Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-29-2017 9:27 AM
396 online now:
AZPaul3, Davidjay, Dr Adequate, Faith, frako, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), vimesey (9 members, 387 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,712 Year: 10,318/21,208 Month: 3,405/2,674 Week: 821/961 Day: 24/109 Hour: 5/14

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
798081
82
8384Next
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
JonF
Member
Posts: 3513
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1216 of 1257 (791764)
09-21-2016 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1211 by Admin
09-21-2016 8:14 AM


Re: Thanks for Answers About Dating Assumptions
You did miss one of the YEC triad. The amount of daughter isotope at solidification must be known.

For K-Ar and Ar-Ar, argon easily escapes from lava as the pressure reduces at the eruption, so mostly no daughter isotope is present at solidification. Cases in which this is not true are well known, and Ar-Ar can detect this trapped "excess argon" and often produces a valid date anyway.

U-Pb, mostly performed on zircons, takes advantage of the fact that uranium and thorium can easily substitute for zirconium in the crystal, sometimes as high as one weight percent. But lead doesn't fit big time, either physically or chemically. So the initial daughter isotope amount is zero. Even the RATE group (comprised of the only YECs who understand the process) acknowledges that the only significant source of lead in zircons is radioactive decay.

Isochron methods (not used for dating much any more) produce the amount of daughter isotope at solidification as one of the results of the method.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1211 by Admin, posted 09-21-2016 8:14 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6098
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1217 of 1257 (791767)
09-21-2016 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1209 by Pressie
09-21-2016 5:26 AM


Re: One date
Pressie writes:

You should also add that we have evidence for the assumptions used.
Unlike what happens in Creationism, those assumptions in science are not wild guesses being pulled out of some random anus.

Or to put it another way, the types of assumptions used in radiometric dating are on par with the assumptions we use to weigh salt on a balance, measure the speed of wind with an anemometer, or measure the absorbance of a solution using a spectrophotometer. All measurements in science use assumptions, even the ones that creationists use.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1209 by Pressie, posted 09-21-2016 5:26 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24482
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1218 of 1257 (791785)
09-21-2016 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1198 by Admin
09-20-2016 10:17 AM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Wikipedia by Admin writes:

Layered sedimentary deposits are widespread on Mars.

You've often said that sedimentary deposits can only result from a planet-wide flood, and you say here that, "The Martian strata are not the result of a flood," so how did those layers that are sedimentary arise? Upon what evidence are you basing your claims?

I could never have said that "sedimentary deposits CAN ONLY RESULT from a world-wide flood." ("A" world-wide flood? ) What you must be misreading is my claim that the sedimentary deposits that make up the Geologic Column would have been the result of THE world-wide Flood of Noah. There are certainly sedimentary deposits going on today, even in layers apparently, such as at the bottom of the oceans. You may consider them to be continuations of the Geologic Column, I don't. When you can produce a collection of fossils from those deposits that would be those expected to occur above say, the Holocene, you may have a case.

I believe it was you who said "The Martian strata are not the result of a flood" not I, but of course I agree in any case. I already said what it looks like to me, that the layers on Mars are most likely predominantly volcanic. Ash and basalt are also "sedimentary deposits" but if there are others mixed in they are still nothing like what we see in the Geo Column on Earth. They "LOOK" like they are all the same kind of material, as I said, and they "LOOK" like they are similar in thickness, nothing at all like the strata of the Geo Column. And no matter how "widespread" they may be I see no reason to impute planet-wide extent to them as I do to the Geologic Column. Correction: I realize the Geo Column itself isn't worldwide. I impute its formation to the worldwide Flood, however, which WAS worldwide.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1198 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 10:17 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1221 by Admin, posted 09-21-2016 7:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24482
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1219 of 1257 (791789)
09-21-2016 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1194 by edge
09-19-2016 10:43 PM


edge explains use of OE dating for finding oil
And I've acknowledged that you probably do use those dates, but nevertheless you haven't said anything about how they are necessary, what they actually tell you that you can't find out from relative dating and seismic imaging.

Actually, I did. In so many words, anyway.
Radiometric dates help determine the thermal history of a basin and when/where oil might be generated. If a date is too old, the oil might have already formed and migrated, or the heat from an intrusive might be too old to have affected a source rock.

