Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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.
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 91 of 156 (516731)
07-27-2009 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Kitsune
07-27-2009 5:02 AM


Re: Principle of Original Horizontality -- an exception?
I did a message (March 11, 2009) concerning this at your similar topic at Jar's Dreamcatcher. That message persists as the most recent at that topic.
Below that message in its entirity (I put a fair amount of work into it). Although I was answering a different message, in very much (at least in part) parallels your question(s) here:
Minnemooseus writes:
Depicting a sedimentary basin as being like a steep sided bowl is highly inaccurate, although even legitimate geologic scientists do use vertical exaggerations in doing their cartoon diagrams. Also, it may well be that the basin is subsiding as it is being filled with sediment — What started as a dinner plate of sediment becomes more of a bowl of sediment. The sediment conforms to the bowl’s shape because it was warped as the bowl was warped.
They seem to propose that sea transgressions and regressions are like water sloshing around in a bowl or tub. This is plain goofy. Then they somehow bring Mt. Saint Helens into the discussion, further raising the goofy quotient.
They mention Walther’s Law, which is indeed a well-regarded principle of geologic sedimentary modeling. Essentially, Walther’s Law says that in a basin the coarsest sediment is deposited closed to the shoreline and the sediment gets progressively finer as you go seaward. This is because coarse settles faster than fine (try Googling Stokes Law).
The processes behind Walther’s Law results in a fining upward sedimentary sequence for marine transgressions (the sea came in) and a coarsening upward sedimentary sequence for marine regressions (the sea went out). Just think of how the distance of a point from the shoreline changes in transgressions and regressions. In transgressions what was dry land becomes near shore shallow marine and what was near shore marine becomes further from shore deeper marine. For a regression, the opposite is the case.
To elaborate — Pick point A on land. Just offshore the coarse sediments are being deposited and further out the finer sediments are being deposited. Such is probably a gradational change. Now as the sea comes in, point A is now near shore marine with coarse sediments being deposited. The sea comes in more, and point A is now further from shore and finer sediments are being deposited. The fines are on top of the coarse. The reverse is the case of a regressing sea — Then you get the coarse on top of the fines.
Their flume modeling would seem to be much more a river model than a transgressing sea model. Even as a river deposit model, it is probably disconnected from reality and/or at least oversimplified.
Concerning the original horizontalness or near horizontalness of sedimentation — Such is generally the case, although there are exceptions, the most prominent being the inclined crossbedding in ripples and dunes.
Getting back to a marine transgression. Remember that these take a long time to happen, even in the geologic timeframe. Offhand, thousands to millions of years. Now let us just consider what is being deposited in the near shore marine environment — sand that becomes sandstone. The short and simple picture: A horizontal or near horizontal layer of sand is deposited, the sea comes in a bit more and another layer is deposited. Repeat step thousands to millions of times. What you get is a shingling of layers, each successive one a bit higher in elevation and extending a bit further upslope.
The analogy: Lay a 4 by 8 sheet of 1 inch plywood on a horizontal surface. Lay another sheet on top, but offset it an inch in the long dimension direction. Repeat a thousand times. What do you get? A stack of a thousand sheets of horizontal plywood, which collectively forms a layer of wood with a 45 degree surface slope. The bottom sheet is the oldest (first deposited) sediment; the top sheet is the youngest (last deposited) sediment.
Well, as is the general case, a picture might be worth a thousand words. But I have to do it in words. Hope this was of some enlightening value.
Your diagram with the limestone over the clay over the silt over the sand is a diagram having a considerable vertical exaggeration - The vertical scale is stretched. The left to right dimension is probably in the hundreds to one-thousand plus range while the up/down dimension is probably in the tens to thousands of feet range. Had these dimension been to the same scale the layers would be shown as essentially flat.
What you have is a shingled layer of sand, overlayed by a shingled layer of silt, overlayed by a shingled layer of clay, overlayed by a shingled layer of lime (NOT phrased very well, but I can't offhand come up with something better). All the different sediments of a horizontal line are being deposited at the same time.
Also, in the diagram, the contacts between sand, silt, clay, and lime are shown as being sharp - The is a sudden change between sediment types. The reality is probably that those contacts are much more gradational. As you go bottom to top or right to left, you go from sand to silty-sand to sandy-silt to silt to clayey-silt to silty-clay to clay to limey-clay to clayey-lime to lime. Blah-blah-blah.
By the way, the diagram is of a transgressive sequence. Or in geo-lingo, the sea is coming in.
I didn't watch much of the video.
Other geo-types are welcome to critique my explanation and/or do it better.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Kitsune, posted 07-27-2009 5:02 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Kitsune, posted 07-27-2009 8:37 AM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 92 of 156 (516735)
07-27-2009 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Minnemooseus
07-27-2009 7:38 AM


Re: Principle of Original Horizontality -- an exception?
Sincere apologies, Minnemooseus. I couldn't remember where I'd had this discussion before, or with whom, so I didn't know where to look. I do remember not understanding very well, which is probably why memory fails. I've learned a bit since then and I think what you said makes more sense to me now.
What's been confusing me is the diagrams I've seen. The one I linked to is not from a creationist site. It implies that to an untrained eye, the strata would look like they are in lateral layers, from sandstone onwards, and the creationists are claiming that this would have fooled early geologists.
From what you are saying, it sounds to me like the layers are deposited horizontally just like we'd expect, but the depositional material changes as you move from the shoreline outwards. I think the way that diagram was made is deceptive because it makes you think that you've got layers at an angle, each of a different homogenous material, when it wouldn't look like that in real life.
Am I right or still off base?
BTW I've made a concerted effort on that creationist forum to post a lot of science lately and I've ended up being another evolutionist casualty; they've banned me. They have now banned all the opposition, which is funny and sad, but at least it means I can focus my time here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-27-2009 7:38 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-27-2009 11:30 PM Kitsune has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 93 of 156 (516885)
07-27-2009 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Kitsune
07-27-2009 8:37 AM


Re: Principle of Original Horizontality -- an exception?
Replay, the diagram in question.
It implies that to an untrained eye, the strata would look like they are in lateral layers...
The "untrained eyes" fail to realize they are looking at a diagram where the horizontal and vertical scales are considerably different. Looking at the real world, the rocks themselves, would show a climbing sequence of horizontal layers.
Your cited diagram is rather flawed in that it implies the bedding planes are parallel to the rock unit contacts. Such is not the case. This is a much better diagram. Note that the bedding planes are shown as horizontal. Remember, this diagram also has a lot of vertical exaggeration. The real slope of the contacts would be akin to the land-slope of going from New Orleans, LA to Minneapolis, MN. Pretty flat, but still a substantial change in elevation from the south end to the north end.
From what you are saying, it sounds to me like the layers are deposited horizontally just like we'd expect, but the depositional material changes as you move from the shoreline outwards.
Exactly. And remember, in reality, the contacts are probably not distinct sharp lines, but rather are gradational zones.
Added by edit:
Minneapolis elevation = 830 feet = Approx. 1/7th mile.
New Orleans elevation = 0 feet.
New Orleans to Minneapolis = 1299 miles.
So, for my example, the diagram horizontal distance represents about 1300 miles, while the vertical dimension represents about 1/7th of a mile.
If the diagram were drawn with horizontal and vertical scaling being equal, without any vertical exageration, the vertical dimension would be roughly only 1/4500th of what is shown. You would see, at most, a thick line.
Added by 2nd edit:
Cross sections are done by geologists all the time, and often vertical scale exaggerations are used. Ideally, in such situations, both the horizontal and vertical scales are provided. Or a vertical exaggeration factor.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Kitsune, posted 07-27-2009 8:37 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Kitsune, posted 07-28-2009 1:35 AM Minnemooseus has replied

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


Message 94 of 156 (516886)
07-28-2009 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Kitsune
07-27-2009 5:02 AM


