Overwhelming Evidence for an Old Earth

[Orogeny]

The problem with those geology dates is how huge the erosion rates are especially when talking about millions of years (this is using very conservative numbers as erosion should been greater in the past).

1. Rate of erosion =/= rate of deposition =/= rate of preservation.
2. Why would erosion [rates] be greater in the past?

There is even been a recent report claiming wind can erode away mountains just as effective as rivers and glaciers.

This isn't a revelation. Why is this supposed to support a young earth?

 

[juvenissun]

1. Rate of erosion =/= rate of deposition =/= rate of preservation.
2. Why would erosion [rates] be greater in the past?


This isn't a revelation. Why is this supposed to support a young earth?

What is that?

 

[Orogeny]

What is that?

It is the rate at which sediment is lithified. Depositional rates over the span of a day are much higher than over a week, which are higher than over a month, a year, and so on. This is a product of remobilization of sediment.

 

[juvenissun]

It is the rate at which sediment is lithified. Depositional rates over the span of a day are much higher than over a week, which are higher than over a month, a year, and so on. This is a product of remobilization of sediment.

Do you mean that sediments eroded from catchment A and deposited at catchment B will continuously be partially eroded out of B at a changing (decreasing) rate due to the compaction at catchment B?

Good thinking. However, I doubt how significant is that. Sedimentary compaction in a small catchment (flood plain) can usually be ignored. And there are no large active sedimentary basin on land. And this rate of preservation will not be considered in an active basin in shallow sea, right?

To model erosion on land, the residential time will be a proper replacement to your rate of preservation. In other words, treat it as a constant.

 

[Orogeny]

Do you mean that sediments eroded from catchment A and deposited at catchment B will continuously be partially eroded out of B at a changing (decreasing) rate due to the compaction at catchment B?

No, I mean that long-term sediment dispersal results in generally low long-term sedimentation rates, in that the amount of sediment 'deposited' in an area is not equal to the amount of sediment that is buried and lithified in that area.

For example: If one were to put a sediment trap on a beach for one day, that trap may accumulate 1mm of sediment. You would then be inclined to say 'wow, this beach accumulates 365mm of sediment every year!' That would be an astoundingly high sedimentation rate. But if you were to leave that sediment trap out for a month, you would likely only accumulate 2-3mm of sediment. What happened to the other 28mm? It was re-mobilized by longshore drift, tidal currents, and other forces. So over a long period of time, relative 'sediment accumulation rate' tends to decrease, such that the amount of sediment actually buried and lithified is not the same as the measured sedimentation rate over some geologically short period of time. Obviously this is not the case for every system- some hold onto their sediment quite faithfully.

Good thinking. However, I doubt how significant is that. Sedimentary compaction in a small catchment (flood plain) can usually be ignored.

False. Compaction is often quite significant in flood plains, since they are generally fine grained and water-rich. Flood plains can be quite muddy, and mud can be compacted by up to a factor of 10.

And there are no large active sedimentary basin on land.

Really? The Lake Eyre Basin isn't a large basin? It covers more than 20% of Australia! How about the Ganges foreland basin? The Po basin in Italy?

And this rate of preservation will not be considered in an active basin in shallow sea, right?

Why not? Compaction begins as soon as sediment is buried.

To model erosion on land, the residential time will be a proper replacement to your rate of preservation. In other words, treat it as a constant.

This doesn't make sense.

 

[juvenissun]

No, I mean that long-term sediment dispersal results in generally low long-term sedimentation rates, in that the amount of sediment 'deposited' in an area is not equal to the amount of sediment that is buried and lithified in that area.

For example: If one were to put a sediment trap on a beach for one day, that trap may accumulate 1mm of sediment. You would then be inclined to say 'wow, this beach accumulates 365mm of sediment every year!' That would be an astoundingly high sedimentation rate. But if you were to leave that sediment trap out for a month, you would likely only accumulate 2-3mm of sediment. What happened to the other 28mm? It was re-mobilized by longshore drift, tidal currents, and other forces. So over a long period of time, relative 'sediment accumulation rate' tends to decrease, such that the amount of sediment actually buried and lithified is not the same as the measured sedimentation rate over some geologically short period of time. Obviously this is not the case for every system- some hold onto their sediment quite faithfully.

