That whacky Red Bedford Shale

[Jimmy Higgins]

I mean, holy cow! Doesn't this shale know that if you are overlayed by 4 feet of clay, 14 weathered to decomposed shale, 16 feet of "medium strong" shale, 11 feet of interbedded sandstone and shale, and 22 feet of "strong" sandstone that when you final get to the red bedford (a four letter word to geotechnical drillers), you shouldn't be "very weak" at best and more likely residual soil for the first few feet!

I mean, if the global flood laid down all this sedimentary rock in Garfield Heights, Ohio (from where I take this example as seen from the geotechnical drilling we've done), there is no reason to believe that any of the underlying bedrock should be weathered so much. Especially when the overlying Sunbury shale, Chagrin Shale, and Berea Sandstones are "medium strong" to "strong" and quite competent, ie RQDs no lower than 75% and usually 90+%. (RQD- is the percent of rock cored that was recovered in fragments larger than 4" a piece, excluding any fragments caused by mechanical drilling)

So we have what would seem to be a very large Global Flood contradiction. We've got approximately 45' of very competent rock overlying weak rock? How can bedrock weather backwards? It weathers from the surface down, not the bottom up! How can a global flood account for this weathering?

Note: "medium strong" (ms) and "strong" (s) are rated from a specific company's scale, out of 7 levels of strength. (ms) is the 4th strongest, (s) the 3rd strongest. The strongest would be a granite like rock. The weakest would be the residual soil we encountered in the boring.

[rach12]

The silence is deafening!:)

[Jimmy Higgins]

*bump!* I know many in here believe in the global flood, I'm just so surprised that people can't defend such simple questions.

I mean, while the question remains to geologists as to why part of Bedford Shale is red, they are certain as to its weakness. Flood geologists care to answer? Does the "Poster of the Month" have an answer?

[Jimmy Higgins]

:joy: *BUMP* :joy:

Wow! Can't explain it, gotta run from it. Typical. I mean this is proof alone that the Flood never happened.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 11:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102748#post102748)
Jimmy Higgins:

:joy: *BUMP* :joy:

Wow! Can't explain it, gotta run from it. Typical. I mean this is proof alone that the Flood never happened.

Geologist's have recognized a number of rather catastrophic events in earth history. One is the K/T impact. Geologist's can walk you up to the outcrop and point right at the location of the K/T impact and the evidence for it. Geologist's can walk you up to the location of the Permo-Triassic extinction and point right at it throughout the world. The evidence they use is correlatable from continent to continent and consistent. The Frasnian-Fammenian boundary (Devonian extinction) is correlatable and easy to identify in the field. The appearance/disappearance of certain organisms (FAD's and LAD's) are correlatable on a global basis. This is part and parcel of many forms of research that generates $$. Yet, creationists claim that the most important geologic event on earth was the Gilgameshian (or Noachian) flood. Can a creationist walk you around the globe and point to the sedimentary rocks that mark the onset, peak and post flood rocks? Absolutely not! The most important catastrophe in the history of ye-creationism cannot be uniquely identified! In fact, this is one of the myriad problems that led creationists of the 1700-1800's to abandon ye, global flood creationism. Even more interesting is the fact that petroluem companies do not use young earth flood models to hunt for oil. Economic mineral companies do not use young earth flood models to search for economic deposits. These companies do not care about theological issues. They care about the bottom line. The bottom line is that young earth, global flood geology is not economically viable and has produced nothing worthy of exploration. One can argue back and forth about the relative merits of all of this, but young earth creationism falls flat on its face when it comes to practical use. To me, this is more damning than any post we can possibly come up with. The same is true in other fields of science. YE-creationism has produced no new pharmaceutical nor cures for cancer. When you examine ye-creationism from a purely economical perspective, it is obvious that the 'science' is bankrupt.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[rach12]

EXACTLY, Joe Meert!!!

YEC's can *explain* away one fact at a time, but they can't explain all the facts as a whole. Not only that, but the chosen topics are always extremely broad, which allows for much generalization - hand-waving.

