IE you don't explain sorting, you describe it with a cited commentary from somewhere. So, let's consider a bag of cat litter, shall we. If I upend it's contents into a pan, what happens? The smaller granular material and the larger pebbles come to rest and sit there. One can blow a fan across the top of the pan and perhaps remove a dusting from the top layer, but it otherwise leaves the lower layers untampered with. IE it will not sort on it's own. Try it. It's a cheap experiment. No matter how long you leave the pan unaffected by other than wind, it will not sort itself. It's a matter of physics. Rather than describe sorting, you migh prevail upon us to explain how it happens in absence of a flood, earthquake or other natural happenstance such as a Volcano.
Liquefaction then occurs in "cohesionless" (won't stick together) material during an eathquake. These materials all display the same characteristic - well-rounded or spherical grains that simply slip past each other during an earthquake to temporarily form a viscous liquid that behaves much like quicksand, as opposed to most clastic material which are not spherically rounded and do tend to "stick together". The process of liquefaction is of some importance not only for earthquake-prone regions today, but also to investigate the extent of earthquakes historically. Paleoliquefaction features in the St. Louis, MO region are being analyzed today as geologists work to understand the extent and potential hazards of the New Madrid (pronounced "MAD-rid" for the uninformed) seismic zone.
Ah, now you are presuming that liquefaction requires an earthquake. How far we've come. Liquifaction doesn't require cohesionless material during a flood. Cohesion is due, not to partical shape; but, to it's particular want to act cohesively under specific circumstances which are governed as readily by the amount of Water present as by the action going on around about it. Try mixing clay sometime. When one adds too much water, clay loses cohesion. This is specifically why water is added to it on a spinning wheel or a block in order to shape it into useful items. It's also why clay gets baked. The absence of water strengthens the cohesive nature of clay. Go buy yourself a box of premixed Marblex craft clay. It comes wet and packaged. It doesn't require baking. and an unsurprising quality of it is that if it becomes humid after once drying, it swells, and cracks - loosing cohesion. This is demonstrable with any number of other soil types as regards their cohesive or adherent properties. The variance is in the amount of water required to destablize. I would think this would be readily apparent too to those who have indoor plumbing and wash their dishes. Food particles act in the same way. Dryed spaghetti sauce is murder to get off a pan; but, sit it in water for an hour or two and it's amazing how the sauce gives up cohesion and decides to act more freely. Simple examples; but, that's part of science - understanding through observation. Not dictums via unproven theory.
Incorrect. I refer you to my previous post and Steno's Laws
Particulate matter is as old as the matter. Something made 200 years ago landing on top soil today and covered in soil will still be 200 years older than the level of the soil it resides in. The dating of the material of the soil itself is quite another matter. The soil wasn't made today, though it lands on the ground today. Clay that has been shaped into a pot is older than the pot itself. Just because you remove the water from it, it doesn't loose it's age. Sedimentation layers on the other hand, are made up of an odd lot of geologic trash if you will that comes to rest on the topsoil today, tomorrow, the next day. Introduce a flood and let nature take it's course - tidal action will mix and sort sediment such that 100, 1000, or 3000 years worth of layering is obscured. It is correct. For once your actual layers give up their original resting place and begin movement either up or down your ability to date via depth is ruined because the depths have changed for each layer of strata being affected. Introduce another event, and you compound the problem. The area around the Mississipi River in certain regions are great examples of this. The river overflows it's banks on a fairly regular basis over time and causes sorting of sedimentary layers continuously. In those regions, dating by depth would not only be folly it would be a grand display of ignorance. The deeper the flood, wider it's range and longer it lasts, the more material is affected. Another factor would be the relative closeness to the water table for the given area. Should be a no brainer; but, theory doens't much care when it's trampling the obvious.
Wrong again. The modeling is highly complex and utilizes Biot's equation to understand wave propagation in soils.
Wave propogation is a property of that which we are discussing. This is true regardless of whether we are talking about an earthquake related event, a flood or volcano. It is inherent. I was arguing in general terms as to the extent to which liquefaction is capable of disturbing layers. Given that wave action is part of liquefaction, it's an argument without a difference to state that wave propogation takes place therefore we arent' addressing full scope. Rather, it is because wave action takes place that the conversation is necessitated. Its as though I said 'how far one can travel in a car is a product of the amount of gas in the vehicle and the variable nature of the efficient use of that gas by the engine so long as the person is in travel' while you retort, 'wrong again, there have to be tires on the car.' Which seems more than a bit disengenous.
