Growing the Geologic Column

Looks like it to me. Isn't that what I already said? Deposition by the Flood, which is how all the thick rock slabs everywhere were formed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, I just automatically translate terms like Pliocene and Pleistocene into "highest of the strata," don't even pay attention to the time factor. How is it moving goalposts to be looking for a whole deep stack of layers for my examples, which I've clearly defined as my goal many times? Nothing else will make my point. volcanism at the very top of the stack is what I'd expect after all, even if it isn't completely at the top, so that example doesn't mean much, or it may confirm my expectations. I'd have to get into it more to figure it all out.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I wasn't including the Precambrian rocks in my statement.

I wasn't including the Precambrian rocks in my statement.

This is my guess, call it a hypothesis. So far I haven't seen anything that really demonstrates a need for the Old Earth assumptions in that sort of work. And as I've already 0pointed out what I have found suggests it isn't important. The physical situation is what's important, and RELATIVE age. I've been waiting to see how the ancient age is actually useful. Haven't seen it yet. That is relative age, not actual age. And where is actual age in all this? That's the question. I have no idea if the cross sections I find on google image are actual company sections or not, all I know is they are labeled as related to oil exploration. And all I mean by the sketchiness is that the names of all the time periods are not there and that surprises me. I don't know how you do your work, you'd have to tell me. All I know is that I haven't yet seen anything that shows the need to think in terms of millions of years in that sort of work.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not that high in the stack it doesn't. But it raises some questions and I'll think about them. Demonstrating that volcanism doesn't occur until the Pliocene would already prove my point though wherever there is only sedimentary rock or geo column below. It may or may not be intrusive when found as a layer among sedimentary layers, but HBD seemed to be saying it never was.the USUAL case with lava layers in the stack called the geo column is intrusion. The examples I'm finding online for my purpose all show what I call the geo column, sedimentary strata in a block variously faulted and so on but in a block. You all are finding UNUSUAL cases. The Deccan Traps are not the usual geo column and neither is your example. But they do demonstrate interspersed layers of volcanic and sedimentary rock. And the Cardenas looks pretty usual. I'll take it all into account as needed.Edited by Admin, : Fix close quote dBCode.

No, not the volcanic ones of course. I'm talking about the HUGE SLABS OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK that are found in the geo column, i.e. the Redwall, the Coconino, etc. etc. etc. The tepui of South America are the same kind of formation. Huge slab of sedimentary rock, metamorphic in that case.

As long as there is only interpretive evidence (erosional surfaces that could be explained some other way, especially considering that the whole formation was tilted as a block) I'll hold on to my theory. But I do want some good evidence for it. Your points about the Vishnu were more convincing as I recall.

Just because I'm talking about the great sedimentary rocks doesn't mean I'm ignoring anything, I'm simply talking about the great sedimentary rocks.

That late in the Flood volcanism could already have started in some places. As I said I'll think about it. I have my mind elsewhere at the moment.abe: Besides, it doesn't matter to me if there was volcanism throughout the Flood, why should it? The only reason I'm on this pursuit is that I got the strong impression all that began afterward, and I got the impression from standard geo cross sections. Some exceptions and ambiguities of course but the impression is nevertheless pretty strong. /abe"For my purpose" implies nothing about volcanic rock on the hundreds of cross sections I've been seeing lately. When sills show up they are labeled as sills. The ambiguities on the cross sections are about faulting not volcanism because faulting shifts the layers in relation to each other. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But my assumptions aren't my own or human-originated assumptions I KNOW there was a worldwide Flood because I know the Bible is nothing but truth. That doesn't mean I can say I *know* exactly how it happened, though. All that is just the speculative part, the part I try to figure out at EvC, though I think some of the speculations are pretty solid. And for the most part it's fun too, except when geologists and others get all mad and snarky about it because some of what they think contradicts God.But your assumptions are all human-originated, and to the extent they are about the prehistoric past they're all speculations too, mostly untestable hypotheses, without any divine revelation to tell you youre even on the right track. Which, of course, you're not unfortunately, about the Old Earth part of Geology. Again, no problem with the Observational Science which is the practical part of geologic work.

No, I don't need the Precambrian, I can make my point just about the span from the Cambrian to the Tertiary, which I've done at times, or I can even fall back on the Creationist position that says the Flood started at the Tapeats, though I really don't like that position. But I do expect eventually to come to some conclusion or other about that complicated mess beneath the GC, I haven't forgotten about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Seems to me I've said it awfully frequently that both sides can only interpret when it comes to the prehistoric past. An example of your interpretation is that the Cardenas exhibits erosional surfaces. That's evidence but only of an interpretive sort since you don't know if there might be another way that happened. Your interpretation is pretty good I'm sure, but it is only an interpretation. And I suggested one of my own when I mentioned above that the formation was tilted as a block, which could shift and abrade unsolidified sediments. But interpretations wouldn't necessarily be clearly wrong, what one would have to do is look for other interpretations, that's all. And that's what I do try to do. Like on that other thread I may eventually get started, I expect you to identify angular unconformities in some of the cross sections and of course explain them by the conventional theory of how they formed, and I'll have to try to reinterpret them as occurring at the same time as the other disturbances in the picture, by the same causes. This sort of thing isn't really provable, it's just a war of plausibilities and I hope I can some up with some good ones. But you'll still like your conventional explanation of angular unconformities the best anyway, that's predictable. Evidence for MY interpretation?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But I don't need to prove that EVERYTHING occurred after all the strata were laid down, though that's what I believe and would like to be able to prove, I can just as well make the case for that long span between the Tapeats/Cambrian and the Claron/Tertiary. That's a very good case on its own, just not the perfect case I'd really like to make. And for most of the time I've argued this case that IS what I've focused on. It DOES make a good case without the Precambrian. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If your interpretation is correct I'll eventually come to see that it's correct, but in the meantime I have to sift through all the information myself looking for alternative views. Sorry, I know you think I should just take your word for it but I have to see it for myself. Everybody here tries to railroad me into accepting what they present as the scientific view of something or other, when I'm just beginning to get a picture of the situation. Then it turns out that some of the stuff they say is wackier than they think my ideas are. You aren't going to be wrong in those ways I'm sure, but I still have no problem thinking a geologist could be wrong because I KNOW you're wrong about the fact that there was a worldwide Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.