Are you talking about sediments still in the process of transportation, such as those on an active flood plains (on land), or about sediments in a (shallow sea) depositional basin? Do you mean the rate of preservation applies to both cases in a significant sense? In particular, it is NOT the same as the residential time to flood plain sediments?

 

[Assyrian]

Wooo... Stop. You are getting off line.

You mean ash in the varves get dated? I don't see how could that happen. If there were such work, I like to read it.

Don't know if you could date it radiometrically in the varve, unless by carbon dating the layers above and below, but if you have identified the eruption and the volcano it came from, the ash layers and lava will certainly be datable nearer the site of the eruption.

I said that radiometric dating "works". Do you know what does that mean? That means everything it can do so it is able to give a consistent "age" with results of all other methods. Otherwise, it means that it does not "work". And there are many many examples that illustrated it works only if the study is very carefully done. Date ash in varve sounds like one of the toughest job in that profession.

It works because the systems are internally consistent. The only factor outside the systems is the time. Internally consistent systems get a timing mark does not mean the true time is what the system indicated.

The question is why completely independent dating systems, annual varves and radiometric dating give the same results unless they are both absolute dates. You have agreed annual varves give real dates. Why aren't radiomentric dates real when we see them agree with the real dates of varves? If radiometric dating gives real dates back through the period covered by varve and dendrochronology, what reason do you have to think it lapses into 'relative dating' when it looks at older rock?

 

[Orogeny]

Are you talking about sediments still in the process of transportation, such as those on an active flood plains (on land), or about sediments in a (shallow sea) depositional basin? Do you mean the rate of preservation applies to both cases in a significant sense? In particular, it is NOT the same as the residential time to flood plain sediments?

Juve, my original point was that one cannot relate local erosion rates to local depositional rates. I'm not sure what's got you confused here, but could you please be a little clearer with what you're asking? Using proper technical English would be a good start.

 

[juvenissun]

Juve, my original point was that one cannot relate local erosion rates to local depositional rates. I'm not sure what's got you confused here, but could you please be a little clearer with what you're asking? Using proper technical English would be a good start.

I have no problem with that.

However, you added the "rate of preservation" to it. And I had no idea on what that is. And I still don't. This makes me think you made up this term. That is fine, as long as you can explain it.

So far, your explanation is confusing. Basically, I don't think you should mix the compaction and lithification together. And these two terms are not really related to the issue of erosion.

 

[juvenissun]

Don't know if you could date it radiometrically in the varve, unless by carbon dating the layers above and below, but if you have identified the eruption and the volcano it came from, the ash layers and lava will certainly be datable nearer the site of the eruption.


The question is why completely independent dating systems, annual varves and radiometric dating give the same results unless they are both absolute dates. You have agreed annual varves give real dates. Why aren't radiomentric dates real when we see them agree with the real dates of varves? If radiometric dating gives real dates back through the period covered by varve and dendrochronology, what reason do you have to think it lapses into 'relative dating' when it looks at older rock?

The so-called absolute date is only given by the radiometric dating. Varves is only an example of application. So, your question goes back to our earlier discussion. Absolute dating only serves as a check on the result, not as a mean to show the true nature of time. It is an application of physics, not an explanation of time.

 

[Assyrian]

The so-called absolute date is only given by the radiometric dating. Varves is only an example of application. So, your question goes back to our earlier discussion. Absolute dating only serves as a check on the result, not as a mean to show the true nature of time. It is an application of physics, not an explanation of time.

Absolute dating also tells us the age of the earth, the evidence you want to keep denying. Varves are not just an example, you recognise them as giving real dates and these real dates confirm the dates we get from radiometric dating. What basis do you have left to deny the evidence of the age of the earth from radiometric dating?

