|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Growing the Geologic Column | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So, deformation occurred at the GC in Precambrian time but not at Roraima? Looks like it to me. Isn't that what I already said?
Again, that was not my question. What process caused the huge accumulation of sandstones at Roraima Deposition by the Flood, which is how all the thick rock slabs everywhere were formed. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry, I just automatically translate terms like Pliocene and Pleistocene into "highest of the strata," don't even pay attention to the time factor. How is it moving goalposts to be looking for a whole deep stack of layers for my examples, which I've clearly defined as my goal many times? Nothing else will make my point. volcanism at the very top of the stack is what I'd expect after all, even if it isn't completely at the top, so that example doesn't mean much, or it may confirm my expectations. I'd have to get into it more to figure it all out.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I wasn't including the Precambrian rocks in my statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This is clearly untrue since the Cardenas Basalt flows were deposited in sequence with the enclosing sedimentary rocks I wasn't including the Precambrian rocks in my statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
And this is all according to whom? This is my guess, call it a hypothesis. So far I haven't seen anything that really demonstrates a need for the Old Earth assumptions in that sort of work. And as I've already 0pointed out what I have found suggests it isn't important. The physical situation is what's important, and RELATIVE age. I've been waiting to see how the ancient age is actually useful. Haven't seen it yet.
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.
Again, wrong. THe only thing you know is that the dike is younger than the sediments. That is relative age, not actual age.
It represents a thermal event that may have affected either the source or the reservoir rocks depending on when the oil formed or migrated. And where is actual age in all this? That's the question.
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.
So, you have seen actual company sections used for oil exploration? How did you manage that? And how do you judge the 'sketchiness' of the sections? Do you ever judge the sketchiness of your own scenario for geological events? I have no idea if the cross sections I find on google image are actual company sections or not, all I know is they are labeled as related to oil exploration. And all I mean by the sketchiness is that the names of all the time periods are not there and that surprises me.
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.
Well, at least you are consistently wrong. I didn't say that relative ages were available to tell which is younger. And what if both intrusive bodies were too old or too young? How would we know? I don't know how you do your work, you'd have to tell me. All I know is that I haven't yet seen anything that shows the need to think in terms of millions of years in that sort of work. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
That diagram falsifies your claim. Not that high in the stack it doesn't. But it raises some questions and I'll think about them. Demonstrating that volcanism doesn't occur until the Pliocene would already prove my point though wherever there is only sedimentary rock or geo column below.
I didn't mean it ALWAYS has to be dikes and sills, of course it CAN just flow and deposit wherever. I was answering HBD's apparent idea that it isn't an intrusive when you find it as a layer between sedimentary layers.
Igneous layers are often not intrusive when found between sedimentary layers. It may or may not be intrusive when found as a layer among sedimentary layers, but HBD seemed to be saying it never was. the USUAL case with lava layers in the stack called the geo column is intrusion. The examples I'm finding online for my purpose all show what I call the geo column, sedimentary strata in a block variously faulted and so on but in a block. You all are finding UNUSUAL cases. The Deccan Traps are not the usual geo column and neither is your example. But they do demonstrate interspersed layers of volcanic and sedimentary rock. And the Cardenas looks pretty usual. I'll take it all into account as needed. Edited by Admin, : Fix close quote dBCode.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, not the volcanic ones of course. I'm talking about the HUGE SLABS OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK that are found in the geo column, i.e. the Redwall, the Coconino, etc. etc. etc. The tepui of South America are the same kind of formation. Huge slab of sedimentary rock, metamorphic in that case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As long as there is only interpretive evidence (erosional surfaces that could be explained some other way, especially considering that the whole formation was tilted as a block) I'll hold on to my theory. But I do want some good evidence for it. Your points about the Vishnu were more convincing as I recall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just because I'm talking about the great sedimentary rocks doesn't mean I'm ignoring anything, I'm simply talking about the great sedimentary rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Anywhere in the stack it falsifies your claim that igneous layers are not part of a stratigraphic sequence because they are always intrusive. Especially sub-aerial tuffs are a major problem for you; how many rimes did your fludde recede and return in the Lake Turkana region? Looks like at least 22 to me. That late in the Flood volcanism could already have started in some places. As I said I'll think about it. I have my mind elsewhere at the moment. abe: Besides, it doesn't matter to me if there was volcanism throughout the Flood, why should it? The only reason I'm on this pursuit is that I got the strong impression all that began afterward, and I got the impression from standard geo cross sections. Some exceptions and ambiguities of course but the impression is nevertheless pretty strong. /abe "For my purpose" implies nothing about volcanic rock on the hundreds of cross sections I've been seeing lately. When sills show up they are labeled as sills. The ambiguities on the cross sections are about faulting not volcanism because faulting shifts the layers in relation to each other. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So, you assume that there was a fludde? And yet you have the nerve to complain that we make assumptions? But my assumptions aren't my own or human-originated assumptions I KNOW there was a worldwide Flood because I know the Bible is nothing but truth. That doesn't mean I can say I *know* exactly how it happened, though. All that is just the speculative part, the part I try to figure out at EvC, though I think some of the speculations are pretty solid. And for the most part it's fun too, except when geologists and others get all mad and snarky about it because some of what they think contradicts God. But your assumptions are all human-originated, and to the extent they are about the prehistoric past they're all speculations too, mostly untestable hypotheses, without any divine revelation to tell you youre even on the right track. Which, of course, you're not unfortunately, about the Old Earth part of Geology. Again, no problem with the Observational Science which is the practical part of geologic work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I wasn't including the Precambrian rocks in my statement.
Of course not. But I think that you mean to say that you do not include any data that is contrary to your odd ideas about historical geology. No, I don't need the Precambrian, I can make my point just about the span from the Cambrian to the Tertiary, which I've done at times, or I can even fall back on the Creationist position that says the Flood started at the Tapeats, though I really don't like that position. But I do expect eventually to come to some conclusion or other about that complicated mess beneath the GC, I haven't forgotten about it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As long as there is only interpretive evidence (erosional surfaces that could be explained some other way, especially considering that the whole formation was tilted as a block) I'll hold on to my theory.
And your evidence is not 'interpretive'? Seems to me I've said it awfully frequently that both sides can only interpret when it comes to the prehistoric past. An example of your interpretation is that the Cardenas exhibits erosional surfaces. That's evidence but only of an interpretive sort since you don't know if there might be another way that happened. Your interpretation is pretty good I'm sure, but it is only an interpretation. And I suggested one of my own when I mentioned above that the formation was tilted as a block, which could shift and abrade unsolidified sediments.
Oh, that's right! You don't have any evidence.
Why not tell us why our evidence is wrong, rather than just making unsupported assertions? But interpretations wouldn't necessarily be clearly wrong, what one would have to do is look for other interpretations, that's all. And that's what I do try to do. Like on that other thread I may eventually get started, I expect you to identify angular unconformities in some of the cross sections and of course explain them by the conventional theory of how they formed, and I'll have to try to reinterpret them as occurring at the same time as the other disturbances in the picture, by the same causes. This sort of thing isn't really provable, it's just a war of plausibilities and I hope I can some up with some good ones. But you'll still like your conventional explanation of angular unconformities the best anyway, that's predictable.
But I do want some good evidence for it.
That was provided. Where have you been? Evidence for MY interpretation? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But I don't need to prove that EVERYTHING occurred after all the strata were laid down, though that's what I believe and would like to be able to prove, I can just as well make the case for that long span between the Tapeats/Cambrian and the Claron/Tertiary. That's a very good case on its own, just not the perfect case I'd really like to make. And for most of the time I've argued this case that IS what I've focused on. It DOES make a good case without the Precambrian.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If your interpretation is correct I'll eventually come to see that it's correct, but in the meantime I have to sift through all the information myself looking for alternative views. Sorry, I know you think I should just take your word for it but I have to see it for myself. Everybody here tries to railroad me into accepting what they present as the scientific view of something or other, when I'm just beginning to get a picture of the situation. Then it turns out that some of the stuff they say is wackier than they think my ideas are. You aren't going to be wrong in those ways I'm sure, but I still have no problem thinking a geologist could be wrong because I KNOW you're wrong about the fact that there was a worldwide Flood.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024