Summations Only

quote:

---

I suggested no such thing but apparently was misread to say that because of some different idea about the extent of the geological column. As I've understood it there are no STRATA that deep in the earth. The strata start somewhere on the surface of the continents in my understanding. Perhaps you can change my view of this.

---

Perhaps it would be clearer and more accurate if you just said all sedimentary rock ? The Flood isn't going to lay down igneous rock, whether surface deposits (many of which are not laid down under water anyway) or intrusions (which have to come after the layers they cut into, by definition).

quote:

---

I looked at the link and it seems that it does start with the conclusion rather than the argument. Not a good place to start.

---

I would say that it's worse than that in that it presents the method as assuming your "conclusion" as the main guide to understanding scripture - and as the historical-grammatical method when it seems to be clearly neither grammatical or historical.And I must point out that you recommended it as the best of the links you provided.

OK, perhaps sedimentary rock says it but isn't that just another way of describing the geological column? If so, why insist on the different term? Yes I know igneous rock was formed AFTER the strata were laid down, that's a major part of my argument as a matter of fact.

Well, apparently I misjudged it then, it looked good at first glance.ABE: Here try this one. It's audio though. First talk in a series, or second, I forget. Lays out the principles by which one GETS to the conclusion that article unfortunately starts with.Brian Borgman | Grace Community ChurchEdited by Faith, : Add ABE

That's exactly the question I have been asking you Faith. You introduced the term 'geological column'. I am unfamiliar with the term so I asked you to describe it for me. Why has it been so hard? So now we can confirm - the geological column is any rocks we see in layers correct?By the way igneous rocks appear above and below and within the layers, meaning they were layed down before, during and after strata was being layed down.Edited by Boof, : typo

quote:

---

OK, perhaps sedimentary rock says it but isn't that just another way of describing the geological column?

---

No, because it includes igneous rock. Why should a stratum created as a magma flow be excluded from the column? The column is usually based on the rocks as they exist today, isn't it? (Actually the term seems to be unclear and mainly used by creationists, if my google search has any bearing!)E.g geological column in Northern Ireland - the best I could find quickly, excluding sites dealing eith creationism from either perspective, includes basalts, for instance.

Well then there is quite a definitional disconnect going on here that I certainly wasn't aware of. I thought the term was mainstream. Do you then call it the Geological time scale?I dispute that interpretation of the igneous layers. The volcanic action all occurred after the whole stack of layers was in place, it rose through the strata making dikes and sills and sometimes it didn't reach to the uppermost layer.That IS one of the points in Dr. A's course I noted that I would argue with.

Yes, this is the problem I have been having PK. As a geologist the term "geological column" is not a phrase I use - I have used the geological time scale, and I might produce a local stratigraphic column in preparing my maps. But not "geological column", and I certainly have never found any reference to am ENTIRE geological column that Faith refers to. Thanks for helping to extricate some answers!

Well let's agree on a term then. What do you want to call it, the stratigraphic column as Boof suggested he sometimes uses? I prefer to avoid Geological Time Scale because of course that's tendentious.I'm willing to DESCRIBE the strata as including the igneous layers but since I believe they are more recent than ALL the other layers that can be a tendentious definition too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well if you thought the term was mainstream why didn’t you simply point me to a mainstream article referencing it? That would have sufficed. I certainly use the term geological time scale, but that is certainly not what you’ve been talking about because ALL rocks on Earth fit within that framework. Well this would make it hard to explain why you get well rounded boulders of granite and volcanic rocks in conglomeratic sediments.

I had NO idea that was a problem. I simply couldn't make any sense of what you were saying. I had NO idea why there was such a disconnect. You never said you didn't recognize that term so how would I know? I'm sure this still needs some sorting out for the sake of clarity. Don't just start shooting out objections at me again. I have reasons for thinking as I do and you may be talking from some completely other frame of reference. You can't deal with this argument that way. If you're so impatient about someone challenging your expertise and just want to slap us down with mystifying assertions I don't want to argue with you.

Since you seem to mean "all sedimentary rock" why not just say "all sedimentary rock" as I suggested earlier?

I'm always focused on the STRATA, the LAYERS as a physical phenomenon. They're made of sedimentary rock (except for the igneous sills) but that's not the defining idea. It's the layering itself that I consider to be major evidence for the Flood, and the old earth explanation of the layers is inconsistent with the mechanics of how layering could occur and imposes fantastic scenario-building nonsense on what is nothing but a mechanically produced slab of rock.Also, the schist at the bottom of the GC WAS a sedimentary layer but now is a different kind of rock. I don't want to exclude that layer from the definition.

Indeed I didn't say I did not recognise the term, perhaps if I had it would have made my request clearer. My bad. All the same I'm a little surprised that you could not make any sense of my query "Could you please show me this geological column you have been referring to?" from message 256. So you can dispute my interpretation of the geology, but I can't dispute yours? I think it was a reasonable observation and look forward to hearing a creationist perspective on it.

Obviously you had no way of knowing I assumed you used the term just as I did, and I had no way of knowing it wasn't familiar to you. I just took you to be doing the usual thing I encounter here, insisting that I explain something you already know the answer to. That is, you wanted me to define the geological column just to catch me in some different understanding of it than you consider orthodox, not because you didn't even know the term.I've already said I confine my argument to the Grand Canyon so when you bring in granite boulders and don't define their location except "conglomerate" - that's just mystification. Is it in the strata of the Grand Canyon or not? If not, then why do you expect me to have an explanation for it?No, you aren't interested in the creationist perspective at all, just making creationists toe your line as everybody here does, as the Road Trip itself that started this thread aimed to do. You don't listen for half a minute to the creationist argument before you're putting out the next objection you think will really do us in. That's the modus operandi here, you're just doing your own version of it.As you said from the moment you entered this discussion, your objective was just to slap me down for daring to challenge your sacrosant Holy Science and all its holier-than-thou priests. That's why you brought up eclogite and thats got to be why you are bringing this up, NOT to find out what a creationist view of it might be but just to find a way to blast me for not having an advanced degree in geology and having a creationist opinion at all. Which you refuse to think about, just telling me I "misunderstand" the Grand Canyon and need to study things I've already studied.I'm not playing.I'm getting off EvC for the night.