Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2019 5:05 PM
33 online now:
1.61803, Aussie, AZPaul3, dwise1, Faith, JonF, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (11 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,032 Year: 15,068/19,786 Month: 1,791/3,058 Week: 165/404 Day: 52/113 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 3 of 740 (733608)
07-19-2014 11:41 AM


Not all definitions of stratum require sedimentary rock. E.g. Google "define stratum" and you get 'a layer or a series of layers of rock in the ground. "a stratum of flint"'
  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 17 of 740 (733683)
07-20-2014 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coyote
07-20-2014 9:52 AM


She probably doesn't know that a tuff is volcanic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 07-20-2014 9:52 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 41 of 740 (733779)
07-21-2014 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
07-20-2014 10:31 PM


Re: observed net erosion ¨ deposition must occur somewhere
I get it all from geology sources,

As many have demonstrated, you don't get your definition of the geologic column from geology sources.

where else would I get it?

It's pretty obvious that most of your claims come from your feverish imaginings.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 07-20-2014 10:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 42 of 740 (733781)
07-21-2014 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
07-21-2014 3:19 AM


Re: Defining the Geo Column again
it does not include igneous rock and so on and so fort

Every posted definition of the geologic column, and there are many here, disprove that claim.

You have posted no definitions. Just assertions.

Austin's paragraph is not a definition.

Edited by JonF, : Removed criticism of Austin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 07-21-2014 3:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2014 8:30 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 44 of 740 (733784)
07-21-2014 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2014 8:30 AM


Re: Defining the Geo Column again
OK, you are probably right; I misread it. I've removed the criticism.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2014 8:30 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 64 of 740 (733835)
07-22-2014 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Jaderis
07-22-2014 6:18 AM


Re: observed net erosion ¨ deposition must occur somewhere
As far as I can see she hasn't digested any definitions. She makes 'em up. E.g. geologic column.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Jaderis, posted 07-22-2014 6:18 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 76 of 740 (733875)
07-22-2014 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
07-22-2014 11:24 AM


Well, my interest has been in THE Geologic Column

Yeah, nothing's interesting about the facts that a geologic column exists under every location on Earth, that in some places it's eroding, in some places it's growing, and in some places not much is happening.

No interest at all in the reality that falsifies your claims.

Edited by Admin, : There was what looked like a failed attempt to bold the "a" in "a geologic column", so I bolded that "a". And there were some typos in the last sentence, so as long as I was editing the post I fixed them, hope that's okay.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 07-22-2014 11:24 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 194 of 740 (734208)
07-26-2014 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
07-26-2014 5:52 PM


Re: Layer / Sill
Are you actually arguing that all igneous layers are intrusive?

Tuffs are not intrusive. And it's quite possible to determine when a lava layer is not intrusive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 5:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by edge, posted 07-27-2014 1:06 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 214 of 740 (734242)
07-27-2014 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Faith
07-27-2014 12:14 AM


It's a unique place, though, and really it's less like igneous layers between sedimentary layers than sedimentary layers between igneous layers since the area is a huge volcanic province.

OK. So you were wrong when you claimed no such thing existed. And there's no difference between "igneous layers between sedimentary layers" and "sedimentary layers between igneous layers"; they are just igneous layers followed by sedimentary layers followed by igneous layers...

Of course it's not unique. From Geochronology of the pre-KBS Tuff sequence, Omo Group, Turkana Basin (all but the abstract is paywalled) here's the stratigraphic sequence near Lake Turkana (nee Rudolph) where many hominid fossils are found:

Note that tuffs cannot be intrusive.

From How do we know the ages of fossils and fossil-bearing rocks?, explaining that it's non-intrusive igneous layers that are used (mostly) to date sedimentary rocks:


caption: Ash layers from ancient volcanic eruptions are found in many sedimentary rock deposits.
(Again ash layers cannot be intrusive)

And from Strangers in a Strange Land: Tuff luck, it's all your fault, so don't be an ash about it (you really should click that, it has a simple and great explanation of why that black layer isn't intrusive):


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 07-27-2014 12:14 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 07-27-2014 4:47 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 215 of 740 (734243)
07-27-2014 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Faith
07-27-2014 12:14 AM


It's a unique place, though, and really it's less like igneous layers between sedimentary layers than sedimentary layers between igneous layers since the area is a huge volcanic province.

OK. So you were wrong when you claimed no such thing existed. And there's no difference between "igneous layers between sedimentary layers" and "sedimentary layers between igneous layers"; they are just igneous layers followed by sedimentary layers followed by igneous layers...

Of course it's not unique. From Geochronology of the pre-KBS Tuff sequence, Omo Group, Turkana Basin (all but the abstract is paywalled) here's the stratigraphic sequence near Lake Turkana (nee Rudolph) where many hominid fossils are found:

Note that tuffs cannot be intrusive.

From How do we know the ages of fossils and fossil-bearing rocks?, explaining that it's non-intrusive igneous layers that are used (mostly) to date sedimentary rocks:


caption: Ash layers from ancient volcanic eruptions are found in many sedimentary rock deposits.
(Again ash layers cannot be intrusive)

And from Strangers in a Strange Land: Tuff luck, it's all your fault, so don't be an ash about it (you really should click that, it has a simple and great explanation of why that black layer isn't intrusive):


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 07-27-2014 12:14 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 07-27-2014 3:45 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 255 of 740 (734299)
07-27-2014 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
07-27-2014 4:47 PM


To me this is unique.

