Summations Only

I shouldn't have to answer this stupid objection. It's been answered a million times before. Yes the Geo or Strata Column can be deformed in many ways and its original order have to be reconstructed, so why bring that up again? Faulting, intrusive lava, any other kind of deformation can make it necessary, and difficult, to r3econstruct it.And again, I know there is no such thing as a perfect representative of the Geo/Strata Column anywhere, it's a construct made up of many incomplete representatives.Stop raising these idiotic objections that have already been answered.

I post pictures that the folks who were there and who took the pictures identify as lava flows, and you -- from a distance and working from a twisted religions belief -- determine, without any first-hand knowledge, that it must be a coal seam?And you call me "out of line????"I'm afraid you are losing it. Get back on your meds.Add by edit: I guess this will have to serve as my summary for the entire thread. It does seem appropriate anyway.Edited by Coyote, : Posted after the "Summary" warning.

Stratigraphic column is just a synonym for geologic column. Encyclopedia.com provides a more clear definition of stratigraphic column: And here's the definition of lithostratigraphic unit: And as NoNukes pointed out, the definition at Wikipedia also includes igneous and metamorphic rock. You can't exclude them. If you use the term "geologic column" then igneous and metamorphic rock are part of geology and of course are part of the geologic column. And if you use the term "stratigraphic column" then igneous and metamorphic rock are strata and of course are part of the stratigraphic column.Anywhere you stand on the Earth, the rocks beneath your feet all the way down to the mantle represent the geologic column at that location.--Percy

duplicate of one a few posts above. No idea how that happened.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No. A stratigraphic column is specific to a particular location. (Hence, of course, there is no such thing as "the stratigraphic column".)

NO. The Geo/Strata column is ONLY sedimentary rocks because those are the ones the Geologic Time Scale has to refer to and those are the only ones ever represented for that time scale. They are also the only ones that contain fossils.

Well, no, not according to definition 2 at Encyclopedia.com, though this does call attention to some minor internal inconsistencies in the definitions. For example, a stratum is usually defined as a sedimentary layer, but an igneous intrusion is still referred to as a stratum, as is a layer of volcanic rock.Rest assured that whether you call it a geologic column or a stratigraphic column, and regardless whether the layers are deformed or not, sediments deposited on top add to the geologic column.--Percy

OK, GEOLOGIC COLUMN THEN.

I did not raise the objection uninvited. I brought up the fact that the role of igneous rock and its relationship to the geological column was explained in an article that you claimed did not even mention igneous rock. You do not even have the decency to acknowledge your error.

Tried to post a summary and got the message I already had though I hadn't, so I'll make this one my summary.What can I say, an extremely frustrating thread on which I think I got in some good posts though you'd never know it from the opposition.It occurred to me recently that it would be nice to have a feature where we could register our own favorite posts, or posts we'd like to keep track of for whatever reason. Maybe something like a star on each post we could activate to mark our favorites, and some way to retrieve all the starred posts too of course.Still can hardly believe the discussion about the Geologic Column, so many insisting it means something it can't possibly mean. Then I thought Wikipedia equated it with Stratigraphic Column, and Percy also said he regards the terms as synonymous, but then Dr. Adequate said Stratigraphic Column refers only to local strata. So who knows, but I think I'm going back to Geologic Column.Lava/coal. That was a weird one. Looks like a coal seam, but maybe it was lava, which it would be if it's on a volcanic island, but then it can't be part of the Geologic Column for the very reason that it's on a volcanic island where there is no Geologic Column. Doesn't matter, does it, I'm wrong no matter what I say, that's the rule here.Hardly remember earlier parts of the thread unfortunately. But that's OK. The usual exercise in futility has come to an end, though this one might have been even more futile than others, maybe there's a trend.Hey, here's my summation: The very image of wacko futility.Or maybe it was just a weird nightmare: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I just can't avoid replying to one: I answered that question very specifically at least four times, maybe five. Obviously you didn't read those answers. You would do much better if you read the messages to which you are ostensibly (look it up) replying.Faith has made quite a long thread by trying to deny the obvious: the geologic column (or whatever you want to call it) is a complex structure, vertical indeed, but comprised of flat and horizontal sediments, deformed sediments, igneous layers (we never even mentioned tephras) and intrusions and dikes, and metamorphic layers and all sorts of rocks. Indeed, it's all the rocks under the Earth's surface. This was proven, with references, over and over again.Faith refused to even acknowledge the existence of the real definitions and insisted on her own made-up fantasy. That raises serious question about whether she sees any difference between reality and the fantasies she makes up. I feel sorry for her; she's obviously happy in her la-la-land but she is missing so much.

I thought that the thread ended when Faith got confused about a basalt and coal. I don't think that any mining company in the world would ever employ a so-called geologist confused about the differences between a basalt and coal.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

According to Faith, some layers are not layers.I would add that some floods are not floods; they're fiction.

This is partly where Faith's confusion lies. There is no generalized 'geologic column'. Each column is unique to its location. And correct, it is a strat column. That is why one column may 'end' with erosion, but it continues elsewhere. because that is the way things work. The geologic time scale is, however, a different subject. I was MIA during this part of the discussion but it is pretty clear that the color of a bed, alone, is not sufficient for identification. It seems to me that the bed is a basaltic pyroclastic unit. However, it is part of the geologic column for that location. It can be generalized as part of a geologic column. AFAIK, any unit can be part of the geologic column, as some of the examples shown will indicate.