Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2017 9:04 AM
401 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,985 Year: 6,591/21,208 Month: 2,352/2,634 Week: 15/525 Day: 15/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4546
47
484950Next
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
JonF
Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 691 of 740 (735081)
08-05-2014 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 683 by Faith
08-05-2014 12:04 PM


Huh?

You just declared that sedimentary rocks are volcanic when you want them to be. Message 672:

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

No, the whole formation does not appear to be of volcanic origin. The tuffs are volcanic, the sedimentary rocks are sedimentary. That's why they are labeled as sedimentary. It's because they are sedimentary. In case you haven't figured it out yet, sedimentary rocks are sedimentary, and geologists can tell that they are sedimentary.

You don't get to re-define "sedimentary" as "volcanic" when it's convenient, which is what you are obviously trying to do to avoid the fatal flaws in your fantasies.

And since you claim that the interspersed sedimentary rocks are not sedimentary, it's obvious that to you "sedimentary" and "volcanic" make no reference to the nature of the rocks, you just label them as whatever type you want them to be. Therefore when we consider "Paleozoic sedimentary rocks overlain by Permian/Triassic volcanics, in turn overlain by Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments" you think you can just label the overlying sediments as volcanic and avoid the problem.

You can't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 683 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 692 of 740 (735082)
08-05-2014 12:47 PM


Sedimentary rocks are sedimentary
Her's some stratigraphy from the Lake Turkana region that is clearer on the nature of the sedimentary rocks. From ANU ANNUAL REPORT 2001:


Stratigraphic sections and placement of hominid specimens in the Lomekwi drainage, west of Lake Turkana, northern Kenya. Reproduced from Leakey et al. (Nature, 410, 433-440, 2001)

From Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia (all but the abstract is paywalled):

From Initiation of the western branch of the East African Rift coeval with the eastern branch (again paywalled except for the abstract):

Faith, do you really think that mudstone, claystone, sandstone, and conglomerate are volcanic when it suits you? 'Cause that's what you said.


Replies to this message:
 Message 693 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:49 PM JonF has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 693 of 740 (735083)
08-05-2014 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 692 by JonF
08-05-2014 12:47 PM


I didn'tRe: Sedimentary rocks are sedimentary
I didn't mean to say that they are volcanic, but that they are connected with volcanism. But as I also keep saying I HAVEN'T SPENT TIMNE ON THIS YET, so there's no point in tyring to pin me down on something I haven't thought aqbout.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 12:47 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 12:54 PM Faith has responded
 Message 695 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 1:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 694 of 740 (735086)
08-05-2014 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 693 by Faith
08-05-2014 12:49 PM


Re: I didn'tRe: Sedimentary rocks are sedimentary
I didn't mean to say that they are volcanic, but that they are connected with volcanism

You did say that they are volcanic. Precision is important in science. But they are not connected with vulcanism, either, other than being deposited on top of volcanic deposits. They are connected with sedimentary deposition, most of it under water. You have to explain many regressions and returns of the fludde waters over a year all over the world. That's not a global fludde.

You really should say that you have no idea how to accommodate the facts into your fantasy, rather than just making up ridiculous ideas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 693 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:49 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 697 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 2:22 PM JonF has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 695 of 740 (735091)
08-05-2014 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 693 by Faith
08-05-2014 12:49 PM


Re: I didn'tRe: Sedimentary rocks are sedimentary
I didn't mean to say that they are volcanic, but that they are connected with volcanism.

So then, you admit that there was active volcanism going back into the Paleozoic and the Precambrian. Now we are getting someplace. Would you agree that volcanoes are often related to faults?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 693 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:49 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 696 of 740 (735095)
08-05-2014 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 666 by Faith
08-05-2014 8:56 AM


No I am not saying that layers would be horizontal NOW, only when they were deposited, after which faulting, in this case, deformed them. The point was that NEW deposition on top of old deformed layers would deposit with a horizontal flat surface and even if that was subsequently also deformed it wouldn't conform to the shape of the previously deformed strata.

Isn't that exactly what we see with the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon?

What you seem to be asking for are "anticlines", of which there are tons of examples. For example:


"Aerial view of the Chenareh anticline partly covered by a giant landslide derived from the backlimb of the Kabir Kuh anticline to the south"
http://www.ija.csic.es/gt/gdl/Zagros/GDL-Objectives.htm

That distorted fold continues under the horizontally deposited sediments on either side of the exposed anticline.

A google image search turns up more examples, like this one:


http://www.oilspillsolutions.org/alittleknownoilfield.htm
This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 697 of 740 (735097)
08-05-2014 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 694 by JonF
08-05-2014 12:54 PM


Re: I didn'tRe: Sedimentary rocks are sedimentary
blah blah blah science this and science that. The thing is if you don't know by now that I wouldn't confuse sedimentary with volcanic, and treat it as a simple misspeaking, but in fact ridicule me as if I could really make such a mistake, you are not worth talking to. This kind of thing is all too common in this madhouse. That and a dozen other abuses of logic, reason, sanity and civility I could probably list.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 12:54 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 698 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 3:53 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 699 by Taq, posted 08-05-2014 4:37 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 700 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 5:52 PM Faith has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 698 of 740 (735102)
08-05-2014 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 697 by Faith
08-05-2014 2:22 PM


Re: I didn'tRe: Sedimentary rocks are sedimentary
Yup, can't address the fatal flaw, one of many, with your fantasy. You'll be much happier in an echo chamber by yourself.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 2:22 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 699 of 740 (735103)
08-05-2014 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 697 by Faith
08-05-2014 2:22 PM


Re: I didn'tRe: Sedimentary rocks are sedimentary
blah blah blah science this and science that. The thing is if you don't know by now that I wouldn't confuse sedimentary with volcanic, and treat it as a simple misspeaking, but in fact ridicule me as if I could really make such a mistake, you are not worth talking to. This kind of thing is all too common in this madhouse. That and a dozen other abuses of logic, reason, sanity and civility I could probably list.

