Growing the Geologic Column

What? I ask a simple question and get this weird answer? I just want to know if you used radiometric dating and it told you the relative ages of the two intrusive rocks.

I give up. If you can't follow my argument forget it.

You can say whatever you want, but there is no evidence for this. Again, zero evidence.

I have used it to compare to other known dates.Not so sure why you think the answer was 'weird'. Maybe you are confused about which post I was answering.

The problem is that I do follow it.And it makes no sense. The layers are not perfectly parallel and deformation increases with depth. This means something.

No you didn't follow it, you were only interested in your own view of the deformation increasing with depth. And as often happens I get back the utterly ridiculous straw man idea that I'm describing something "perfect" as in "perfectly parallel." There is no way to talk to people who make such hash out of a simple communication. So you think the important thing is that deformation increases with depth. Important for what I have no idea but my argument still stands and maybe somebody will get it right. Or maybe not. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No you didn't follow it, you were only interested in your own view of the deformation increasing with depth.

---

Faith, following an argument - at least by the usual definition - does not preclude looking at other features of the evidence you provide. If you don't want people to look at things you need to provide a good reason. Which would generally include an explanation.

New sediment is accumulating on top.No rock is too hard to erode.

We follow your argument just fine. It's just "look at it! It must be the fludde!" The problems are that there's no evidence for and plenty of evidence against that, and all you do is repeat your assertion.

" Important for what I have no idea"Yeah, you have no idea. That's the problem. It's important for understanding how the layers formed and how they up were changed after they formed. If you were capable of any thoughts outside of "da fludde musta doned it" that woulod be obvious.ABE I looked back and you have not presented an argument, just the usual unevidenced assertions and ignoring of the contradictory evidence edge presented. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Okay, good, you agree this image represents a geologic column: As I said, I'm providing evidence that sedimentary layers are still accumulating atop the geologic column today. This diagram is of the Texas/Louisiana coast where sediments are rapidly accumulating in the Gulf. Those are the sediments labeled Plio-Pleistocene in the diagram. Here's the diagram again. I've drawn a box around the fault in question, and I've labeled the top two layers on opposite sides of the fault with the letters A and B: First, if the fault extended higher than shown on the diagram then the diagram would show the fault extending higher. The diagram does not show the fault extending higher, and so the fault does not extend higher.Second, you know that the fault does not extend higher because the discontinuities on opposite sides of the fault only extend as far as the fault, which is the definition of a fault. The Paleocene/Eocene layers labeled "A" have a discontinuity at the fault, and the Oligocene layers labeled "B" have a discontinuity at the fault, and part of the Miocene layer has a discontinuity at the fault. The fault therefore occurred during the Miocene era and does not extend at all into the Plio/Pleistocene layer, because that layer did not exist when the fault occurrred. Had the Plio/Pleistocene layer already been present when the fault occurred then the discontinuity would have been present in that layer, too.Notice the fault on the far right is very similar, extending only partway into the Miocene layers.Notice another fault in the basement rocks near the far left.These faults are all examples of tectonic activity before all the layers were laid down. We know these geologic structures cry out "Flood!" to you, but they cry out "millions of years of slow sedimentation" to everyone else, and we provide evidence for that view while you provide none for yours. Yet another bare assertion. It's been shown many times how you're just making things up based on your personal interpretation of ancient Biblical mythology, while we've presented the evidence behind the geology many times. About the only thing you've been able to muster on your behalf is your startling ability to ignore and misinterpret evidence.--Percy

Yes, I am interested in relevant facts. Actually, the layers do not look parallel to me at all, at the scale of this diagram. In fact, I would say that the salt was probably not even continuous across the diagram since we can be pretty sure it was deposited in a (number of?) closed basin(s) with boundaries created by fault-controlled topography. Well, there are lots of important things, but that is one of them. This is a classic case of deformation occurring over long periods of time concurrent with sedimentation. Well, it would be important because it refutes your contention that deformation, along with faulting and erosion, only occurred after the entire sequence was deposited.Do you think it is unimportant because it disagrees with you?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Wow, thanks JonF. Great find. I am going to look over that RATE project paper when I get some time. It looks pretty typical though; do a bunch of work and get results, but then the conclusions don't follow the results. Yea, Edwin KcKee has done a lot of work in the Grand Canyon in the 30's and 40's, but yea, his books are not readily available online. In fact, they are hard to find even in libraries. Now I am a student at MSU, and they have at least one of the books of his I was looking for, but now I will not have the time to look it over.HBD

It certainly does no such thing, and the analysis I gave of the order of the strata in relation to the faults shows the opposite.

In the lower quote I was talking about the diagram I posted not the diagram you posted. I haven't said a word about faults in your diagram that I recall. My only remark about it was that it doesn't show current sedimentation, just the stack of layers back through the time periods. Yes, your diagram shows the geologic column.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.