Summations Only

The evidence shows that the Geologic Column is no longer forming.

Lot more of them on the surface than in the column. What's the point? Ignoring MY evidence of course.

Actually, time has one direction and it isn't necessarily up. So, why would a time table measure something in the up direction?I think there is a confusion of terms here. I wish you would have read my post in which I likened the geologic time scale to a calendar and the geologic columns representing what happened during each day at a certain place. Just as we have holidays in some places on the calendar, other people have holidays in other places.So keep the time scale and the geological successions separate. Fine. In actuality, the time scale was set according to the location of certain rocks and fossils. For instance the Cambrian is named after certain rocks found in Wales (IIRC) and the Mesozoic refers to 'middle life'.The point here seems to be, "what has stopped?" Most of us say 'nothing'. We live IN the Holocene (time scale) on a modern unconformity (geology). Sedimentation has not stopped and will continue recording events further into the Holocene and later. But the record will be different in different places. On the deep sea floor there is no obvious break between the past, present, and future deposition.I understand Faith's confusion, particularly when one's main tenets is the the earth is a 'done deal'. But that's a very narrow perception of geological processes and time. Right now, off the New Jersey shore we are watching the formation of future limestones and siltstones. But if you deny time, then you have no recourse, it is the end of geology.

The evidence is, that erosion is all that you see. The geological column continues to grow. And we live in the Holocene, despite the fact that we are probably more adapted to the Pleistocene. Change is constant.

So you say. I have other ideas. Check out Figures 1 and 7:http://www.geosciences.unl.edu/~dloope/pdf/GeologyToday.pdfThe inclined beds usually get planed off at some point, possibly a regression or some kind of storm tide or wind storm.Here is a depiction of stream channels in the Mesa Verde Formation in Colorado. It is quite well known by this time because of its economic importance. It schematically shows discontinuous sandstone units cutting a dominant siltstone sequence.Do you think these sandstones are tabular and continuous?It surely looks like someone thinks they are part of the geological column here.

Exactly. This is a form of evidence. It is what Faith seems to completely miss.

Are you sure about that? What do you think is happening under water on the continental shelf of the east coast of NA?What do you think will happen as the sea transgresses across the coastal plain? Because you do not see it happen from your own tiny perspective, you assume that it isn't happening. Not very convincing, Faith.I will ask you again, please tell me what geological principle says that sediment has to be continuously deposited in the same place indefinitely?

And yet, that is what the evidence tells us, even at the Grand Canyon. Why not? The sediments continue 'ascending' just in a different place. Please show us where this defies geological principles.

Faith?That was the bottom of the ocean...WhatEVER are you talking about? You'll have to explain this one again. I'm reading gibberish. So erosion can happen in the present but not the past. You deny all unconformities, right?

If by "articulate" you mean "Saying relatively little in a clear concise way"* vs. "Leaving a prodigious amount of challengingly complex evidence", then yes, the written word is more articulate. Wrong, but articulate. Likewise.No reply needed. Actually, I hope for no reply.Moose *Although there is that "What exactly are the fountains of the deep" question. "Gopher wood" isn't an issue for me.

"The Wave" does not look like a sand dune. It looks more like some kind of sweet dessert, or maybe taffy. In any case The Wave SWIRLS, dunes do not swirl, at least the ones I've seen don't, the wind pushes the sand up one side and it falls down the other and it makes a sharp edge at the top.But I specifically said FLAT rock. Meaning for instance the Coconino.The only thing the Coconino (and The Wave) have in common with sand dunes is the cross bedding. Otherwise they do NOT "look like" sand dunes.

Well, we know how they happen in the present, right? Burrowing creatures dig into the sand, while others leave tracks as they walk across terrestrial sediments.On the other hand, I'm not sure what your explanation is. Maybe some creatures that survived the flood despite a monumental rain of sediment that would somehow preserve tracks despite strong water currents. No details of course.Which would you accept? What we actually know, or something that you have to make up to fit a myth? More like missing it. Where?

Sure, it was probably planed off, just as some of the beds in the photographs. Of course not. These are sections through preserved foreset beds.Please be clear. To YOU, they don't look like sand dune deposits.

Don't ask me, ask the Geologists who made the connection. It's an observed fact that this is what has occurred. The Geo Column progresses upward physically and the time periods also progress upward from one layer to another. Until Recent Time of course. Now apparently it can go down or anywhere you want it to go and still be considered to be a model of progression in time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : quote code won't cooperate

"Planed off." By what? A giant spatula wielded by the Great Geologist in the Sky I guess.