Growing the Geologic Column

Yes, that's the case in the GC-GS area for sure so I'm expecting to find it elsewhere as well.As for moving goalposts it may be just that I think I've said something more clearly than I have so that I get answers that don't really address it. Im trying to be more aware of when that happens. I would have expected you to know from many things I've said already and just from the fact that I believe the Flood explains the strata, certainly the strata in the Grand Canyon area just to keep one clear example in mind, that I use the time periods to define the depth of the rock, but also to talk to people who believe in them as time periods. Sometimes your answers to me don't make the distinction, so that you seem to be expecting me to take the time period of the Triassic AS a time period for instance and then are surprised when I say what I did above. I don't see this at all. The depth of the strata I consider to be solidly fixed by the standard geological nomenclature, so I don't shift things around at all. There are some places where the stack is deep and places where it isn't and the examples presented here show the one or the other. I certainly expect that geologists can identify the different rocks they are talking about although they represent time to them and just rocks at different depths to me. Then I think you must be misunderstanding me in some way I can't figure out yet. That is what I see in the Grand Canyon area and yes I think all those are layers laid down in the Flood and have been expecting that wherever there are similar strata formations they would also have been laid down in the Flood. Those strata are more or less equivalent in my mind to The Geologic Column, and that article by Steve Austin seems to identify it the same way. (Though he may not impute them all to the Flood, not sure, at least not the Precambrian rocks. )Now you all are presenting layers that seem to be predominantly volcanic in your effort to show me that there is such a thing as a lava layer between sedimentary layers. These really don't meet my criterion for a layer among the layers of The Geo Column as I've understood it but I may be using the terminology wrong and need to adjust it. Nevertheless I DID think I was clear about what I was looking for and none of these examples are that. Except the Cardenas basalt layer that edge keeps pointing out, that is a thick layer among thick sedimentary layers and certainly deep enough in the stack to be early in the Flood IF it's a layer and not a sill. But all these others are something different, predominantly volcanic but including some sediments (yes I know the Deccan Traps seem to be an exception), so I still have to think about it in relation to the Flood. As I said in a later post I suspect I'll end up seeing it all as post-Flood, but it's just as reasonable to think the volcanism began before the Flood was over and that could help pin down the timing which has been unclear. If it's all post-Flood I'd be differing with the time periods assigned to your chart for instance, but if it's within the last phase of the Flood maybe not. There's no point in trying at this stage to prove me wrong about this, before I've had a chance to think it through and find sources to help me sort it all out. Not the hugely thick and hugely geographically extensive single-sediment layers I associate with The Geologic Column. I know sedimentation continues but it isn't producing anything like these formations. Volcanism can create deep neat layers all by itself in fairly rapid time, which Mount St. Helens seems to exemplify so I may have to get into all that too. But since that diagram is for the Turkana Basin where it says many "hominids" have been found (which of course I assume are simply human beings), then I'd be thinking again that it represents the last stages of the Flood. The actual sediments aren't identified on that chart so I don't know if they are single-sediment layers or what they are, but they don't look like the strata in the Grand Canyon, so this suggests something either after or at the very end of the Flood, probably the latter. You all have this all worked out within your Old Earth system, but I have to rethink everything, you know, and that takes some time and research. Again they are predominantly volcanic, not like the thick sedimentary strata I've been talking about, and when I compare them to the very few and sketchy cross sections of Alaska mountains (example below) -- I'm not sure of the abbreviations but it looks like lower Triassic through Jurassic mainly -- I see I'm going to have to think through a bunch of stuff before I have an opinion about it. The cross sections don't show anything volcanic at all, and in fact they don't identify the sediments at all either, some show very complicated faulting and moving around of sections of strata so there's no way to determine if the stack was laid down continuously or not, others show continuous deposition despite the faulting, but no sills, no volcanic layers, nothing like that. Sure, I guess on a schematic diagram they may not have felt the need to show it, but that's pretty deep stuff on your chart so it's hard to see why not.The cross section below is of part of the Wrangell range which is one of your examples on the chart, don't know what TrPu means, but I suppose Tri means Triassic, and JTrs maybe Jurassic-Triassic? No indication of anything volcanic unless those abbreviations identify it or it's all volcanic?Also, as far as it goes -- which isn't far, not much of a stack/column there -- the layers were clearly all continuously laid down before the faulting and upper erosion occurred. Which may or may not imply something about the timing of the volcanism to the Triassic? OK I guess I misread you but also identifying a rock as extrusive or intrusive without regard to where it is found is rather confusing. And getting too precise about definitions just bogs things down here.Edited by Faith, : typoEdited by Faith, : typo