 

[Orogeny]

However, you added the "rate of preservation" to it. And I had no idea on what that is. And I still don't. This makes me think you made up this term. That is fine, as long as you can explain it.

There is a distinct difference between rate of deposition measured over some period of time and rate of ultimate in situ preservation. That is the distinction I was making. I apologize if I was unclear, as I wasn't quite sure what you were asking.

So far, your explanation is confusing. Basically, I don't think you should mix the compaction and lithification together.

Why not? Compaction is an integral part of the lithification process, particularly in the water-rich floodplain setting you brought up.

And these two terms are not really related to the issue of erosion.

They absolutely are. Early lithification of carbonate sediments in a supratidal splash zone inhibits erosion of those sediments. A lack of compaction in shallowly buried carbonate sediment can leave them vulnerable to chemical erosion, which is the reason karstification is so prevalent in Florida and central Texas.

 

[juvenissun]

There is a distinct difference between rate of deposition measured over some period of time and rate of ultimate in situ preservation. That is the distinction I was making. I apologize if I was unclear, as I wasn't quite sure what you were asking.



Why not? Compaction is an integral part of the lithification process, particularly in the water-rich floodplain setting you brought up.


They absolutely are. Early lithification of carbonate sediments in a supratidal splash zone inhibits erosion of those sediments. A lack of compaction in shallowly buried carbonate sediment can leave them vulnerable to chemical erosion, which is the reason karstification is so prevalent in Florida and central Texas.

Do you mean those limestones are more porous? Limestone usually are NOT compacted during lithification. But due to the property of calcite, inorganic limestone will not be porous either.

OK, I am not going to continue this discussion as it is going further away from the OP. Thank you for responding.

 

[Orogeny]

Do you mean those limestones are more porous? Limestone usually are NOT compacted during lithification.

That is a gross oversimplification.

But due to the property of calcite, inorganic limestone will not be porous either.

Patently false.

 

[juvenissun]

Absolute dating also tells us the age of the earth, the evidence you want to keep denying. Varves are not just an example, you recognise them as giving real dates and these real dates confirm the dates we get from radiometric dating. What basis do you have left to deny the evidence of the age of the earth from radiometric dating?

I quit. It is impossible to answer the question you repeated again and again regardless what I said.

 

[Orogeny]

The reason you don't have an answer is because you're wrong, Juve. Radiometric dating works, you're just too stubborn or blind to admit it.

 

[Jazer]

If one were to put a sediment trap on a beach for one day, that trap may accumulate 1mm of sediment. You would then be inclined to say 'wow, this beach accumulates 365mm of sediment every year!' That would be an astoundingly high sedimentation rate. But if you were to leave that sediment trap out for a month, you would likely only accumulate 2-3mm of sediment.

Where did that sediment come from? It began to be created 4 or 4.5 billion years ago, when the moon or a mars size planet hit the earth. That broke the mantle of the earth and sediment began to be formed. Some of the origional earth is still around in the form of granite. The crystals of granite form while the molten material inside the Earth's crust cools relatively slowly.

 

[Jazer]

Radiometric dating works.

It does not work unless they calibrate it. So by itself you can not use it for anything.

 

[Orogeny]

Where did that sediment come from? It began to be created 4 or 4.5 billion years ago, when the moon or a mars size planet hit the earth. That broke the mantle of the earth and sediment began to be formed.

The energy from a Mars-sized impactor would have caused melting of the entire proto-earth. No sediment would have been created at this time, since the Earth's surface would have been molten. Molten rock hardens into igneous rock. So no, that's not where the sediment is coming from.

Some of the origional earth is still around in the form of granite.

False. The 'origional' earth's composition was not granitic. Bulk mantle (not even bulk earth, which would be more Fe-Ni rich) is thought to be similar to a garnet lherzolite or peridotite, with about 45% SiO2, whereas an average granite is ~ 70-75% SiO2.

 

[Orogeny]

It does not work unless they calibrate it. So by itself you can not use it for anything.

Which it has been, so your point would be...?