Geology

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Geology is the study of the Earth, it's history, the processes which shape the Earth, and rock formations.

The Earth is made up of its solid core, surounded by the molten core, covered by a thin crust.

To begin with there are three types of rocks.
Igneous rocks - these rocks are fromed directly from magma, the molten rock which can be found flowing out of volcanoes. This is the majority of the rocks found in the earths crust.
examples : pumice, granite.

Sedimentary Rocks - these rocks are formed by sedimentation of bits of other rocks which were weathered away. We see these alot because sediment covers most of the surface of our planet.
examples : sandstone, limestone

Metamorphic Rock - these rocks are formed when the minerals within a rock become reorganized by outside forces. Such as pressure or extreme heat.
examples : marble , slate

Plate Tectonic theory is an important facet of geology.
In this theory the surface of the earth is made up of plates which float on the earths mantle. The movements of the plates causes the formation of mountains, ocean ridges, and earthquakes.

[Jbuza]

Jbuza wrote
What is the new rock formed of magic Dark Matter dust? IF the billions of billions of tons of strata simply appear, than long standing principles of science and conservation break down. Explain where the additional matter comes from to form the new rock. I explained for the appearance of strata, of course it will be seen. You fail to explain how the enormity of strata the world over have simply appeared covering up successive hypothetical ages that are constructs of evolution. Starta is explained within the conforms of long standing conservation theories, by the hypothetical construct of the flood that is derived from creation theory.

Bgood wrote
Stratified rocks are what are known as sedimentary rocks, they are formed when sediments settle on the bottom of rivers, lakes, oceans, bogs, etc. New orleans is a good example, the Mississipi river deposits sediments along the river delta. As more sediments pile on top the older ones compact and sink. That is why New orleans sank roughly two feet in the past eighty years, the entire city is built on sediments deposited by annual flood waters along the river bank.

Of course sedimentary rock, and the deposits of things entrained in the water, is the result of water, both theories explain this. Evolution however, fails to explain strata as it is observed. You still have no coherent explanation of how the strata came to be, this among other things detracts from evolution and lends credence to the theory of creation. I need a working model of strata formation from evolution, because the position that you describe above doesn't predict observations or explain anything, in fact the strata problem, together with the fossil record contained within, and the hypothetical framework of ages crumbles on this one point. IT hasn't a shred of evidence. Your position is that sediment is brought up by water action, and rightly so, in that both theories agree.

The problem is that would mean that the roughly 1 mile thick geological column that is apparent would have to have been taken from somewhere, further this being the case these excavations by water would mean that sediment and fossils {whatever the water was capable of entraining) from lower places in the geological column, and depositing them on the top, this would make the upper strata composed of oldest rock from lower down in the visible strata that the water action has exposed in effect making the strata closest to the surface composd of the older material that is being dredged up by water action and deposited where? In “bottom of rivers, lakes, oceans, bogs, etc” Aren't these places where the material is taken from, no wait they are where the material is deposited, the low places are full. What? This isn't even cogent. Further it means that the oldest forms found in the newley deposited strata closest to the surface dredged from ever older rock by hydraulic power are more complex than the more simple life forms found in the sediments that the water entrained nearer the surface. I do realize that evolution has a hypothetical framework to describe the geological column, and in fact the geological column as used and described is not observed in complete anywhere. IT is based on localized observations and used to speculate about other observations around the world, and evolution has created a construct that creation doesn't need to answer for. If in fact the geological column has much validity at all than that means that almost 200,000,000 cubic miles of matter have been picked up by streams and rivers and deposited all over the world, not just on the delta's. That would be 53 earth moons of material. Seems wrong, can someone check this for me? The surface of the earth is 196,940,400 square miles, based on the hypothetical geological column from evolution that is reported to be a mile thick that would yield a geological column made up of 196,940,400 cubic miles of rock. The moon is 2160 miles in diameter.
___
Bgood wrote
Examine the evidence yourself, take a trip out to maine and examine the strata. You will see that fossils are localized to specific layers. This is a fact.
I doubt you have spent much time examining the strata.

