DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAY
HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: LK1 Sedimentation
*****************************************************
#Post#: 54--------------------------------------------------
MF,CW/STRATA
By: Admin Date: January 23, 2017, 3:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
MF: Strata Doc
- So-called “megaflood” deposits are thick sedimentary layers
displaying a variety of morphologies over wide areas that are
the product of large scale, high velocity floods [Carling,
2013].
- Quoting Berthault [2004], “Sedimentology analysis and
reconstruction of sedimentation conditions of the Tonto Group
[Grand Canyon] reveals that deposits of different stratigraphic
sub-divisions were formed simultaneously in different
litho-dynamical zones of the Cambrian paleobasin.”
- McKee and Crosby [1967] showed that sediments formed
simultaneously by size and density in moving waters
spontaneously in the enormous Bijou Flood in Colorado in 1965.
- “Thus, the stratigraphic divisions of the geological column
founded on the principles of Steno do not correspond to the
reality of sedimentary genesis” [Berthlault, 2002].
- This has been confirmed by experiment [Makse et al., 1997;
Julien et al., 1993].
- Maithel et al. [2013] found the large cross-beds of the
Coconino sandstones of the Grand Canyon difficult to explain
within current aeolian models, and they suggest that a
significant part of the Coconino may have been formed under
water.
- Mudstones such as shale compose about 62% of the geologic
column.
- They are generally considered to have formed slowly in the
quiet environment of ancient lakes.
- However, flume experiments show that mudstones can form in
moving waters [Schieber and Southard, 2009].
- (Optional) - Radiocarbon dating of shale containing 10.88%
carbon from a quarry in Colorado’s Eocene Green River Formation
yielded a pMC of 0.37, or a 14C age of 45,130 ± 270 14C years BP
(Table 2, #13) and δ13C of -31.6 in 2010 on University of
Georgia's AMS equipment, which is reliable to 0.11 pMC, or
55,000 14C years BP.
Carling, P. A. (2013), Freshwater megaflood sedimentation: What
can we learn about generic processes? Earth-Science Reviews,
125, 87-113, doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.06.002.
Berthault, G. (2004), Sedimentological interpretation of the
Tonto Group stratigraphy (Grand Canyon Colorado River),
Lithology and Mineral Resources, 39(5), 480-484,
doi:10.1023/B:LIMI.0000040737.85572.4c.
McKee E. D., E. J. Crosby, and H. L. Berryhill (1967), Flood
deposits, Bijou Creek, Colorado, June 1965, Journal of
Sedimentary Research, 37(3), 829-851,
doi:10.1306/74D717B2-2B21-11D7-8648000102C1865D
Berthault, G. (2002), Geological dating principles questioned.
Paleohydraulics: a new approach, Journal of Geodesy and
Geodynamics, 22(3), 19-26.
Makse, H. A., S. Havlin, P. R. King, and H. E. Stanley (1997),
Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures, Nature 386,
379-382, doi:10.1038/386379a0.
Julien, P. Y., Y. Lan and G. Berthault (1993), Experiments on
Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures, Bull. Soc. Geol.
France, 164(5), 649-660.
Maithel, S. A., Brand, L. R., and J. H. Whitmore (2013),
Morphology of Avalanche Beds in the Coconino Sandstone at Chino
Wash, Seligman, Arizona, Geological Society of America Abstracts
with Programs, 45(7), 126
Schieber, J., and J. B. Southard (2009), Bedload transport of
mud by floccule ripples - Direct observation of ripple migration
processes and their implications, Geology, 37(6), 483-486,
doi:10.1130/G25319A.1.
-----
HTML http://creationwiki.org/Catastrophism
Evidence
- The earth's history has without question been violent.
However, life remains and flourishes. The central focus of the
creation vs. evolution debate is whether catastrophes in earth's
past were the result of natural processes over millions of
years, or a catastrophic flood of global proportions described
in the Bible as God's judgment. If we assume the geologic column
was formed during the global flood, then this deluge may also
have been accompanied by numerous volcanic flows and quite
possibly meteor bombardments. What we see all over the world
consistent with a global flood is layers upon layers of
sedimentary rock or strata with millions of fossils in it.
Several sites provide us with examples of large-scale
catastrophic processes important for understanding the
mechanisms responsible for the formation of the earth's strata.
...