Re: Principle of Original Horizontality -- an exception?
Can anyone tell me if Walther's Law violates this principle?
No, it doesn't. It is an obvious consequence of Steno's laws.
You might remind your creationist friend that every geologist knows Steno's laws and Walther's laws, and what rocks look like, unlike creationist blowhards, and that they would be the first people who would notice if there was any inconsistency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Kitsune, posted 07-27-2009 5:02 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Kitsune, posted 07-28-2009 1:45 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 95 of 156 (516889)
07-28-2009 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Minnemooseus
07-27-2009 11:30 PM


Re: Principle of Original Horizontality -- an exception?
Thanks for clearing this up Minnemooseus. The diagram you found, plus the scale measurements you provided, are very helpful. What threw me was the original video, which grossly misrepresents what's going on. No wonder creationists are confused if they're getting all their info from sources like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-27-2009 11:30 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-28-2009 9:00 PM Kitsune has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 96 of 156 (516890)
07-28-2009 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2009 12:32 AM


Re: Principle of Original Horizontality -- an exception?
quote:
You might remind your creationist friend that every geologist knows Steno's laws and Walther's laws, and what rocks look like, unlike creationist blowhards, and that they would be the first people who would notice if there was any inconsistency.
I have, and I've shown that the internet is full of examples of geologists explaining and using these principles. This creationist's M.O. is to ignore inconvenient information, deny everything, and claim that scientists are liars and deceivers. If you were there you'd be very busy telling him about the fantasies in his head Nevertheless I will pass on Moose's info so that the readers can better understand even if the creationist stays in denial mode -- I'm told that apparently I've only lost my posting privileges because there is a glitch in the system.
He thinks that all sedimentary rock shows the kind of deposition in his video because . . . there was a global flood. He's a Hovind fan too, even though I've shown him that Hovind thinks the sun burns by combustion, and that all the planets in the solar system should have cooled off by now if they are old, just like the coffee in your mug cools off (though I also had to explain why this isn't the case).
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2009 12:32 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2009 9:34 AM Kitsune has replied

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


Message 97 of 156 (516927)
07-28-2009 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Kitsune
07-28-2009 1:45 AM


Re: Principle of Original Horizontality -- an exception?
He's a Hovind fan too, ...
Is this the site I got kicked off of for providing facts demonstrating that Hovind had to be wrong?
Lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Kitsune, posted 07-28-2009 1:45 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Kitsune, posted 07-28-2009 10:57 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 98 of 156 (516939)
07-28-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by RAZD
07-28-2009 9:34 AM


Re: Principle of Original Horizontality -- an exception?
Yes. Unfortunately the quality of debate there is very poor because CTD and Russ pretend the info that contradicts them isn't there, so they never really address what you are saying -- as you know. I'm no expert but they seem totally unable to respond in a logical way to the simplest facts I've posted there.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2009 9:34 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 99 of 156 (517023)
07-28-2009 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Kitsune
07-28-2009 1:35 AM


Re: Principle of Original Horizontality -- an exception?
...plus the scale measurements you provided...
Don't run to far with those dimensions - They were just an illustration that the horizontal distance is actually quite large relative to the vertical distance. Likewise, the slope of the diagonal lines, in reality, is quite small.
The video's illustrations of the sedimentation processes of Walther’s Law are actually pretty good. But they also have a large vertical scale exaggeration.
There is nothing improper in using such vertical exaggerations in such diagrams. It is a useful tool when, in reality, the horizontal distance is much greater than the vertical distance. But one must recognize and know that a vertical exaggeration is being used.
From wikipedia:
quote:
Vertical exaggeration (VE) is a scale that is used in raised-relief maps, plans and technical drawings (cross section perspectives). The exaggeration is used to emphasize vertical features, which might be too small to identify relative to the horizontal scale.
Vertical exaggeration is given as a number; for example 5 means that vertical measurements are 5 times greater than horizontal measurements.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Kitsune, posted 07-28-2009 1:35 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Kitsune, posted 07-29-2009 3:01 AM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 100 of 156 (517033)
07-29-2009 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Minnemooseus
07-28-2009 9:00 PM


