Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9042 total)
40 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 38 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,007 Year: 3,653/14,102 Month: 273/321 Week: 89/44 Day: 5/26 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 1006 of 2370 (859975)
08-04-2019 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1005 by Faith
08-04-2019 9:41 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
It burns!!!

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1005 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 9:41 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1007 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 10:03 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 381 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 1007 of 2370 (859978)
08-04-2019 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1006 by Theodoric
08-04-2019 9:55 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Ibuprofen and don't pop your blisters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1006 by Theodoric, posted 08-04-2019 9:55 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16881
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 1008 of 2370 (859985)
08-04-2019 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 987 by Faith
08-04-2019 5:11 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
quote:
I assume you all know the geological facts as I've described them.

You don’t talk about geological facts. You have never even attempted a real discussion of the geological facts. You have evaded and ignored geological facts, such as the presence of marine, lake and desert deposits in the geological column.

quote:
If you don't then I'll try to dig up some pictures and diagrams for you.

Or, you know, you could just admit that your argument is ignorant and silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 987 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 5:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16881
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 1009 of 2370 (859986)
08-04-2019 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1005 by Faith
08-04-2019 9:41 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
quote:
Let me ask this: If the whole world including the sea floor is the geological column how is it that the strata we find on the continents, from Precambrian to Holocene, are not also found on the sea floor? Hm?

The Precambrian to the Holocene are not strata.

What makes you think that strata on the continents never extend into the sea ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1005 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 9:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20117
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1010 of 2370 (860007)
08-05-2019 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 980 by Faith
08-04-2019 4:21 PM


Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes:

The horizontal strata are what you drew at the top.

Right, here they are:


G ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > G
F ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> F
E ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> E
D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> D
C ------------------------------------------------------------------ CURRENT SEA LEVEL -----> C
B ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> B
A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> A

The mountain comes up beneath them and breaks the block of strata in two.

Right, but the mountain is on the extreme western side of the island. Here's the original diagram. Snowdon is all the way in the west on the left:

So after that first diagram that shows the original horizontal strata we need a second diagram showing what happens to them as the granite mountain begins to uplift into the overlying strata. So here's a placeholder:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| DIAGRAM OF GRANITE MOUNTAIN JUST BEGINNING TO UPLIFT AND |
| SHOWING THE HORIZONTAL STRATA MOVING ASIDE SOMEWHERE |
| |
| |
| |
| |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And then that would be followed by this as modified by your instructions:


/|_ _|\
/ / |__ __| \ \
/ / / / |__ __| \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / G R A N I T E \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
G -------------- / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ --------------------------- > G
F ----------------/ / / / / \ \ \ \ \------------------------------> F
E -----------------/ / / / \ \ \ \-------------------------------> E
D ------------------/ / / \ \ \--------------------------------> D
C -------------------/ / \ \--------- CURRENT SEA LEVEL -----> C
B --------------------/ \----------------------------------> B
A -------------------- ----------------------------------> A

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 980 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 4:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20117
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1011 of 2370 (860008)
08-05-2019 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 982 by Faith
08-04-2019 4:32 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
Faith writes:

The sea floor is not on top of the geological column.

This is incorrect. All sea floor is the top of a local geological column, and they can all be mapped onto the geological time scale.

The geo column is a stack of sediments.

The sea floor is a stack of sediments, therefore by your own criteria it is a geologic column.

If you put sediments somewhere else you are not building on the geo column.

Since the geologic column is worldwide, there is no place to deposit sediments that is not atop a local column.

Again, the deposits that are on top of the geo column are minuscule and therefore are not building on it.

Marine deposits are not minuscule, but even if they were, how would that not be building on the column minutely?

What else can I possibly say?

You could say something true, like that the geologic time scale is world wide and that sea floor is accumulating sedimentary deposits atop local columns.

I've said it a million times already.

Yes, you've made the same incorrect statements many times, with no accompanying facts or explanation, just your say so.

Your argument makes no sense.

