rivers, are one of the dozen or more major environments in which sediments are deposited. They do not explain all features of all sediments, because they do not produce all features in all sediments. They produce some features in some sediments. The other environments are responsible for the rest.

Once again, I stand ready to discuss any and all of these in as much detail as is necessary to demonstrate clearly that they are valid mechansims.

I look forward to your response.

[Southtown]

Following your assertion that YECism is the answer to all our questions, my challenge was for you to use the YEC model and apply your knowledge of it to a real-world situation. Here's your chance to enlighten us.

 

Additionally, Eclogite has already responded to a few points in the link you provided. I see no reason to repeat his/her work. Why don't you reply to each of Eclogite's points first. No reason to bog you down with too much geology at once.

K thanks.

 

Let me be clear. You appear to be conceding that:

a) my post was not defamatory garbage disguised as jest.

:) I am not delusional

c) that the website describing Hydroplate theory is nonsense, containing, at best, gross misinterpretations of simple geology

d) that conventional explanations for sediments and sedimentary structures are valid.

I will concede that your responses to those seven points were not defamatory. Also you are probably not delusional, sorry. And apology accepted for the scoffing. And I should thank you as well for taking the time to address my points.

1. What differences would those be, exactly? The GC strata look pretty uniform to me, and vast as well.
2. If St. Peter sandstone was deposited slowly, how could it be 99.44% pure sandstone? That's a naturally occuring equivalent of a laboratory clean-room mind you, that extends for 500k square miles. How could such an area not be affected by any other processes but one for so great a time?
3. a. It's a stretch to imagine a desert that changes climate to be suddenly and completely covered with another kind of sediment without deforming the first.
   b. I can understand this point, but I have trouble believing that rivers could build strata when all wesee them doing is cutting strata and building deltas. Besides, even a migrating river would have incalcuable odds of depositing multiple layers that even resemble parallelism such as in the GC pic. It's just unrealistic.
4. The hydroplate doesn't predict "perfectly parallel" strata. Of course there will be minor variations. What erosions are there that aren't "minor"? And the submarine deposition comment is exactly correct.
5. Again, what erosions do we have evidence for? Since you're going to claim it, you can furnish the references. (I wonder if Pyro would view your "tedious" comment as he viewed my "frustration" ...probably not.)
6. What exactly is the difference between "collapse" and "compaction"? And how would this difference constitute "intellectual deceit"? Also, you ignored the question of how aquifers formed in the first place.
7. I also am one of those who are unfamiliar with anoxic conditions. Could you clarify, please? And how would the conditions deposit thin varves often enough to completely encompass a fish before decay would interrupt fossilization? (You declined to acknowledge Brown's fish comment.) The varve deposit was likely due to a sediment-heavy lake left behind by the draining flood waters. That would be enough deposition to do the job.

Argument 10 sounds a little circumstantial, so I'll give ya that one.

 

Argument 15 is "iffy" too, and I can't say for certainty one way or the other, yet. But you seem to be skipping around a little bit now. Why is that? ;)

 

Again, look at the GC photo. There are lots of uniform layers laid right next to a river. How could all of them be laid repeatedly by miraculous circustances only to then be cut by a river. That's large scale erosion standing starkly against large scale non-erosion.

[Southtown]

double post - didn't show up at first :)

[Eclogite]

Test post. I can see from New Posts that ST has posted a reply. Yet I cannot see it in the thread. I'm posting this to see if it will winkle it out. I shall delete once it works, or not.

[Eclogite]

Unedited version of post below, now deleted.

[Eclogite]

What differences would those be, exactly? .

Differences of texture, structure and composition (mineralogical and chemical), such differences reflecting differences in the environment of deposition.

The Grand Canyon strata look pretty uniform to me, and vast as well..