- - Global Flood
- - Main Article: Global flood
- The secular interpretation of earth's history assumes there
were repeated floods and other catastrophes which caused the
extinction of many animals, but were of insufficient intensity
to destroy all terrestrial life. However, the Bible says there
was a flood that no terrestrial animal or human could survive
without divine intervention. And indeed, a single event capable
of depositing the entire geological column would not be
survivable. It is certainly a fact that cataclysms have occurred
in the earth's past, and vast layers of sediment testify to
these disasters. When you examine the evidence closely you will
see that the fossil record has simply been misinterpreted by the
atheistic scientific community, and is instead a recording of a
devastating global flood.
- The extensive distribution of sedimentary rocks would quickly
be interpreted as the result of a single major catastrophe by
geologists but for the presence today of living animals whose
existence atop of these formations must be explained
naturalistically. Given the depth and distribution of the
sediments that cover the earth, it is a foregone conclusion that
no terrestrial animal could have survived their deposition if
formed during a single event. Likewise, if the flood occurred as
described in the Bible, animals could not have survived without
God's supernatural intervention. God told Noah there was going
to be a flood, gave him instructions on how to survive the
event, and had them board the ark before the flood began. The
evidence from a historic scenario like Noah's flood could simply
not be believed by a naturalist. The only possible naturalistic
interpretation is that the organisms alive today were able to
survive the deposition of these massive rock layers without such
assistance. A naturalist must believe the geological column
accumulated at an extremely slow and gradual rate over millions
of years for the many fragile organisms alive today to avoid
extinction.
- An interesting fact is that if North America didn't "float" on
the mantle, the waters would almost be as high as the Rocky
Mountain system.
“
America are kept afloat by heat within Earth’s rocky crust, and
how much of the continent would sink beneath sea level if not
for heat that makes rock buoyant....
- Mile-high Denver’s elevation would be 727 feet below sea level
and Salt Lake City, now about 4,220 feet, would sit beneath
1,293 feet of water. But high-elevation areas of the Rocky
Mountains between Salt Lake and Denver would remain dry
land.[10]
- - External Links
Up with Catastrophism! by Dr. Henry Morris. ICR Impact #38
Neo-Catastrophism by Dr. Gary Parker
See Also
Channeled Scablands
Grand Canyon
Mt. St. Helens
Joggins, Nova Scotia
Yellowstone National Park
Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity#Depositional
Rates
#Post#: 55--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paper1 Part1-2
By: Admin Date: January 23, 2017, 3:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
GRANITE FORMATION
HTML https://answersingenesis.org/geology/catastrophism/catastrophic-granite-formation/
Though partial melting in the lower crust is the main
rate-limiting step, it is now conjectured to only take years to
decades, so partial melting to produce a large reservoir of
granitic magmas could have occurred in the pre-Flood era as a
consequence of accelerated nuclear decay early in the Creation
Week. Rapid segregation, ascent, and emplacement now understood
to only take days via dikes would have been aided by the
tectonic “squeezing” and “pumping” during the catastrophic plate
tectonics driving the global Genesis Flood cataclysm. Now that
it has also been established that granitic plutons are mostly
tabular sheets, crystallization and cooling would be even more
easily facilitated by hydrothermal convective circulation with
meteoric waters in the host rocks. The growth of large crystals
from magmas within hours has now been experimentally determined,
while the co-formation in the same biotite flakes of adjacent
uranium and polonium radiohalos, the latter from short-lived
parent polonium isotopes, requires that crystallization and
cooling of the granitic plutons only took about 6–10 days.
Catastrophic Granite Formation
Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusion and
Cooling
Magma Principles
Depth Pressure Distance
Magma Processes
Magma Generation by Partial Melting
Melt Segregation
Viscosity
Granite Formation
Magma Ascent
Magma Emplacement
Crustal Thickness
Emplacement Rates
Filling Time
Crystallization and Cooling Rates
Convective Cooling: The Role of Hydrothermal Fluids
Layers
Crystallization and Cooling Rates: The Evidence of Polonium
Radiohalos
Cooling Curve
Formation of the Yosemite Area Granitic Plutons
Conclusions
a large reservoir of granitic melts could have been generated in
the lower crust during the 1,650 years between Creation and the
Flood, particularly due to residual heat from an episode of
accelerated nuclear decay during the first three days of the
Creation Week. This very large reservoir of granitic melts would
then have been mobilized and progressively intruded into the
upper crust during the global Flood cataclysm, when another
episode of accelerated nuclear decay would have greatly
accelerated many geologic processes, including granite
magmatism, driven by catastrophic plate tectonics.