You quoted nothing. What part of my argument are you referring to?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 982 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 4:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20117
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1012 of 2370 (860009)
08-05-2019 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 985 by Faith
08-04-2019 4:52 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
Faith writes:

All those who believe in the Old Earth and the ToE will not agree with me because they HAVE to insist the geological column is not what it obviously is or their theory falls apart.

Again, we do not "believe in the Old Earth and the ToA" because we have to, but because that is what the facts and understanding yielded by the scientific method indicate. Unlike you, we don't believe our religious salvation depends upon believing right.

I think we're all still curious at how you can carry two contradictory beliefs in your head at the same time, that of all the marine deposits left by the Flood, those on continents are part of the geologic column while those on sea floor are not.

At the very end of the Flood, where was the dividing line between sand on the beach (on the continent and therefore part of the geologic column) and sand in the water (off the continent and therefore not part of the geologic column). What about sand that was high and dry at low tide but submerged at high tide?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 985 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 4:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20117
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1013 of 2370 (860010)
08-05-2019 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 987 by Faith
08-04-2019 5:11 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
Faith writes:

I assume you all know the geological facts as I've described them.

You have occasionally said something that wasn't false.

If you don't then I'll try to dig up some pictures and diagrams for you.

Please do, and accompanied by explanations for how they support any of your views.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 987 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 5:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20117
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1014 of 2370 (860011)
08-05-2019 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 989 by Faith
08-04-2019 5:48 PM


Re: evidence? Objective Empirical Physical Geological Evidence
Faith writes:

I'm sorry, but the evidence does NOT show that a given layer of the Geological Column was ever constructed by small deposits of sediment one at a time.

But that's precisely what the evidence shows, because we can see it happening in real time today. Oceans and seas and lakes are accumulating "small deposits of sediment one at a time."

It would be impossible for this not to happen. Where do you think the muddy/sandy runoff from land goes? It is carried by flowing water to the lowest point, almost always a body of water. And as the mud and sand lies suspended in the water, where do you think it goes next? Did you ever consider that it falls out of suspension and to the sea floor, depending upon the grain size/shape/density and the water energy level? The heavier/denser sand falls out of suspension in the active water near the shoreline, and the finer grained mud and clay material falls out of suspension further from shore.

All eventually creating a deposit of one sediment...

"One sediment?" What is "one sediment?" You mean one layer of strata?

...thousands of square miles in extent and maybe hundreds of feet deep?

A mere thousands of square miles? There are 139 million square miles of ocean, and the vast majority of its sea floor is receiving sediments as we speak.

Don't try to put that one over on me.

No, don't you be fooled by explanations tying facts into broad fabrics of understanding, Faith. You keep that wall up and don't let any information in. Remember, you define what's real, not reality.

--Faith

Edited by Percy, : Grammar error, "heavier" appeared in an unintended place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 989 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 5:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20117
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 1015 of 2370 (860014)
08-05-2019 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 992 by Faith
08-04-2019 6:03 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:

Oh right, lakes and basins are all filling up with the same sediment at the same rate...

At the same rate? Why-ever would you say that? The sedimentation rate for a lake will be highly dependent upon local conditions, such as the number, size, sediment loads and other suspended material of rivers flowing into it, and the type of debris swept into it by wind and rain.

...and will eventually all blend together into a single remarkably (I didn't say perfectly) homogeneous layer of the geological column without there being any evidence remaining of their shorelines, rim lines and so on.

Lakes eventually fill with sediments and die. We would expect sediments to be distinctly different from the surrounding strata, and this turns out to be the case. For example, Fossil Butte stands prominently above the landscape because it was once a lake that filled with sediments. These sediments were harder then the surrounding limestone and so were eroded more slowly, gradually standing out more and more prominently as the surrounding landscape eroded away more quickly, as shown here:

Yep, a perfect candidate for continuation of the geological column. Not.

Well, yes, precisely. Fossil Butte stands at the top of the local geologic column.

