Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2019 2:40 PM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,853 Year: 6,890/19,786 Month: 1,431/1,581 Week: 253/393 Day: 76/110 Hour: 7/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
678910
11
Author Topic:   Fossils, strata and the flood
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2760 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 151 of 163 (564428)
06-10-2010 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Kitsune
06-09-2010 6:02 AM


Re: Geology of the real world OR is it geo-fantasy???
Well hello there Kitsune, your responses are +++as such+++

+++I've taken a bit of an interest in the geology of the Scottish Highlands. Unfortunately it's clear that you haven't, and that you are making rather absurd guesses that even a quick look at Wikipedia would correct.+++

Obviously most of the younger generation inevitably looks to Wikipedia for “answers” without doing their own in depth research. This fallacy will eventually turn around and bite you.

+++During the orogeny, a large granite pluton was formed in this area, and slowly cooled underground. Uplift and erosion (most notably by glaciation) exposed the granite and created the landscape we see today. ++++

There we go! Volcanism. These plutons are massive remnants of powerful eruption processes and typically rise after intense episodes within or near a volcanic epicenter. These are essentially resurgent domes that were pasty lavas that dried and cured in place. By the way, if no one truly witnessed this “orogeny” process milliards of years ago, then milliards of years ago is nothing but evolutionary speculation. Period and paragraph.

+++So no "intense vulcanism," and no crater.+++

I will slam-dunk this from the free-throw line and shatter the backboard…
Fact: The entire Scottish northern territory including Northern Ireland rest on a massive basaltic lava flow that creates the plateux of the entire region. This mega massive basaltic lava flow extends all the way to Iceland, which of course also rests on a massive flow (directly OVER the MOR’s I might add). I certainly hope you understand where basalt comes from and understand the intensity and viscosity of this mega flow which inevitably included very intense explosive episodes as well. Also, it is a recorded fact that many of the volcanic dikes and sills run in N.N.W. pattern toward the Hebrides as well as in intersecting patterns. It is also a fact that dikes and sills are created due to major volcanic concussions shattering the crust and thus allowing magma to issue through the strata. No crater you say? The physical evidence will inevitably reveal otherwise while also pointing to intense volcanism beyond the shadow of any doubt.

+++The Outer Hebrides are the eroded remains of an ancient mountain chain. Lewisian gneiss is some of the oldest rock in the world, dating to 3 billion years ago. I don't know what you're trying to make up in the quote above, you've lost me there.+++

Again, these rocks are certainly of volcanic origin, end of story. You are stepping into the depths of geo-fantasy with your assumption of “eroded ancient mountains”. Or, perhaps they were ancient mountains chains that were obliterated by intense volcanism. I’ll certainly buy that one…

+++The granite pluton that became the Cairngorms was indeed formed as part of a "crumple zone." The Caledonian Orogeny, as the above link explains, was a collision of tectonic plates.+++

Oh my goodness. Here we go with more “plate” tectonic nonsense…. If you actually believe in the PT paradigm then think again. Plate Tectonics is bunk from A to Z. You (and millions of others) have quite a bit of catching up to do as others have already debunked this theory left and right. Please see my post #183 in the “Flood – many coincidences” thread. You, and the rest of the folk that are delusional to this whimsical, non-scientific, made-up sea floor ”spreading” idea, will have to reconcile true science that shatters this theory into pumice. Furthermore, the very idea that mountains are “crumple zones” due to a sliding “plate” that experienced brake failure is as base as they come. Surface rocks are now brittle and in fact these forms dried and cured **in place** and **en masse**. Once you recognize this scientific fact, the “crumple zone” idea of PT becomes a geo-fantasy laughing stock, especially with the alleged, laughable mm/yr “movement” that is emphatically incapable of doing anything at all except for creating geo-humor for folk who understand true dynamics.

+++Well, Percy and others here have explained this. I would also add that glaciers tend to do a pretty good job of scouring topsoil from elevated areas.+++

Agreed. No doubt glaciers will remove topsoil. No doubt that glaciation followed the Flood further carving mountains after they were “built” by intense earth movements taking place during the Flood that obviously was a mega volcanic wrecking ball.