I most completely agree with this, and I think that we both tried to cover in the other thread our theoretical explanations of the fact that, “You will see that fossils are localized to specific layers”, although that simple statement ignores numerous geological anomalies that need to be addressed.


http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... c&start=60

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Rocks originate as igneous rocks in volcanic eruptions or oceanic rifts.
http://volcano.und.edu/vw.html

Wind rain and other forms of erosion cause the rocks to degrade and become sediment which may eventually find its way to the botom of a lake or perhaps a river delta.

This eroded material is the source of the sediments. They don't pop out of nowhere.

Stratification forms as layers and layers of sediment form on top of each other. The weight of the sediments above cause the sediment to compact .

[Jbuza]

Rocks originate as igneous rocks in volcanic eruptions or oceanic rifts.
http://volcano.und.edu/vw.html

Wind rain and other forms of erosion cause the rocks to degrade and become sediment which may eventually find its way to the botom of a lake or perhaps a river delta.

This eroded material is the source of the sediments. They don't pop out of nowhere.

Stratification forms as layers and layers of sediment form on top of each other. The weight of the sediments above cause the sediment to compact .

I agree with this. The hypothetical recent global flood from a creation theory would impact all of these forces in major ways.

[Jbuza]

If in fact the geological column has much validity at all than that means that almost 200,000,000 cubic miles of matter have been picked up by streams and rivers and deposited all over the world, not just on the delta's. That would be 53 earth moons of material. Seems wrong, can someone check this for me? The surface of the earth is 196,940,400 square miles, based on the hypothetical geological column from evolution that is reported to be a mile thick that would yield a geological column made up of 196,940,400 cubic miles of rock. The moon is 2160 miles in diameter.

The math is wrong, I need to sharpen my geometric pencil and find the correct answer

[Jbuza]

If in fact the geological column has much validity at all than that means that almost 200,000,000 cubic miles of matter have been picked up by streams and rivers and deposited all over the world, not just on the delta's. That would be 53 earth moons of material. Seems wrong, can someone check this for me? The surface of the earth is 196,940,400 square miles, based on the hypothetical geological column from evolution that is reported to be a mile thick that would yield a geological column made up of 196,940,400 cubic miles of rock. The moon is 2160 miles in diameter.

So the volume of the moon is much much larger than the volume strata, sorry. Something like 5 and 1/4 billion cubic miles. I was using the wrong formula Nothing like trying to claim facts that aren't true.

[Jbuza]

So let me suppose your poistion to see if I understand it. The roughly 200,000,000, lets cut this down to 150,000,000 square miles since only about 80 of earth's surface is composed of sedimentary rock, of sediment that the geological column represents was once materials that were lower in the geological column, and peeled away by reaction with earth environment mainly wind and water (frozen or not). This of course means that the geological column is exposed to inversion as these forces in effect dredge up material. So I assume that you would have this 150,000,000 square miles fill up the rift and grand canyon valleys and place it back onto mountians. You can't place it back into lakes, bogs, and oceans mind you, because those are the places where the sediment is going.

Please let me know what I am missing about evolutionary erosion and sedimentation process

[Jbuza]

Why sedimentary rocks on mountians, why the number of anomolies? The more I investigate goelogy the more I see evidence of massive forces. I know of now rivers that flow up mountians and deposit sediment, there was a flood. I think I have been clear on creation theory explanation of physical geology

As early as the mid-1600's, the Danish scientist Nicholas Steno studied the relative positions of sedimentary rocks. He found that solid particles settle from a fluid according to their relative weight or size. The largest, or heaviest, settle first, and the smallest, or lightest, settle last. Slight changes in particle size or composition result in the formation of layers, also called beds, in the rock. Layering, or bedding, is the most obvious feature of sedimentary rocks.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/rocks-layers.html

[Jbuza]

IF the mountians used to be higher, because they were exposed to less corrosive effects of the earths environment earlier in earth history, How come many of them are formed from sedimentation? Clearly there must have been water above these areas. The weight needed for sedimentation often is not available for many rock layers, there was a tremendous presure of water on top of the sediment, according to creation theory.

