Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
573 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 569 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,809 Year: 21,845/19,786 Month: 408/1,834 Week: 408/315 Day: 4/82 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
Coyote
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 16 of 740 (733681)
07-20-2014 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
07-20-2014 12:25 AM


Here is a link to the geological stratigraphy of the Olduvai Gorge in Africa.

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/...re/OlduvaiForm/7_Chronology.html

And here is one chart from that essay:

Note the intermixture of volcanic and sedimentary layers.

Now stop with the nonsense that volcanic layers don't form a part of these various geologic columns!

Edited by Admin, : Change image background to white.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 07-20-2014 12:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 07-20-2014 10:03 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5600
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 17 of 740 (733683)
07-20-2014 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coyote
07-20-2014 9:52 AM


She probably doesn't know that a tuff is volcanic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 07-20-2014 9:52 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 404
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


(11)
Message 18 of 740 (733691)
07-20-2014 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by edge
07-20-2014 4:18 AM


Do you have problems telling maps apart from actual roads?

Well, since you asked, yes. That would seem to be the problem.

By analogy, we have the concept of European history. There is no single book, or tapestry, or painting that records all the details of our activities over the last, say, three thousand years. Yet out of many isolated records, we can assemble a composite that allows us to place those isolated observations in a broader context. If we read all the documents found in the area of an Italian village we would have a record of local births, deaths, mayors, murders, floods, famines, and so on. If we read the history of a French village, the details would be different.

Yet, underlying the vast jumble of different details, there would be the common threads of seasons changing, the rising and falling of Popes and Kings, the waxing and waning of plagues, changing styles in art and technology, and so on. Out of this we could develop a mental image that we call "history" ("the geological column"). And, crucially, we could place seemingly unrelated and quite different small events, that took place in geographically isolated areas, into correct relationships with each other by referencing the larger flow of history around them.

When considering this history, it would be, well, odd to consider an outbreak of typhus in a particular city in France as somehow presenting a challenge to our image of history because it was not recorded in a different city in Italy. To further claim that this occurrence ("intrusion") of typhus ("lava") into the records of the French town was not part of history ("the geological column") would also be odd, to say the least.

What Faith cannot seem to grasp is that her questions and objections about the geological column (read, "the broad, overall history book of the earth") are very much like this. Going on, and on, and on, about a collection of discontinuous geological minutiae is precisely as ridiculous as complaining that the birth records of Luigi's ancestors in San Gimignano don't address the details of Jose's Spanish ancestors in Madrid. Proceeding to then complain that, since neither record can be found in Europe - A History by Norman Davies, history texts are somehow dishonest, is, well, make up your own adjective.

Throughout history, some churches and palaces have burned ("eroded") and local records have been lost. In other places, detailed local histories have been written and preserved, and information is contiguous for generation after generation. None of these local variations and discontinuities change the broad, clear picture of of our history that can be developed by integrating all the information available. The fact that Faith gets hung up on the word "column", and manages to throw sand in her own eyes by conflating the different linguistic connotations and physical implications of this word when used in different contexts, suggests that your comment above goes directly to the point: the map is being crumpled and torn and strewn about in a willful attempt to obscure the road.

ABE: As always, though, the information provided by the more geologically literate is appreciated by the honest learners reading here.

Edited by Capt Stormfield, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by edge, posted 07-20-2014 4:18 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by edge, posted 07-20-2014 3:21 PM Capt Stormfield has acknowledged this reply
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 07-21-2014 11:07 AM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 19 of 740 (733697)
07-20-2014 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
07-19-2014 11:01 PM


Re: observed net erosion ¨ deposition must occur somewhere
Just wondering how often you find the dust that settles on your car is entirely sand or entirely fine clay particles or entirely carbonate, or foram ooze. ...

Curiously it doesn't matter what the materials are that are being deposited -- the critical point is that material is constantly being deposited and is building up in the geological period call "now" ...