+++You're welcome to try again of course, but might I suggest you find out what geologists actually know about an area first. My sister-in-law is a glaciologist who regularly does field work in Scotland and she'd be laughing her ass off at this, if she could be bothered to spend time reading it. +++

Your sister-in-law should read “The Ancient Volcanoes of Great Britain” by who I will consider to be the first volcanologist Sir Archibald Geikie. After she (and perhaps you) read this book, which describes in great detail the massive volcanism that created the British Isles, as well as “go see” for yourselves the remnants of intense volcanism, I will inevitably be laughing my ass off to Kingdom come. Furthermore, pay very, very close attention to the warning Sir Geikie gave in his preface regarding Werner’s whimsical non-scientific idea of “continental drift”. This warning fell on deaf ears and now “science” has adopted this idea (based on nothing but artistic diagrams), and thus “geology” has sunk into a deep pit of pseudo-science by doing such.

I can’t wait to see your next post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Kitsune, posted 06-09-2010 6:02 AM Kitsune has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Percy, posted 06-10-2010 2:44 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 153 by lyx2no, posted 06-10-2010 5:30 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 6:06 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 155 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-11-2010 1:40 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 157 by Kitsune, posted 06-11-2010 5:38 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18417
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 152 of 163 (564438)
06-10-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Architect-426
06-10-2010 12:30 PM


Re: Geology of the real world OR is it geo-fantasy???
Hi Architect,

At one point you dismiss the possibility of millions of years ago because there were no witnesses, but what about this:

Architect-426 writes:

These plutons are massive remnants of powerful eruption processes and typically rise after intense episodes within or near a volcanic epicenter.

There were no witnesses of this, either. How do you know when it happened?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Architect-426, posted 06-10-2010 12:30 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2854 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 153 of 163 (564468)
06-10-2010 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Architect-426
06-10-2010 12:30 PM


Re: Geology of the real world OR is it geo-fantasy???
Again, these rocks are certainly of volcanic origin, end of story.

Would it kill you* to look up the difference between "volcanic" and "plutonic"?

volcanic |välˈkanik; vôl-| adj.

of, relating to, or produced by a volcano or volcanoes.

volcano |välˈkānō; vôl-|
noun ( pl. -noes or -nos)
a mountain or hill, typically conical, having a crater or vent through which lava, rock fragments, hot vapor, and gas are or have been erupted from the earth's crust.

plutonic |ploōˈtänik| adj.
1 Geology relating to or denoting igneous rock formed by solidification at considerable depth beneath the earth's surface.

Well hello there Kitsune, your responses are +++as such+++

Would it kill you* to use [qs] & [/qs] to make quote boxes?

… by who I will consider…

Would it kill you* to recognize the object of a preposition?

* Please say yes; please say yes; please say yes.

Edited by lyx2no, : Because you're a jerk.

Edited by lyx2no, : Pleases?


"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." — Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Architect-426, posted 06-10-2010 12:30 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 154 of 163 (564476)
06-10-2010 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Architect-426
06-10-2010 12:30 PM


Re: Geology of the real world OR is it geo-fantasy???
... caught in a landslide, no escape from reality.

Open your eyes ...

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide and banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Architect-426, posted 06-10-2010 12:30 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 155 of 163 (564638)
06-11-2010 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Architect-426
06-10-2010 12:30 PM


Re: Geology of the real world OR is it geo-fantasy???
Is The Ancient Volcanos of Great Britain one of your sources for the Mega Exploding Ginormous Volcanos Formed All the Continents and 3 Billion Years' Worth of Discrete Geological Strata in One Afternoon Hypothesis? Is it all relevant that this book is 113 years old? Is it even slightly possible that earth sciences may have developed a few more research tools since then? And am I completely wasting my time by expecting a rational answer from someone who believes sedimentary layers are the results of volcano boulder hurling?


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Architect-426, posted 06-10-2010 12:30 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 06-11-2010 4:04 PM ZenMonkey has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18417
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 156 of 163 (564660)
06-11-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by ZenMonkey
06-11-2010 1:40 PM


Re: Geology of the real world OR is it geo-fantasy???
And if you read Geikie's forward you'll see that he doesn't argue for a volcanic origin for the British Isles. His book is about the role of volcanoes in the geological history of Great Britain. He doesn't propose that volcanoes formed the British Isles. He also knows that the volcanoes he writes about occurred millions and millions of years ago, and he knows the difference between volcanic basalt and sedimentary layers.

In other words, Geikie is one of us, or would be if he were still alive.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-11-2010 1:40 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-11-2010 6:10 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2438 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(2)
Message 157 of 163 (564684)
06-11-2010 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Architect-426
06-10-2010 12:30 PM


Re: Geology of the real world OR is it geo-fantasy???
This book was written 113 years ago? Sounds like creationist quote mining to me. Only this time we're not hearing about "uniformitarianism" because we've got catastrophic super-volcanoes spewing all over the place.