Partial melting occurs, due to heating of the lower crust by
basalt magmas intruded from the mantle, to the elevated local
water content, and to locally increased pressures as a result of
tectonic activity. Once it occurs, continued deformation
(“squeezing”) segregates the melt so that it flows. Melt-filled
veins then coalesce into dikes as “squeezing” continues
episodically, effectively “pumping” the granitic melt into the
dikes and up the dike-filled fractures into the upper crust.
Thus, with a continuous supply of magma at the base of the
fracture system in the lower crust, the magma could typically
ascend 20 km into the upper crust in five hours to three months.
There emplacement occurs rapidly as flat-lying sheets due to
lateral fault opening, roof lifting, and floor sagging beneath
the intrusion as it thickens in as little as 40 days.
Oceanic plate
References
-----
RAPID SANDSTONE FORMATION
HTML https://answersingenesis.org/geology/catastrophism/sandy-surprise/
Creation magazine has given many photographic examples to show
that solid rock can form quickly—e.g. a huge “frozen” waterwheel
encased in solid limestone in 65 years,1 fossilised modern
fencing wire2 and pliers,3 a sizeable gasfield pipe clogged in
months with solid calcite,4 and huge stalactites in just a few
decades,5 to name just some. Here is one more.
Wheelbarrow with rock contents
Close-up of the sandstone fragments
Mike Miller of Ohio, USA explains that his father recently
opened the drain **** on their ordinary swimming pool sand
filter and nothing came out. Upon checking, he found to his
surprise that the sand in the lower part of the filter had
turned to solid rock since it was put in around five years ago.
Mike says, “Not soft, crumbly stone, either—hard rock,
indistinguishable from ‘normal’ sandstone. My dad spent a long
time with a chisel breaking up the stone into the pieces you see
in the wheelbarrow [photo 1]”.
Mike says that their pool is fed with underground water with a
slightly higher than normal content of iron oxide, which would
help the sand to harden into rock. Photo 2 shows a closeup view
of the sandstone.
Petrified waterwheel, Creation 16(2):25, 1994.
Fascinating fossil fence wire, Creation 20(3):6, 1998.
“Fossil” pliers show rock doesn’t need millions of years to
form!, Creation 14(1):20, 1992.
That Choking Feeling ..., Creation 20(4):6, 1998.
Stalactites do not take millions of years!, Creation 20(2):27,
1998.
-----
SANDSTONE CEMENTING AGENTS
HTML http://sciencing.com/three-common-cementing-agents-sandstones-8343964.html
What Are the Three Most Common Cementing Agents for Sandstones?
By Michael E Carpenter
Jupiterimages/Photos.com/Getty Images
Sandstone is a sedimentary rock composed of mostly quartz
compressed and cemented together. The cementing agents are the
materials that hold the sandstone together. The composition of
the stone and the cementing agent used will determine the
strength, durability and weather-resistant properties of the
sandstone.
Silica
Silica cement, also called quartz cement, creates the strongest
and most durable type of sandstone used for building. The cement
is a result of the quartz grains overgrowing and expanding the
crystallized forms until it runs into another quartz crystal.
This type of sandstone typically forms in environments that have
high-energy currents, such as beaches, marine bars and desert
dunes.
Calcite Cement
Calcite cement is the most common type of cement found in
sandstone. The calcite cement typically forms in patches and
does not fill all the gaps within the stone. This makes calcite
cement sandstone very porous. Calcite is also soluble in wate,
which can erode away the cement making the stone even more
porous.
Sponsored link
Start Download - View PDF
Convert From Doc to PDF, PDF to Doc Simply With The Free On-line
App!
www.fromdoctopdf.com
Iron Oxides
Another common cementing agent in sandstone is iron oxide, also
called hematite cement. The iron present in the cement will give
the sandstone a distinctive red color. According to the Stone
Care Techniques website, iron oxide cemented sandstone weather
well in dry climates and become harder and stronger, resisting
weathering and deterioration.
Other Cementing Agents
Sandstone also has other cementing agents that occur in less
common forms. These cementing agents include pyrite, barite and
gypsum. These cementing agents form crystals between the
particles of the stone. These cements produce a much softer type
of sandstone with the particles able to be rubbed off the stone
with your hand.