As Joe Meert mentioned, YEC's cannot adequately explain how all the mineral deposits (or oil, for that matter) formed in 6,000 years or less. And will they ever tackle that topic? No freakin' way! And especially, no HOW.

Geology is an extremely complicated and diverse science. So much so that YEC's will never defeat the insurmounting evidence that grows and accumulates every single day. The idea that *problems* with varves, radiomentric dating, fossils, thrusts, folds, Niagra Falls, the Grand Canyon, etc. are used by YECs as *evidence* of a young Earth is laughable. Anyone who knows their geology understands the complexity of the science and just how far-reaching and intricate it really is.

YECs lose at geology and there is no question about that.

[Jimmy Higgins]

As far as I'm concerned, if this can't be explained away, it disproves a young earth because it would be impossible for weakness and weathereing to occur from bottom up.

So no response by our YEC'ers denotes that the earth is not young!

[Jimmy Higgins]

Decomposed bedrock under healthy bedrock. Impossible under a flood model which is apparent because of the quietness in this thread from YEC'ers. How typical.

[rach12]

Hmmmmm....

It seems to me that YECs favor a broad topic when discussing science because it permits a greater margin of error when pontificating in ignorance. Not to mention, they can sound quite reasonable to the unschooled layman.

However, once the topic gets into the nitty gritty, as this one does to some degree, those same *experts* become suspiciously silent - clearly demonstrating their genuine lack of knowledge in that field.

Arrogance of ignorance comes to mind...




"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing;

Dig deep, or taste not the Pierian spring,

There, shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

And, drinking largely, sobers us again."

............... Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism (1711)

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121228#post121228)
rach12:
However, once the topic gets into the nitty gritty, as this one does to some degree, those same *experts* become suspiciously silent - clearly demonstrating their genuine lack of knowledge in that field.

Arrogance of ignorance comes to mind... Right on! A person can always claim to be an expert, but that means nothing. I'm not professional geologist, however, my experience in the field makes me aware of certain geologic conditions that do exist. Seeing with my own eyes, I can testify to reality, while YEC'ers can only shout "Foul!" from ignorance and arrogence.

[Passant]

EXACTLY, Joe Meert!!!

YEC's can *explain* away one fact at a time, but they can't explain all the facts as a whole. Not only that, but the chosen topics are always extremely broad, which allows for much generalization - hand-waving.

Yes, exactly! They like to isolate one thing, try to come up with some sort of denial, and disregard the fact that there is independent supporting evidence, that all "somehow" give the same answer!

[Jimmy Higgins]

*Bump*

I've noticed that a pro-flood person in posting in here now and I wanted to bump this up so he could explain how this situation exists.

[aniso]

06-12-2003 @ 11:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121474#post121474)
Passant:



Yes, exactly! They like to isolate one thing, try to come up with some sort of denial, and disregard the fact that there is independent supporting evidence, that all "somehow" give the same answer!


Remember, they use the SAME data. Just at different times...

[rach12]

Today @ 11:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=346253#post346253)
aniso:


Remember, they use the SAME data. Just at different times...

...and with different goggles.

[TrueCreation]

05-09-2003 @ 10:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92377#post92377)
Jimmy Higgins:

I mean, holy cow! Doesn't this shale know that if you are overlayed by 4 feet of clay...So we have what would seem to be a very large Global Flood contradiction. We've got approximately 45' of very competent rock overlying weak rock? How can bedrock weather backwards? It weathers from the surface down, not the bottom up! How can a global flood account for this weathering?

Note: "medium strong" (ms) and "strong" (s) are rated from a specific company's scale, out of 7 levels of strength. (ms) is the 4th strongest, (s) the 3rd strongest. The strongest would be a granite like rock. The weakest would be the residual soil we encountered in the boring.
--Are you using the degree of induration and the degree of weathering interchangebly? I think that, if the formation is as you describe and no further information is relevant, it is probably due to the permiability of the superposing layer of clay or the availability of cementing materials in the matrix of the sandstone stratum in question.

