Growing the Geologic Column

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.

Which is ignoring large portions of stratigraphy.

Contradicted by tons of evidence in this thread alone. E.g. 22+ tuffs in the Lake Turkana region interspersed with sedimentary layers.

She has started several times that her reading of the Bible is infallible.

Tuffs cannot be intrusive. We agreed that the geologic column is an abstraction. The Grand Canyon walls are not the geologic column, they are stratigraphy. Oh, we understand it, we just reject your arbitrary and capricious attempt to define the evidence away. Forget the geologic column in this context; that's an abstraction that doesn't tell us anything about what exists in a particular location. Looking at what underlies various places on Earth (AKA stratigraphy) tells us that we often see non-intrusive igneous layers interspersed with sedimentary layers. The areal extent of the layers doesn't matter. The examples we've provided are clearly nionintrusive layers within a stack sedimentary layers. Tuffs cannot be intrusive. Tuffs are produced when a volcano erupts explosively into the air and the material settles (sometimes through water) onto the Earth's surface and consolidates. Tuffs cannot be intrusive. Tuffs cannot be intrusive. Tuffs cannot be intrusive. Asserting without evidence or discussion that they aren't examples of "a clear nonintrusive layer within a stack of sedimentary layers" is lunacy.Tell exactly why the examples aren't' "a clear nonintrusive layer within a stack of sedimentary layers".Of course you won't, you have no idea why they aren't, and in fact they are; you are just sure they aren't because you can't ever be wrong.

The geologic column is an irrelevant abstraction. The stratigraphy under any particular place on Earth is relevant, and that too isn't just any pile of rock. IN many places it's interspersed non-intrusive igneous layers and sedimentary layers. The time scale is irrelevant. You have often said that all sedimentary layers were laid down by the fludde. That's proven false over and over again, and it appears that even you are beginning to realize that it's false.{ABE} Bet that when edge presents his stratigraphy it'll show pretty much all geology is "post fludde".Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Oh, yes. Definitely. But she's coming close (but will never get there) to acknowledging that at least some sedimentary layers are post-fludde:

quote:

---

And then there are these examples of interspersed volcanic and sedimentary rock JonF and HBD put up, which are also not the same thing I was asking for but nevertheless do purport to show volcanism during a period I was saying it didn't occur so that also needs to be thought about.

---

But as I said I bet that a large sample of stratigraphic diagrams will demonstrate that pretty much all sedimentary layers are above non-intrusive igneous layers. Then we get to wacth Faith's gyrations to avoid the reality of that.

Your quibbling about nomenclature is pathetic. There are many non-intrusive igneous deposits covered by loads of sedimentary layers. It doesn't matter what you call them, it doesn't matter whether they are part of some abstract thing or not. They are there. Deal with the rocks and forget the names. The fact that tuffs are not intrusive is key; there's no way to argue that maybe this one or that one is intrusive. Forget the geologic column. Those tuffs falsify your claim that all the sedimentary strata were in place before there were igneous deposits.

As has been pointed out several times by several people, your concept of the geologic column is irrelevant. You claimed that all igneous rocks covered by sedimentary rocks are intrusion. that claim is false.Deal with the rocks. The names don't matter.

You can't define the rocks out of existence. If your version of the geologic column is defined so as not to include them your version bears no resemblance to reality.Deal with the rocks. Whether or not they are part of your idiosyncratic and unique definition of the composition of the Earth they are there and part of the composition of the Earth.

Then stop whining and start doing.

Not a valid reason for excluding tuffs. They are there no matter what you have in mind.

Message 1255
Message 1269It's amazing that you haven't figured out that when you say "I never said X" it's easy to find examples of you saying X.

Of Faith, Faith, Faith. How quickly you forget.All the 22-ish tuffs I've documented are extrusive. And you acknowledged that: {emphasis added}And your theory must address the rocks in the ground, because A) your cockamamie made up geological column is irrelevant to the real world; the real world is the context here and B) you acknowledged that fact also: So get crackin' and stop claiming there's only one extrusive event that's relevant.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

And yet they exist. (Of course you have no clue about what they are like or not like, you just make stuff up) You are claiming a world-wide flood. That requires explaining world-wide geology.