Re: Principle of Original Horizontality -- an exception?
Right -- and that makes all the difference doesn't it? The video claimed that the vertical exaggeration is how that kind of deposition happens in reality. In fact it looks like the strata are still deposited horizontally at a slight tilt. Small visual difference, big implications. This sort of deceptive misrepresentation by creationists hacks me off more than plain ignorance.
This may sound like a stupid question, but can you tell me why the slope is gentle when this occurs? What happens if the slope is steeper?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-28-2009 9:00 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-29-2009 3:58 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 101 of 156 (517037)
07-29-2009 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Kitsune
07-29-2009 3:01 AM


What is the creationist point, in bringing up Walther's Law?
This sort of deceptive misrepresentation by creationists hacks me off more than plain ignorance.
I suspect it is ignorance and not a deliberate misrepresentation.
I really don't have a clue in why a creationist "flood geologist" would even get into the sedimentation processes that give rise to Walther's Law. How do they find support for "the flood" in such a thing?
The disclaimer I perhaps should have made much earlier - I do not personally have any field experience in these sedimentation models.
That said, my personal image is that of a sea transgression up onto a fairly flat continent (ie the slope from New Orleans up to Minnesota). I suspect a modern example might be the sedimentation profile as you go from the U.S. continental coastline out to the Bahamas Islands. But I can't offhand find any data on what that profile actually looks like.
To rehash the process one more time: The coarser detritus settles out faster and closer to land. The finer settles out slower and further from land. The limestone (chemical precipitant) is still further out as a default sedimentation - The silicate detritus just doesn't make it that far.
Help - We need a real sedimentologist! Not someone whose butt is sitting on pre-Cambrian mafic volcanics and intrusives.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Kitsune, posted 07-29-2009 3:01 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Kitsune, posted 07-29-2009 4:17 AM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 102 of 156 (517040)
07-29-2009 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Minnemooseus
07-29-2009 3:58 AM


Re: What is the creationist point, in bringing up Walther's Law?
I've been doing some reading and from what I understand, a slope of 10 degrees or more would cause particles to roll down the slope and be deposited in a talus at the bottom, though I'm sure this is rather simplistic.
For the flood, I think YECs would argue that the particles settled out in the way we've been discussing after the flood had occurred.
added in edit
Upon further reading, I'm not so sure this is right. Apparently a talus is eroded material re-deposited at the bottom of a slope, like scree from a mountain. I don't think that applies to a high gradient marine environment. I'm having a hard time trying to find how sediment in such an area is deposited. My sister-in-law is a geologist but she's in Iceland right now studying glaciers, LOL -- can't ask her.
added in second edit
I've spent a lot of time on this now, without much luck. All I really need to know is how steep the slope needs to be (roughly) for the sediment to slide down rather than be deposited -- I believe this is called a bypass slope. It would still seem to chime with 10 degrees or more but I'm not sure; the papers online don't usually seem to give a degree measurement. I personally don't need convincing; it's the creationist who believes in the literal veracity of the diagram in the video. Surely sediment can't be deposited that steeply, it would just slump away.
added in third edit
I think I might still be misunderstanding this whole concept. I was imagining that when sediment washes from the shore, the sand lands closest to the beach, then finer particles further out, making a horizontal stratum with differing materials as you move out from the shore. Newer layers would be added on top of this. So the principle of original horizontality would apply as usual.
But the diagram Moose posted, upon closer examination, shows a horizontal timeline, which appears to be more in keeping with the video. That would seem to me to show that sand gets deposited first, followed by the finer materials in hydrological succession on top; and over time as the transgression occurs, the deposits slowly migrate shoreward. But this doesn't chime with Moose's initial post about this or other posts I've read on EvC, that say that heavier particles such as sandstone are deposited near the shore, while you need deeper water for the finest particles to settle out. This is surely describing a horizontal succession of different-sized particles (the equivalent of making the stack of plywood sheets, each offset a little in the same direction).
I found this diagram, which makes more sense to me. The timelines are marked vertically through the strata.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : Bloody hell!
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-29-2009 3:58 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2009 10:08 PM Kitsune has replied
 Message 104 by Coragyps, posted 08-04-2009 10:29 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 103 of 156 (518277)
08-04-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Kitsune
07-29-2009 4:17 AM