--Can you explain why this is a problem for a young earth catastrophic explanation and not a uniformitarian scenario? Just for comparing and contrasting.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday @ 06:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=347806#post347806)
TrueCreation:
--Are you using the degree of induration and the degree of weathering interchangebly? I think that, if the formation is as you describe and no further information is relevant, it is probably due to the permiability of the superposing layer of clay or the availability of cementing materials in the matrix of the sandstone stratum in question.I'm confused as to what difference the cementing agents in the sandstone would have with regards to the weathering of the underlying shale. Furthermore, I'm confused as to how the permability of the overlaying clay has anything to do with this seeing the Bedford shale in this situation is about 60 feet below the ground surface.


--Can you explain why this is a problem for a young earth catastrophic explanation and not a uniformitarian scenario? Just for comparing and contrasting.Simple. YEC wants to pretend that sedimentary rock was laid down at one time. Uniformitarian allows rock to formed over longperiods of time, and in fact allows for some rock to disappear through erosion before ever being overlain by other rock.

[grmorton]

Jimmy Higgins:

As far as I'm concerned, if this can't be explained away, it disproves a young earth because it would be impossible for weakness and weathereing to occur from bottom up.

So no response by our YEC'ers denotes that the earth is not young!


They seem to have fled. Some like Dee Dee thinks that people might not be interested in geology. Others like Socrates, call such data 'geological minutiae'. But the effect is the same. They have presented no coherent defense of their global flood beliefs. Take a look at all the silence my posts engendered.

To the YECs. Doesn't it bother you just a wee bit that no one defends your cause?

[rach12]

Today @ 11:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348851#post348851)
grmorton:


Others like Socrates, call such data 'geological minutiae'.
That's because without a clear understanding of geology, you can't tackle the 'minutiae' and those that do have a clear understanding of geology, don't!

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 01:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348851#post348851)
grmorton:
They seem to have fled. Some like Dee Dee thinks that people might not be interested in geology. Others like Socrates, call such data 'geological minutiae'. But the effect is the same. They have presented no coherent defense of their global flood beliefs. Take a look at all the silence my posts engendered. Absolutely. The closest I've seen is a disaster of a bedrock cross section explaining how the rocks formed, though not specifically regarding any real formation. Its an absolute travesty. I've dealt with what I'd consider sane YEC'ers and bring up this geology stuff, and I don't bring up difficult stuff (I can't, I'm just a geotechnical engineer, not a geologist). I just bring up what I've personally encountered in my work. But they just kinda sweep it aside. Its almost like "If I can't see it, it isn't there."


To the YECs. Doesn't it bother you just a wee bit that no one defends your cause? To quote myself previously from elsewhere, some people will believe what they have to believe.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 04:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349119#post349119)
rach12:
That's because without a clear understanding of geology, you can't tackle the 'minutiae' and those that do have a clear understanding of geology, don't! I think you could even say its a complete lack of exposure to geology. I think the fact that there is no attempt at Flood Geology by any YEC'er, except maybe Baumgartner, should be a tell tale sign that there is a very large hole in the ideaology. Its not as much that they can't refute us, its that they don't even have a theory of their own!

[TrueCreation]

Yesterday @ 05:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348790#post348790)
Jimmy Higgins:

I'm confused as to what difference the cementing agents in the sandstone would have with regards to the weathering of the underlying shale.
--It wouldn't necessarily, but it would have a lot to do with whether this rock was well lithified or not. I am also confused as to why you are using the rocks characteristic 'weathered' look and the rocks 'induration' interchangebly. Do you think they mean the same, or imply the same thing? Please clarify the condition of these rocks on the basis of their weathered properties and what seems to be the crux of your argument, how well consolidated this rock is.