Anyhoo, I'd like to address a few points in the above post. I've had to do some research for this so that's always a good reason to engage with the absurd here.

These plutons are massive remnants of powerful eruption processes and typically rise after intense episodes within or near a volcanic epicenter.

Where are you getting this information from? No they don't. Often as land is uplifted during orogeny, magma rises from below the crust, without erupting onto the surface. It's a common occurrence.

By the way, if no one truly witnessed this “orogeny” process milliards [sic] of years ago, then milliards of years ago is nothing but evolutionary speculation.

There's also radiometric dating, which you are more than welcome to argue against in an appropriate thread if you want to continue to display your ignorance of science. There are other dating methods such as cosmogenic, which measures the amount of time a surface has been exposed (and absorbing cosmic rays). You can also look at the surrounding strata. By the way, Scotland's geology is much more diverse than you seem to realise. One of the recent posters here summed it up pretty well: do you honestly think that the ground in this part of the world (and maybe elsewhere) all burbled to the surface 6,000 years ago from volcanoes? Really?

Fact: The entire Scottish northern territory including Northern Ireland rest on a massive basaltic lava flow that creates the plateux of the entire region.

You would be referring to the North Atlantic Igneous Province, which according to cosmogenic exposure events, isotope records from deep oceans and Greenland ice cores, and Ar-Ar radiometric dating, is 60 million years old. That also happens to be the time when the Mid-Atlantic Rift was forming and the Atlantic Ocean was opening up. Congratulations, you've discovered another piece of evidence that supports plate tectonics.

Though what your point is about this, I'm not sure. The vast majority of the earth's crust consists of igneous rock. Are you trying to claim that it was all formed at once, and managed not to boil the seas away, or choke the earth in greenhouse gasses?

Let's look at another specific example. This is Suilven, a mountain in northwest Scotland:

The bedrock underneath it is Lewisian gneiss. (Note that gneiss is metamorphic rock, so it has undergone intense heat and pressure within the earth after the original lava flows occurred. This takes time.) There are sandstones and shales at the base of the mountain which contain conglomerates. These conglomerates contain weathered bits of Lewisian gniess, as well as material from rocks that have long ago eroded or been buried. These rocks would, of course, have to have been exposed and uplifted long enough to be eroded and sedimentary layers deposited. This takes a while, since gneiss is hard rock. Above this are layer upon layer of Torridonian sandstone, deposited by ancient rivers. This layer, which once covered the vicinity of Loch Torridon, was once more than 10 miles thick in places. Much of it has since eroded away. What we now see are inselbergs -- lone mountains like this. They survived while the landscape around them eroded because their upper layers consist of quartzite, which is metamorphosed sandstone. It prevented the mountains from weathering. The weathering process was largely accomplished through the action of glaciers, and Scotland is full of evidence for multiple glaciation events.

Interestingly, there are no fossils in Torridonian sandstone. This would be because it is of proterozoic origin, though some fossilised worm burrows (known as pipe rock) can be found in the upper quartzite layers. These are dated to 500 million years ago.

So here's the kicker. If Lewisian gneiss -- or rather, the original unmetamorphosed lava -- was spewed out of the earth 6,000 years ago, why does a massive overlying sandstone layer contain no fossils? And how can you explain all these metamorphic, uplift, erosion, deposition, and further erosion events in the space of 6,000 years? If you honestly think any of this is possible, you apparently haven't opened a basic geology book. I know they teach this stuff because I was covering a science lesson today for 13-year-olds and we were talking about how sedimentary rocks form. (Actually that's also how I found out about Suilven.)

I would also be very interested in your explanation for the multiple glaciation events that occurred in the past 6,000 years and sculpted the Scottish landscape, including so many of those deep glens and lochs. It must have been truly amazing to behold.

Plate Tectonics is bunk from A to Z.

And yet you provide no explanation for why this is so. Maybe you can start by explaining how paleomagnetic dating is wrong. And how that volcano that's been erupting in Iceland has nothing to do with the magma that wells up from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and drives seafloor spreading. Strange how geologists consistently get young dates for rocks near the ridge, and old dates for rocks in subduction zones.

I can’t wait to see your next post.

There is always the hope that it has encouraged you to consider learning about what you're trying to talk about before you criticise it. Try listening to the people who have actually seen it and studied it. Some of them are on this forum.

Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Architect-426, posted 06-10-2010 12:30 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-11-2010 11:25 PM Kitsune has responded

    
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2648 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 158 of 163 (564687)
06-11-2010 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Percy
06-11-2010 4:04 PM


Re: Geology of the real world OR is it geo-fantasy???
Percy writes:

In other words, Geikie is one of us, or would be if he were still alive.

Yep, I kept paging through, trying to find the ballistic volcanoes. Nothing so far.

The mind boggles.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 06-11-2010 4:04 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3719
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 159 of 163 (564709)
06-11-2010 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Kitsune
06-11-2010 5:38 PM


Geo-smoke detector going off
While the essence of your message may be accurate, I'm detecting some "smoke" in some of the details.

You would be referring to the North Atlantic Igneous Province, which according to cosmogenic exposure events, isotope records from deep oceans and Greenland ice cores, and Ar-Ar radiometric dating, is 60 million years old.

You don't supply any references, so I don't know where this information is coming from or how they are relevant to that 60 mya date. I'm suspecting that you're throwing in some gratuitous "big words". Ar-Ar dating probably is relevant, but I don't remotely see the relevance of Greenland ice cores.

In regards to the nice photo:

First, I wish to emphasize that the mountains appear to be the erosional remnants of much wider spread flood basalts, and are not volcanoes in themselves. You probably knew this, but others may not realize such.

Note that gneiss is metamorphic rock, so it has undergone intense heat and pressure within the earth after the original lava flows occurred.

Your italics. This statement seems to say that the protolith (original form) of the gneiss were volcanics ("lavas"). That seems to have considerable inaccuracy. If you were referring to the volcanics of the mountains, then the age relationship is flat out wrong - The metamorphism of the gneiss totally predates the the volcanics of the mountains.

quote:
The Lewisian gneisses represent the oldest rocks in Britain and date back to around 3000 mllion years ago. These rocks which were mostly granite-like in origin, have experienced numerous upheavals in the Earth's crust or 'mountain building events', that have deformed and metamorphosed the rocks.

Source

There are sandstones and shales at the base of the mountain which contain conglomerates. These conglomerates contain weathered bits of Lewisian gniess, as well as material from rocks that have long ago eroded or been buried.

This supports the sequence:

1) Metamorphism of the gneiss, then,

2) Unburial of the gneiss and the sediment deposition, then,

3) The volcanics.

I may well be nit-picking, but I don't like seeing "that's not quite accurate" geology coming from the science side of the debate.

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

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"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 157 by Kitsune, posted 06-11-2010 5:38 PM Kitsune has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Kitsune, posted 06-12-2010 2:13 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2438 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(1)
Message 160 of 163 (564731)
06-12-2010 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Minnemooseus
06-11-2010 11:25 PM


Re: Geo-smoke detector going off
Hi Moose,

I'm sorry if I was not clear with some details. The mountains I was talking about in my previous post were no longer the Cairngorms (apart from where I referenced the pluton), but Suilven and other individual peaks of northwest Scotland that are the remnants of proterozoic Torridonian sandstone. The gneiss of course predates them because it forms the bedrock on which the sandstone layer was deposited. My main point was to show the time it must have taken for the sequence of processes to occur that shaped that modern landscape.

Formation of the gneiss: I'm not an expert on gneiss formation and I was assuming that the lava came from volcanoes 3 billion years ago, and was at some point metamorphosed under the ground. I'm happy to be corrected if this is inaccurate or too simplistic.

The gneiss then had to be eroded in order to form the conglomerates at the base of the Torridonian sandstone; again I don't know the specific rates of erosion for Lewisian gneiss but I'm guessing it's a process that takes a long time because it's hard rock -- as opposed to, say, the unmetamorphosed sand comprising the Torridonian sandstone, mile upon mile of which was eroded away.

Then of course if you look at the picture, you see many sedimentary layers that were formed slowly by deposition from ancient rivers. No catastrophic floods in evidence.

The area was then glaciated, and much of the sandstone eroded away. The inselbergs have been protected from erosion by upper layers of quartzite. Other remaining areas of the sandstone have been covered by Cambrian and subsequent strata.

The absence of fossils is a particular problem for any creationist that would still want to call the sandstone a flood layer. Our particular creationist here also has to explain how mountains like Suilven appeared in the 6,000 years after he claims that the Lewisian gneiss was formed (which would also seem to suggest that he doesn't know how gneiss is formed either, since it does not magically appear fresh out of a volcano).