Back to horizontality considerations
There had been a series of messages with the subtitle “Principle of Original Horizontality -- an exception?”. What I think was lost is that this principle is somewhat a generalization. The “Horizontality” should be interpreted as “roughly horizontal”, and that this might include a fair amount of slope. But with increasing slope comes increasing instability. But you seem to have that in your “added by edits”.
I've been doing some reading and from what I understand, a slope of 10 degrees or more would cause particles to roll down the slope and be deposited in a talus at the bottom, though I'm sure this is rather simplistic.
I think the maximum stable slope depends on the size and nature of the sediment particles. In all, you seem to know more about it than me.
My sister-in-law is a geologist but she's in Iceland right now studying glaciers, LOL -- can't ask her.
When you can, ask her about the “local yokels
I think I might still be misunderstanding this whole concept. I was imagining that when sediment washes from the shore, the sand lands closest to the beach, then finer particles further out, making a horizontal stratum with differing materials as you move out from the shore. Newer layers would be added on top of this. So the principle of original horizontality would apply as usual.
I think the sediment horizons will largely conform to the level they are being deposited on, unless said is too steep for stability.
But this doesn't chime with Moose's initial post about this or other posts I've read on EvC, that say that heavier particles such as sandstone are deposited near the shore, while you need deeper water for the finest particles to settle out. This is surely describing a horizontal succession of different-sized particles (the equivalent of making the stack of plywood sheets, each offset a little in the same direction).
I think the “what settles out where” is more a function of distance from the shoreline. The fact that the water may get deeper further from shore is not significant. Of course, in shallower water you are in the wave action zone, which would tend to remobilize any finer clastic material.
I found this diagram, which makes more sense to me. The timelines are marked vertically through the strata.
This seems to be a pretty good diagram, but most any diagram deviates from reality to some degree. Even in that diagram, I think there is some vertical exaggeration - the timelines are probably essentially parallel to whatever the surface being deposited on. Although, the further from shore deeper water might tend to fill in faster, which would bring the sediment horizons more towards a true horizontal.
The diagram shows lithology symbology that implies the bedding is true horizontal. In reality, the time lines and the bedding planes are one and the same.
I seem to recall that river deltas are areas that sediment bedding tends to more deviate from a true horizontal.
Well, not that great of a message, and chock full of weasel words. What you need is a good sedimentology book.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change "plains" to "planes"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Kitsune, posted 07-29-2009 4:17 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2009 10:59 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 106 by Kitsune, posted 08-05-2009 1:33 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 104 of 156 (518278)
08-04-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Kitsune
07-29-2009 4:17 AM


Re: What is the creationist point, in bringing up Walther's Law?
All I really need to know is how steep the slope needs to be (roughly) for the sediment to slide down rather than be deposited
Based on long-ago experiments of my own, sand has an "angle of repose" of maybe 30 degrees if dry (look at a sand dune) and perhaps 5 degrees if under water. These were the glass pie-plate and sandbox sand sort of experiments, you understand...
But Googling "angle of repose" might bear fruit, LL. I'm going to bed rather than search, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Kitsune, posted 07-29-2009 4:17 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by stewartreeve, posted 01-06-2010 7:21 AM Coragyps has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 105 of 156 (518279)
08-04-2009 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Minnemooseus
08-04-2009 10:08 PM


Re: Back to horizontality considerations
What you need is a good sedimentology book.
My sediments exactly!
(It is too on topic!)
{5 second suspension for bad pun - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : 5 second suspension announcement.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2009 10:08 PM Minnemooseus 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