Soft Mountains

There are no radial tension fractures in the folded sedimentary layers of mountain ranges, which demonstrates that the layers were still wet and soft when the regional compression and plutonic activity occurred which caused the mountains to rise.

Of course, fractures from horsts or grabens are extension (not compression) features, they are not radial tension fractures from the sedimentary layers' folding during the upift of the mountain ranges, so this fact is corroborative that the sedimentary layers were laid down rapidly, and were soon thereafter folded during mountain uplift, at the close of the Deluge, when the water slid off the then thickening continents into the then deepening ocean basins.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why did you start a new thread? There's already one dedicated to this subject, which you suggested I start.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yours is generic about the Deluge, we're focusing here on the regional compression which caused the sedimentary layers to fold into mountains, leaving no radial tension features, which shows that the layers were still wet and soft when the folding occurred.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why would you expect "tensional" fractures to develop in a "compressional" field? "Tensional" fractures should develop parallel to regional compressive stress, not necessarily as radial features in folds.

 

Please re-phrase that, I didn't follow the second part.

 

Hey Ice Age, when was the last time you got out of the house and went climbing in the mountains? Which mountains did you climb, and how high? Just curious.

The last mountain climbing I did was of Kilauea volcano, which sits on the flank of Mauna Loa. I can assure you, it did not rise out of the ocean only 6,000 years ago. Early Polynesian settlers were climbing it 1,000 years ago, and it looked substantially the same then as it does now (minus some of the recent eruptions we've had in the last 1,000 years). Ever seen a Ki-Puka?

 

How do you "know" it's more than about 4,400 years old, radioisotope dates?

 

Nah, it's a lot easier than that. The Kipukas tell the story. Why don't you look up what a kipuka is, and get back to me.

 

Oh the Kipukas have been there for over 4,400 years? Tell me more, how do you "know" this?

 

What's a kipuka?

 

Don't know.

 

Well, look it up, educate yourself, then get back to me and I'll explain how the kipukas show the volcano to be quite old.

 

Sure Walter.

 

You know, if you ever get around to looking up Kipukas, you'll find far more examples of them, many among reputable sources and real scientists, than your synchamelons.

 

That's just ducky.

 

IceAgeCivilizations, I have several major problems with this argument.
1. You seem to be claiming that brittle fractures are absent from the outside of all folded units in all mountain ranges. This is clearly an absurd claim.
2. You appear to be unaware that rock deforms plastically under sufficient confining pressure and/or temperature.
3. Soft sediments slump and flow when deformed. You have not yet provided evidence of such formations, despite having been asked in at least two threads (this is the third).
4. There are many reverse faults in many mountain ranges, formed when competent rock deforms in a brittle manner. Unconsolidated sediments do not behave this way.
5. Intrusions fracture host rock. Unconsolidated sediments would not have been fractured by intruding magma.
6. Sediments do not become lithified after 3500 years of atmospheric exposure.

 

1) No radial tension cracks from the foci of the folds.

2) So there were many thousands of feet of sediment on top of the Himalayas and all over the surrounding plateaus? No drainage patterns to allow that.

3) Not when they're rapidly overlain, as indicated in the sedimentary column.

4) No radial tension cracks from folding.

5) All intrusions were not at the time of the Deluge.

6) Most sedimentary rock has varying degrees of CaCO3, like cement.

 

Laika:

Along your note of plastic deformation of solid rock under high temperature and pressure (as when such rock was deeply buried), some types of atoms will actually migrate out of their original location and fill voids. An example of this is when relatively chemically inert gold atoms, under intense pressure and high temperature, will over hundreds of millions of years, move slowly through the rock matrix in which they find themselves, into cracks in the rock where they can congregate together, forming veins of gold. Any thoughts about that? Perhaps we could start a new thread on that topic, as you'll never make any headway with Ice Age, who refuses to look at the world around him.

 

So, Walter, no refutations of my rebuttals of Laika's six points, just whining and obfuscation, is that it?

 

Why would the fold cores experience tension? The insides of the folds would undergo compression.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning here. As soon as rocks are lifted above the depositional level they begin to suffer erosion. It is not that any given mountain range was necessarily many thousands of feet higher in the past, but material is removed even as tectonic uplift occurs. Could you elaborate on what you're driving at with your drainage patters comment?

I don't see that depth of burial matters so much here. Soft sediments have a certain angle of repose, depending on their grain size, internal cohesion, pore water content, etc. If you load such a sediment, it will flow all the more.

I don't know why you have repeated this. I mentioned faults. Reverse faults are how crustal shortening is accommodated by competent rock. This bit isn't about folds. I ask you, how could soft sediments transmit stress the locations of such displacements?

Do you have an idea of which intrusions were and which were not? Otherwise it seems a bit of a cop-out. Here's an example of one: At Bingham Canyon in Utah (in the Rockies), a granitic intrusion was emplaced during the Laramide orogeny (mountain-building period). The host rock fractured (because it was indeed rock - not soft sediment), which was influential in creating a major copper deposit. This area is very well studied. What do you think of it?

Indeed. How do you suppose these sediments were cemented if they were raised above the water table immediately after deposition?