Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 11:09 AM
30 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,007 Year: 9,043/19,786 Month: 1,465/2,119 Week: 225/576 Day: 28/98 Hour: 2/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Geology- working up from basic principles.
Member (Idle past 2060 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005

Message 144 of 156 (542680)
01-11-2010 8:34 PM

Sanity Check
I'm having trouble following this thread. It starts off real well, of course, easy to digest but doesn't tell me much I don't already know. Eventually though it veers off into a Rugby match about what may be mere technicalities and semantics or else could be very important, hard to say.

As I understand it, a good example of the laws of superposition and its relative faunal succession was found in the coal mines of 18th and 19th century Britain. Lot and lots of unbroken layers, lots and lots of fossils, no exceptions to the rules. Is it not true that these layers represent a chronology covering millions of layers, millions of years, and millions of fossils?

If I'm understanding what the people stirring this thread are saying, unbroken superposition is no guarantee of chronology, transgressions and slurries and other things create the appearance of unbroken layers but aren't really, the geological column is arranged randomly rather than chronologically, and its just some sort of awesome coincidence that we only find trilobites near the bottom and grass near the top.

I don't believe this, I think it's fraudulent. Someone make me smarter than I am right now.

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by edge, posted 01-11-2010 9:06 PM Iblis has not yet responded
 Message 148 by edge, posted 01-13-2010 12:03 AM Iblis has responded

Member (Idle past 2060 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005

Message 149 of 156 (542819)
01-13-2010 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by edge
01-13-2010 12:03 AM

Re: Sanity Check

Yes, I think I'm getting it. The part I was missing is that you and petrophysics1 have been talking about what I would consider broken strata, not suitable for chronology like these nice flat layers we would point at in Wales or Devon or wherever, the Grand Canyon. (Correct me if I'm still missing a good part.)

And pp is going even further, he is saying that even under these circumstances he can still determine chronology, because he is an expert, an engineer therefore an artist as much as a scientist, and/or has a Contract With The Old Ones. And that at least in his experience there are a tremendous amount more of these broken difficult slanty screwy layers than the nice clean flat ones I would consider "real" superposition.

But regardless of all this, there's still no danger of anyone mistaking these for the layers we like to point at and call "the geologic column." Which leaves only stewartreeve and these slurries, which I'm pretty sure don't leave flat clean levels either and probably actually look like a single sloppy chaotic layer in comparison to any real layers above and below. I just don't want to be stupid about this, here's what I think I know about stratigraphy already if anyone cares to sharpen me up some more. Message 130

Sorry for the confusion, thanks again

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by edge, posted 01-13-2010 12:03 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2010 6:58 PM Iblis 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 © 2019