|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Continuation of Flood Discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually, it is because it shows that the layers are not 'flat and continuous'. Have to be or they aren't the Geo Column.
Bu it does continue at another location. So everyone says but hasn't proved. Must continue AS the Geo Column and that doesn't happen.
... physical formations can stop and the Geo Column has stopped wherever it is no longer a horizontal stack of layers but is eroded, buckled and so on.
Yes, at those locations the geological column has stopped. At least temporarily. It has continued in other places. Assertion assertion assertion, no reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The line between the two sections is too even for that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I did that picture on Paint myself. It works. Except the old roller mouse was easier to control.
I just keep thinking maybe some sensible person will come along and agree with me that it makes no sense for the Geologic Column to continue anywhere but the Geologic Column.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The flat layers of the strata don't just slide into place or settle, they are LAID DOWN FLAT AND HORIZONTAL. They often have extremely tight straight contact lines. Now I'm thinking in terms of explaining some elements of angular unconformities as the falling away of the vertical foreground where the formation is exposed, as at Siccar Point, some areas of the Great Unconformity and your own pictures. Could account for where the eroded material went in an interesting new way.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I think it may be flat and horizontal but the angle of view makes it hard to be sure. The problem with such messy formations is that so much happened to them after they were formed it's hard to reconstruct a reasonable history of how the upper and lower parts were put together. That's the problem with a few of the pictures you posted too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I guess you can just definitionally make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Your pictures are awfully distorted which makes them hard to interpret. The one you posted here had to have been originally horizontal but distorted afterward. Since those layers take millions of years to form according to standard OE theory I'm still astonished that everybody here accepts that all that can come to an end and yet the idea of the Column or the Time Scale can continue. For years it was the originally horizontal stack that was the column, now it's anything you want it to be.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't know why you're having problems accepting this. If you gently let sand rain down onto any surface and accumulate, it will conform to all the irregularities of the surface. Nothing else is possible. All I'm saying is that as a matter of observed fact this is not the case with angular unconformities. What we see there is oiften an amazingly tight flat horizontal contact line, no evidence of filling in of anything. I agree it SHOULD. The fact is it DOESN'T. Some other process explains those formations.
Most contact boundaries between layers are fairly flat because low lying regions became low by exposure to erosion..." The thing is that many of the contact boundaries aren't just "fairly" flat, they are knife-edge tight and flat. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I just keep thinking maybe some sensible person will come along and agree with me that it makes no sense for the Geologic Column to continue anywhere but the Geologic Column.
Oh, we all agree that it makes no sense for the Geologic Column to continue anywhere but the Geologic Column. You just don't understand what the Geologic Column is. I've given you several definitions, as have others, and none of these definitions exclude non-flat non-horizontal layers. But they should ONLY include those. It makes absolutely no sense otherwise. I mean NO sense, NONE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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:
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 Nothing in this definition disagrees with what I've been saying. A column is an upward-rising structure. You can't relocate upper levels of the column anywhere but on top of it and maintain its integrity as a column.
Free Dictionary: 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. Sometimes the column and the scale are discussed as if they were identical. In any case "a sequence of strata" is a column and a column is a vertical structure. You can't represent "various ages" physically without stacking them one on top of another physically.
Glossary of geologic terms: geologic column The arrangement of rock units in the proper chronological order from youngest to oldest. Again a "column" is a vertical structure, a stack of layers in the case of the rocks, and there is no way to arrange these rock units "in the proper chronological order" unless they are stacked one on top of the other.
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. There is no need to mention the horizontality, that is something you can observe in any of the strata, that they were obviously originally horizontal although many of the stacks have been distorted later and have lost their horizontality. Still you can see it was there originally.
{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: That diagram represents something so distorted I have no idea what. In any case LAYERS are always ORIGINALLY flat and horizontal. The condition they are in NOW after much distortion could be anything, but ORIGINALLY they were flat and horizontal.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024