Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 181 of 740 (734181)
07-26-2014 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by herebedragons
07-26-2014 1:25 PM


Bronx
I have to agree that the Bronx example is a tad too ambiguous for my purpose of demonstrating Layers First Disturbance After. But I'll give my interpretation here anyway. After answering the layer/sill question:
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?
OK an "intrusive layer" would work. I thought I kept making the contrast between intrusives or sills and layers as I was discussing this all along, but at least I think I do make it clear in my post to Percy above, the idea being that a layer would occur in sequential order, and it woujld also look like a layer, which the sill in this case does, because the upper contact is straight and flat. That's how earlier examples of very thick layer-like intrusives/sills look. MOST sills LOOK LIKE intrusives though, like uneven but mostly narrow bands of magma between the sedimentary rocks. Obviously some do look more like actual layers. And if "intrusive layer" says it, fine.
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?
OK, my reading was, maybe still is, that the yellow, red, green and brown (Stockton formation) were all layered one on top of the other, and then the sill intruded between the brown and whatever was above at that time. The blue gneiss below represents some kind of upward force that distorted them all, folding them all at that central point, the red Manhattan and the green Hartland being eroded away over that central area and remaining only on either side, the Stockton and the sill also being eroded away but remaining only on the left, and whatever was above the sill being eroded away completely. I see the brown Stockton layer with the Palisades sill above it shifting as a unit to the left as the area to the right of it pushes upward, and retaining its straightness because the sill magma acts as a kind of glue. Otherwise it could be interpreted as an angular unconformity with respect to the lower rocks (abe; But this would have had to occur before the central upward force occurred so that it would have deposited horizontally, but this may be what makes it all appear as a unit since that formation is no more displaced than the Manhattan and the Hartland, if you follow me./abe) After all that occurred but not long after, the fault up through that formation occurred.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
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 174 by herebedragons, posted 07-26-2014 1:25 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 182 of 740 (734187)
07-26-2014 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by herebedragons
07-26-2014 1:25 PM


The Bronx Diagram Reconstructed
Here's my attempt to reconstruct the order of the layers so that you can see why I think of it as an example of my principle that the layers were laid down first and then distorted. Whatever pushed it all up in the center is the distorting force that occurred according to my reading of it after all the layers were were laid down. I figure the upward force would have broken up the layers right above it. I also think of metamorphic rock as being created BY the pressures of such forces, since I don't think it takes the enormous amount of time usually assumed. So the marble was of course originally a carbonate layer and the force from below metamorphosed it in short order. Etc.
I would have guessed there was some volcanic influence here because of the metamorphic rock, but if pressure is enough then I don't have a big problem with this site's explanation of the Fordham gneiss:
During a continental shift, an unidentified landmass collided with North America, thrusting the sedimentary rock upward and forming a mountain range. This collision is known as the Grenville Orogeny....
The impact of the collision and the high pressures involved caused the sedimentary rock to recrystallize, forming the black-and-white banded, metamorphic rock we see today. [and I'd add, all the other metamorphic rock which was there as sedimentary layers at the time of the tectonic collision] The contorted banding pattern of these bands is a testament to the immense geologic force of the shifting plates that formed the gneiss. Over the next hundred million years [After that], passing glaciers and erosion by wind and water wore away the mountain ranges. ...
ABE: BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS IS OFF TOPIC HERE. I NEED TO START THIS NEW THREAD I'VE HAD IN MIND TO DISCUSS THIS STUFF.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 188 by herebedragons, posted 07-26-2014 5:55 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 183 of 740 (734190)
07-26-2014 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Faith
07-26-2014 3:01 PM


Re: Why can't geologic columns grow today?
Faith writes:
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.
You're just repeating your assertion that the accumulation of sedimentary layers atop a geologic column of sedimentary layers does not add to the geologic column, which isn't what I was hoping for. As I explained, to convince other people you need to provide facts and arguments in support of your position. What makes the sedimentary layers forming today somehow separate from the geological column beneath them?
You have a similar sort of problem with your other claim that no sedimentary layers were laid down before the flood. But weathering of higher regions produces sediments that are carried to lower regions where they are deposited as sediments. What facts and arguments support the view that there was no erosion or sedimentation prior to the flood?
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.
Is that a point about sedimentary layers growing the geologic column? Which is the topic of this thread?
...it's just that the layers I happen to be talking about ARE thick and extensive, covering huge areas...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.
Sounds like a different topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:01 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 184 of 740 (734191)
07-26-2014 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Percy
07-26-2014 1:46 PM


Layer / Sill
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?
Percy writes:
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.
Well, OK, but nost sills don't even look like layers. But OK, yes, thanks, you are correct. I keep calling it a sill which I would have thought made the point. So shall I now call it an "intrusive layer" as HBD suggests?

