Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

To Shuny and other geologically literate folks here. Pennsylvanian cyclothems.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    Texas has libraries?
    LieBerrys

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    Texas has libraries?
    In Austin and San Antonio.

    Leave a comment:


  • pancreasman
    replied
    Originally posted by JonF View Post
    Yes. And that 60+ year old research is readily available to the serious researcher. I'm near Boston and I bet there are a half-dozen libraries within 25 miles that have it. Gotta be several in Texas.
    Texas has libraries?

    Leave a comment:


  • JonF
    replied
    Yes. And that 60+ year old research is readily available to the serious researcher. I'm near Boston and I bet there are a half-dozen libraries within 25 miles that have it. Gotta be several in Texas.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by JonF View Post
    A flume is a lousy model for almost all of the stratification we observe. Most stratification takes place in still or near-still water. As shown by the distribution of particle sizes.

    I notice "Searching the geological and sedimentological literature, I was surprised to find that there was little experimental data on the formation of strata." Obviously not much of a search, there have been lots of experiments in that filed.
    You won't find much research on sediment rates of deposition related strata formation, because this research was done and the questions have been answered over 60 years ago. There is more recent research on the environments the dark shales form in, but as far as when, and how sediments form it has been answered long ago.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-05-2015, 09:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    Source: http://www.icr.org/article/experiments-stratification/



    Correspondence between experimental results and geological formations

    The experiments demonstrated that current deposited strata can form in the same way as sequences of facies. This is consistent with sequence stratigraphy. The experiments show that bedding planes, considered as resulting from interruptions of sedimentation, can result from desiccation of sediments. Moreover, recent submarine observations such as Rubin,6 the flume experiments summarized by Southard,7 and river studies initiated by Hjulström8 and developed by several other scientists, have shown the relationships between contemporaneous hydraulic conditions and sedimentary structures, particularly between critical speed of sedimentation and particular size. Such relationships correspond to those measured in our experiments. These relationships can be used to determine the minimum paleohydraulic conditions (velocity of current, depth of water, discharge and speed of accumulation of sediments) from sedimentary rock structures.

    © Copyright Original Source



    As a geologist, and I took courses in sedimentology and geomorphology in several different universities. I find this simplistic research to be naïve at best it its efforts to account for the thousands of feet of strata in an effort to describe it as flood deposited. Actually this supposed research is equivalent to a basic geology lab exercise in difference size sediment rates of settling that I taught to Freshman in their geology lab. The biggest elephant in the room is limestone and coral reefs which occurs in layers in the strata. This naïve simplistic research cannot explain the hundreds feet of limestone and coral reef formation in the strata. There are other elephants in the room, but this is the biggy.

    I have never been able to find a young earth explanation for the vast deposits of limestone and coral reefs.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-05-2015, 07:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonF
    replied
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    A flume is a lousy model for almost all of the stratification we observe. Most stratification takes place in still or near-still water. As shown by the distribution of particle sizes.

    I notice "Searching the geological and sedimentological literature, I was surprised to find that there was little experimental data on the formation of strata." Obviously not much of a search, there have been lots of experiments in that filed.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    So your example image is wrong (post #45)? Is that what you are claiming? Now why would you do that? I really do not think so. The image shows older and younger strata. The older strata is being cut through by the younger strata. Hay, do you have any understanding of the flood theory of geology. I did not ask if you agree with it. Give me the flood theory explanation, and the excepted scientific geological explanation. Give both.
    My example image is NOT "wrong". I have no idea what you're taking about. The photo shows multiple episodes of deposition (originally horizontal), cut by erosional surface, and then multiple episodes of deposition upon that.

    Nothing could be simpler to a person with a modicum of knowledge of geology and sedimentology.

    How would the "flood theory of geology" explain this??

    And, yes, I have VERY good knowledge of the "flood theory of geology" having been in this "debate" for over 40 years and even being a reformed YEC who was a full member of CRS for several years.

    I don't know what the "flood theory of geology" explanation is, because there is none.

    So, please regale me with YOUR explanation of the Siccar Point formation, in particular how it does not represent multiple episodes -- bearing in mind that each stratum requires a fairly long period to lithify and each stratum represents a different depositional episode. Oh, a while you're at it, explain the angular unconformity and erosional surface.

    K54

    P.S. Shunya -- do want to add to this post? Can you a "flood geology" explanation of Siccar Point?
    Last edited by klaus54; 01-04-2015, 08:30 PM. Reason: p.s.

    Leave a comment:


  • 37818
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    You still don't understand the appearance of history (multiple episodes) thingy, do you?

    K54
    So your example image is wrong (post #45)? Is that what you are claiming? Now why would you do that? I really do not think so. The image shows older and younger strata. The older strata is being cut through by the younger strata. Hay, do you have any understanding of the flood theory of geology. I did not ask if you agree with it. Give me the flood theory explanation, and the excepted scientific geological explanation. Give both.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    If a lie, then do to misinterpretation of the evidence. One way or the other. One fix would be when very old ages are indicated, the articles need to explain why it is understood to be so. As in the 150,000 year [post flood, I believe] lake bed strata.
    You still don't understand the appearance of history (multiple episodes) thingy, do you?

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    Sure will. What does this article have to do with the transgression-regression sequences of the Pennsylvanian cyclothems?

    K54

    P.S. Oh, and speaking of Original Horizontality, how does this article deal with unconformities and tilted strata as per Hutton's "ah ha!" moment of his observation of the Siccar Point outcopy in Jedburgh, Scotland? Definitely some history there. ICR got an explanation for the varying dips of the strata and the angular unconformity?

    SiccarPoint_Unconformityannot.jpg
    Last edited by klaus54; 01-04-2015, 07:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 37818
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    It would be indicative of a lie if the ~6,000 to ~10,000 year account in Genesis is true. Creating the existence of age and evolution as is at the time of Creation would be a lie. What would be the purpose? Job's test of faith?
    If a lie, then do to misinterpretation of the evidence. One way or the other. One fix would be when very old ages are indicated, the articles need to explain why it is understood to be so. As in the 150,000 year [post flood, I believe] lake bed strata.

    Leave a comment:


  • 37818
    replied
    Any one like to criticize http://www.icr.org/article/experiments-stratification/

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    I don't think that the evidence indicating that the earth is older than 6000 years shows that God is a liar but rather is indicative that the idea that the idea that the earth is only a few thousand years old is in error.
    It would be indicative of a lie if the ~6,000 to ~10,000 year account in Genesis is true. Creating the existence of age and evolution as is at the time of Creation would be a lie. What would be the purpose? Job's test of faith?

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    I eluded to this in a previous post, but the question needs to be asked.

    I would like to bring up what I call the limestone issue of the time involved for deposition. We have vast regions of shallow ocean environments like the Bahamas and the Great Barrier Reefs. We can see limestone formation and coral reefs in real time and the environment and processes involved. There are parallel limestone formations in the geologic column around the world, many hundreds of feet thick, that are exactly like the existing limestone and reef limestone formations being formed today.

    How can these formations be explained if the earth and our universe is only~6,000 to 10,000 years old?
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-30-2014, 09:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by rogue06, 10-12-2021, 10:31 AM
3 responses
30 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 10-12-2021, 07:46 AM
0 responses
11 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by TheLurch, 10-01-2021, 10:26 AM
56 responses
301 views
1 like
Last Post lee_merrill  
Started by oxmixmudd, 10-01-2021, 09:43 AM
37 responses
199 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by rogue06, 09-28-2021, 08:23 AM
1 response
21 views
1 like
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X