Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-26-2017 11:28 PM
478 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, Percy (Admin), Pressie, Theodoric (5 members, 473 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 799,488 Year: 4,094/21,208 Month: 2,489/1,605 Week: 126/563 Day: 126/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4445
46
47484950Next
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12290
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 676 of 740 (735057)
08-05-2014 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 675 by Faith
08-05-2014 9:28 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
All of which is irrelevant to my point, that the Base Tertiary was not there - certainly not as rock - when that fault occurred. That really is obvious because if it were we'd see the same step up there - and we don't. Indeed I'd say that the rising salt is the major contributor to the surface contours of the Base Tertiary, more so than any of the faults - it's obviously responsible for the "bump" in the middle.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 677 of 740 (735063)
08-05-2014 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 675 by Faith
08-05-2014 9:28 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
You need the Base tertiary to show some sign of original horizontality, especially since it isn't faulted, which it doesn't, and you also have to take the salt dome into account that pushes it up.

Faith, the lower Tertiary has been there for 50 million years.

But regardless of that, it is not faulted to the degree that the deeper sediments are disrupted.

How does this square with your theory that all deformation occurred at once and after all sediments were deposited?

Stop with the evasion regarding horizontality. I don't care if the Tertiary sediments were pasted to a wall.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:28 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:02 PM edge has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3437
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 678 of 740 (735064)
08-05-2014 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 669 by Faith
08-05-2014 8:59 AM


Well I hadn't yet got to that post but now I feel no need whatsoever. Percy's ability to speculate is not very impressive and I think I'll just leave it at that.

It's not speculation. It's explanation. ITYM you can't refute what he said so you'll ignore it. As you do with 99.999% of the evidence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 669 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:59 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3437
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 679 of 740 (735065)
08-05-2014 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 672 by Faith
08-05-2014 9:05 AM


the formations made up of interspersed layers of volcanic and sedimentary layers that many posted appear to be volcanic in origin, the whole formation,

You contradict yourself in one phrase. Sedimentary rock is not volcanic. It's sedimentary.

that is why I don't include them in my view of the basically sedimentary Geologic Column

Ignoring the fatal flaw of subaerial volcanic deposits all over the Earth.

I still have to research this stuff, but I won't be reporting on it here.

Yeah, none of this scientific discussion and development for you. You'll post only where few people will see it and those who do have drunk your Kool-Aid.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 686 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:11 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 680 of 740 (735066)
08-05-2014 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 672 by Faith
08-05-2014 9:05 AM


Oh yes, I did forget an important point: the formations made up of interspersed layers of volcanic and sedimentary layers that many posted appear to be volcanic in origin, the whole formation, that is why I don't include them in my view of the basically sedimentary Geologic Column.

How convenient for you.

So, if we have Paleozoic sedimentary rocks overlain by Permian/Triassic volcanics, in turn overlain by Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments we can just pull out those volcanics as if they didn't exist. All just to fit Faith's idiosyncratic version of geology.

You know, this could be fun.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 681 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 11:51 AM edge has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3437
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 681 of 740 (735068)
08-05-2014 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 680 by edge
08-05-2014 11:41 AM


No, she means you can write off the Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments as volcanic. Gotta be the kookiest things she's ever come up with, and that's saying something.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 680 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 11:41 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 683 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:04 PM JonF has responded
 Message 684 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 12:04 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23452
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 682 of 740 (735070)
08-05-2014 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 677 by edge
08-05-2014 11:35 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
The Base Tertiary and all the others have been there only 4300 years, and that being the case all the faulting has occurred since then, and if some didn't go all the way up through some of the layers, big deal.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 11:35 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 685 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 12:10 PM Faith has responded
 Message 690 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2014 12:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23452
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 683 of 740 (735071)
08-05-2014 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by JonF
08-05-2014 11:51 AM


Huh?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 11:51 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 691 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 12:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 684 of 740 (735072)
08-05-2014 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by JonF
08-05-2014 11:51 AM


No, she means you can write off the Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments as volcanic. Gotta be the kookiest things she's ever come up with, and that's saying something.

So, I was right.

This could be fun. We have several new classes of volcanic rock. The igneous petrologists will be most ecstatic.

We're gonna need a whole lot of new textbooks, though...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 11:51 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 685 of 740 (735074)
08-05-2014 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by Faith
08-05-2014 12:02 PM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
The Base Tertiary and all the others have been there only 4300 years, ...

First of all, there is not 'Base Tertiary'. There is a base of the Tertiary, but it is not a formation, it is a contact.

... and that being the case all the faulting has occurred since then, ...

And no, if the faulting does not cut the base of the Tertiary, then it can't occur since the Tertiary.

I can't even imagine your confusion.

... and if some didn't go all the way up through some of the layers, big deal.

Yes, big deal. Mainly to you. This is only the most obvious change with time. You still have the faults that occurred before the salt that you have not attempted to explain.

So, is everything after the base of the Tertiary after the fludde, or is everything since the base of the salt post-fludde?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 687 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:13 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23452
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 686 of 740 (735075)
08-05-2014 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 679 by JonF
08-05-2014 11:39 AM


I have hardly even begun to think about this stuff and I certainly have no interest in discussing it with people whose whole M.O. is debunkery and ridicule of anything I say.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 679 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 11:39 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 12:20 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23452
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 687 of 740 (735076)
08-05-2014 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 685 by edge
08-05-2014 12:10 PM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
I don't think the faults occurred "before" the salt or before any of the deposits. I think they all occurred after.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 12:10 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 688 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 12:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 688 of 740 (735077)
08-05-2014 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 687 by Faith
08-05-2014 12:13 PM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
I don't think the faults occurred "before" the salt or before any of the deposits. I think they all occurred after.

Then you defy the evidence.

Why are there faults that terminate in the salt or just above, if they are younger than all of the sediments above the salt?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 687 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 689 of 740 (735079)
08-05-2014 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 686 by Faith
08-05-2014 12:11 PM


I have hardly even begun to think about this stuff ...

This is clearly the case and it's surprising how far you've gotten off-track in such a short periods of time.

... and I certainly have no interest in discussing it with people whose whole M.O. is debunkery and ridicule of anything I say.

I will admit to being all for debunking unsupported ideas that run afoul of the data.

As far as the ridicule goes, perhaps if you were less arrogant and disrespectful, you'd get a better reception.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12290
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 690 of 740 (735080)
08-05-2014 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by Faith
08-05-2014 12:02 PM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
quote:

The Base Tertiary and all the others have been there only 4300 years, and that being the case all the faulting has occurred since then, and if some didn't go all the way up through some of the layers, big deal.

So you're essentially claiming that you're right and if th evidence shows that you are wrong, "big deal". You do realise that that attitude - and the way it affects your behaviour - is one of the biggest problems you have here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
4445
46
47484950Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017