I do not mean this statement perjoratively. Your inability to see the differeces is a reflection of your ignorance not of the absence of the differences. Please note that I rarely use ignorant in the negative sense in which it is commonly used. It seems clear that your are ignorant in detail of the science of sedimentology and are therefore poorly positioned to recognise the differences in strata that to the uneducated (i.e. ignorant) eye are pretty uniform.

If St. Peter sandstone was deposited slowly, how could it be 99.44% pure sandstone? That's a naturally occuring equivalent of a laboratory clean-room mind you, that extends for 500k square miles. How could such an area not be affected by any other processes but one for so great a time?

You have to understand the concept and reality of diachronicity. i.e. sediments of similar character that were deposited over an extended time frame. It is very easy to achieve an almost pure quartz sandstone. We simply take any random mix of sediments and place them in a high energy environment. In this environment the less durable minerals are winnowed away (to be deposited elsewhere, for examples, as clays) leaving the very durable quartz.

This high energy environment is typically a coastal environment where wave motion, complimented by tidal effects generate the sandstone. In a time of marine transgression the location of the beach gradually migrates inland, leaving the well sorted, pure sandstone behind, yet continuing the sorting process on a new mix of sedimentary material. Over many millenia, as the position of the beach changes by perhaps hundreds of kilometres, the well sorted sandstone is left behind over a very large area and with (to you) a surprising degree of uniformity.

 

a. It's a stretch to imagine a desert that changes climate to be suddenly and completely covered with another kind of sediment without deforming the first.

It is a stretch. But not to much.

[Let me insert a caveat here. I am arguing my case from memory. I may occassionaly make a small error of detail that would be a delight to the nitpicker, but of no consequence to the thrust of my argument. Please point out any such errors that you may detect, but please do not use them as proof that my basic argument is flawed. I mention this because in the next sentence I speak of the Miocene, and it may have been the Oligocene, or even the Eocene. It doesn't alter the central point I am making.]In the Miocene the Mediterranean was isolated from the oceans. The water had evaporated leaving vast salt deposits and dry desert conditions. Then, towards the end of the Miocene, the straits at Gibraltar were breached and the Mediterranean was flooded, rapidly covering the sediments that were emplaced there, with little deformation.

In other instances deformation, typically in the form of erosion, removes some, but not all of the sediments in place. Thus your objection, while understandable, turns out to be unfounded.

I have trouble believing that rivers could build strata when all wesee them doing is cutting strata and building deltas. Besides, even a migrating river would have incalcuable odds of depositing multiple layers that even resemble parallelism such as in the GC pic.

I haven't said any of the sediments in the GC were deposited by rivers. For sake of argument we shall assume they were.

1.We can go to present day rivers, dig or core through their sediments, and find exactly this kind of parallelism.

2. You are ignoring the fact that the parallelism and identity you are seeing on a large scale is absent when we look at the detail.

Again, what erosions do we have evidence for? Since you're going to claim it, you can furnish the references.

I really want to throw this back into your ballpark. Go read any elementary text book on sedimentology or stratigraphy. They will provide countless examples. If you feel this sounds like a cop out I guess I shall bestir myself and find examples for you, but I'm not going to do it today.

[i really do urge you, though, to find a good textbook on sedimentology/stratigraphy. I am not aware of what is currently out there. I did my studying in geology so long ago it constitutes the geological past. The texts I worked from are long out of print.]

What exactly is the difference between "collapse" and "compaction"? And how would this difference constitute "intellectual deceit"? Also, you ignored the question of how aquifers formed in the first place.

Collapse suggests to me the image of aquifers (and oil reservoirs) wherein there is a large cavern in the ground containing the oil or water. When the oil or water is extracted the roof of the cavern collapses on to its floor. This is a popular image and wholly wrong. If you did not intended that usage, then why use the word collapse?

Aquifers are simply porous and permeable rock containing water. There is no mystery as to their formation through normal sedimentological processes, so I am at a loss as to why you query it.

If you are genuinely unaware of how they form ask again and I shall provide a detailed explanation.

