|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Growing the Geologic Column | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I guess I can't get across why the geo column can't be growing on the continental shelves etc, or why the definitive strata are thick and cover a huge area. I don't know why, it's just a fact that they do, and my examples are those diagrams I've been collecting. Maybe I'll just have to get off the focus on the geo column and go back to the simple argument that the strata built up through all the time periods as horizontal layers BEFORE all the tectonic distortion and other disturbances deformed them.
This is what I've been equating with the Geo Column, but I'm more interested in getting across this picture of the strata building up and then stopping. In the GC GS area I argued that the strata look awfully placid just lying there for hundreds of millions of years between the Cambrian and the Holocene or whatever the Claron is, before all that massive erosion and other disturbance occurred. And everybody answers Oh well sure it's quiet for long periods in some places but not quiet in other places at the same time. Well, I am sure this is wrong but finding evidence for it seemed impossible. Now that I'm finding all these cross sections that more or less show the same thing going on in widely distant places maybe I should just go back and focus on that and try to accumulate more such diagrams. They ARE evidence of what I'm talking about. It would be nice to find many from other parts of the world though, not just North America and Great Britain. And all this would be an answer to your following remark:
I'd still argue that the true Geo Column was all laid down...But it's not something I can prove.
It's not even something you can offer a shred of evidence for, nor even a coherent perspective. I think the diagrams I'm beginning to accumulate are evidence for this. At least a "shred." Perhaps if I put some time in on it I'll come up with a good collection of it. Maybe I should start a new thread to drive you all crazy with this project. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
It isn't a big problem at all. You are just wrong about it. The Siberian Traps are part of the geologic column.
And they are igneous. And 251,000,000 years old. "The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Maybe I'll just have to get off the focus on the geo column and go back to the simple argument that the strata built up through all the time periods as horizontal layers BEFORE all the tectonic distortion and other disturbances deformed them. When has there ever been a point in earths history when there was no tectonic activity? Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
When has there ever been a point in earths history when there was no tectonic activity? Well, that's what I would have asked. That's why I consider it such a big deal to point out where there appears not to have been any such activity for millions of years, even if only in one location such as the Grand Staircase area. But when I've pointed that out here, the geologists have answered that it's no big deal if nothing happens tectonically for hundreds of millions of years in one location or another, so you'll have to ask them how that can be. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
No, but thanks for the effort. I think really it's that I'm impressed with the examples where strata built to a great height before tectonic or any other force disturbed it, those diagrams I mentioned back on the other thread: the cross section of Great Britain, the cross section of a part of Utah, the cross section of the GC-GS area, ...
But your premise is not even true for even those areas. The Devonian-aged Old Red Sandstone overlies an angular unconformity related to the Caledonian orogeny of early Paleozoic age, all occurring at the time you had continuous deposition at the Grand Canyon.
These deposits are closely associated with the erosion of the Caledonian Mountain chain which was thrown up by the collision of the former continents of Avalonia, Baltica and Laurentia to form the Old Red Sandstone Continent- an event known as the Caledonian Orogeny. (Old Red Sandstone - Wikipedia) And, closer to home, why do you ignore the cross-section of Utah that I showed you? I mean, the one that showed uplift of the Uncompahgre Plateau in the Pennsylvanian Period. And yet you claim that nothing tectonic happened during those times... Things are actually a little bit more complex than you think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Well, that's what I would have asked. That's why I consider it such a big deal to point out where there appears not to have been any such activity for millions of years, even if only in one location such as the Grand Staircase area. But when I've pointed that out here, the geologists have answered that it's no big deal if nothing happens tectonically for hundreds of millions of years in one location or another, so you'll have to ask them how that can be.
Except that we have show that there was deformation in other areas. And the fact that there is no reason why a given location may lie dormant for long periods of time is a different subject. I suppose for an absolutist, your position is understandable, every place undergoes deformation or none do... Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
My only argument is that igneous LAYERS aren't part of the Geo Column.
Except that they are. As has been pointed out and demonstrated to you over and over again. All of which you claim to have found so confusing that you simply could not understand any of it. But your refusal or inability or fear of understanding extremely simple facts of reality has absolutely no effect on reality. There are indeed igneous layers in geological columns around the world and also in the abstract compiled Geologic Column. Really, what is your problem? Why do you feel that that simple fact threatens your religious beliefs so much that you have to exercise such a degree of denial?
Igneous rock is INTRUSIVE into sedimentary layers.
Yes, it is, but only where it is intrusive into sedimentary layers. And where it is not intrusive but rather forms layers, then it is not intrusive. Here's an analogy. Chevrolet makes pick-up trucks. Chevrolet also makes many models of automobiles that are not pick-up trucks. You gaze out the window for a while (assume a window with a street view) and you watch as some Chevy pick-ups drive by. From that, you conclude and absolutely insist that all Chevrolets, without exception, are pick-up trucks. Even though a number Chevrolet non-pick-ups also drive by, you ignore them completely or else rationalize them away with something like, "They don't count because they're not really on the street." That is exactly what you've been doing. All we need to do to disprove your contention that all Chevrolets are pick-up trucks would be to show you at least one Chevrolet that is not a pick-up truck. And all we need to do to disprove your contention that there are no igneous layers in the Geologic Column, but rather only instrusions, would be to show you at least one igneous layer. We have done just that, shown you igneous layers in the Geologic Column. In reaction, not only do you continue to deal simple and obvious reality, but you try to change reality by concocting outlandish redefinitions of words. That is a lawyer trick intended to trick and deceive people and not a way to deal with reality. When Emily Litella would do what you've been doing, everybody could see how ludicrously wrong her rant was and how she had absolutely no idea what she was talking about. But, unlike you, at least she was able to listen to Chevy explain it to her, realize her mistake, and say sweetly, "Never mind." You need to do a helluva lot more work on that second part of her act. And just why do you find igneous layers in the Geologic Column so threatening to your theology?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, how on earth could it. I just don't see how there could be actual lava layers among the sedimentary layers. If you are talking about a stack of all igneous layers I have no objection. The ones that were shown me a while back turned out to be sills that just happened to be very thick and extensive so they look like layers between sedimentary layers. I could not care less whether they are or are not, except that the usual situation AS A SIMPLE MATTER OF FACT is that they are intrusive into all the sedimentary stacks I've investigated.
