Summations Only

But they should ONLY include those. It makes absolutely no sense otherwise. I mean NO sense, NONE.

Actually it's your definition of it that makes no sense. And you haven't (and obviously can't ) support you claim that our definition does not make sense.

By the many standard definitions I've posted, folded and tilted and volcanic and metamorphic strata are all part of the geologic column. Howsabout you copy this picture in Pant and label which areas are part of the geologic column and label what we should call layers that are not part of your version:

Be especially careful to label the flat and horizontal layers on top. Remember that there is no distortion in this picture. You are looking straight at a vertical cross-section that shows the actual shape of the layers. By the standard geological definition the entire picture is part of the geologic column. Let's see your labels.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Faith writes: The strata are sedimentary rock. Lava doesn't form strata.

Suppose there's a flood that leaves layers of sediment. Then lava flows down and covers the sediment. Later, another flood deposits more sediment on top of the lava. The lava is a continous layer, part of which is horizontal and part of which is not.

Edited by zombie ringo, : "The" --> "Then".

Edited by zombie ringo, : Punctuation%

No, that is not the Geologic Column. Sheesh.

There may be lava dikes and sills between the layers but they aren't the layers themselves.

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

All the many standard definitions of the geologic column which I've posted include all types of rock. It is made up of sedimentary rock, igneous rock, and metamorphic rock. I defy you to find any source that agrees with your fantasy. All the rocks and rocks forming under the Earth are part of the geologic column.

Your claim is wrong. Demonstrated tens of times by many posters. Give it up. The geologic column is made up of all the rocks.

There may be lava dikes and sills between the layers but they aren't the layers themselves.

But those dikes and sills are part of the geologic column.

Faith writes: There may be lava dikes and sills between the layers but they aren't the layers themselves.

So some layers aren't layers? How do you tell which layers are layers?

I need to know more about that picture before I label it anything. What am I looking at here, the exposed side of a hill or what? But those sagging layers had to originally be horizontal and flat. The straight flat uppermost layer needs explanation. When did that deposit?

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.

But an upright and vertical column is not necessarily comprised of flat and horizontal layers. That seismic picture I posted is part of the geologic column and yet the most of the layers aren't flat and horizontal.

If you can show where igneous rocks have formed within the column just as flat and horizontal as the sedimentary rocks I'll rethink it. Otherwise you are wrong. The Geologic Column is a vertical stack of horizontal sedimentary rocks, made up of many segments found in many places, fine, but it's still a vertical stack of horizontal flat rocks.

I need to know more about that picture before I label it anything. What am I looking at here, the exposed side of a hill or what? But those sagging layers had to originally be horizontal and flat. The straight flat uppermost layer needs explanation. When did that deposit?

As I have pointed out many times already, that is a seismic cross-section of an area of seabed under the ocean off Indonesia. It is a vertical cross-section and you are looking straight at it; there is no distortion in the layers other than that which actually exists in the layers. More information is available at the link I already gave. Clicking a link is to much effort?

The topmost layers were formed recently, probably in historical times. MOre information is available at the link I posted and its refernces.

As I wrote earlier today, "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.".

Try reading my posts before replying.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

But an upright and vertical column is not necessarily comprised of flat and horizontal layers. That seismic picture I posted is part of the geologic column and yet the most of the layers aren't flat and horizontal.

If it is part of the Geo Column then they were originally flat and horizontal. The Column has been distorted in most places after it was laid down.

I was talking about the photograph, what are you talking about?

If it is part of the Geo Column then they were originally flat and horizontal. The Column has been distorted in most places after it was laid down.

Absolutely. Well, mostly, close enough for jazz. And those folded and distorted places are still part of the geologic column, and the geologic column continues to be built on top of them. As illustrated by the many definitions and pictures that have been posted, especially the picture I've challenged you to label, clearly showing flat horizontal layers forming today on top of distorted layers.

was talking about the photograph, what are you talking about?

The one I've posted several times, including Message 1246 at the top of this page. You replied, I replied and clarified, and now you can't remember what we are talking about?