|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Growing the Geologic Column | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Please explain in what way they fail to fit your definition, when intrusive igneous rocks clearly do. Shouting at me is not an explanation. It only makes it look as if you don't have one,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And within my very carefully defined understanding of The Geologic Column they are, ...
Then I'd love to hear your explanation of why we find fossil tree branches in some tuffs... Volcanic ash does that to wood. What's that got to do with my definition of the geologic Column? My definition may be wrong but the context in which I said there's only intrusive magma in The Geo Column was that definition and if you stay within the definition as I gave it then there are no tuffs there. And again the only example of a real volcanic layer within the Geo Column as I defined it, is the Cardenas.\ Look, this is a simple logical point concerning the context. This argument is Nitpickery to the Max. I still have to go on and think about the tuffs too, which is hard to do with everybody insisting they are part of my definition of the Geo Column which they are not. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This has been explained umpteen times earlier on. I don't feel like tracking all that down just because you didn't get it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Then refer me to a post which explains it. It's really odd that you spend so much time in assertion and evasion and so little on explanation.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Huge limestone rocks.
Bazillions of fossils all over the world.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If we see rocks in the geological record that can easily be explained by mainstream geology and observable processes, why would we rely on a myth (at least partly supernatural) and never-observed processes for an accepted explanation? Well, of course YOU wouldn't, because you think the Bible is a myth, but if it ever hit you that it's not, that it is in fact all true, all real, a revelation of truth you couldn't ever guess at, you'd have a whole different perspective on these things. And if the revelation hit you suddenly I'm sure you'd be knocked to the floor by it and take weeks or months, really years, to get back to anything remotely normal. What it would do to your geological thinking would be interesting to see. Maybe not much at first, but if you really truly recognized the Bible as true as written it would have to affect it eventually. My whole world was turned upside down by my discovery of the God of the Bible, or really I'd say it was turned right side up, having been upside down all my life up to then. I think if it doesn't lay you out flat on the floor (so to speak) you haven't really grasped it. Some of the theistic evolutionists and Genesis allegorizers and others who refuse to take it at face value but bend it to their own worldly opinions don't know what they are missing. But atheists who think it's all a myth certainly don't either. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. 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 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
First of all I need a good clear example I can see for myself is what you claim it is. Just rattling off a list of things you think should do it, doesn't.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All these examples are new to me and I don't yet know if they prove what you say they do or not. I expected the situation in the GC to be found elsewhere, and actually it IS found in many places, enough to call some of your assumptions into question I think.
But now I have to take into account volcanism, or I may have to, farther down in the column than I had in mind. Again, I don't know for sure yet, because I've found that if I spend time reading up on it I usually end up with a different view of any given example you guys put up. Right now this is all in flux. If I have to think of volcanism occurring during the Flood, perhaps the last half of it which is where the examples seem to be going, that is not a big problem, it's just a new way of looking at the timing of things in that event.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith writes: And one thing that's different is the scale, those thick thick rocks that span whole continents, and originally piled three miles deep as well. That's why I said there will never be another Redwall Limestone or Coconino Sandstone, could add never another Dover Cliffs or that gigantic wall of rock somebody posted from South America a while back, sorry don't remember the name of it. There are layers on the same scale forming today. Here's a diagram of sedimentary layers that begin on land near the Texas/Lousiana coastline and then extend out into the Gulf of Mexico. These layers are kilometers thick, and they are still being added to today: Percy, those layers ARE the Geologic Column as I understand it, the very same thick layers, already formed, just like the Coconino and the Redwall and the tepui, put there by the Flood in my view of it, but clearly identified as going back to the Upper Triassic on the diagram, so what are you trying to prove with this? Those are the very sedimentary layers I'm talking about that I'm saying will never be repeated. The fact that sediment is still collecting on the surface, which isn't evident in the diagram anyway, is kind of meaningless as far as my prediction about that goes.
