Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Geology- working up from basic principles.
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 136 of 156 (542617)
01-11-2010 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by petrophysics1
01-11-2010 7:56 AM


Re: On the timelyness of replies and focus on the topic
Sorry, I have to go, I have to do my morning report on the 6 gas wells I'm drilling for EnCana Oil and Gas.
Where? In the Haynesville? They sure seem to be getting back to busy in the Barnett, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by petrophysics1, posted 01-11-2010 7:56 AM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by petrophysics1, posted 01-11-2010 10:55 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 156 (542625)
01-11-2010 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Coragyps
01-11-2010 9:28 AM


Re: On the timelyness of replies and focus on the topic
Where? In the Haynesville? They sure seem to be getting back to busy in the Barnett, too.
Hi Coragyps,
No, I consult for them in the Jonah gas field in west central Wyoming, Green River Basin. I consult in the Rockies and drill my own prospects in the Texas/Oklahoma Panhandles and Eastern Colorado (shelf area of the Anadarko Basin). Basically Pennslyvanian Morrow sand plays.Keep it separate so I don't have a conflict of interest.
My wife consults for Anschutz up in Manning , N.D. geosteering wells in the Bakken play.Down 9800 ft. and then lateral for 2 miles in the 14 foot wide Bakken zone.
Things have picked up a small amount, but last year we were drilling with 16 rigs, went down to 4 and now up to 6. Would like to see things pick up a bit better so I can get back up into the top 1% of US income earnors instead of just being in the upper 2%.
Lived through the oil crash in the 80's, I'll make it again.
THIS IS AN OFF TOPIC POST....ALTHOUGH I COULD CHANGE IT TO MAKE IT ON TOPIC BY SHOWING HOW YOU CAN USE GEOLOGY TO MAKE A VERY GOOD LIVING, FLOOD GEOLOGY ONLY WORKS IF YOU ARE PASSING A COLLECTION PLATE.
Stay tuned....I have more geologic wisdom to pass out, but now back to work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Coragyps, posted 01-11-2010 9:28 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 156 (542632)
01-11-2010 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Percy
01-11-2010 9:04 AM


Re: On the timelyness of replies and focus on the topic
Hi Percy,
Do you think sediment drops from the sky all at once?
If it doesn't, then it is a transgressional or a regressive/progradational deposit.
Which means it DID NOT HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME.
Ash falls, or all the diatoms dying the in winter and settling out are very close to a time line,but almost everything else you look at is either prograding/regressing or transgressing.
You are doing 200 year old geology!
Stop it.
It is the strawman the world wide flood people are setting you up with.
Face it, you did not spot that the recently posted articles were nothing more than the deposition of a Gilbert delta.
You did not spot, or did he,that in the article posted by our chemical engineer from Australia that quartz is NOT denser than limestone. He says it in the article, quartz is denser than limestone. But quartz has a S.G. of 2.65 while calcite is 2.71.
The second article posted actually shows you why there could not have been a worldwide flood.
Did you see it? The people who wrote it were too stupid to see it, and they figured you would be to.
They show that a stream flowing into standing water creates high dip cross beds and that they are deposited and go upstream as sea level rises.
What does that mean? Well it means EVERY single stream and river valley must have these high angle transgressive sand deposits in their river valleys if sea level rose worldwide, that is if a worldwide flood occured.
But they are not there. Go out to your nearest river and look for them. These guys showed us what to look for if a flood occured and it's not there.
I already knew that but thought I'd point it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Percy, posted 01-11-2010 9:04 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 01-11-2010 1:26 PM petrophysics1 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 139 of 156 (542636)
01-11-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by petrophysics1
01-11-2010 12:02 PM


Re: On the timelyness of replies and focus on the topic
Hi Petrophysics1,
You seem to be addressing yourself to the larger discussion in this thread rather than to my rather minor point, namely that when you said, "Formations and their boundaries ARE NOT time lines. In special instances they could be, but in general they are not," that it was overstated. Nothing you've said here changes my mind, because nothing you've said here addresses what I said.
petrophysics1 writes:
Ash falls, or all the diatoms dying the in winter and settling out are very close to a time line,but almost everything else you look at is either prograding/regressing or transgressing.
But, as I asked already (see where I concluded with, "Not millions, surely."), how much vertically compared to how much horizontally? For example, the vertical thickness of the layers in the Grand Canyon represent ten, twenty, sometimes more, millions of years. Only at most a few hundred feet thick, the horizontal extent of these layers is for miles and miles and miles. Obviously the horizontal transgressing is far, far faster than the vertical deposition rate, and so these layers, especially at the precision of millions of years, represent pretty clear time lines.
This doesn't have anything to do with the Gilbert Delta or RAZD or some poor schmuck from Australia. I was just making a minor point that when you say that layers could only be considered time lines under special circumstances that in my opinion you were overstating the case.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by petrophysics1, posted 01-11-2010 12:02 PM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by petrophysics1, posted 01-11-2010 5:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 142 by edge, posted 01-11-2010 7:59 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 140 of 156 (542640)
01-11-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by stewartreeve
01-08-2010 9:06 AM


