|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Growing the Geologic Column | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This is clearly untrue since the Cardenas Basalt flows were deposited in sequence with the enclosing sedimentary rocks I wasn't including the Precambrian rocks in my statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So you all say but I think this is just a habit of thought and in actual practical fact has nothing to do with looking for oil or certain fossils.
And this is all according to whom? This is my guess, call it a hypothesis. So far I haven't seen anything that really demonstrates a need for the Old Earth assumptions in that sort of work. And as I've already 0pointed out what I have found suggests it isn't important. The physical situation is what's important, and RELATIVE age. I've been waiting to see how the ancient age is actually useful. Haven't seen it yet.
OK, this is the sort of thing I've heard is necessary. I'd like to see it demonstrated and argued out some time. I'd suspect that the theory about thermal history would work but only because it's really about relative age and relative heat, not because the actual temperature could be or needs to be known. But that's my theory for whenever I get to see the arguments presented.
Again, wrong. THe only thing you know is that the dike is younger than the sediments. That is relative age, not actual age.
It represents a thermal event that may have affected either the source or the reservoir rocks depending on when the oil formed or migrated. And where is actual age in all this? That's the question.
But just as a matter of fact I've been impressed with the sketchiness of the identification of the time periods on these petroleum cross sections, maybe something like "Ord" at the bottom of the stack and "Mio" at the very top with hardly anything noted in between.
So, you have seen actual company sections used for oil exploration? How did you manage that? And how do you judge the 'sketchiness' of the sections? Do you ever judge the sketchiness of your own scenario for geological events? I have no idea if the cross sections I find on google image are actual company sections or not, all I know is they are labeled as related to oil exploration. And all I mean by the sketchiness is that the names of all the time periods are not there and that surprises me.
You've said nothing here that suggests you need to know more than the relative ages of the intrusive rocks, not actual age. Since actual ages are always assigned you are in the habit of taking them for real, but in practical reality you could do without them.
Well, at least you are consistently wrong. I didn't say that relative ages were available to tell which is younger. And what if both intrusive bodies were too old or too young? How would we know? I don't know how you do your work, you'd have to tell me. All I know is that I haven't yet seen anything that shows the need to think in terms of millions of years in that sort of work. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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: That diagram falsifies your claim.
Message 233:
quote: Igneous layers are often not intrusive when found between sedimentary layers.
Message 187:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Deposition by the Flood, which is how all the thick rock slabs everywhere were formed. Even the volcanic ones? Hmmmm. A lot of geologists are going to surprised to learn this. On the other hand, have you ever considered that you are delusional and they are correct?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. But it raises some questions and I'll think about them. Demonstrating that volcanism doesn't occur until the Pliocene would already prove my point though wherever there is only sedimentary rock or geo column below.
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. the USUAL case with lava layers in the stack called the geo column is intrusion. 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. You all are finding UNUSUAL cases. The Deccan Traps are not the usual geo column and neither is your example. But they do demonstrate interspersed layers of volcanic and sedimentary rock. And the Cardenas looks pretty usual. I'll take it all into account as needed. Edited by Admin, : Fix close quote dBCode.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, not the volcanic ones of course. I'm talking about the HUGE SLABS OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK that are found in the geo column, i.e. the Redwall, the Coconino, etc. etc. etc. The tepui of South America are the same kind of formation. Huge slab of sedimentary rock, metamorphic in that case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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. 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
No, not the volcanic ones of course. I'm talking about the HUGE SLABS OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK that are found in the geo column, i.e. the Redwall, the Coconino, etc. etc. etc. What reason do you have for ignoring smaller slabs of sedimentary or igneous rock? They clearly show that there were many, widely separated in time, subaerial (i.e. not underwater) igneous deposits long before many of the sedimentary layers were formed. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I seriously doubt that. I'm quite certain that your mind is closed on the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As long as there is only interpretive evidence (erosional surfaces that could be explained some other way, especially considering that the whole formation was tilted as a block) I'll hold on to my theory. But I do want some good evidence for it. Your points about the Vishnu were more convincing as I recall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just because I'm talking about the great sedimentary rocks doesn't mean I'm ignoring anything, I'm simply talking about the great sedimentary rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. That late in the Flood volcanism could already have started in some places. As I said I'll think about it. I have my mind elsewhere at the moment. abe: Besides, it doesn't matter to me if there was volcanism throughout the Flood, why should it? The only reason I'm on this pursuit is that I got the strong impression all that began afterward, and I got the impression from standard geo cross sections. Some exceptions and ambiguities of course but the impression is nevertheless pretty strong. /abe "For my purpose" implies nothing about volcanic rock on the hundreds of cross sections I've been seeing lately. When sills show up they are labeled as sills. The ambiguities on the cross sections are about faulting not volcanism because faulting shifts the layers in relation to each other. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I wasn't including the Precambrian rocks in my statement.
Of course not. But I think that you mean to say that you do not include any data that is contrary to your odd ideas about historical geology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
As long as there is only interpretive evidence (erosional surfaces that could be explained some other way, especially considering that the whole formation was tilted as a block) I'll hold on to my theory.
And your evidence is not 'interpretive'? Oh, that's right! You don't have any evidence. Why not tell us why our evidence is wrong, rather than just making unsupported assertions?
But I do want some good evidence for it.
That was provided. Where have you been?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024