Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1216 of 1304 (733203)
07-15-2014 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1213 by Faith
07-14-2014 11:19 PM


Re: Legoland
The line between the two sections is too even for that.
It isn't flat or horizontal. Just as in the pictures I posted and you ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1213 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 11:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1221 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 10:33 AM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1217 of 1304 (733207)
07-15-2014 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1205 by Faith
07-14-2014 7:50 PM


Re: Legoland
How come the upper layers are so flat if they were laid down on top of a picket fence as that earlier picture / diagram shows.
Because that's how sediment settles according to the basic laws of physics. Sediment that settles on steep slopes slides down, sediment that settles on the lower parts stays there. Overall result is a roughly flat layer. Sheesh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1205 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 7:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1220 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 10:30 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1222 of 1304 (733214)
07-15-2014 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1219 by Faith
07-15-2014 10:26 AM


Re: Legoland
I just keep thinking maybe some sensible person will come along and agree with me that it makes no sense for the Geologic Column to continue anywhere but the Geologic Column.
Oh, we all agree that it makes no sense for the Geologic Column to continue anywhere but the Geologic Column. You just don't understand what the Geologic Column is. I've given you several definitions, as have others, and none of these definitions exclude non-flat non-horizontal layers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1219 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 10:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1226 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 10:44 AM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 1236 of 1304 (733236)
07-15-2014 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1224 by Faith
07-15-2014 10:38 AM


I guess you can just definitionally make it mean whatever you want it to mean.
Whatever "it" refers to, no. Terms such as "geologic column" are standard well-defined terms. You are attempting to redefine "geologic column". That's fine if your goal is to obfuscate, confuse, and avoid communicating accurately. If you do want to communicate accurately you will have to use the correct definition of "geologic column" which I've given, with sources, several times.
Your pictures are awfully distorted which makes them hard to interpret.
No, the seismic sections and the colored illustration of kurdistan are not distorted at all. As I've pointed out and you ignored, the plane of the picture is vertical and your view is straight on. The distortions of layers in the pictures are accurate representations of what the layers actually look like.
The one you posted here had to have been originally horizontal but distorted afterward.
Yes, the layers were formed and distorted afterward. Three times. But there's no distortion in the topmost layers and we don't know whether or not there ever will be. Exactly what you claim is impossible.
Since those layers take millions of years to form according to standard OE theory I'm still astonished that everybody here accepts that all that can come to an end and yet the idea of the Column or the Time Scale can continue.
Nobody here except you accepts that anything (the geological column or the geological time scale) has or can come to an end. That's your loony fantasy which nobody shares. The time scale over which those layers formed is irrelevant; they formed, were distorted, new layers formed on top of them, and all that is part of geological column and time scale.
For years it was the originally horizontal stack that was the column,..
No, it's never been the original horizontal stack. It's always been, by definition:
Merriam-Webster:
quote:
1. a columnar diagram that shows the rock formations of a locality or region and that is arranged to indicate their relations to the subdivisions of geologic time
2 : the sequence of rock formations in a geologic column
Free Dictionary:
quote:
The vertical sequence of strata of various ages found in an area or region. Also known as column.
The geologic time scale as represented by rocks.
Glossary of geologic terms:
quote:
geologic column The arrangement of rock units in the proper chronological order from youngest to oldest.
No mention of horizontality or flatness. None. The definition of the geologic column does not include flatness or horizontality of layers. There is no definition anywhere in which "geologic column" requires flat or horizontal layers. You are 110% wrong.
now it's anything you want it to be.
No, I'm stuck with the standaard definition. You are the one trying to make it what you want it to be. Over here in the reality-based community we are bound by the definition of "geologic column", which can be worded many different ways but the result is the same. Here's some more:
Glossary Database:
quote:
A diagram representing divisions of geologic time and the rock units formed during each major period.
Glossary of geologic terms:
quote:
geologic column The arrangement of rock units in the
proper chronological order from youngest to oldest
Encyclopedia Brittanica: Geologic column and its associated time scale:
quote:
The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geologic column. It is the result of integrating all the world’s individual rock sequences into a single sequence. In order to communicate the fine structure of this so-called column, it has been subdivided into smaller units. Lines are drawn on the basis of either significant changes in fossil forms or discontinuities...
(added red and size)
There is no definition anywhere of the geologic column that comes close to matching your risible fantasy. We are sticking with the standard an well-established and well-known definition; you are trying the change it to something incorrect and meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1224 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 10:38 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1239 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 12:40 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1238 of 1304 (733238)
07-15-2014 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1221 by Faith
07-15-2014 10:33 AM