Aeolian Sediment
For example, the water-formed simultaneous mechanisms can produce:
i) parallel stratum
ii) cross-bedding
iii) inter-bedding
iv) angles of repose for cross-beds normally/conventionally interpreted as being categorically wind-derived
When so many major features have their boxes ticked "yes", how can one so easily dismiss it?
I can identify many major features that you have in common with an elephant. But I can easily dismiss the proposition that you are one. This is because in deciding whether or not you were an elephant, I should pay attention to the differences as well as to the similarities.
Given such weight, isn't when compelled to consider, then, that, if we consider the hypothesis of high-energy water-dynamics as a theoretical starting point, it is reasonably possible that the finer details that are said to differentiate the strata as "necessarily wind-blown" might infact be conceivably (and even experimentally!) explained in another light?
We can consider it. And if the only argument in favor is: "well, one day people might find a reason to think these strata were deposited by water", then it is outweighed by the numerous arguments against. I am willing to stipulate that one day conceivably people might find fairies at the bottom of my garden, but until they do I feel happy saying that there aren't any.
Could you conceed that my reasoning at least has some merit?
As it stands, I'm not even inclined to concede that it's reasoning.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by stewartreeve, posted 01-08-2010 9:06 AM stewartreeve has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 156 (542667)
01-11-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Percy
01-11-2010 1:26 PM


Re: On the timelyness of replies and focus on the topic
You seem to be addressing yourself to the larger discussion in this thread rather than to my rather minor point, namely that when you said, "Formations and their boundaries ARE NOT time lines. In special instances they could be, but in general they are not," that it was overstated. Nothing you've said here changes my mind, because nothing you've said here addresses what I said.
I stand by what I said. I did address your point you just didn't understand it.
Let's take the Morrow Formation which I explore for oil and gas in. I can trace it from east central Colorado down into central Oklahoma, over 450 miles.
Are you telling me the top of it is the same age across 450 miles. How do you do that? Does the sand fall from the sky at the same time.
Maybe a better explanation is that it prograded over time from Colorado and the Ancestral Rockies to Central Oklahoma. Which of course means its top is NOT a time line.
Actual time lines make a very big difference when you are making oil and gas prospects.
If formations are time lines....it should be no problem for you to name me 20 that are time lines. Off hand after 35 years doing this I can't. That's because most formations are transgressive or regressive/progradational events. They are moving laterally over time.
Read Edge's posts, he has it right as well, but it just went over everyone's head including yours. Ask him, or Joe Meert if you don't believe me.
Obviously the horizontal transgressing is far, far faster than the vertical deposition rate, and so these layers, especially at the precision of millions of years, represent pretty clear time lines.
Actually this makes no sense and shows me you didn't understand what I said.
Once again formation boundaries are not time lines, except in special circumstances...when you figure out why that is true....you will actually know something about geology.
If you think they are, you do not understand deposition, sedimentation or stratigraphy.
As an aside, did you take a college course in stratigraphy and one in sedimentation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 01-11-2010 1:26 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 142 of 156 (542675)
01-11-2010 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Percy
01-11-2010 1:26 PM


