Ocean sediments not biblical

[ChordatesLegacy]

The bottom of World Ocean, including the seas, is covered with sediments of various types and derivation. The sizes of the particles are sorted and classified as boulders, gravel, sand, mud and pelagic oozes. The types are further divided into derivation and material classifications: terrigenous, biogenic, chemogenic, volcanogenic and polygenic sediments.

In this thread I will demonstrate that these sediments owe nothing to the magical mystical biblical flood and everything to Uniformiatrianism. Below is a diagram outlining the major oceanic sediments, which consist of terrigenous, calcareous, siliceous-calcareous, iceberg-rafted and red ooze.

I think a good starting point will be terrigenous sediments

1. Terrigenous
2. Calcareous
3. Siliceous- calcareous
4. Iceberg-rafted
5. Siliceous
6. Red ooze

Terrigenous sediments are found in layers on continental margins and adjacent parts of the sea floor. They are derived from the land and are dispersed by rivers, winds, ice, and also form when shores are eroded by waves and currents. The coarse material forms sediments basically in the coastal zone and in polar areas, the sediments are carried by icebergs and floating ice and deposited at great depths forming a glacio-marine sediment containing many boulders, cobbles and gravel. Sands are widespread on shallow parts of the shelves, around islands and on the tops of underwater mountains. In deep water sides on the outer continental shelves and on the sea floor, muds, silts and oozes predominate. A significant thickness of sediments on outer shelves and may become over-saturated with water and the slope fails, causing mud flows and submarine landslides, many of which travel downward in submarine canyons.

LINK 1

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The Bouma Sequence (after Arnold H. Bouma, 1962) describes a classic set of sedimentary beds (turbidites) deposited by a sediment-water turbidity current. The Bouma Sequence specifically describes the medium grained variety, which are usually found in the continental slope or rise setting.
The Bouma Sequence is divided into 5 distinct beds labelled a through to e, with a being at the bottom and e being at the top and each bed is described by Bouma as having a specific lithology (see below). In a real Bouma Sequence, some beds may be missing - Bouma describes the ideal sequence.
The beds are:

• e: Muds, ungraded, often bioturbated.
• d: Parallel laminated silts.
• c: Cross laminated sands.
• b: Parallel laminated sands.
• a: Sands and any larger grains the turbidity current was carrying at the time of deposition.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since the Bouma paper of 1962 it has been demonstrated the turbidite deposit is a “member” of an evolutionary trend of vertically associated sediments that accumulate from debris flows, hyperconcentrated to concentrated density flows, and turbidity flows (Mulder & Alexander, 2001). As Parsons et al (2003) observe, “Gravity-driven motions produced from turbulent suspensions are an important sediment-transport process in the modern ocean and the deposits that result from them constitute a significant portion of the sedimentary record”. Turbidites are one of these deposits. For instance on the continental margin of the Southwest Orphan Basin in the Labrador Sea, sediment moves under gravity as cohesionless debris flows that are transformed basinward into fluids moving under gravity in the form of high-density turbidity currents (Tripsanas & Piper’s, 2006). In this latter case no hemipelagic deposits were found to separate the sand-gravel unit from the mud flow and the seismic data suggests that the mud-flow deposit was initiated by slope failure.[/FONT]

LINK 2
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...rev=/images?q=bouma+sequences&um=1&hl=en&sa=N

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Evidence of turbidity currents and speed of flow.
The incredible speed and power of turbidity currents was revealed by submarine cable breaks following an earthquake at Grand Banks, off Nova Scotia, Canada, on November 19, 1929. The quake triggered a turbidity current which progressively broke several telegraph cables over a 13-hour period, as the current travelled down the continental slope and continental rise, and out across the abyssal plain to more than 720 km from its source. On the continental slope, velocity of the turbidity current exceeded 40 km/hr. After the cable break, a turbidite layer up to 1 m thick covered an area of at least 100,000 km2.

LINK

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Sequence of turbidite flows in the French Alps



Close up of turbidite sequences



There are thousands of tubidite flows in this sequence, all having formed by the processes already outline above. These flows would have then been slowly buried and undergone diagenesis (the process of turning sediments into rock), before being caught up in the Alpine Orogeny and elevated to their present position

 

[RealityCheck]

Expect the usual responses.

"No it's perfectly explained by the Flood because not enough time has passed for what you describe."

