Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
666 online now:
jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 663 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,821 Year: 21,857/19,786 Month: 420/1,834 Week: 420/315 Day: 16/82 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 271 of 740 (734317)
07-28-2014 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by edge
07-28-2014 2:00 AM


Quite frankly I don't think any of the stuff I'm thinking about has anything to do with what you all do in the field in your professional work so I don't know why you feel the need to defend yourselves against my ponderings.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by edge, posted 07-28-2014 2:00 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Pressie, posted 07-28-2014 2:27 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 272 of 740 (734318)
07-28-2014 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by edge
07-28-2014 1:46 AM


Re: New depositions strangely different from old strata
Yes, I've been there. It's not really a mystery. it is an uplifted plateau that is being eroded away and leaving behind individual monuments or tepui.

Yes, eroded out of an incredibly thick and extensive metamorphized sandstone LAYER, that covered some enormous amount of geography. Yes, I know that. Suggests the Flood to me.

The weird thing is that these rocks are Precambrian. In other words, an entire sequence of rocks that you refuse to seriously discuss in the Grand Canyon.

Well in the Grand Canyon they are all jumbled up and need a lot of sorting out. I'll discuss them more when I've figured them out better. Meanwhile the tepui are clearly uncomplicated by comparison, though metamorphosed as one would expect of Precambrian rock.

And actually, the fact that they are so old is an argument that that, indeed, similar formations may not be forming now.

It's their hugeness, like the Coconino, the Redwall, the Dover Cliffs and other similar formations, their depth and breadth, that suggests they'll never be repeated on this planet, not their age, which of course is only about 4300 years on my reckoning anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by edge, posted 07-28-2014 1:46 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by edge, posted 07-28-2014 2:47 AM Faith has responded
 Message 445 by Percy, posted 07-30-2014 3:39 PM Faith has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2082
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 273 of 740 (734319)
07-28-2014 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
07-28-2014 2:13 AM


Actually, quite a lot. The practical applications of the science of geology. Don't creationists always carry on about "observational science"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 2:13 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 2:32 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 274 of 740 (734320)
07-28-2014 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Pressie
07-28-2014 2:27 AM


Far as I've seen, in the field the work you do doesn't even involve the enormous ages you've all said are necessary. I wanted petrophysics to put up that thread on finding oil because I really wanted to see if the age of the rock really figures in your practical work or not. It's been asserted by many that it does, but when he described what he does not long ago there was not one mention of the age of the rock, it was all about physical observations. Those are going to be valid whether the rocks were formed over bazillions of years or by the Flood.

I've also recently been looking at hundreds of cross sections, many of which were made for use in the petroleum industry, and often the time periods are just barely sketched in. Time really doesn't seem to be the big deal it's made out to be when it comes to practical geological work.

The really big deal is where the rocks lie, where they lie in relation to each other, their depth and so on, all the PHYSICAL stuff. Sure I can see that you need to know the order of the rocks and their RELATIVE age, but beyond that it doesn't seem to make any difference to your work at all.

ABE: In other words your practical work IS Observational Science and the Old Earth theoretical stuff is just there as windowdressing.

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 273 by Pressie, posted 07-28-2014 2:27 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by edge, posted 07-28-2014 2:59 AM Faith has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 275 of 740 (734321)
07-28-2014 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Faith
07-28-2014 2:25 AM


Re: New depositions strangely different from old strata
Yes, eroded out of an incredibly thick and extensive metamorphized sandstone LAYER, that covered some enormous amount of geography. Yes, I know that. Suggests the Flood to me.

Why? Where did that sand come from? You have the same problem here as you did in Monument Valley. There is no plausible source for the sediments in a global flood, particularly for sandstone.

Well in the Grand Canyon they are all jumbled up and need a lot of sorting out. I'll discuss them more when I've figured them out better. Meanwhile the tepui are clearly uncomplicated by comparison, though metamorphosed as one would expect of Precambrian rock.

So, while the Roraima Plateau is relatively undeformed the same age rocks in the GC are are disrupted. Why is that?

It's their hugeness, like the Coconino, the Redwall, the Dover Cliffs and other similar formations, their depth and breadth, that suggests they'll never be repeated on this planet, ...

But the processes that created sandstone were ostensibly the same. Do you have an alternative?

... not their age, which of course is only about 4300 years on my reckoning anyway.

Based on what? What is your evidence?

If I don't need to provide evidence, I could just as easily say that the entire planet was created last Thursday and my assertion is just as good as yours.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 2:25 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 4:02 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 276 of 740 (734322)
07-28-2014 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Faith
07-28-2014 2:32 AM


Far as I've seen, in the field the work you do doesn't even involve the enormous ages you've all said are necessary.

