Summations Only

According to whom?

I can't find that particular one right now but they're easy to find if you look. The Monterey Formation of California:
Structural and Stratigraphic Development of Extensional Basins: A Case Study Offshore Deepwater Sarawak and Northwest Sabah, Malaysia: Extensional Fault-Bend Folding and Synrift Deposition: An Example from the Central Sumatra Basin, Indonesia: Mountain Beltway (with many more): (added red line). Photos of Unconformities: Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Absolutely not The geologic column is all the rocks found underneath the Earth or, when applied to a given location, all the rocks under that location. Sedimentary, metamorphic, igneous, flat, folded, faulted,... all the rocks.If you want to denote only the flat layers on under the Earth or under a given location, you may not redefine "geologic column" to mean that. I doubt there's a simple word for "only the flat layers on under the Earth or under a given location" because mostly nobody cares about that, but you don't get to redefine standard terms. Merriam-Webster:

quote:

---

1. a columnar diagram that shows the rock formations of a locality or region and that is arranged to indicate their relations to the subdivisions of geologic time
2 : the sequence of rock formations in a geologic column

---

Free Dictionary:

quote:

---

The vertical sequence of strata of various ages found in an area or region. Also known as column.
The geologic time scale as represented by rocks.

---

Glossary of geologic terms:

quote:

---

geologic column The arrangement of rock units in the proper chronological order from youngest to oldest.

---

No mention of horizontality or flatness. None. The definition of the geologic column does not include flatness or horizontality of layers. There is no definition anywhere in which "geologic column" requires flat or horizontal layers. You are 110% wrong.{ETA} Many drawings of the geologic column show flat interfaces for simplicity. These do not represent the actual flatness or lack thereof of the interface, or any folding within layers. Here's a diagram of a local geologic column (kurdistan) that is more (but not completely) representational of the actual geometry: from New Geologic Setting of Bekhme FormationEdited by JonF, : No reason given.

Your own definitions include "strata" and "column." What do you think a column is anyway? The strata are originally-horizontal layers of sediments, a column is a stack of them. I have no idea what your diagram represents. Sediments distorted in a river it looks like. What do you think that proves? I've been supposing that first the sediments were laid down everywhere and then distorted. That is what I would expect of your example too. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well it certainly wasn't formed one after the other. How come the upper layers are so flat if they were laid down on top of a picket fence as that earlier picture / diagram shows.

I wanted to see more of the upper part of that picture, but that's OK. As usual it defies the way things are in reality that folded layers would be eroded flat on top like that unless there was more than just weather to work on them, such as a deep stack of sediments above that resisted the movement below.

No it's not, Faith. It's bleedin' obvious. Yes you have. I know you have, 'cos I've shown you photographs. If they put me in Who's Who right now they'd have to list "Showing Faith things that aren't flat" as one of my hobbies. I'm not sure what you're talking about. You mean something like this?

I've seen Roadrunner cartoons that exhibited a better grasp of physics.

What seemed clever to me in Dr. A's response was that I couldn't have imagined that particular formation as an angular unconformity. It wouldn't have entered my mind. But then you also saw it as he did so I guess it wasn't all that clever after all. Odd you'd accuse me of not being familiar with angular unconformities. I've only argued my view of them for years now.As for "filling in" the dips of that Utah formation, the point is simply that angular unconformities don't do that: there is usually a straight line between the upper and lower sections. With some exceptions of course, such as the Shinumo intrusion in the GC (which I think was like that quartzite boulder also in the Tapeats -- that the Tapeats WAS eroded but being all sand it all looks like sand with parts of the lower formation buried in it) and at Siccar Point where edge's picture seems to show that the upper managed to stay straight and flat on top of a jagged picket fence of a lower section (my guess would be that the formation broke off in the foreground plane rather than beneath the upper section). The straight contact just seems highly unlikely to be explained by long term erosion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Must admit I don't know exactly what to make of that mess of a pile of rock, but like some that JonF posted it definitely looks like something the Flood drug in.

What it looks like is that sediment has been deposited on top of rocks that have first been folded and then eroded. It looks exactly like that would look. Can you think why?

Can you describe the mechanism that could happen, and then show it is correct? You will have to, among other things, show that all the layers were formed at the same time. Can you do so, or, as I suspect, throwing out that everything looks like the flood.

The line between the two sections is too even for that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's at times like this that I wonder whether you are actually blind or merely mad. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Big off-topic banner.

Yes. They do not include "flat" or "horizontal". {}ETA} Stratum (the singular of strata) is defined as "a layer or a series of layers of rock in the ground". Nothing about flat or horizontal. The applicable definition is "any columnlike object, mass, or formation". SFW? It's not a stack of flat and horizontal layers. Wrong. The column is a stack of possibly originally horizontal and flat sediments that may or may not be horizontal or flat anymore, plus metamorphic and igneous layers and dikes and the like. Not "a stack of horizontal strata" which is what you claimed it is. And God forbid you follow the link and find out, you just make stuff up. No, it's a cross-section of the formations in Kurdistan that are part of the geologic column, illustrating the fact that the column is much more complex (especially the contacts between layers) than in your confused and simplistic mind. That's true. And you've been supposing that "the Geo Column has stopped wherever it is no longer a horizontal stack of layers but is eroded, buckled and so on." That's false. My diagram and the pictures you ignored demonstrate that falsity. Let's see one again: This is a cross section of an offshore area in Indonesia, looking for oil. It shoes three rift cycles in which the ocean floor cracked or subsided to form a valley, and then flat layers filled in all or most of that valley, and then the ocean floor cracked or subsided again (distorting the flat and horizontal layers). Exactly what you claim is impossible.That's all part of the geologic column, which consists of "the vertical sequence of strata of various ages found in an area or region. Also known as column." or "a columnar diagram that shows the rock formations of a locality or region and that is arranged to indicate their relations to the subdivisions of geologic time". Not just the currently flat and horizontal strata, as you would have it.Remember this? The picture I posted just above (and the others you ignored) show deposition continuing and building on to the top of the geologic column in exactly the way you claim is impossible. Any deposition on top of any layer, no matter how folded and buckled and twisted and cracked that lower layer is, continues the endless building of the geologic column.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.