Yes of course sediment is continuing to be deposited on the sea floor. Which is not on the geological column.

You continue to declare this without explaining how it could be so. Why do you reject that the geological column grows wherever deposition occurs? Why do you believe deposition can only build geologic columns on land?

I refer to the sea level line IN THAT DIAGRAM , which shows the broken off strata above it arranged from left to right instead of as they would have been laid down from bottom to top,...

No one sees broken off strata in this diagram except you. Please tell us where they are? And explain where the pieces that broke off are?

...and the rest of those same strata arranged beneath the sea level line as we see them on that diagram. That is where they ended up and exist today and that is why I refer to that sea level line.

The strata are continuous through the sea level line. Nothing happens to the strata at sea level. If you see some significance to current sea level, please explain what it is.

In the Flood, just as in the Grand Canyon, the water would have continued some depth above the horizontal strata as you drew them, and were probably receding as the mountain was rising,...

This is just a story you've made up. There's virtually no evidence for it, and all the evidence is against.

...making it very much the same kind of situation as I've argued was the case in the Grand Canyon.

You're in essence retelling the same fairy tale using different characters.

Sea level ENDED UP where it is and has stayed there ever since.

The evidence of geology tells us that sea level has varied widely over time.

I've made consistent use of the actual facts. This should end the discussion.

Beyond finally conceding the obvious, that sediment is being deposited today upon the sea floor, your message contained not a single fact. It was all fantasy supported by a diagram where you see things that aren't there.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 992 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 6:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20117
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 1016 of 2370 (860015)
08-05-2019 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 995 by Faith
08-04-2019 6:08 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:

Evidence for that claim is in my description/definition of the geological column which is the only rational definition in this discussion.

Your view of the geologic column makes no sense, and you've not even acknowledged the many questions asked about your bizarre view, let alone answered any, as here. You simply declare yourself correct. You give every indication that only ignorance lies behind your views.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 995 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 6:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 1017 of 2370 (860016)
08-05-2019 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 951 by Faith
08-03-2019 5:46 PM


Green River Formation -- Varves, Fossils, Time and Geological Columns
Todays depositions are too small though in the right location, ... to continue the geological column/time scale.

How big would they need to be for you to say they "continue the geological column/time?" Just trying to get an idea of the scale.

... or big enough but in the wrong location to continue the geological column/time scale.

What location would they have to be in? How extensive?

You're model, IIRC, is that the flood encompassed the earth, with large waves laying down sediment in alternating layers, yes?

Why don't we see those layers at the bottom of the ocean? Is this why you discount ocean floors as part of the geolgical column?

Just curious ...

... next,

quote:
The Green River Formation is an Eocene geologic formation that records the sedimentation in a group of intermountain lakes in three basins along the present-day Green River in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. The sediments are deposited in very fine layers, a dark layer during the growing season and a light-hue inorganic layer in the dry season. Each pair of layers is called a varve and represents one year. The sediments of the Green River Formation present a continuous record of six million years. The mean thickness of a varve here is 0.18 mm, with a minimum thickness of 0.014 mm and maximum of 9.8 mm.[1]

The sedimentary layers were formed in a large area named for the Green River, a tributary of the Colorado River. The three separate basins lie around the Uinta Mountains of northeastern Utah:

Areas of oil shale of the Green River Formation, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (USGS)

  • an area in northwestern Colorado east of the Uintas
  • a larger area in the southwest corner of Wyoming just north of the Uintas known as Lake Gosiute
  • the largest area, in northeastern Utah and western Colorado south of the Uintas, known as Lake Uinta

Fossil Butte National Monument in Lincoln County, Wyoming is in a part of the formation known as Fossil Lake because of its abundance of exceptionally well preserved fish fossils.

Yet it is curiously absent from the Grand Canyon ... how do you explain this absence?

How do you explain the very thin varve layers, "mean thickness of a varve here is 0.18 mm," of alternating light and dark layers of very fine sediment (and we have talked about how long it takes to deposit very fine material from suspension in water)?