Re: On the timelyness of replies and focus on the topic
But, as I asked already (see where I concluded with, "Not millions, surely."), how much vertically compared to how much horizontally? For example, the vertical thickness of the layers in the Grand Canyon represent ten, twenty, sometimes more, millions of years. Only at most a few hundred feet thick, the horizontal extent of these layers is for miles and miles and miles.
Actually, over hundreds of miles, a formation can be considerably time transgressive. Your point is well-taken, however, that the time difference should be matched to the scale of observation, and the type of deposit.
If we look at a single bed, I think it is fair to say that some types of deposits, such as turbidites might be restricted in time. In other words it is essentially a time horizon. At the same time, we can kind of say that the Hell Creek Formation forms the top of the Cretaceous System in eastern Montana, but that may not be true in detail. However, it may be a useful marker for most discussions.
Petro mentions the ash deposits which are considered chronostratigraphic horizons, and I have seen them cutting fairly sharply across a coal bed in a matter of tens of meters. It's really kind of spooky, but when you think about the lifetime of a swamp, things seem to come together.
Obviously the horizontal transgressing is far, far faster than the vertical deposition rate, and so these layers, especially at the precision of millions of years, represent pretty clear time lines.
Okay, here you are defining your resolution. On a scale of millions of years you are probably correct most of the time. So, I cannot say you are wrong. But if you want detail, then it's necessary to find a time-strat unit to correlate from one location to another. Somtimes we use events such as ash falls to do this, but fossils can also be used. For instance, over a distance of less than 250 km, the Glossopleura (trilobite index fossil) Zone traverses from the top to the bottom of the Bright Angel Shale.
Edited by edge, : Add mention of deposit type.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 01-11-2010 1:26 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 143 of 156 (542679)
01-11-2010 8:23 PM


To Edge and Petrophysics1
I think if you guys go back to my posts you won't be able to find where I object to anything about transgressions and so forth. I understand it, I agree with it. You can stop trying to convince me.
I had a different and somewhat minor point. Petrophysics1 said that layers are not time lines except in special circumstances. But on a scale of millions of years the vast majority of layers are timelines. The Grand Canyon is one giant gallery of such time lines, and the Grand Canyon is not a special circumstance. In fact, it is probably where most laypeople get their best impressions of the geologic column and the succession of geological eras.
I made the point because I was afraid that some might conclude that Petrophysics meant that layers that laypeople are actually likely to see are not actually much like timelines with dates that we have confidence in, that, for example, the Coconino sandstone layer of the Grand Canyon is not really from around 260 million years ago, but actually varies in age a great deal as you go from one end of the canyon to the other. I very much doubt that the age of such layers varies by more than a couple percent across hundreds of miles.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by edge, posted 01-11-2010 10:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 147 by petrophysics1, posted 01-11-2010 10:30 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 144 of 156 (542680)
01-11-2010 8:34 PM


Sanity Check
I'm having trouble following this thread. It starts off real well, of course, easy to digest but doesn't tell me much I don't already know. Eventually though it veers off into a Rugby match about what may be mere technicalities and semantics or else could be very important, hard to say.
As I understand it, a good example of the laws of superposition and its relative faunal succession was found in the coal mines of 18th and 19th century Britain. Lot and lots of unbroken layers, lots and lots of fossils, no exceptions to the rules. Is it not true that these layers represent a chronology covering millions of layers, millions of years, and millions of fossils?
If I'm understanding what the people stirring this thread are saying, unbroken superposition is no guarantee of chronology, transgressions and slurries and other things create the appearance of unbroken layers but aren't really, the geological column is arranged randomly rather than chronologically, and its just some sort of awesome coincidence that we only find trilobites near the bottom and grass near the top.
I don't believe this, I think it's fraudulent. Someone make me smarter than I am right now.

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by edge, posted 01-11-2010 9:06 PM Iblis has not replied
 Message 148 by edge, posted 01-13-2010 12:03 AM Iblis has replied

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


(1)
Message 145 of 156 (542683)
01-11-2010 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Iblis
01-11-2010 8:34 PM


Re: Sanity Check
I'm having trouble following this thread. It starts off real well, of course, easy to digest but doesn't tell me much I don't already know. Eventually though it veers off into a Rugby match about what may be mere technicalities and semantics or else could be very important, hard to say.
I think that, for the most part, the technical issues are not relevant in this discussion. That is what I was trying to explain away in my earlier post. I understand what Petro is saying, but I also see Percy's point. This is an issue that is really hard to understand without a full, class-room discussion using charts and tables.
As I understand it, a good example of the laws of superposition and its relative faunal succession was found in the coal mines of 18th and 19th century Britain. Lot and lots of unbroken layers, lots and lots of fossils, no exceptions to the rules. Is it not true that these layers represent a chronology covering millions of layers, millions of years, and millions of fossils?
For all practical purposes, on this board, yes. In any given location, the strata young upward and age downward. The problem comes in when one compares different locations, which is basically what the YECs are doing. Then it gets into the area of time correlation. It's not easy to visualize.
If I'm understanding what the people stirring this thread are saying, unbroken superposition is no guarantee of chronology, transgressions and slurries and other things create the appearance of unbroken layers but aren't really, the geological column is arranged randomly rather than chronologically, and its just some sort of awesome coincidence that we only find trilobites near the bottom and grass near the top.
No, this is not the case, though lateral changes make the picture pretty confusing. The problem starts when we try to explain it to YECs with their strawman arguments and no benefit of a course in stratigraphy. I remember going over this in my very first geology class. It took a while...
I don't believe this, I think it's fraudulent. Someone make me smarter than I am right now.
Well, you are correct. While there are complications due to structure, alteration, and lateral changes in the depositional environment, including unconformities, it really does make sense in the end. The geological record is not random or indecipherable.
I will try to find a reference on this but it will definitely be later or tomorrow, though this video may help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awkLZmQKpwc&feature=related

