This it inevitably follows that when a thin crust would be possible only a slight increase and subsidence, and that, on the contrary, subsidence, stretching for seven miles depth, suggests the bark, having a relatively significant strength or, in other words, a considerable thickness. And accurately, by comparing the estimated subsidence the Silurian period with subsidence and enhancements taking place in the modern to us the oceans and the continents, we see no reason to believe that the crust was much thinner at that time than now. What do we make of that must sign? If, as most geologists claim the earth's crust really formed due to slow cooling, which continues to the present time, if we do not see any markings the basis of which it would be possible to conclude that the crust was noticeably thinner during the formation of the oldest strata of the Cambrian, than now not clear whether that period when it has acquired thickness, which she had already had during the formation of Cambrian strata, were huge in compared to the gap separating the Cambrian period from ours. But for this immeasurable number of epochs, at which point we the above facts existed and the ocean and tide, and the tide, and the winds and waves, rain and rivers. These figures, who are constantly washing away the banks and execution of the seabed, were as active then as now time. Endless rows of layers were formed. If we ask where they are, nature will respond to us they were destroyed by the action of fire, which melted and transformed a significant share of the oldest the known reservoirs.
1 comment:
This
it inevitably follows that when a thin crust would be possible only
a slight increase and subsidence, and that, on the contrary, subsidence,
stretching for seven miles depth, suggests the bark,
having a relatively significant strength or, in other words,
a considerable thickness. And accurately, by comparing the estimated subsidence
the Silurian period with subsidence and enhancements taking place in the modern
to us the oceans and the continents, we see no reason to believe that
the crust was much thinner at that time than now. What do we make of that
must sign? If, as most geologists claim the earth's crust
really formed due to slow cooling, which
continues to the present time, if we do not see any markings
the basis of which it would be possible to conclude that the crust was noticeably
thinner during the formation of the oldest strata of the Cambrian, than now
not clear whether that period when it has acquired thickness, which
she had already had during the formation of Cambrian strata, were huge in
compared to the gap separating the Cambrian period from ours. But
for this immeasurable number of epochs, at which point we
the above facts existed and the ocean and tide, and the tide, and the winds and
waves, rain and rivers. These figures, who are constantly washing away the banks
and execution of the seabed, were as active then as now
time. Endless rows of layers were formed. If we ask
where they are, nature will respond to us they were destroyed by the action of fire,
which melted and transformed a significant share of the oldest
the known reservoirs.
Post a Comment