As long as you say there is no evidence for the Flood you are obviously misunderstanding the evidence. How all the strata and the fossils aren't sufficient evidence I can't fathom. Just because they can be interpreted other ways, to fit into the Old Earth/ evolutionist scenario, doesn't make them any the less clear evidence for the Flood. It's just a matter of how you choose to understand it. In itself it's terrific evidence for the Flood. I'm only talking about the broad issue of there having been a worldwide Flood and I know that happened no matter what. Sure, I can misunderstand any of the specifics involving it, things that aren't spelled out in the Bible. Even the evidence of the strata and fossils of course, but there's no way the Old Earth interpretation could be right nevertheless because it contradicts the timing that's objectively derivable from the Bible. Edited by Faith, : correct quote codesEdited by Faith, : correct quote codes again

That's the problem right there. You won't allow yourself to understand the data that shows your beliefs are wrong. You are one of the most clear-cut cases of self-imposed ignorance I've ever encountered. Not all "interpretations" are of equal validity. Some are outright nonsense. Astrology and belief in a global flood are two examples. The actual evidence is terrific evidence against the biblical version of the flood. You just can't allow yourself to see it--it might just shake up your beliefs.Since you don't accept real world evidence, as you have admitted many times, you have no business telling scientists who have studied these subjects for decades that they are wrong: you're the flea telling the dog where to go.

Fine, you don't like my definition of The Geologic Column, but at least if you know WHAT that definition refers to then you ought to be able to see why I keep saying your examples have not proved me wrong about volcanic layers only occurring WITHIN THAT CLEARLY DEFINED BLOCK OF STRATA as sills and dikes. EXCEPT FOR THE CARDENAS BASALT, that is the only exception so far in this whole discussion.The fact that tuffs are not intrusive is irrelevant to this point. What I'm trying to figure out now is what those completely different layers you are all talking about -- the predominantly volcanic layers interspersed with some sedimentary layers -- represent in relation to my idea of the Geologic Column.As for your accusation that I can "never be wrong," if you are misreading my criteria, whether that is my fault or yours doesn't matter, then you are not going to be giving a relevant answer.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You just keep arguing with the Bible, Coyote. But also, the very broad recognition that the strata and the fossils are evidence for the Flood is too obvious to be contradicted. Again, sure you can reinterpret it to suit yourself, but again, as it stands it IS terrific evidence for a worldwide Flood. Layers that are known to be laid down in water, on a scale way beyond anything occurring today; and fossils that would be expected to have formed from the billions of creatures killed in the Flood, under uniformly excellent conditions for fossilization. Sure, you'll go on deceiving yourself about the evidence anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Upper Permian to Triassic. This is Wrangellian Terrane. As this quote from the abstract states, it is a composite terrane, consisting of mulitiple volcanic island arcs capped by a limestone sequence of late Triassic age. Wrangellian rocks extend from south central Alasks, intermittently to central Chile, so it is truly an intercontiental deposit. Note that it is mostly composed of volcanic rocks and is overlain by the limestone, as well as younger JUrassic and Cretaceous sediments: So, sedimentation continued into the Cretaceous, after deformation and erosion of the Wrangellia.If you will notice in the cross section, there are granitic cobbles dated at 153ma in these later siliciclastics. Those would be Jurassic granites eroded and redeposited in Cretaceous sediments. That means three things:1.) There was an igneous event prior to the Cretaceous, possibly related to the older island arcs,2.) The unconformity is erosional and not a tectonic contact, and3.) Sedimentation occurred after several periods of volcanilsm and intrusion, and after deformation and erosion of the Wrangellian rocks.The diagram does, in fact show an unconformity at the top of the TrPu sequence. Wrangellia is mostly volcanic and the picture shows this. I would include the overlying carbonates (exemplified by the Chitistone Formation that I reported in an earlier post) as part of Wrangellia, since it represents a temporary end to island arc development and subsidence in the latest Triassic. Not really. As the picture shows, the fault is terminated upward and overlapped by Jurassic/Cretaceous sedimentary and volcanic rocks.Whether unfortunate or not, you have chosen one of the most structurally complex areas in North America to attempt to make your point.