Curious indeed.

Continuing ...

quote:
The lithology of the lake sediments is varied and includes sandstones, mudstones, siltstones, oil shales, coal beds, saline evaporite beds, and a variety of lacustrine limestones and dolomites. Volcanic ash layers within the various sediments from the then active Absaroka Volcanic field to the north in the vicinity of Yellowstone and the San Juan volcanic field to the southeast provide dateable horizons within the sediments.

The trona (hydrated sodium bicarbonate carbonate) beds of Sweetwater County, Wyoming are noted for a variety of rare evaporite minerals. The Green River Formation, is the type locality for eight rare minerals: bradleyite, ewaldite, loughlinite, mckelveyite-(Y), norsethite, paralabuntsovite-Mg, shortite and wegscheiderite. It also has a natural occurrence of moissanite (SiC) and 23 other valid mineral species.[2]


How do you explain these different rock types and particularly the layers of volcanic ash within the varve layers?

How do you explain the layers of evaporite minerals within the varve layers?

It seems to me that these pesky details sure seem to contradict your claims for the geological formations in this area. How do you explain them?

Continuing further ...

quote:
The beds display a pronounced cyclicity, with the precession, obliquity, and eccentricity orbital components all clearly detectable. This enables the beds to be internally dated with a high degree of accuracy, and astrochronological dates agree very well with radiometric dates.[3]

Note the correspondence with of layer times with radiometric dates. How do you explain this?

Note that the areas of deposition shifted over the time period of deposition in a way that corresponds with astrochronological dates. How do you explain this?

And finally ...

quote:
Within the Green River Formation of southwest Wyoming in the area known as Fossil Lake, two distinct zones of very fine-grained lime muds are particularly noted for preserving a variety of complete and detailed fossils. These layers are an Eocene Lagerstätte, a rare place where conditions were right for a rich accumulation of undisturbed fossils. The most productive zone—called the split fish layer—consists of a series of laminated or varved lime muds about 6 ft (1.8 m) thick, which contains abundant fish and other fossils. These are easily split along the layers to reveal the fossils. This thin zone represents some 4000 years of deposition. The second fossil zone, the 18 inch layer, is an unlaminated layer about 18 in (46 cm) thick that also contains abundant detailed fossils, but is harder to work because it is not composed of fissile laminae.

The limestone matrix is so fine-grained that fossils include rare soft parts of complete insects and fallen leaves in spectacular detail. More than twenty-two orders of insects are represented in the Green River collection at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., alone.

Fish fossils of Diplomystus and Knightia are found in Fossil Lake but not in Lake Gosiute. Only Lake Gosiute has fossils of catfish (Ictaluridae and Hypsidoridae) and suckers (Catostomidae). The catfish are found mostly in the deepest parts of the lake.[4][5]

The various fossil beds of the Green River Formation span a 5 million year period, dating to between 53.5 and 48.5 million years old.[6] This span of time includes the transition between the moist early Eocene climate and the slightly drier mid-Eocene. The climate was moist and mild enough to support crocodiles, which do not tolerate frost, and the lakes were surrounded by sycamore ( e.g. Platanus wyomingensis [7]) forests. As the lake configurations shifted, each Green River location is distinct in character and time. The lake system formed over underlying river deltas and shifted in the flat landscape with slight tectonic movements, receiving sediments from the Uinta highland and the Rocky Mountains to the east and north. The lagerstätten formed in anoxic conditions in the fine carbonate muds that formed in the lakebeds. Lack of oxygen slowed bacterial decomposition and kept scavengers away, so leaves of palms, ferns and sycamores, some showing the insect damage they had sustained during their growth, were covered with fine-grained sediment and preserved. Insects were preserved whole, even delicate wing membranes and spider spinnerets.