This kind of information is used as a filter to set priorities for maintaining a land position or when to drill a target.

However, what you say is that all intrusive rocks are of the same age. That really doesn't fly in any kind of exploration.

In some mineral exploration, age dates are critical in determining targets and prioritizing them. Too old or too young in the Rocky Mountains and no one wants to spend money on them.

This is interesting. Finally someone has given an answer to the question about how OE dating helps in finding oil. Unfortunately this may be off topic here, but it would be good to understand more about this. As written it's still rather mystifying to me.

Temperature seems to be the point of the dating, but I'm not sure how that works. If it's the current temperature of the rocks how does dating help establish that? Why couldn't you drop a thermometer down a core pipe to find out? And how would you determine the date of a buried rock in any case? I understand that simply knowing its time period, such as "Carboniferous" would give too broad a range of dates if you are trying to determine a more exact date as the basis for determining temperature.

Anyway I hope this can be discussed further somewhere, if not here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1194 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 10:43 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1220 by PaulK, posted 09-21-2016 4:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12592
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1220 of 1257 (791790)
09-21-2016 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1219 by Faith
09-21-2016 4:28 PM


Re: edge explains use of OE dating for finding oil
I can explain how temperature is relevant. If a rock gets too hot the radiometric clock gets "reset", making it look younger than it is (for some methods, at least). If the daughter product is gas, it can be released from crystals. Decay tracks can anneal. And so on.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1219 by Faith, posted 09-21-2016 4:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12436
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1221 of 1257 (791801)
09-21-2016 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1218 by Faith
09-21-2016 3:42 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Faith writes:

I could never have said that "sedimentary deposits CAN ONLY RESULT from a world-wide flood." ("A" world-wide flood?) What you must be misreading is my claim that the sedimentary deposits that make up the Geologic Column would have been the result of THE world-wide Flood of Noah.

I hope someone picks up this subtopic, but for now just let me correct your misunderstanding of the argument. Your position is that the sedimentary deposits found all around the world could only have resulted from the Flood (which was a world-wide flood according to you), yet sedimentary deposits are found all around Mars. If they weren't deposited by a Martian global flood then by what process did they form, and why is that process ruled out on Earth?

I already said what it looks like to me, that the layers on Mars are most likely predominantly volcanic.

I thought I mentioned this before, but if not let me say it again. "What it looks like to me" is not an argument. What that means here is that if you'd like to argue that "the layers on Mars are most likely predominantly volcanic" (presumably you mean the sedimentary layers I referred to are predominately volcanic) then you must describe how the evidence supports that view or drop the argument.

Ash and basalt are also "sedimentary deposits"...

Just a correction here: neither ash nor basalt are considered sedimentary. Where the Wikipedia article on The Composition of Mars said, "Layered sedimentary deposits are widespread on Mars," it definitely was not referring to volcanic ash or basalt.

They "LOOK" like they are all the same kind of material, as I said, and they "LOOK" like they are similar in thickness, nothing at all like the strata of the Geo Column.

As mentioned above, the way something looks to you is not evidence. First you need evidence for why all the Martian layers are the same kind of material, and evidence that they're all similar thicknesses. Once you have those then you need an argument for how that evidence has anything to do with the question: If world-wide sedimentary layers on Earth could only have formed from a world-wide flood, then wouldn't Mars-wide sedimentary layers on Mars have also had to have formed from an analogous Mars-wide flood?

And no matter how "widespread" they may be I see no reason to impute planet-wide extent to them as I do to the Geologic Column.

Just pointing out that it makes no sense to argue that even if Martian sedimentary layers were planet-wide that you would "see no reason to impute planet-wide extent to them."

I'd prefer not to become a participant in the discussion, so please don't reply to this message, but do please be cognizant of these comments in future discussion.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1218 by Faith, posted 09-21-2016 3:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24482
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1222 of 1257 (791804)
09-21-2016 7:34 PM


I have to make one comment and if I'm suspended again way it goes.

