Growing the Geologic Column

When I began reading this thread, this is exactly the analogy I was thinking of. Expecting the geologic column to be complete at every place on the Earth is like expecting to recover the entirety of human history in a single bore hole at a single dig site.Would christians complain if we said there was no history of the Hebrew people because a single dig site in Canada did not turn up Hebrew artefacts? Of course they would complain, but that is exactly what they are demanding of geologists.

I noticed that the reaction of some was that Steve Austin was lying in some way, but my own feeling is that this could easily be a common misconception, and not just among YEC's.But no one here in this thread has this misconception, nor has anyone expressed anything remotely like this, so I'm concerned that the fact that you felt the need to say this indicates some misunderstanding on your part, but I'm not sure what. We all know that a geologic column exists at every point around the world, different everywhere, and incomplete nearly everywhere so far as representing the entire geologic timescale. No one here thinks that all of the geologic time scale is represented in every geologic column, nor even very much of it.AbE: After reading your message one more time I now understand why you cited this misconception. You thought it was a response to the assertion that a geologic column represents all the rocks beneath some location. It's not. It's a response to the misconception that all of geologic time is represented in the geologic column everywhere around the Earth. Two different concepts. Concerning your use of the word "recognizable," and earlier of the word "identifiable," realize that most of the world's strata lie deeply buried and inaccessible, so I think what you really mean to say is that were we able to examine them that we would be able to tell where layers begin and end and what their composition is. But if we were to stand on a spot about which geologists were completely ignorant of what lay beneath, we'd still be standing atop a geologic column. An uninvestigated one, but a geologic column nonetheless.So anywhere around the globe sediments are being deposited, they're being deposited atop the geologic column at that location. It doesn't matter whether that geologic column has intrusions or volcanic layers or regions of solidified mantle, and it doesn't matter whether its layers are slanted or deformed or faulted or intruded, it's still a geologic column, and the sediments being deposited atop it now would be part of a Holocene (the current epoch) layer.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

Of course the geologic column includes igenous rocks. In my part of the world, the Snake River cuts through some beautiful geologic history, thanks to the hotspot that is currently under Yellowstone.For example, you can see multiple lava flows stacked on top of another near Twin Falls (also known for it's BASE jumping off of the Perine bridge): You can also find glassy rhyolite from slow moving lava flows in the local geologic column: I find it strange that someone would claim igneous rock is not part of the geologic column when it dominates the geologic column in my part of the world.

"System" refers to the actual rock record in a given time period.In other words, the "Silurian System" refers to the actual rocks deposited during the "Silurian Period", which only refers to that time frame.If you wish to refer to a specific location, I would phrase it "Devonian System of eastern North America", or something like that. The systems are incomplete for various reasons. One is omission by erosion. Unfortunately, you say that this does not happen, so I'm not sure what you are left with for an explanation.I don't see Austin saying anything about rock type in this quotation.And yes, the generalized 'geologic column' is diagrammatic. Most references will say that it is a composite of sections from multiple locations. Of course, Austin does not come out and tell you this. In fact, there is nothing in geological reasoning that says any particular 'column' or 'System' needs to be complete or continuous at any location in the world.Consequently, as suggested by others here, Austin poses a strawman argument that is an embarrassment to his degree in the subject.

In defence, only so far as to say, Steve Austin's essay is not quite as bad as it has been painted. There are plenty of valid criticisms that could be made of it.I would say that of Steve Austin's points this one seems to be addressed at naive misconceptions held by (some) uninformed lay people. While it would be somewhat dishonest to present such as a valid attack on mainstream geology it is not an outright lie. (Others, are worse,though)However, the quoted point only says that there are considerable gaps in the geological record at any given location. This thoroughly refutes any idea that large scale erosion at any particular location is "the end" of the geological column and of geological time. In mainstream geology such events are expected.

quote:

---

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.

​

That is, it is not just any old pile of dust or eroded material, it is not just any core sample, it is not just any sequence of layers of this that or the other, it does not include igneous rock and so on and so forth, which is what I've been arguing here.

---

In fact he says none of that.

quote:

---

The Geologic Column is a specific recognizable formation of sedimentary strata that is found as partial stacks here and there, some more complete than others but none fully complete. Austin also makes clear that the individual strata ARE identifiable as separate recognizable sediments.

​

I'm not sure what the ten "systems" refer to that Austin talks about, as far as the rocks go, though they clearly refer to ten major time periods on the Geo Time Scale. He seems to be saying they can be identified by rock type, though, not just fossil contents.

---

You should read misconception number 5 Austin says that sequences of strata are helpful but individual strata are not diagnostic of any particular period. Even sequences only "may be" diagnostic.Really Faith, if you are going to use a source you need to read it rather more carefully than you seem to have done.

