Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 256 of 1257 (788435)
07-31-2016 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by edge
07-29-2016 11:15 AM


By the way, you are breaking Faith's rule that there are is no such thing as inclined deposition by invoking cross-bedding.
I thought that was Steno's rule, not mine. Original Horizontality you know.
As for cross bedding, it "crosses" a perfectly horizontal deposition in the case of say, the Coconino sandstone. It's not the cross-bedding that forms the bed of the sand, but it is always found at an angle to the bed. Why is that and how does it in any way break Steno's law?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by edge, posted 07-29-2016 11:15 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by edge, posted 07-31-2016 10:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 257 of 1257 (788436)
07-31-2016 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
07-31-2016 3:34 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
With regard to the Wingate being an exception there Is an important issue that I wish to point out:
In the absence of directly datable material - which is not that common - we simply have no way of knowing whether the divide between two strata corresponds to a change of geological period or not. The division between the strata itself is the only convenient marker at that location.
In all likelihood, then, the situation is typically that we are able to mostly date a formation to one period, but unless we find clear evidence from a later period - and we may not because the transition itself would be fuzzy and the evidence we need might not even be present, let alone eaisily found, the formation would be assigned to one period even if it happened to straddle the boundary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 3:34 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 5:08 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 258 of 1257 (788439)
07-31-2016 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
07-31-2016 3:34 PM


Time-stratigraphy vs Litho-stratigraphy
I note your point about the exception to the rule, the Wingate.
I pulled this graphic from Percy message 9 at the "Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law" topic, although he apparently somewhere got it from roxrkool.
Note the two stratigraphic columns at the lower-left corner. It illustrates the difference between chronostratigraphic (time-stratigraphic) correlation and lithostratigrapnic correlation. The essence is, that you have various sedimentary (various rock) units happening at the same time (chronostratigraphic correlation). You also have specific sedimentary (rock) units that that have different ages depending on the location (lithostratigraphic correlation).
An example is, that you could (and do) have a sandstone unit that is entirely Devonian at one location, entirely Ordovician at another location, and straddles the Ordovician-Devonian time boundary at some point in between.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 3:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 7:14 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 259 of 1257 (788440)
07-31-2016 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by PaulK
07-31-2016 4:15 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
PaulK writes:
In all likelihood, then, the situation is typically that we are able to mostly date a formation to one period, but unless we find clear evidence from a later period - and we may not because the transition itself would be fuzzy and the evidence we need might not even be present, let alone eaisily found, the formation would be assigned to one period even if it happened to straddle the boundary.
Which is almost always the case. Time is continuous and the transitions go on constantly. It is the sudden but infrequent changes that can allow more precise absolute dating, things like a major unconformity or major die off or a layer that can be attributed to a known event (layers from a given eruption, meteor strikes) that serve as place markers throughout the history. But index fossils can point us to broad chapters (below the first vertebrate fossils, above the K-T boundary, before flowers or grass) regardless of the specific makeup of the rock at that given point.
I tried to point this out to Faith in Message 223 but it seems she has decided not to even read many posting.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2016 4:15 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 260 of 1257 (788445)
07-31-2016 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Minnemooseus
07-31-2016 4:53 PM


Re: Time-stratigraphy vs Litho-stratigraphy
An example is, that you could (and do) have a sandstone unit that is entirely Devonian at one location, entirely Ordovician at another location, and straddles the Ordovician-Devonian time boundary at some point in between.
While that's a much more realistic-sounding situation than the usual one encountered, doesn't it throw your neat Fossil Order into disarray? I mean, Devonian and Ordovician fossils and "landscapes" aren't the same.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-31-2016 4:53 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by edge, posted 07-31-2016 10:11 PM Faith has replied
 Message 267 by saab93f, posted 08-01-2016 1:22 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 261 of 1257 (788461)
07-31-2016 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by herebedragons
07-30-2016 10:50 PM


Re: and multiple shore lines
Correct me if I am wrong here, but aren't those "shorelines" erosional, not depositional? In other words, those stepped features are caused by eroding existing materials?
Actually, they can be either, or both.
Regressive shorelines, like the reservoir picture, can leave behind deposits of beach sand. It's just a matter of relative erosional processes and how soon the sea transgresses again.
It is understood by geologists that transgressive sands are more likely to be preserved and are often thicker than regressive sands. However, both are common.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by herebedragons, posted 07-30-2016 10:50 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 262 of 1257 (788465)
07-31-2016 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
07-31-2016 7:14 PM


Re: Time-stratigraphy vs Litho-stratigraphy
While that's a much more realistic-sounding situation than the usual one encountered, doesn't it throw your neat Fossil Order into disarray?
Hey, no one said it was easy.
While formations such as the Tapeats can be time-transgressive, they can also be transgressive to trilobite index fossils. Believe it or not (silly point) it all makes sense in the end. But you kind of have to study it.
I mean, Devonian and Ordovician fossils and "landscapes" aren't the same.
Probably not, but there's no reason they can't be. The problem is that the Devonian landscape is probably formed by eroding the Ordovician landscape or the Ordovician rocks.
I'm still getting the impression that Faith is confusing marine deposits with terrestrial deposits. Marine deposits, following Walther's Law can form continental scale sheets. Terrestrial deposits are formed in an erosional environment and are only preserved in more limited basins such as lakes, rivers, swamps or deserts, etc. When we talk about landscapes it is important that we realize they are formed by erosion, not deposition. Mountains do not appear to have high relief because they are uplifted, but because they have been partly eroded, leaving behind remnants of what was there before. The only exception to this is volcanic environments where landscapes can be formed by deposition (i.e. volcanoes) which are later eroded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 7:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 11:26 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 263 of 1257 (788466)
07-31-2016 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Faith
07-31-2016 4:15 PM


I thought that was Steno's rule, not mine. Original Horizontality you know.
In that case, the beds in question are the confining layers, the tops and bottoms of the laminated sections.
As for cross bedding, it "crosses" a perfectly horizontal deposition in the case of say, the Coconino sandstone. It's not the cross-bedding that forms the bed of the sand, but it is always found at an angle to the bed. Why is that and how does it in any way break Steno's law?
Actually, the cross-bedding does not physically cross the larger enclosing bedding surfaces. They are essentially a set of internal laminations or textures.
They form by piling up sediment until it exceeds that angle of repose in that medium and then slumps to regain the maximum stable angle. This happens in both the aqueous and eolian flow environments.
In this image, you can see that the cross-beds are cut by a flat surface which would be the top of the lower bed. This bedding plane is, by the way, an erosional surface. We know this because each sloping lamination is cut by that surface ... a temporary landscape, if you will, that is younger than the lower set of cross-beds.
We also know that this surface is depositional because there is a new layer above it. Note that the crossing beds of the upper layer are not clearly cut by the surface. Ideally, they would appear to be approaching the surface asymptotically. They are younger than the surface.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 4:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 264 of 1257 (788467)
07-31-2016 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
07-31-2016 10:55 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
The problem is that the typical depiction of the Geo column where the time periods are shown identifies the period occupied by the strata as covering specific spans of time.
To most of us, this is not a problem. We understand that there are parts of the record missing due to erosion or some other kind of non-deposition.
Since a span of time is represented only by a slab of rock it is the rock that is dated to that range of time, and that range of time covers multiple, even hundreds of millions of years, before and after which other sedimentary rocks are identified with another many millions of years. And on top of that they are identified as specific Time Periods and given names like Carboniferous and Triassic and so on.
That is because those are the only units from those time periods.
Because of these designations it is very hard not to think of these time periods as clearly separated. The rocks are clearly different, and the character of the rock plus its fossil contents clearly define the time period attached to them. The fossil contents are understood to define a landscape, clearly different from the landscape of the prior period and from the succeeding period.
Unfortunately, the 'geological columns' that you see are idealized. I have looked for one that might help you understand what is going on with them and came up with this example:
In this realistic case, geological time is depicted on the right as different stages in the late Cretaceous. The body of the diagram shows the distribution of the actual geological record in a part of northeastern Iraq. The white parts of the diagram depict "no record". This would be due, usually to erosion, but it could also be for tectonic removal or simple lack of sediment during those periods. The jagged sub-horizontal lines are interpreted erosional unconformities. The vertical jagged lines represent different rock types being deposited across the region. In this region, the east(?) has a more continuous record.
The traditional depiction would not show the white gaps, however, most geologists understand that bedding planes and unconformities represent an undetermined length of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 10:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 265 of 1257 (788499)
08-01-2016 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by edge
07-31-2016 10:11 PM