The greater question is how you can confuse a geologic record strewn with multiple volcanic layers with a geologic record with no volcanic layers. Had you never heard of tuffs, flood basalts, or lahars?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 2:22 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 700 of 740 (735108)
08-05-2014 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 697 by Faith
08-05-2014 2:22 PM


Re: I didn'tRe: Sedimentary rocks are sedimentary
blah blah blah science this and science that.

Is this all you've got left?

The thing is if you don't know by now that I wouldn't confuse sedimentary with volcanic, and treat it as a simple misspeaking, ...

The problem is that all of these misspeaks start to form a pattern, Faith. You make up all these ad hoc explanations and eventually, something has to go haywire. Being constrained by evidence keeps this from happening. You were so determined that having volcanic rocks in the Phanerozoic section was impossible that you created a blunder. You simply could not accept these data points, and simply vanished them away with a casual, thoughtless remark.

... but in fact ridicule me as if I could really make such a mistake, you are not worth talking to.

Faith, realistically, what have you done around here to get respect? You've treated everyone her with disrespect and towering arrogance. Maybe this all has more to do with your attitude and less with everyone else in the forum.

This kind of thing is all too common in this madhouse. That and a dozen other abuses of logic, reason, sanity and civility I could probably list.

Please do so. I would love to see such a list. We could address them one by one.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 2:22 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 705 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 12:08 AM edge has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1251
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(4)
Message 701 of 740 (735110)
08-05-2014 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 661 by Faith
08-05-2014 8:40 AM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
I just posted a news report at my blog on the rain in California that shows cars buried in mud. That was merely one day of very heavy rain and it did a lot of damage.

It would be turning everything to mud that could turn to mud, and the mud would be running down from the high places to the low places. All over the whole land mass.

Again I refer you to mudslides in California, but it's really very common for such mudslides to occur in a heavy rain after just a very short time of it.

But I don't know where you get your certainty about how much dirt all that water would have moved. Whole hillsides collapse under heavy rain out here in the west, hillsides with houses on them that slide along with the mud and end up half buried in it, after just a few days of very heavy rain.

It's the turning of dry land into soggy mud and making innumerable mudslides everywhere that I'm thinking of as the scouring process and that should have happened to a great depth during those first forty days and nights. Very few hills left after all that I would suppose. Given that a day or three of heavy rain can collapse hills intio muddy rivers NOW,

Mud, mud, mud, muddy mud, Faith. Not sandstone or limestone or any of the other types of sedimentary rocks. Just mud. If your scenario is correct, we should see a thick layer of mud, everywhere on the earth and all the dead things killed in the flood would be buried in that layer.

That's what I have tried to get across to you; find one layer,just one layer, that is consistent with a massive flood that is distributed throughout the world and that can be correlated to the same relative time period. THIS would be strong evidence for a global flood. But how does your mud observations translate into what we observe in the geological column.

Well, as I keep saying, there is no way to prove unwitnessed events in the past, we're at the mercy of our ability to imagine and interpret.

You can always retreat to this position when you can't provide any support for your assertions. But you just described in detail what we would see in a great flood. But that doesn't match up with what we observe, does it? Your scenario requires the flood waters to grind up rock into tiny bits of sand, (some rounded, some sharp), millions of cubic miles of rock. And to produce huge amounts of calcium carbonate shaped like little sea creatures and then to do this over and over, in various parts of the world and various times, in precise patterns; and do all this in a year.

And we are all too dense to see this as a possibility?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:40 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 12:06 AM herebedragons has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1251
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 702 of 740 (735111)
08-05-2014 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 668 by RAZD
08-05-2014 8:59 AM


Each layer of sediment would have internal layers that can be identified on both sides of the fault, and the displacement from one side to the other can be measured. If the bottom layer is displaced more than the layer over it, and that layer is displaced more than the layer over it, then we observe that this can only happen if the fault is reactivated after each subsequent layer.

Excellent point RAZD. Layers are not as simple as "a thick slab of sandstone."

But these conditions are not visible from a computer screen or a generalized cross section.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by RAZD, posted 08-05-2014 8:59 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 703 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 12:02 AM herebedragons has responded
 Message 707 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2014 7:30 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 703 of 740 (735112)
08-06-2014 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by herebedragons
08-05-2014 8:12 PM


They also aren't CALLED Multiple Layers, they're called SANDSTONE and LIMESTONE etc. But that doesn't matter to you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by herebedragons, posted 08-05-2014 8:12 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 706 by Pressie, posted 08-06-2014 1:00 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 710 by herebedragons, posted 08-06-2014 8:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 704 of 740 (735113)
08-06-2014 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 701 by herebedragons
08-05-2014 7:58 PM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
It STARTS with mud, what happens after that is how it becomes separated sediments. Which you might know if you stopped to think at all, but like everybody else here you don't. You are willing to take the latest thing I say and make it stand for all the arguments I've ever made here. That's underhanded and it's stupid. And there is a distinction between the sciences of the unwitnessed past and the real sciences that anyone with an IQ of 80 ought to be able to figure out.l

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 701 by herebedragons, posted 08-05-2014 7:58 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 708 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2014 7:34 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 712 by herebedragons, posted 08-06-2014 8:47 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 705 of 740 (735114)
08-06-2014 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 700 by edge
08-05-2014 5:52 PM


Re: I didn'tRe: Sedimentary rocks are sedimentary
Just another abusive post from one of the knowitall Evos.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 700 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 5:52 PM edge has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
4546
47
484950Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017