"This isn't evidence, it's all guessing."

etc.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Expect the usual responses.

"No it's perfectly explained by the Flood because not enough time has passed for what you describe."

"This isn't evidence, it's all guessing."

etc.

You are probably right, but the still free minded lurkers may absorb the evidence and steer clear of creationist magical mysticism.

Anyway their attempts at rationalizing creationism gives me a laugh.

 

[Vene]

Why do you hate Jesus?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Why do you hate Jesus?

Is that the white, black or brown Jesus?

White Jesus

Black Jesus

Brown Jesus

 

[Belk]

Is that the white, black or brown Jesus?

White Jesus

Black Jesus

Brown Jesus

So, is it just me or is the second picture somewhat...errr.... well.... homoerotic?

 

[atomweaver]

You are probably right, but the still free minded lurkers may absorb the evidence and steer clear of creationist magical mysticism.

Anyway their attempts at rationalizing creationism gives me a laugh.

Debate aside, I find ChordatesLegacy's geology threads to be some of the most fun to learn from. I've ignored everything debate-related in the 'Miocene' thread, and just read through the science offered. Excellent stuff for a non-geologist to read, very educational and well-organized. I'll be doing the same with this thread.

 

[juvenissun]

In this thread I will demonstrate that these sediments owe nothing to the magical mystical biblical flood and everything to Uniformiatrianism.

What if the Flood happened before 250 Ma? Well, may be before 200 Ma is good enough.

 

[Vene]

What if the Flood happened before 250 Ma? Well, may be before 200 Ma is good enough.

There were no humans 200 million years ago, let alone 250 million years ago!

 

[thaumaturgy]

If the Flood occured in the Paleozoic we'd still presumably find evidence for it. But let's for a second assume it did occur in the Permian. Of course no humans were around at that time, and wouldn't be for approximately 249 million more years or so, so that means that the humans who did record the events of the Flood were doing it from something.

What would that something be? Geology didn't start to mature until about 200 years ago, so they weren't doing it from a firm understanding of the geologic record. Since no one has found definitive evidence for a Global Flood using geology they must have been using something non-evidenced.

That sounds like "faith" or, worse yet, "myth stories" which abound in any and all societies.

Seems like we are back to square one. The Flood still looks an awful lot like a "myth".

 

[juvenissun]

There were no humans 200 million years ago, let alone 250 million years ago!

This is not the content of argument in the OP.
He was trying to show off his geology "knowledge". And my reply is to address his geology question.

 

[thaumaturgy]

This is not the content of argument in the OP.

Incorrect. The OP makes explicit mention of the "Flood". Commonly interepreted to mean the Noachian Flood. Which is recorded as being a "human-experienced" event in the Bible (the only place in which the Biblical Flood, not to be confused with the Epic of Gilgamesh Flood is recorded.) Ergo, the presence or absence of humans is crucial to the discussion.

He was trying to show off his geology "knowledge". And my reply is to address his geology question.

Is there sufficient proof geologically of a single, global flood in the geologic record? Further, is there sufficient proof geologically of the Noachian Flood as described in the Bible contemporaneous with humanity?

 

[thaumaturgy]

He was trying to show off his geology "knowledge".

Why is "knowledge" in quotation marks? Why is the OP referred to as "trying" to show off knowledge?

It would appear that the OP was merely displaying information in furtherance of a point. No "trying" and apparently some deal of actual knowledge.

It is certainly refreshing to see actual science posted once in a while. For that the OP should be commended. Not "sneered" as "trying to show off" his "knowledge".

 

[Molal]

I doubt the OP was showing off his knowledge - but so what if he was showing off?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

This is not the content of argument in the OP.
He was trying to show off his geology "knowledge". And my reply is to address his geology question.

you call a direct geological challenge to flood geology theory to be "showing off"? not that we need to rehash this, but dont ever call yourself a scientist.

 

[juvenissun]

you call a direct geological challenge to flood geology theory to be "showing off"? not that we need to rehash this, but dont ever call yourself a scientist.

Challenge to whom? To people who do not know what oceanic sediments look like? What kind of challenge is that?

 

[RealityCheck]

"Challenge to whom? To people who do not know what oceanic sediments look like? What kind of challenge is that?"

A challenge to anyone who believes in Creationism and has knowledge to deal with real geology.

Such people do exist. But they tend not to believe in Creationism all that much longer after they understand geology.