Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 721 of 1257 (789676)
08-17-2016 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 714 by Faith
08-17-2016 12:18 PM


May I ask whether anybody besides me has a problem with the idea of landscapes (whether marine or terrestrial) resolving down to such neat straight tight contacts between strata as shown in those pictures in my post above (Message 711)?
Not really.
The problem is that you discuss landscapes as depicted for terrestrial environments and then refer them back to the marine sedimentary succession.
It is not possible to compare the two. I have said this to you many times already and even Percy has picked up on the importance of it. You have not. You are on a hopeless undertaking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by Faith, posted 08-17-2016 12:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 722 by Faith, posted 08-17-2016 8:50 PM edge has replied
 Message 728 by Faith, posted 08-17-2016 9:23 PM edge has replied

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


Message 722 of 1257 (789677)
08-17-2016 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 721 by edge
08-17-2016 8:45 PM


Percy has also said that you need to give more information than you've been doing.
How about commenting on the question in relation to the layers in the Chinle formation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 721 by edge, posted 08-17-2016 8:45 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 724 by edge, posted 08-17-2016 9:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 723 of 1257 (789679)
08-17-2016 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by Faith
08-17-2016 10:36 AM


Re: REFORMULATING THE PROBLEM AGAIN
I don't call a rock a landscape.
Actually, you do.
In the same post, you say:
" But for now I'm thinking just in terms of the layers of rock as the former landscapes, ... "
So to reformulate the problem here: if all strata represent a deposituional environment, the problem now has become explaining how such strata were ever a landscape populated by creatures now represented by their fossils within each layer of rock, and how that landscape became that rock with those fossils in it.
Sure.
A landscape (terrestrial) has rivers, swamps and lakes where sediments are deposited just as you show in the Chinle photo. These deposits are eventually buried by a transgressive marine sequence or perhaps eolian sands and the preserved as layered rocks.
By the way, the Chinle as you show it barely qualifies as a rock. It is not as lithified as even the Hermit or the Bright Angel. It is younger and was not as deeply buried and for not as long.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by Faith, posted 08-17-2016 10:36 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 726 by Faith, posted 08-17-2016 9:12 PM edge has replied
 Message 729 by Faith, posted 08-17-2016 9:30 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 724 of 1257 (789680)
08-17-2016 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 722 by Faith
08-17-2016 8:50 PM


Percy has also said that you need to give more information than you've been doing.
Percy has not been giving you explanations for weeks now. At some point, I gave up. It is discouraging to put a lot of effort into a post only to have you simply say, 'that's impossible'.
... end of discussion ...
How about commenting on the question in relation to the layers in the Chinle formation?
See my previous post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 722 by Faith, posted 08-17-2016 8:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 725 of 1257 (789681)
08-17-2016 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 720 by jar
08-17-2016 7:10 PM


Re: A layer to a landscape or what?
Faith writes:
2) and even a very thin layer of sediment could represent a very long time according to the reckonings of the Geological Timescale
It could or it could represent a shorter period like a season or year. Such things will depend on the characteristics of the specific sample.
In fact, it could be a varve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 720 by jar, posted 08-17-2016 7:10 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 726 of 1257 (789682)
08-17-2016 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 723 by edge
08-17-2016 9:00 PM


Re: REFORMULATING THE PROBLEM AGAIN
By the way, the Chinle as you show it barely qualifies as a rock. It is not as lithified as even the Hermit or the Bright Angel. It is younger and was not as deeply buried and for not as long.
OK. But am I wrong or doesn't its sequence of sediments suggest both terrestrial and marine periods/landscapes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by edge, posted 08-17-2016 9:00 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by edge, posted 08-17-2016 9:34 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 727 of 1257 (789683)
08-17-2016 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 719 by Faith
08-17-2016 6:55 PM


Re: A layer to a landscape or what?
I wondered about that myself. But I've been getting the impression
1) that every sediment implies its own depositional environment, ...
But the rock type will not be unique.
However, guess what ... the fossils change over time in each environment.
... 2) and even a very thin layer of sediment could represent a very long time according to the reckonings of the Geological Timescale
Indeed, a thin unconfomity may represent millions of years of lost record. There might have been millions of years of sediments (or rocks) eroded away in a hundred thousand years.
But it's a question: Perhaps someone will come along and give the official answer from Geology.
Each depositonal environment represents only one of many possible at any given time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 719 by Faith, posted 08-17-2016 6:55 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 728 of 1257 (789684)
08-17-2016 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 721 by edge
08-17-2016 8:45 PM


The problem is that you discuss landscapes as depicted for terrestrial environments and then refer them back to the marine sedimentary succession.
I don't know what you mean.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 721 by edge, posted 08-17-2016 8:45 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 733 by edge, posted 08-17-2016 9:47 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 729 of 1257 (789685)
08-17-2016 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 723 by edge
08-17-2016 9:00 PM


Re: REFORMULATING THE PROBLEM AGAIN
A landscape (terrestrial) has rivers, swamps and lakes where sediments are deposited just as you show in the Chinle photo.
I have no idea how this is shown in that photo.
These deposits are eventually buried by a transgressive marine sequence or perhaps eolian sands and the preserved as layered rocks.
Is this hypothetical or do you see it in the Chinle photo?
And I don't get how there could be so many differences in depositional environments from one sediment/rock to another while the layers all look exactly like they were laid down by exactly the same processes. Where are the rims of the "basins" such as one would expect from a lake for instance, that you mention in some cases? All I see is long straight beds, no curved rims, sloping shores etc.
ABE: Landscape as rock: Different meanings. You noted times when I talked about the rock as the remains of the landscape, but I was talking about the surface of a rock as a landscape, which isn't something I say. Language is frustrating.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by edge, posted 08-17-2016 9:00 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 732 by edge, posted 08-17-2016 9:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 730 of 1257 (789686)
08-17-2016 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by Faith
08-17-2016 9:12 PM