"How it looks to me" may not be Grade A evidence but it IS evidence. Perhaps it looks that way to others as well and if they would chime in that would improve the quality of the evidence. But it's still evidence. It's the only evidence James Hutton had for the great age of the earth when he pondered how Siccar Point "looked to him." He gave the particulars that led him to that conclusion, and I've given particulars that led me to mine. His were pure subjective judgment from his observation, so are mine.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1223 by Admin, posted 09-21-2016 8:22 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12436
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1223 of 1257 (791806)
09-21-2016 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1222 by Faith
09-21-2016 7:34 PM


Faith writes:

"How it looks to me" may not be Grade A evidence but it IS evidence.

Opinion can be part of a consensus (that the Earth's history reflected a global flood *was* the consensus a couple centuries ago), but it cannot be evidence. You explain why yourself:

It's the only evidence James Hutton had for the great age of the earth when he pondered how Siccar Point "looked to him." He gave the particulars...

Yes, particulars, otherwise known as evidence.

Once everyone has stated "how it looks" to them, the only way to decide between opposing views is by constructing arguments around evidence. You've been skipping that step, you seemed determined to continue that way, I've made no secret of my desire for evidence-based discussion, so to discourage further efforts at avoiding evidence and its careful consideration I am suspending you.

AbE: Since Faith mentioned James Hutton, here's a link to his book Theory of the earth: with proofs and illustrations that begins with chapter 4 and accounts of his most famous evidence, such as Siccar Point. Here's another link to Theory of the earth: with proofs and illustrations that begins at the beginning. These links seem appropriate since Hutton was the first to provide a theory for how geological strata formed and came to have their present appearance.

Please, no replies to this message.

Edited by Admin, : AbE.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1222 by Faith, posted 09-21-2016 7:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12436
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1224 of 1257 (791810)
09-21-2016 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1194 by edge
09-19-2016 10:43 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Faith replied to your message with questions, so I gave it a second look and am trying to think my way through this, but I can't tell if I'm on the right track.

Radiometric dates help determine the thermal history of a basin and when/where oil might be generated. If a date is too old, the oil might have already formed and migrated, or the heat from an intrusive might be too old to have affected a source rock.

Let's say a core is drilled down to a sedimentary layer that dates to 200 million years old, but that is not the age of the layer since dating a sedimentary layer gives you the age of the original igneous rocks that were eroded away to become sediments, or if the layer was heated sufficiently (became metamorphic) so that the radiometric clock was reset then it is the age since it cooled. The rock itself reveals whether it is metamorphic or not.

If the rock is not metamorphic then the age is of the original igneous rock and tells us nothing about the age of the sedimentary layer, but it also tells us that the layer has never reached a high enough temperature to become metamorphic. The formation of oil requires heat, but how much heat? If it requires more heat than that required to form metamorphic rock, then we know this layer cannot contain oil. But if the formation of oil requires less heat than that required to form metamorphic rock then the fact that the layer hasn't become metamorphic tells us nothing about whether it might contain oil.

If the rock is metamorphic then the age is when the layer cooled, but how would knowing that say whether it contains oil? Knowing the actual age of the sedimentary layer might provide clues, but how would that be determined, and what might those clues be?

I'm going to stop here because I'm concerned that I might be piling too many speculations upon one another, but I think everyone would benefit from understanding this better.

This kind of information is used as a filter to set priorities for maintaining a land position or when to drill a target.

I didn't understand this at first, so in case this isn't clear to anyone else I'll explain that by "maintaining a land position" you mean maintaining oil rights to a piece of property.

In some mineral exploration, age dates are critical in determining targets and prioritizing them. Too old or too young in the Rocky Mountains and no one wants to spend money on them.

I presume this is about minerals rather than oil. How does the age of a layer affect the presence of minerals, which don't require heat to form or migrate like oil?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1194 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 10:43 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1225 by edge, posted 09-22-2016 11:57 AM Admin has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3735
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1225 of 1257 (791822)
09-22-2016 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1224 by Admin
09-21-2016 9:23 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Let's say a core is drilled down to a sedimentary layer that dates to 200 million years old, but that is not the age of the layer since dating a sedimentary layer gives you the age of the original igneous rocks that were eroded away to become sediments, or if the layer was heated sufficiently (became metamorphic) so that the radiometric clock was reset then it is the age since it cooled. The rock itself reveals whether it is metamorphic or not.

