#Geologic Time Table
30 messages in this thread
When I first visited the Grand Canyon
I asked the ranger where the material that piled up in layers came from?
He said that it blew in.
Where did the layers come from?
This is just Kamron speculation.
The layers came from the Sun.
The geologic table from the beginning of time up until the top of the
Cretaceous is somewhat consistent world wide.
The layers up to that point while varying in thickness are laid out in fairly
even beds over the entire crust, as a general rule.Correct me if I'm Wrong.
Where did these layers come from?
I believe that all this material that piled up came from the Sun. The
variations in the layers represent different stages of the solar output.
I believe there was a hugh catastrophe that occurred to the earth at that
time. What other theories are there for these organized layers and the mess of
layers above this layer.
>> I asked the ranger where the material that piled up in layers came from?
He said that it blew in.>>
The "flat" layers exposed in the Grand Canyon that form the most spectacular
colors and rock formations are sandstones, limestones, and other types of
rocks. Some of the layers may be ancient dune fields or sand fiels, but I'm
not sure of that. Others represent ancient sea-beds, etc. The most ancient
layers are schists (if I recall correctly, originally sedimentary rock) and are
very ancient. The reddish layers that are above these schists lie
unconformably on top of them, indicating that erosion occurred before the
formation the other layers.
<< Where did the layers come from?>>
Thus, the layers come from a variety of sources, depending on what layer you
are talking about. If that is all the ranger said — that "they blew in"–
then they need a new ranger out there!
<< The layers came from the Sun.>>
Since the sun is not made of silica or carbonates, which probably constitute
most of the material you see when you look at the walls of the Grand Canyon,
this is highly unlikely.
<< The geologic table from the beginning of time up until the top of the
Cretaceous is somewhat consistent world wide.
The layers up to that point while varying in thickness are laid out in fairly
even beds over the entire crust, as a general rule.Correct me if I'm Wrong.>>
There is not basis for this statement, if I'm reading it corrrectly. In fact,
while at the Grand Canyon, you were looking at a good example of just the
opposite, with the Schist layers (the dark rock through which the river runs,
as they say in the movies<g> are not layered nice and horizontal and even like
the rocks above, but are all jumbled up and messy.
Also, among the strata that look well layered from the area of the visitor
center, but down canyon some ways, there is also a lot of messiness among the
strata, in particular in association with lava flows, if I remember my GC
geology correctly. Someone with more info on this may want to chime in here.
<<The variations in the layers represent different stages of the solar
output.>>
Solar output of sandstone and limestone? Not too likely!
<< I believe there was a hugh catastrophe that occurred to the earth at that
time.>>
At which time?
<< What other theories are there for these organized layers and the mess of
layers above this layer. <<
Well, things are not laid out as you thought, partly thanks to some
misinformation from a rogue park ranger!
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
GTL
– Greg Laden, Written 14-Aug-1994 @ 20:10:00
Using: Windows NavCIS PRO 1.25
The point that needs clarification here is…
The layers between the Pre-cambrian and up to the top of the Cretaceous
were built up around the world at the same time in similar thickness layers.
There are volcanic flows and ash layers and other variables.
The total crust has built up from the Pre-cambrian miles thick. This build up
could not occur if the material was moving around from one place to another.
You see the problem? building up everywhere at the same time…..
It could not have come from earth, not and built up in layers of similar depth
world wide. There are also worldwide (markers) like the iridium layer between
the cretaceous and the paleocene.
The catastrophe came at the top of the cretaceous layer.
>> The layers between the Pre-cambrian and up to the top of the Cretaceous
were built up around the world at the same time in similar thickness layers.
<<
Now I see what you are saying. It isn't true, though, as far as I know. What
is the evidence for this?
>> The total crust has built up from the Pre-cambrian miles thick. This build
up could not occur if the material was moving around from one place to another.
You see the problem? building up everywhere at the same time….. <<
Now I get it. But your premise is faulty, I believe, so this conclusion is
unwarrented.
– Greg Laden, Written 15-Aug-1994 @ 12:51:53
Using: Windows NavCIS PRO 1.25
>> Now I see what you are saying. It isn't true, though, as far as I know.
What is the evidence for this? <<
The story goes that the materials came from mountains that were being worn
down by time. If that were true then there would be clumps of material instead
of the layers we see at the cretaceous and lower levels.
The sandstones and clays are layers of very consistent size particles
stretching over very large areas. They are composed of very fine smooth round
particles , unlike the products of erosion.
Erosion deposits are found in uneven beds of varying size particles and even
in the sea bed would not make the same type of layers.
