Growing the Geologic Column

Again you post a totally incomprehensible empty opinion. What do you expect me to do with that sort of stuff? All I can do is ignore it, it relates to nothing in my own memory or experience and I have NO interest in tracking anything down in this benighted mess of a thread.

You get no thanks for doing nothing but trying to trip me up, prove that you're the expert, and generally being obnoxious.

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

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:

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

Not as many as I thought, at least in those particular words, but I did imply it in many posts. Here's a list:

• Referred to as an abstract concept in Message 24
  
• 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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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: 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 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. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Cute liddle horny toad. We'd pick them up off the Nevada desert when we were kids.But beyond that I do not have Clue One what you are asking me.

I dunno why this is such a big problem, but I hope I answered it in my post to dwise above.

I guess I can't get across why the geo column can't be growing on the continental shelves etc, or why the definitive strata are thick and cover a huge area. I don't know why, it's just a fact that they do, and my examples are those diagrams I've been collecting. Maybe I'll just have to get off the focus on the geo column and go back to the simple argument that the strata built up through all the time periods as horizontal layers BEFORE all the tectonic distortion and other disturbances deformed them.This is what I've been equating with the Geo Column, but I'm more interested in getting across this picture of the strata building up and then stopping. In the GC GS area I argued that the strata look awfully placid just lying there for hundreds of millions of years between the Cambrian and the Holocene or whatever the Claron is, before all that massive erosion and other disturbance occurred. And everybody answers Oh well sure it's quiet for long periods in some places but not quiet in other places at the same time. Well, I am sure this is wrong but finding evidence for it seemed impossible.Now that I'm finding all these cross sections that more or less show the same thing going on in widely distant places maybe I should just go back and focus on that and try to accumulate more such diagrams. They ARE evidence of what I'm talking about. It would be nice to find many from other parts of the world though, not just North America and Great Britain.And all this would be an answer to your following remark: I think the diagrams I'm beginning to accumulate are evidence for this. At least a "shred." Perhaps if I put some time in on it I'll come up with a good collection of it. Maybe I should start a new thread to drive you all crazy with this project.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, that's what I would have asked. That's why I consider it such a big deal to point out where there appears not to have been any such activity for millions of years, even if only in one location such as the Grand Staircase area. But when I've pointed that out here, the geologists have answered that it's no big deal if nothing happens tectonically for hundreds of millions of years in one location or another, so you'll have to ask them how that can be.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, how on earth could it. I just don't see how there could be actual lava layers among the sedimentary layers. If you are talking about a stack of all igneous layers I have no objection. The ones that were shown me a while back turned out to be sills that just happened to be very thick and extensive so they look like layers between sedimentary layers. I could not care less whether they are or are not, except that the usual situation AS A SIMPLE MATTER OF FACT is that they are intrusive into all the sedimentary stacks I've investigated.Sorry, I just glaze over when somebody starts with an analogy that's supposed to represent my thinking, simply cannot read it so forget it. No idea why people do such things. SHOW ME AN ACTUAL LAVA LAYER THAT IS NOT INTRUSIVE INTO SEDIMENTARY ROCK. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No deformation that occurred to a layer of the stack before the whole stack was in place. Your one strange example of Mississippian-Pennsylvanian defiormation certainly showed no such thing. Simply comes from my observation, not some preconceived position about it, and I'm hoping to collect more evidence in the form of those cross sections to demonstrate it. Yours would have demonstrated it too I have no doubt except that the layers above the Pennsylvanian had been eroded away, so all we can tell is that those layers are now deformed. The erosion of those above is no doubt all part of the same scenario though.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.