 

I also am one of those who are unfamiliar with anoxic conditions

Decay of organic matter proceeds generally through a process of oxidation. If there is no free oxygen present (which is the case in the depths of many lakes) then decay will be non-existent or greatly slowed.

how would the conditions deposit thin varves often enough to completely encompass a fish before decay would interrupt fossilization?

The conditions do not deposit the varves. The seasonal cycle of deposition is responsible for the varves. The anoxic conditions merely delay decay of the fish long enough to permit fossilisation. [i am simplifying. I sense you have little grasp of the processes involved in fossiliation. If necessary I can expand on this.]

.

But you seem to be skipping around a little bit now. Why is that?

I got bored and headed for the most obviously amusing arguments presented by Brown. None of his arguments stand up to even a cursory scrutiny.

There are lots of uniform layers laid right next to a river. How could all of them be laid repeatedly by miraculous circustances only to then be cut by a river. That's large scale erosion standing starkly against large scale non-erosion.

1. The layers are not uniform. (See above.)

2. You are calling them miraculous. I am calling them normal sedimentary processes (which we see displayed around the world today) applied over many millions of years.

3. When the machinations of plate tectonics brought uplift to the Colarado Plateau, after many millions of years of deposition, large scale erosion was a natural consequence.

 

Again, your incredulity at the reality of natural processes, does not prove those processes to be invalid, it merely raises question marks around your thought processes.

 

PS, you made some comment about me ignoring Brown's fish remark. I don't know which one you mean. Would you clarify.

[Southtown]

double post :hihi:

[Southtown]

Differences of texture, structure and composition (mineralogical and chemical), such differences reflecting differences in the environment of deposition.

What do you mean by "reflect"? I know there are infinite details pertaining to the sediments, but I'm looking for a few real-world examples to consider, rather than just taking your word that the "differences reflect environment". I cannot accept that as a response, even though you obviously know more about geology than me. I can only evaluate such a statement by first building your argument for you and then arguing with myself. I plan on learning more of the subject, rest assured. But as it is, you should be capable of more than authoritative interpretation.

 

It seems clear that your are ignorant in detail of the science of sedimentology and are therefore poorly positioned to recognise the differences in strata that to the uneducated (i.e. ignorant) eye are pretty uniform.

Are you referring to differences within each layer? I believe the context of this point is lateral seperation of sediments and subsequent erosions of parallelism over time, is it not? No, I am not trained as a geologist to catalogue the nuances of the layers, but I can recognize parallelism. And I know that in most places around GC you have to dig through soil (AHD) awhile before you reach sedimentary layers.

 

Parallelism should be destroyed (at least occasionally) because the un-acknowledged processes of wind and rain do not stop eroding rock back into loose particles during the assumed ages of the earth. We should not see the sharp, extremely horizontal layering effect of this magnitude (consider the "dune fields"). Geologists are apparently not trained at calculating the odds of accidental occurence that cosmologists nearly completely rely on.

 

Over many millenia, as the position of the beach changes by perhaps hundreds of kilometres, the well sorted sandstone is left behind over a very large area and with (to you) a surprising degree of uniformity.

The cause of St. Peter is said to have been a lake. I can see why, because the layering in the sanstone appears to be mostly horizontal. It's not considered to be caused by a coastline, probably because that would suggest slight parallelism or graduation in it's borders, either width or height. I picture it like a strip or rectangle with skewed borders. The Illinois deposit rather resembles a squashed ball.

 

http://www.mostuff.net/images/il_ss_deposit.gif

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b2094a/b2094a.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter_Sandstone

 

In the Miocene the Mediterranean was isolated from the oceans. The water had evaporated leaving vast salt deposits and dry desert conditions. Then, towards the end of the Miocene, the straits at Gibraltar were breached and the Mediterranean was flooded, rapidly covering the sediments that were emplaced there, with little deformation.

