Growing the Geologic Column

All of which is irrelevant to my point, that the Base Tertiary was not there - certainly not as rock - when that fault occurred. That really is obvious because if it were we'd see the same step up there - and we don't. Indeed I'd say that the rising salt is the major contributor to the surface contours of the Base Tertiary, more so than any of the faults - it's obviously responsible for the "bump" in the middle.

Faith, the lower Tertiary has been there for 50 million years.But regardless of that, it is not faulted to the degree that the deeper sediments are disrupted.How does this square with your theory that all deformation occurred at once and after all sediments were deposited?Stop with the evasion regarding horizontality. I don't care if the Tertiary sediments were pasted to a wall. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

It's not speculation. It's explanation. ITYM you can't refute what he said so you'll ignore it. As you do with 99.999% of the evidence

You contradict yourself in one phrase. Sedimentary rock is not volcanic. It's sedimentary. Ignoring the fatal flaw of subaerial volcanic deposits all over the Earth. Yeah, none of this scientific discussion and development for you. You'll post only where few people will see it and those who do have drunk your Kool-Aid.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

How convenient for you.So, if we have Paleozoic sedimentary rocks overlain by Permian/Triassic volcanics, in turn overlain by Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments we can just pull out those volcanics as if they didn't exist. All just to fit Faith's idiosyncratic version of geology.You know, this could be fun.

No, she means you can write off the Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments as volcanic. Gotta be the kookiest things she's ever come up with, and that's saying something.

The Base Tertiary and all the others have been there only 4300 years, and that being the case all the faulting has occurred since then, and if some didn't go all the way up through some of the layers, big deal.

Huh?

So, I was right.This could be fun. We have several new classes of volcanic rock. The igneous petrologists will be most ecstatic.We're gonna need a whole lot of new textbooks, though...

First of all, there is not 'Base Tertiary'. There is a base of the Tertiary, but it is not a formation, it is a contact. And no, if the faulting does not cut the base of the Tertiary, then it can't occur since the Tertiary.I can't even imagine your confusion. Yes, big deal. Mainly to you. This is only the most obvious change with time. You still have the faults that occurred before the salt that you have not attempted to explain.So, is everything after the base of the Tertiary after the fludde, or is everything since the base of the salt post-fludde?

I have hardly even begun to think about this stuff and I certainly have no interest in discussing it with people whose whole M.O. is debunkery and ridicule of anything I say.

I don't think the faults occurred "before" the salt or before any of the deposits. I think they all occurred after.

Then you defy the evidence.Why are there faults that terminate in the salt or just above, if they are younger than all of the sediments above the salt?

This is clearly the case and it's surprising how far you've gotten off-track in such a short periods of time. I will admit to being all for debunking unsupported ideas that run afoul of the data.As far as the ridicule goes, perhaps if you were less arrogant and disrespectful, you'd get a better reception.

quote:

---

The Base Tertiary and all the others have been there only 4300 years, and that being the case all the faulting has occurred since then, and if some didn't go all the way up through some of the layers, big deal.

---

So you're essentially claiming that you're right and if th evidence shows that you are wrong, "big deal". You do realise that that attitude - and the way it affects your behaviour - is one of the biggest problems you have here?