If the rock is not metamorphic then the age is of the original igneous rock and tells us nothing about the age of the sedimentary layer, but it also tells us that the layer has never reached a high enough temperature to become metamorphic. The formation of oil requires heat, but how much heat? If it requires more heat than that required to form metamorphic rock, then we know this layer cannot contain oil. But if the formation of oil requires less heat than that required to form metamorphic rock then the fact that the layer hasn't become metamorphic tells us nothing about whether it might contain oil.

If the rock is metamorphic then the age is when the layer cooled, but how would knowing that say whether it contains oil? Knowing the actual age of the sedimentary layer might provide clues, but how would that be determined, and what might those clues be?

I'm going to stop here because I'm concerned that I might be piling too many speculations upon one another, but I think everyone would benefit from understanding this better.


Yeah ...

This gets very complex, very fast and I hesitate to even try to explain. But first, I wouldn't worry at all about the metamorphic aspect of the system. Usually, oil is formed and migrates long before significant metamorphism occurs. Usually metamorphism drives fluids away and closes off porosity and that would be fatal to oil production.

What I'm talking about is the timing of heat during the formation and migration of oil. In most sedimentary basins, we are looking at normal geothermal gradients affecting the temperature of the source rocks and the generation of oil. However, this is sometimes interfered with by magmatism in tectonically active areas, so the timing of oil formation, migration, and trap formation can be affected. The point is that you need to have pathways and traps for the formation of economic oil deposits. If those do not exist or have been destroyed, it is less likely that you will have success. By dating igneous rocks in the sedimentary section, one can get an idea if oil formed (for instance) before or after the formation of a trap. It is also possible that a reservoir can be destroyed by excessive heat, so if you know the age of that heat source, you have a better chance of success.

Going any further on this would probably require a course in petroleum geology and my work was so long ago that I'm probably out of school on this.

So, in conclusion, sure ... you could drill blind and eventually find oil. The problem is that you won't. Nobody will pay for your well.

With Regard to This Discussion:

So, you do several things. First you get as much information as possible together to provide a convincing model including the age of your oil source, the timing of oil formation, the timing of migration and the age of the trap. The fact that this is a process makes timing very important.

The other thing that you have to do is accept that the sediments were deposited in a recognized system. YE-flood geology has no such framework. The oldest rock could be the same as the youngest rock and the oldest fossils could end up at the top of the section.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1224 by Admin, posted 09-21-2016 9:23 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1226 by Admin, posted 09-23-2016 9:25 AM edge has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12436
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1226 of 1257 (791848)
09-23-2016 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1225 by edge
09-22-2016 11:57 AM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Okay, that helps by simplifying out of the discussion my several misconceptions. About this:

edge writes:

The point is that you need to have pathways and traps for the formation of economic oil deposits. If those do not exist or have been destroyed, it is less likely that you will have success. By dating igneous rocks in the sedimentary section, one can get an idea if oil formed (for instance) before or after the formation of a trap. It is also possible that a reservoir can be destroyed by excessive heat, so if you know the age of that heat source, you have a better chance of success.

Let me make a guess about something and you can confirm whether it's true or not. Pathways and traps are frequently mentioned, so I'm going to guess that the original organic material occurs in relatively low concentrations in sedimentary layers, but that the application of heat either from deep burial or from magmatic intrusion causes both a change in the organic material toward becoming oil or eventually natural gas, and a migration along pathways of porous layers ("porous" is relative, right? The porous layers would look like rock to us?). If this migrating oil doesn't hit any natural traps it will eventually be lost, and even if located isn't worth exploiting because it will be at low concentrations. But any of this migrating oil that does hit traps will gather there and become greatly concentrated and worth exploiting.

Some examples of how different oil fields developed would help. Would it be a correct assumption that the Texas/Oklahoma/Gulf of Mexico oil fields formed in approximately the same way? How did they form? In more detail, where did the original material that became oil migrate from, what was the source of heat (was it heat from deep within the Earth or magmatic intrusion or something else), what paths did the oil migrate along, what material forms the traps, and why is there so much oil in the region, meaning why all the traps? Then the same questions for the Saudi oil fields.

I recall that in the earliest days of oil exploitation that oil was found on the surface in places like Texas, western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio, which must mean oil migrating upwards along pathways that never encountered traps.

First you get as much information as possible together to provide a convincing model including the age of your oil source, the timing of oil formation, the timing of migration and the age of the trap.

