Summations Only

I'll bet. See what you come up with.

(From the stratigraphic position we can be sure that this is very late Holocene.)

I might consider spending the time if you can be bothered to explain yourself clearly.

You seem to be saying that the whole geological column was laid down Bang! all at once by the flood, so you want us to show you an example where an entire geological column is being laid down today Bang! all at once.The fact is that all deposition going on today proves you wrong. Since we see it being laid down today, the sensible conclusion is that the whole geological column was laid down like that.The nonsensical conclusion - yours - is that it was completely different from today, never happened before and will never happen again, yet is not a miracle.

Hi Faith,You had a series of messages from Message 1097 to Message 1102. This single reply addresses all of them. The important point that Moose and Edge and everyone are trying to get across to you is that the geologic column is not indefinitely continuous horizontally. Each local region has its own unique environment, and the sediments deposited in each one will reflect that uniqueness. Adjacent regions will tend to have similar environments, and so the geologic stack of sediments in those adjacent regions will also tend to be similar, but the further apart regions become the more different will be their geologic stacks.This is precisely what we observe. For example, the geologic stack in regions further and further from the Grand Canyon's geologic stack resembles it less and less. Holocene is Greek for "entirely recent". It refers to the current geological era, and sedimentary layers are being deposited now in this era. At some point in the distant future geologists will choose a new name to refer to their current geological era. They'll refer to the sediments being deposited today as Holocene, and to the layers being deposited in their own time by the new name.So of course there will be geological eras after the Holocene. Now you're just denying simple reality. Sediments are being deposited and forming new strata every second. This is true in lakes and oceans everywhere, and in some terrestrial low lying regions. There can be no doubt that new strata are forming.Global warming will cause sea transgressions in low lying regions all around the world. Florida is one of the most vulnerable regions. Here's a map showing in red those parts of Florida that could be under water within a century or two: The transgressing sea will follow Walther's Law and deposit at each location in turn first sand, then silt/mud/clay, then deeper water oozes.Just as we add to history every day, we also add to sediments and geologic time every day. In what other direction could it go if not upward? Well, of course sedimentation will cease if a region becomes uplifted and becomes an area of net erosion, but lakes and seas are regions of net sedimentation. Where do you think the products of erosion are going today? They're not evaporating into thin air. They're being deposited in low lying areas, mostly under water. Every region of the world, whether atop Mount Everest or at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, is a geologic column. It may be a stack of layers, or it may be bedrock, but each area, whether on a mountain top or at the bottom of the sea, has its own unique geologic column. Areas that are low lying or submerged are having sediments added atop their growing geologic column. Areas that are elevated are being eroded and their geologic column is gradually shrinking.--Percy

But you'd have to show that this deposition that is going on today builds on the existing Geo Column but all the examples given are not of that. Just because deposition continues in the present doesn't mean it is continuing to add to that time-honored structure so dear to the hearts of Old Earthers and Evos. I've given a couple of examples where the strata built up from Precambrian to Holocene (although I can't read the map of Great Britain well enough to be sure if it got into Recent Time or not) and after all that and only after all that the erosion and distortion began,. Now that is evidence although admittedly not a lot of evidence. If you want to prove me wrong you are going to have to show me a place where the strata are that complete WITHOUT erosion and distortion after they were all in place but continue to build by placid deposition. I'm betting there is no such place on Planet Earth. Edited by Faith, : increase size of last paragraph

quote:

---

But you'd have to show that this deposition that is going on today builds on the existing Geo Column but all the examples given are not of that.

---

That's just your assumption.

quote:

---

If you want to prove me wrong you are going to have to show me a place where the strata are that complete WITHOUT erosion and distortion after they were all in place but continue to build by placid deposition. I'm betting there is no such place on Planet Earth.

---

A place UNLIKE your examples ? Why would we need that ?

So if I have a stack of Lego blocks and I stick another one on the top, that isn't adding to the stack? Why not? Of course there isn't. Nobody is suggesting that there is or that there should be. Every place on earth has a history and that history includes erosion, distortion, etc. But what does that have to do with anything?By the way, nobody here is trying to prove to you that you're wrong. That would be like trying to prove to the guy in the straight-jacket that he isn't Napoleon. We're just trying to keep the insanity from spreading.