I haven't any idea what you are babbling about here. Liquefaction leaves readily-identifiable features such as "sand blows".
As a matter of fact, it does not leave readily identifiable features unless judged on scale. The longer it takes place, the more thorough the sorting and therefore the less evidence of any natural tampering. In otherwords, merely stating it does not make it so. But then Geologists have been studying Valcanos far longer than they have studied liquefaction and only now is it coming out that water levels in the soil and rock around a valcano account for a good part of the devastation created. As water heats and rises above it's normal levels due to magma flow, cohesion of rock and soil is lost at the top layers along the incline of the mound. One would think this would have been considered long ago; but, the blatent obvious doesn't seem to occur. IMO this is part of the problem of specific science. People get so close to what they study that they can't see the bug walking across the leaf of a tree for the forest they are pondering. When the bug occurs to them, we're supposed to throw up our hands and say Eureka, you're smart. Some of us say, "Duh". Not because we have little sympathy for you; but, because any idiot looking at it knows water expands in general terms when you heat it - might have something to do with observing it daily on a stove. If it weren't for the liquefaction studies, the obviety of water meddling in volcanic blasts might not have become so obvious.
No, you have this liquefaction-thing so stuck in your head that reason is given no opportunity or quarter. Bedrock is "the solid rock beneath the soil and superficial rock. A general term for solid rock that lies beneath soil, loose sediments, or other unconsolidated material. By way of example, here is a website that describes the bedrock of Vermont, which include gneisses, carbonates, quartzite, slate, schist and granite. Would you please tell me how liquefaction forms metamorphic bedrock? Perhaps you could also tell me how meters-thick bedrock can be folded and faulted from such liquefaction? Here's a site that might help: Chronological Summary of Bedrock Geology: Madoc Area of Eastern Ontario. Which states that, "the geology is irregularly dominated by 40 or so intrusive plutons and localized deposits of volcanic basalt. Most of the area is underlain by Proterozoic metavolcanics and metasediments which increase in metamorphic grade (degree of thermally induced chemical alteration) from south to north. These structures are typically 27,000 feet thick, and are highly folded and faulted and exhibit regional variations of metamorphic grade."
Now we're being absurd. I didn't argue that liquifaction produced rock or that it bears on rock layer faulting or movement. If I were to consider such things, it would first have to be proven that plate tectonics was other than a theory. Faulting doesn't require any "plate" movement, it merely requires a weakness in the rock strata. That the continents lie on the sea floor is without question. That they are attached irretrievably to some moving plate is quite another thing that is neither required nor hinted at. We know the continents were once joined. For them to come unjoined they had to detach, accelerate apart then decelerate. Deceleration of something so massive, no matter how it is accomplished will affect the mass. This is viewable in the massive horizontal compression of North American rock strata, which I believe Walt Brown Discusses. In fact, here is an example he employs:
..Now, if horizontal compression can cause this, then it can also weaken lower layers sufficiently to cause ongoing faulting which would not require any would be plate movement. Volcanoes take time to mount up and build enough pressure to cause an eruption. It's as simple to understand as acne or an infection. Something which I would imagine everyone here not only has experience with; but, can readily speak to. Pressure builds as Magma escapes and mounds up. Over time, the mound will tend to lose stability due to saturation. Once the smooth upward flow of magma is impared by Natural limitations of the material to continue building up, it is only a matter of time before the top blows off and the process begins anew. And Water saturation is a large part of earthquakes. How it bears on the whole picture is worth discussion; but, plate tectonics are not required for Quakes any more than for volcanoes. The reason quakes can't be predicted is pretty simple. It's as obvious as why tectonics is theory.
Yes, indeed! Sedimentation takes a VERY long time. Now you're catching on!
Gee. That sedimentation takes a long time is part of my ongoing argument. It is the reason that a flood can imasculate reasonable attempts at viewing strata as forms of measurement. Long periods of time measured in sedimentation can be disrupted quickly with a minor flood or a major one. If it didn't take a long time, flooding would have little impact on the reading of it. Who needs to catch up? It's obvious you know something. What you know is not in question. What is in question is whether or not what you were taught is correct - that is not a measure of your intelligence. What would be is your willingness to hold to faulty notions just because that's the way you were taught. In which case generations of idiots can be readily produced by way of schooling.
Well duh! Of course, you nitwit, you've used styrofoam and shaken the beegeezus out of your mixture. Has anyone spoken to you about appropriate models for your "system"? Perhaps something you should investigate.