How do you get the ages of all these things? By "age of your oil source" I assume you mean the age of the original material from which the oil was cooked - how do you get that age? How do you determine "the timing of oil formation," by which I assume you mean when the original material was cooked into oil? How do you determine "the timing of migration"? And how do you determine "the age of the trap", and does that mean the age of the material forming the trap, or when the oil itself was trapped?

There are other people here with petroleum exploration experience - come on people, don't leave it all up to Edge.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1225 by edge, posted 09-22-2016 11:57 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1227 by edge, posted 09-23-2016 11:36 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1228 by Taq, posted 09-26-2016 1:34 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1229 by edge, posted 09-26-2016 4:13 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3735
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1227 of 1257 (791852)
09-23-2016 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1226 by Admin
09-23-2016 9:25 AM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
There are other people here with petroleum exploration experience - come on people, don't leave it all up to Edge.

That would help. This isn't really my field although I took a petroleum geology class decades ago and worked on some rigs recently. I can make a few comments after a some thought.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1226 by Admin, posted 09-23-2016 9:25 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6098
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1228 of 1257 (791907)
09-26-2016 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1226 by Admin
09-23-2016 9:25 AM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Admin writes:

How do you get the ages of all these things? By "age of your oil source" I assume you mean the age of the original material from which the oil was cooked - how do you get that age? How do you determine "the timing of oil formation," by which I assume you mean when the original material was cooked into oil? How do you determine "the timing of migration"? And how do you determine "the age of the trap", and does that mean the age of the material forming the trap, or when the oil itself was trapped?

I am far from an expert, but from what I can tell you need to look for when marine deposits would form. For North America and regions like Texas, that would be the Cretaceous and also in the Paleogene. During these time periods there was an inland sea running north and south that split North America. This is when you would see deposition of photosynthesizers and other marine microorganisms that serve as a source for oil.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway

Of course, these deposits would take time to bury, and then cook. However, what intrigues me as a non-expert is the geologic history that produces the organic material to start with.

I would also suspect that the Persian Gulf was once covered in an inland sea.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1226 by Admin, posted 09-23-2016 9:25 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1230 by edge, posted 09-26-2016 4:27 PM Taq has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3735
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1229 of 1257 (791909)
09-26-2016 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1226 by Admin
09-23-2016 9:25 AM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
How do you get the ages of all these things? By "age of your oil source" I assume you mean the age of the original material from which the oil was cooked - how do you get that age?

That would be from fossil data and correlations with regional geology.

How do you determine "the timing of oil formation," by which I assume you mean when the original material was cooked into oil?

If not interrupted, we would try to determine the geothermal gradient and using the depth of burial.

How do you determine "the timing of migration"?

Estimation. But it has to be after formation of the pathways. It's complex because oil doesn't just start moving as soon as it's formed. And once it starts moving, it doesn't really stop. Even when there is a trap, oil keeps trying to move.

And how do you determine "the age of the trap", and does that mean the age of the material forming the trap, or when the oil itself was trapped?

There are several types of traps, mainly classified as stratigraphic and structural. A stratigraphic trap is formed by primary sedimentary features such as decreasing porosity within a sedimentary unit, or formation and burial of an unconformity.

Structural traps are like folds or salt domes which occur after the sediments have been deposited.

Here is an schematic of a stratigraphic and two structural traps.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1226 by Admin, posted 09-23-2016 9:25 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3735
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1230 of 1257 (791910)
09-26-2016 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1228 by Taq
09-26-2016 1:34 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
I am far from an expert, but from what I can tell you need to look for when marine deposits would form. For North America and regions like Texas, that would be the Cretaceous and also in the Paleogene. During these time periods there was an inland sea running north and south that split North America. This is when you would see deposition of photosynthesizers and other marine microorganisms that serve as a source for oil.

This is an interesting question. Here is an article that determines the Gulf of Mexico oil to be derived from specific Jurassic, Cretaceous and Eocene source beds.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/...ts/hood/images/hood.pdf

The source rocks are mostly organic rich sediments, some very organic carbonates, and are associated with what they call 'second order transgressions' of the Mesozoic seas.

There are some interesting diagrams in this article.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1228 by Taq, posted 09-26-2016 1:34 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1232 by Taq, posted 09-26-2016 5:32 PM edge has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
798081
82
8384Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017