Growing the Geologic Column

When I began reading this thread, this is exactly the analogy I was thinking of. Expecting the geologic column to be complete at every place on the Earth is like expecting to recover the entirety of human history in a single bore hole at a single dig site.Would christians complain if we said there was no history of the Hebrew people because a single dig site in Canada did not turn up Hebrew artefacts? Of course they would complain, but that is exactly what they are demanding of geologists.

Of course the geologic column includes igenous rocks. In my part of the world, the Snake River cuts through some beautiful geologic history, thanks to the hotspot that is currently under Yellowstone.For example, you can see multiple lava flows stacked on top of another near Twin Falls (also known for it's BASE jumping off of the Perine bridge): You can also find glassy rhyolite from slow moving lava flows in the local geologic column: I find it strange that someone would claim igneous rock is not part of the geologic column when it dominates the geologic column in my part of the world.

Really, all one needs to do is google "Mt. Pinatubo lahars" for great examples of modern deposition adding layers to the geologic column. For example, this house: This telephone pole: How can anyone say that the geologic column is not being added to today?

There is no more "THE Geologic Column" than there is "THE Archaeological Dig" somewhere that contains the entire history of man in a single 5 x 5 hole that plummets down through the Earth.We observe new sediments and rocks being deposited on top of older sediments. We observe that in some regions more layers are being added to the geologic record of that region.Why you can't accept this is beyond me.

Here is a rather rough outline of human history that no one should find that controversial. Let's call this "THE human history". With that idea in place, does this mean that at any spot on the globe that there are human artefacts from every single event on that list directly underfoot?If human history really did unfold as described "THE human history", shouldn't I be able to go to any spot in the world, start digging a hole, and uncover layer after layer of human artefacts from every single century of history that follows the exact order of the timeline given above?Or, is the timeline given just an amalgam of knowledge gained from different finds at different sites, and stitched together from clues that link all of the different dig sites together into a whole?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Where do you think those sediments will go? Do you think a sand layer is going to magically start digging through the dirt below it, and bury itself at a random location somewhere under the surface? What exactly do you think happens when sediments pile on top of other sediments.For example, this is Lizard Butte, a cool little formation in SW Idaho near where I grew up. It has the notoriety of looking like a horny toad sunning on a little mound (The head is at the top of the butte, the two left limbs drape over the sides in case you can't see it). The rock at the top of the butte is old volcanic rock from a lava flow. [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wLJRUjhUSzg/UnA_wgmWESI/AAAAAAAAHtk/iZ7IW3TtlJc/s1600/4552656955_1c270e0b08.jpg[/img]Now, do you think that top soil started to gather atop the volcanic rock, and then it magically started moving around and buried itself under the lava flow? Or, was the dirt already the top layer of the geologic column, and the volcanic rock deposited over it forming a new layer on the geologic column?Which do you think it is?Edited by Admin, : Hide bad image link that makes page take a very long time to load.Edited by Admin, : Hiding the image doesn't disable it - I'll disable it this time.

What features do those strata have that requires a worldwide flood, and a recent one at that? Why couldn't partial flooding of the world, in the form of oceans and lakes, produce those features?

Then what would be a big deal?What features in a geologic formation would be inconsistent with a recent global flood? What type of observations would falsify a recent global flood?

All of your arguments can be boiled down to one sentence."No matter what the evidence is, I will claim that a global flood caused it."Your position is completely unfalsifiable. No matter what features a geologic formation has, you will proclaim that it requires a global flood because . . . well, you say so, and for no other reason.If you think I am wrong, then describe for me a hypothetical geologic formation that a recent global flood could not produce.

Would it be fair to say that no evidence, no matter what it is, will convince you that the Earth is ancient? The same for a lack of a recent global flood?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

It only shows itself to be God's word in your eyes because you throw out any evidence that contradicts it. You have already said as much.So if it wasn't God's word, you wouldn't know it. In message 480 you wrote:"Perhaps you could say I'm trying to make science fit the Bible, but certainly not the other way around. The Bible is God's production, but Old Earth science is humanly created."You are treating the Bible as infallible, throwing out science that doesn't fit the Bible.When you say that such-and-such geologic feature is consistent with a recent global flood, what are you really saying? Aren't you really saying that no matter what that geologic formation looks like, you will consider it to be consistent with a recent global flood?Surely you can see why your claims don't hold water, or aren't that convincing.

Agreeing on what the Bible asserts says nothing about its accuracy. You seem to be confusing the two.How do we determine whether or not a recent global flood occurred? Just read the Bible over and over until we are convinced? Does the geologic evidence not matter? We point to all of it. We don't cherry pick like you do. Pointing to one flood deposit does not make the lack of flood deposits in another formation go away. Actually, we get you just fine. There is no evidence that will ever change your mind. You have already decided that there was a recent global flood before you even looked at these geologic formations, and no charatcteristic or feature in any geologic formation is going to budge you from your current position.Don't worry, we get you.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Let me see if this is right.You claim that if there was a recent global flood, then the layers should be horizontal. Now you are saying that non-horizontal layers are also consistent with a recent global flood.It begs the question . . . what wouldn't be consistent with a recent global flood?

Isn't that exactly what we see with the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon?What you seem to be asking for are "anticlines", of which there are tons of examples. For example: "Aerial view of the Chenareh anticline partly covered by a giant landslide derived from the backlimb of the Kabir Kuh anticline to the south"
http://www.ija.csic.es/gt/gdl/Zagros/GDL-Objectives.htmThat distorted fold continues under the horizontally deposited sediments on either side of the exposed anticline.A google image search turns up more examples, like this one: Forbidden

The greater question is how you can confuse a geologic record strewn with multiple volcanic layers with a geologic record with no volcanic layers. Had you never heard of tuffs, flood basalts, or lahars?