Castle Rock - South Table Mountain

John Vanko | July 5, 2010 3:23 PM | Edit

Shades of my Alma mater!

I have rappelled down that very rock face.

Brings back wonderful memories.

gary | July 5, 2010 3:29 PM | Edit

Looks to me like a phallic symbol. A very short one.

Martha | July 5, 2010 5:33 PM | Edit

That’s a familiar sight from the place where I grew up and went to high school. I’ve hiked up there. What a surprise to see it on this blog! (And I’m curious to know why you posted it.)

Matt Young replied to comment from Martha | July 5, 2010 6:06 PM | Edit

(And I’m curious to know why you posted it.)

I dunno. Nice view. Geological interest. Enough plants and animals for a while.

I have yet to hike up there, but I really ought to.

Mike Elzinga | July 5, 2010 7:21 PM | Edit

The www.b2bsharing.com spammers are back again from last night’s raid. They will continue to spam down through all threads, leaving at least two spams per thread.

Robert Byers | July 7, 2010 4:30 AM | Edit

I believe this formation is from above the k-p line. So to this creationist says it is a post flood formation. A few centuries after the flood this either was created by exploding volcanos and then eroded by like forces at the time or forces eroded a formation from the great flood depositions. These formations show better the idea of sudden interference by earth forces and not from earth forces of slow duration. In fact these days there are non creationist geomorphologists getting attention for work on how floods suddenly create gorges. (Canyon lake Gorge) Its been an error of interpretation to see formations as from anything other then fast processes. The formation was made quicker then one could climb or fall from it.

Keelyn replied to comment from Robert Byers | July 7, 2010 7:20 AM | Edit

Robert Byers fantasized:

I believe this formation is from above the k-p line. So to this creationist says it is a post flood formation. A few centuries after the flood this either was created by exploding volcanos and then eroded by like forces at the time or forces eroded a formation from the great flood depositions. These formations show better the idea of sudden interference by earth forces and not from earth forces of slow duration. In fact these days there are non creationist geomorphologists getting attention for work on how floods suddenly create gorges. (Canyon lake Gorge) Its been an error of interpretation to see formations as from anything other then fast processes. The formation was made quicker then one could climb or fall from it.

I rate it a 4.2 - for pure stupid. Thanks for playing, Byers.

John Stockwell replied to comment from Robert Byers | July 7, 2010 6:54 PM | Edit

Robert Byers said:

I believe this formation is from above the k-p line. So to this creationist says it is a post flood formation. A few centuries after the flood this either was created by exploding volcanos and then eroded by like forces at the time or forces eroded a formation from the great flood depositions. These formations show better the idea of sudden interference by earth forces and not from earth forces of slow duration. In fact these days there are non creationist geomorphologists getting attention for work on how floods suddenly create gorges. (Canyon lake Gorge) Its been an error of interpretation to see formations as from anything other then fast processes. The formation was made quicker then one could climb or fall from it.

I was walking up on the companion mesa (North Table Mountain) a number of years ago, and in an area where there was a road cut for a new housing development, I could see rounded cobbles of a previous lava flow that had been completely eroded away, located beneath the layers of volcanics that you see in the picture.

So, no, Mr. Byers, as with most of geology, the processes are often mundane and quite slow.

-John

Oclarki replied to comment from Robert Byers | July 8, 2010 10:56 PM | Edit

Robert Byers said:

I believe this formation is from above the k-p line. So to this creationist says it is a post flood formation.

The lava flow capping the feature is early Paleocene, so yes, it is above the “k-p line”. The problem is that the K-T boundary (which I assume is the same as your “k-p line”) is not all that far below the base of the lowest flow unit. If your claim is that the “k-p line” is the boundary between “flood” and post-“flood” depositional environments, then perhaps you could explain why the depositional environment of the sediments underlying the volcanic caprock does not seem to change across the boundary? There are biological changes, and an interesting thin layer of Ir-rich clays, but no substantive change in depositional regime.

Altair IV | July 10, 2010 4:29 PM | Edit

Very nice. Of course, this shouldn’t be confused with the similarly-named feature of Castle Rock, Colorado, which is due south of Denver. I lived right next to that latter butte for a short time when I was in my early teens; we’d literally go out the gate, cross the street and start climbing. The view from the top was impressive. This was back in the early 80’s, before the population ballooned by an order of magnitude. Now the place is hardly recognizable to me.