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 186 by herebedragons, posted 07-26-2014 5:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 07-27-2014 6:57 AM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 185 of 740 (734192)
07-26-2014 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
07-26-2014 3:27 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.
That is a very telling admission that you just made there. You have no idea what you don't know. You don't even know that there is something that you don't know. That is the height of ignorance!
There is one thing that is learned by everybody who actively seeks knowledge, who seeks to learn. And it is the same thing regardless of what field they study and of how extensive their knowledge in that field is. And it is the same thing that even the foremost expert in that field, the possessor of the vastest amount of knowledge in that field, has learned and keeps foremost in mind. There is always something that we don't know.
No matter how much you learn about a subject, there's always something that you still do not know. And it is very important to keep that in mind for very practical reasons. Because your studies and your research are what points out to you what you still do not know. And with the knowledge of what you still do not know, you have a direction to follow in gaining that knowledge you lack. And in the process you discover even more things that you do not know, which provides the direction of your continued research. That is why "goddidit" is the worst possible "answer" to give, not only because it poses as the ultimate answer while actually not answered a damned thing, but because it not only provides no new questions but it also blocks the asking of further questions. In science, finding new questions is just as valuable as gaining new knowledge, if not more valuable.
You admit that you are in that sorriest of ignorant states. You don't even know that you don't know anything. That not only leaves you with no clue of where to start learning, but it also removes from your mind the need, motivation, and desire to learn. Coupled with your devotion to creationism, which depends on maintain carefully guarded ignorance, that puts you in an even sorrier state as you feel that you must guard against learning, against losing your ignorance. Pitiful.
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.
Yes, you've picked up a few isolated facts along the way, but that doesn't make you the big expert that you pretend to be as you brag about knowing more than real practicing geologists do. It would be like me, having mastered the Greek alphabet, proclaiming that I'm now the foremost expert on the entirety of all forms of the Greek language. Sheer idiocy.
We've observed you here as you have repeatedly displayed your ignorance of geology. The predominant reaction has been both to point out that what you say is wrong and to explain why it is wrong while at the same time providing you with the correct information. A perfect learning opportunity for you, which you invariably reject and douse liberally with human waste.
A perfect example of this was in Message 83 where you reject the information that edge had given by complaining about him trying to "bury {you} under a mountain of jargon and obscure geological concepts." I had read through the same posts and it certainly didn't look like too much information, it used normal geological terminology that a basic student of geology should be familiar with, nor were the geological concepts at all obscure, at least not to someone with a basic knowledge of geology.
Of course, the first complaint of the willfully ignorant will be about "jargon". Every discipline has its own specialized vocabulary. The purpose is not to bewilder outsiders, but rather to promote rapid and accurate communication with other practitioners. Geologists have the terminology of geology which they use to accurately communicate the ideas of geology. That is the language of geology. If you want to join that conversation, then learn the language. Don't complain and moan and make up lame excuses about "jargon", but rather learn the language. If you encounter a term that you do not know, then look it up and learn it!
That works both ways, BTW. Until you learn the language, you cannot understand the conversation. But at the same time as long as you don't know or use the language, nobody else is able to understand you. For example, there's the most recent posts between Percy and herebedragons in which they're trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about. Learn the language and use it so that others can understand you. Yes, I do realize that creating and exploiting confusion is a primary tool of creationists, but please try to rise above that.
So, since you don't have a clue what you don't know about geology, take advantage of the replies to you. I'd say that that edge's "mountain of jargon" and "obscure geological concepts" would be a very good place to start. Study up on those concepts, which as I recall are pretty basic concepts. And learn the terminology that he used. And treat all other posts as similar opportunities for learning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 10:42 PM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 186 of 740 (734193)
07-26-2014 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
07-26-2014 5:20 PM


Re: Layer / Sill
I guess what confused me is that you make it a point to argue that sills are not layers. But what is the point? I don't think anyone thinks that a sill represents a sequential layer, which is the whole point. So if you simply say that a particular unit is a sill, there is no other qualifier needed. We know (or can quickly find out) that a sill is an intrusion between two older rock units. But going on about it not being a layer just confuses the issue and I (and it seems others as well) begin thinking "why is she emphasizing that it is not a layer?"
So it seems to me perfectly acceptable to call it a sill. In the case of the Bronx diagram, I think it could be referred to as an intrusive layer, simply because of how extensive it is. But it would have been fine to just say it was a sill. Its throwing in all the "its not a layer" stuff that is confusing. IMO.
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 184 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 5:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 5:52 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 187 of 740 (734195)
07-26-2014 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by herebedragons
07-26-2014 5:43 PM


