Growing the Geologic Column

Well, let's see what you actually said: (I have added the bold for clarification)Now, this is not an important issue and can be dismissed as barely on topic, but I think it clearly demonstrates your poor understanding of what you read, and that you make up your own qualifications for what constitutes the geologic time scale and the geologic 'column'.That doesn't strike you as just a bit silly? Well, perhaps if you were a little more clear on your points, this wouldn't happen. Heh, heh ... I'm sure you are correct.

I've been hesitant to post anything by a creationist but I think this article by Steve Austin brings up some important points about the Geologic Column. For one thing it is very clear that he understands itg to be a very specific formation of sedimentary strata to which the Geologic Time Scale was eventually appended. He goes into some of the history of how the idea came about.I want to quote this one part though because it answers the idea that the Geologic Column is made up of all the rocks beneath the surface which some have been claiming here: 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. 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.Much of what is being argued here against this view of the Geologic Column as a recognizable stack of sedimentary rock does not seem to come from standard Geology despite the supposed scientific sources you all claim.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ah, so old Steve is put up a strawman about "the standard view of the Geologic Column". Typical creationist. They have to tell untruths about everything. That's all they have. Untruths. Let's remind you that his 'article', containing all those untruths, is dated 1984.However, in real life, in 1977 from:Margaret Gary, Robert McAfee Jr and Carol L. Wolf, eds. (1977). Glossary of Geology, American Geological Institute, fourth printing, p.292: Faith, stop reading creationist nonsense. They always have to lie.

That kind of crazed unwarranted attack on any creationist just for being a creationist is exactly why I hesitated to post that article and avoid linking creationist material here. I very rarely refer to creationist literature here, or even consult it so your telling me to stop depending on it is also unwarranted. The "untruths" seem to come rather frequently from your side, and you are particularly irresponsible in your posts it seems to me.I don't see what you think is so superior about the definition you put up. I don't see anything to object to in it myself though except that it's rather vague so I'm not entirely sure what it means.

I pointed out exactly where your creationist source told an untruth. The attack was thus not unwarranted at all.

Everybody who thinks the Vishnu is part of the geologic column in the Grand Canyon raise your hand. It is composed of schist, gneiss and granite so it's part of the geologic/strat column.Go here and download this and copy it to your desktop so you can blow it up. It is the stratigraphic column in North Dakota and shows the rocks going from the present all the way back to the Precambrian.https://www.dmr.nd.gov/...tion_List/pdf/MiscSeries/MS-66.pdf

It's correct. It has that going for it.Look, geologists get to say what geological terms of art mean, just like physicists get to decide what "quark" means and musicologists get to say what a flatted fifth is. If you want to talk about something else, you need to invent a new word. Any other approach can only cause confusion, or, in your case, more confusion.

It's the defintion the tens of thousands of geologists from all over the world use. The definition all those geologists, regardless of language barriers, use. No problems with: It means the same all over the world; doesn't matter the language.Trying to make themselves understandable to every other geologist in the world. Scientific words do have meaning; don't you know?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Really? From the side of of those tens of thousands of geologists from all over the world? As I see it, the few cases of dishonesty that some geologists were involved in have been pointed out and dealt with in the relevant circles. Could you provide references for "untruths" from geologists which haven't been dealt with by other geologists?On the other side, the dishonesty of people like Chris Nevins and John Woodmorappe have been pointed out very well. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

And yet what he writes (correctly) is: Insofar as your blather has any apparent meaning, Austin is saying the exact opposite.

As many have demonstrated, you don't get your definition of the geologic column from geology sources. It's pretty obvious that most of your claims come from your feverish imaginings.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Every posted definition of the geologic column, and there are many here, disprove that claim.You have posted no definitions. Just assertions.Austin's paragraph is not a definition. Edited by JonF, : Removed criticism of Austin.

To be fair to Austin, he only says it's a misconception, he doesn't say who holds it. Maybe it's a common delusion among YECs and he's trying to correct that.

OK, you are probably right; I misread it. I've removed the criticism.

Hi Faith,I think you missed a couple of important posts. One is my Message 15, which includes four examples of locations where sediments are being deposited today atop geologic columns composed of only the types of layers your definition allows. The other is Capt Stormfield's Message 18, which draws a very helpful analogy of geology with history.Edge has already described why it isn't true that a geologic layer is "all sandstone or all limestone etc.," that most geologic layers are a messy combination of different minerals, the assigned name deriving from the dominant mineral, so I'll just address this: I'm focusing once more on your use of the modifier "identifiable". A layer doesn't have to be identified to be part of the geologic column. If we map out a column of layers using seismic techniques we could end up knowing where layers begin and end, but not their composition, which would remain unidentified. But our inability to identify the composition of the layers doesn't mean they're not part of the geologic column.In order to use a definition of the geologic column that geologists use, you're going to have to remove the "identifiable" modifier from your own personal definition.I'm moving on now to another part of your flawed definition, that layers must be sedimentary in order to be considered part of the geologic column. I know that most definitions of strata say that they are sedimentary, but this is an obvious oversimplification. Igneous rock from a volcanic eruption is obviously part of the geologic column, and only by the loosest of definitions could it be considered sedimentary. In any discussion of the strata of a geologic region that includes volcanic deposits, the volcanic layers are considered strata. Type the phrase "volcanic strata" (including the quotes) into Google and you'll get thousands of results.I think most people would agree with you that intrusions should not be considered part of the geologic column, but it makes no difference to this discussion. When sediments are being deposited atop a geologic column, whether at Lake Mead or in the Gulf of Mexico or in Chesapeake Bay or in the Sahara or anywhere else, it makes no difference whether that geologic column includes intrusions. Whether intrusions are present or not, sediments are still being deposited atop a geologic column.Even the sea floor has a geologic column, albeit generally much briefer than geologic columns on continents. The oldest sea floor in the world is only around 200 million years ago, because most sea floor is eventually subducted into the mantle. But beneath the sea floor in any part of any ocean is a geological column of rock extending down to the molten mantle. Our ability to explore these layers is much diminished because they lie beneath a depth of water, sometimes a great depth of water. Above the original sea floor that forms at mid-oceanic ridges will be sedimentary layers, primarily of mid-ocean ooze far from shore, but of limestone, shale and sandstone closer to coastlines. Below the original sea floor the layers, especially in mid-ocean, are very unlikely to be sedimentary, but there will be layers of different kinds of rock nonetheless that, to the extent we can study them, would be divided into types and time periods as best as we could manage, just like any other geologic column.--PercyEdited by Percy, : "igneous layers" => "intrusions" in next to last paragraph.