|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Growing the Geologic Column | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Faith writes: Ah, so old Steve is put up a strawman about "the standard view of the Geologic Column". Typical creationist. They have to tell untruths about everything. That's all they have. Untruths. Let's remind you that his 'article', containing all those untruths, is dated 1984. I'd also like to point out that he's answering mainstream Geology in such a way that implies the standard view of the Geologic Column IS that identifiable stack of sedimentary strata I've been taking it to be. However, in real life, in 1977 from: Margaret Gary, Robert McAfee Jr and Carol L. Wolf, eds. (1977). Glossary of Geology, American Geological Institute, fourth printing, p.292:
Geological column: (a) A composite diagram that shows in a single column the subdivisions of part or all of geologic time or the sequence of stratigraphic units of a given locality or region (the oldest at the bottom and the youngest at the top, with dips adjusted to the horizontal) so arranged as to indicate their relative positions to each other. See also columnar section (b) The vertical or chronologic arrangement or sequence of rock units portrayed in a geologic column. See also geologic section----Syn: stratigraphic column. Faith, stop reading creationist nonsense. They always have to lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Faith writes: I pointed out exactly where your creationist source told an untruth. The attack was thus not unwarranted at all.
That kind of crazed unwarranted attack on any creationist just for being a creationist is exactly why I hesitated to post that article and avoid linking creationist material here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Faith writes:
It's the defintion the tens of thousands of geologists from all over the world use. The definition all those geologists, regardless of language barriers, use. No problems with:
I don't see what you think is so superior about the definition you put up. ... it might mean this; it might mean that. It means the same all over the world; doesn't matter the language. Trying to make themselves understandable to every other geologist in the world. Scientific words do have meaning; don't you know? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Faith writes: The "untruths" seem to come rather frequently from your side, and you are particularly irresponsible in your posts it seems to me. Really? From the side of of those tens of thousands of geologists from all over the world? As I see it, the few cases of dishonesty that some geologists were involved in have been pointed out and dealt with in the relevant circles. Could you provide references for "untruths" from geologists which haven't been dealt with by other geologists? On the other side, the dishonesty of people like Chris Nevins and John Woodmorappe have been pointed out very well. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Faith writes: Why do you have this view? The geological time scale does not assign particular strata or thicknesses or extensiveness and so on at all. The geological time tables describe time periods. Your comment didn't make any sense. although I've many times defined my view of it as specific to the particular strata that define the Geo Time Scale, that are very thick and very extensive and so on. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Of course it is. You do know that tens of thousands of geologists all over the world get paid for doing geology full-time? In my country around 3 000; where exploration and mining companies are the biggest employers, followed by research organisations (exploration and mining companies provide most of the funds for research on geology), Universities (exploration and mining companies provide most of the funds for research on geology) , Government research organisations (exploration and mining companies provide most of the funds for research on geology), etc.? Every single person working full-time on geology knows more than you about the subject.
But this is a LOT of work and I can't keep up with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Actually, quite a lot. The practical applications of the science of geology. Don't creationists always carry on about "observational science"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
edge writes: They test geological theories every day. Yes, that's how we know that the Drakensberg and Lebombo group basalts (up to 1600 m thick in the Lesotho area, tapering out to the west and east) were extruded at the end of Karoo deposition. The basaltic dolerite dykes and sills intruded during the same event and are of similar age to the Drakensberg and Lebombo Groups. Basaltic diabases are waaaaay older than the Drakensberg and Lebombo Group basalts. Its so easy to know; the contacts give it all away. Some basaltic dolerites actually intrude basaltic diabases. Aureoles, the works. In our country a diabase is of Pre-Karoo age; a dolerite is of Karoo-age (similar compositions and minerals and crystals and crystal sizes and everything else!) Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Faith writes: The main evidence I have is what led me to this pondering: the fact that in many or most places I've seen on cross section the volcanic effects clearly occurred after the strata were all in place,... What do you expect? That volcanic rocks should float in mid-air and wait for the hole between them and the surface to be filled in with sediments somehow? Hope you do know about gravity? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Faith writes: Actually, the relative age of a rock is very imporatant in exploration and mining. ...interesting that even in this post of yours the age is really just windowdressing, what concerns you --Faith writes: That's very important in geology. ... as it should -- is the relationships between the rocks themselves...Faith writes: That's very important in geology, too. Everyone should consider what a rock can weather too, etc. That's why the weathering of rocks is such a huge part of geology. Minerology etc. Do you think that all those tens of thousands of geologists are all stupid? ... and their physical condition. ... Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Faith writes: Seems like that's what you think about extrusions and intrusions.
Weird, Pressie, no idea where you get such a weird idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Faith writes: Actually, no. Igneous rocks indicate igneous events. For example, we do have diabases 'running' from precambrian rocks to the Tertiary in the Karoo and the Karoo sediments were deposited in those valleys formed by those eroded diabases. The volcanic events occured first, then the sedimentation occurred later. Then more volcanic events to form the dolerites and basalts after the main sedimentation events. ABE: Here's what I mean: if for instance the cross section shows a stack of layers with a magma dike running from the Precambrian rocks at the very bottom to the Tertiary at the very top and spilling over the top, then we can conclude that the strata were all there first and then the volcanic event occurred. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
This was very funny:
Faith writes: After the deposits investigated. Faults don't form in mid-air... Not very difficult. The thing about faults is there's no way to tell for sure the timing of when they formed Sorry, I just don't think that having any conversations with people such as Faith is productive anymore. It's like having debates in any 'Malhuis'. It's like trying to get inmates in an institution for the mentally insane trying to produce sanity. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
The Navajo sandstone is shown as one sandstone 'layer' in cross-sections.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024