Furthermore, I'm confused as to how the permability of the overlaying clay has anything to do with this seeing the Bedford shale in this situation is about 60 feet below the ground surface.
--Impermeable strata such as clays can cause the dessicatio (due to compaction) of the underlying strata to be very slow and causing the rock to not be as well lithified as superposing strata which can have their water removed efficiently and their cementing materials precipitated upon compaction. Of course this may be entirely trivial with regards to the section of sediments you are speaking of, whose petrology has been explained rather ambiguously. Please expound on this.


Simple. YEC wants to pretend that sedimentary rock was laid down at one time. Uniformitarian allows rock to formed over longperiods of time, and in fact allows for some rock to disappear through erosion before ever being overlain by other rock.
--So let me get this straight. You presume that YECist catastrophic geology just has several kilometers of sediments just plop right on the pre-flood surface with no systematic or relatively gradual processes at all?? If so, your in for an awakening. Erosion and gradual deposition of sediments is not unexpected for this geology.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

[aniso]

Today @ 06:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349764#post349764)
TrueCreation:

--So let me get this straight. You presume that YECist catastrophic geology just has several kilometers of sediments just plop right on the pre-flood surface with no systematic or relatively gradual processes at all?? If so, your in for an awakening. Erosion and gradual deposition of sediments is not unexpected for this geology. (Emphasis mine.)

Hmmm, seems like you are flirting periously with uniformitarianism here. Perhpas you should define what you mean by 'catastrophism'...

[TrueCreation]

Today @ 06:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349772#post349772)
aniso:

(Emphasis mine.)

Hmmm, seems like you are flirting periously with uniformitarianism here. Perhpas you should define what you mean by 'catastrophism'...

--Just because I say 'gradual' does not imply extensive time. If sediments are deposited catastrophically and successively, whether the time involved in it is long or short, it is a systematic gradual process. Catastrophic means more rapid than currently observed to take place, but is a rather flexible term, I agree.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

[aniso]

Today @ 09:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349913#post349913)
TrueCreation:

--Just because I say 'gradual' does not imply extensive time. If sediments are deposited catastrophically and successively, whether the time involved in it is long or short, it is a systematic gradual process. Catastrophic means more rapid than currently observed to take place, but is a rather flexible term, I agree.


And conveniently so. Just remember that all of those hiatuses between sedimentation events only makes thost events more catastrophic and harmful to life. Which, hopefully brings us back to the topic...

If you are saying that the weakness of the Bedford Shale is due to something other than weathering, we should be able to tell by noting several different features. Hopefully, Jimmy Higgins can shed some light here. There certainly are paleosoils in the geological record. Do you plan to refute each of them, or do you accept the presence of paleosoils?

[TrueCreation]

Today @ 11:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349985#post349985)
aniso:



And conveniently so. Just remember that all of those hiatuses between sedimentation events only makes thost events more catastrophic and harmful to life. Which, hopefully brings us back to the topic...
--Right.


If you are saying that the weakness of the Bedford Shale is due to something other than weathering, we should be able to tell by noting several different features. Hopefully, Jimmy Higgins can shed some light here. There certainly are paleosoils in the geological record. Do you plan to refute each of them, or do you accept the presence of paleosoils?
--I am not sure what Higgins is trying to describe, whether it is simply a stratum that is not as well lithified as those superposing or something else such as a poorly consolidated paleosol. Higgins is a geotechnical engineer so he may not be able to tell us that it is a paleosol, but we will see. I accept the presence of rock which appears to be representative of ancient soils. I am not convinced that they cannot be the result of diagenetic processes, depositional features, or both.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

[aniso]

Today @ 11:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349992#post349992)
TrueCreation:

--I am not sure what Higgins is trying to describe, whether it is simply a stratum that is not as well lithified as those superposing or something else such as a poorly consolidated paleosol.

I believe he infers the latter, although he may be considering weathering in general rather than actual soil formation. Which would be the whole point here, that there were extended time intervals for weathering to occur between deposits.