... Do I need to explain? The sedimentary strata of the Geologic Column are made up of such different sediments, not mixtures.

No you don't need to explain, you need to learn: sometimes layers are all classified as one type of material; sand for instance covers a range of sizes and can be made up of different material of origin ("black sand" is finely ground volcanic rock), and it is defined by size more than material:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sand

quote:
1.a : a loose granular material that results from the disintegration of rocks, consists of particles smaller than gravel but coarser than silt, and is used in mortar, glass, abrasives, and foundry molds
  b : soil containing 85 percent or more of sand and a maximum of 10 percent of clay; broadly : sandy soil

bold added for emphasis

Note that gravel and silt can be the same materials but in different sizes.

In addition there are many sedimentary layers that consist of mixtures of rocks, gravel, sand, silt and clay -- typical material found after spring storms being deposited in lakes.

The sedimentary strata of the Geologic Column are made up of such different sediments, not mixtures.

In every area the layers in the local "column" (what you would find if you took a core sample) would consist of some soil layers (non-lithified), and different layers at different depths. The depths represent relative age (by the law of superposition - see Dr.A's topic).

You would also be able to take a similar core a hundred feet away and find some layers not in the original core and some layers missing that show up in the first core. Comparing the cores you would be able to relatively date where these discrepancies are in an overall composite column showing all the layers in the two columns in their relative age position.

As we can easily see, erosion can remove a layer in one location while leaving it intact in another, and deposition can add a later in one location while not affecting another.

Note that the geological periods were all defined by relative dating of layers in a composite column built up in this way from many sources long before radiometric dating arrived on the scene.

Volcanic ash covers a large area after an eruption, and this is a layer in the column that occurs at the time of the eruption and is usually referred to as 'tuff' in the column (as has been noted in Lake Suigetsu layers, which then date those eruptions). Lava flows would also be a layer formed on the surface at the time of eruption, and thus show up in the geological column at the time of the eruption.

We can date volcanic tuff in the mississippi river valley to show when the huge caldera in yellowstone park erupted, just as we can see occurred for Mt St Helens.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 5 by Faith, posted 07-19-2014 11:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by edge, posted 07-20-2014 3:33 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 20 of 740 (733714)
07-20-2014 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Capt Stormfield
07-20-2014 12:42 PM


I love analogies and this one is apt due to the historical theme. I'm sure that Faith will disagree since analogies are usually lost on YECs who see things only in absolute terms. The 'geological column' is THE COLUMN, no way around it.

I also think that the utter denial of evidence for old ages is central to Faith's reasoning, regardless of the fact that she 'uses the same information'. It is simply not possible to have all of these events occurring in an abbreviated geologic history, so they can be safely ignored. That puts an insurmountable distance between her and reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-20-2014 12:42 PM Capt Stormfield has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 21 of 740 (733717)
07-20-2014 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
07-20-2014 1:10 PM


Re: observed net erosion ¨ deposition must occur somewhere
0No you don't need to explain, you need to learn: sometimes layers are all classified as one type of material; sand for instance covers a range of sizes and can be made up of different material of origin ...

A lot of the point is that pure sands are not all that common. Not only do you see mixtures of composition, but also grain size. I think that most sandstones are not pure sand, nor pure quartz. That's one reason we have a number of classifications of sandstone and various modifiers.

... ("black sand" is finely ground volcanic rock), ...

That is one occurrence of sand. Black sand beaches are common in volcanic areas where basalts make up much of the section. Hawaii is an example. Other types of 'black sand' could be some basaltic, fine grained pyroclastics; but my favorite is what you get when you pan down stream sediments for gold. That black sand is largely higher density grains such as magnetite and will includes gold, if present. It makes a nice contrast to the gold grains.

... and it is defined by size more than material: ...

"Sand" refers to the grain size. The "black" would imply some composition.