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Iblis, posted 01-11-2010 8:34 PM Iblis has not replied

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


Message 146 of 156 (542687)
01-11-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Percy
01-11-2010 8:23 PM


Re: To Edge and Petrophysics1
I think if you guys go back to my posts you won't be able to find where I object to anything about transgressions and so forth. I understand it, I agree with it. You can stop trying to convince me.
I don't remember inferring any such thing.
I had a different and somewhat minor point. Petrophysics1 said that layers are not time lines except in special circumstances. But on a scale of millions of years the vast majority of layers are timelines.
I didn't disagree.
quote:
The Grand Canyon is one giant gallery of such time lines, and the Grand Canyon is not a special circumstance. In fact, it is probably where most laypeople get their best impressions of the geologic column and the succession of geological eras.
At this scale of observation that is true. The top of the Redwall is essentially a time-stratigraphic horizon.
I made the point because I was afraid that some might conclude that Petrophysics meant that layers that laypeople are actually likely to see are not actually much like timelines with dates that we have confidence in, that, for example, the Coconino sandstone layer of the Grand Canyon is not really from around 260 million years ago, but actually varies in age a great deal as you go from one end of the canyon to the other. I very much doubt that the age of such layers varies by more than a couple percent across hundreds of miles.
I still don't see where we disagree. Personally, I think that Petro was a bit over the top in his point. This is an arcane bit of geology, not pertinent to the overall discussion here and obviously confusing to the laymen. I was only attempting to eplain the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 01-11-2010 8:23 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 156 (542689)
01-11-2010 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Percy
01-11-2010 8:23 PM


Re: To Edge and Petrophysics1
Hi Percy
Maybe a bit of a misunderstanding. I find unknown and undiscovered oil and gas deposits for a living.
What that makes me do, is pick an exact drilling location. I have to justify that location with my geology. I do not have the option of saying "well that's a time line over a couple of million years should be close enough and the sand should be somewhere around here".
My investors are going to front $350 grand to see if I'm right. On that scale, I have to have the time lines right so that my depositional interpretation is correct.
Is it important?
You decide. A single well in a deltaic distributary mouth bar in the Morrow Formation will make about 10 billion cubic feet of gas, that's $60,000,000 . For me, the geologist, if he takes a lowly 2% royalty interest that's $1,200,000.
Percy, I really don't have the option of your, "it's close enough to a time line" attitude. This has to be done right or the investors won't come back.
I don't make a living writing scientific papers..........unless I can find oil in the ground, I'll go broke, but that hasn't happened in the last 35 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 01-11-2010 8:23 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 148 of 156 (542817)
01-13-2010 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Iblis
01-11-2010 8:34 PM


