Growing the Geologic Column

Please explain in what way they fail to fit your definition, when intrusive igneous rocks clearly do. Shouting at me is not an explanation. It only makes it look as if you don't have one,

Volcanic ash does that to wood. What's that got to do with my definition of the geologic Column?My definition may be wrong but the context in which I said there's only intrusive magma in The Geo Column was that definition and if you stay within the definition as I gave it then there are no tuffs there. And again the only example of a real volcanic layer within the Geo Column as I defined it, is the Cardenas.
\
Look, this is a simple logical point concerning the context. This argument is Nitpickery to the Max. I still have to go on and think about the tuffs too, which is hard to do with everybody insisting they are part of my definition of the Geo Column which they are not.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This has been explained umpteen times earlier on. I don't feel like tracking all that down just because you didn't get it.

Then refer me to a post which explains it. It's really odd that you spend so much time in assertion and evasion and so little on explanation.

Huge limestone rocks.
Bazillions of fossils all over the world.

Well, of course YOU wouldn't, because you think the Bible is a myth, but if it ever hit you that it's not, that it is in fact all true, all real, a revelation of truth you couldn't ever guess at, you'd have a whole different perspective on these things. And if the revelation hit you suddenly I'm sure you'd be knocked to the floor by it and take weeks or months, really years, to get back to anything remotely normal. What it would do to your geological thinking would be interesting to see. Maybe not much at first, but if you really truly recognized the Bible as true as written it would have to affect it eventually. My whole world was turned upside down by my discovery of the God of the Bible, or really I'd say it was turned right side up, having been upside down all my life up to then. I think if it doesn't lay you out flat on the floor (so to speak) you haven't really grasped it. Some of the theistic evolutionists and Genesis allegorizers and others who refuse to take it at face value but bend it to their own worldly opinions don't know what they are missing. But atheists who think it's all a myth certainly don't either.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.

First of all I need a good clear example I can see for myself is what you claim it is. Just rattling off a list of things you think should do it, doesn't.

All these examples are new to me and I don't yet know if they prove what you say they do or not. I expected the situation in the GC to be found elsewhere, and actually it IS found in many places, enough to call some of your assumptions into question I think.But now I have to take into account volcanism, or I may have to, farther down in the column than I had in mind. Again, I don't know for sure yet, because I've found that if I spend time reading up on it I usually end up with a different view of any given example you guys put up.Right now this is all in flux. If I have to think of volcanism occurring during the Flood, perhaps the last half of it which is where the examples seem to be going, that is not a big problem, it's just a new way of looking at the timing of things in that event.

Percy, those layers ARE the Geologic Column as I understand it, the very same thick layers, already formed, just like the Coconino and the Redwall and the tepui, put there by the Flood in my view of it, but clearly identified as going back to the Upper Triassic on the diagram, so what are you trying to prove with this? Those are the very sedimentary layers I'm talking about that I'm saying will never be repeated. The fact that sediment is still collecting on the surface, which isn't evident in the diagram anyway, is kind of meaningless as far as my prediction about that goes. Maybe, maybe not. Can't tell for sure from the diagram. Actually that fault penetrates through the lower part of the Miocene, up to the salt layer and the strata are so deformed as a block it does suggest that in this case they were continuously laid down. Originally horizontally of course. And the faults are related to the deformation. So I'd say that upper 5 kilometers was already there though it probably sagged lower with that fault line.As for the rest, yes the Flood is the only thing that could have formed those huge slabs of rock including the tepui. The idea that you are "pointing out to me" how it couldn't be a Flood layer is very funny, since all you are doing is pointing out to me the standard theory, just another intonation of the Correct Opinion.And yes, both sides are just interpreting.

Your quibbling about nomenclature is pathetic. There are many non-intrusive igneous deposits covered by loads of sedimentary layers. It doesn't matter what you call them, it doesn't matter whether they are part of some abstract thing or not. They are there. Deal with the rocks and forget the names. The fact that tuffs are not intrusive is key; there's no way to argue that maybe this one or that one is intrusive. Forget the geologic column. Those tuffs falsify your claim that all the sedimentary strata were in place before there were igneous deposits.

Indeed, and what it shows is that there were periods of sedimentation after some faults, covering them.On the right side above the words "Palaeozoic basement" and below the words "Break-up unconformity" are four such faults. Above those faults lie "Late Jurassic shelf edge" sedimentary deposits followed by other sedimentary layers on top of those.Real geology has a very very very simple explanation for this.Enjoy

As has been pointed out several times by several people, your concept of the geologic column is irrelevant. You claimed that all igneous rocks covered by sedimentary rocks are intrusion. that claim is false.Deal with the rocks. The names don't matter.

You can't define the rocks out of existence. If your version of the geologic column is defined so as not to include them your version bears no resemblance to reality.Deal with the rocks. Whether or not they are part of your idiosyncratic and unique definition of the composition of the Earth they are there and part of the composition of the Earth.

Then stop whining and start doing.

Not a valid reason for excluding tuffs. They are there no matter what you have in mind.