Sedimentary Means Water Deposited

Or become sedimentary rock, by being overlaid with other material.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Like another desert?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ever hear of polar ice cap melting and refreezing?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, tell me how that supposedly goes.

 

Google ice cap melting

 

What about the refreezing part, and where did it refreeze, in your brain?

 

Hmmmmmm, it would probably begin refreezing at the coldest points (poles) and work its way back north or south from the respective pole.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Istill like this one best:

 

IceAge, how did you cope at Uni? What made you do geology? Were you already a creationist when you did your degree, or have you changed your mind since?

Did you memorise the "answers", i.e. mainstream geology, in order to obtain your degree? Could I be cheeky and ask what grade you got? Just to be equal I got a 2:1 in my first degree (Geophysics).

Or were you true to your faith, stuck to your guns and still managed to get a degree?

I'm not asking this to put you down or anything else, I'm genuinely interested how a creationist copes at Uni and why they would choose to do a degree in geology.

 

A creationist in geology Thats funny as they consider it a false science.

 

I went to college unsaved, studied geology, because I love the outdoors and wanted to study a real world skill, then, at age 26, I was saved, and so began to look at the Bible vis-a-vis what I'd learned in college.

The uniformitarian geologic model which I was taught honestly didn't add up to me at the time, I kept wondering how deltas on continental crust magically became vast flat lying sedimentary layers on the same continental crust, often stacked like pancakes, grading into each other, then I read The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris, and the scales came off of my eyes.

It's been a fascinating journey ever since.

 

IceAgeCivilizations, I am glad that you have brought this subject up again, as I was disappointed when you stopped replying in a previous thread. I will try to address some of the issues you have raised. I hope that you will do the same with the points that I am going to make. I think it's going to be a long post, so I apologise in advance.

This is not true. As has been previously stated, the response of a rock (or any material) to stress is determined not only by the rock's composition, but also by temperature, confining pressure and strain rate. Rocks which are deeply buried and which undergo strain at relatively slow rates (as in plate tectonics) can deform in a ductile manner. Fractures form in brittle regimes. By demanding fractures in the presence of folds, you are demanding evidence of the rock undergoing both brittle and ductile deformation simultaneously. While faults often are associated with folds, in fact, the tension on the outside of a fold is often expressed as boudinage structures.

On the subject of folds, I have a point to make myself. Chevron folds (there are plenty of pictures on Google images) have straight limbs and sharp hinges. This is because in a competent rock (competent means that it was lithified!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), the stress is partially resisted and the strain is concentrated at points of weakness (which thereby become weaker and accommodate yet more shortening). Saddle reef orebodies can form on the hinge line because of the resultant pressure shadow. I think that this refutes your claim that folds were formed in unlithified sediment.

On a related note, I am still interested to know about the slump deposits which would form if soft sediment was subjected to such deformation - you claimed previously that they were present in the foothills of the Himalayas, remember?

The two quotes above are both related to another point I want to make, and a question which you left unanswered in a previous thread. You seem to be claiming that carbonate rocks are evidence of the deluge, and were deposited on historical timescales. The Cretaceous chalk alone in southern England is up to 500 m thick. As I imagine you know, it is not a simple chemical deposit, but is composed of the calcite plates of marine algae. So I ask you, if the flood waters erupted from the mantle, how did the ensuing ocean become so richly populated with microorganisms, why were they deposited so rapidly, and what do you think the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was before so much of the gas was locked up in carbonates? (I don't know the exact timescale you're proposing (a few weeks?), but bear in mind that calcareous ooze is currently being deposited in the Pacific Ocean at the rate of 1-3 cm per 1000 years.)

Still on the subject of carbonate minerals, please explain why some limestone is dolomitized and some is not. If all the flood water came from a few sources, why the variation in magnesium content, and why the lack of mixing? Also, how do you think the flood water had such an extraordinary mineral content, and why did so much come out of solution so suddenly (enough to 'flash-cement' all the sedimentary rock in the geological column)?

Evaporite deposits present another line of argument against your theory. As I am sure you are aware, these form when minerals are precipitated out of an evaporating sea or lake. Cycles of evaporites and carbonates are due to repeated marine transgressions. This pdf by the US National Parks Department shows that the Colorado river has cut through such formations, as well as other juxtaposed marine and terrestrial sediments. How does 'deluge geology' account for this?

As you stated yourself, many sedimentary formations which exist today are terrigenous deposits, formed in marine conditions. The general rule is that material is eroded above the water surface and deposited beneath it. River valleys form by erosion. Rivers cut downwards to sea level. When they reach sea level, the formation of the valley or gorge can only continue if the region undergoes uplift. But then under what circumstances would it suddenly subside so it could be buried and preserved for us to point to? I don't understand why you have pounced on the lack of preserved valleys as evidence of the deluge. Nevertheless, if you have access to 'Sedimentology & Stratigraphy' by Gary Nichols (Blackwell Science, 1999), on page 122 you will find a picture of such a preserved channel in Oligocene/Miocene sediments near Huesca in Spain. I may try to scan and post it later, but it's black and white and I don't know how it will come out.

You know perfectly well that the Himalayas are being eroded even as they are being uplifted. If erosion suddenly ceased, I don't think it would make too much difference - because of isostasy and the flexure of the crust, the Himalayas are probably about as big as a mountain range can be on Earth.

Material deposited on continental shelves may be preserved. Sediments accumulating on oceanic crust may also be scraped onto continents by subduction.

 

Vast sedimentary layers up on the continents "may also be scraped onto continents by subduction." That's just great Laika.

At current erosion rates all the continental rock above sea level (including the Himalayas) should have eroded into the sea within 15 million years, but of of course such has not been going on for but about 4,500 years.

There are no fossil soil layers, besides no river valleys, in the geologic column.

The chalk layers formed quickly, many minerals and much C02 in Deluge water.

 

Uniformitarian model of geology? Iceagecivs could be rather old, or went to a duff university. The one I went to, and did first year geology modules at, never mentioned uniformitarianism. Instead they talked about all the various processes and stuff of geology, from big volcanos to sedimentation. Or in other words, talk of uniformitarianism or catastrophism, is very old hat, modern geology having absorbed both arguments and come our stronger.

 

Yes, they are following in evidence and so leaning more toward catastophism every day, such was unthinkable 50 years ago.

 

Well, no, I think you'll find that real geologists are joining both ideas in their work. And no matter what catastrophes they find, they are never going to show that the Earth is only 4,500 years old. That has been ruled out by everything from varves to radioactive dating, not to mention the strange way that the fossils sorted themselves out into neat layers during the flood.

 

The assumptions are unknowable for radioisotope dating, and when unsuitable results are obtained, the samples are thrown out and an excuse made for why it's a "bad" sample, why sometimes results come in with positive values, that is, the rock should not have formed yet, go figure.

 

Sure, just parrot your creationist talking points. They've been blown out the water many times beforehand.

 

Not at all.