Are you calling unconformities “deformation”? If not, what are you calling deformations between these sequences? Unconformities are simply erosion zones, produced primarily by regressive ocean flows.
Yeah, no rush. In fact, I’ve got to get to my projects for the day, too. Enjoy the day!
1 Like
Slickenlines, slickensides, low angle thrust faulting, fault propagation folding, fault gouge, brecciated inclusions etc. Common features observed in the subject area. Angular uncomformities can be included in that as well. These in some cases include erosional features, but they’re more specific to structural deformation. It’s the breaking, shattering, fracturing, grinding and crushing of giant bodies of rock rubbing against each other. It’s not simply a matter of water just washing some surfaces away.
Things that demonstrate quite clearly that rock bodies are solid at continuing points throughout history. Even further than just being solid prior to erosion by the Colorado, but also being solid in between depositional events of different periods as well.
2 Likes
The selective ignor·ance of many arguments and nice-sounding scientific terminology thrown at others demonstrates that this weekslong exercise is an exercise in futility.
Any creation that sin can enter is not perfect.
"Wait. Mountains were not made up “of the same aged deposits” of ocean sediments. Where did you get that idea?
Now, when mountains–like the Laramide Orogeny–were pushed up, they already had ocean sediments deposited upon them, by earlier (paleozoic) marine transgressions. But the mountains themselves were not composed of ocean sediments–rather, they are composed of continental crust."
I suspect that the situation is far worse than you’re aware. But no worries. What im saying is that, if you believe that these massive tidal waves are responsible for paleozoic (ill be generous and ill assume late paleozoic) strata, well, go to the west of the grand canyon just 5 or 10 miles and surely in other directions as well, and you will see that mountains consist of the very layers that youre suggesting were deposited by these transgressions. You used the words “earlier (paleozoic) marine transgressions”, on the contrary though, these mountains are of the very layers that you’re suggesting were deposited during the transgressions.
And of course we could find plenty of marine sediments in the layers that make up this particular mountain, among others. ex. the Callville Limestone, toroweap formation, monte cristo etc. pretty much every limestone bed is going to have some marine origins and theyre superpositionally equivelant to the transgressions you’ve been describing and are therefore equal in age.
The above diagram is of French Mountain, just east of Vegas, over 4,000 feet in elevation.
So here you have early, mid and late paleozoic strata making up a mountain, just one of many examples. So theres this odd question of if some kind of catastrophic tidal wave deposited these marine sequences that were hundreds of feet thick, just 10 miles to the east in the grand canyon, then where did the sediment that makes up these mountains to the west come from? And we cant really say that the sediment came from earlier transgressions because the stratigraphy spans the entire paleozoic.
So maybe we could try to spin our logic by saying, maybe the marine transgression super tidal catastrophic wave deposited hundreds of feet of sediment, then afterwards this mountain built itself up. Which would be more reflective of a scientific position on a sequence of events, but then you would run into countless other issues related to things like trace fossils contained within, including things such as burrow networks that have undergone ductile deformation themselves, the timing it would take strata to lithify prior to being tilted, issues related to structural features between the above periods as noted above, etc etc.
The issues are really innumerable to be honest. I hope you can see why this is all really logically awkward. The only real way to squeeze these events into a couple thousands years would be to invoke ideas that are akin to miracles.
But not to take away from the original subject of wondering how the Colorado river eroded through thousands of feet of dense bedrock in anything less than millions of years. after these mountains themselves were built up. Because remember, the land uplifting predates erosion by that river.
So i hope you can see why this is becoming logically problematic if this flood were just a few thousand years ago. You have deposition, mountain building (and whatever lithification factors are in that), we arent even opening up the paleo related issues. you have this river that needs time to erode through thousands of feet of dense bedrock, And you should know that this is only the beginning. We are only just barely starting to scratch the surface of issues.
2 Likes
But they are not like tsunami pulses nor waves of strong flows. They are, instead, just like layers gradually deposited over long periods of time. You keep claiming that they layers fit some sort of flood model without ever dealing with the geological reality.
