Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Geology- working up from basic principles.
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 4878 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 11 of 156 (412153)
07-23-2007 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by The Matt
07-23-2007 11:48 AM


Re: Need som e more explanation here.
And ripple marks occur on the top of a stratum. That's one way to tell which way is up. Of course the top of one bed is the bottom of another, so it can be hard to tell sometimes. But on a wide enough scale each bed approximates a planar structure, and it's orientation can be measured. And usually dip at deposition is not more than a degree or two. With the exceptions you mentioned.
OK, I'll buy all the principles so far. Please continue!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by The Matt, posted 07-23-2007 11:48 AM The Matt has not replied

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 4878 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 20 of 156 (413389)
07-30-2007 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by The Matt
07-30-2007 12:50 PM


OK. But lateral continuity is variable and often not very good at all. Continuity in alluvim is very bad and correlation is sometimes impossible between closely spaced borings. Of coarse the basin of deposition in this case may be a only 3 foot wide creek. Terrestrial deposits in general are commonly lense shaped and not very estensive laterally. Even regionally extensive formations are composed of individual beds that are not nearly as extensive. Formations like this are not time horizons and may be different a age at different locations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by The Matt, posted 07-30-2007 12:50 PM The Matt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by The Matt, posted 07-30-2007 7:29 PM bdfoster has replied

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 4878 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 22 of 156 (413538)
07-31-2007 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by The Matt
07-30-2007 7:29 PM


Yes indeed, a fair generalization. Although some of the principles you mentioned are more than just that. Superposition is refered to as a "Law" by some, and I wouldn't argue too strongly against that. It may not have the widespread acceptance of laws of physics, but there are no exceptions to superposition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by The Matt, posted 07-30-2007 7:29 PM The Matt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by stewartreeve, posted 01-06-2010 7:11 AM bdfoster has not replied

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 4878 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 27 of 156 (418638)
08-29-2007 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Minnemooseus
08-28-2007 6:03 AM


Re: The Principle of Faunal Succession
This all is probably the place to inject the "The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks" circular argument argument.
The use of fossils to date rocks is an example of a an incredibly valuable and versitile technique employed by virtually all fields of science. Once a correlation between two parameters has been established, the correlarion can be used as a measuring tool. Measurement of a property that is known or easy to measure can then be used to determine the value for a property that is unknown or difficult to measure.
Galileo discovered there was a correlation between the volume of mercury and its temperature. He then used the volume of mercury in a glass tube, which is easy to measure, to determine temperature which is difficult to measure.
Paleontologists take advantage of the correlation that has been established between fossil content and stratigraphic position. Fossil content, which is easy to observe, is used to determine stratigraphic position, whch is sometimes difficult to determine.
The use of fossils to date rocks is no more a case of circular reasoning than using volume change to measure temperature.
Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.

Brent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-28-2007 6:03 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 4878 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 33 of 156 (418822)
08-30-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Ihategod
08-29-2007 11:42 PM


Re: Preaching to the choir
This is assuming perfect environment. What if's abound. Example, your cat got a clever idea and decided to put the top on on the bottom. Or the maid mixed the top two out of spite for her poor employment wage. How is that each layer represents a certain age? More to the point; How is it that this is a law of geology? Wouldn't you have to have a foundational religion..., say, uniformitarianism? For this to even hold water?
What in the world are you talking aboiut? Superposition doesn't assume a perfect environment. It doesn't depend on any environment at all. It happens in any environment on earth. It happens on Mars. It only assumes God created an orderly universe with constant laws of physics and geometry spatial relationships. Superposition can be observed at countless places any time anybody cares to observe it. Overturned bedding and thrust faulting are not exceptions to superposition. Clastic dikes are not exceptions to superposition. Clastic dikes of fluidized sand can fill fractures like an igneous intrusion. They can even intrude parallel to bedding planes. But clastic dikes that intrude in this manner will invariably cross-cut bedding at some point. They are massive and show no internal stratification. There are no documented exceptions to superposition. Any clever ideas to mess with superposition would amount to God deliberately stacking the deck to fool us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Ihategod, posted 08-29-2007 11:42 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 10:45 PM bdfoster has not replied

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 4878 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 54 of 156 (419061)
08-31-2007 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Ihategod
08-31-2007 9:18 AM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
I have to confess I don't understand Vashgun's objections to superposition. I am at least familiar woth most of the arguments that YECs use, and while I don't agree with them, I at least understand what they are and where they are coming from. But even the publications from ICR and AIG don't flatly deny superposition (although they may deny it, and asorted laws of physics, by implication). Whatever surface a sedimentary layer is deposited on must have existed prior to deposition of the sediment. It's impossible for there to be any exceptions to this. It seems to me that flat denial that all sediments are younger than whatever surface they are deposited on (whether before, after or during the flood) is no better than flatly saying black is white or 1+1=3.
Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.
Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.

Brent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Ihategod, posted 08-31-2007 9:18 AM Ihategod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by petrophysics1, posted 08-31-2007 5:53 PM bdfoster has replied

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 4878 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 56 of 156 (419086)
08-31-2007 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by petrophysics1
08-31-2007 5:53 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Yes but the two statements you quote from Vashgun are contradictory.
He's not really saying that geology has pre-LoS formations and post LoS formations. He's saying on the one hand everything came into existance at creation, and on the other hand the geologic column came into existence with the flood or after it. That can't be reconciled with anything. I think this is just knee-jerk obstructionism. If this is how he responds to superposition wait till he gets to x-cutting relationships and original horizontality. Weren't we on faunal succession?
Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.

Brent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by petrophysics1, posted 08-31-2007 5:53 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Ihategod, posted 09-02-2007 1:42 AM bdfoster has replied

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 4878 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 62 of 156 (419476)
09-03-2007 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Ihategod
09-02-2007 1:42 AM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
I presume the earth was distorted by a catastrophe. Multiple cotastrophes. Many are recorded in the geologic record. So what? Catastrophes don't change the laws of nature. They conform to them.
My geological thought pattern was shaped by an adult life of studying geology, so I can't really provide a link or two.
Also, remember since it is the truth it is not obstructing anything but lies.
This is circular reasoning.You are assuming your position is true.
No offence but I think continuing to deny superposition after reading and participating in this thread is like denying the sun rose this morning.

Brent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Ihategod, posted 09-02-2007 1:42 AM Ihategod has not replied

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 4878 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 82 of 156 (419932)
09-05-2007 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 2:38 AM


Re: In your own words
I'm curious Vashgun, whether you are ok with everething up through faunal succession, or just Steno's principles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 2:38 AM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Ihategod, posted 09-09-2007 12:54 AM bdfoster has not replied

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 4878 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 85 of 156 (424286)
09-26-2007 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by The Matt
09-18-2007 5:24 AM


Re: Stratigraphy and radiometric dating.
I know YECs have problems with radiometric dating. I think their objections are unreasonable. But that's another thread.
It seems apparent that radiometric dating has confirmed that we have the order of rocks correct.
But I think it's the other way around. The order of strata is well established by the stratigraphic principals you already mentioned, and I don't think need any confirmation from radiometric dating. But the consistancy of radiometric dating with stratigraphy is a confirmation of the former.

Brent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by The Matt, posted 09-18-2007 5:24 AM The Matt 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