But 'enormous ages' explain what we see. In other words, what we see supports the idea of old ages. And we can use that information to look for more oil or certain fossils, etc.

I've also recently been looking at hundreds of cross sections, many of which were made for use in the petroleum industry, and often the time periods are just barely sketched in. Time really doesn't seem to be the big deal it's made out to be when it comes to practical geological work.

I differ. As an example, it might be necessary to know the age of a sill to know the thermal history of a basin and evaluate the petroleum potential. This is an actual example, by the way.

The really big deal is where the rocks lie, where they lie in relation to each other, their depth and so on, all the PHYSICAL stuff. Sure I can see that you need to know the order of the rocks and their RELATIVE age, but beyond that it doesn't seem to make any difference to your work at all.

Untrue. In some areas, we know that molybdenum deposits occur in intrusive rocks of a certain age. So, if I have two prospects, but one is older, which one should I put my money on? Remember, these are intrusive rocks and all I can say is that they are younger than the surrounding sedimentary rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 2:32 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 3:36 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 277 of 740 (734323)
07-28-2014 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Faith
07-28-2014 2:11 AM


Re: Cardenas
I don't see why not. There are already sills there, why not another?

Maybe because there is other evidence?

I'm not so much assuming it as looking for evidence for it.

We are giving it to you right now.

Because I did get convinced that all this occurred after the strata were laid down so I continue to look for how that could be evidenced.

So, contrary to your previous sentence, you assume one event.

I'm sure it's frustrating to you since you've got it all worked out to your own satisfaction already, but I'm still looking for new angles on it.

It's free world. Do whatever you want, but in a debate you should provide evidence to support your position. To not do this is an insult.

You've given some evidence but it doesn't strike me as conclusive: the erosional surfaces.

And yet you have no evidence whatsoever. To me, this is disingenuous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 2:11 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 3:12 AM edge has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2082
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 278 of 740 (734324)
07-28-2014 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by edge
07-28-2014 2:00 AM


edge writes:

They test geological theories every day.

Yes, that's how we know that the Drakensberg and Lebombo group basalts (up to 1600 m thick in the Lesotho area, tapering out to the west and east) were extruded at the end of Karoo deposition. The basaltic dolerite dykes and sills intruded during the same event and are of similar age to the Drakensberg and Lebombo Groups.

Basaltic diabases are waaaaay older than the Drakensberg and Lebombo Group basalts. Its so easy to know; the contacts give it all away. Some basaltic dolerites actually intrude basaltic diabases. Aureoles, the works.

In our country a diabase is of Pre-Karoo age; a dolerite is of Karoo-age (similar compositions and minerals and crystals and crystal sizes and everything else!)

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by edge, posted 07-28-2014 2:00 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 3:17 AM Pressie has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 279 of 740 (734325)
07-28-2014 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by edge
07-28-2014 3:05 AM


Re: Cardenas
The main evidence I have is what led me to this pondering: the fact that in many or most places I've seen on cross section the volcanic effects clearly occurred after the strata were all in place, including the Grand Staircase. That other thread I've started is for the purpose of arguing all that, but I need to come up with a different OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by edge, posted 07-28-2014 3:05 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Pressie, posted 07-28-2014 3:21 AM Faith has responded
 Message 285 by edge, posted 07-28-2014 4:03 AM Faith has responded
 Message 292 by JonF, posted 07-28-2014 8:30 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 280 of 740 (734326)
07-28-2014 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Pressie
07-28-2014 3:05 AM


interesting that even in this post of yours the age is really just windowdressing, what concerns you -- as it should -- is the relationships between the rocks themselves and their physical condition. The relative age is important, of course, something before or after something else etc., but "waaaaaaay older" could mean anything. Could mean a few thousand years really.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Pressie, posted 07-28-2014 3:05 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Pressie, posted 07-28-2014 7:45 AM Faith has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2082
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 281 of 740 (734328)
07-28-2014 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
07-28-2014 3:12 AM


Re: Cardenas
Faith writes:

The main evidence I have is what led me to this pondering: the fact that in many or most places I've seen on cross section the volcanic effects clearly occurred after the strata were all in place,...

What do you expect? That volcanic rocks should float in mid-air and wait for the hole between them and the surface to be filled in with sediments somehow? Hope you do know about gravity?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 3:12 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 3:37 AM Pressie has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 282 of 740 (734330)
07-28-2014 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by edge
07-28-2014 2:59 AM


Does Practical Geology Really Need the Old Earth?
But 'enormous ages' explain what we see. In other words, what we see supports the idea of old ages. And we can use that information to look for more oil or certain fossils, etc.