In other instances deformation, typically in the form of erosion, removes some, but not all of the sediments in place. Thus your objection, while understandable, turns out to be unfounded.

This is circular reasoning. You are defending your interpretation of the strata with your interpretation of the strata. (That version of Mediterranean history is conjecture based off of corrings of the strata beneath the sea, is it not?) If you want to demonstrate my objection as unfounded, please do it empirically. Again, what evidence is there that supports this interpretation over Brown's?

 

I haven't said any of the sediments in the GC were deposited by rivers. For sake of argument we shall assume they were.

1.We can go to present day rivers, dig or core through their sediments, and find exactly this kind of parallelism.

2. You are ignoring the fact that the parallelism and identity you are seeing on a large scale is absent when we look at the detail.

Please, excuse me. I'm still looking for some mechanisms (other than flooding) whereby strata are laid.

1. Layers laid by rivers don't span the area that the GC does.
2. I still fail to see your reasoning with this. How do the small-scale variances invalidate large-scale parallelism?

 

I really want to throw this back into your ballpark. Go read any elementary text book on sedimentology or stratigraphy. They will provide countless examples.

I plan on it. But for the sake of this argument, I was hoping you could provide some examples of professional expertise to support your laughing at my ignorant concerns. Instead, all I understand from you is that there are minor differences. I don't dispute that. But it would be nice to know what they are, or maybe even how they apply to the discussion.

 

Aquifers are simply porous and permeable rock containing water. There is no mystery as to their formation through normal sedimentological processes, so I am at a loss as to why you query it.

Well, I assume the standard explanations are either ground seepage or landslides next to ponds or lakes. The concern expressed by Brown is that if compaction occurs when they're drained, why don't aquifers compact before saturation by seepage? Then I would add, if formed by burial, then how do extremely large aquifers form (other than a global flood)?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

 

Decay of organic matter proceeds generally through a process of oxidation. If there is no free oxygen present (which is the case in the depths of many lakes) then decay will be non-existent or greatly slowed.

The conditions do not deposit the varves.

I see thanks. One question though, do dead fish sink or float? :hihi:

 

None of his arguments stand up to even a cursory scrutiny.

And so you keep saying...

 

1. The layers are not uniform. (See above.)

2. You are calling them miraculous. I am calling them normal sedimentary processes (which we see displayed around the world today) applied over many millions of years.

3. When the machinations of plate tectonics brought uplift to the Colarado Plateau, after many millions of years of deposition, large scale erosion was a natural consequence.

1. In case we're having a misunderstanding, I'm not talking about a cartoonish solidarity within the layers, nor am I (or Brown) claiming perfect lines between layers. You do see a horizontal layering effect, don't you? (How many fingers am I holding up? :hihi: )
2. I am aware that you think there are normal processes by which strata occur. And my attempts to extract them are apparently futile.
3. This is the type of example I was looking for, thank you very much. I am reading up on the area, but I don't yet see how it's supposed to provide erosion between strata. The layers were lifted up by horizontal compression, and then the erosion of layers began? If so, this is my point. Why does erosion not occur until all the layers are laid down (and lifted or buckled)?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction7.html

 

Again, your incredulity at the reality of natural processes, does not prove those processes to be invalid, it merely raises question marks around your thought processes.

To quote LOC, “Here's your chance to enlighten us.” For the sake of our more impressionable readers, you should present more than naked opinion.

 

PS, you made some comment about me ignoring Brown's fish remark. I don't know which one you mean. Would you clarify.

Well, that comment was because I thought the anoxic conditions caused the varves. I didn't realized that they would preserve underwater remains. Sorry, I retract. You can address the buoyancy of fish skeletons, though. I presume you will say they sink.

 

In concluding, I would like to address LOC comment to real-world application. Given the original state of our planet according to Brown, I was attracted to the idea of Europa having a layer of water beneath its icy surface. The gravity felt by this moon's parent, Jupiter, deforms the planet like our moon deforms our oceans, forming tides. The changing pull of Jupiter's gravity causes friction within the ice and melts enough of it to form an underground ocean and subsequently allows for the observed cyclic deformation of Europa's surface.

