Growing the Geologic Column

I am not asking anyone to adopt my definition of the Geo Column, it may turn out in the end that I have to give it up anyway, but I AM asking that at least you all follow the argument and stay within the defined context. The tuffs simply happen to occur outside the area I'm calling the Geo Column, but obviously I have to fit them into the Flood scheme somehow anyway, which I'd be happy to try to do if everybody would stop trying to impose definitions on me that aren't mine.

JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T FIT WITHIN WHAT I HAD IN MIND. SHEESH.

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.

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.

You can track those layers all the way across the formation to the left, RAZD, clearly showing they were all there before the faulting to the right occurred. There is something different about those on the right but they were nevertheless all already there. All those layers were there, and the salt layer was there. The only layer that wasn't already there, or might not have been judging only by the diagram, is the uppermost layer that says "Base tertiary."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not just claiming something because I believe ni the Bible. I think it's just plain glaringly obvious that the strata and the fossils HAVE to be explained by the worldwide Flood.

I keep finding posts I've missed, but may not be able to spend time on them.No, you are wrong wrong wrong. It is NOT a presupposition, it IS an observation and if it turns out that there is volcanic activity during the Flood that is NOT a big deal, it's just a shift in the timing of things. Volcanism, tectonism etc all seem to have occurred at or near the end of the Flood, but pinning down the actual time has not been possible for me yetAnd yes I know volcanism is associated with plate movement, that's why I expect them to occur in the same time frame.

The Young Earth does have to be assumed because I see no way to get anything else out of the Bible without doing violence to it. But the strata and the fossils apart from everything else HAVE to be explained by the Flood, the other explanations are ridiculous.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't take such specific incidentals as your idea of where crabs and trilobites should be in the stack of strata as all that damning. You keep repeating it, but there are lots of little oddnesses in the strata that one might think couldn't be explained by the Flood. But that's nothing but your subjective supposition, you don't know how things would have been sorted, it's all just interpretation you know. The big picture, the fact that the strata, their depth and worldwide occurrence, and the thickness and extent of many of the layers, and such an incredible number of dead creatures, the fossilization of which requires the very conditions only the Flood could have provided, really are amazing evidence for such an event, so that denying it just shows a mentality that can't see the forest for the trees to begin with.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It never fails to amaze me how rare it is for anybody here ever to put a positive construction on anything I say, but always come up with the sleaziest possible interpretation.

• I HAVE tons of evidence for this order of things.
• One doesn't abandon a hypothesis the first time a knee-jerk objection comes from the opposition with a vested interest in "proving" me wrong.
• I haven't yet given the Cardenas a careful think-through; that whole bunch of rocks beneath the GC is a very complicated situation and it's going to take time to sort it all out, WHEN I'm finally able to get to it.
• And I don't ASSUME there is only one such supposed extrusive event, so far the evidence is that there is only one.

The objections I've been getting to my view of the geo column, for just the most recent example, tell me nobody cares to understand anything from my point of view, I HAVE TO accept theirs, the sooner the better, as soon as they've posted them for the very first time, or I'm being "evasive" or "lying" or "denying" or whatever. And that's all you're doing here, putting anything I think in a bad light which is all from your own assumptions. If there's one thing I've learned from EvC it's to expect a great screaming chorus of objections to ANYTHING I post, that eventually will show themselves to be irrelevant if I just take my time to think through the issues. Which of course isn't easy when you're being deluged with objections before you've even begun to grasp the particular issue.So, you think I should just fold up because the Cardenas is supposedly a killer objection. Sorry, not when I know I'm on the right track on this issue from other angles. The Cardenas will have to wait, and I expect it will eventually fall into place.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.