Growing the Geologic Column

Hi Faith, This thread isn't about the abstraction you're calling The Geologic Column. That abstraction is a generalization of reality based upon an aggregation of data, but it has no real existence, and so there can't be anywhere in the world that sedimentary deposits are forming above The Geologic Column.This thread's purpose is to present the information, arguments and evidence supporting the view that sedimentary deposits are forming today above geologic columns at many places around the globe. I haven't posted any links (and if I had I would have used them for reference only, just as the Forum Guidelines require). If you look at Message 15 and Message 45 you'll find that they contain information (including images of geologic columns for specific locations) , arguments and evidence that address the topic of this thread.--Percy

I wish EvC had a feature that would allow me to just scrawl a big red X through a miserably misquided post like yours.

You'd just love to censure all those things that show your beliefs are incorrect, wouldn't you?There has been so much evidence presented in this thread concerning the geological column that you'd just like to X out, but you do the next best thing--you pretend it doesn't exist.In this, you once again show that what you do is the exact opposite of science. Scientists must deal with the evidence, religious apologists just "magic" it away.It really puzzles me--what harm to your beliefs can it do to have a mix of sedimentary and volcanic layers in the geo. column in various places? That's what the evidence shows, so isn't it just something you should accept rather than make up excuse after excuse why you don't agree?

No, it's only the slanderous comments like yours, and this one here for case in point, that I want to blot out. Because they are offensively wrong. No, it's only the offensive slanderous comments like this one I want to X out. I already said the thread is just too much to deal with, for a number of reasons, but not the reasons you like so much to tar me with, which deserve to be X'd out. It's sort of horrifyingly fascinating how somebody can make up such lies against a person, first that you'd even dare to make them up, second that anybody would take them seriously. But it happens every day, doesn't it, and it especially happens here to creationists.My lack of response to some posts on this thread has nothing whatever to do with their scientific merit or lack of it, not that you care, you really really like your presumptuous invention of me and couldn't care less why I really do what I do. Do you still beat your wife? You don't seem to grasp that I defend issues because I believe they are true BASED ON THE EVIDENCE. It doesn't matter whether it supports or doesn't support what you call my "beliefs," as I actually SEE it the Geo Column no longer exists and so far the evidence does NOT show me wrong about this. If it did it WOULDN'T particularly matter, but it doesn't, and that's the only reason I'm arguing as I am.I know you are all convinced that the evidence shows this but I am not. Either the layers beneath the current deposition are not the Geo Column, or if they are then certainly the new deposits are not.And here's how posts like yours that are nothing but slander should be dealt with:

quote:

---

I know you are all convinced that the evidence shows this but I am not. Either the layers beneath the current deposition are not the Geo Column, or if they are then certainly the new deposits are not.

---

Perhaps you would like to - finally - explain that assertion.If the strata on which modern sediments are deposited happen to be not part of the abstract geological column on some technicality why would it be significant ? Because certainly they must be part of the local geological column which seems rather more important.And how can you know that future strata will not become part of a future geological column ?This doesn't seem to be a view that is "BASED ON THE EVIDENCE".Edited by PaulK, : fixed tag

Sure I'll explain all that, if you first apologize for the big fat lie of your Message 754 on the Whine List.

No apologies for the truth.And if that gives you an excuse for continuing to keep your argument a secret, so be it.

In which messages did you acknowledge that it was an abstraction?

This was my question also. The only way I could make sense of it was that she has actually been setting up the 'geological column' as a strawman to be refuted at some point because it is so inconsistent. But that's still a reach.

There is no more "THE Geologic Column" than there is "THE Archaeological Dig" somewhere that contains the entire history of man in a single 5 x 5 hole that plummets down through the Earth.We observe new sediments and rocks being deposited on top of older sediments. We observe that in some regions more layers are being added to the geologic record of that region.Why you can't accept this is beyond me.

im a sis Edited by Aurelia, : No reason given.

m y late husband has has relatives in Scottsdale & one of the great-grandsons is going camp with us for a day or so and show us around a little, he used to camp in the canyon a lot so he will place us in a fairly safe spot since ill be depending on an 8 yr old being my eyes for about 5 days. this will be the most exciting & terrifying thing iv done since losing my sight! I cant wait!I better let yall get back on topic.Aurelia

That is kinda the route she was going in the other thread. Take a look at the exchange starting at Message 1229:

quote:

---

Percy writes:

​

No one will agree with you because you just like your own definitions better than the ones everyone else is using and agrees upon. I'm sure everyone would be glad to switch to your definitions if they made any sense, but they don't.
Wherever you might stand upon the surface of this Earth, you are standing atop a geological column. No location is an exception, and the specifics of the strata underlying any location matter not. Sediment can add to any local geologic column anywhere, regardless whether that column includes deformed or eroded stata.

​

Then the whole idea of the Geologic Time Scale, which was built on the idea of a vertical stack of horizontal layers that are found here and there in various proportions, is false. If you don't have an ascending vertical structure, a column, you do not have a time scale represented by the rocks, which could only be physically represented by such an ascending vertical structure.

​

I think you are all mad as hatters.

​

CS writes:

​

Faith writes:

​

which was built on the idea of a vertical stack of horizontal layers that are found here and there in various proportions

No, not just here and there. Its everywhere. Every single point on the surface of the Earth has layers below it. Those layers below it are called the "geological column" for that particular section of the surface.

​

Each section will have its own column. Some sections are bigger than others.

​

I'll have to look it up but the layers aren't everywhere on the earth.

Yes, they are. Everywhere.

​

There is no place on the surface of the Earth that does not have underlying layers. That's impossible. What would the surface be sitting on?

​

A Column is a VERTICAL Structure

​

The Geological Column isn't like a real actual "thing". Its an abstract.

​

It is a cross-section of what layers are underneath the ground at some particular place. Different places are going to have different columns.

​

If you took a giant metal tube, forced it into the ground, and then pulled out a big stack of the layers underneath, then you would have a column of the underlying geology. You could then study each layer to determine the properties of the past. Here's an example:

​

http://pacificsoilandwater.com/...ages/PSW_085.357220402.jpg

​

That represents the geological column at that particular site. If you traveled a ways away and took another bore sample, you would get a different geological column.

​

Faith writes:

​

No, that is not the Geologic Column. Sheesh.

---

She started with saying that the time scale couldn't be there if you didn't have THE Geological Column.I went on to try to explain that there's no such thing and I never got the sense that she understood that.

As someone here put it so well, 'the geological column is a diagram'. That is particularly true of THE geological column.

Here is a rather rough outline of human history that no one should find that controversial. Let's call this "THE human history". With that idea in place, does this mean that at any spot on the globe that there are human artefacts from every single event on that list directly underfoot?If human history really did unfold as described "THE human history", shouldn't I be able to go to any spot in the world, start digging a hole, and uncover layer after layer of human artefacts from every single century of history that follows the exact order of the timeline given above?Or, is the timeline given just an amalgam of knowledge gained from different finds at different sites, and stitched together from clues that link all of the different dig sites together into a whole?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.