I need not assume that earth was amorphous mass and layers were built up, it is not outside possibilites within creation theory to hypothesize that God created a world that included some strata. We simply don't know

[BGoodForGoodSake]

IF the mountians used to be higher, because they were exposed to less corrosive effects of the earths environment earlier in earth history, How come many of them are formed from sedimentation? Clearly there must have been water above these areas. The weight needed for sedimentation often is not available for many rock layers, there was a tremendous presure of water on top of the sediment, according to creation theory.

I need not assume that earth was amorphous mass and layers were built up, it is not outside possibilites within creation theory to hypothesize that God created a world that included some strata. We simply don't know

If a global flood is the only explanation then where did all the water go? And why are some mountains apparently much older than others?

If you remember from earlier the Earth is composed of tectonic plates. The idea that the Earths crust id made up of disparate plates which float on the outer magma.

Imagine two cars colliding into one another. The cars fold and deform at the point of collision. This is what happens when two tectonic plates collide, forming the mountains. So sedimentary rock which originated at the ocean floor then becomes lifted into mountain chains.

The Indian subcontinent is an example of this process. The plate on which the subcontinent lies on is pushing Northward into the asian plate creating the Himalayas. The Himalayan mountains are a very young mountain chain. The mountains are still being created to this day.

[Jbuza]

If a global flood is the only explanation then where did all the water go? And why are some mountains apparently much older than others?

If you remember from earlier the Earth is composed of tectonic plates. The idea that the Earths crust id made up of disparate plates which float on the outer magma.

Imagine two cars colliding into one another. The cars fold and deform at the point of collision. This is what happens when two tectonic plates collide, forming the mountains. So sedimentary rock which originated at the ocean floor then becomes lifted into mountain chains.

The Indian subcontinent is an example of this process. The plate on which the subcontinent lies on is pushing Northward into the asian plate creating the Himalayas. The Himalayan mountains are a very young mountain chain. The mountains are still being created to this day.

Clearly then a global flood isn't the only explanation see your own explanation above. I always find this, "Where did the water go" funny. In case you hadn't noticed the vast majority of earth is covered by water. This process of mountian building you point out this uplifting must be compensated for elsewhere by a sinking. As plates are lifted up and the molten core bulges in palces, it stands to reason that elsewhere plates must be lowered.

I see no evidence that some mountians are much older than others, please explain how you know the age of mountians. Further since your theoretical explanation is that the mountians must have not been mountians at some time to explain the sedimentation that has occoured on them i.e. They must have been Delta's, lakes, ponds, etc to account for water and gravity having deposited those sediments there, then your theroey also points to an uplift and corresponging sinking elsewhere. This uplift and sinking are explained by the recent global flood in creation theory.

The pressures that cause plates to move, power the volcanoes, and the uplift of mountians, is accounted for by the weight of water upon the surface of the earth. IT is hypothesized withing creation theory that the weight of water caused, and reason also dictates that if the event be true, massive changes in topography of the planet must have taken place, the very changes that the alternative explanation that you pose points to. The fact that these changes happened is not in question they can be observed to a certian extent.

Evolution is the theory that claims to be the only explanation, so I am not sure why you make that claim of creation. See efforts to push ID out of science going on in the country today. No I make no cliam to be the only explanation in fact I embrace all explanations, if that is what you need to form in your mind to explain thigns, than more power to you. Give me a shout if you discover anything worthwhile. I calim that creation theory is the only truth of course, because how can I hypothesize and theorize anything that isn't consistent with what I am convinced is true within my own mind. How can anyone? Yet a force exists in science that tends to withdraw from independant thought and seems scared of the free arena of ideas.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

If a global flood is the only explanation then where did all the water go? And why are some mountains apparently much older than others?

If you remember from earlier the Earth is composed of tectonic plates. The idea that the Earths crust id made up of disparate plates which float on the outer magma.

Imagine two cars colliding into one another. The cars fold and deform at the point of collision. This is what happens when two tectonic plates collide, forming the mountains. So sedimentary rock which originated at the ocean floor then becomes lifted into mountain chains.

The Indian subcontinent is an example of this process. The plate on which the subcontinent lies on is pushing Northward into the asian plate creating the Himalayas. The Himalayan mountains are a very young mountain chain. The mountains are still being created to this day.

