|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The line between the two sections is too even for that. It isn't flat or horizontal. Just as in the pictures I posted and you ignored.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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. Because that's how sediment settles according to the basic laws of physics. Sediment that settles on steep slopes slides down, sediment that settles on the lower parts stays there. Overall result is a roughly flat layer. Sheesh.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I guess you can just definitionally make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Whatever "it" refers to, no. Terms such as "geologic column" are standard well-defined terms. You are attempting to redefine "geologic column". That's fine if your goal is to obfuscate, confuse, and avoid communicating accurately. If you do want to communicate accurately you will have to use the correct definition of "geologic column" which I've given, with sources, several times.
Your pictures are awfully distorted which makes them hard to interpret. No, the seismic sections and the colored illustration of kurdistan are not distorted at all. As I've pointed out and you ignored, the plane of the picture is vertical and your view is straight on. The distortions of layers in the pictures are accurate representations of what the layers actually look like.
The one you posted here had to have been originally horizontal but distorted afterward.
Yes, the layers were formed and distorted afterward. Three times. But there's no distortion in the topmost layers and we don't know whether or not there ever will be. Exactly what you claim is impossible.
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. Nobody here except you accepts that anything (the geological column or the geological time scale) has or can come to an end. That's your loony fantasy which nobody shares. The time scale over which those layers formed is irrelevant; they formed, were distorted, new layers formed on top of them, and all that is part of geological column and time scale.
For years it was the originally horizontal stack that was the column,.. No, it's never been the original horizontal stack. It's always been, by definition:
Merriam-Webster:
quote: Free Dictionary:
quote: Glossary of geologic terms:
quote: 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.
now it's anything you want it to be. No, I'm stuck with the standaard definition. You are the one trying to make it what you want it to be. Over here in the reality-based community we are bound by the definition of "geologic column", which can be worded many different ways but the result is the same. Here's some more:
Glossary Database:
quote: Glossary of geologic terms:
quote: Encyclopedia Brittanica: Geologic column and its associated time scale:
quote:(added red and size) There is no definition anywhere of the geologic column that comes close to matching your risible fantasy. We are sticking with the standard an well-established and well-known definition; you are trying the change it to something incorrect and meaningless.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 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. The angle of view of the seismic picture I just posted is horizontal, and the plane of the picture is vertical. You are looking at it straight on as if it had been sliced off by a knife moving vertically. There's no distortion of any kind. It's not messy at all, and the history is clear. Flat horizontal layers, rift forms a valley, valley filled in by flat horizontal layers of sediment, another rift forms a another valley (deforming the currentl flat and horizontal layers and deforming the original layers more) valley filled in by flat horizontal layers of sediment, yet another rift forms yet another valley (deforming the current flat and horizontal layers and deforming the second original layers more), valley filled in by flat and horizontal layers of sediment. And it's no problem with the pictures I posted, although the two seismic profiles are the best. Reality doesn't care whether you like it or not, reality just is. Denial isn't going to make these non-flat and non-horizontal interfaces go away:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The strata are sedimentary rock. Lava doesn't form strata. I already posted a definition of strata. Lava (non-intrusiva) and metamorphic rocks form strata. Sometimes strata is used only for sediemnbtary rock but it depends on context. E.g. Wikipedia:
quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
NON FLAT AND NON HORIZONTAL surfaces form AFTER all the strata are in place. They don't "go away," they are just ORIGINALLY not in any form other than flat and horizontal. As I said I can't tell if the blue line is flat and horizontal or not because of the angle of view, but it doesn't matter, it was clearly originally flat and horizontal, and if it isn't now that is because the whole formation has sagged, which fits what I keep saying: THE STRATA ARE LAID DOWN AND THEN THE WHOLE STACK IS DEFORMED. I still don't know what to make of your other illustration. Whatever it is, it had to have been laid down flat and horizontal originally. Yes, and they are all part of the geologic column, including the flat and horizontal surfaces that were laid down on top.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
But they should ONLY include those. It makes absolutely no sense otherwise. I mean NO sense, NONE. Actually it's your definition of it that makes no sense. And you haven't (and obviously can't ) support you claim that our definition does not make sense. By the many standard definitions I've posted, folded and tilted and volcanic and metamorphic strata are all part of the geologic column. Howsabout you copy this picture in Pant and label which areas are part of the geologic column and label what we should call layers that are not part of your version:
Be especially careful to label the flat and horizontal layers on top. Remember that there is no distortion in this picture. You are looking straight at a vertical cross-section that shows the actual shape of the layers. By the standard geological definition the entire picture is part of the geologic column. Let's see your labels. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
It doesn't form strata IN THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN which is made up of sedimentary rock. All the many standard definitions of the geologic column which I've posted include all types of rock. It is made up of sedimentary rock, igneous rock, and metamorphic rock. I defy you to find any source that agrees with your fantasy. All the rocks and rocks forming under the Earth are part of the geologic column. Your claim is wrong. Demonstrated tens of times by many posters. Give it up. The geologic column is made up of all the rocks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
There may be lava dikes and sills between the layers but they aren't the layers themselves. But those dikes and sills are part of the geologic column.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
column /ˈkləm/ noun noun: column; plural noun: columns 1. an upright pillar, typically cylindrical and made of stone or concrete, supporting an entablature, arch, or other structure or standing alone as a monument. synonyms: pillar, post, support, upright, baluster, pier, pile, pilaster, stanchion; Moreobelisk, monolith; Doric column, Ionic column, Corinthian column, Tuscan column "arches supported by massive columns" a vertical, roughly cylindrical thing."a great column of smoke" an upright shaft forming part of a machine and typically used for controlling it."a Spitfire control column" a vertical division of a page or text. a vertical arrangement of figures or other information. a section of a newspaper or magazine UPRIGHT. VERTICAL.It is not still a column if it continues anywhere but ON the vertical structure. But an upright and vertical column is not necessarily comprised of flat and horizontal layers. That seismic picture I posted is part of the geologic column and yet the most of the layers aren't flat and horizontal.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I need to know more about that picture before I label it anything. What am I looking at here, the exposed side of a hill or what? But those sagging layers had to originally be horizontal and flat. The straight flat uppermost layer needs explanation. When did that deposit? As I have pointed out many times already, that is a seismic cross-section of an area of seabed under the ocean off Indonesia. It is a vertical cross-section and you are looking straight at it; there is no distortion in the layers other than that which actually exists in the layers. More information is available at the link I already gave. Clicking a link is to much effort? The topmost layers were formed recently, probably in historical times. MOre information is available at the link I posted and its refernces. As I wrote earlier today, "Yes, the layers were formed and distorted afterward. Three times. But there's no distortion in the topmost layers and we don't know whether or not there ever will be. Exactly what you claim is impossible.". Try reading my posts before replying. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
If it is part of the Geo Column then they were originally flat and horizontal. The Column has been distorted in most places after it was laid down. Absolutely. Well, mostly, close enough for jazz. And those folded and distorted places are still part of the geologic column, and the geologic column continues to be built on top of them. As illustrated by the many definitions and pictures that have been posted, especially the picture I've challenged you to label, clearly showing flat horizontal layers forming today on top of distorted layers.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
was talking about the photograph, what are you talking about? The one I've posted several times, including Message 1246 at the top of this page. You replied, I replied and clarified, and now you can't remember what we are talking about?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I just can't avoid replying to one:
But that is not at all clear just from the picture when the flat layers were laid down. There's something odd about that picture. Where is it and what is it? I answered that question very specifically at least four times, maybe five. Obviously you didn't read those answers. You would do much better if you read the messages to which you are ostensibly (look it up) replying. Faith has made quite a long thread by trying to deny the obvious: the geologic column (or whatever you want to call it) is a complex structure, vertical indeed, but comprised of flat and horizontal sediments, deformed sediments, igneous layers (we never even mentioned tephras) and intrusions and dikes, and metamorphic layers and all sorts of rocks. Indeed, it's all the rocks under the Earth's surface. This was proven, with references, over and over again. Faith refused to even acknowledge the existence of the real definitions and insisted on her own made-up fantasy. That raises serious question about whether she sees any difference between reality and the fantasies she makes up. I feel sorry for her; she's obviously happy in her la-la-land but she is missing so much.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024