Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1201 of 1304 (733169)
07-14-2014 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1198 by Faith
07-14-2014 1:24 PM


Have to be or they aren't the Geo Column.
According to whom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1198 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 1:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1202 of 1304 (733170)
07-14-2014 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1164 by Faith
07-14-2014 10:54 AM


Deposition happens on unconformties
Please identify that formation, the folded part and the upper part. Thanks.
I can't find that particular one right now but they're easy to find if you look.
The Monterey Formation of California:
Structural and Stratigraphic Development of Extensional Basins: A Case Study Offshore Deepwater Sarawak and Northwest Sabah, Malaysia:
Extensional Fault-Bend Folding and Synrift Deposition: An Example from the Central Sumatra Basin, Indonesia:
Mountain Beltway (with many more):
(added red line).
Photos of Unconformities:
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1164 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 10:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(4)
Message 1203 of 1304 (733171)
07-14-2014 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1188 by Faith
07-14-2014 12:44 PM


The Geologic Column IS a stack of horizontal strata, that is what it IS
Absolutely not The geologic column is all the rocks found underneath the Earth or, when applied to a given location, all the rocks under that location. Sedimentary, metamorphic, igneous, flat, folded, faulted,... all the rocks.
If you want to denote only the flat layers on under the Earth or under a given location, you may not redefine "geologic column" to mean that. I doubt there's a simple word for "only the flat layers on under the Earth or under a given location" because mostly nobody cares about that, but you don't get to redefine standard terms.
Merriam-Webster:
quote:
1. a columnar diagram that shows the rock formations of a locality or region and that is arranged to indicate their relations to the subdivisions of geologic time
2 : the sequence of rock formations in a geologic column
Free Dictionary:
quote:
The vertical sequence of strata of various ages found in an area or region. Also known as column.
The geologic time scale as represented by rocks.
Glossary of geologic terms:
quote:
geologic column The arrangement of rock units in the proper chronological order from youngest to oldest.
No mention of horizontality or flatness. None. The definition of the geologic column does not include flatness or horizontality of layers. There is no definition anywhere in which "geologic column" requires flat or horizontal layers. You are 110% wrong.
{ETA} Many drawings of the geologic column show flat interfaces for simplicity. These do not represent the actual flatness or lack thereof of the interface, or any folding within layers. Here's a diagram of a local geologic column (kurdistan) that is more (but not completely) representational of the actual geometry:
from New Geologic Setting of Bekhme Formation
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1188 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 12:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1204 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 7:41 PM JonF has replied
 Message 1228 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 11:12 AM JonF has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1204 of 1304 (733181)
07-14-2014 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1203 by JonF
07-14-2014 1:53 PM


Your own definitions include "strata" and "column." What do you think a column is anyway? The strata are originally-horizontal layers of sediments, a column is a stack of them. I have no idea what your diagram represents. Sediments distorted in a river it looks like. What do you think that proves? I've been supposing that first the sediments were laid down everywhere and then distorted. That is what I would expect of your example too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1203 by JonF, posted 07-14-2014 1:53 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1215 by JonF, posted 07-15-2014 8:37 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1205 of 1304 (733183)
07-14-2014 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1200 by edge
07-14-2014 1:30 PM


Re: Legoland
Well it certainly wasn't formed one after the other. How come the upper layers are so flat if they were laid down on top of a picket fence as that earlier picture / diagram shows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1200 by edge, posted 07-14-2014 1:30 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1217 by JonF, posted 07-15-2014 8:58 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1206 of 1304 (733184)
07-14-2014 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1156 by JonF
07-14-2014 9:23 AM


Re: Legoland
I wanted to see more of the upper part of that picture, but that's OK. As usual it defies the way things are in reality that folded layers would be eroded flat on top like that unless there was more than just weather to work on them, such as a deep stack of sediments above that resisted the movement below.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1156 by JonF, posted 07-14-2014 9:23 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1208 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2014 8:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1207 of 1304 (733185)
07-14-2014 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1158 by Faith
07-14-2014 10:15 AM


Re: Legoland
That's very clever ...
No it's not, Faith. It's bleedin' obvious.
The thing is if a deposition did occur over that formation it would fill in the valleys and I haven't ever seen an angular unconformity in which the upper layers were anything but straight and flat both top and bottom, have you?
Yes you have. I know you have, 'cos I've shown you photographs. If they put me in Who's Who right now they'd have to list "Showing Faith things that aren't flat" as one of my hobbies.
Also the upper layers occur over tightly folded lower layers, I've never seen one form over the kind of base in that diagram, have you? In theory that could happen but in reality there's no evidence that it ever does that I know of. Perhaps you can find some but I doubt it.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. You mean something like this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1158 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 10:15 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1210 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 8:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1208 of 1304 (733186)
07-14-2014 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1206 by Faith
07-14-2014 7:56 PM


Re: Legoland
I wanted to see more of the upper part of that picture, but that's OK. As usual it defies the way things are in reality that folded layers would be eroded flat on top like that unless there was more than just weather to work on them, such as a deep stack of sediments above that resisted the movement below.
I've seen Roadrunner cartoons that exhibited a better grasp of physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1206 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 7:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1209 of 1304 (733187)
07-14-2014 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1165 by Percy
07-14-2014 11:05 AM