Re: Layer / Sill
The reason its not being a layer became an issue goes WAY back in this discussion to the earlier thread, where the point was to define what constitutes the Geologic Column and I was insisting that it's composed of sedimentary layers and others insisted that no, igneous rock counts too. And even on this thread there's Coragyps insisting that even the Siberian Traps constitute the Geologic Column. Sigh,. So I had to say no, with respect to the Geologic Column igneous rock is an intrusion into sedimentary layers. It's not a layer, it's an intrusion BETWEEN layers, and this matters because the Geo Column is tied to the Geo Time Scale and the igneous rock, being a sill, is out of order in the sequences of the Time Scale. Sigh. Groan.
The whole argument was insane from the beginning but there you have it, why it ended up as a big flap about layers versus sills. And I would have thought my constant refrain "a sill not a layer" would have done it, but no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by herebedragons, posted 07-26-2014 5:43 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by JonF, posted 07-26-2014 7:05 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 195 by dwise1, posted 07-26-2014 8:03 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 188 of 740 (734196)
07-26-2014 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
07-26-2014 4:46 PM


Re: The Bronx Diagram Reconstructed
Yea, I guess it is kinda off topic.
I think you took some liberties with your drawing that are simply not justified. I see at least 4 major tectonic events in that drawing, maybe a 5th. It would be good to continue to discuss this and have a thread about reconstructing the history of the region based on that drawing. However, it is doubtful I will be able to participate much after today, at least for a while. But maybe someone else would be willing to have a go at it, so it would be a good idea to start a new thread on that Bronx cross section.
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 182 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 4:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 6:12 PM herebedragons has replied

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


Message 189 of 740 (734198)
07-26-2014 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by herebedragons
07-26-2014 5:55 PM


Re: The Bronx Diagram Reconstructed
I'm going to get off this thread now for a while and try to put together a proposal for that new topic.
But it would sure be nice if just once in a while somebody responded to something like that reconstruction effort I drew, with something like "Wow, yes, now I see it, that's really brilliant how you put all that together," instead of the predictable denigration like how I supposedly "took liberties" with it and how there are really four or five tectonic events there (which I don't see at all) and so on.
But I will pick up my crestfallen self as usual and slog on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by herebedragons, posted 07-26-2014 5:55 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by herebedragons, posted 07-26-2014 6:20 PM Faith has replied
 Message 220 by edge, posted 07-27-2014 1:14 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 190 of 740 (734199)
07-26-2014 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
07-26-2014 6:12 PM


Re: The Bronx Diagram Reconstructed
So you want me to lie? If I agreed I would definitely say so. I am not disagreeing just to be disagreeable. If I have time I will explain why I think you "took liberties" and why I see 4 or 5 tectonic events on the new thread. But I am not going to say I agree just to agree. Also I won't disagree just to disagree. What else can I do but be honest?
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 189 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 6:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 6:32 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


(1)
Message 191 of 740 (734201)
07-26-2014 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Faith
07-26-2014 3:30 PM


Re: lava layers versus sills
Faith writes:
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.
As has been pointed out many times, boundary interface topology varies all over the map, from the very flat to the very lumpy to the interbedded to anything that follows the physical laws of nature.
You know, if a volcanic eruption during the Flood would produce layers of pillow lava, which would be very irregular. You can see from this image where the name comes from. Note how irregular is the surface of pillow lava:
Lava from surface volcanoes doesn't form pillow lava. If the lava is thick it will form a rough surface, but very hot lava will run like water and form a smooth surface over broad areas, but even typical lava fields like this are only modestly uneven. The imperfections are on the order of a few feet. In a diagram it would be drawn as perfectly flat:
Looking at nice neat diagrams you might after a while get the feeling that boundary interfaces between layers must be sharply defined and flat, but anyone who has read as extensively in geology as you've claimed would have to know this isn't true.
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...
There is no requirement that they be lumpy, but they can be lumpy, and we have images of "lumpy" boundaries between layers, as in this image of the Blackrock Escarpment that Hooah used earlier:
That is not shale, by the way, that is "welded tuff" interspersed with the lava flow layers...This isn't an example of volcanic layers interspersed with sedimentary layers.
Oops, you're correct. I'll try to find a sequence of interspersed volcanic and sedimentary layers for you.
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?
Because it isn't a sill. Sills have certain distinctive characteristics, such as melting both the upper and lower contact rocks extensively, and it displays the characteristics of having cooled from the boundary contacts toward the interior. The caption for that image of the Blackrock Escarpment in Idaho tells you that the volcanic layers are rhyolite and I believe the interspersed layers are tuff.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 7:00 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 192 of 740 (734203)
07-26-2014 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by herebedragons
07-26-2014 6:20 PM