#Post#: 91--------------------------------------------------
Re: CW/STRATA
By: Admin Date: January 31, 2017, 5:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Reading African Strata
by Tim Clarey, Ph.D. *
Evidence for Creation
HTML http://www.icr.org/article/reading-african-strata
HTML http://www.icr.org/i/articles/af/reading_african_strata_pic.jpg
Recent Acts & Facts articles have discussed how ICR’s scientists
are reconstructing the Flood-sediment patterns across North
America using megasequences within the geologic column.1,2 The
megasequences essentially serve as “chapters” whereby we can
read the record of the Flood from top to bottom. Our compilation
of geologic columns and megasequences across North America is
coming to a close, and we are now gathering similar data across
Africa.
If the Flood were truly global, we should find its sediments on
every continent showing simultaneous Flood levels. According to
many creation geologists, the continents of Africa and North
America were joined together as part of a supercontinent during
portions of the Flood year. So, we should observe many
similarities in the stratigraphic columns, the megasequences,
and in the floodwater levels between the two continents.
What do the rocks show? Although we have only completed northern
Africa, we do see some startling results. The two continents’
strata match up; they independently record the same levels of
the Flood at the same time and in many cases contain even the
same type of sediments. The Sauk Megasequence, the first
significant deposit of the advancing floodwaters, exhibits a
basal sandstone unit that spreads across a large portion of
North America (Figure 1). A similar lowermost Sauk sandstone
layer also extends across most of North Africa (Figure 2).
Finding the same type of broad, extensive deposit at the exact
same time on two large continents is exceedingly strong evidence
of a global flood!
Later megasequences across Africa record the relative height of
floodwaters as the rising seas progressively inundated more and
more land. Early megasequences, such as the Sauk and Tippecanoe
(Cambrian through Silurian systems), show less flooding extent
compared to the later megasequences, matching the results found
in North America.
Offshore sediments began to accumulate along the west coast of
Africa during the fourth megasequence (Absaroka,
Pennsylvanian-Lower Jurassic systems), recording the opening of
the northern Atlantic Ocean as catastrophic plate movement began
to rapidly create a new seafloor.3 The timing of the subsequent
split of South America from Africa is also observed in the
sedimentary record. The first offshore sediments deposited off
Africa’s southwest shore (south of Liberia, Ghana, and Nigeria)
appear in the Zuni Megasequence, indicating the initial division
between these two continents.
The Zuni Megasequence (Jurassic and Cretaceous systems) also
shows the maximum areal extent of sediments—the most extensive
Flood coverage—possibly indicative of the highest water level.
This fifth megasequence may have recorded the activity of Day
150 of the Flood, as described in Genesis 7:19-24, when all the
“high hills under the whole heaven were covered.”
Finally, both Africa and North America simultaneously record
what appears to be the receding phase of the Flood event in the
sixth and final megasequence (Tejas Megasequence, Cenozoic
stratigraphic units). The sediments of this megasequence show a
major shift in depositional pattern, reflecting more extensive
offshore sedimentation as the floodwaters drained from the
continents into the new ocean basins. This is when the “whopper
sand” formed in the Gulf of Mexico as sheet-like flow poured off
the continents.4
Comparison of the stratigraphic columns of Africa and North
America show many similarities indicative of a global flood.
Water levels seem to have risen and dropped simultaneously
across both continents. The observed patterns reflect an
undeniable consistency with a global phenomenon. Contrary to the
unfounded claims of uniformitarian scientists, the global Flood,
as recorded in Genesis, offers the best scientific explanation
for the actual rock data.
References
Clarey, T. 2015. Dinosaur Fossils in Late-Flood Rocks. Acts
& Facts. 44 (2): 16.
Clarey, T. 2015. Grappling with Megasequences. Acts & Facts.
44 (4): 18-19.
Austin, S. A., et al. 1994. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A
Global Flood Model of Earth History. In Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Creationism. Walsh, R. E., ed.
Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 609-621.
Clarey, T. 2015. The Whopper Sand. Acts & Facts. 44 (3): 14.
* Dr. Tim Clarey is Research Associate at the Institute for
Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in geology from Western
Michigan University.
Cite this article: Tim Clarey, Ph.D. 2015. Reading African
Strata. Acts & Facts. 44 (9).
*****************************************************