Re: Legoland
What seemed clever to me in Dr. A's response was that I couldn't have imagined that particular formation as an angular unconformity. It wouldn't have entered my mind. But then you also saw it as he did so I guess it wasn't all that clever after all. Odd you'd accuse me of not being familiar with angular unconformities. I've only argued my view of them for years now.
As for "filling in" the dips of that Utah formation, the point is simply that angular unconformities don't do that: there is usually a straight line between the upper and lower sections. With some exceptions of course, such as the Shinumo intrusion in the GC (which I think was like that quartzite boulder also in the Tapeats -- that the Tapeats WAS eroded but being all sand it all looks like sand with parts of the lower formation buried in it) and at Siccar Point where edge's picture seems to show that the upper managed to stay straight and flat on top of a jagged picket fence of a lower section (my guess would be that the formation broke off in the foreground plane rather than beneath the upper section). The straight contact just seems highly unlikely to be explained by long term erosion.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1165 by Percy, posted 07-14-2014 11:05 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1210 of 1304 (733189)
07-14-2014 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1207 by Dr Adequate
07-14-2014 8:02 PM


Re: Legoland
Must admit I don't know exactly what to make of that mess of a pile of rock, but like some that JonF posted it definitely looks like something the Flood drug in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1207 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2014 8:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1211 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2014 8:55 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1212 by ramoss, posted 07-14-2014 8:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1211 of 1304 (733191)
07-14-2014 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1210 by Faith
07-14-2014 8:27 PM


Re: Legoland
What it looks like is that sediment has been deposited on top of rocks that have first been folded and then eroded. It looks exactly like that would look. Can you think why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1210 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 8:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1213 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 11:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 1212 of 1304 (733192)
07-14-2014 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1210 by Faith
07-14-2014 8:27 PM


Re: Legoland
Can you describe the mechanism that could happen, and then show it is correct? You will have to, among other things, show that all the layers were formed at the same time. Can you do so, or, as I suspect, throwing out that everything looks like the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1210 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 8:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1213 of 1304 (733196)
07-14-2014 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1211 by Dr Adequate
07-14-2014 8:55 PM


Re: Legoland
The line between the two sections is too even for that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1211 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2014 8:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1214 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2014 11:39 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1216 by JonF, posted 07-15-2014 8:39 AM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1214 of 1304 (733197)
07-14-2014 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1213 by Faith
07-14-2014 11:19 PM


Re: Legoland
It's at times like this that I wonder whether you are actually blind or merely mad.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Big off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1213 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 11:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1215 of 1304 (733201)
07-15-2014 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1204 by Faith
07-14-2014 7:41 PM


Your own definitions include "strata" and "column."
Yes. They do not include "flat" or "horizontal". {}ETA} Stratum (the singular of strata) is defined as "a layer or a series of layers of rock in the ground". Nothing about flat or horizontal.
What do you think a column is anyway
The applicable definition is "any columnlike object, mass, or formation". SFW? It's not a stack of flat and horizontal layers.
The strata are originally-horizontal layers of sediments, a column is a stack of them
Wrong. The column is a stack of possibly originally horizontal and flat sediments that may or may not be horizontal or flat anymore, plus metamorphic and igneous layers and dikes and the like. Not "a stack of horizontal strata" which is what you claimed it is.
I have no idea what your diagram represents. Sediments distorted in a river it looks like
And God forbid you follow the link and find out, you just make stuff up. No, it's a cross-section of the formations in Kurdistan that are part of the geologic column, illustrating the fact that the column is much more complex (especially the contacts between layers) than in your confused and simplistic mind.
I've been supposing that first the sediments were laid down everywhere and then distorted. That is what I would expect of your example too
That's true. And you've been supposing that "the Geo Column has stopped wherever it is no longer a horizontal stack of layers but is eroded, buckled and so on." That's false. My diagram and the pictures you ignored demonstrate that falsity. Let's see one again:
This is a cross section of an offshore area in Indonesia, looking for oil. It shoes three rift cycles in which the ocean floor cracked or subsided to form a valley, and then flat layers filled in all or most of that valley, and then the ocean floor cracked or subsided again (distorting the flat and horizontal layers). Exactly what you claim is impossible.
That's all part of the geologic column, which consists of "the vertical sequence of strata of various ages found in an area or region. Also known as column." or "a columnar diagram that shows the rock formations of a locality or region and that is arranged to indicate their relations to the subdivisions of geologic time". Not just the currently flat and horizontal strata, as you would have it.
Remember this?
They stacked up one on top of another very neatly and horizontally for some time -- LOTS of layers over a LONG time by OE reckoning -- then they all got buckled and broken and eroded in a block. Where are you going to put your Lego? It isn't going to "build on" the stack, or "continue" the stack. The stack is no longer the original stack. It's over and done with.
The picture I posted just above (and the others you ignored) show deposition continuing and building on to the top of the geologic column in exactly the way you claim is impossible. Any deposition on top of any layer, no matter how folded and buckled and twisted and cracked that lower layer is, continues the endless building of the geologic column.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1204 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 7:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1224 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 10:38 AM JonF has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024