Re: Time-stratigraphy vs Litho-stratigraphy
I'm still getting the impression that Faith is confusing marine deposits with terrestrial deposits.
At the moment I was merely responding to the Devonian-Ordovician remark by Moose. However, there does seem to be an observable difference between the rocks deposited below the Permian and those above it, that I've wondered about. My Floodist view leads me to hypothesize that the Flood was running out of sediments as it reached its ultimate height, but it could no doubt use some adjustment.
Marine deposits, following Walther's Law can form continental scale sheets. Terrestrial deposits are formed in an erosional environment and are only preserved in more limited basins such as lakes, rivers, swamps or deserts, etc.
This is interesting. I suppose the clues to this are found in the rocks, right? But before getting in to that, I want to put this GC-GS cross section up again because it looks to me like the strata from the rim of the canyon on up to the top of the Grand Staircase must have followed the same pattern of deposition as those below. That is, despite the fact that most of them have been eroded away, they seem to have been originally just as straight and flat as the lower strata, to be just as consistent in their order, and to span the same distance:
So my impression from this is that the terrestrial deposits are identical in form to the marine deposits. I didn't check but I would guess that the butte to the south of the Grand Canyon is made up of the same strata as are found in the Grand Staircase.
What has seemed different about them is that they seem messier over all, lumpier, without as consistent texture. But I can find exceptions in both upper and lower strata so I'm not sure that means much. The limestone Claron isn't messier, for instance.
One thing that has struck me is that the Navajo sandstone is frequently found in pieces rather than as part of a complete span; pieces like the Wave you've posted, and those odd lumpy rocks you or Tanypteryx posted in the thread about the Southwestern rocks, pieces that occur here and there separate from others, blobs of sandstone complete with cross-bedding but not laid out flat like the geo column. This is where I get the idea the Flood ran out of sediment.
When we talk about landscapes it is important that we realize they are formed by erosion, not deposition.
What interests me on this thread is the idea that there ever was a landscape at a particular time with the particular conditions ("depositional environment") determined by qualities in a particular rock, and the particular living things found fossilized in that particular rock.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by edge, posted 07-31-2016 10:11 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2016 12:19 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 272 by edge, posted 08-01-2016 7:28 PM Faith has replied
 Message 275 by Pressie, posted 08-02-2016 7:48 AM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 266 of 1257 (788510)
08-01-2016 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Faith
08-01-2016 11:26 AM


Re: Time-stratigraphy vs Litho-stratigraphy
despite the fact that most of them have been eroded away, they seem to have been originally just as straight and flat as the lower strata
A big part of the lithification process is compression. What you are seeing today is not what the layers looked like when they were originally layed down.
They have been compressed and that makes them look straighter and flatter than they originally were.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 11:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1394 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 267 of 1257 (788516)
08-01-2016 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
07-31-2016 7:14 PM


Re: Time-stratigraphy vs Litho-stratigraphy
How do you explain that my country is 100 percent void of fossils and has one of the oldest lithography?
There is absolutely no frikking way that what can be seen is just thousands of years old - thousands of millions is what is reality.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0166263504130016
Edited by saab93f, : Typo
Edited by saab93f, : Broken link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 7:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 4:24 PM saab93f has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 268 of 1257 (788526)
08-01-2016 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by saab93f
08-01-2016 1:22 PM


Re: Time-stratigraphy vs Litho-stratigraphy
What's to explain about your country having no fossils? It's interesting and something to think about, but it doesn't challenge anything I've said as far as I know, though you seem to be implying it does? When you say it has an old lithography, what do you mean? Are there strata?
By the way I can't get your link to work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by saab93f, posted 08-01-2016 1:22 PM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by saab93f, posted 08-01-2016 4:45 PM Faith has replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1394 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 269 of 1257 (788527)
08-01-2016 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Faith
08-01-2016 4:24 PM


Re: Time-stratigraphy vs Litho-stratigraphy
Fixed the link, thnx.
What I meant was that funnily enough there are no fossils in here - exactly as mainstream paleontology would suggest. 2 Byo rocks and an ice-age 11000-9000 years ago - strata and landscape to match that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 4:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 5:16 PM saab93f has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 270 of 1257 (788528)
08-01-2016 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by saab93f
08-01-2016 4:45 PM


Re: Time-stratigraphy vs Litho-stratigraphy
You seem to think I'd object to what you are saying but there's nothing to object to. Except of course the dates, but I'm in the habit of ignoring conventional dates. It's funny how people just take the dating system for granted as if you could know how old something is yourself and agree out of your own knowledge.
Otherwise, ice age, no problem, no fossils, interesting but no problem, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by saab93f, posted 08-01-2016 4:45 PM saab93f has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2016 5:45 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 273 by PaulK, posted 08-02-2016 1:26 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 274 by Pressie, posted 08-02-2016 7:11 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024