I'd also like to point out that he's answering mainstream Geology in such a way that implies the standard view of the Geologic Column IS that identifiable stack of sedimentary strata I've been taking it to be.
Ah, so old Steve is put up a strawman about "the standard view of the Geologic Column". Typical creationist. They have to tell untruths about everything. That's all they have. Untruths. Let's remind you that his 'article', containing all those untruths, is dated 1984.
However, in real life, in 1977 from:
Margaret Gary, Robert McAfee Jr and Carol L. Wolf, eds. (1977). Glossary of Geology, American Geological Institute, fourth printing, p.292:
Geological column: (a) A composite diagram that shows in a single column the subdivisions of part or all of geologic time or the sequence of stratigraphic units of a given locality or region (the oldest at the bottom and the youngest at the top, with dips adjusted to the horizontal) so arranged as to indicate their relative positions to each other. See also columnar section (b) The vertical or chronologic arrangement or sequence of rock units portrayed in a geologic column. See also geologic section----Syn: stratigraphic column.
Faith, stop reading creationist nonsense. They always have to lie.
The "untruths" seem to come rather frequently from your side, and you are particularly irresponsible in your posts it seems to me.
Really? From the side of of those tens of thousands of geologists from all over the world? As I see it, the few cases of dishonesty that some geologists were involved in have been pointed out and dealt with in the relevant circles. Could you provide references for "untruths" from geologists which haven't been dealt with by other geologists?
On the other side, the dishonesty of people like Chris Nevins and John Woodmorappe have been pointed out very well.
although I've many times defined my view of it as specific to the particular strata that define the Geo Time Scale, that are very thick and very extensive and so on.
Why do you have this view? The geological time scale does not assign particular strata or thicknesses or extensiveness and so on at all. The geological time tables describe time periods. Your comment didn't make any sense.
But this is a LOT of work and I can't keep up with it.
Of course it is. You do know that tens of thousands of geologists all over the world get paid for doing geology full-time? In my country around 3 000; where exploration and mining companies are the biggest employers, followed by research organisations (exploration and mining companies provide most of the funds for research on geology), Universities (exploration and mining companies provide most of the funds for research on geology) , Government research organisations (exploration and mining companies provide most of the funds for research on geology), etc.? Every single person working full-time on geology knows more than you about the subject.
Yes, that's how we know that the Drakensberg and Lebombo group basalts (up to 1600 m thick in the Lesotho area, tapering out to the west and east) were extruded at the end of Karoo deposition. The basaltic dolerite dykes and sills intruded during the same event and are of similar age to the Drakensberg and Lebombo Groups.
Basaltic diabases are waaaaay older than the Drakensberg and Lebombo Group basalts. Its so easy to know; the contacts give it all away. Some basaltic dolerites actually intrude basaltic diabases. Aureoles, the works.
In our country a diabase is of Pre-Karoo age; a dolerite is of Karoo-age (similar compositions and minerals and crystals and crystal sizes and everything else!)
...interesting that even in this post of yours the age is really just windowdressing, what concerns you --
Actually, the relative age of a rock is very imporatant in exploration and mining.
... as it should -- is the relationships between the rocks themselves...
That's very important in geology.
... and their physical condition. ...
That's very important in geology, too. Everyone should consider what a rock can weather too, etc. That's why the weathering of rocks is such a huge part of geology. Minerology etc. Do you think that all those tens of thousands of geologists are all stupid?
ABE: Here's what I mean: if for instance the cross section shows a stack of layers with a magma dike running from the Precambrian rocks at the very bottom to the Tertiary at the very top and spilling over the top, then we can conclude that the strata were all there first and then the volcanic event occurred.
Actually, no. Igneous rocks indicate igneous events. For example, we do have diabases 'running' from precambrian rocks to the Tertiary in the Karoo and the Karoo sediments were deposited in those valleys formed by those eroded diabases. The volcanic events occured first, then the sedimentation occurred later. Then more volcanic events to form the dolerites and basalts after the main sedimentation events.
The thing about faults is there's no way to tell for sure the timing of when they formed
After the deposits investigated. Faults don't form in mid-air... Not very difficult.
Sorry, I just don't think that having any conversations with people such as Faith is productive anymore. It's like having debates in any 'Malhuis'. It's like trying to get inmates in an institution for the mentally insane trying to produce sanity.