This worldwide deposition of even layers cannot have happened without the
material comming in from off planet sources.
I am just thinking out loud and wondered if anyone else noticed this.
"The sandstones and clays are layers of very consistent size particles
stretching over very large areas. They are composed of very fine smooth round
particles , unlike the products of erosion."
The particles forming the various sandstones of the GC are not all constent in
size. The smoother and rounder windblown sand particles that form the Coconino
formation are very different from the water formed Tapeats sandstone.
jf
The average particles in a given layer are consistent within the layer. Each
layer is world wide.
The Pre-Cambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, and Silurian layers are each distinct
in composition and worldwide. The change in the deposition is sudden and the
type of rock is very distinct and different in each layer.
This fact applies to the balance of the layers moving up through time,
Devonian, Caboniferous (both parts) then Permian, Triassic. Jurassic then
Cretaceous. Each layer is distinct, worldwide and consistent in makeup.
These deposits occurred worldwide at the same time!!!!
It is currently thought that the layers in the sedimentary crust were laid
down by erosion, ice sheets and glaciation in different periods, if this were
true the geologic layers would not be found worldwide nor even found
consistently over a small areas.
These facts prove the material arrived from outer space (ie from the Sun).
Each layer represents a specific cycle change in the suns activity.
Kamron:
>> These facts prove the material arrived from outer space (ie from the Sun).
Each layer represents a specific cycle change in the suns activity. <<
What "facts"? And if they were "facts", how would they "prove" an outer space
source? From my reading of your postings on this subject, you are confusing
your pronouncements with reality!
Others have replied in more detail on the subject matter, which I think you
also have quite wrong.
Try again!
Bill
>> you are confusing your pronouncements with reality! <<
My pronouncements are my reality, which in no way is intended to be confused
with yours.
Of course there are exceptions to these layers caused by a catastrophe that
occurred at the end of the cretaceous period.
The point of this pronouncement is that the earths organic crust is 8 miles
deep everywhere. So how could it come from earth if it is 8 miles thick
everywhere.
Okay Kamron, now that we know that your pronouncements are your reality, I
think we can abandon any further discussion. B.
"The average particles in a given layer are consistent within the layer. Each
layer is world wide."
Neither of these 2 statements is true. There are many layers of water formed
sandstones and shales that have very different particle sizes. The differences
are accounted for by differential rates of erosion due to flooding and periods
of drought over thousands of centuries. The layers of stone are not present
worldwide. If they were then here in Indiana we would have all the layers of
rock that are found at the Grand Canyon and we don't. We do have some rock
layers that were formed during the same time periods as some of the rocks of
the Grand Canyon but they are not the same kinds of rocks.
Your use of the terms Pre-Cambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian for the
layers of rocks is unusual. Those terms are time periods. They do not connote
or denote anything about the types of rocks formed during that period. They do
convey information about the types of fossils, and the geological time-frame
during which those rocks were formed. It is quite possible to have a
Pennsylvanian coal in one place, a Pennsylvanian sandstone in another place,
and a Pennsylvanian limestone somewhere else.
"These facts prove the material arrived from outer space (ie from the Sun)."
I won't argue the merits or demerits of your suggestion, but your argument has
problems because your premises (the statements you call facts) are not true.
Therefore any conclusion you would draw from them would only be true by chance
not by proof.
_The Grand Canyon_ by Jeremy Schmidt (ISBN 0-395-59932-6) is widely available
in the travel section of most bookstores and provides a good overview of the
geology and ecology of GCNP. Reading it might clear up some of your questions.
jf
Just as an aside on this discussion, Jim … something that has always bothered
me when I allowed it to do so is this: Do fossils from one time period ever
appear preserved in sediment of a later time period as the rock in which they
were originally present erodes or dissolves and is redeposited as sediment? Or
is the erosion process so complete that this doesn't happen.
In other words, can fossils "wash down" from an older formation into a younger
one?
>>>In other words, can fossils "wash down" from an older formation into a
younger one?
PMFJI. In a word, Yes. That's the whole issue with Dinosaur remains found
above the KT boundary in the Northern Great Plains — it isn't clear whether
they are in place and therefore are of Paleocene Age, or are redeposited from
Cretaceous beds. I believe that there have been cases of misdating of
formations based on redeposited fossils, but none pop to mind.
<< That's the whole issue with Dinosaur remains found above the KT boundary in
the Northern Great Plains — it isn't clear whether they are in place and
therefore are of Paleocene Age, or are redeposited from Cretaceous beds. I
believe that there have been cases of misdating of formations based on
redeposited fossils, but none pop to mind. >>
This, that you've mentioned, is one of the hypothetical scenarios I was trying
to put together in my head before posting the question.
I can imagine this redeposition of fossils (what I meant by my term "washing
down") occurring where large fossils such as the dinosaur remains you
mentioned, initially incorporated into poorly consolidated strata, would be
"worked loose" by erosion, transported along with other sediment, and
re-deposited as a younger bed.
I could also imagine this happening in cases where solution work on a carbonate
rock might free existing fossils from the matrix and transport them to a new
location for re-incorporation into an younger bed.
What does a person trying to date the fossils and/or the bed itself look for to
indicate that this may have happened?
Greeting Jim
Your right it …..is not as clear and distinct as my lead statement
indicates.
In the lowest levels or base of the organic crust it is easiest to trace the
worldwide strata.
During these times the layers were all formed in shallow oceans and are the
most consistent layers.
A catastrophe that occurred at the end of the cretaceous period totally
transformed the crust, breaking it into continents and shattering and
fracturing it. THere were upthrusts and extrusions. These are the exceptions to
the early layers.
Somewhere around the start of the mesozoic period is when
there were combinations of dry land and oceans with different types and
amounts of life that caused variations in areas and thicknesses of layers.
The point of this thread is that the material piled up over time to a depth of
over 8 miles thick. This material could not have come from other parts of the
earth because it covered the entire earth.
What covered the entire earth? There is nothing I know of that covered the
entire earth to a depth of 8 miles. As I recall from my geology classes the
earth's crust is not uniform in thickness. The Continental crusts vary from
somethingl like 12 to 30 miles! The oceanic crusts (which are entirely
relatively young basaltic) are only around 3 miles thick.
The ocean basins are relatively new and have very little organic deposits.
>> The oceanic crusts (which are entirely relatively young basaltic) are only
around 3 miles thick. <<
I agree.
The basins also are similar in age. If you discount the sediments around the
larger rivers you have newly formed crust with very little sedimentary
deposits.
These new basins formed all at the same time and are the result of the crust
being removed by a passing star and the molten layers below cooling into new
crust.
>>> The point of this thread is that the material piled up over time to a depth
of over 8 miles thick. This material could not have come from other parts of
the earth because it covered the entire earth.
Kamron
You're simply wrong about this, at least as regards the "evidence" you are
basing your conclusions on. I doubt anybody is going to convince you of this
but yourself. If you want to give up 6 or 8 weeks of your life, I can help you
lay out a series of trips in the Western United States that will probably
convince you — as they have everyone else that has examined the rocks and
fossils — that the late PreCambrian and Cambrian history of the Southern Great
Basin is one of a shallow sea slowly transgressing "Eastward" over the
continental platform. You will also find that the nature of the rocks that
appear to be of the same age changes in an orderly manner from West to East and
that several MILES of Upper PreCambrian and Lower Cambrian deposits present in
the White Mountains of California thin and coarsen systematically thru the
Death Valley region and are missing entirely 300 km South East in the
Providence and Marble Ranges of San Bernardino County.
Don
Don
There are quite a bit of variations and sections of layers thin and disappear.
They can be picked up again further along the crust or on the other continents.
Give this theory consideration and it starts to make more and more sense,
entertain it a bit….
There were local variations of all types and sometimes huge variations in the
output of the sun. I believe at times that products of the sun silicas,
calcium, sodium ect. rained down on the earth building hundred foot depths of
material in a few days sometimes confined to an area.
This would help explain how forests were buried over and over in unrotted
condition to form coal beds. There are examples of forests buried worldwide
with the trees
still standing.
The catastrophe that occurred at the end of the cretaceous period was of such
magnitude that all the variations you describe can be explained. Whole sections
of the crust were sliced off and removed. Sections were turned upside down.
2/3 of the crust was removed to form the moon.
How is it that the earth has thick continents and new ocean basins. Because
they are newly formed crust.
Why are the deepest trenches around the perimeter of the continents? Not
subduction as stated. As the remaining crust broke up the pieces drifted
apart, This motion caused the new ocean basin to solidify near the bottom of
the drifting continental slab and as the slab continued to drift the new ocean
basin crust kept the new material at that depth. The new basin slowly rose as
the crusted edge got further and further away from the edge of the continental
slab ending in the highest part of the new ocean basin in the mid point of the
drift between the two slabs. This is why the mid oceanic rise is higher.
Hi Kamron,
>> These facts prove the material arrived from outer space (ie from
>> the Sun).
All it shows (doesn't prove) is that something changed over the whole Earth at
the juncture of the deposits that are worldwide. My guess is that it was
probably not the sun. Who knows what asteroid or comet might have bounced off
the Earth in geological history.
Dean
Dean
How could deposits be made over the entire earth at the same time?
How could the content of these deposits change their makeup all over the world
at the same time.
Forget for a moment all the upthrusts and filled cracks and turned over hunks
of crust. These were caused by the catastrophe. Focus on the early organic
crust.
The deposits were occuring all over the world at once.
Its piled up 8 miles high. Where did they come from?
Did I miss something in the beginning of this?
Where did you get information that the crusts are only 8 miles thick and have a
uniform worldwide compostion?
I am referring to the average thickness of the organic crust where it has
remained intact.
My point is that the organic crust has built up over time concurrently all
over the world.
The buildup is not the result of erosion in one place and deposition in
another.
The build up is the result of capturing material that is constantly spewing
out of the Sun in the solar wind.
Hi Kamron,
>> How could deposits be made over the entire earth at the same time?
When a large enough meteorite hits the Earth a large volume of dust and ash are
thrown into the upper atmosphere, both from the initial hit and from the
volcanoes that erupt due to the disturbance. This debris will take years to
settle out and can be very uniformly distributed according to some of the
papers I've read.
>> The deposits were occuring all over the world at once. Its piled up
>> 8 miles high. Where did they come from?
8 miles? Miles? That's pretty deep.<g> I don't know anything about that
factor. Maybe the solar system ran through an interstellar dust cloud?
I've read that the Earth is constantly accumulating dust from space. This has
been shown in the layers for the ice cores drilled at Antarctica. One of the
authors of the report I read says that over the course of a few billion years
the total dust could be in the hundred mile range, assuming the rate of
accumulation has been consistent.
Dean
Greetings Dean!!
>> 8 miles? Miles? That's pretty deep.<g> Maybe the solar system ran
through an interstellar dust cloud?
No doubt that has happened from time to time.
>>I've read that the Earth is constantly accumulating dust from space. This
has been shown in the layers for the ice cores drilled at Antarctica. <<
Exactly my point!!!
The organic crust that was deposited up to the top of the cretaceous layer
came from accumulation from space, and think 99% has the sun as its source.
Kamron
The depths of the deposits are too deep.
The average depth of the organic crust is more than 8 miles thick. That
amounts to what an inch every ten thousand years?
>> If that were true then there would be clumps of material instead of the
layers we see at the cretaceous and lower levels. <<
But there are clumps. We see clumps.
>> The sandstones and clays are layers of very consistent size particles
stretching over very large areas. They are composed of very fine smooth round
particles , unlike the products of erosion. <<
Smooth round particles of consistent size are a typical product of erosion.
There are sedimentary basins forming in the world today with these
characteristics. I.e. large parts of the Sahara, the Kalahari, ocean abbysmal
area, the Carribean, the large inner seas of Central Asia and North America,
the Central Asian Steps, Western Central Australia, etc. etc. etc.
>> Erosion deposits are found in uneven beds of varying size particles and
even in the sea bed would not make the same type of layers. <<
Sorry, incorrect. There are all different kinds of erosion deposits (see
above for examples of similar products over large areas, and there are of
course complex deposits as you mention. And these are found across all time
periods, as far as I know.)
Hope this helps!
GTL
– Greg Laden, Written 16-Aug-1994 @ 12:25:36
Using: Windows NavCIS PRO 1.25
>> But there are clumps. We see clumps. <<
Any clumps of material in the layers below the Cretaceous were extrusions or
intrusions, and areas where large cracks were opened up during the Great
Catastrophe that were filled with other materials.
The layers otherwise are very consistent
and
they were Laid down in these layers all over the world at the same time.
making it impossible that they came from earth. The materials all came from
the sun and other stars to a much lesser degree.
Oh.
– Greg Laden, Written 17-Aug-1994 @ 12:28:13
Using: Windows NavCIS PRO 1.25
As others point out here, most of your premis is wrong. First, layers of
Cretaceous age and older are not consistent worldwide. They have varying
compositions and don't exist everywhere for any given age, and there is no
evidence that they ever did. Their composition is not the same as that from any
extraterrestrial source, but are the same as one would expect from terrestrial
sources.
The layers are often fairly even and widespread because they were deposited in
large seas. Locally and in many layers on a broad scale they show many
variations is grain size, composition and bedding features–just like is
happening with sediments being deposited in oceans and seas today.
Lanny