Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 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:   Growing the Geologic Column
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 166 of 740 (734144)
07-26-2014 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
07-26-2014 2:48 AM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
Which is why you keep heaping them on the people you meet here?
I'm providing constructive criticism. You are doing many things very wrong. You need to know that if you are ever going to take any corrective action.
Or do you prefer that nobody says anything to warn you that you are about to drive off a cliff?
BTW, complaining loudly about having been insulted in order to change the subject away from the evidence is another creationist tactic. I've even seen them lie about having been insulted. I've even seen you use that dishonest tactic on others here far too many times, like when someone patiently tried to explain to you a geological concept that you obviously knew nothing about and you reviled him for being patronizing. That was a case where you just made up the insult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 2:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:02 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 167 of 740 (734146)
07-26-2014 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by dwise1
07-26-2014 2:55 AM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by dwise1, posted 07-26-2014 2:55 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by dwise1, posted 07-26-2014 3:06 AM Faith has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 168 of 740 (734147)
07-26-2014 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
07-26-2014 3:02 AM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
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.
Then learn some geology and how geological processes work!
Maintaining your current state of willful ignorance can only hinder you in your efforts. Plus you would be incapable of communicating your findings to anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:27 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 169 of 740 (734148)
07-26-2014 3:23 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by herebedragons, posted 07-26-2014 1:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 175 by herebedragons, posted 07-26-2014 1:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 170 of 740 (734149)
07-26-2014 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by dwise1
07-26-2014 3:06 AM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by dwise1, posted 07-26-2014 3:06 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by ringo, posted 07-26-2014 12:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 185 by dwise1, posted 07-26-2014 5:26 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 171 of 740 (734153)
07-26-2014 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
07-25-2014 9:35 PM


Why can't geologic columns grow today?
Faith writes:
I guess I can't get across why the geo column can't be growing on the continental shelves etc,...
If you provide the facts and arguments for why the geologic column cannot be growing on the continental shelves then, assuming the facts are correct and the arguments contain no flaws, you'll convince everyone here. But until you can do that, because the continental shelves consist of sedimentary layers upon which more sediments are being deposited, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that the sediments are adding to the geologic column.
...or why the definitive strata are thick and cover a huge area.
For the sake of argument let us assume the Flood really happened and deposited the sedimentary layers we observe today. What prevented the flood from depositing any small (in horizontal extent), thin layers? I'm trying to understand your objection to them.
This is what I've been equating with the Geo Column, but I'm more interested in getting across this picture of the strata building up and then stopping.
The picture you're trying to paint is contradicted by the sedimentary layers we see forming atop other sedimentary layers of the geologic column all around the world. You will not have much success convincing people that something they can see happening isn't really happening.
You go on to discuss some other things outside the scope of this thread, so I won't comment.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 07-25-2014 9:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:01 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 172 of 740 (734154)
07-26-2014 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
07-25-2014 11:28 PM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
Faith writes:
I just don't see how there could be actual lava layers among the sedimentary layers.
Large volcanic eruptions will deposit a layer of lava and tuff (rock that was originally volcanic ash) across the local landscape atop the sedimentary layers that are already there. The lava eventually cools into igneous rock, and the unconsolidated volcanic ash becomes rock if deeply buried. If the region is an area of net deposition then sedimentary deposits will accumulate atop the igneous rock that was once lava and the tuff that was once volcanic ash.
Sequences like this are represented in many places in the geologic record, and Hooah pointed out a number of them. Here's a diagram of the geologic column in Yellowstone Park. In the column on the left, which is actually an expanded detail of the top portion of the column on the right, lava flow layers are interspersed with shale layers:
Those lava layers are the same ones that Hooah presented in this image from Yellowstone. The lava layer (in this case of rhyolite) is central in the image, and a shale sedimentary layer lies above it:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 07-25-2014 11:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:30 PM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 173 of 740 (734169)
07-26-2014 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
07-26-2014 3:27 AM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
Faith writes:
For all the carrying on about how I need to learn geology I have NO idea what you would have me learn.
Learn that layers are layers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:27 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by herebedragons, posted 07-26-2014 1:46 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 174 of 740 (734171)
07-26-2014 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
07-26-2014 3:23 AM


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:
Not sure why you would say that the sill is not a layer. There it is, a rock pancake - right between two other layers. How is it not a layer? Sure it's not a sequential layer or a sedimentary layer, but why would it not be a layer? How about an intrusive layer?
Of course all these illustrate the principle that the layers were all laid down before any deformation occurred to them.
This illustration does not support that notion.
The blue, red, yellow and green areas are all metamorphic rock. It appears the blue and yellow layers were deformed together, but the red layer appears to have been laid down after deformation of the blue and yellow layers. The green layer was then shoved onto the red layer from the right hand side of the drawing. That all happened before the brown layer was put down since there is no distortion in the brown layer from the sliding of the green layer.
The Stockton Formation/Palisades must have been much more extensive than currently shown as the Palisades is a sill and should have formed completely within the Stockton Formation. It must have been eroded rather extensively. It was also laid down on an angular unconformity. It then appears there was more uplift and rifting of the blue area which caused the Stockton/Palisade to tilt. The whole area then was eroded off.
This does not appear to me to be an example of a whole stack of sediments being laid down in a rock pancake before any tectonic activity occurred. In fact, there is almost no sedimentary layers here at all, which is contrary to your whole premise that these "rock pancakes" exist in most every diagram you examine.
How do you interpret this diagram?
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Percy, posted 07-26-2014 1:46 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:57 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 4:46 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 175 of 740 (734172)
07-26-2014 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
07-26-2014 3:23 AM