Clearly then a global flood isn't the only explanation see your own explanation above. I always find this, "Where did the water go" funny. In case you hadn't noticed the vast majority of earth is covered by water. This process of mountian building you point out this uplifting must be compensated for elsewhere by a sinking. As plates are lifted up and the molten core bulges in palces, it stands to reason that elsewhere plates must be lowered.

I see no evidence that some mountians are much older than others, please explain how you know the age of mountians. Further since your theoretical explanation is that the mountians must have not been mountians at some time to explain the sedimentation that has occoured on them i.e. They must have been Delta's, lakes, ponds, etc to account for water and gravity having deposited those sediments there, then your theroey also points to an uplift and corresponging sinking elsewhere. This uplift and sinking are explained by the recent global flood in creation theory.

The pressures that cause plates to move, power the volcanoes, and the uplift of mountians, is accounted for by the weight of water upon the surface of the earth. IT is hypothesized withing creation theory that the weight of water caused, and reason also dictates that if the event be true, massive changes in topography of the planet must have taken place, the very changes that the alternative explanation that you pose points to. The fact that these changes happened is not in question they can be observed to a certian extent.

Evolution is the theory that claims to be the only explanation, so I am not sure why you make that claim of creation. See efforts to push ID out of science going on in the country today. No I make no cliam to be the only explanation in fact I embrace all explanations, if that is what you need to form in your mind to explain thigns, than more power to you. Give me a shout if you discover anything worthwhile. I calim that creation theory is the only truth of course, because how can I hypothesize and theorize anything that isn't consistent with what I am convinced is true within my own mind. How can anyone? Yet a force exists in science that tends to withdraw from independant thought and seems scared of the free arena of ideas.

?

Are you saying that you accept the theory of plate tectonics?
Mountains once created are subject to erosion, a simple survey of the mountains and one will instinctively know that some mountains are older than others.

Sedimentation is not uniform throughout the world, this would support regional sedimentation.

How exactly did the weight of the water upon the crust of the earth cause the massive reorganization of the land.

Tectonic plate theory is not the theory of evolution. It is a completely separate theory altogether. If the theory is incorrect what do you make of geologic phenomenon which is ongoing to this day.

[Jbuza]

Bgood wrote
Are you saying that you accept the theory of plate tectonics?

Of course, I said that I am accepting of all theories that propel investigation, as I stated earlier I am not an expert in geology, but from what I know about plate tectonics it seems pretty reasonable
__
Bgood wrote
Mountains once created are subject to erosion

I agree Mountains are subject to erosion, and they must all be young or all the sediment would be eroded in the past whatever insanely huge number evolution is claiming these days.
__
Bgood wrote
[A] simple survey of the mountains and one will instinctively know that some mountains are older than others.

No they won't. How will I know the age of the mountain when I survey it?
__
Bgood wrote
Sedimentation is not uniform throughout the world, this would support regional sedimentation.

Of course. This is not surprising. Neither theory would expect sedimentation to be completely uniform. But sedimentation is extremely wide spread and in places where gravity wouldn't put it, and that supports global sedementation.
__
Bgood wrote
How exactly did the weight of the water upon the crust of the earth cause the massive reorganization of the land.

I don't exactly know, wasn't there, don't have all the answers. I would hypothesize however that when the water began to recede that areas began to have no water pressure on them and other areas still had water pressure. This difference is what throws things out of stasis, and is perhaps what fractured the crust into the plates. It seems reasonable that those areas that had more weight from water would descend and those areas that did not have this additional weight would ascend, and of course as this process started the disequilibrium would increase as water ran into ever lowering areas and ran from ever raising areas. As I pointed out before and as evidence supports this process continues to this day. There continues to be uplift and sinking.
___
Bgood wrote
Tectonic plate theory is not the theory of evolution. It is a completely separate theory altogether. If the theory is incorrect what do you make of geologic phenomenon which is ongoing to this day.

I agree completely with this my friend, but I think the current theory of plate tectonics is shaped by the fact that science supposes evolution to be true and therefor supposes that creation and the flood did not happen. The theory is impacted by the culture of science. I think I have been clear about, “what make of geologic phenomenon which [are] ongoing to this day.”