As sea level slowly rises over an eroded landscape, higher and higher rocks are getting hit by waves. Sand erodes off the land, down the rivers and into the ocean; it’s also produced by breakdown of rocks on the shore. The gradual buildup of sand (with the occasional larger rock if rock was handy), followed by clay-mineral mud and then carbonates is what a gradual transgression of sea level over millions of years should produce. Boulders can be eroded loose by stronger waves from storms, or just the accumulated effect of gradual erosion along a rocky shore. In contrast, a tsunami will produce a distinctive pattern of highly jumbled pieces. The lightest-weight pieces will be carried the farthest inland. But in the Sauk transgression, the sand comes first with the finer clays behind, as produced by slow changes in sea level. The layers are not jumbled, and they show long-term changes in the types of fossils, in various isotopes, and other markers of the passing of a lot of time. The rocks directly on top of the Sauk unconformity are not all the same age, which they would have to be if they were produced by a global flood.
CMI and ICR claims that the Sauk transgression fits better with a global flood that with conventional geology are unsubstantiated and untrue. You need to research the primary sources rather than repeating their vague claims. In fact, both a tsunami model and a rain model for a global flood require enough heat to melt the earth, so the rock record clearly contradicts current flood geology models. If you also claim that a significant portion of the geologic record was produced during the Flood, you’re speeding up plate motion from centimeters per year to over 70 km per hour, which would vaporize the earth rather than just melting it. As Genesis does not record Noah being cooked, incinerated, or vaporized, global flood models are not a good match for either the biblical data or the geologic data.
“So…who says some sedimentary layers were deposited “during, before, and after”? They were ALL deposited by the Flood. Who has said otherwise?”
You did, for one. If the base of the Sauk transgression was the start of the Flood, then all the sedimentary layers under that had to be deposited before the flood. If buried, partially disarticulated ichthyosaur skeletons had started to disarticulate before the flood and then got buried, then all the sedimentary layers under the ichthyosaur skeletons had to be deposited before the flood.
Various young-earth sources claim that various sedimentary deposits were deposited before or after the flood. For example, many suggest a brief glacial interval after the Flood as a way to account for Pleistocene glacial deposits. (That doesn’t actually work to explain the dozens of advances and retreats of the glaciers across thousands of miles during the Pleistocene, not to mention all the older glacial deposits, but it admits that the deposits exist and came from glaciers.) Glaciers make sedimentary layers. Kurt Wise admitted that hardground deposits (such as reefs) could not form during the young-earth flood, which means that fossil reefs must be either pre-flood or post-flood.
Lake and river deposits are some other sedimentary deposits that can’t form during the young-earth flood.
The Bible indicates that most sedimentary deposits are pre-flood, as it locates Eden with regard to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which are on top of extensive sedimentary deposits.
Again, this demonstrates that you do not have a coherent model but are just saying “the flood did it” without checking for consistency with yourself, with other young-earth claims, or with the evidence. You need to take seriously the task of building a solid, coherent model rather than simply repeating the same bad arguments, if you hope to make a credible case.
5 Likes
Dialectically it’s the other way round.
1 Like
So, how do you account for the Colorado River’s cutting through the Kaibib Plateau, which was a few thousand feet higher in elevation than the river. Four or five hypotheses have been set forth for how this might have happened. But obviously, before the river could cut down through the Canyon, it had to somehow get over or through this Plateau.
“You used the words “earlier (paleozoic) marine transgressions”, on the contrary though, these mountains are of the very layers that you’re suggesting were deposited during the transgressions.”
Yes, of course. Mountain ranges, like the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachians, were loaded with paleozoic deposits (such as, by the Sauk and Tippecanoe transgressions)–before they became mountains. Then, these sediment layers were uplifted with them.
They are all paleozoic layers–deposited in succession by the Sauk, Tippecanoe, Kaskakia, and possibly some by the Absaroka transgressions/regressions.
That was covered above, fairly early on. Here it is again:
This refutes the YEC argument about the Kaibab uplift and the Grand Canyon in 11 seconds:
You don’t seem to understand that the sedimentary layers were not all deposited by a single marine incursion. As I stated earlier, there were at least three major marine incursions–transgressions followed by regressions–that deposited paleozoic layers.
And these incursions were in succession. The Sauk, though, evidences having covered the greatest extent of these, covering 75% of North America. And so, these marine flows deposited sediment layers over several mountain range areas before they were uplifted.
The same is true of all the layers of the Grand Canyon–all 9,000 feet of them, before uplift. Nearly all are Paleozoic–deposited in succession by the Sauk, Tippecanoe, and Kaskakia.
You mean “thousands of feet of” mostly sedimentary rock layers, don’t you? Very little bedrock (basement granite) was eroded by these waters.