ETA: I see that the topic is drifting here, so let me add that radiometric dating has solidified the framework of the geological column and has mainly used igneous rocks in the past. There have really been no surprises as far as order of the strata and their absolute ages. At first, they were kind of surprised to see how old rocks are, but they never had an absolute measure before.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2014 1:10 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33845
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 22 of 740 (733749)
07-20-2014 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by edge
07-20-2014 4:01 AM


Re: observed net erosion ¨ deposition must occur somewhere
I get it all from geology sources, where else would I get it? And you can cut the abusive tone of voice.

When you look at the diagrams representing, say, the Grand Canyon, you see separate identifiable unmixed sediments characterizing most of the strata. They are all sandstone or all limestone etc. The Coconino is a huge block of sandstone; the Kaibab is a block of limestone. This is the same with the Grand Staircase. There are some layers that are made up of more than one sediment type, but usually in shallower layers. Mixtures may occur but they are far from the standard from what I've seen, read and heard. Your own posting of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian layers way back on the other thread shows limestones, not a mixture.

And, looking up the Niobara formation I find that it too is characterized by identifiable sediments:

It is composed of two structural units, the Smoky Hill Chalk Member overlying the Fort Hays Limestone Member.... The Niobrara Formation is overlain by the marine Pierre Shale.

Chalk
Limestone
Shale

Separate identifiable sediments.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by edge, posted 07-20-2014 4:01 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by edge, posted 07-20-2014 11:23 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2014 1:01 AM Faith has responded
 Message 41 by JonF, posted 07-21-2014 7:47 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 07-21-2014 9:31 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33845
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 23 of 740 (733750)
07-20-2014 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by edge
07-20-2014 4:13 AM


It would help a great deal if you wouldn't answer the posts I've addressed to others as if they were addressed to you. Percy's OP is what clearly divorced the column from the time scale. If you differ from him in that then please address your objection to him and not to me.

Meanwhile my point to him was that wherever I find the column discussed it is discussed in connection with the time scale or in fact as synonymous with it.

I may come back to your post.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by edge, posted 07-20-2014 4:13 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33845
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 24 of 740 (733751)
07-20-2014 10:50 PM


Geology invented the Geologic Time Scale. It is often associated with the particular sedimentary rocks of a particular region, though overall it is an abstract concept that reflects the rocks in all regions where they fit the concept, which taken together I've always known as the Geologic Column. It is always associated with SEDIMENTARY rocks, not igneous or any other kind. It has NEVER been applied to all the rocks on the planet but only the sedimentary column where it is found, yet now some of you are pretending there is no such distinction. It is of particular interest for the fossils that are the major evidence for the Theory of Evolution, which are found only in sedimentary rocks.

This is how I have always encountered it, all over the internet, in books and whatnot. Now to find this common ordinary phenomenon challenged here is perplexing to put it mildly, and the tone of the Geologist in particular is outrageous, accusing me of the idea as if I'd made it up myself, and more outrageous things than that.

For whatever reason you all want to deny what I've always understood to be a standard principle in geology. This hits me as some kind of bizarre psychological twistedness frankly. In any case I don't need the abuse.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 07-20-2014 11:27 PM Faith has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 25 of 740 (733752)
07-20-2014 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
07-20-2014 10:31 PM


Re: observed net erosion ¨ deposition must occur somewhere
I get it all from geology sources, where else would I get it?

Well, then, it's pretty clear that you misinterpret the descriptions and make up a lot of stuff.

And you can cut the abusive tone of voice.

I prefer to think of it as 'critical'. Take it however you want.

When you look at the diagrams representing, say, the Grand Canyon, you see separate identifiable unmixed sediments characterizing most of the strata. They are all sandstone or all limestone etc.

You mean like the Hermit Shale?