 

http://www.cev.washington.edu/jsp/showone.jsp?itemID=1125

 

Well, it stands to reason that this gravitational "kneading" of the ocean by our moon does not only affect the water on our planet, but also the crust. If a creator designed our planet, it would be wise to provide a lubricating layer so as to not generate unwanted heat within the ground. Just as friction under the ice on Europa melts ice, the orbit of our moon might possibly liquify parts of the earth's crust. It could be that the orbiting of our moon has been gradually increasing volcanic activity underneath the crust for the last 5000 years or so, seeing as how volcanoes and magma chambers were caused by sliding hydroplates as they lost their lubrication (realize that the outer mantle is virtually solid).

 

Also, it probably doesn't need to be repeated that I think we can learn more about predicting earthquakes (as well as global climate trends) by collecting elevation, permeability, and density data from the earth's crust rather than operating on tectonic theory.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

[Eclogite]

SouthTown, I am beginning to understand your difficulties. I feel I must repeat an earlier remark - when I talk about your ignorance, I do not intend it to be in any way insulting. You have said you intend to learn more of geology. I applaud this.

However, this makes it very difficult (I am almost tempted to say impossible) for me to get across the key points. Although they are individually simple, they are numerous and they are inter-related. It is difficult not find myself making what you take as generalisations and 'talking from authority'.

I can see three possibilities.

1) I could commence what would morph into a year or so long dissertation/tutorial on sedimentation and stratigraphy.

2) I could walk away believing you cannot be convinced.

3) I could go away and consider how I am going to get these concepts across with a minimum of effort and pain.

 

I have opted for number 3. I'll need some time to think about it. Probably at least a week. Don't go away.

[MortenS]

You can address the buoyancy of fish skeletons, though. I presume you will say they sink.

 

 

Let me just jump in for a minute, before I jump out and spectate this great discussion. Thanks to both of you for keeping it somewhat civil.

 

I am speaking as a zoologist now.

 

Some fish that lack swim bladders (or air bladders) will sink unless they swim (like sharks). These fishes will sink to the bottom when they die.

 

Ultimately it is the density of the fish compared to the density of the surrounding water that determines whether a fish sinks or floats. Fishes with swim bladders control their buoyancy by adding or releasing air to the swim bladder. When they swim up towards the top, they add air, and increase buoyancy, when they swim down, the release air into the blood and decrease buoyancy.

 

In addition, salt water fishes tend to sink when they die, due to a higher concentration of salts, than the surrounding water. This leads to a reduced buoyancy when they die.

 

Fresh water fishes however, tend to float when they die.

 

Both fresh water fishes and salt water fishes can get covered by underwater landslides (or whatever you call it underwater), and thus be trapped in an anoxic environment, unable escape, and an excellent starting point for fossilization.

 

I am jumping out...

 

Keep up the good discussion :hihi:

[Eclogite]

Jump in anytime MortenS. I am a simple hard rock geologist who morphed into an engineer, so biology related points from one more schooled in the topic will always be appreciated.

[Southtown]

Yeah, thanks M. Considering the varve-fossil scenario, I must speculate that even sinking fish skeletons would decay before they can be totally covered by semi-annual deposits that are around a millimeter in thickness.

" It sometimes happens that a dead fish is too large to be covered by one semiannual sedimentation, and so its bones or fins end up protruding through newer layers that are later observed to form. When an object or animal is too large, this _must_ happen, and therefore such a protrusion cannot be used as evidence against a great age for the Green River Formation.