Re: The Bronx Diagram Reconstructed
Oh I don't think you should be dishonest, I just wish for once somebody would see things from my point of view. Now I'm REALLY depressed. But oh well, back to work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by herebedragons, posted 07-26-2014 6:20 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 193 of 740 (734207)
07-26-2014 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Percy
07-26-2014 6:23 PM


Blackrock Escarpment is all volcanic
Thanks for posting a distance shot of that formation. I looked it up and it's not what I thought hooah said it was: lave layers interspersed with sedimentary layers. No, it's ALL volcanic (like the layering of the Siberian Traps) according to IDAHO GEOLOGY:
Blackrock Escarpment: Several welded tuff layers are magnificently exposed in this 1500-foot-high cliff in Bruneau Canyon near the Nevada border. Each layer is rhyolite that erupted explosively from the Bruneau-Jarbidge region, an early active portion of the Yellowstone hot spot. The layers range from 12.7 million years old at the base of the sequence to 10.3 million at the top. They make up the Cougar Point tuff, a volcanic unit widely distributed along the margins of the central Snake River Plain. In a geologic instant some of these enormous explosions erupted many hundreds of cubic miles of rhyolite magma as tiny molten particles that sped across the land buoyed up by hot gasses, blanketing areas more that 100 miles across. Welded tuff layers like these are believed to lie beneath much of the Snake River Plain and Owyhee Plateau.
ABE: Yes, now I see you said so yourself. But this has been a big big waste of time for me because the issue was whether there are actual magma layers within a stack of sedimentary rocks as I'd said stacks of all lava layers aren't what I'm talking about. Back on the other thread somebody did post pictures of lava layers that really look like lava layers between sedimentary layers but are not layers that were deposited within the sequence but as they all turn out to be, intrusive layers, sills.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 07-26-2014 6:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 07-27-2014 8:26 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 216 by edge, posted 07-27-2014 12:30 PM Faith has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 194 of 740 (734208)
07-26-2014 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
07-26-2014 5:52 PM


Re: Layer / Sill
Are you actually arguing that all igneous layers are intrusive?
Tuffs are not intrusive. And it's quite possible to determine when a lava layer is not intrusive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 5:52 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by edge, posted 07-27-2014 1:06 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 195 of 740 (734209)
07-26-2014 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
07-26-2014 5:52 PM


Re: Layer / Sill
And I would have thought my constant refrain "a sill not a layer" would have done it, but no.
What "constant refrain"? In this topic, you didn't even start to mention the word "sill" until last night at 8:48PM PDT in Message 147: "we're talking a layer laid down in order, right, not a sill that penetrates between sedimentary layers already in place, right?" For that matter, that was the first time that the word "sill" appeared in this topic.
Before that, you did mention it once on 15 July in Message 1287 of the Continuation of Flood Discussion topic:
Faith writes:
When lava IS found as a layer in the Stratigraphic Column it is nevertheless an intrusive sill, a younger rock, and not a layer like the sedimentary layers that are the main identifiers of the Column and form the basis of the Geologic Time Scale.
And you mentioned it one more time in Message 1281, though that message did not appear in the search list. You had apparently gotten the term from NoNukes in Message 1270 where he quoted from a Wikipedia article on "layered intrusion".
So all this time you had been arguing about igneous layers, not sills. At least not until last night, less than 24 hours ago. So much for expecting any honesty from you.
Sills are intrusions that form a layer between pre-existing layers. Igneous layers laid down atop the ground, as in a lava flow, also form layers completely in . The former is an intrusion whereas the latter is not. And geologists can tell when a layer is sill because the layers that it intrudes into are deformed, fractured, partially melted, and suffer whatever effects arise from close contact with molten magma. Of course, from a lava flow on the surface, only the ground beneath the igneous layer would have suffered from the heat, but not from having been displaced since it would not have been displaced.
Again, learning something about geology and geological processes and the evidence that those processes leave behind would be more than worthwhile. Perhaps you should obtain a standard first-year textbook and work your way through it.
{ABE}For one thing, those processes leave behind evidence, that e-word that we have always been asking you for and which you have not been able to provide. If you learn about those processes and the kinds of evidence they leave behind, then that would enable you to actually look for the evidence that you need. And the evidence that one of your ideas is wrong, which will allow you to correct your ideas.
At this point, it appears that you are still trying to assert that all igneous layers in the Geologic Column are sills. That is clearly and obviously not true.
Yes, the whole argument was insane from the beginning. But you are clearly the source of that insanity.
Edited by dwise1, : ABE: processes leave behind evidence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 5:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 8:57 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024