Summations Only

I'll have to look it up but the layers aren't everywhere on the earth.

col·umn /ˈkäləm/ noun noun: column; plural noun: columns 1. an upright pillar, typically cylindrical and made of stone or concrete, supporting an entablature, arch, or other structure or standing alone as a monument. synonyms: pillar, post, support, upright, baluster, pier, pile, pilaster, stanchion; More obelisk, monolith; Doric column, Ionic column, Corinthian column, Tuscan column "arches supported by massive columns" •a vertical, roughly cylindrical thing. "a great column of smoke" •an upright shaft forming part of a machine and typically used for controlling it. "a Spitfire control column" a vertical division of a page or text. •a vertical arrangement of figures or other information. •a section of a newspaper or magazine

UPRIGHT. VERTICAL.
It is not still a column if it continues anywhere but ON the vertical structure.

I'll have to look it up but the layers aren't everywhere on the earth.

Yes, they are. Everywhere.

There is no place on the surface of the Earth that does not have underlying layers. That's impossible. What would the surface be sitting on?

A Column is a VERTICAL Structure

The Geological Column isn't like a real actual "thing". Its an abstract.

It is a cross-section of what layers are underneath the ground at some particular place. Different places are going to have different columns.

If you took a giant metal tube, forced it into the ground, and then pulled out a big stack of the layers underneath, then you would have a column of the underlying geology. You could then study each layer to determine the properties of the past. Here's an example:

http://pacificsoilandwater.com/...ages/PSW_085.357220402.jpg

That represents the geological column at that particular site. If you traveled a ways away and took another bore sample, you would get a different geological column.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : Changed humongous embedded image into a link

Faith writes: Your pictures are awfully distorted which makes them hard to interpret.

Well, they're pictures of distortions, so that's not surprising - nor is it surprising that it's difficult to interpret those distortions as flat.

Faith writes: In any case LAYERS are always ORIGINALLY flat and horizontal.

What about lava or volcanic ash?

I guess you can just definitionally make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

Whatever "it" refers to, no. Terms such as "geologic column" are standard well-defined terms. You are attempting to redefine "geologic column". That's fine if your goal is to obfuscate, confuse, and avoid communicating accurately. If you do want to communicate accurately you will have to use the correct definition of "geologic column" which I've given, with sources, several times.

Your pictures are awfully distorted which makes them hard to interpret.

No, the seismic sections and the colored illustration of kurdistan are not distorted at all. As I've pointed out and you ignored, the plane of the picture is vertical and your view is straight on. The distortions of layers in the pictures are accurate representations of what the layers actually look like.

The one you posted here had to have been originally horizontal but distorted afterward.

Yes, the layers were formed and distorted afterward. Three times. But there's no distortion in the topmost layers and we don't know whether or not there ever will be. Exactly what you claim is impossible.

Since those layers take millions of years to form according to standard OE theory I'm still astonished that everybody here accepts that all that can come to an end and yet the idea of the Column or the Time Scale can continue.

Nobody here except you accepts that anything (the geological column or the geological time scale) has or can come to an end. That's your loony fantasy which nobody shares. The time scale over which those layers formed is irrelevant; they formed, were distorted, new layers formed on top of them, and all that is part of geological column and time scale.

For years it was the originally horizontal stack that was the column,..

No, it's never been the original horizontal stack. It's always been, by definition:

Merriam-Webster:

quote:

---

1. a columnar diagram that shows the rock formations of a locality or region and that is arranged to indicate their relations to the subdivisions of geologic time
2 : the sequence of rock formations in a geologic column

---

Free Dictionary:

quote:

---

The vertical sequence of strata of various ages found in an area or region. Also known as column.
The geologic time scale as represented by rocks.

---

Glossary of geologic terms:

quote:

---

geologic column The arrangement of rock units in the proper chronological order from youngest to oldest.

---

No mention of horizontality or flatness. None. The definition of the geologic column does not include flatness or horizontality of layers. There is no definition anywhere in which "geologic column" requires flat or horizontal layers. You are 110% wrong.

now it's anything you want it to be.

No, I'm stuck with the standaard definition. You are the one trying to make it what you want it to be. Over here in the reality-based community we are bound by the definition of "geologic column", which can be worded many different ways but the result is the same. Here's some more:

Glossary Database:

quote:

---

A diagram representing divisions of geologic time and the rock units formed during each major period.

