Growing the Geologic Column

You're probably right, but most stratigraphic sections I have found only identify them as "basalt" which Faith simply dismisses as intrusive. Just like I presented 4 sections with clear lava layers between sedimentary layers and what I get is "basalt IS usually intrusive into sedimentary rock,"Grrrr.HBD

Based on your and Moose's comments, I may have put the cart before the horse. It seems a basalt is a basalt because it is fine grained (plus the chemical composition part) not just because it is extrusive. However, it is fine grained because it cools rapidly which is indicative of an extrusion. That about right?I do think Percy makes a good point that usage on the internet is not consistent and the term basalt is used for intrusions. I don't think I have seen the term gabbro used on a generalized cross section at all. So without more information, it is pretty difficult to be completely convincing that it is extrusive.However, I don't see how tuffs or ash flows could be intrusions nor occur underwater, so they should be sufficient to establish a break in continuous sedimentation (during a flood).HBD

Not recent enough??? How many millions of years ago was the flood?If you have the flood deposits ending before the Pliocene, then it becomes problematic to explain how the stratigraphy in that diagram developed in only 4,000 years. You do realize that tuffs are volcanic, which means in that diagram there is tectonic and volcanic disturbances within the stack. There is NOT continuous deposition.If you keep moving the goalpost it will be certain that there will not be an example that invalidates your idea.HBD

I guess "moving the goalpost" is not really the right term. You have stated that your idea is that all the sediment was deposited before any tectonic activity occurred.My comment about "moving the goalpost" is more about your acceptance of geological time period a sediment is assigned to. You can make a comment like this: The problem is you have no objective way to correlate the layers. It s easy to just dismiss any examples as "too young," "not part of a deep stack," whatever fits your whim.It is more like you are asking us to show you a square circle.So what layers represent flood deposits? I think you once said from the Tapeats to the Claron which spans the periods from the end of the Precambrian to the Eocene. Would this be the geological limits of the flood in your thinking?The other problem, which I have already mentioned, is that if the flood deposits stop at the Eocene, then everything above that has accumilated in the last 4,000 years. And yet you complain that no significant sedimentation is going on today. For example, the diagram that JonF presented in Message 214 has 600 meters (almost 2,000 feet) of sediment and tuff. How does that happen in 4,000 years (without the flood waters)??So how about the stratigraphic section I presented from Alaska. Those are basalt flows from the Triassic period, bound on either end with limestone. Is that far enough down the stack? It should be right in the middle of the flood time period. ------------By the way, I did not say that basalt is never an intrusion. I said it is an extrusive rock. Moose and edge both confirmed this and agreed that a basalt should be considered extrusive unless otherwise indicated. So a basalt sill would be an intrusive rock. Whether that is appropriate to call an intrusion a basalt may be questionable, but as Percy pointed out, it seems to be commonly used, at least on the internet.The part I got wrong is that it is not a basalt because it is extrusive, it is a basalt because it is fine grained. It is fine grained because it cooled quickly and being exposed to the surface causes it to cool quickly. Some intrusions may also cool quickly and so can be classified as a basalt. But your response that MOST basalt are intrusion is not correct.I hope that clears up the basalt issue.HBD

So here we go with apologetics again. I thought your treatment of geology and a worldwide flood were supposedly scientific.

I am? You keep drawing arbitrary lines in the sand as to what qualifies as evidence against your idea. We are all convinced that there was NO time period EVER where the entire earth was covered by water at the same time. And we show examples of subaerial lava flows bound by sedimentary deposits, which is something you claimed didn't happen, but since your line is so very arbitrary and poorly defined, we find out that any example we bring doesn't qualify for some reason or other.The image I presented from Alaska has the time periods on the chart. It is mostly from the Triassic. This period is thought to be the breakup of Pangaea. You can read a bit about it at Central Atlantic magmatic province. While the Alaskan example is not part of the CAMP, it shows that it was some of the most extensive volcanic episodes in history (the area covered by these lava flows IS the most extensive on earth). Alaska would have been on the other side of the North American Craton and would have been active due to that plate boundary.This event corresponds to the Chocolate Cliffs (the Moenkopi and Chinle formations) in the Grand Staircase area. A place where you were concerned about no tectonic activity occurring. Meanwhile, on the other side of the continent, the most extensive volcanic providence on earth was being formed. During a flood You apparently accept the breakup of Pangeae, but of course think it happened very rapidly, either beginning during the flood or directly afterwards. The question is, how do these lava flows correspond with the GC time frame in your reckoning? My guess is that you want to put it at the same time as the lava flows in the GC, after the whole stack is in place. But that correlation is arbitrary based only on the presupposition that there was only volcanic and tectonic activity after the whole stack was in place.I think you are the one who is missing 90% + of what you think you are answering.HBD

No problem. BUT in order to (re)assign examples to a post-flood time period you need a way to determine where these stratigraphic sections fit that is NOT arbitrary. You can't just say "Well there was not tectonic or volcanic disturbances until after the flood so these must be post flood. There I have support for the flood model." You need a method of correlating geological features that is systematic, that I or anyone else can apply and come to the same conclusion. And that can also be applied to other geological features and get consistent results. Of course, otherwise... no flood. But that is an arbitrary assignment. What would be the justification for that? It is a presupposition. If there is indeed tremendous volcanic activity occurring in other parts of the world during the time when the Grand Canyon was "quiet," it ruins your whole premise. You start with the premise and work to make the data fit your premise - that is presupposition. Case in point! Something you need to realize here is that volcanos occur at or near plate boundaries. These are areas of enormous stress and pressures. Usually these area are lifting up over the surrounding terrain because they are located above a subduction zone. There is no reason to expect net sedimentation in these areas.Conversely, sediments occur in low areas where energy levels and disturbances are relatively low which allows sediment to accumulate. If energy levels where as high, like in a volcanic area, sediment could not accumulate efficiently and would forced out into areas of lower energy.You can think of them as basically opposite systems.HBD

But you DO shift things around. Just like you suggest moving the Jurassic lava flows of the Alaskan Range to a post-flood time period. Why? Simply because it would fit your scenario better. That is NOT objective.The absolute dates of the layers are irrelevant or at least unnecessary to establish a correlation. In fact, much of the geological sequence was worked out before radiometric dating and before Darwin's ToE. It doesn't matter what time frame you assign to geological periods they will yield the same RELATIVE results.I have been trying to figure out how to get this idea across to you and I think I may have an idea.Let's say I look at a cross section of the Grand Canyon And I notice that the Kaibab is at the top of the formation, which is assigned to the Permian.Then I look at a section in the Grand Staircase Here I notice that the Claron Formation is at the top of the stack. Therefore, the Claron must also be of Permian age and was deposited at the same time as the Kaibab. Right?You would say I was daft, would you not? Why? Because you can follow the layers through the GC / GS section and see that the Kaibab layer continues under the area where the Claron is and therefore you know the Claron was laid down much later. It is the RELATIVE order that counts here. You KNOW that the Kaibab and the Claron were NOT deposited at the same time.Here's the thing. Did you realize that the rock record is continuous from the Grand Canyon to the Alaskan Range? And to the Appalachian Mountains? And to the African continent? etc. So the RELATIVE sequence can be worked out between these geologically distinct areas just like you can work out the relative sequence between the Grand Canyon and the Grand Staircase.Of course, you may expect that I present such a cross section between the GC and the Alaskan Range, but I doubt any such composite drawing exists. It would just be too complex, it would do you no good anyway. But don't think for a second that geologists have not worked through those kind of relationships to establish a relative order of things. That's how it works.Slabs of rock DO NOT represent time periods, as you put it. Layers are assigned to geological time periods based on their RELATIVE position; their position in relation to one another. The clues that geologists use to determine this relative position are varied, but the bottom line is that it is the correlation that really matters. Absolute dating did not establish that the earth was old, it confirmed it!For example, in drilling for oil or gas, it is not particularly important that a particular rock is 200 million years old or whatever, what IS important is the relative ages of the deposits. Modern geological methods have made this easier by assigning absolute dates to geological periods so that the relative position of a layer can be more easily determined, but there is nothing particularly important about the absolute date. You could convert it in your head to 200 million minutes old for all it matters, as long as the relative ages remain consistent. You seem to think that geologists go about assigning ages to structures to bolster their presupposition that the earth is old. But you think that because you are thinking like a creationist, because that is a creationist's modus operandi. That is NOT how scientists operate. Scientists work on problems methodically; taking one piece of the puzzle at a time and fitting it into the bigger picture. It is this same systematic, methodical approach that has allow us to work out the structure of DNA, the cell cycle, the atomic theory, cosmology, ect, ect. Piece by piece, building on previous discoveries; working out details, drawing objective conclusions.I know, I know... Blah, blah, blah.The thing is, there are lava flows across the world that fall into the RELATIVE stratigraphic position that falsifies the idea that a worldwide flood deposited all the layers of the GC.I know you believe without a doubt that there was a global flood, and that's perfectly fine. No problem. But your scenario completely fails (I know you don't see that it does, but it does). How about a much simpler task. Show us just one layer that is consistent with flood deposits and that corresponds to the same relative position in the geological column throughout the world. That should prove to be much easier than the course you are taking. But your not much for taking my advice.HBD

Observations are fine. But your observations can't be explained with your ideas.ABE: It IS a presupposition! From Message 426: QED/ABE It is a big deal. Lava flows under water make a very distinct type of rock; pillow lava. Subaerial lava flows = no water. The more and more you restrict the flood timing, the more and more geological features you can't explain with the flood. You need the flood to explain rocks than contain hominid fossils in the late Miocene and and rocks that contain trilobites in the early Cambrian.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Faith's definition of the geological column: A continuous series of sedimentary layers unbroken by tectonic or volcanic disturbance.Now, provide an example of a volcanic layer within the geological column as I describe it.i.e. a square circle.HBD

Sounds like you need to sign up at Evolution Fairytale Forum. Those people over there will "get it" and you will only have maybe one or two who disagree with you at a time - and they will get banned after a little while anyway. So here's the link .... Evolution Fairytale ForumYou would fit right in over there.HBD

You really don't know anything about me to judge whether I am a "Christian" or not except that I think your ideas about the flood, science and Biblical interpretation are ridiculous.

My attitude towards YOU ??????? Well go right ahead and judge me and so heap judgement upon yourself.Good day. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Could you explain what you mean by "genetic model"? It sounds more biological than geological.When I did a search on that term, this chapter in a book came up. I only briefly looked at it, but it seems to be the very kind of thing being discussed - how the history of a region is used to determine where to look for minerals. Perhaps you could take a look at it and make some comments on it that may help a layman like me to understand what they are talking about (it is quite technical). It may actually be more on topic over at the SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science. thread, if you would want to comment on it over there.Please?HBDEdited by herebedragons, : Added undignified pleading

Do you have a source? I was actually looking for something along these lines but didn't find anything.HBD