Growing the Geologic Column

Just wondering how often you find the dust that settles on your car is entirely sand or entirely fine clay particles or entirely carbonate, or foram ooze. Do I need to explain? The sedimentary strata of the Geologic Column are made up of such different sediments, not mixtures.

You seem to want to divorce the Geo Column from the Geo Time Scale but the funny thing is when you google the column it comes up either in connection with the time scale or in some cases as identical with it. And in that connection it MUST be identified by its sedimentary layers because those are the ones that mark the time periods of the Geo Time Scale. Igneous intrusions are of course more recent because they ARE intrusions and therefore out of order on the time scale. Also the sedimentary layers are the ones that contain the fossils that are the major evidence for Evolution. You don't find fossils in the igneous intrusions.And of course whatever sediments are being deposited today are "Holocene" on the Geologic Time Scale. Just wondering how often you find that these new sediments are depositing on top of identifiable layers that are recognized to have preceded the Holocene as they can be shown to have done for instance in known strata formations such as the Grand Staircase. Do you know what lies under them in any case at all? Shouldn't there be at least some identifiable time periods represented there, if not Pleistocene then maybe Permian? SOMETHING identifiably of the Time Scale? I mean the Geologic Column, in order to BE a column at all, must in some places actually appear as a column, wouldn't you think? One datable layer on top of one or two other datable layers? So if you are claiming that it is continuing to build wherever sediment deposits, it just seems logical that you could show that what it is building ON is recognizably earlier strata recognizably identifiable as time periods. Preferably of course the whole recent block of "time" such as Pleistocene, Pliocene, all that. Of course you can always say it eroded away, that takes care of it, but then you really have no evidence that the column is continuing to be built at all. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There are no sedimentary layers on Ascension Island because it is a volcanic island, therefore no Geologic Column at least as it is customarily associated with the Geologic Time Scale. That may not be an intrusion there, but then it is a layer among other volcanic layers, and not part of the Geologic Column. It seems to have been completely ignored that my original point was that lava is not part of the Geologic Column. The picture presented looked identical in form to pictures I found of coal seams. Then it turns out that it's on Ascension Island which is volcanic. But nobody bothered to note that therefore it was not part of the Geologic Column.The "other igneous layers" that were pointed out turned out to be intrusions -- sills -- when I researched them. Yes, any deposition is going to be more recent than whatever it is deposited upon, but the point is that the Geologic Column IS associated with the Geologic Time Scale and the strata that are identified with that are quite identifiable as separate sediments, often to a great depth, and the core sample presented by CS on the other thread was very far from anything like those strata.The problem, in other words, is that the Geologic Column really is a distinct identifiable stack of sedimentary layers, historically identifiable, and not just a pile of stuff, like the dust RAZD thinks could become another layer of said Column, or like the core samples CS presented.Seems to me you should have to show that you are building on those particular identifiable strata that have been historically identified as rungs in the Time Scale ladder, and not just some motley lumpy deposition of shallow layers that isn't anything at all like the Column or the Time Scale.