Robert Byers replied to comment from John Stockwell | July 12, 2010 3:26 AM | Edit

John Stockwell said:

Robert Byers said:

I believe this formation is from above the k-p line. So to this creationist says it is a post flood formation. A few centuries after the flood this either was created by exploding volcanos and then eroded by like forces at the time or forces eroded a formation from the great flood depositions. These formations show better the idea of sudden interference by earth forces and not from earth forces of slow duration. In fact these days there are non creationist geomorphologists getting attention for work on how floods suddenly create gorges. (Canyon lake Gorge) Its been an error of interpretation to see formations as from anything other then fast processes. The formation was made quicker then one could climb or fall from it.

I was walking up on the companion mesa (North Table Mountain) a number of years ago, and in an area where there was a road cut for a new housing development, I could see rounded cobbles of a previous lava flow that had been completely eroded away, located beneath the layers of volcanics that you see in the picture.

So, no, Mr. Byers, as with most of geology, the processes are often mundane and quite slow.

-John

Don’t agree. one should first see if fast processes work better before slow. If the rounded cobbles are from above the k-t line then simply they were eroded in the space of time between the volcanic flows or by the new flow itself. They would just be slightly sooner flows whether by months or years.

Robert Byers replied to comment from Oclarki | July 12, 2010 3:54 AM | Edit

Oclarki said:

Robert Byers said:

I believe this formation is from above the k-p line. So to this creationist says it is a post flood formation.

The lava flow capping the feature is early Paleocene, so yes, it is above the “k-p line”. The problem is that the K-T boundary (which I assume is the same as your “k-p line”) is not all that far below the base of the lowest flow unit. If your claim is that the “k-p line” is the boundary between “flood” and post-“flood” depositional environments, then perhaps you could explain why the depositional environment of the sediments underlying the volcanic caprock does not seem to change across the boundary? There are biological changes, and an interesting thin layer of Ir-rich clays, but no substantive change in depositional regime.

First the k-t line to me is only sure if its divided by life fossil evidence. If this is the k-t line then there is no problem with the depositional environment looking the same above/below the k-t line. The biological changes are the important ones. The rest is simple like process creates like form.

Dave Luckett | July 12, 2010 5:12 AM | Edit

And tell me, Robert, what experiments have you performed on those rounded cobbles to measure the rate at which they erode under specific conditions, in support of your ‘fast’ hypothesis? Have you written them up anywhere? Submitted them to a journal, with your measurements and conclusions? What controls did you use? What conditions did you attribute to the Flood, and what to ordinary weathering, freezing and thawing? How did your measurements compare to others in the field?

(Cue crickets chirping)

Oclarki replied to comment from Robert Byers | July 13, 2010 12:15 AM | Edit

Robert Byers said:

First the k-t line to me is only sure if its divided by life fossil evidence. If this is the k-t line then there is no problem with the depositional environment looking the same above/below the k-t line. The biological changes are the important ones. The rest is simple like process creates like form.

The South Table Mountain depicted in the photograph is where the the K/T boundary was first described in terrestrial rocks. That first description was based on the observed faunal change across the boundary (mainly the distinct absence of dinosaur fossils above the boundary).

Oddly enough, though, the flora does not really change across the boundary. There is a relatively brief fern spike immediately above the boundary, but that is about it. Subtropical rainforest below the boundary, subtropical rainforest above the boundary. And no sign at all of the flotsam expected from a large flood anywhere within the terrestrial sedimentary sequence above and below the boundary.

As for the sediments themselves, they are pretty much what we would expect to see in a terrestrial foreland basin. They are not very much different from the sediments we can observe in the currently active foreland basin associated with the Andes. That includes the sediments below the K/T boundary. I would think that if there was a “flood” that ended at the K/T boundary that the sediments below that boundary would be best explained by such a flood. But that is not the case. Instead, they are best explained by processes that we can observe in action today, no “flood” required.

Something to ponder, I suppose.

Robert Byers replied to comment from Dave Luckett | July 15, 2010 2:27 AM | Edit

Dave Luckett said:

And tell me, Robert, what experiments have you performed on those rounded cobbles to measure the rate at which they erode under specific conditions, in support of your ‘fast’ hypothesis? Have you written them up anywhere? Submitted them to a journal, with your measurements and conclusions? What controls did you use? What conditions did you attribute to the Flood, and what to ordinary weathering, freezing and thawing? How did your measurements compare to others in the field?

(Cue crickets chirping)

Cobbles erode very fast if they are tossed about fast. I know in mega flood formations from the ice age rocks are rapidly rounded from the great power behind the flow. Simple equation.

Robert Byers replied to comment from Oclarki | July 15, 2010 2:34 AM | Edit

Oclarki said:

Robert Byers said:

First the k-t line to me is only sure if its divided by life fossil evidence. If this is the k-t line then there is no problem with the depositional environment looking the same above/below the k-t line. The biological changes are the important ones. The rest is simple like process creates like form.

The South Table Mountain depicted in the photograph is where the the K/T boundary was first described in terrestrial rocks. That first description was based on the observed faunal change across the boundary (mainly the distinct absence of dinosaur fossils above the boundary).

Oddly enough, though, the flora does not really change across the boundary. There is a relatively brief fern spike immediately above the boundary, but that is about it. Subtropical rainforest below the boundary, subtropical rainforest above the boundary. And no sign at all of the flotsam expected from a large flood anywhere within the terrestrial sedimentary sequence above and below the boundary.

As for the sediments themselves, they are pretty much what we would expect to see in a terrestrial foreland basin. They are not very much different from the sediments we can observe in the currently active foreland basin associated with the Andes. That includes the sediments below the K/T boundary. I would think that if there was a “flood” that ended at the K/T boundary that the sediments below that boundary would be best explained by such a flood. But that is not the case. Instead, they are best explained by processes that we can observe in action today, no “flood” required.

Something to ponder, I suppose.

Nothing odd at all. After the flood the world was tropical and quickly everything grew back. Flora would be the same almost. However I know flora counts do show a great affinity with the modern new world and are not a cross section of the world. above the line I mean. In fact one of my points to persuade fellow creationists that the k-t line is the flood line is the makeup of the flora above the line in the new world. It could only be that way if the flora was from after the flood. No flotsam should be expected. the great flood or later events would be so powerful as to sweep all away except what was turned to stone instantly.

Dave Luckett replied to comment from Robert Byers | July 15, 2010 3:06 AM | Edit

Robert Byers said:

Dave Luckett said:

And tell me, Robert, what experiments have you performed on those rounded cobbles to measure the rate at which they erode under specific conditions, in support of your ‘fast’ hypothesis? Have you written them up anywhere? Submitted them to a journal, with your measurements and conclusions? What controls did you use? What conditions did you attribute to the Flood, and what to ordinary weathering, freezing and thawing? How did your measurements compare to others in the field?

(Cue crickets chirping)

Cobbles erode very fast if they are tossed about fast. I know in mega flood formations from the ice age rocks are rapidly rounded from the great power behind the flow. Simple equation.

So, no experimental data nor specific observations. Just what you “know”. Why am I not surprised?

And tell me, Boob, have you ever considered that “tossing rocks fast” might result in different patterns of reduction than those of slow weathering? Is it conceivably possible that a person who actually knows about these things, like, for instance, oh, I don’t know, a geologist, maybe, might be able to tell the difference, because THEY’VE ACTUALLY STUDIED THIS STUFF?

God, why am I talking to this idiot?

Oclarki replied to comment from Robert Byers | July 15, 2010 11:35 PM | Edit

Robert Byers said:

Nothing odd at all. After the flood the world was tropical and quickly everything grew back. Flora would be the same almost. However I know flora counts do show a great affinity with the modern new world and are not a cross section of the world. above the line I mean. In fact one of my points to persuade fellow creationists that the k-t line is the flood line is the makeup of the flora above the line in the new world. It could only be that way if the flora was from after the flood. No flotsam should be expected. the great flood or later events would be so powerful as to sweep all away except what was turned to stone instantly.

Sigh.…sometimes I really wonder how anyone could possibly be convinced by such utter drivel.