Sorry, I just glaze over when somebody starts with an analogy that's supposed to represent my thinking, simply cannot read it so forget it. No idea why people do such things. SHOW ME AN ACTUAL LAVA LAYER THAT IS NOT INTRUSIVE INTO SEDIMENTARY ROCK. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
That's why I consider it such a big deal to point out where there appears not to have been any such activity for millions of years, even if only in one location such as the Grand Staircase area. Do you know what tectonic activity is? Is every point on planet earth a point where two plates meet? If there is an earthquake in Brisbane, Australia today, would you be able to see evidence of it in Omaha, Nebraska?Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, that's what I would have asked. That's why I consider it such a big deal to point out where there appears not to have been any such activity for millions of years, even if only in one location such as the Grand Staircase area. But when I've pointed that out here, the geologists have answered that it's no big deal if nothing happens tectonically for hundreds of millions of years in one location or another, so you'll have to ask them how that can be.
Except that we have show that there was deformation in other areas. No deformation that occurred to a layer of the stack before the whole stack was in place. Your one strange example of Mississippian-Pennsylvanian defiormation certainly showed no such thing.
And the fact that there is no reason why a given location may lie dormant for long periods of time is a different subject. I suppose for an absolutist, your position is understandable, every place undergoes deformation or none do... Simply comes from my observation, not some preconceived position about it, and I'm hoping to collect more evidence in the form of those cross sections to demonstrate it. Yours would have demonstrated it too I have no doubt except that the layers above the Pennsylvanian had been eroded away, so all we can tell is that those layers are now deformed. The erosion of those above is no doubt all part of the same scenario though. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Hundreds of millions of years, Hooah, hundreds of millions of years, from the Cambrian to the Tertiary, hundreds of millisions of years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Let me give one reason why there can't be an actual lava layer between sedimentary layers: we're talking a layer laid down in order, right, not a sill that penetrates between sedimentary layers already in place, right? So this lava is going to flow over the layer that is already laid down, right, nothing above it, right? So what are you going to get? A VERY LUMPY BUMPY LAYER OF LAVA, not those nice neat straight layers that were shown back who knows where now, with straight bottom and straight top. If and when another sediment deposits on top of it, the contact is NOT GOING TO BE STRAIGHT AND FLAT. That itself is a clue that it's a SILL, an INTRUSION, and NOT an actual layer.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
There you go.
Hell, there is even a town named after that rock type quote: How about the Snake River Plain Aquifer?
quote: Are you scared of research? Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What do you thnk you are proving there? The first example is of rhyolite OVERLYING sedimentary rock. No problem there. It's not a LAYER, hooah, we're talking about LAYERS.
And I can't decipher your second example but it's certainly not about a layer of lava between sedimentary layers, just a flow of lava interbedded with some sediments. I've many times said there is no problem with lava layers among lava layers. Putting some sediment into the picture doesn't make them sedimentary layers. So as far as I can make it out, this too has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
The first example is of rhyolite OVERLYING sedimentary rock No, it is not. Can you not read? My first example is the source material for the picture. A picture which, by the way, clearly shows a layer of igneous rock between two layers of sedimentary rock. That is kinda what Rhyolite is.
It's not a LAYER, hooah, we're talking about LAYERS. Every example I provided was a layer. All three of them. You're just too stubborn to actually read the little bit I provided. It's really not as difficult as you think.
And I can't decipher your second example. It's a Wikipedia article written in the English language describing a town called "Rhyolite, Nevada". it is named as such due to the rocks. You should read what I type. It helps in discussion.
but it's certainly not about a layer of lava between sedimentary layers No, that is precisely what it is. If you knew how to read, you would see that. But since this material is just a wee bit above a 4th grade level, I can see why you have trouble. The first picture I provided CLEARLY shows a layer of RHYOLITE (that is igneous rock) between two layers of sedimentary rock. Let me break down that wiki article, barney style:
quote: What is above those rocks, Faith? If you said "more rock", you win. What does that mean? That means a layer of rhyolite. What is rhyolite? Igneous rock. I literally JUST learned all this...tonight. Why is it so hard for you? Oh, because you refuse to read things. How do I know that? Because you think I only provided TWO links. As far as the third bit of quoted text, I literally cannot break that down any more. If you can't see that it represents a layer of igneous rock, you really are refusing to learn. Let me give ONE MORE concrete example to add to the list:
Blackrock Escarpment quote: quote: Sedimentary rock layers showing volcanic tuff and rhyolite Crossing the Shut-Ins, we encountered this cross-bedding in the sedimentary rocks above the rhyolite. I know you won't read a fucking word of this because you are a coward and have no integrity.Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024