A question about this image also.
This one's kind of interesting, an area in England.
How come the Ordovician rocks (labeled #4) at the Shelve Plateau and Stipestones do not exist on the right hand side of the drawing? The Cambrian layer (#3) does and appears to support your premise that the whole block was laid down before tectonic activity, so why does the Ordovician layer not follow the pattern?
I know you posted these images to support your position that igneous rock is not a layer, but I wonder why that is even important? Igneous layers provide clues as to when events happened (even apart from absolute dating techniques) and what events happened.
But you ended your post with this:
Of course all these illustrate the principle that the layers were all laid down before any deformation occurred to them.
Interpret this drawing so as to support this principal. If the layers were all laid down at once before any deformation, why are the left and right side of the diagram so different?
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 176 of 740 (734173)
07-26-2014 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by herebedragons
07-26-2014 1:25 PM


herebedragons writes:
Not sure why you would say that the sill is not a layer. There it is, a rock pancake - right between two other layers. How is it not a layer? Sure it's not a sequential layer or a sedimentary layer, but why would it not be a layer? How about an intrusive layer?
I don't think Faith meant to say that an intrusive layer is not a layer. I think what she really meant to say is what most of us already accept, that an intrusive layer is not part of the geological column, that it is instead an intrusion into an already existing geological column. She just misstated things in her Message 169 where she claimed an intrusive layer isn't a layer at all.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Correct the message link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by herebedragons, posted 07-26-2014 1:25 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by herebedragons, posted 07-26-2014 2:09 PM Percy has replied
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 5:20 PM Percy has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 177 of 740 (734174)
07-26-2014 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by ringo
07-26-2014 12:46 PM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
layers are layers.
Unless they are not layers in which case they would not be layers even though they might be layers but it doesn't necessarily mean they are layers they might not be layers so you can't always tell if its a layer or not a layer based on whether its a layer or not.
Wait, what was I saying??
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by ringo, posted 07-26-2014 12:46 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 178 of 740 (734175)
07-26-2014 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Percy
07-26-2014 1:46 PM


I don't think Faith meant to say that an intrusive layer is not a layer.
Maybe not, but she is still saying that.
Faith writes:
Message 169 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:
Maybe she meant not a layer of the geological column, idk. (???)
ABE: I see we were talking about the same message and you corrected your link
-------------
Actually I meant to ask you this earlier in the thread, but I must not have pushed Submit, because it never posted.
I think what she really meant to say is what most of us already accept, that an intrusive layer is not part of the geological column,
I am not clear as to why it would not be a part of the geological column, an out-of-place part or out-of-sequence part, but it is a part of the sequence. It would be identified as being an intrusion, would it not? Or are we meaning the abstract, overall geological column, which there are really no typical type of layers associated with the time periods? I just really don't get what her whole argument regarding the geological column is about... other then the usual rock pancake being deformed as a whole stack thingy.
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Percy, posted 07-26-2014 1:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Percy, posted 07-27-2014 7:20 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 179 of 740 (734177)
07-26-2014 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
07-26-2014 9:08 AM


Re: Why can't geologic columns grow today?
I guess I can't get across why the geo column can't be growing on the continental shelves etc,...
If you provide the facts and arguments for why the geologic column cannot be growing on the continental shelves then, assuming the facts are correct and the arguments contain no flaws, you'll convince everyone here. But until you can do that, because the continental shelves consist of sedimentary layers upon which more sediments are being deposited, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that the sediments are adding to the geologic column.
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.
...or why the definitive strata are thick and cover a huge area.
For the sake of argument let us assume the Flood really happened and deposited the sedimentary layers we observe today. What prevented the flood from depositing any small (in horizontal extent), thin layers? I'm trying to understand your objection to them.
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.
This is what I've been equating with the Geo Column, but I'm more interested in getting across this picture of the strata building up and then stopping.
The picture you're trying to paint is contradicted by the sedimentary layers we see forming atop other sedimentary layers of the geologic column all around the world. You will not have much success convincing people that something they can see happening isn't really happening.
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.
You go on to discuss some other things outside the scope of this thread, so I won't comment.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 07-26-2014 9:08 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 07-26-2014 5:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 180 of 740 (734179)
07-26-2014 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
07-26-2014 9:59 AM


lava layers versus sills
I just don't see how there could be actual lava layers among the sedimentary layers.
Large volcanic eruptions will deposit a layer of lava and tuff (rock that was originally volcanic ash) across the local landscape atop the sedimentary layers that are already there. The lava eventually cools into igneous rock, and the unconsolidated volcanic ash becomes rock if deeply buried. If the region is an area of net deposition then sedimentary deposits will accumulate atop the igneous rock that was once lava and the tuff that was once volcanic ash.
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.
Sequences like this are represented in many places in the geologic record, and Hooah pointed out a number of them.
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.
Here's a diagram of the geologic column in Yellowstone Park. In the column on the left, which is actually an expanded detail of the top portion of the column on the right, lava flow layers are interspersed with shale layers:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 07-26-2014 9:59 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 07-26-2014 6:23 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024