If you are going to claim the K/T boundary as the end of your short-term world-wide flood, it would be best if you were able to demonstrate in a clear and compelling manner that the rocks below your hypothetical boundary between flood and no flood are best explained as deposits from your flood, and that the rocks above your boundary are best explained by other processes (generally non-flood).

Pretty much all of the areas that I am familiar with where sediment deposition was continuous across the K/T boundary show absolutely no change in depositional environment across the boundary. Additionally, they all include features common in modern non-flood depositional environments. In other words, it seems that your flood does not provide the best and most robust explanation for those sediments.

Faunal and floral comparisons across your boundary demonstrate nothing with respect to your purported flood. The rocks do, though…and they clearly indicate that no such flood ocurred.

Oh, and by the way.…if the flows during your flood were so powerful that they swept all of the dead and floating vegetation away, they also would have beet far to strong to result in deposition of the clays, silts, and sands that comprise the rocks exposed under the basalt cap of South table Mountain.

Oops…

Robert Byers replied to comment from Oclarki | July 18, 2010 11:16 PM | Edit

Oclarki said:

Robert Byers said:

Nothing odd at all. After the flood the world was tropical and quickly everything grew back. Flora would be the same almost. However I know flora counts do show a great affinity with the modern new world and are not a cross section of the world. above the line I mean. In fact one of my points to persuade fellow creationists that the k-t line is the flood line is the makeup of the flora above the line in the new world. It could only be that way if the flora was from after the flood. No flotsam should be expected. the great flood or later events would be so powerful as to sweep all away except what was turned to stone instantly.

Sigh.…sometimes I really wonder how anyone could possibly be convinced by such utter drivel.

If you are going to claim the K/T boundary as the end of your short-term world-wide flood, it would be best if you were able to demonstrate in a clear and compelling manner that the rocks below your hypothetical boundary between flood and no flood are best explained as deposits from your flood, and that the rocks above your boundary are best explained by other processes (generally non-flood).

Pretty much all of the areas that I am familiar with where sediment deposition was continuous across the K/T boundary show absolutely no change in depositional environment across the boundary. Additionally, they all include features common in modern non-flood depositional environments. In other words, it seems that your flood does not provide the best and most robust explanation for those sediments.

Faunal and floral comparisons across your boundary demonstrate nothing with respect to your purported flood. The rocks do, though…and they clearly indicate that no such flood ocurred.

Oh, and by the way.…if the flows during your flood were so powerful that they swept all of the dead and floating vegetation away, they also would have beet far to strong to result in deposition of the clays, silts, and sands that comprise the rocks exposed under the basalt cap of South table Mountain.

Oops…

such a great chaos from such a event as the great flood is not contained modern analogy with miner river flooding. Yes water flows would segregate here and there different sediment loads and diferent again on top of them. no problem to swept away anything and a little lar=ter a quieter settling of other material.

The rocks of the (k) time are entirely from the great flood. the later rocks etc are from post flood events. this is why they only cover a small part of earth. In some areas they overlap. Above they are from local disturbances. A great deal of them are from volcanic deposits or these deposits moving about.

fauna across the k-t line is a famous segregation. this is why a impact must be invoked to explain it.

Oclarki replied to comment from Robert Byers | July 19, 2010 10:31 PM | Edit

Robert Byers said:

such a great chaos from such a event as the great flood is not contained modern analogy with miner river flooding. Yes water flows would segregate here and there different sediment loads and diferent again on top of them. no problem to swept away anything and a little lar=ter a quieter settling of other material.

The problem or your “flood” geology is that sedimentary rocks exhibit features that are entirely consistent with features observed in modern depositional environments. Indeed, it is extremely rare at best that sedimentary rocks exhibit features that cannot be exlained by processes observed in modern depositional environments. No Noachian “flood” required. If we can fully explain the features of sedimentary rocks by observed modern depositional processes, why then should we instead claim your “flood” as the only explanation?

Update

Castle Rock - South Table Mountain

Categories:

Tags:

20 Comments

About this Entry

Categories

Castle Rock - South Table Mountain

Categories:

Tags:

20 Comments

About this Entry

Categories

Archives

Author Archives