Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

All of them. Every single boundary that marks off both a sedimentary deposit and a time period.But what I'm hoping is that someone else will come along who simply gets what I'm talking about from what I've already said. I've explained it as well as I'm able. There's no point in trying harder to convince somebody who is determined not to be convinced, even if I had more I could say about it.

Every boundary ? Well, let's consider the Redwall again.The Redwall is from the Carboniferous.In places it sits on the Muav Limestone from the Cambrian. A difference of more than 100 million years, missing out the Devonian altogether. Is it really strange that rocks deposited at such different times should be different ?In other places it sits on the Temple Butte Limestone, which is closer in age - but even there, there is a break in deposition, again for a considerable period. Again, not strange.Above you have the Surprise Canyon formation, which is also quite similar in age, also starting in the earlier part of the Carboniferous. So this doesn't represent a boundary between geological periods, but even here there is a long break in deposition, as shown by the erosion of the Redwall surface.So where is the strangeness ?

In there being any correlation whatever between a rock type and a time period.In there being a pattern of time periods marked by rock types that repeats up the entire geo column.

quote:

---

In there being any correlation whatever between a rock type and a time period.

---

That isn't really strange. The rock has to be deposited at some time, and it isn't surprising that it would all be deposited within a single geological period since those periods are so long. So, to the extent that it is true it isn't strange at all.

quote:

---

In there being a pattern of time periods marked by rock types that repeats up the entire geo column.

---

That would be strange if it were true. But it isn't,

Hi Faith,Please support your assertions of "strangeness" and of "neat and tidy layers" and of how "they are a lot more neat and tidy than they should be" with specific descriptions and evidence. What you've provided so far is much too vague.Please, no replies to this message.

Thank Jonf. Appreciated.JB

I have described as well as I can what I mean by the strangeness. I wish I had more support to offer, I would love to have more support to offer. As it is I can only hope someone will see what I mean from what I've already said. If I come up with a better way of supporting what I mean so that it would be clearer to others, I will be more than happy, I will be ecstatic, to be able to offer it. Meanwhile, what I've already said says it for me, I can only hope someone else will see it the same way.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You have repeatedly been informed that any given time period will have lots of rock types. So it seems that the "strangeness" here is all in your head. As usual.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I get "informed" of all kinds of things that totally miss the point, as you are missing it here, as usual. "Lots of rock types" that nevertheless are identifiable rock types that define identifiable time periods.

About the last couple posts, that's enough of the off-topic comments. This is how the beginning of a spiraling out of control keeps happening in threads in which Faith participates. Everyone, please stop baiting people, and when baited please don't take it.Please, no replies to this message.

[ Content hidden. --Admin ]Edited by Admin, : Hide content.

Start a thread.

Actually, the rock types fit within a time period. And those 'rock types' are not pure. For instance the Supai group is a sequence of thin beds of mudstone, sandstone and limestone in no particular order nor purity.In general, the contacts are not as sharp as you think. Yes, from a great distance, they are distinct, but upon viewing in detail, most contacts are gradational.Have you actually visited the GC?My impression is that you have not. The reality is not what you make of it. Consequently, you will never have any support.

Well, they don't do that...As many of us have said, there are a number of unconformities in the GC record.

I'm struggling with a small detail in my research on the history of dendrochronology as it relates to the White Mountain Bristlecone pines.Wikepedia lists the Pinus longaeva and the Pinus aristata as two distinct species with two distinct ranges (with little to no range overlap).Bristlecone pine - WikipediaThis Forest Service link lists Pinus aristata as a "synonym" to the Pinus longaeva.http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinlon/all.htmlWhile this link specifically lists the ancient grove species as Pinus aristata.Just a moment...What gives?This is an important detail for me to sort out since Lammerts (in his oft quoted and bullshit multiple ring per year "study") says he used the Colorado species (see below)

quote:

---

Seed of the Colorado strain of the bristlecone pine was purchased from the Clyde Robin Seed Co., Inc., and planted March 9, 1978. By way of explanation, because of park restrictions it is practically impossible to get seed of the trees growing in the White Mountain area. However, botanically speaking, the trees growing in California and in Colorado are all considered to be the same species.

---

If the longaeva an the aristata are distinct species as per the Wiki with a non-overlapping range, how can the the Ancient Grove be aristata?Thanks
JB