Re: Legoland
I think it may be flat and horizontal but the angle of view makes it hard to be sure. The problem with such messy formations is that so much happened to them after they were formed it's hard to reconstruct a reasonable history of how the upper and lower parts were put together. That's the problem with a few of the pictures you posted too.
The angle of view of the seismic picture I just posted is horizontal, and the plane of the picture is vertical. You are looking at it straight on as if it had been sliced off by a knife moving vertically. There's no distortion of any kind.
It's not messy at all, and the history is clear. Flat horizontal layers, rift forms a valley, valley filled in by flat horizontal layers of sediment, another rift forms a another valley (deforming the currentl flat and horizontal layers and deforming the original layers more) valley filled in by flat horizontal layers of sediment, yet another rift forms yet another valley (deforming the current flat and horizontal layers and deforming the second original layers more), valley filled in by flat and horizontal layers of sediment.
And it's no problem with the pictures I posted, although the two seismic profiles are the best. Reality doesn't care whether you like it or not, reality just is. Denial isn't going to make these non-flat and non-horizontal interfaces go away:
Are you continuing to claim that the blue line is flat and horizontal?
How many non-flat and non-horizontal interfaces can you find in that picture? (Again, it's a vertical slice and you are looking at it straight on... there's no distortion of any kind).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1221 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 10:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1240 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 12:44 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1243 of 1304 (733244)
07-15-2014 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1237 by Faith
07-15-2014 12:38 PM


The strata are sedimentary rock. Lava doesn't form strata.
I already posted a definition of strata. Lava (non-intrusiva) and metamorphic rocks form strata. Sometimes strata is used only for sediemnbtary rock but it depends on context. E.g. Wikipedia:
quote:
A stratovolcano, also known as a composite volcano,[1] is a conical volcano built up by many layers (strata) of hardened lava, tephra, pumice, and volcanic ash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1237 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 12:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1244 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 12:49 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1245 of 1304 (733247)
07-15-2014 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1240 by Faith
07-15-2014 12:44 PM


Re: Legoland
NON FLAT AND NON HORIZONTAL surfaces form AFTER all the strata are in place. They don't "go away," they are just ORIGINALLY not in any form other than flat and horizontal.
As I said I can't tell if the blue line is flat and horizontal or not because of the angle of view, but it doesn't matter, it was clearly originally flat and horizontal, and if it isn't now that is because the whole formation has sagged, which fits what I keep saying: THE STRATA ARE LAID DOWN AND THEN THE WHOLE STACK IS DEFORMED.
I still don't know what to make of your other illustration. Whatever it is, it had to have been laid down flat and horizontal originally.
Yes, and they are all part of the geologic column, including the flat and horizontal surfaces that were laid down on top.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1240 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 12:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1246 of 1304 (733248)
07-15-2014 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1226 by Faith
07-15-2014 10:44 AM


Re: Legoland
But they should ONLY include those. It makes absolutely no sense otherwise. I mean NO sense, NONE.
Actually it's your definition of it that makes no sense. And you haven't (and obviously can't ) support you claim that our definition does not make sense.
By the many standard definitions I've posted, folded and tilted and volcanic and metamorphic strata are all part of the geologic column. Howsabout you copy this picture in Pant and label which areas are part of the geologic column and label what we should call layers that are not part of your version:
Be especially careful to label the flat and horizontal layers on top. Remember that there is no distortion in this picture. You are looking straight at a vertical cross-section that shows the actual shape of the layers. By the standard geological definition the entire picture is part of the geologic column. Let's see your labels.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1226 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 10:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1253 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 1:00 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1250 of 1304 (733252)
07-15-2014 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1244 by Faith
07-15-2014 12:49 PM


It doesn't form strata IN THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN which is made up of sedimentary rock.
All the many standard definitions of the geologic column which I've posted include all types of rock. It is made up of sedimentary rock, igneous rock, and metamorphic rock. I defy you to find any source that agrees with your fantasy. All the rocks and rocks forming under the Earth are part of the geologic column.
Your claim is wrong. Demonstrated tens of times by many posters. Give it up. The geologic column is made up of all the rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1244 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 12:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1255 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 1:04 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1251 of 1304 (733253)
07-15-2014 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1249 by Faith
07-15-2014 12:57 PM