--Robert Schadewald, "Six 'Flood' Arguments Creationists Can't Answer," _Creation Evolution_, Issue IX, pp. 12-17 (1982). "

--

skepticfiles.org

 

The answer to the challenge posed on this site is liquifaction, though probably on a smaller scale than that which created the strata; in the form of a large, long-drained, sediment-saturated lake left behind from the receding flood waters. (pic from wiki/green_river)

 

Eclogite, I honestly appreciate your efforts. And I understand the difficulty of communicating technical jargon of geology. (I am currently trying to familiarize myself with some of it.) But any ideas you present will receive serious consideration, rest assured. And, worse-come-to-worse, you can disregard concerns for my understanding for the cause of posting a solid rebuttal for the other readers of this forum. I am confident that, if I don't understand some or all of your replies, I can look them up, one way or another.

[MortenS]

I think there is a post here that I cannot see...

Edit:now I can see it..

[Buffy]

The answer to the challenge posed on this site is liquifaction, though probably on a smaller scale than that which created the strata; in the form of a large, long-drained, sediment-saturated lake left behind from the receding flood waters.

Liquifaction certainly allows objects to sink into hard ground, but it also mixes everything else up too. Where liquifaction occurs, its not just the fossils that sink, but all the other differently sized/density matter, and the visible strata are completely disrupted or show trails of the decending objects. You can certainly have liquifaction, but you can't have liquifaction that maintains the stratification with the exception of the bones!

 

Used to live on Bay-fill,

Buffy

[Southtown]

I think you mis-understand the application of liquefaction here. In the context of the hydroplate theory, the waters were extremely saturated with eroded crust, and unimpeded waves acted on these sediments in a repeated, compress-and-release manner. This action sorts the sedimentary particles by granularity causing strata to form.

 

Some (most) water creatures would be dead after many weeks in this water. As tidal action decelerated, the weight of the water would compact the layers of sediment and sandwich any biological remains that didn't manage to float above the sorted sediments.

 

In the case of the varves, the deposited shale happens to be clay which has flat, plate-like particles. The shape of these particles caused them to be riding atop the other sediments in the flood waters. As the continents contracted, water ran-off into the oceans, leaving large lakes behind. The lighter layers of sediment that weren't firmly compacted ran-off with the flood waters, except where lakes were left behind.

 

In the case of the Green River deposit, and others like it, a large lake that was left behind would still contain the lighter, clay-like particles while also continuing the liquefaction process on a smaller scale (probably tidal action) as the sediments settled. Eventually, the relatively soft border of these lakes would breach (except the Great Lakes, etc.) and the lake would dump out, carving the soft crust into canyons (such as the Grand Canyon.)

 

A test of this scenario would be to look for clay-like or light, oddly-shaped sedimentary particles to be found mostly in basins, rivers, deltas, and of course oceans.

 

In light of this theory, I fail to see why you think fossils would destroy the layers in this process, unless of course you're thinking of earthquake liquefaction, where objects on a solid surface start to sink.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction4.html

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction7.html

[Buffy]

Liquifaction does not require earthquake frequency waves of course, but even as the pages you're citing say, it has the effect of sorting the effected layers by density, and the problem is that the layers in fact show no specific sorting whatsoever. They're just layers with all sorts of different densities randomly distributed up and down through them.

 

Part of the argument seems to be that the fossils would move through the layers without disturbing them, and whether they are high frequency (earthquake induced) or low-frequency (the water bottle experiment shown on the referenced page), you'll get movement of everything, depending on the "completeness" of the mixing that is allowed by the frequency in conjunction with the exposure time. Thus, if there were originally strata showing and the fossils moved up and down, you'd either see the strata disolve and re-form based purely on their density (good mixing) or trails through them (poor mixing like you see with houses sinking in earthquakes).

 

The arguments on these pages also seem to ignore (among other things) the fact that liquifaction is also affected by granularization, viscosity/lubrication, and porosity of the the substances that are involved, which basically mean that certain substances don't really have the claimed effects (clay is not really a "light" substance subject to easy runoff...).

 

Cheers,

Buffy