Growing the Geologic Column

I have to agree that the Bronx example is a tad too ambiguous for my purpose of demonstrating Layers First Disturbance After. But I'll give my interpretation here anyway. After answering the layer/sill question: OK an "intrusive layer" would work. I thought I kept making the contrast between intrusives or sills and layers as I was discussing this all along, but at least I think I do make it clear in my post to Percy above, the idea being that a layer would occur in sequential order, and it woujld also look like a layer, which the sill in this case does, because the upper contact is straight and flat. That's how earlier examples of very thick layer-like intrusives/sills look. MOST sills LOOK LIKE intrusives though, like uneven but mostly narrow bands of magma between the sedimentary rocks. Obviously some do look more like actual layers. And if "intrusive layer" says it, fine. OK, my reading was, maybe still is, that the yellow, red, green and brown (Stockton formation) were all layered one on top of the other, and then the sill intruded between the brown and whatever was above at that time. The blue gneiss below represents some kind of upward force that distorted them all, folding them all at that central point, the red Manhattan and the green Hartland being eroded away over that central area and remaining only on either side, the Stockton and the sill also being eroded away but remaining only on the left, and whatever was above the sill being eroded away completely. I see the brown Stockton layer with the Palisades sill above it shifting as a unit to the left as the area to the right of it pushes upward, and retaining its straightness because the sill magma acts as a kind of glue. Otherwise it could be interpreted as an angular unconformity with respect to the lower rocks (abe; But this would have had to occur before the central upward force occurred so that it would have deposited horizontally, but this may be what makes it all appear as a unit since that formation is no more displaced than the Manhattan and the Hartland, if you follow me./abe) After all that occurred but not long after, the fault up through that formation occurred. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here's my attempt to reconstruct the order of the layers so that you can see why I think of it as an example of my principle that the layers were laid down first and then distorted. Whatever pushed it all up in the center is the distorting force that occurred according to my reading of it after all the layers were were laid down. I figure the upward force would have broken up the layers right above it. I also think of metamorphic rock as being created BY the pressures of such forces, since I don't think it takes the enormous amount of time usually assumed. So the marble was of course originally a carbonate layer and the force from below metamorphosed it in short order. Etc. I would have guessed there was some volcanic influence here because of the metamorphic rock, but if pressure is enough then I don't have a big problem with this site's explanation of the Fordham gneiss:ABE: BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS IS OFF TOPIC HERE. I NEED TO START THIS NEW THREAD I'VE HAD IN MIND TO DISCUSS THIS STUFF.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, OK, but nost sills don't even look like layers. But OK, yes, thanks, you are correct. I keep calling it a sill which I would have thought made the point. So shall I now call it an "intrusive layer" as HBD suggests?

The reason its not being a layer became an issue goes WAY back in this discussion to the earlier thread, where the point was to define what constitutes the Geologic Column and I was insisting that it's composed of sedimentary layers and others insisted that no, igneous rock counts too. And even on this thread there's Coragyps insisting that even the Siberian Traps constitute the Geologic Column. Sigh,. 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, and this matters because the Geo Column is tied to the Geo Time Scale and the igneous rock, being a sill, is out of order in the sequences of the Time Scale. Sigh. Groan.The whole argument was insane from the beginning but there you have it, why it ended up as a big flap about layers versus sills. And I would have thought my constant refrain "a sill not a layer" would have done it, but no.

I'm going to get off this thread now for a while and try to put together a proposal for that new topic.But it would sure be nice if just once in a while somebody responded to something like that reconstruction effort I drew, with something like "Wow, yes, now I see it, that's really brilliant how you put all that together," instead of the predictable denigration like how I supposedly "took liberties" with it and how there are really four or five tectonic events there (which I don't see at all) and so on.But I will pick up my crestfallen self as usual and slog on.

Oh I don't think you should be dishonest, I just wish for once somebody would see things from my point of view. Now I'm REALLY depressed. But oh well, back to work.