There may be lava dikes and sills between the layers but they aren't the layers themselves.
But those dikes and sills are part of the geologic column.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1249 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 12:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1254 of 1304 (733256)
07-15-2014 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1232 by Faith
07-15-2014 11:45 AM


Re: A Column is a VERTICAL Structure
column
/ˈkləm/
noun
noun: column; plural noun: columns
1. an upright pillar, typically cylindrical and made of stone or concrete, supporting an entablature, arch, or other structure or standing alone as a monument.
synonyms: pillar, post, support, upright, baluster, pier, pile, pilaster, stanchion; More
obelisk, monolith;
Doric column, Ionic column, Corinthian column, Tuscan column
"arches supported by massive columns"
a vertical, roughly cylindrical thing.
"a great column of smoke"
an upright shaft forming part of a machine and typically used for controlling it.
"a Spitfire control column"
a vertical division of a page or text.
a vertical arrangement of figures or other information.
a section of a newspaper or magazine
UPRIGHT. VERTICAL.
It is not still a column if it continues anywhere but ON the vertical structure.
But an upright and vertical column is not necessarily comprised of flat and horizontal layers. That seismic picture I posted is part of the geologic column and yet the most of the layers aren't flat and horizontal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1232 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 11:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1257 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 1:05 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1256 of 1304 (733259)
07-15-2014 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1253 by Faith
07-15-2014 1:00 PM


Re: Legoland
I need to know more about that picture before I label it anything. What am I looking at here, the exposed side of a hill or what? But those sagging layers had to originally be horizontal and flat. The straight flat uppermost layer needs explanation. When did that deposit?
As I have pointed out many times already, that is a seismic cross-section of an area of seabed under the ocean off Indonesia. It is a vertical cross-section and you are looking straight at it; there is no distortion in the layers other than that which actually exists in the layers. More information is available at the link I already gave. Clicking a link is to much effort?
The topmost layers were formed recently, probably in historical times. MOre information is available at the link I posted and its refernces.
As I wrote earlier today, "Yes, the layers were formed and distorted afterward. Three times. But there's no distortion in the topmost layers and we don't know whether or not there ever will be. Exactly what you claim is impossible.".
Try reading my posts before replying.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1253 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 1:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1258 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 1:06 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1259 of 1304 (733262)
07-15-2014 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1257 by Faith
07-15-2014 1:05 PM


Re: A Column is a VERTICAL Structure
If it is part of the Geo Column then they were originally flat and horizontal. The Column has been distorted in most places after it was laid down.
Absolutely. Well, mostly, close enough for jazz. And those folded and distorted places are still part of the geologic column, and the geologic column continues to be built on top of them. As illustrated by the many definitions and pictures that have been posted, especially the picture I've challenged you to label, clearly showing flat horizontal layers forming today on top of distorted layers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1257 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 1:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1262 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 1:52 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1260 of 1304 (733263)
07-15-2014 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1258 by Faith
07-15-2014 1:06 PM


Re: Are Re: Legoland
was talking about the photograph, what are you talking about?
The one I've posted several times, including Message 1246 at the top of this page. You replied, I replied and clarified, and now you can't remember what we are talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1258 by Faith, posted 07-15-2014 1:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 1301 of 1304 (733329)
07-16-2014 7:44 AM


I just can't avoid replying to one:
But that is not at all clear just from the picture when the flat layers were laid down. There's something odd about that picture. Where is it and what is it?
I answered that question very specifically at least four times, maybe five. Obviously you didn't read those answers. You would do much better if you read the messages to which you are ostensibly (look it up) replying.
Faith has made quite a long thread by trying to deny the obvious: the geologic column (or whatever you want to call it) is a complex structure, vertical indeed, but comprised of flat and horizontal sediments, deformed sediments, igneous layers (we never even mentioned tephras) and intrusions and dikes, and metamorphic layers and all sorts of rocks. Indeed, it's all the rocks under the Earth's surface. This was proven, with references, over and over again.
Faith refused to even acknowledge the existence of the real definitions and insisted on her own made-up fantasy. That raises serious question about whether she sees any difference between reality and the fantasies she makes up. I feel sorry for her; she's obviously happy in her la-la-land but she is missing so much.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024