First off, thanks for the first thoughtful response to my prediction.
micatala wrote:
I would think, however, that at a given location, sedimentary strata could be either very thick or somewhat thin, and could represent varying periods of time.
Yes. And even in some places, there are
no sedimentary strata.
I could see that at a given location, sedimentary strata could be formed during era A, then no strata are formed for a time (perhaps a long time), then either more strata are formed on top of these or uplifting occurs at this location for a period, then erosion might occur, etc.
During the long period after A was deposited, couldn't
something have happened to it? Like folding, erosion, faults, etc?
Also, I would think that in some cases, a thick (or maybe even a thin) layer could be layed down quickly, although it might take some additional time to harden.
Which raises another question. It would be assumed that when any layer is formed, it would not be hardened immediately. So, water and wind should be able to erode it and be recorded in the geologic record.
A volcanic mudflow (lahar sp?) for example could lay down a thick sedimentary layer in a short time on top of either other sedimentary layers, or other volcanic layers, and then one might get a lava flow on top of that.
Yes, it could do that.
So could an ordinary water flood.
Or even an extraordinary water flood.
Assuming there were no additional sedimentation (or other types of layers) layed down after a flood and subsquent deformation, it seems to me the flood model prediction is reasonable. I guess I need clarification on what this model assumes is below the strata layed down by the global flood, and whether this model includes subsequent layers being layed down years after the flood.
There would be no significant sedimentary layers deposited prior to the flood.
After the flood, there could be some additional layers deposited by volcanoes, local floods, or river sediments. But it would not be extensive.
I am not sure I would expect a "uniform" distribution in the stratas.
I wouldn't say uniform at any single location, but taking all locations around the world, I would expect if erosion, faults, folding occurred in the past, each location would be a snapshot of the history of that particular location, and they should all have past events evident in the stratas. There should be no reason that erosion, faults, folds should only be seen to affect all the layers at almost all places.
To the extent that strata tend to form in flat areas, and especially marine environments like continental shelves, I would expect that these areas tend to be very quiet, seismically speaking, during periods where strata are forming.
I would question that assumption. But even if it is quiet while a particular strata is forming, there is a large amount of time between when stratas form.
Conversely, I would expect that in most areas where folding/faulting/erosion are occurring, sedimentary strata are not being layed down at the same time.
In a concave (synform) fold, I would actually expect it catch more sediments than a flat surface.
Most mountains are the result of folding, but they also have a significant amount of deposits in them.
Now, over the long history of the earth, while I wouldn't expect "uniformity", I would expect to see instances of sedimentary layers subsequently undergoing folding, and faulting and this, I would think, would effect all they layers existing at the time the folding or faulting process was occurring.
Yes. But would this mean that once a fault occurs that the location could not have more layers deposited on it?
Erosion, on the other hand, as it works from the top down, would not effect all the layers, at least not simultaneously.
It would only work from the existing top surface on down. Water erosion from rain, beach, rivers, etc do not typically produce flat surfaces. So, shouldn't these be evident in the sedimentary stratas?
I believe some of the examples pointed to earlier in the thread do actually show this.
Just looking at the Siccar Point Unconformity, there are still many questions that SG does not answer.
One prediction you did not make which I think follow from a flood, especially a recent one, is that we should find fossils of the life that existed at the time of the flood all mixed together.
The flood was not simply water that covered the earth, but a mixture of water and earth. It would be more akin to a mud slide than a flash flood. So, I think what would be more expected is quick and mass burials of plants and animals.
THus, we should find heavier life forms in the lowest layers and the lightest life forms at the top, or at least a significant trend in this direction.
There would not be a significant time for heavier things to sink and lighter things to float. Rather, they would've instantly been swept away and/or buried.
