From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Thu Oct 16 2003 - 03:47:37 EDT
Allen Roy wrote:
"This illustrates how imaginary the Geologic Column is, and illustrates the
difference between the Geologic Record at Grand Canyon and the supposed Geologic
Column.
"You will note [below] that I did not say Geologic Column was not generally the
same from place to place, but that the Geologic Record is not the same from
place to place. The Geologic Record (the formations what you actually see and
find) at Grand Canyon is not the same record as found in other places even
across the USA. So one would not expect to find the geologic record of a
location in Africa, or Asia, or Australia to be the same. It's the imaginary
Geologic Column which people claim to find all over the world."
The Glossary of Geology (M. Gary, R. McAfee and C.L. Wolf, eds.) defines geologic column to be a vertical (i.e., columnar) representation of the rocks in a given locality or region; alternatively, it's the displayed rock units themselves. So I suppose your geologic record, if displayed as a vertical column, would be included under that definition. It's hardly imaginary.
While it is sometimes difficult to determine lithologic boundaries, so that exact thicknesses of rock units may not always be certain, in many cases--especially where lithologic types differ--it is quite straightforward. Often the boundaries become clear from a study of the fossils. In any case the concept of geologic column has proved to be very useful.
Whatever Michael Roberts meant by saying "the geological column is basically the same throughout
the world," he cannot have meant that sedimentary rock sequences are the same everywhere. For example, in California's San Joaquin Valley west of Fresno there is about a 2.5 mile thick section of upper Cretaceous rock (mostly shales) with no Permian rock all the way to basement, while near Mentone, Texas, there is about a 2.5 mile thick section of Permian rock (sandstones, shales, limestone, salt and anhydrite) with no Cretaceous rock all the way to the surface. The two geologic columns from surface to basement would have no rocks of the same age and few or no rocks of the same composition, except possibly for a thin veneer of Quaternary deposits.
How do we know that the geologic column in Texas was not the same age as the column in California? Primarily because the fossils in the two columns match fossils found in Permian and Cretaceous rocks, respectively, at sites where the geologic columns are more complete. Fossils of the different geologic periods are found worldwide in rocks of those different geologic ages, enabling worldwide correlation of rock ages.
Grand Canyon sedimentary rocks are a piddling fraction of sedimentary rocks worldwide. If you looked at the big picture in any detail, you couldn't possibly believe it all came from one flood. You'd change your paradigm. (That's legal, you know.)
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: allenroy
To: Michael Roberts
Cc: asa
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: extra stuff
Michael Roberts wrote:
> The problem is that the geological column is basically the same throughout
> the world. I am personally familiar with it in the Grand Canyon, Black Hills
> UK the Alps . Italy and South Africa. Others have found and seen that it is
> the same elsewhere.
At Grand Canyon, the geologic record shows a paraconformity [meaning, the
contact is not visible or there is no evidence of erosion, w/ages differences
defined by fossils] between the Muav Limestone and the Redwall limestone where
100 million years of the Geologic Column are missing. S. Beus says that "the
unconformity [paraconformity], even though representing more than 100 million
years can be difficult to locate" (Beus, SS, 1990, Temple Butte Formation. In
Beaus SS, Morales M, eds. 1990. Grand Canyon Geology, Oxford University Press, p
107-117.)
Also, "the location of the boundary between the Manakach and Wescogami
formations [a 14 million year paraconformity] can be difficult to determine,
both from a distance and from a close range." (Blakey RS. 1990. Supai group and
Hermit formations. in Grand Canyon Geology [see above] p 147-182).
This illustrates how imaginary the Geologic Column is, and illustrates the
difference between the Geologic Record at Grand Canyon and the supposed Geologic
Column.
You will note [below] that I did not say Geologic Column was not generally the
same from place to place, but that the Geologic Record is not the same from
place to place. The Geologic Record (the formations what you actually see and
find) at Grand Canyon is not the same record as found in other places even
across the USA. So one would not expect to find the geologic record of a
location in Africa, or Asia, or Australia to be the same. It's the imaginary
Geologic Column which people claim to find all over the world.
> > And, Creationists do not, in general, propose that the geologic record in,
> say,
> Grand Canyon, is going to be the same as in Africa, Asia or Australia.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 16 2003 - 03:44:51 EDT