---

Glossary of geologic terms:

quote:

---

geologic column The arrangement of rock units in the
proper chronological order from youngest to oldest

---

Encyclopedia Brittanica: Geologic column and its associated time scale:

quote:

---

The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geologic column. It is the result of integrating all the world’s individual rock sequences into a single sequence. In order to communicate the fine structure of this so-called column, it has been subdivided into smaller units. Lines are drawn on the basis of either significant changes in fossil forms or discontinuities...

---

(added red and size)

There is no definition anywhere of the geologic column that comes close to matching your risible fantasy. We are sticking with the standard an well-established and well-known definition; you are trying the change it to something incorrect and meaningless.

The strata are sedimentary rock. Lava doesn't form strata.

I think it may be flat and horizontal but the angle of view makes it hard to be sure. The problem with such messy formations is that so much happened to them after they were formed it's hard to reconstruct a reasonable history of how the upper and lower parts were put together. That's the problem with a few of the pictures you posted too.

The angle of view of the seismic picture I just posted is horizontal, and the plane of the picture is vertical. You are looking at it straight on as if it had been sliced off by a knife moving vertically. There's no distortion of any kind.

It's not messy at all, and the history is clear. Flat horizontal layers, rift forms a valley, valley filled in by flat horizontal layers of sediment, another rift forms a another valley (deforming the currentl flat and horizontal layers and deforming the original layers more) valley filled in by flat horizontal layers of sediment, yet another rift forms yet another valley (deforming the current flat and horizontal layers and deforming the second original layers more), valley filled in by flat and horizontal layers of sediment.

And it's no problem with the pictures I posted, although the two seismic profiles are the best. Reality doesn't care whether you like it or not, reality just is. Denial isn't going to make these non-flat and non-horizontal interfaces go away:

Are you continuing to claim that the blue line is flat and horizontal?

How many non-flat and non-horizontal interfaces can you find in that picture? (Again, it's a vertical slice and you are looking at it straight on... there's no distortion of any kind).

Yes, I know it incorporates strata from around the world in a mental construct, I've said as much myself, but that construct IS vertical and is based on vertical segments of strata, it isn't just relocated wherever, it is BUILT UP using these segments.

NON FLAT AND NON HORIZONTAL surfaces form AFTER all the strata are in place. They don't "go away," they are just ORIGINALLY not in any form other than flat and horizontal.

As I said I can't tell if the blue line is flat and horizontal or not because of the angle of view, but it doesn't matter, it was clearly originally flat and horizontal, and if it isn't now that is because the whole formation has sagged, which fits what I keep saying: THE STRATA ARE LAID DOWN AND THEN THE WHOLE STACK IS DEFORMED.

I still don't know what to make of your other illustration. Whatever it is, it had to have been laid down flat and horizontal originally.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: It is not still a column if it continues anywhere but ON the vertical structure.

Well, a Greek column that falls down is still the same column; it's just lying horizontally.

You're taking the word "column" to literally. The "geological column" just means a cross-section of the layers at any point. Some layers are wider than others - some cover whole states, others are just a hole filled with sediment. Some layers get bent or cracked. Some get tipped on their sides like a Greek column. Some are partially or completely eroded away.

Wherever you look you'll get a different cross-section.

Oy.

The strata are sedimentary rock. Lava doesn't form strata.

I already posted a definition of strata. Lava (non-intrusiva) and metamorphic rocks form strata. Sometimes strata is used only for sediemnbtary rock but it depends on context. E.g. Wikipedia:

quote:

---

A stratovolcano, also known as a composite volcano,[1] is a conical volcano built up by many layers (strata) of hardened lava, tephra, pumice, and volcanic ash.

---

It doesn't form strata IN THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN which is made up of sedimentary rock.

NON FLAT AND NON HORIZONTAL surfaces form AFTER all the strata are in place. They don't "go away," they are just ORIGINALLY not in any form other than flat and horizontal. As I said I can't tell if the blue line is flat and horizontal or not because of the angle of view, but it doesn't matter, it was clearly originally flat and horizontal, and if it isn't now that is because the whole formation has sagged, which fits what I keep saying: THE STRATA ARE LAID DOWN AND THEN THE WHOLE STACK IS DEFORMED. I still don't know what to make of your other illustration. Whatever it is, it had to have been laid down flat and horizontal originally.

Yes, and they are all part of the geologic column, including the flat and horizontal surfaces that were laid down on top.