Once again, though, you only need vast periods of time because you believe it was the Colorado River that carved the Canyon. I don’t buy this. It has done some eroding, but I believe it was this was the work of Flood waters as they drained off the continents.
When the Kaibib was uplifted, faults broke open all the way up to the surface (just as one linked study points out)–Flood waters then used such deep cracks to help carve the Canyon…and in the process “pirated” the Colorado River to run the course of its deep gouge.
In fact, Google Earth the entire Colorado Plateau and scan the landscape. Hardly the work of mere wind erosion. In fact, compare it with the Scablands, which all geologists agree was carved out by massive flooding waters. It even has its own river canyon–carved not by the river, but by flooding waters.
"But they are not like tsunami pulses nor waves of strong flows. They are, instead, just like layers gradually deposited over long periods of time. "
Why do you believe the sequences demand “long periods of time”?
In fact, the slowly, slowly, slowly formation and deposition of sediments you speak of, over millions of years, would not form the discrete “packages” of sedimentary rock layers (bounded above and below by unconformities) that form sequences and megasequences, that very real geological data show.
Unconformities are erosion zones–how are distinct sedimentary rock layers and their erosion zones produced under water when the sediments are in nothing more than an “ooze” form?
Check out the Caspian and Black Seas–ancient inland seas we observe today. Are there any discrete packages of sedimentary rock layers, bounded above and below by unconformities, even in the process of being formed at the bottom of these seas? Of course not. Their sediments are nothing more than ooze.
No, no. I didn’t say, “before the flood.” I said, there were dinosaurs that show evidence of having been killed but not yet buried by an earlier wave of the Flood; they then decomposed, or were scavenged. Then, a later, larger flooding of ocean sediment completely buried them. But these were all “waves” or “incursions” of the very same Flood, as the waters rose more and more.
I think you think the Flood model advocates just one big burst of water–then it’s over! But not true at all. The whole geologic column traces the progressive rise of ocean levels, flooding more and more of the earth (through five megasequences); then, the final megasequence (the Tejas) records massive drainoff the continents (forming such phenomena as the “Whopper Sands” of the Gulf of Mexico)–just as the biblical Flood model would predict.
But YEC’rs don’t deny uplift–nor deny subduction as the cause of it.
In fact, Old-earth’rs are having to scramble a bit to try to figure out how the Colorado River managed to climb over the uplifted Kaibib Plateau (several thousand feet higher than the river) in order to erode it.
But Flood waters draining over and down through an uplifted (and faulted) Kaibib Plateau, then down through the Grand Canyon (thus, creating a path for the Colorado River) would make sense.
No, the earth was not cursed until after sin was committed (Genesis 3:17).
By not recognizing that Genesis 1 and 2 were written with two different purposes in mind, you have made them contradict. That is the same error people make when they try to make the gospels contradict each other (as each was written from a slightly different standpoint).
It takes time.
So what is the timeframe for this in 2348 BCE? During the reign of Djedkare Isesi?
So, which week in the late summer - early autumn of 2348 BCE? What days of the week? Did these six events take place? Or was it all in one day?
Science isn’t selling. It’s telling. Honestly, completely, truthfully, openly, thoroughly, consiliently, testably, repeatably, inclusively, logically, robustly, faithfully, impartially, Biblically; it uses the spirit of a sound mind and above all true weights and measures.
Where is that here? Or in any of these?
Science explains all of this infinitely more rationally (and all the rest, see above) than a Jewish creation myth. Why do you need to believe the latter?
So, how much heat did the subduction generate in 5 months?
What are those cultural purposes? No one here is interested in literal Biblical contradictions, they are irrelevant to the greatest discourse. (That being the proposition of God in Christ.)
1 Like
Alright, I’m just going to move on.
Don, from your posts we’ve seen blatantly false claims (such as your cenozoic post). We’ve seen no effort to learn the subject prior to making those false claims. We’ve seen comments suggesting a lack of a baseline understanding of the subject (bedrock is not equivalent to basement rock, among several other comments you’ve made), and we see claims written in a manner implying that the author believes that he understands the subject better than we/scientists do despite some being very clearly incorrect.
On my end, I don’t find it worthwhile continuing to repeat myself. The details above make it practically impossible to have a meaningful conversation.
Otherwise best of luck in your investigation.
4 Likes