I already gave you one example of such a place in Message 1095 where I included this image: The sedimentary layers beneath Texas extend out into the Gulf of Mexico. Texas is an area of net erosion, while the Gulf of Mexico is an area of net deposition atop a stack of geologic strata.Faith, even a region that is just bedrock above mantle is a geologic column. Anything that deposits upon it adds to the geologic column at that location. These are simple concepts that follow from a mere definition of the terms.--Percy

Here's William Smith's cross section of Great Britain. Wish the time periods were indicated: Of course it's very clear that all the strata were laid down horizontally and then folded and eroded.

Actually that diagram does not show any sedimentation that is not already labeled by the Geo Time Scale: Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene are the labels at the far right, they and those beneath them having been eroded away to the left. Not sure what the initials indicate of the lower layers, but apparently the diagram only represents the uppermost layers and periods of the Time Scale, all distorted by that salt layer near the bottom.For those who keep bringing it up: YES, I KNOW THE STRATA ARE NOT ALL THE SAME EVERYWHERE, but the Time Periods attached to them reflect their order everywhere.If you want to call absolutely any deposition in the present Geological Column I'll just have to find a new term because I'm thinking only of the STACK OF STRATA as the Geologic Column-- whether it is the same or different rock it is nevertheless a coherent recognizable STACK of obviously once-horixontal layers-- to which the Time Scale periods are attached. If sedimentation is not adding to THE UPPERMOST SURFACE OF IT then that sedimentation is not the Geologic Column.Anyway your diagram is composed of strata labeled by known time periods and shows no sedimentation that has accumulated since the most recent there.ABE: BESIDES: There obviously IS erosion and distortion of that stack, so any new accumulation would not be parallel with the lower layers, but all the layers in the Geologic Column wherever it is found and in whatever portion it is found, always demonstrate original horizontality. Those layers in the diagram were originally horizontal but like all the other examples I've found, the GC cross section, the map of Great Britain, it was all desposited and THEN eroded and otherwise distorted. That's the pattern I'm betting is the case everywhere on the planet. Anyway your example fits my prediction rather than contradicting it as you claim.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The image I posted shows deposition since a road! That's got to be pretty recent.And it blows your whole argument away.

No, of course there is recent deposition. What you have to show is that it is building on the Geologic Column, that stack of clearly originally-horizontal strata to which the Geo Time Table is attached. And those strata have to still be horizontal and complete to make the case.As per this requirement: "If you want to prove me wrong you are going to have to show me a place where the strata are that complete WITHOUT erosion and distortion after they were all in place but continue to build by placid deposition. I'm betting there is no such place on Planet Earth."There is lots of new deposition, it's just in the wrong place to continue the Geo Time Table, which is attached to the Geo Column, which is an identifiable stack of strata. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course the Geologic Column and the Geologic Time Scale are not identical but there is really no way to separate them conceptually without doing violence to the concept of the Time Scale.The Geo Column is an identifiable stack of strata that can also be identified by the order of fossils contained in some of the layers. The sediments are different from place to place and there may or may not be fossils in any given portion of the stack, but it is nevertheless an identifiable geologic structure. There shouldn't be any way to confuse it with other depositions. It's a stack, the layers are usually pretty thick, they were clearly laid down originally horizontally, and the contacts between the layers are often knife-edge close. They may be folded or otherwise distorted, but always as a block (although the whole block may not be distorted, such as in the case of the angular unconformity where the upper layers remain horizontal).The Time Scale may not have been invented to correspond to the Column but there can't be any doubt that it is associated with it, often illustrated in conjunction with it (certainly in the Grand Canyon area for dramatic instance), and unarguably based on its fossil contents. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well what does it continue, then?Hanging in space?Of course it is on some part of the geological stuff.You must think we're as daft as you are with the nonsense you keep trying to feed us.And you really should be adding, "Amen!" after all your posts. Because that's what you are really doing--preaching.