Hermit Formation (Lower Permian)—Red, slope-forming, fine-grained, thin-bedded siltstone and sandstone. Upper part contains red and white, massive, low-angle cross-bedded calcareous sandstone and siltstone beds in western one-quarter of map area. (bold added)
(http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/...radoplateau/lexicon/hermit.htm)

Or the Bright Angel Shale?


Bright Angel Shale (Middle Cambrian)—Green and purple-red, slope-forming siltstone and shale, and interbeds of red-brown to brown sandstone of Tapeats Sandstone lithology.(bold added)
(http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/...radoplateau/lexicon/hermit.htm)

Or maybe the Muav Limestone?

Muav Limestone (Middle Cambrian)—Dark-gray, light-gray, brown, and orange red, cliff-forming limestone, dolomite, and calcareous mudstone. Includes, in descending order, unclassified dolomites, and Havasu, Gateway Canyon, Kanab Canyon, Peach Springs, Spencer Canyon, and Rampart Cave Members of McKee and Resser (1945). These members consist of fine- to medium-grained, thin to thick-bedded, mottled, fossiliferous, silty limestone, limestone, and dolomite. Three unnamed slope-forming siltstone and shale units of Bright Angel Shale lithology are intertongued between cliff-forming members of Muav Limestone. These unnamed siltstone and shale units are green and purplish-red, micaceous siltstone, mudstone, and shale, and thin brown sandstone. Contact with the underlying Bright Angel is gradational and lithology dependent. Contact is arbitrarily marked at base of lowest prominent cliff-forming limestone of Rampart Cave Member of the Muav in western half of map area, and of Peach Springs–Kanab Canyon Members of the Muav in eastern half of map area. (bold added)
(http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/...radoplateau/lexicon/hermit.htm)

The Coconino is a huge block of sandstone;...

Interesting that you should mention the Coconino. It's not a water lain sediment and is probably more pure than most sedimentary units.

Oh, right! It's not eolian according to Faith!

... the Kaibab is a block of limestone.

Okay, let's check it out:


Harrisburg Member—Reddish-gray and brownish-gray, slope-forming gypsum, siltstone, sandstone, and limestone. Informally subdivided, in descending order, into three units forming an upper slope, middle cliff, and lower slope. Upper slope unit is interbedded red and gray gypsum, sandstone, and siltstone, and yellowish-gray fossiliferous sandy limestone. Middle cliff unit is gray, thin-bedded, fossiliferous cherty limestone and sandy limestone. Lower slope unit is (1) yellowish-gray to pale-red gypsifereous siltstone and calcareous sandstone, (2) gray, thin-bedded sandy limestone, and (3) gray to white, thick-bedded gypsum. Upper, middle, and lower units become inseparable on the Kaibab Plateau, northeastern quarter of map area. Solution weathering within gypsum beds of lower slope unit has resulted in warping and bending of limestone of middle cliff unit, especially in or near local drainages on Kanab and Coconino Plateaus where middle cliff unit forms surface bedrock. Gypsum solutioning is responsible for several sinkhole depressions within Harrisburg Member. Contact with underlying Fossil Mountain Member is gradational and arbitrarily marked at top of cherty limestone cliff of the Fossil Mountain. About 260 ft (80 m) thick in western half of map area, thinning eastward to about 120 ft (36 m) in northeastern quarter of map area. Average thickness about 165 ft (50 m). (bold added)
(http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/...radoplateau/lexicon/kaibab.htm)

This is the same with the Grand Staircase. There are some layers that are made up of more than one sediment type, but usually in shallower layers. Mixtures may occur but they are far from the standard from what I've seen, read and heard.

Then your reading is incomplete and your experience is non-existent. And I haven't even gotten into the Supai Group.

Your own posting of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian layers way back on the other thread shows limestones, not a mixture.

For simplification, yes. However, pure limestone is a rare and valuable commodity, and sandstones are too contaminated to be be flux in iron foundries.

