Summations Only

I've given the evidence. Nobody has shown anywhere the Geo Column continues to build. Two places where the column is pretty complete, meaning the strata, AND also their corresponding time periods, are Great Britain -- Smith's map -- and the GC-GS area as shown on my favorite cross section. All the strata that represent the majority of the time periods from Precambrian to Holocene are there in both of them, obviously all laid down BEFORE the erosion that exposed them to view in both areas. There may not be any other places on the planet where the strata are so complete and so exposed, I don't know. If you all know I'd really like to have more evidence.The evidence in those two places at least is that it has stopped. Went on for hundreds of millions of years then erosion took over and it's no longer continuing. You claim it's continuing in other places and you think that makes sense. Oh well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You say I should choose a site where deposition is going on. Please provide one.

You don't need to expound on how the Geo Time Scale was constructed. Just look at any diagram of it, and the best are always of the Grand Canyon, sorry just the way it is. Those are ROCKS there, identified as rocks based on different sediments, AND they are identified as Time Periods as well. it doesn't matter how it came about, the Geo Time Scale is clearly constructed ON the Geo Column.

See, I don't think deposition is going on anywhere like the deposition that produced the Geo Column. I see the whole shebang this way: Strata laid down, through the entire stack, Precambrian to Holocene in Time terms, basement rock to Claron or higher in strata terms. Not a perfect match but parallel formation of strata and time.I think this is what happened everywhere. Now we just have the disturbances, the disturbed surface and the disturbed strata both, the erosion, the twisted strata, sedimentation or deposition here and there, blah blah blah.So show me this deposition that is going on now that contradicts this scenario.

I can't pick them because I don't think there are any that contradict my scenario.

Point is, where would I look? You are so sure you can prove me wrong you're the one who should produce the evidence. I really doubt there is any. Deposition in deltas, deposition in the ocean, what are you going to come up since none of that proves me wrong? And remember the Geo Column covers a lot of geography. You aren't going to find anything anywhere near that extent even if you found something that roughly approximates a Geo Column layer, which you aren't going to find anyway.

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

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

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.

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.

No, that IS adding to the stack. But there is no intact stack any more, it's eroded, tilted, folded, there is no place to put your Lego that would build on the original stack that once was horizontal and climbed through all the time periods up to the one where you could put your Lego. It once existed in that form, that's apparent in many places on the planet. But it's no longer in that form anywhere that I know of, so that new depositions can't build on it.Here's another pretty diagram of what I call the Geologic Column. People are objecting to my definition, but I don't care what term is used, I'm referring to that STACK OF SEDIMENTS, different ones in different places but still this recognizable stack of sediments that was clearly originally horizontal and to which time periods in hundreds of millions of years are customarily assigned.

They stacked up one on top of another very neatly and horizontally for some time -- LOTS of layers over a LONG time by OE reckoning -- then they all got buckled and broken and eroded in a block. Where are you going to put your Lego? It isn't going to "build on" the stack, or "continue" the stack. The stack is no longer the original stack. It's over and done with.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But it doesn't require that. All it requires is that they be compacted enough to hold their shape and resist erosion, which would be the case in the lower layers though not always the higher layers, which are the ones I figure would have been more likely to erode away. That cross section of the Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area shows the strata above the Permian completely eroded away in the GC area and eroded away in steps up from there to the Claron in the GS area, but the layers from the Permian down remained intact.Chemical lithification would have occurred over time after that. Whatever there is in the strata which includes marine deposits as well, the limestones etc. But there is no mechanism I can think of that could have formed such extensive deep layers EXCEPT the Flood, that's why I attribute them all to the Flood. Whatever form the sediments existed in before the Flood wouldn't have been strata.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's very clever and probably the only answer that at least superficially challenges what I'm saying. The thing is if a deposition did occur over that formation it would fill in the valleys and I haven't ever seen an angular unconformity in which the upper layers were anything but straight and flat both top and bottom, have you? Also the upper layers occur over tightly folded lower layers, I've never seen one form over the kind of base in that diagram, have you? In theory that could happen but in reality there's no evidence that it ever does that I know of. Perhaps you can find some but I doubt it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.