Growing the Geologic Column

Hundreds of millions of years, Hooah, hundreds of millions of years, from the Cambrian to the Tertiary, hundreds of millisions of years.

Let me give one reason why there can't be an actual lava layer between sedimentary layers: we're talking a layer laid down in order, right, not a sill that penetrates between sedimentary layers already in place, right? So this lava is going to flow over the layer that is already laid down, right, nothing above it, right? So what are you going to get? A VERY LUMPY BUMPY LAYER OF LAVA, not those nice neat straight layers that were shown back who knows where now, with straight bottom and straight top. If and when another sediment deposits on top of it, the contact is NOT GOING TO BE STRAIGHT AND FLAT. That itself is a clue that it's a SILL, an INTRUSION, and NOT an actual layer.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What do you thnk you are proving there? The first example is of rhyolite OVERLYING sedimentary rock. No problem there. It's not a LAYER, hooah, we're talking about LAYERS.And I can't decipher your second example but it's certainly not about a layer of lava between sedimentary layers, just a flow of lava interbedded with some sediments. I've many times said there is no problem with lava layers among lava layers. Putting some sediment into the picture doesn't make them sedimentary layers. So as far as I can make it out, this too has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, that is a lot of totally irrelevant material you want me to digest. You insist it's layers, it is not layers. You don't bother to distinguish between layers and sills anyway. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And I don't read links either. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
lecture lecture lecture
beat chest
lecture lecture
revile and excoriate
blah blah blah blah blahEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are incredibly rude, presumptuous and abusive.

Personal remarks can never be the "truth," they are just rude abuse.

I am working on the evidence for the universal situation of the laying down of strata followed by tectonic, volcanic, faulting and other distortions of the strata. Your comments are just weird and irrelevant, rude and abusive.

This one's kind of interesting, an area in England. Another example of intrusive magma that is not a layer too: ABE: And here's a pretty one, this in the Bronx. Also has a sill that is quite thick and looks like a layer, though it's not a layer, it's an intrusion, a sill: in the upper left: Of course all these illustrate the principle that the layers were all laid down before any deformation occurred to them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

For all the carrying on about how I need to learn geology I have NO idea what you would have me learn. All I can do is ignore you. There is no clue where I would start. I am not going to go get a degree in geology and I do a LOT of reading about geology online, a LOT, so all this screaming at me is absolutely useless. It's just a constant abusive pounding on me to no good purpose. I've learned a LOT of geology over the years here and I'm continuing to learn whatever I can learn to deal with the issues I want to deal with. I don't see how I could do other than that.

If the geologic column is already there beneath the recent depositions that would be true enough but just the accumulation of sedimentary layers in itself isn't. But the thing is this subject has become a matter of everybody saying the geological column is whatever they think it is, including even the Siberian Traps which is all basalt, so I'm going to give up on this subject and go back to former ways of trying to make what I think is the same basic point.
I'm trying to accumulate evidence for the purpose. There is nothing in principle against that idea, and in some places that is very likely the case; it's just that the layers I happen to be talking about ARE thick and extensive, covering huge areas. These are the ones HBD illustrated way back somewhere with diagrams showing how some of them span the entire North American continent and others span large areas of it. I try to keep the focus on these because they are the ones that get associated with the Time Scale, are called by names of the Time Scale. Well, I want to go back to a different way of approaching this to try to make the point another way. As I've kept saying I'm certainly not arguing that sedimentation is not occurring. And I found a diagram that supports YOUR point of view last night too, showing horizontal Quaternary deposits that fill in the dips in the highly deformed layers of previous time periods beneath. I saved so many diagrams I'm not sure I could find that one but if I can I'll post it. Yes, I've been trying to turn my mind to these other things but everybody wants to make an issue of the igneous layers instead, so I guess I have to try to deal with that first.

In fact you aren't going to get the kind of layer out of this that you get with the sedimentary depositions, with their fairly flat horizontality and fairly tight contacts. You'd get a very lumpy surface for the next sedimentary deposit, not a neat flat contact at all. The layers that were posted as examples earlier show such straight contact lines though, and when I read those links I found out they are sills, not layers. The scenario you give would produce an actual layer if it really happened, but the fact that the upper contact line wouldn't be straight and that the actual "layers" that have been shown ARE straight, AND that they are identified as intrusive rather than as layers, shows that so far there has not been a single example given of an actual igneous layer among sedimentary layers.Apparently there is a problem here with how I use the term "layer" so let me try to be as clear as possible. I keep contrasting the term with "sill" because I'm saying a layer would be IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER OF DEPOSITION, which the hypothetical example you give above would be, as well as LOOKING LIKE A LAYER with the flat top and bottom. A sill is not a layer even if it looks like a layer because it is out of order, it's an intrusive rock. Now maybe this is all nitpicking but this is the way I've been using the terms. In actual fact this sequence has not yet been demonstrated to have occurred anywhere. If it did the upper surface of the layer, the contact with the sedimentary deposition above it, would be lumpy as I say above but that is not the case with the earlier examples that have been posted, showing that they are intrusives and not layers in the sense of sequential depositions. The way I read those diagrams is that the sedimentary layers were all laid down without anything volcanic involved up to the layer of conglomerate, above which the layers are ALL volcanic ("volcanic breccia" etc). That is not shale, by the way, that is "welded tuff" interspersed with the lava flow layers. So this is a diagram of volcanic layers that formed on top of the sedimentary layers with some sand and gravel and glacial deposits also accumulated at the very top. This isn't an example of volcanic layers interspersed with sedimentary layers.That picture hooah posted that you reposted here is absolutely undecipherable to me. If that is all lava between sedimentary layers, however, HOW IS IT NOT AN INTRUSIVE, A SILL? I have been as clear as I know how to be that I am distinguishing between sills and layers, whether you accept that distinction or not I've been very clear about it I would have thought, and if not, then consider this my clarification.Edited by Admin, : Remove spurious close quote dBCode.