Obviously. But it is far from unique on Earth. And yet you have claimed that all sedimentary layers were in place before these igneous layers formed.

There's a lesson to be learned from that if one were interested in learning.

Edited by Admin, : Fix typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 07-27-2014 4:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Coyote, posted 07-27-2014 8:50 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 292 of 740 (734343)
07-28-2014 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
07-28-2014 3:12 AM


Re: Cardenas
The main evidence I have is what led me to this pondering: the fact that in many or most places I've seen on cross section the volcanic effects clearly occurred after the strata were all in place

You have ignored the majority of the evidence. E.g. Message 214:

Count the tuffs which cannot be intrusive interspersed with sedimentary layers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 3:12 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 12:22 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 303 of 740 (734368)
07-28-2014 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Faith
07-28-2014 12:22 PM


Re: Cardenas
I'm not sure what to do with your diagram

You really couldn't figure it out? It shows seven stratigraphic sequences in the vicinity of Lake Turkana (nee Rudolph) with lines connecting tuffs shared between the sequences. The point is that in this relatively small area there are about 22 igneous tufs interspersed with 34 or more sedimentary layers. All the sedimentary layers were formed after at least one of the tuffs. All of the tuffs formed before all of the sedimentary layers are in place.

This thread is about growing the geologic column. It's not restricted to timespans of hundreds of millions of years. Perhaps this discussion would go better in your other thread if you ever fix it up (especially by noting the many refutations of your original first post).

You are doing some serious goalpost moving. Message 270:

quote:
Because I did get convinced that all this occurred after the strata were laid down so I continue to look for how that could be evidenced

That diagram falsifies your claim.

Message 233:

quote:
I didn't mean it ALWAYS has to be dikes and sills, of course it CAN just flow and deposit wherever. I was answering HBD's apparent idea that it isn't an intrusive when you find it as a layer between sedimentary layers.

Igneous layers are often not intrusive when found between sedimentary layers.

Message 187:

quote:
So I had to say no, with respect to the Geologic Column igneous rock is an intrusion into sedimentary layers. It's not a layer, it's an intrusion BETWEEN layers,..

Falsified many times. There's more, but you won't read this anyway so it's not worth the bother.

When I'm talking about volcanism after sedimentary deposits I'm looking for the deepest stack of sediments I can find because I'm trying to make a point about the hundreds of millions of years before tectonic or volcanic disturbance

You've made it clear that you think that there are no non-intrusive igneous layers. There are. There have not been (in general) hundreds of millions of years before volcanic disturbance because the figure shows clearly that there have been volcanic disturbances 1.8 million years ago and many more older but still much less than hundreds of millions. Individual locations on Earth may not have experience any volcanic or tectonic disturbance for a long time, but you cannot generalize that because in general it's been falsified.

But your diagram, which required me to look things up

The diagram stands by itself. If you feel the need for more background information, tough noogies. This is a discussion forum, not a tutorial on demand forum. Posters may choose to explain in great detail, but you are ultimately responsible for learning enough to discuss.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 12:22 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 1:37 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 304 of 740 (734369)
07-28-2014 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Faith
07-28-2014 12:43 PM


Re: Cardenas
How is it moving goalposts to be looking for a whole deep stack of layers for my examples, which I've clearly defined as my goal many times?

IIRC your first mention of such is today. I could be wrong.

But the topic of this thread is not restricted to timespans of hundreds of millions of years. The main part of it has been trying to get you to admit that there are many examples of many sedimentary layers deposited on top of many non-intrusive igneous layers. Of course you'l never admit that, and your goalpost moving today suggests that you are running away from it.

Look for the deepest stratigraphic sequence all you want, you can't show that in general igneous layers are always intrusive and not part of local stratigraphic sequences because that's been incontrovertibly demonstrated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 12:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 308 of 740 (734374)
07-28-2014 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Faith
07-28-2014 1:37 PM


Re: Cardenas
I didn't mean it ALWAYS has to be dikes and sills, of course it CAN just flow and deposit wherever. I was answering HBD's apparent idea that it isn't an intrusive when you find it as a layer between sedimentary layers.

Igneous layers are often not intrusive when found between sedimentary layers.


It may or may not be intrusive when found as a layer among sedimentary layers, but HBD seemed to be saying it never was.

No, in Message 226 HBD was clearly saying the opposite; listing several examples of multiple non-intrusive igneous layers between sedimentary layers. You are the one that is arguing (as far as anyone can tell form your muddled messages) that igneous layers are not part of a stratigraphic sequence because they are always intrusive.

Because I did get convinced that all this occurred after the strata were laid down so I continue to look for how that could be evidenced

That diagram falsifies your claim.

Not that high in the stack it doesn't.

Anywhere in the stack it falsifies your claim that igneous layers are not part of a stratigraphic sequence because they are always intrusive. Especially sub-aerial tuffs are a major problem for you; how many rimes did your fludde recede and return in the Lake Turkana region? Looks like at least 22 to me.

the USUAL case with lava layers in the stack called the geo column is intrusion.

Show us the statistics. (I'm not claiming any particular frequency for either case, but obviously neither case is unusual)

The examples I'm finding online for my purpose all show what I call the geo column, sedimentary strata in a block variously faulted and so on but in a block

Ah, the tell-tale "for my purpose" tells us that you are ignoring all that does not fit your preconceptions.

You all are finding UNUSUAL cases. The Deccan Traps are not the usual geo column and neither is your example

The Deccan traps are pretty unusual (though not unique), but my example is typical of many places.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 1:37 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 3:56 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019