And, looking up the Niobara formation I find that it too is characterized by identifiable sediments:

Chalk
Limestone
Shale


So, do you know how many chalk beds there are in the Niobrara? Do you know that there are marls (essentially dirty, fresh water limestone) associated with them? Do you know that some of the shales have bentonite? Even the Fort Hayes has small amounts of shale in it and it is certainly not a medical grade of limestone, though it does make a good source of cement.

Separate identifiable sediments.

Yes, many in the same unit.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 07-20-2014 10:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 26 of 740 (733753)
07-20-2014 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
07-20-2014 10:50 PM


This is how I have always encountered it, all over the internet, in books and whatnot. Now to find this common ordinary phenomenon challenged here is perplexing to put it mildly, and the tone of the Geologist in particular is outrageous, accusing me of the idea as if I'd made it up myself, and more outrageous things than that.

I'm sure you have interpreted the reports correctly, without any religious bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-20-2014 10:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 07-20-2014 11:37 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33845
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 27 of 740 (733754)
07-20-2014 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by edge
07-20-2014 11:27 PM


I'm sure you have interpreted the reports correctly, without any religious bias.

Yes I have, though you like to misrepresent things I say to add your own strange opinion of what you think I believe. There is no way to have an honest discussion with somebody who acts as you do.

ABE: And now because I've said the sedimentary strata are of different sediments you are trying to prove me wrong by giving detailed descriptions of their contents, although of course I'm referring to their COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD identity as of a particular kind of rock. Which can be seen even in the walls of the Grand Canyon from a distance. DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROCK. Different colors for instance, different degrees of hardness. You are a shyster Mr. Geologist.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 07-20-2014 11:27 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 07-21-2014 12:03 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 31 by edge, posted 07-21-2014 1:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 28 of 740 (733755)
07-21-2014 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
07-20-2014 11:37 PM


There is no way to have an honest discussion with somebody who acts as you do.

Pot, meet kettle!

It is very difficult for us to have an honest discussion with you when, by your own admission, you feel free to ignore any evidence that does not confirm your religions beliefs, you change definitions from those which have been worked out by science over decades or centuries because they don't fit your beliefs, you just make things up as you go, and you have shown that you are approaching things exactly opposite from the scientific method. And to make it worse, you don't even agree with most other creationists!

"An Army Of One" was the slogan of the US Army, but you seem to be trying to take it over from them.

And you think this makes it easy for us to discuss these things with you? Gimmi a break!

You should be thankful we're as polite as we have been.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 07-20-2014 11:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


(1)
Message 29 of 740 (733757)
07-21-2014 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
07-20-2014 10:31 PM


Re: observed net erosion ¨ deposition must occur somewhere
Faith, you know how I keep telling you that you don't know anything about geology? Well, this would be a case in point.

One sees this again and again with creationists, they become obsessed with a subject which, paradoxically, they're not remotely interested in. Could you not bring yourself to take an interest, find out the first damn thing about the rocks you're talking about, such as their composition? And until you've done that, could you stop prancing around in public pretending you know better about geology than geologists do?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 07-20-2014 10:31 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 07-21-2014 1:14 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33845
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 30 of 740 (733758)
07-21-2014 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2014 1:01 AM


Re: observed net erosion ¨ deposition must occur somewhere
Well here he is again, the master of saying absolutely nothing about the subject while accusing me of terrible though undemonstrated offenses against the great god *Geology*

abe: That is what I have always understood the Geo Column to comprise: STRATA, which are of SEPARATE IDENTIFIABLE SEDIMENTS.

If you want the small print, it includes the caveat that I am not talking about Perfection and I am not saying it's identical everywhere on the planet, and I am not saying any one place represents the whole column etc etc etc.

I am only saying that they are separate identifiable sediments and they can be seen in some places to quite a depth too. I've always understood this column to be the basis for the Geologic Time Scale. What offense I am committing with this understanding I have no idea.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2014 1:01 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Jaderis, posted 07-22-2014 3:39 AM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019