Human History v. Geologic History AND changes to the Geological Column/s
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?
Not only that but we have a LOT of evidence of artifacts from history being buried by sediments (water borne and air borne) and by volcanic ash (Pompeii) ... and to claim that the local geological column in those areas did not grow is just delusional ignoring the facts\evidence.
In addition, any claim that THE Grand Overall Amalgam Geological Column did not also grow during this time is equally ludicrous.
Done. Finished. Q.E.D. etc ... end of argument.
Really this thread should have been very very very brief, because facts are not open to debate and if you don't accept facts then see def 3 below. Curiously if you had been deceived (def 1b) into a wrong impression somehow, that form of delusion (like ignorance) is curable by learning ...
Referred to as a mental construct in
Message 1239 of Continuation of Flood Discussion thread.
Also as mental construct in Message 1291 of that thread.
Implied wherever I talk about its connection with the Geologic Time Scale which is just about every post I’ve made on this thread, since the Time Scale is obviously an abstract concept.
Implied also where I say it’s found as partial stacks as in Message 32, some more complete than others but none fully complete.
Also in Msg 1040 of the Continuation of Flood Discussion thread.
Also implied in Different ones in different places — Message 1150
While I was away from the forum I did try to read through this thread again and I'm afraid it's just too much for me to get through. I just bog down in all the confusion. But maybe if I try at least to spell that out it can get pared down to essentials.
Starting with Percy's first post the main argument is that the geo column is all the rocks everywhere, although I've many times defined my view of it as specific to the particular strata that define the Geo Time Scale, that are very thick and very extensive and so on. I could also say it's the rocks that represent the ten systems of the time scale that Steve Austin tied it to, from Cambrian to Tertiary. And really, they should probably be defined as only those that contain fossils, since they are definitive of the Time Scale. Igneous rocks are not part of this. They may be part of some poster's idea of the geo column but they aren't part of mine. So if you want to ignore my idea of it, fine, I should just stay off this thread and let you all elaborate your own view of it without me. But if you are answering me this is just a straw man. And this idea of the geo column being everywhere is a straw man.
Then there were people who kept misrepresenting me as not knowing the Geo Column is an abstraction, or as thinking it is complete everywhere it is identified, despite the fact that I kept trying to say that I know it is rarely found complete but only in pieces, that are then put together in a composite diagram of all those ten systems of the Time Scale. The analogy with the history of the human race put up by Capt Stormfield and then again by RAZD, just shows that they didn't get anything I said about this.
Then back to the idea that the geo column is all the rocks everywhere, so that whatever may be deposited on them is a continuation of the geo column is a straw man because it doesn't speak to the specific description of the Geo Column I was presenting. But at least Percy did address my view of it, in his Message 15, which he kept wanting me to read. I finally did. So he's showed there that there are places where the Geo Column that I have in mind, that reflects the Geo Time Scale, is intact and sediments are accumulating on it, because these areas are low lying enough for that.
That's good, that's an answer. But those places are awfully limited when you compare the great extent of some of the layers that extend across states and continents. The Sahara desert is often pointed out as an exception, since its extent is even greater than the whole of the USA, but the Sahara is not a rock layer. But there are at least those few limited areas Percy pointed out where sediment is accumulating on top of the Geo Column as I've described it. And we won't know for a few million years I guess whether what is building on them has anything at all in common with that Column in the end.
I'd still argue that the true Geo Column was all laid down, then tectonically and otherwise deformed and distorted, as shown in the four diagrams I kept referring to, I think on the other thread. The GC-GS diagram, Percy's diagram of the Gulf strata, the Utah cross section I found and one other I'm forgetting --ABE: the cross section of the strata of Great Britain by William Smith. /ABE All laid down then distorted and that's the end of it. But it's not something I can prove.
What can I say, if you eliminate all the straw man posts there isn't a whole lot left to this thread. But I didn't get to all the posts in my review so maybe someone would like to point out whichever seem to be the ones I should take seriously.
That's good, that's an answer. But those places are awfully limited when you compare the great extent of some of the layers that extend across states and continents.
snipped
Game over.
Particularly when we note that the Geological column as you describe it is an abstraction of what actually exists.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
quote:
Starting with Percy's first post the main argument is that the geo column is all the rocks everywhere, although I've many times defined my view of it as specific to the particular strata that define the Geo Time Scale, that are very thick and very extensive and so on. I could also say it's the rocks that represent the ten systems of the time scale that Steve Austin tied it to, from Cambrian to Tertiary. And really, they should probably be defined as only those that contain fossils, since they are definitive of the Time Scale. Igneous rocks are not part of this. They may be part of some poster's idea of the geo column but they aren't part of mine.
That's a pretty weird idea. The idea of excluding strata without fossils is especially daft - even the reason give is false. The time scale is mainly worked out by geometric relationships between the strata with some distinctive fossils helping extend the scale where the relations of the strata can't be easily applied.
But in reading this the problem seems simple. Most of the argument is a massive obfuscation concealing the old claim that current deposits of sediment don't occur on a wide enough scale (complete with the old exaggeration of the extent)
And quite frankly the obfuscation begins to look like a deliberate tactic to justify the claims of "straw man". Statements which serve only to confuse the issue are answered as best they can be - only to be met with accusations of dishonesty. Whether the confusion is a deliberate tactic or not, it seems it is necessary to be suspicious of everything Faith writes and to demand the clear explanations that she is so reluctant (or perhaps unable) to give,
quote:
That's good, that's an answer. But those places are awfully limited when you compare the great extent of some of the layers that extend across states and continents. The Sahara desert is often pointed out as an exception, since its extent is even greater than the whole of the USA, but the Sahara is not a rock layer.
Of course if the Sahara were a "rock layer" it wouldn't be an example. Any valid counter example would have to have loose sediment being deposited over a very wide area. It must be loose sediment - not rock.
although I've many times defined my view of it as specific to the particular strata that define the Geo Time Scale, that are very thick and very extensive and so on.
Why do you have this view? The geological time scale does not assign particular strata or thicknesses or extensiveness and so on at all. The geological time tables describe time periods. Your comment didn't make any sense.
I think I am understanding what your point is here. Let me see if I got this right.
In order to be part of the geological column:
It has to be part of the sequence between the Cambrian and the Tertiary, so anything from the Precambrian or before or from the Quaternary period doesn't count.
If it is not solid rock, it doesn't count.
If it doesn't have fossils in it, it doesn't count.
If it is not "thick and extensive," it doesn't count.
So, to be convinced the the geological column is still being added to, you need to be shown where a thick and extensive layer of rock, with fossils in it, is being laid down right now, but not in the Quaternary period, it has to be part of the Tertiary or before.
HBD
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
This thread was proposed for the purpose of presenting the information, arguments and evidence showing false your claim that the geologic column was no longer growing anywhere in the world. That's been accomplished and I think this thread's purpose has been accomplished.
But you've made other incorrect statements, some of them matters of simple fact or even just of straightforward definition, that could serve as the basis for new threads:
Faith writes:
...I've many times defined my view of it as specific to the particular strata that define the Geo Time Scale, that are very thick and very extensive and so on.
There's nothing that requires strata to be "thick and very extensive". Strata can be thin and local to a small region.
And really, they should probably be defined as only those that contain fossils, since they are definitive of the Time Scale.
Fossils are just part of the evidence for dating strata. The much more definitive data is radiometric dating. The idea that non-fossil bearing strata should be excluded from the geologic column doesn't deserve serious consideration.
Igneous rocks are not part of this.
Igneous rock layers that aren't intrusions are part of the geologic column, where you might have a sedimentary layer, then a basaltic layer from a volcano, then another sedimentary layer. The basaltic layer is as much a part of the geologic column at that location as are the sedimentary layers and fits right into the geologic timescale.
