Summations Only

I wish you'd stop teasing us with this. I'm getting major blue balls over here.

When I look at a set of books and notice that volume 6 is not there, I don't conclude like you do that the number 6 has ceased to exist. I conclude that the book has been removed. So if we have layers 1 to 12 elsewhere in the geological column but layer 6 is missing here, I likewise conclude that layer 6 has been removed here, say by erosion. Everyday logic. How is sediment being deposited on top of the geological column not part of the geological column? How is the present time not part of geological time?

Exactly. The Claron is part of the Geo Time Scale, the other location is not. It would have to deposit ON the Claron to be that. Which will not in any way affect the continuousness of the stack itself, just require reconstructing it. [unable to get the illustration to reproduce correctly here.]Interesting hypothesis, haven't seen such a thing in reality, have you? Both sides having the same sequence of layers, the higher getting eroded down quite a bit and its eroded material neatly arranging itself in flat layers on the other side? For one thing you'd be getting the same sediments being deposited again on the lower side. If more than one layer erodes you'll get the sediments from all those depositing over the same sediments on the lower side. Are they going to maintain their layered formation; wouldn't they just pile up and jumble up? And if they did manage to sort out as layers, you'd then have just a repeat of the same layers already in the lower part of the stack. Two Clarons, one on top of the other over there for instance? Doubt there is any such situation anywhere, but also doubt that it could ever happen and maintain its layering. I was thinking of the layers at the bottom of the ocean that are not continuous with the layers of the Geo Column. if you get fossils at all you have to get fossils more recent than those of the Holocene, but those tend to be mammals and human beings. Not going to find many of those at the bottom of the ocean. Also not going to find the same stack of strata there as is found in the Geo Column for the supposedly most recent addition to the time scale to add to.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

May I respectfully suggest that you read through the whole sequence of posts on this subject starting at Message 898.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Exactly. The Claron is part of the Geo Time Scale, the other location is not. It would have to deposit ON the Claron to be that.

---

Are you really claiming that only places where the Claron Formation exists are part of the Geological time scale ? If not, what DO you mean ?

I don't see how reading through your befuddled posts again will make them clearer. Can't you just answer the simple question? How is sediment deposited on top of the geological column not part of the geological column? How is the present time not part of geological time?The deposition didn't stop. Time didn't stop. What stopped?Edited by ringo, : Added a silent but not invisible letter.

No, the Claron was just the example on the table at the moment of an actual formation that is part of the Geological Time Scale, so that to continue the time scale would require building the next layer on top of it.

Gosh maybe they'll explode and obliterate EvC altogether.

Time didn't stop.
History didn't stop.
Sedimentation here and there didn't stop.
Deposition ON the column stopped. abe: (It's now eroding). /abe
The Geological Time Scale stopped.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How is that possible? Where is sediment deposited if not on top of the geological column?

quote:

---

No, the Claron was just the example on the table at the moment of an actual formation that is part of the Geological Time Scale, so that to continue the time scale would require building the next layer on top of it.

---

So, according to you, every "elsewhere" where deposition is occurring will not have underlying sedimentary rocks of equivalent age to the Claron formation or older?If so, can you please explain how you could know such a thing. If not, we're back to what DO you mean ?

Well, show me where it is depositing on top of the Holocene somewhere.

Show me where anything like the strata of the Geological Column are now depositing on top of the layers called "Recent" time. The depositions now going on are willy-nilly, not depositing the way the strata obviously did, one on top of another so that time periods could be assigned to them. abe: Not in incredibly thick layers that span states and continents /abe. if the erosion going on now is collecting in piles or talus at the foot of eroding formations, it is NOT collecting on top of the Geologic Column as a layer of that column. If it is collecting at the bottom of the sea it is NOT collecting on top of the existing Geological Column. Sure it must be collecting on whatever there is of the column here and there but not as part of the column. I just think this is obvious. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Is the Holocene on the top of the column? All deposition is on the top of the column, regardless of when the last layer on the top of the column was deposited. The Mississippi delta is being deposited on top of whatever was there when the Mississippi started to flow.So where is the "stop"?

Well what WAS there? Do you even know?I think you think you are saying it's depositing on top of the Geological TIME TABLE. It is certainly NOT depositing on top of the Geological Time Table unless what lies beneath the Mississippi delta is a Holocene layer. And I'm saying that if it is not depositing on top of the layer in the column called Holocene or Recent then it has nothing to do with the Geological Time Table at all.