Growing the Geologic Column

THE Geologic Column is what I've been focused on, A geologic column may or may not relate to THE Column. It has to do with its relation to the Geo Time Scale.

Well, my interest has been in THE Geologic Column, so apparently there is no point in my remaining on this thread.

Gosh I guess I missed your definitive refutation so of course I continue to hold to my original view of the subject. Hazard of the overload problem Moose was talking about no doubt. If it's too much and the evos can't even agree with each other, which he also pointed out, there's certainly no reason for me to continue here.So byebye yourself.

Sorry to have misunderstood the purpose of the thread.

The accusations and opinions about my motives and so on are of course very interesting, but the fact of the matter is that Moose was right, the overload got to me. It's hard to read through long dense posts by a dozen different people, with rude nasty remarks as well, and as he said there appears to have been a lot of conflicting information among you all. Which I hope will be pointed out eventually. I'm not up to sorting all that out, sorry. Even one long dense post can be a struggle to get through but you all think nothing of expecting me to read them all and read them all carefully and then heaping abuse on me for not doing that. Meanwhile I haven't seen anything that actually addresses my simple point, as usual.

Of course Moose wouldn't say it makes me correct about the Geo Column, he just has a better sense of fairness than the rest of you in spite of his expectable bias.As for the Recitation of the Creed about how disagreements are to be expected in science, why not wait and find out if these are that kind of conflict before you do the salute?I'm glad you realize I don't always read your stuff but you really ought to understand why, which obviously you don't. You have no interest in communication, you are out to bury the opponent under a mountain of jargon and obscure geological concepts. Often you misunderstand and misrepresent but you've presented such a wall of impenetrable verbiage I for one don't have the patience to sort through it, so you get away with it. You don't care how you "win" as long as you win. That's pretty low debate form if you ask me. If this forum were designed to my liking, you would be excluded from any thread I'm on, along with half a dozen others here. Or perhaps you'd be permitted one post. I may indeed have missed them, or I found them too unclear to follow or something of the sort, which amounts to missing them anyway. For right now you can all be assured I am NOT dealing with any of it. Eventually I might come back and answer some of them nevertheless. It's pretty clear from just what you say here that none of it has anything to do with THE Geologic Ciolumn, which as I've said many times is what I am talking about.

The way to prove if today's deposition is in fact building on THE Geologic Column would be to show what lies BENEATH the new deposition. But I gather nobody cares to deal with that concept, you'd rather make up your own idea of geologic columns and claim to defeat it with a bunch of irrelevancies.

I know it's an abstraction and as long as you keep repeating that as if I hadn't said it myself many times I am not going to read the links you've posted. Fair is fair.

I've accepted a TON of scientific facts that have been presented to me over the course of my participation here. You don't like the result when I do that though, because they feed my own theories rather than yours. As far as the stuff on this thread goes I really have little doubt that it would support my views too, but it's such a barrage of confused opaque stuff I am not up to sorting it out. Yet. Perhaps I will be eventually.

How very odd! You excoriate me for failing to appreciate that people who are not posting on this forum know what is in the dirt beneath recent deposits, and somehow you assume it would answer my request that this be known without giving the slightest information about what exactly is supposedly known. Is it the Geo Column or not?

Oh good, well there's your proof then.

So sorry, if I'm dealing with a dozen people I can miss anything and your attitude that I should have seen it, let alone even have a clue what it's supposed to prove, is off base.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I guess you've made your point then.

Sorry, I have to suppose that's an honest opinion but as written it's just a shot in the dark and I have no reason to take it seriously. I'm the one who originally brought up the concept of the Geologic Column and you've all been feverishly engaged since then in proving me wrong, usually by misrepresenting me, often by missing the point altogether. So I really have little reason to take anything you say at face value.

Sorry, I reject that characterization of anything I've said here. Look to yourself, you are the worst offender among a gaggle of snarkies.