They may be part of some poster's idea of the geo column but they aren't part of mine.
I recommend you use the same standard definitions of geology that everyone else is using. Answers.com has a simple and clear definition of geologic column: The vertical sequence of strata of various ages found in an area or region. There's nothing in this definition about fossils or rock type or thickness or extent.
So if you want to ignore my idea of it, fine,...
I don't think your idea of the geologic column has been at all ignored. In fact, I think people have, as a group, been quite voluble and specific about what's wrong with your idea of the geologic column.
Then there were people who kept misrepresenting me as not knowing the Geo Column is an abstraction,...
I think you've misunderstood the criticism, which is this: In a thread seeking to present evidence of sedimentary deposits accumulating today atop real geologic columns it makes no sense to focus on an abstract geologic column. Sedimentary deposits do not accumulate atop abstractions, except conceptually. I could draw you my conception of sedimentary deposits accumulating atop The Geologic Column, but it would prove nothing.
But those places are awfully limited when you compare the great extent of some of the layers that extend across states and continents.
First, the Gulf of Mexico and the continental shelf of the eastern United States (I showed just the Chesapeake Bay area, which is representative) are not "awfully limited." They're enormous, here's a Google Maps image. All the light blue regions are continental shelf which have geologic layers beneath them very similar to those beneath the continents and which conform to your restricted definition of the geologic column, and they're all receiving sedimentary deposits:
Such continental shelves exist off most continental coasts, just check Google Maps (in satellite mode) if you don't believe this. And if instead of your limited definition of geologic column we apply the one from standard geology then across 3/4 of the globe sedimentary deposits are accumulating atop geologic columns, because 3/4 of the globe lies beneath lakes, seas and oceans.
And we won't know for a few million years I guess whether what is building on them has anything at all in common with that Column in the end.
What kind of rock do you imagine forms when a layer of sand becomes buried beneath a mile of other sediments? Sandstone, maybe?
Sediments that haven't yet turned to rock are called unconsolidated. Unconsolidated sedimentary layers forming today have the same composition as lithified layers that have been deeply buried.
I'd still argue that the true Geo Column was all laid down...But it's not something I can prove.
It's not even something you can offer a shred of evidence for, nor even a coherent perspective.
And really, they should probably be defined as only those that contain fossils, since they are definitive of the Time Scale. Igneous rocks are not part of this.
Igneous rocks (including volcanic ashfalls) are the definitive component of the geologic time scale. Trilobites and glyptodons did not carry pocket calendars with "478,665,212 B.C." or "11,136 B.C." on the front, or if they did, none of the calendars fossilized. Fossils by themselves only have ever given relative dates - trilobites before crabs, or dinosaurs before glyptodons, for instance. Dating of igneous/volcanic layers in the stacks of rocks are how the numbers that you dislike so much were assigned to the layers that have trilobite fossils in them. Steno's Law, y'know.
I can scarcely believe I'm typing this, after seeing you told this same thing repeatedly over the last thirteen years.
"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken
That's good, that's an answer. But those places are awfully limited when you compare the great extent of some of the layers that extend across states and continents. The Sahara desert is often pointed out as an exception, since its extent is even greater than the whole of the USA, but the Sahara is not a rock layer. But there are at least those few limited areas Percy pointed out where sediment is accumulating on top of the Geo Column as I've described it. And we won't know for a few million years I guess whether what is building on them has anything at all in common with that Column in the end.
Where do you think those sediments will go? Do you think a sand layer is going to magically start digging through the dirt below it, and bury itself at a random location somewhere under the surface? What exactly do you think happens when sediments pile on top of other sediments.
For example, this is Lizard Butte, a cool little formation in SW Idaho near where I grew up. It has the notoriety of looking like a horny toad sunning on a little mound (The head is at the top of the butte, the two left limbs drape over the sides in case you can't see it). The rock at the top of the butte is old volcanic rock from a lava flow.
