Growing the Geologic Column

Instead of telling us it's "plain glaringly obvious" you must explain the interpretation of the evidence that makes clear how it's "plain glaringly obvious." This would require providing an explanation consistent with what we already know about geologic processes and with known physical laws, something you've never been able to do.--Percy

It's obvious, take it or leave it.

That Gulf Coast diagram most assuredly shows present-day sedimentation. Iowa and Illinois send new dirt down the Mississippi every day to pile up there in the light yellow "Plio-pleistocene" in that diagram. It isn't "the muddy Mississip" for no reason.

quote:

---

It's obvious, take it or leave it.

---

It's obvious that YEC has no viable explanation for the geological and fossil records. That's why you need to insist that the Flood did it, against all reason.

Sure there is, the very erosion you attribute to millions of years of wearing down a former mountain range. Sure there is. Huge quartzite boulder buried in the Tapeats sandstone well above the contact line.

Maybe you could try again. I know about your claim that the strata a 'paralle' (which is demonstrably untrue), but other than that, you do not explain how major faults affect the lower strata, but not the upper strata, nor how the deformation increases downward.You also ignore the fact that none of the major faults penetrate the Tertiary on this diagram.You just blow these observations off.

I don't ignore anything, I've talked about it and if you can't see what I mean by parallel you have no ability to see or think at all and why should I talk to someone who makes such a mess of a simple communication. End of contact with you.

Have you ever seen one of these detachment zones? The deformation is rather obvious creating very distinctive rock types. We don't see them at the Great Unconformity. We see an irregular surface produced by erosion with rounded cobbles of the lower unit incorporated into the upper unit. We we basal conglomerates and sandstones, channeling and recessive weathering of softer units. We even see overlap of the Tapeats sands on high ground formed by resistant knobs of Shinumo Quartzite.None of these things should be there, Faith. They should be planed off by a shear zone that has no regard for irregularities for the primary features of a sedimentary setting. And yet there they are. You have not explained this.And I haven't even gotten into what a detachment fault looks like... Yes, and I would expect that. Fragments of the lower (older) zone in the (younger) upper one are common above unconformities. We often find this, though the opposite would be much harder to explain. If your scenario were correct, I'd expect a lot more ambiguity in this relationship.Your boulder only indicates an age relationship with a boulder rolling off of a quartzite highland.ABE: Could you please explain how this boulder supports your position? What are the features that make you think it is of a tectonic origin?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I can understand why communicating with me makes you uncomfortable. No one likes to have there cherished notions questioned. However, there are ramifications to your deformational scenario. Would you like to know more of them?

Another point about that same Gulf Coast stack of rocks, Faith. Look at the very odd shapes in pink. That is salt. It is in those odd shapes for a reason, and my opinion is that the reason has nothing to to with Satan trying to deceive seismologists and drillers. I think, and can find a lot of opinion to back me up, that it takes those odd shapes because it is less dense than the rock that surrounds it.Google up "the prize beneath the salt" by John Dribus (I can't figure out how to link it on this phone.) Lots of seismology/geology shop talk is there, but I will try to clarify somewhat. The pink on Percy's diagram is the Louann (not Lohan) Salt. It started out pretty horizontal, there at the bottom, in the Triassic. It was buried by silts and sands starting in the Jurassic. Since salt is less dense than shale or sandstone, it is unstable there below those rocks. All the pink tentacles in that pic are places where the deep salt has floated, and still today is floating, up through weaker spots in the rock. You can go to Beaumont, Texas, and see odd hills in the otherwise flat as a pool table terrain that are there because the tips of those pink tentacles are rising below them.You can also go a hundred miles offshore to any of several highly productive oil wells that were drilled through that pink tongue of salt over to the right of Percy's diagram. Those reservoirs are younger rock than the Triassic salt that is above (and below) them - salt has floated up through that rock and then spread sideways. It made an ideal trap for oil being generated in the rocks below - salt doesn't have pores like sandstone does. So the oil is trapped beneath the salt today, just waiting to fuel our SUVs.One other item that ties this to ages: we know how fast salt can flow. It can be measured in the lab or in a salt mine. It can be measured in the Zagros Mountains in Iran, where there are salt glaciers on the surface with precisely the same sort of subsurface activity feeding them. The salt in Iran has nothing but air to block its flow, and only moves about a meter per year. The Louann has a mile or two of rock holding it back, so I'm guessing it moves a bit slower. Too slowly by far to have been emplaced and buried by your Flood and then crept all that way in 4300 years.

You obviously haven't read a thing I've ever written about the salt or anything else. Why do you have to make up a straw man?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

deletedEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is not that we can't read, it is that we read--and understand--all too well.You are just upset because we won't accept your unevidenced beliefs, and we keep posting evidence to show that your beliefs are wrong.

Hi Faith,Now you're not making any sense. First in Message 270 you say you're looking for evidence that there was onlh one intrusive/extrusive event: And now you say you have tons of evidence for it: Aside from this one among many contradictions, the conclusion that you have no evidence supporting your ideas is inescapable. Hypotheses are constructed from evidence. Your ideas are constructed around Biblical myths. That you're going to give something some thought in the future is one of your most common devices of dismissal for things you have no answer for. If you still truly think the geologic column across the globe records only a single extrusive event, then that is evidence only of your ignorance of geology. We understand your point of view, and we've been presenting the evidence that shows how and why it is wrong. That you are unable to see evidence that proves you wrong is a problem with you, not with the evidence, and certainly not with the people taking the time and effort to gather and present the evidence to you. When you draw irrational and contradictory conclusions from evidence, the only one putting you in a bad light is you. You can't blame the people calling attention to the irrationality and contradictions. If after all the evidence that has been presented you truly believe the Cardenas is the only extrusive event in the geologic record then it just adds to the long list of evidence you're already ignoring. Yes, the Cardenas and all the other evidence of extrusive events in the geological record will have to wait. Forever. Just like all the other evidence you ignore.--Percy

Point me to where you have said anything at all about the Louann, or any other salt, that contains facts.