I get it all from geology sources, where else would I get it? And you can cut the abusive tone of voice.When you look at the diagrams representing, say, the Grand Canyon, you see separate identifiable unmixed sediments characterizing most of the strata. They are all sandstone or all limestone etc. The Coconino is a huge block of sandstone; the Kaibab is a block of limestone. This is the same with the Grand Staircase. There are some layers that are made up of more than one sediment type, but usually in shallower layers. Mixtures may occur but they are far from the standard from what I've seen, read and heard. Your own posting of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian layers way back on the other thread shows limestones, not a mixture.And, looking up the Niobara formation I find that it too is characterized by identifiable sediments: Chalk
Limestone
ShaleSeparate identifiable sediments. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It would help a great deal if you wouldn't answer the posts I've addressed to others as if they were addressed to you. Percy's OP is what clearly divorced the column from the time scale. If you differ from him in that then please address your objection to him and not to me.Meanwhile my point to him was that wherever I find the column discussed it is discussed in connection with the time scale or in fact as synonymous with it.I may come back to your post.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Geology invented the Geologic Time Scale. It is often associated with the particular sedimentary rocks of a particular region, though overall it is an abstract concept that reflects the rocks in all regions where they fit the concept, which taken together I've always known as the Geologic Column. It is always associated with SEDIMENTARY rocks, not igneous or any other kind. It has NEVER been applied to all the rocks on the planet but only the sedimentary column where it is found, yet now some of you are pretending there is no such distinction. It is of particular interest for the fossils that are the major evidence for the Theory of Evolution, which are found only in sedimentary rocks.This is how I have always encountered it, all over the internet, in books and whatnot. Now to find this common ordinary phenomenon challenged here is perplexing to put it mildly, and the tone of the Geologist in particular is outrageous, accusing me of the idea as if I'd made it up myself, and more outrageous things than that.For whatever reason you all want to deny what I've always understood to be a standard principle in geology. This hits me as some kind of bizarre psychological twistedness frankly. In any case I don't need the abuse.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes I have, though you like to misrepresent things I say to add your own strange opinion of what you think I believe. There is no way to have an honest discussion with somebody who acts as you do.ABE: And now because I've said the sedimentary strata are of different sediments you are trying to prove me wrong by giving detailed descriptions of their contents, although of course I'm referring to their COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD identity as of a particular kind of rock. Which can be seen even in the walls of the Grand Canyon from a distance. DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROCK. Different colors for instance, different degrees of hardness. You are a shyster Mr. Geologist. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well here he is again, the master of saying absolutely nothing about the subject while accusing me of terrible though undemonstrated offenses against the great god *Geology*abe: That is what I have always understood the Geo Column to comprise: STRATA, which are of SEPARATE IDENTIFIABLE SEDIMENTS. If you want the small print, it includes the caveat that I am not talking about Perfection and I am not saying it's identical everywhere on the planet, and I am not saying any one place represents the whole column etc etc etc. I am only saying that they are separate identifiable sediments and they can be seen in some places to quite a depth too. I've always understood this column to be the basis for the Geologic Time Scale. What offense I am committing with this understanding I have no idea.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've been hesitant to post anything by a creationist but I think this article by Steve Austin brings up some important points about the Geologic Column. For one thing it is very clear that he understands itg to be a very specific formation of sedimentary strata to which the Geologic Time Scale was eventually appended. He goes into some of the history of how the idea came about.I want to quote this one part though because it answers the idea that the Geologic Column is made up of all the rocks beneath the surface which some have been claiming here: I'd also like to point out that he's answering mainstream Geology in such a way that implies the standard view of the Geologic Column IS that identifiable stack of sedimentary strata I've been taking it to be.That is, it is not just any old pile of dust or eroded material, it is not just any core sample, it is not just any sequence of layers of this that or the other, it does not include igneous rock and so on and so forth, which is what I've been arguing here. The Geologic Column is a specific recognizable formation of sedimentary strata that is found as partial stacks here and there, some more complete than others but none fully complete. Austin also makes clear that the individual strata ARE identifiable as separate recognizable sediments.I'm not sure what the ten "systems" refer to that Austin talks about, as far as the rocks go, though they clearly refer to ten major time periods on the Geo Time Scale. He seems to be saying they can be identified by rock type, though, not just fossil contents.Much of what is being argued here against this view of the Geologic Column as a recognizable stack of sedimentary rock does not seem to come from standard Geology despite the supposed scientific sources you all claim.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That kind of crazed unwarranted attack on any creationist just for being a creationist is exactly why I hesitated to post that article and avoid linking creationist material here. I very rarely refer to creationist literature here, or even consult it so your telling me to stop depending on it is also unwarranted. The "untruths" seem to come rather frequently from your side, and you are particularly irresponsible in your posts it seems to me.I don't see what you think is so superior about the definition you put up. I don't see anything to object to in it myself though except that it's rather vague so I'm not entirely sure what it means.

Meaning when you've swallowed the Old Earth koolaid you'll hear all the stupid stuff on those diagrams the boy has copied. When you REALLY know how to listen you'll hear the story of a great catastrophe by water.

Thank you SO much for informing me of the Correct Opinion, which of course I have failed to appreciate.

That's because it ISN'T the Geologic Column as I have understood it and tried to define it here.

But that clearly IS the Correct Opinion, which you believe I have failed to appreciate, and what can I do but thank you for informing me of it?

Again I thank you for your Correct Opinion, and in this case for a whole slew of them.