They show that your idea of the Geologic Column and most everything else concerning a global flood is wrong.You go wrong by trying to shoehorn the data into an odd biblical interpretation, and the data do not fit. That's why you have to keep coming up with these odd ideas--unsupported by the real world evidence.What I don't understand is why you spend so much time here. You aren't convincing us of the validity of your beliefs--much the opposite. Are you just here to convince yourself?

quote:

---

As long as you say there is no evidence for the Flood you are obviously misunderstanding the evidence

---

There's nothing obvious about that. Indeed I would say that a correct understanding cannot be established by fiat and certainly cannot be based on suppressing strong evidence to the contrary.

quote:

---

How all the strata and the fossils aren't sufficient evidence I can't fathom

---

They're not things we would reasonably expect the Flood to produce.What I find odd is that you spend a lot of time repeating your assertions on this point and no time at all rationally defending them.

quote:

---

Just because they can be interpreted other ways, to fit into the Old Earth/ evolutionist scenario, doesn't make them any the less clear evidence for the Flood

---

It's rather more important that they can't be sensibly interpreted as evidence for the Flood.

quote:

---

I'm only talking about the broad issue of there having been a worldwide Flood and I know that happened no matter what.

---

In other words you assume that the Flood is unquestionable fact, and it seems that your understanding is quite severely warped by the strength of your conviction. Is it so hard for you to imagine that what seems obviously true to you might be obviously false to others ? It's happened often enough here.

Nonsense, I have given you several more examples of various ages within your flood time frame. Actually, it is. They are volcanic rocks erupted onto the surface of the earth. Effectively, they are no different from volcanic flows. Good luck.

I certainly did not CHOOSE this area, I'm responding to HBD's chart of Alaska mountains by looking up a cross section to see what it shows.Thanks for your analysis, needs quite a bit of thought.

Why am I here? I often wonder. But I think the answer is something like it gives me a way to keep thinking about stuff I wouldn't otherwise get into so deeply. You don't think I learn anything but all that means is nothing I've learned takes me in the direction of Old Earthism, but I have certainly learned plenty during this latest two and a half year stint here. And I doubt you all have much to complain about since it keeps you all thinking too.

I will say it as long as the evidence says that I am right. If you have another interpretation, this would be an excellent time to present it. Of course you can't fathom it. You want to fit it all into your little biblical myth. They make sense if you really understand geological principles and actually study the rocks. Actually, there is no evidence of a flood. Why would I accept a mythical story when the data are readily explained by known phenomena? Negative. You do not see all of the evidence and actually reject a major portion of it.

It has already taken me years of thought. When you catch up, let me know.

I wish you'd keep track of whom I'm responding to and the context in which I'm responding. Tuff's not being an intrusive rock IS irrelevant within the context defined.Sorry if I missed other relevant examples you say you posted besides the Cardenas.'Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yep, well, way it goes. A lot of what you are calling evidence can always be reinterpreted.