As for the Greenland ice cores, I was quoting from an article I found. My bad for not citing it. If I had been as thorough as I ought, I would have cross-referenced it and explained its significance. I've combed through my internet history yesterday and can't seem to locate the article, though as you say the Ar-Ar dating is relevant and there are lots of sources for that. Here is one, which dated one area of the flood basalt:

Ar-Ar dating of the Antrim Lava Group

I'm not a scientist so I'm perhaps not very good at explaining this stuff I hope this clarifies?

Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-11-2010 11:25 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1035 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(2)
Message 161 of 163 (565023)
06-14-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Architect-426
06-10-2010 12:14 PM


Re: Strata & Volcanoes
That engine has to be intense heat causing massive circulation of debris saturated water.

In my readings through “modern” geological publications, no one has given any plausible answers to the production or formation of sedimentary stones, so I suppose the ‘ol Arch here has to offer one…


No it doesn't. We have deposition happening in the here and now and only a small percentage of it has to do with volcanism. Weathering and erosion are enough to cause sedimentary deposition. Why do you purposely ignore these systems?

Fact: Magma often explodes into fine sand particles when it comes into contact with water.

First of all, magma does not explode into fine "sand" particles. Magma that comes into contact with water will explode violently forming ash, lapilli, and rocks. Ash is glass with a chemical composition similar to the composition of the parental magma. It has a spongy appearance (due to escaping gases). Sand, on the other hand, is composed of individual minerals, NOT glass, such as quartz and feldspar, which are often rounded to some degree. Ash can occur in such tiny fragments, that they are respirable by humans and other animals. Sand does not get so fine grained.

Ash looks nothing at all like sand because the processes that create each are far different:

ash

sand

Completely different physically AND chemically.

So yes, we are quite aware of these events. How about you look up the term "phreatic eruption?" Then look at the pictures above again and see how they look nothing alike. In addition, ash cannot form limestone or shale. With the exception of perhaps a rare magma, you're not going to be getting much CaCO3 in the air during a phreatic type eruption. And even if you do, you're not forming fossiliferous limestone.

So tell us again how volcanism deposits fossil-bearing limestones and shales.

Regardless of the type of sediments (minus alluvial deposits), I don’t see why volcanic action cannot be a direct or indirect method of deposition of material.

Please take us through the entire process of getting limestone from magma. This includes the chemistry, fossils, and the aero- and hydrodynamics of the depositional processes, etc.

I’ve looked any many geological “maps”. The fallacy is they are typically 2-D and thus will not give a complete nor true picture of the composition of any given region beyond a very general rendition. It is no different than me issuing a contractor a set of “plans only” of a building and tell him to “go build it” without any vertical information or details.

LOL Ever hear of cross-sections, stratigraphic sections? Have you bothered to read any in-depth geologic literature?

I also find it fascinating that in these geology “maps” (which are colored by “numbers”), you inevitably have “billion” year old rocks parked right beside “million” year old rocks but ZERO explanation of the deposition process.

That's because those maps assume any interested parties will have at least a basic understanding of geologic principles and systems, as well as the ability to look up and research formation names (if no report accompanies the map). Don't blame others for your ignorance, Archie.

Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Architect-426, posted 06-10-2010 12:14 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Kitsune, posted 06-14-2010 11:55 AM roxrkool has responded

    
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2438 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(1)
Message 162 of 163 (565028)
06-14-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by roxrkool
06-14-2010 11:45 AM


Re: Strata & Volcanoes
I hadn't read this entire thread before I wrote my posts above. Is this creationist trying to claim that sedimentary rock is really igneous rock?? Wow, that's a new one. Just, wow.

If you are reading, Roxrkool, can you point out to me any inaccuracies in my last two posts? Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by roxrkool, posted 06-14-2010 11:45 AM roxrkool has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by roxrkool, posted 06-14-2010 1:17 PM Kitsune has not yet responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1035 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 163 of 163 (565047)
06-14-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Kitsune
06-14-2010 11:55 AM


Re: Strata & Volcanoes
According to my understanding, Archie is claiming that sedimentary rocks, such as sandstone and limestone, can form from a magma (rhyolitic? basaltic? the type, Archie does not elarborate) during a phreatic-type eruption. So basically, magma hits water, explosion, magma and water vaporize, magma and vapor fly up into the troposphere(?), magma solidifies into tiny quartz, feldspar, carbonate(?), clay grains, grains rain down onto the Earth's surface, and voila, sandstone, limestone, and shale.

Archie can arrogantly state this because he is blissfully ignorant of the significant differences between ash and it's magmatic chemistry, and sand, carbonate, and clay mineralogy, texture, and structure (e.g., bedding).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Kitsune, posted 06-14-2010 11:55 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
678910
11
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019