Also note the faults that extend only partway through the layers. For example, look at the fault roughly in the image's center that extends from just above the top of the basement rock all the way up to the bottom of the Milocene layer, meaning the fault occurred around 20 million years ago. Sediments continued to accumulate after the fault occurred to a depth of an additional 5 kilometers. Maybe, maybe not. Can't tell for sure from the diagram. Actually that fault penetrates through the lower part of the Miocene, up to the salt layer and the strata are so deformed as a block it does suggest that in this case they were continuously laid down. Originally horizontally of course. And the faults are related to the deformation. So I'd say that upper 5 kilometers was already there though it probably sagged lower with that fault line. As for the rest, yes the Flood is the only thing that could have formed those huge slabs of rock including the tepui. The idea that you are "pointing out to me" how it couldn't be a Flood layer is very funny, since all you are doing is pointing out to me the standard theory, just another intonation of the Correct Opinion. And yes, both sides are just interpreting.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Fine, you don't like my definition of The Geologic Column, but at least if you know WHAT that definition refers to then you ought to be able to see why I keep saying your examples have not proved me wrong about volcanic layers only occurring WITHIN THAT CLEARLY DEFINED BLOCK OF STRATA as sills and dikes. EXCEPT FOR THE CARDENAS BASALT, that is the only exception so far in this whole discussion. Your quibbling about nomenclature is pathetic. There are many non-intrusive igneous deposits covered by loads of sedimentary layers. It doesn't matter what you call them, it doesn't matter whether they are part of some abstract thing or not. They are there. Deal with the rocks and forget the names.
The fact that tuffs are not intrusive is irrelevant to this point. The fact that tuffs are not intrusive is key; there's no way to argue that maybe this one or that one is intrusive.
What I'm trying to figure out now is what those completely different layers you are all talking about -- the predominantly volcanic layers interspersed with some sedimentary layers -- represent in relation to my idea of the Geologic Column. Forget the geologic column. Those tuffs falsify your claim that all the sedimentary strata were in place before there were igneous deposits.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Yes my model is very simple minded. That's a virtue in this case. But no, it's complicated because the geology itself is complicated. There's very little out there that shows the neat undisturbed accumulation of the strata as the Grand Canyon area does. To reconstruct the original neat undisturbed strata requires undoing the knots in it brought about mostly by faulting. Here's a cute one for example, not terribly hard to interpret but riddled with faults:
Indeed, and what it shows is that there were periods of sedimentation after some faults, covering them. On the right side above the words "Palaeozoic basement" and below the words "Break-up unconformity" are four such faults. Above those faults lie "Late Jurassic shelf edge" sedimentary deposits followed by other sedimentary layers on top of those. Real geology has a very very very simple explanation for this. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
And within my very carefully defined understanding of The Geologic Column they are, the only exception THAT I'M AWARE of being the Cardenas As has been pointed out several times by several people, your concept of the geologic column is irrelevant. You claimed that all igneous rocks covered by sedimentary rocks are intrusion. that claim is false. Deal with the rocks. The names don't matter.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
If the tuffs are one of your examples then they are not examples of what I was talking about within the context given, as I SAID. The tuffs do NOT occur within what I've been calling The Geo Column, and what I've been calling the Geo Column IS the context. The Cardenas Basalt, again, remains the ONLY example that DOES fit my definition. You can't define the rocks out of existence. If your version of the geologic column is defined so as not to include them your version bears no resemblance to reality. Deal with the rocks. Whether or not they are part of your idiosyncratic and unique definition of the composition of the Earth they are there and part of the composition of the Earth.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
obviously I have to fit them into the Flood scheme somehow anyway, which I'd be happy to try to do if everybody would stop trying to impose definitions on me that aren't mine. Then stop whining and start doing.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T FIT WITHIN WHAT I HAD IN MIND. SHEESH. Not a valid reason for excluding tuffs. They are there no matter what you have in mind.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024