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I agree Mountains are subject to erosion, and they must all be young or all the sediment would be eroded in the past whatever insanely huge number evolution is claiming these days.

This is not the case, sediment and sedimentary rock are not the same.
Sedimentary rock is formed through sedimentation and solidified through pressure. Upthrust which created the mountains puts sedimentary rock into higher altitudes. This is what we see when you survey sedimentary rocks.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/tectonics/crush.html

No they won't. How will I know the age of the mountain when I survey it?

Erosion increases the loose material on and down stream of the mountain. The Apalachians are far more weathered than the Andes for example.

__

Of course. This is not surprising. Neither theory would expect sedimentation to be completely uniform. But sedimentation is extremely wide spread and in places where gravity wouldn't put it, and that supports global sedementation.

You then fail to understand mountain formation. You can't say you understand tectonic theory and then continue to insist that "sedimentation is extremely wide spread and in places where gravity wouldn't put it". The process can put sedimentary formations where gravity won't put it. Refer to the recent quakes in the Kashmir region.

Also sedimentary rocks do not make up the majority of the Earths crust. The Himalayans for instance are made up of mostly igneous rocks, and this is the case with most mountains.

__

I don't exactly know, wasn't there, don't have all the answers. I would hypothesize however that when the water began to recede that areas began to have no water pressure on them and other areas still had water pressure. This difference is what throws things out of stasis, and is perhaps what fractured the crust into the plates. It seems reasonable that those areas that had more weight from water would descend and those areas that did not have this additional weight would ascend, and of course as this process started the disequilibrium would increase as water ran into ever lowering areas and ran from ever raising areas. As I pointed out before and as evidence supports this process continues to this day. There continues to be uplift and sinking.

The evidence does not support this, this is pure speculation. If this were the case then why wouldn't the oceans continue to sink? And why does new crust form at ocean ridges?

I agree completely with this my friend, but I think the current theory of plate tectonics is shaped by the fact that science supposes evolution to be true and therefor supposes that creation and the flood did not happen. The theory is impacted by the culture of science. I think I have been clear about, “what make of geologic phenomenon which [are] ongoing to this day.”

I have not even been trying to discount the great flood, only what you beleive to be proof of it. Please do more research on the matter. So much of what you have posted in this thread has been ill-informed I cannot respond to it all. This is not meant as an attack, please take no offense. There is plenty of evidence and observation for you to look through so that you can make more educated deductions. I only hope you take some time to educate yourself.

[gritty]

If a global flood is the only explanation then where did all the water go? And why are some mountains apparently much older than others?

If you remember from earlier the Earth is composed of tectonic plates. The idea that the Earths crust id made up of disparate plates which float on the outer magma.

If you recall the Biblical account of "Noah's" Flood, God used only pre-existing water. So the water is still here on Earth. Before the Flood, the Earth was mostly earth, and the water was under the surface, as a continual watering source. And there was a canopy of a form of water (no one knows if it was liquid, gas, or solid). Now that the canopy is broken, the water from it is in clouds, and rose the level of surface water.

According to theory, when the fountains of the great deep (water under the surface) was ruptured (probably caused from whatever it was that broke the canopy) the force of the water threw back the earth. This caused the mantle of the Earth to break-up, and pads of earth floated and tipped and slid and crushed against eachother.

They continued to do this till the water finished rushing out. At which point they came to rest in their present locations. Some of the pads stayed wrinkled, causing mountains. Some of the pads stayed tilted, causing rock layers going the "wrong" way. Some of the pads stayed slid away from the others, causing North and South America, the North and South poles, Australia, and other Islands.

In-between the pads are now seas, oceans, and lakes. Some of the pads are together without water in-between them, causing fault-lines. Earthquakes are usually caused by the pads no being completely settled. They still move a little. Remember that the Earth is smoother than a cue ball; the mountains are not as high as they seem, nor are the valleys so very low.

Mountains appear older and younger by improper [gu]estimation. If this were not true they could tell us to the year how old the Earth REALLY is, but they cannot. I will continue to trust the Bible, for an accounting of Earth, until such a time as God removes it's need.
Romans 3:4

Let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

gritty