Thanks for posting a distance shot of that formation. I looked it up and it's not what I thought hooah said it was: lave layers interspersed with sedimentary layers. No, it's ALL volcanic (like the layering of the Siberian Traps) according to IDAHO GEOLOGY: ABE: Yes, now I see you said so yourself. But this has been a big big waste of time for me because the issue was whether there are actual magma layers within a stack of sedimentary rocks as I'd said stacks of all lava layers aren't what I'm talking about. Back on the other thread somebody did post pictures of lava layers that really look like lava layers between sedimentary layers but are not layers that were deposited within the sequence but as they all turn out to be, intrusive layers, sills.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

ABE: Perhaps it depends on what you mean by Gdologic Column. /ABE I believe it to be true and believe I have not yet seen an example where it is not the case, but I consider the Geologic Column to be essentially sedimentary layers. Examples of layered igneous rock are all of stacks where ALL the rock is igneous, such as the Siberian Traps and Black Rock escarpment and I don't count them as the Geologic Column. I have not yet seen a case of igneous rock as a layer among sedimentary layers that is not a sill.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sure whatever explanations have been given to me I've answered.I guess I'd ask in turn about your example, How would it qualify as a layer? Perhaps I'm being nitpicky again but I'm picturing a layer of igneous rock BETWEEN layers of sedimentary rock as what I've never seen unless it's a sill, because as usual I'm thinking of a column, or stack, of layers. Does such a thing exist or are all these other kinds of examples all there is?

You posted an example of the Black Rock escarpment, which is NOT an example of igneous rock between sedimentary layers. It is ALL igneous as I pointed out to Percy a few posts up. I don't recall your other example, but Percy posted one I think he said was similar, I don't know how similar, about Yellowstone I believe, and that also turned out not to be igneous rock between layers of sedimentary rock. If that one was yours or like yours it was also not an example of what you are claiming.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I just went back and reviewed your posts and, hooah, they are NOT of igneous rock between layers of sedimentary rock. There is interbedding, and other kinds of mixtures, but I was asking for a very specific thing and I'm still asking for it: an actual layer, not a sill but a layer laid down in the correct sequence, and a recognizable layer that looks like the sedimentary layers, that lies between those sedimentary layers of the sort we see, say, in the Grand Canyon, or in road cuts and that sort of thing. Your examples are NOT of this. I'm sorry if I haven't been clear but this is what I've had in mind all along and I DID think I was clear.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Dwise, I have never claimed to be any kind of expert at all so there's plenty I don't know, but you seem to completely miss what I'm doing here. What I've been doing is pursuing a few extremely limited arguments. They have required me to learn quite a bit that pertains to them, but no way do they require me to master huge amounts of Geology. Mostly I'm interested in what can be seen on diagrams as the basis for my geological arguments. {ABE: I DO feel I've become an "expert" in this area though. /ABE} While it would be nice to have more of a hands-on knowledge of the rocks I'm learning about, that's not possible, and I don't think it's necessary either since my arguments are about things I think are sufficiently shown on the diagrams. I try to use the terminology correctly as I encounter it, but I can't very well correct any misuses unless I'm told where my misuses lie.Edge does use technical terms without explaining them, and that is simply alienating when one is trying to follow a train of thought. NOBODY ELSE does that here but edge does. He also explained once that he's trying to show me what I don't know. That's pretty domineering and manipulative of him I'd say and it doesn't in any way inspire me to learn anything. As a result I just had to stop reading many of his posts.ABE: Also, I apparently didn't use the term "sill" as much as I thought I did, but I certainly wasn't lying about it. I found one place where I used "intrusive" and I would guess that's the word I probably most often used.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm kind of surprised this thread has been closed for summation. I did think I'd be getting back to some of the posts eventually.My main comment is that I did find out that the Deccan Traps definitely include sedimentary layers SOURCESo that's the first example I've seen where there are genuine layers of both. 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.Coragyps: Lava that covers sedimentary rock isn't what I was asking for. There is lava that covers the top strata in the Grand Canyon and the Grand Staircase too, which is where the magma dikes spilled over. They also created sills between layers of the strata on their way up.The general arguments about what the Geologic Column is were just frustrating. It remains connected in my mind with the Geo Time Scale, time periods assigned to sedimentary layers and especially those that contain fossils.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Are we out of summation mode now?Anyway, the points I want to make are ON those diagrams, Capt S., it's the diagrams that contain the arguments I want to make and nothing else would. NOTHING ELSE WOULD. That was my point. I am not drawing conclusions from anything broader than the diagrams.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well it's about the actual territory of course but there's no other way to show what I want to show about it except by the diagrams. At least for this project on the thread I just proposed, I should clarify. It isn't the only argument I pursue here, but it is a main one.