Vertebrates were preserved too, including the scutes of Borealosuchus the crocodile that was an early clue to the mild Eocene climate of Western North America. Fish are common. The fossils of the herring-like Knightia, sometimes in dense layers, as if a school had wandered into anoxic water levels and were overcome, are familiar to fossil-lovers and are among the most commonly available fossils on the commercial market. There were two genera of indigenous freshwater stingray, Heliobatis and Asterotrygon. Approximately sixty vertebrate taxa in all have been found at Green River. Besides fishes they include at least eleven species of reptiles, and some birds and one armadillo-like mammal, Brachianodon westorum, with some scattered vertebrae of others, like the dog-sized Meniscotherium and Notharctus, one of the first primates. The earliest known bats (Icaronycteris index,[8] and Onychonycteris finneyi[9]), already full-developed for flight, are found here. Even a snake, Boavus idelmani, found its way into a lake and was preserved in the mudstone.


This formation/layer of the geological column in this area is from the Eocene Lagerstätte period, so it fits within your "geological column/time scale" - yes? It is also adjacent to the Grand Canyon in location, on the land so it can't be in the wrong location nor is it small in area.

You might remember that Notharctus is the genera at the top of the Pelycodus fossil chart:

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom
is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species,
Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus.

This all ties in with the spacial/temporal matrix of geology, geography and time that science has developed from the evidence. This all left a "continuous record of six million years" of evolution in this area ... how did the fossils get sorted by radiometric age? How did the radiometric isotopes get sorted with depth in the formation?

The overall deposition was so gentle (" ... The limestone matrix is so fine-grained that fossils include rare soft parts of complete insects and fallen leaves in spectacular detail ...") that these fossils were not torn up. How does this mesh with your model for the formation of the "geological column/time scale" in this area?

These are facts. Facts that need to be explained. Otherwise they destroy your model.

Bada BOOM

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 951 by Faith, posted 08-03-2019 5:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20117
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1018 of 2370 (860017)
08-05-2019 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 996 by Faith
08-04-2019 6:09 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
Faith writes:

Gosh a whole bunch of the usual personal attacks.

There were no personal attacks in my post. You're just inventing excuses for not responding. 250 words gets a two line response.

What I did do in my message was rebutt your unsupported claims. You claimed the right to judge something scientifically untenable, so I pointed out that you are very poorly informed scientifically and can't make such judgments. You claimed there was a paradigm clash when you have no paradigm, just an idea that there was a worldwide flood based upon a religious book. And you claimed to have facts when you avoid facts like the plague.

Oh well. Having a different paradigm always means "not understanding science," of course, cuz science is defined by the establishment paradigm.

Again, you have no paradigm, just a religion and an arrogance that you define reality.

Find some facts, build a case around them. That's what you need to do but never do.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 996 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 6:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1019 of 2370 (860018)
08-05-2019 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 989 by Faith
08-04-2019 5:48 PM


Re: evidence? Objective Empirical Physical Geological Evidence
I'm sorry, but the evidence does NOT show that a given layer of the Geological Column was ever constructed by small deposits of sediment one at a time. All eventually creating a deposit of one sediment thousands of square miles in extent and maybe hundreds of feet deep? Don't try to put that one over on me.

Denial of evidence is not how it is refuted. All you have here is opinion, and willful ignorance. The facts show otherwise.

See Message 1017 for greater detail.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 989 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 5:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20117
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1020 of 2370 (860019)
08-05-2019 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 997 by Faith
08-04-2019 6:10 PM


Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes:

I'm going to draw my own sequence of events as I see them forming the current geological situation as we see it on that UK diagram, and hope to figure out how to scan them in and post them later.

You shouldn't break off now. Even if you have a scanner, your computer isn't working. This looks more like an excuse to just abandon the effort.

Working in partnership is best because it will result in a sequence of diagrams that makes sense to everyone, not just you. For instance, if you draw a diagram where the horizontal strata just disappear then no one will accept it.

If you describe what happens to the horizontal strata when mountain uplift begins I will diagram it, and then we can move on to the next diagram in the sequence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 997 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 6:10 PM Faith 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 © 2021