And why do you think I chose it?! Nitwit indeed. Example should be chosen on it's ability to clearly relate a problem and demonstrate it as such. One needen't shake the 'beegeezus' out of the mixture but merely duplicate tidal action. One could as easily employ any number of things. But in illustrating a problem, you make it obvious. One wonders if you protest the obviety of the example or the example itself given that.
BTW, a geologist who is unable to identify regressions, transgression and turbidites isn't worth the ink his or her degree is printed on.
In the modern where it is apparent, that may be the case. But in the Geological record as it is want to be called, it is another matter altogether when past events are unknowns. What this tends to render is an analysis of the evidence that is not so much a matter of the facts as of how well it is liked or deemed to fit preconcieved notions. The which is our general debating point. One might as well say that a scientist who isn't able to prove by scientific method that which he hypothesized and proclaimed fact isn't worth the ink his degree is printed on. Which leads us right back to evolution.
It is interesting then that insurance companies rely upon my "largely useless" geologic principals.
Begs the question. In old times, in whom did sailors put their trust that the earth was flat and they could sail off of it?
Oooooh! I guess aeolian sandstones are simply a figment of many collective imaginations. Tell me, oh Grand Poobah of Geology, then how can liquefaction explain relic dune structures found in many sandstones?
Many sandstones. Gee, there we are again - not all sandstone forms in the same way. You admit it but want yet another tangent. How about we do one better and ask how you explain cross grained sandstone layers that are deposited in all directions on the semi vertical and topped with a horizontal layer..
Hmmm...if my notions are so nonsensical, then why is sandstone made up of silicon dioxide? Given your hypotheses, sandstone could be made up of anything...even coal.
Here you are matching the behavior I was dealing with before in another. I didn't say this nor did I alude to it. Sandstone is obviously sand - thus sillicon. Try going back and actually reading what I said and responding to that rather than making things up as you go. Seems to be a standard pattern with you guys. Perhaps if you go off in enough directions, the argument will get lost or people will get confused - eh?
Pure gibberish. Had you submitted this paragraph to me as an assignment, I would have given you an "F".
Not gibberish. You just seem incapable of following without pictures I would presume,
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
figure 1
A represents top most layer and e the bottom most for our demonstration. strata dating would hold that layer A is the newest and E the oldest. However, knowing that layers are put down as an amalgam, we should see the following instead:
ABECADBCAEDABECADBCAEDBCAD
DBCAEDABECADBCAEDBCADCDABE
ABECADBCCABCADBEDCAAEDBCAD
ABEBBCADCEECDABEDBCAEDBCAD
ABECADBCAEDABECADBCAEDBCAD
figure 2
Now, if we know layers are mixed at the outset and yet we are seeing well defined strata - seperated as in figure 1, then we must ask why it doesn't actually look like figure 2 and explain how it got that way. Sedimentation is a random Chaos as it neither lays a uniform uncontaminated sheet of one type of pariculate matter, nor does it lay that matter in a uniform way as regards volume depth across a plane. Sand dunes are a very good example of this - there is a wave action that presents itself in the appearance of the sediment drifting. This is not, however, what is seen in subsurface strata. And if strata are a cross section of one time top soil amalgam sediments frozen in time, then they should reflect behavior as having been such. Absent that, you have explaining to do on how the chaos produced uniformity and why. Which puts us right back to the central argument again. Clever that.
Need I remind you that the "Theory of Gravity" is exactly that...a theory. You have not made any cohesive or convincing argument.
And I would remind you that the "Theory of Gravity" is a theory that is actually falsifiable. The laws of Gravity are testable and have been tested endlessly - ie it is observeable. This is something that evolutionary arguments do not have. It is the difference between Actual science and Junk science. Actual science is falsifiable. Junk science swims in a pool of theory that resists proof and rather condemns the assertion of the truth that it is not proven.
Again, your babbling makes it difficult to ascertain exactly what you are driving at, but I sense an insult. Tut, tut, my dear fellow...a college education just might be of some assistance. I suggest you try it.
Babbling? No. Just restating in sum that you evolutionists feel mocked when one points out that your endless theorizing with no proof and no falsifiable testing as junk science. No doubt you do sense an insult. But when you are looking for something to disagree with, how can one blame you for trying to insult yourself in another's words even when it isn't there. We have to be the bad guy otherwise the self-righteousness you present yourself with seems misplaced. Perhaps that is what confuses you. Should I act nasty and make you feel better?
Please tell me which Universities are currently teaching a course in "Creationist Liquefaction Studies".
Please tell me which universities are actually held accountable for what they teach and held to prove that about which they theorize. I think that's a rather blatent "touche'".