So you all say but I think this is just a habit of thought and in actual practical fact has nothing to do with looking for oil or certain fossils. You have no idea what a rock would look like if it was millions of years old versus a few thousand years old anyway, how could you? It's all theory, and you're used to thinking that way so it's a habit but that's really all it is. I'm sure you do have the ability to tell different rocks from each other as you said a few posts back, Ordovician from this that or the other, but that's because there is such a thing as rock systems that have distinctive physical features that occurred before or after the others and got labeled that way, not because they really are the ages assigned to them. You could find the oil or fossils if you compressed the whole time scheme down to relative ages, order in time, without any regard to ideas about actual age.

I differ. As an example, it might be necessary to know the age of a sill to know the thermal history of a basin and evaluate the petroleum potential. This is an actual example, by the way.

OK, this is the sort of thing I've heard is necessary. I'd like to see it demonstrated and argued out some time. I'd suspect that the theory about thermal history would work but only because it's really about relative age and relative heat, not because the actual temperature could be or needs to be known. But that's my theory for whenever I get to see the arguments presented.

But just as a matter of fact I've been impressed with the sketchiness of the identification of the time periods on these petroleum cross sections, maybe something like "Ord" at the bottom of the stack and "Mio" at the very top with hardly anything noted in between.

Untrue. In some areas, we know that molybdenum deposits occur in intrusive rocks of a certain age. So, if I have two prospects, but one is older, which one should I put my money on? Remember, these are intrusive rocks and all I can say is that they are younger than the surrounding sedimentary rocks.

You've said nothing here that suggests you need to know more than the relative ages of the intrusive rocks, not actual age. Since actual ages are always assigned you are in the habit of taking them for real, but in practical reality you could do without them.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by edge, posted 07-28-2014 2:59 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by edge, posted 07-28-2014 4:15 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 283 of 740 (734331)
07-28-2014 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Pressie
07-28-2014 3:21 AM


Order of events as shown on cross sections
Weird, Pressie, no idea where you get such a weird idea.

ABE: Here's what I mean: if for instance the cross section shows a stack of layers with a magma dike running from the Precambrian rocks at the very bottom to the Tertiary at the very top and spilling over the top, then we can conclude that the strata were all there first and then the volcanic event occurred.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Pressie, posted 07-28-2014 3:21 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by edge, posted 07-28-2014 4:22 AM Faith has responded
 Message 290 by Pressie, posted 07-28-2014 7:52 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 291 by Pressie, posted 07-28-2014 7:56 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33848
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 284 of 740 (734332)
07-28-2014 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by edge
07-28-2014 2:47 AM


Re: New depositions strangely different from old strata
Why? Where did that sand come from? You have the same problem here as you did in Monument Valley. There is no plausible source for the sediments in a global flood, particularly for sandstone.

I would think it would be a lot harder to accumulate that much sand in one place on the Old Earth model than on the Flood model. In the Flood the water would do a lot of pulverizing as well as transporting and depositing. Where's all that sand going to come from over hundreds of millions of years? Can you identify a source on the South American continent and a method for its deposition and compression to such a huge depth and breadth?

So, while the Roraima Plateau is relatively undeformed the same age rocks in the GC are are disrupted. Why is that?

Same tectonic event did different things in the two different locations: raised the plateau in South America, also in the Grand Canyon but there it also had a volcano (or two or three?) working with it and the rocks got tilted and metamorphosed in various ways.

But the processes that created sandstone were ostensibly the same. Do you have an alternative?

What I said was that the HUGENESS isn't going to be repeated, of course there will always be sand and I suppose some sandstone created from it, just nothing on this huge scale.

There is no observational evidence either for your hundreds of millions of years or my thousands.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by edge, posted 07-28-2014 2:47 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by edge, posted 07-28-2014 4:20 AM Faith has responded
 Message 454 by Percy, posted 07-30-2014 4:49 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 285 of 740 (734333)
07-28-2014 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
07-28-2014 3:12 AM


Re: Cardenas
The main evidence I have is what led me to this pondering: the fact that in many or most places I've seen on cross section the volcanic effects clearly occurred after the strata were all in place, including the Grand Staircase.

This is clearly untrue since the Cardenas Basalt flows were deposited in sequence with the enclosing sedimentary rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 3:12 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 12:50 PM edge has responded
 Message 301 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 12:50 PM edge has not yet 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