Now, do you think that top soil started to gather atop the volcanic rock, and then it magically started moving around and buried itself under the lava flow? Or, was the dirt already the top layer of the geologic column, and the volcanic rock deposited over it forming a new layer on the geologic column?
Which do you think it is?
Edited by Admin, : Hide bad image link that makes page take a very long time to load.
Edited by Admin, : Hiding the image doesn't disable it - I'll disable it this time.
I'll add to your explanation with a personal experience.
Over twenty years ago while driving up to the mountains, I observed the strata exposed along the roadside and got to thinking and questioning. I already knew that "the clock" (metaphoric expression, so no, Faith, there aren't tiny gears in them thar rocks) of radiometric dating is reset by the rock is molten, so if we perform radiometric dating on a rock it will give how long ago that rock had solidified. But how could that work for sedimentary rock, since that's older rock that's been broken down and redeposited? Yes, the relative positioning of a layer with respect to other layers gives us its relative age with respect to those other layers, but how do we get a sedimentary rock's absolute age?
With those questions, I researched for the answer, which I found in a geology textbook. First, my questions were indeed valid and, before radiometric dating, it was indeed the relative positionings coupled with estimations of how long the processes of erosion and depositation would take that were used to approximate the ages of that composite abstraction, the Geologic Column.
It is the igneous layers and intrusions that provide the absolute dates, or at least ranges of absolute dates, by providing us with tie points. That was the term used by the book, though I'm not sure how widely it's used. When an igneous layer lies between two sedimentary layers, then that igneous layer provides a tie point for the two layers surrounding it: the layer above it is younger and the layer below it is older, so we have an upper limit for age of the higher layer and a lower limit for the age of the lower layer. If an igneous intrusion extends through strata, then it provides a tie point for those strata such that they are older than the intrusion. In the top of the intrusion has been eroded away and another layer deposited on top of it, then that layer is younger than the intrusion; another tie point. Add those tie points to our composite abstraction Geologic Column and we improve the dates of the layers.
Very clear and easy to understand. And of course, Faith will be completely baffled and confused and unable to understand it. I believe that is because she believes that her believes will be endangered should she start to understand reality, so she must do anything she can to keep that from happening.
No, but thanks for the effort. I think really it's that I'm impressed with the examples where strata built to a great height before tectonic or any other force disturbed it, those diagrams I mentioned back on the other thread: the cross section of Great Britain, the cross section of a part of Utah, the cross section of the GC-GS area, the cross section of the layers beneath the Gulf that Percy posted -- and I know I've also seen others of that sort of strata stack that's been deformed by a salt layer. Those are definitive to me of a past cataclysmic event that belies the whole Old Earth scenario. But I'd need to find more such cross sections. And maybe I will. They do all contain the elements I keep trying to define into the picture here but the main thing has to do with the undisturbed laying down of a huge depth of those strata followed by pretty dramatic disturbances of the entire block.
Almost any cross section would do because they all show a block of strata being deformed after being laid down as a block, but some show more layers than others and some give the time periods and some don't and some are so complexly deformed that they don't make good examples.
Of course everybody here is going to answer that the Geo Column is going on elsewhere anyway, that's all there is to say really.
ABE: Here's an interesting one. Goes up to the Cretaceous only but that's not bad:
Here's another one, but this one only goes up to the Pennsylvanian, although there is a piece of a Pleistocene layer there too. This one is like the Gulf cross section Percy posted, has an evaporate layer deep down that explains the sagging hammock-like deformation:
This next one seemed too distorted at first and it doesn't show early strata, but it certainly shows very thick strata and over a very large area as well:
I have no problem with all that and don't see why you think I should. My only argument is that igneous LAYERS aren't part of the Geo Column. But really, that doesn't even matter ultimately, it's just that I believe it to be true. Igneous rock is INTRUSIVE into sedimentary layers. That's the ONLY point I've been making. A very minor and perhaps even nitpicky point. As for its uses for dating, no problem.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