Re: REFORMULATING THE PROBLEM AGAIN
OK. But am I wrong or doesn't its sequence of sediments suggest both terrestrial and marine periods/landscapes?
Probably more lacustrine than marine. They were big lakes. Just look at the extent of the Green River Formation, or the extent of Lake Agassiz for comparison.
This from Wiki.
"The Chinle Formation is an Upper Triassic continental geologic formation of fluvial, lacustrine, and palustrine to eolianb deposits spread across the U.S. states of Nevada, Utah, northern Arizona, western New Mexico, and western Colorado.
...
"A probable separate depositional basin within the Chinle is found in northwestern Colorado and northeastern Utah. The southern portion of the Chinle reaches a maximum thickness of a little over 520 m. Typically, the Chinle rests unconformably on the Moenkopi Formation.
...
"The formation members and their thicknesses are highly variable across the Chinle. The stratigraphically lowest formation is the Temple Mountain Member. However, in most areas, the basal member is the Shinarump Member.[6] The Shinarump is a braided-river system channel-deposit facies.[3] The Monitor Butte Member overlies the Shinarump in most areas. The Monitor Butte is an overbank (distal floodplain) facies with lacustrine deposits. This is overlain in western areas by the channel-deposit facies Moss Back Member. More commonly, the Monitor Butte grades into the Petrified Forest Member. The Petrified Forest is predominately overbank deposits with thin lenses of channel-deposit facies and lacustrine deposits".(Chinle Formation - Wikipedia)(bold added)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by Faith, posted 08-17-2016 9:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 731 by Faith, posted 08-17-2016 9:38 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 731 of 1257 (789687)
08-17-2016 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by edge
08-17-2016 9:34 PM


Re: REFORMULATING THE PROBLEM AGAIN
OK, something to ponder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by edge, posted 08-17-2016 9:34 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 732 of 1257 (789688)
08-17-2016 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 729 by Faith
08-17-2016 9:30 PM


Re: REFORMULATING THE PROBLEM AGAIN
I have no idea how this is shown in that photo.
Those are lacustrine sediments for the most part. I've been there.
Is this hypothetical or do you see it in the Chinle photo?
I know it from the regional geology. The Chinle is overlain by the Wingate Sandstone which is largely eolian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 729 by Faith, posted 08-17-2016 9:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 733 of 1257 (789689)
08-17-2016 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 728 by Faith
08-17-2016 9:23 PM


I don't know what you mean.
You keep referring to the illustrations of Mesozoic life and then wonder how they could turn into strata like the Grand Canyon.
They are completely different things.
As PaulK(?) said, terrestrial landscapes such as those in the illustrations are subject to erosion unless 'frozen' by burial. Otherwise, the would eventually look like old, eroded terrain such as the Canadian Shield. Marine deposits, on the other hand, are entirely depositional and form different types of continuous strata.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 728 by Faith, posted 08-17-2016 9:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 734 by Faith, posted 08-18-2016 12:58 AM edge has replied

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


Message 734 of 1257 (789691)
08-18-2016 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 733 by edge
08-17-2016 9:47 PM


You keep referring to the illustrations of Mesozoic life and then wonder how they could turn into strata like the Grand Canyon.
They are completely different things.
The thing is they don't LOOK LIKE different things, they simply look like strata, layers.
As PaulK(?) said, terrestrial landscapes such as those in the illustrations are subject to erosion unless 'frozen' by burial. Otherwise, the would eventually look like old, eroded terrain such as the Canadian Shield. Marine deposits, on the other hand, are entirely depositional and form different types of continuous strata.
But there is no way to see that from looking at exposed strata, which all look like... strata, layers. Saying they are different things depends, I would suppose, on things you know about their composition and fossil contents, but that isn't something that's visible to the naked eye.
However, a marine environment would probably undergo a somewhat different series of events on the way to becoming a rock than a terrestrial environment would, which is a difference I would have to take into account.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 733 by edge, posted 08-17-2016 9:47 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 735 by PaulK, posted 08-18-2016 2:57 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 736 by Pressie, posted 08-18-2016 7:24 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 738 by jar, posted 08-18-2016 8:56 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 758 by edge, posted 08-18-2016 5:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 735 of 1257 (789696)
08-18-2016 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 734 by Faith
08-18-2016 12:58 AM


quote:
But there is no way to see that from looking at exposed strata, which all look like... strata, layers. Saying they are different things depends, I would suppose, on things you know about their composition and fossil contents, but that isn't something that's visible to the naked eye.
I think you mean that it could not be seen from your photographs, or perhaps even a casual on-site view. However, a detailed and methodical examination could reveal a lot, especially if the examiner was experienced and informed.
As I said before, the photographs are not enough because they show so very little - both in extent and in detail. The descriptions in Wikipedia may be second or third-hand and incorporate a good deal of interpretation, but at least they cover the scope that needs to be covered, and have the advantage of coming from experienced and informed sources who are well able to interpret the observations.
Edited by PaulK, : Typo fix (no additions)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by Faith, posted 08-18-2016 12:58 AM Faith 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