Re: Sanity Check
I don't believe this, I think it's fraudulent. Someone make me smarter than I am right now.
Well, I don't know if this is working or not, but I have found a diagram that I like, to explain chronostratigraphy. Try this link and go to Figure 4.
SEPM Sequence Stratigraphy: Seismic Interpretation
You will notice several discontinuities between the different formations (colors) in northeast Alaska.
First, there are flat lines. Notice that they would be parallel to the time divisions as shown on the right side of the diagram. These are time-constained lines at the scale we are observing them.
Second, there are slanting or jagged lines. These boundaries are time-transgressive. An example is the the Savaganirktok-Canning boundary. Note that each of these formation is of a different age at different locations. This has been determined by biostratigraphy.
The third type of line is wavy. These are unconformities and represent longer times of non-deposition and often, erosion. If there is a rapid transgression, the unconformity is horizontal; if slower it is sloped such as the one at the base of the Pebble Shale unit.
So what does this mean? It means the the discontinuities in bedding might be stratigraphic or chronologic. It depends on the scale of observation and the type of sedimentary environment.
The conclusion I draw is that, for most purposes, the discontinuity between units is contemporaneous throughout its observed extent, say, 'as far as you can see'. Now, if one wanted to be extremely picky, one could say that in a transgressive sequence a given formation boundary would have to be older in the seaward direction. This would be Petro's point. However, that isn't realisitic in that we cannot measure the actual difference in age from one side of the Grand Canyon to the other, so it's kind of impractical for our purposes. Now in the Gulf of Mexico, it might be extremely important to reach a certain, definite time-stratigraphic unit, but here we are worried only about the major divisions of time and their stratigraphic counterparts.
This is the pitfall of YEC reasoning. To them, the difference of a few seconds in deposition of cross-laminations is a big deal. That is how we actually got into this discussion. They have reduced that scale of observation down to the laminations and sedimentary grains. But again, if we are forced to be picky, every grain must be deposited on another previously-deposited grain of sand, so superposition holds.
By the way, my understanding of the Law of Superposition refers mainly to beds, and 'bed' has a very distinct meaning in geology. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but it really isn't that significant a point.
I am not a professor, so this may not be clear or sufficient to explain things to the lay person. At least it should show that a lot of thinking has gone into the study of chronostratigraphy and lithostratigraphy and how they intersect. I stress this point because so often I get the impression that YECs believe these things have never really been thought about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Iblis, posted 01-11-2010 8:34 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Iblis, posted 01-13-2010 12:32 AM edge has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 149 of 156 (542819)
01-13-2010 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by edge
01-13-2010 12:03 AM


Re: Sanity Check
Thanks!
Yes, I think I'm getting it. The part I was missing is that you and petrophysics1 have been talking about what I would consider broken strata, not suitable for chronology like these nice flat layers we would point at in Wales or Devon or wherever, the Grand Canyon. (Correct me if I'm still missing a good part.)
And pp is going even further, he is saying that even under these circumstances he can still determine chronology, because he is an expert, an engineer therefore an artist as much as a scientist, and/or has a Contract With The Old Ones. And that at least in his experience there are a tremendous amount more of these broken difficult slanty screwy layers than the nice clean flat ones I would consider "real" superposition.
But regardless of all this, there's still no danger of anyone mistaking these for the layers we like to point at and call "the geologic column." Which leaves only stewartreeve and these slurries, which I'm pretty sure don't leave flat clean levels either and probably actually look like a single sloppy chaotic layer in comparison to any real layers above and below. I just don't want to be stupid about this, here's what I think I know about stratigraphy already if anyone cares to sharpen me up some more. Message 130
Sorry for the confusion, thanks again

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by edge, posted 01-13-2010 12:03 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2010 6:58 PM Iblis has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 150 of 156 (542926)
01-13-2010 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Iblis
01-13-2010 12:32 AM


Re: Sanity Check
Hi Iblis,
Yes, I think I'm getting it.
Yeah, what geology I learned is way old and inadequate, so it's always cool to read info from the experts. One of the reason's I enjoyed the Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. so much, and miss Jar's mediation on it.
... like these nice flat layers we would point at in Wales or Devon or wherever, the Grand Canyon.
Or the Green River varves.
And pp is going even further, he is saying that even under these circumstances he can still determine chronology, ...
One of the things I remember from the GCBottomsUp thread was that periodically the area was under water and out of the water as sea levels and land rose and fell, thus causing alternating marine and land typical deposits.
It seems to me that there are a couple of things going on here, as when we add Petrophysics (Message 138):
If it doesn't, then it is a transgressional or a regressive/progradational deposit.
So if I understand correctly ....
As the sea level rises (or land subsides) specific areas can transition from land to swamp to shore to shallow marine to deep marine - these geological "habitats" move horizontally with the shoreline.
Same in reverse when sea level falls (or land rises), and once again the geological "habitats" move horizontally but in the other direction.
In each case the geological "habitats" can leave sediment deposits characteristic of their "habitat."
So you get a "swamp" layer that is from different timelines as the shoreline moves in and out, and it cuts diagonally through the timelines of the deposits at different elevations in different areas, but we still see sediment deposited on top of what was there.
And I'll stop there in case I'm way off base.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Iblis, posted 01-13-2010 12:32 AM Iblis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by edge, posted 01-13-2010 10:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 152 by petrophysics1, posted 01-14-2010 9:25 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024