Higgins is a geotechnical engineer so he may not be able to tell us that it is a paleosol, but we will see. I accept the presence of rock which appears to be representative of ancient soils. I am not convinced that they cannot be the result of diagenetic processes, depositional features, or both.

Could you explain the diagenetic processes or depositional features that you have in mind?

I am wondering how you explain then the presence of tree trunks situated on a horizon which also contains dinosaur tracks. This occurs in some of the Mesozoic coal deposits of the Rocky Mountain region. Are you going to transport dead dinosaurs along with the trees I assume you think are transported into position?

[TrueCreation]

Yesterday @ 11:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=350007#post350007)
aniso:



I believe he infers the latter, although he may be considering weathering in general rather than actual soil formation. Which would be the whole point here, that there were extended time intervals for weathering to occur between deposits.
--Technically in paleopedology and pedology any sort of weathering (whether biological, chemical, or physical) occuring on a surface can be described as the formation of soil. But anyways, I will just wait for Higgins to provide us with some more information than discuss a bunch of trivial scenarios and compositions relevant to the question at hand.



Could you explain the diagenetic processes or depositional features that you have in mind?
--Well there are so many processes it would be ridiculous of me to attempt to describe them here. It would be better to find a paleosol in the geologic record and discuss it in detail. I will hopefully be getting a detailed thesis study of the Eocene paleosols in the Gallatin fossil fossil forests near Yellowstone soon. At least as soon as I can order it on interlibrary loan when I get to spend some time at the USF library. That would be a perfect example for discussion. Of course if there are other examples of well studied paleosols in the geologic record and plenty of information is available on them we could get it and discuss the implications of the data.



I am wondering how you explain then the presence of tree trunks situated on a horizon which also contains dinosaur tracks. This occurs in some of the Mesozoic coal deposits of the Rocky Mountain region. Are you going to transport dead dinosaurs along with the trees I assume you think are transported into position?
--No, I would presume that after such a 'fossil forest' were deposited, and waters abated, organisms walked around in them and their tracks were preserved upon subsequent sedimentation. What you will find anomalous about some fossil forests such as with Eocene Yellowstone, nothing like this is documented, not even pedotubules such as root traces or invertebrate burrows. All you find is upright trees with typically short narrow root systems also without vertebrate fossils encased even in the deposits of conglomeratic lahars. If information comes about which contradicts my understanding of these fossil forests I will let you know, but as far as I know they are valid. But that discussion is for another thread :)

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

[aniso]

Today @ 12:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=350036#post350036)
TrueCreation:

[quote]--No, I would presume that after such a 'fossil forest' were deposited, and waters abated, organisms walked around in them and their tracks were preserved upon subsequent sedimentation.

Ah, I see. But what held the trees in place? This sounds unbelievable to me. And how did the dinosaurs survive these surges to be able to walk around on a lifeless land surface? And where did the underlying coal come from?

[TrueCreation]

Today @ 03:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=350321#post350321)
aniso:



Ah, I see. But what held the trees in place? This sounds unbelievable to me.
--The substrate in which they are rooted, what else? I predict they all have narrow root systems as well.


And how did the dinosaurs survive these surges to be able to walk around on a lifeless land surface?
--Either the surge was not strong enough to do anything to them, or they merely moved in from other areas not covered by the surge.


And where did the underlying coal come from?
--I presume that it would have been deposited along with the sediment in which the trees are rooted and concentrated on top of the sediment due to buoyancy factors.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

[aniso]

Yesterday @ 11:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=350670#post350670)
TrueCreation:

--I presume that it would have been deposited along with the sediment in which the trees are rooted and concentrated on top of the sediment due to buoyancy factors.

So, the organic material settled to the bottom before the clastic sediments. Interesting...

[TrueCreation]

Today @ 05:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=350959#post350959)
aniso:



So, the organic material settled to the bottom before the clastic sediments. Interesting... --No, you have it backwords. They would be, "concentrated on top of the sediment due to buoyancy factors."

Cheers,
-Chris Grose