As I Google "Geological Column", I find that, of the first 10 results, one actually refers to 'geological timescale' (Wikipedia).One is a definition from Merriam Webster Online. It says that the column is a diagram.The rest directly refer to the YEC articles, including a TO article which addresses the YEC usage by Kent Hovind.In other words, YEC is originating and controlling the narrative on the geological 'column'. Although, we see it here often enough, I truly can't remember a discussion of the 'geological column' in all my years of training and my career. To me, it is simply a synonym for 'stratigraphic column' or 'stratigraphic sequence', both of which are constrained to a location, unless one is discussing a very generalized diagram having very little significance to a scientific discussion.As to igneous rocks, I'd say that might just be a personal preference. Volcanic rocks are obvious inclusions in the time-stratigraphic record since they are interbedded with sedimentary rocks. Intrusives are problematic, but using cross-cutting relationships and contact relationships along with absolute ages, I would consider them important to the interpretation of the geologic record at any given location. Here is an example: Here is an example of a composite 'column' produced from several locations. This is actually from Creationwiki. Of course, they say that this is all based on bad assumptions. Just to throw a fly in the ointment, here is an example of an intrusive body, the Stillwater Complex in Montana, with its own internal stratigraphic sequence: It basicaly consists of a stratigraphic sequence within a stratigraphic sequence as different mineral phases drop (literally) out of the melt. As I understand it, you can actually find 'stream channels in some of the units filled in by later accumulating minerals. Though probably off topic, this shows the prevalence and importance of sedimentary and pseudo-sedimentary features in the geological record.ETA: Heh, heh, doesn't really look like Faith's standard geo column, but there you go.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

im new here. please excuse typos and errors. i went blind a year ago and with treatment am getting a little sight back, and can read with 500x magnifier on plus a magnifying glass.anyway, my grand-nephew is here in texas visiting from Alaska, hes 8, and i had my laptop open on one of the other geology threads and he saw the word fossil and he loves dinos. in a couple of days we are getting on bus to explore the grand canyon. he has drawn his own diagrams ,we don't have a printer, that yall provided. we are camping out so he will be my eyes for me. he has his field notebook still out ready to take more notes to take from what you write. hes taking this seriously. i think yall are going to make a budding geologist out of him.Aureliaps i had to buy him a computer too so he can write his field notes up and so when he goes back home he will be lurking on this site soaking up info. thanks for keeping it simple enough an 8 yr. old could understand it well enough to want to go apply the info. again thank you very much.Edited by Aurelia, : No reason given.

There are a lot of messages, some rather (for lack of a better term) pretty complicated, being directed at Faith.I'm also perceiving some conflicting information being presented by the evo side.The non-admin counterpart (Minnemooseus) would like to address a number of Edge comments, but I'm not up to it at the moment.Bottom line - How about lightening up some? Restrict your posts to saying something really good. And bring up the friendly level.Comment replies to this message are welcome, but do such via the "Whine List" topic.Adminnemooseus

That's an awesome story. Nice work, bro, or sis!Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your post has so much to say... Enjoy the Grand Canyon, be sure to take pictures and carry plenty of water. To see the canyon at the age of 8, what a gift! When you know how to listen, the rocks will tell their story.

Meaning when you've swallowed the Old Earth koolaid you'll hear all the stupid stuff on those diagrams the boy has copied. When you REALLY know how to listen you'll hear the story of a great catastrophe by water.

Well, that was a predictable barrage of negativity.

You are not committing any offense for your understanding of geology. Not many people ever take the time to understand the terminology you have learned. The offense you are committing is not accepting that people who know volumes more than you do are trying to teach you that your understanding is incorrect and acting like no one else but you, even active geologists, knows anything about the topic. Even if you think they are wrong, isn't it prudent to actually understand what they are saying before trying to prove them wrong?I've seen so many posts showing you the difference between what you call "The Geologic Column" and the geologic columns that exist at every point around the world (for example, Message 15 from Percy) which you just choose to ignore, instead insisting that "The Geologic Column" must be what you say it is instead of what they actually are.If you did not think before that there were different types of sediments in one layer, but now learn that there are, the proper response is to say "I did not realize that, let me see if that information confirms or denies my hypothesis," not, "of, course I was thinking that 'separate sediments' meant not at all homogenous and you guys are all crazy for thinking so even if I just said that a few comments ago and it still fits into the flood scenario because it just has to!"

Thank you SO much for informing me of the Correct Opinion, which of course I have failed to appreciate.

That's because it ISN'T the Geologic Column as I have understood it and tried to define it here.