>I dispute the suggestion that the geologic column is cobbled together from
>various continents. That is absolutely false because if the entire column
>exists at just ONE point on the surface of the earth, it exists and is not
>pieced together.
I am not one who questions the validity of the geologic column, but I think
you press too hard when you attempt to assert that the whole column
(whatever that means) is present anywhere. In the first place I don't see
that it makes any difference. Cobbling the column together certainly has
been a pragmatically effective technique. But at what level are you
trying to establish completeness? At the level of periods? epochs?
stages? substages? I don't know anyone who would assert that the
completeness of the geologic column is even a meaningful concept. Was
there a single hiatus in any of your "complete columns" during which
nondeposition [say nothing of (shudder) erosion] took place? If so it is
incomplete. That whole argument makes no sense philosophically. Thus I do
not understand why you persist in using it??? The whole point of
stratigraphy is that there is sense in the cobbling together of the column.
Thus this is not a weakness, but a strength.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu