Geologic Column

Not sure if this is appropriate. but I had to respond to Faith's summation post on the "We have the fossils ..." thread.

Basically, she says that she wishes only to discuss real strata that are extensive and 'flat-lying', and are the basis for the geological column. She produces two images from disparate locations not in the Grand Canyon which are examples of such strata.

Well, I wonder if she will explain the sand channel that is highly visible in the Buffalo Sandstone in the first image. It clearly pinches out almost completely to the right side of the roadcut.

In the second image, I'd like to know the formation involved because it looks like a lacustrine deposit; and lakes are usually limited in extent and form in, ... well ... low places in the topography, er ... landscape.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Basically, Faith is as willfully ignorant about what a geological column is as she is about what the Bible says.

Since she has decided to not understand what a geological column is or what reality is or what geology actually shows all she can do is regurgitate the dogma of her Cult.

Since she has decided to not understand what a geological column is or what reality is or what geology actually shows all she can do is regurgitate the dogma of her Cult.

Can one person be a cult?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Not that it wasn't off-topic at the "Fossils" topic, but I'm going to try to squelch it here.

But I think a somewhat more expanded version of your message (with graphics) might make for a good new topic. Please propose away.

Adminnemooseus

...perhaps a quick treatment... quote: Perhaps Edge would be up to the task of re-outlining the difference between the textbook version of the geologic column,... Actually, I have a text in front of me that shows 15 different geological columns for the Cambrian alone... I think what you mean here is the 'geological column as most YECs see it'. This is actually the Geological Time Scale as your first site points out quite well. There is basically one time scale. How it got filled with rocks is a different story. Every location on earth has its own geological column. quote: ... and the real world version of the geologic column. Yes, this (these) are the real story. They represent the actual rocks occurring at a given location, in order of occurrence. They essentially fill in the time scale 'trays' with rocks. In most cases, not all periods of the time scale are represented. This is not unexpected or a violation of some geological precept. In fact, we expect gaps, some of them quite large. This is because of erosion or non-deposition of rocks in those gaps which we generalize as 'unconformities'. We know unconformities are real, because we live on one. There have been no significant sedimentary rocks deposited on the Canadian shield (for instance) for as long as anyone can remember. quote: I know we've had some discussion of this in the past. In short, the textbook version is a timeline, which really says nothing about rocks. This is why there is a lot of truth to the statement "The geologic column only exists in textbooks". IF one equates the geological column with geological time scale, yes. However, that is only done by YECs as far as I know.

New comments:

Repeating the tail end of the above quoted (quote box format changed):

Edge writes: Minnemooseus writes: I know we've had some discussion of this in the past. In short, the textbook version is a timeline, which really says nothing about rocks. This is why there is a lot of truth to the statement "The geologic column only exists in textbooks". IF one equates the geological column with geological time scale, yes. However, that is only done by YECs as far as I know.

There are as many geologic columns (stratagraphic columns) as there are points on the Earth. Such are essentially one specific locations fragment of a larger geologic cross section.

Now there are such things as generalized geologic columns, where the characteristics of a larger geologic cross section or even an area are condensed down to a "cartoon" column. Such illustrate relationships of the areas geology but should not be literally interpreted as being truly real.

When geologists are talking about a geologic column, one must consider the context of the discussion. They might be talking about the stratigraphy of a specific location. BUT if it is a broad discussion of THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN, geologic column is (probably) being used as an alternative phrasing for THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE.

Here in northern Minnesota, a group of geologists may talk of going out and looking at the preCambrian. That does not mean they are planning on doing some time travel. It means that they are going to be looking at some rocks of preCambrian age.

Moose

Since you haven't had the opportunity to complain about me in some time I thought I'd be kind and offer you one.

I don't really get the big deal about this topic. So the geological column is different all over the world, so what? it's still a series of rocks wherever it is found that represents the geological time scale and in fact is the basis for it.

However it does make me curious to know what the differences are, how different the rocks are in different locations, how different the fossils, if anybody would like to sketch that out.

"However it does make me curious to know what the differences are, how different the rocks are in different locations, how different the fossils, if anybody would like to sketch that out." (Faith)
Detailed geological maps of most regions in Europe and North America can be found on the internet, and a search for fossil-bearing formations would also prove to be productive.

(Over the course of the last 200 years or so, a vast amount of knowledge has accumulated regarding both topics. Seek and ye shall find).

Faith writes: I don't really get the big deal about this topic. So the geological column is different all over the world, so what? it's still a series of rocks wherever it is found that represents the geological time scale and in fact is the basis for it.

The common creationist argument is that the geologic column found in books does not exist anywhere in the world. Of course, this is wrong on two counts. First, there are places where you can find rocks in order from all of the major geologic epocs. Second, the geologic column in books isn't meant to represent a real place on Earth. It is meant to show the relative position of the different geologic layers found across the globe.

To use an analogy, we find historical timelines in books that show major archaeological finds from different cultures. Do you think this timeline means that we should be able to find somewhere on Earth where we can dig straight down and find those artifacts neatly stacked on top of one another in the order given in the text book? Of course not. The geologic column in text books is the same exact thing, it is a time line of geology.

However it does make me curious to know what the differences are, how different the rocks are in different locations, how different the fossils, if anybody would like to sketch that out.

That's a bit like asking what the different cultural histories are across the globe, how they are different, what different kinds of people lived where, and all the rest. It's a rather large topic covered by many sources.

However it does make me curious to know what the differences are, how different the rocks are in different locations, how different the fossils, if anybody would like to sketch that out.

Well, even two sedimentary rocks from the same time but different places can be as different as two depositional environments can be today. So you get the different marine deposits (siliceous ooze, calcareous ooze, pelagic clay) represented by chert and limestone and pelagic claystone respectively; you get deserts represented by aeolian sandstone; you get swamps represented by coal measures; lakes by lacustrine sedimentary rocks; glaciers by glacial till and outwash; you get beaches represented by their own distinctive kind of lithified deposits; and so on.

Then the fossils of course go along with the depositional environments: so we get marine fossils in limestone but terrestrial fossils in aeolian sandstone, for example.

Then the fossils of course go along with the depositional environments: so we get marine fossils in limestone but terrestrial fossils in aeolian sandstone, for example.

And the fossils fit into the temporal geological matrix, closely associated with other fossils that are nearby in the matrix, with ancestral fossils nearby geologically but in older rocks, while descendant fossils are nearby geologically but in newer rocks.

... So you get the different marine deposits (siliceous ooze, calcareous ooze, pelagic clay) represented by chert and limestone and pelagic claystone respectively; you get deserts represented by aeolian sandstone; you get swamps represented by coal measures; ...

Similar habitats in different parts of the world often have different fossils, just as we see in the distribution of species in the world world today, and this too ties in to their position in the temporal geological matrix: you don't find fossils without nearby ancestors or descendants in earlier and later rocks.

This matchup in time and space was discovered by both Darwin and Wallace, Darwin going on to write his book on evolution, and Wallace going on to concentrate on Biogeography, as I noted in the Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography thread, Message 1:

quote:

---

On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species

This is the paper where Wallace first published his "Sarawak Law" that he developed from his pursuit of biogeographical and geological relationships:

10. The following law may be deduced from these facts:--Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species.

---

There you have the temporal geological matrix spelled out in 1855. Wallace is known as the father of biogeograpy.

I can recommend David Quammen's book, The Song of the Dodo, which can be downloaded as an e-book or read on-line HERE: it is a very readable book that doesn't require a lot of scientific knowledge to understand.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .