can someone give me proof of the geologic column?

Question

i am looking for real picures that show the geologic column, i cannot find anything that is not in in a textbook,, a drawing or a picture of some rocks with the sun blaring down on it making lots of shadow.

Answer 1

It does not exist outside of school books.

I can give proof of this.

If a person wants to find a dinosaur bone, they do not dig down 20 miles, they only go a few feet (OK it is more then a FEW feet, but less then a few miles.). And then they find bones, trees, large rocks, and other items, going through several layers. If each layer is a separate age, then the item had to stand there for millions of years, with no changes not even rain erosion, while it was slowly covered.

The only way of could have been covered with several layers quickly is under water from hydrological sorting. This has been seen and proven to be able to lay many layers, with objects going through several of them.

Answer 2

The 'geologic column' is not an actual physical condition but an idea, a concept. You will not find a column of rock that can be pointed to saying, "This is what a geologic column looks like."



The geologic column refers to sedimentary rock layers. Sediment can be deposited over a long period of time, or sediment can be deposited by a catastrophic events. The deposits that are localized will not be found in all areas of the world. Global catastrophic events can leave a thin deposit everywhere.



There are two trains of thought on these layers, one is called, Uniformitarianism doctrine and the other Catastrophism. Most scientist lean towards uniformitarianism and most religious doctrine leans toward catastrophism.



Unless you are working on a major in geology, the information that you get from a single article has been oversimplified for understanding so that the concept you get after reading the article can still be in error, but you not as far off as you were before you read the article.



All they are talking about is sedimentary layers, which is a physical fact that can not be denied.



For photos of sedimentary layers, you can use this search in your browser.



http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=sedimentary+layers%2bphotos&FORM=IGRE#



If your are interested in a few of the many views concerning how they were formed.

Answer 3

Any photo of the erosion of layers will show some elements of the geologic column. The best ones come from Utah or Arizona and include Escalante Staircase, Grand Canyon, and Canyon Lands. If you are looking for a columnar column, the most outstanding example is the one in Wyoming, Devils Tower. Also see Devils Postpile in CA. You can find plenty of photos on the web.

Answer 4

If you mean columnar jointing, look harder. Giant's causeway in Ireland and Devil's Tower in the US are two world famous examples of this. If you mean a stratigraphic column, then you only have to look at photographs of the Grand Canyon showing the bedding of hundreds of strata.



If you are talking about the geologic columns as seen in textbooks which have drawings of the various beds or layers, that is like a map that is vertical through the strata. It has the same representational qualities of a topographic or road map. It is a two-dimensional representation on a convenient scale that represents a real three dimensional place. I use these all the time to understand landforms and their structures.

Answer 5

Mnrlboy's answer above is excellent, well-reasoned and non-dogmatic, and there is no reason I should attempt to repeat most of his answers here. You should listen very carefully to what he says and do some proper scientific reading and research (not via the websites you quote, which are fundamentalist propaganda of the worst kind) before forming your conclusions. To re-iterate - Lyell did not invent the geological column, but he did make huge advances in the understanding of British geology, in particular in the understanding of how the various layers of rock relate to one another ("stratigraphy"). Other geologists like William Smith before him first used fossils to help put the rocks in their RELATIVE age positions, based on different fossils being found in different groups of rocks (this was done long before the theory of evolution was proposed as a mechanism for why the fossil species varied with relative age). Radiometric dating was not invented until much later, and this subsequently proved that (1) the relative order of ages of strata was correct, and (2) most layers of rocks are very old indeed, with ages measurable in millions, not thousands of years. Quite clearly then, the use of fossils puts the rocks in their correct relative ages, whilst radiometric techniques provides the absolute ages. THIS IS NOT A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT! Incidentally, many of the great Victorian scientists and geologists were devoutly religious and were motivated in their research to prove the "great flood". But most came to realize that the geological record was telling a vastly more complex story - a realization that in no way diminished their faith... As for your assertation that you do not see erosion in the geological record - I'm sorry to sound rude, but you clearly have no real understanding of basic geology. The geological record is punctuated throughout with erosional gaps (unconformities) of all shapes and sizes!. Geologists in the oil industry map out unconformities in order to understand where the oil and gas traps might be, and where the erosive remanents end up (as these often make good reservoirs). The technique works! We would not waste millions of dollars if it were otherwise!

Answer 6

Before someone decides to waste neurons answering this question, it is strongly recommended to have a look at the previous questions of this user.



For the record, here's what the Index to Creationist Claims says about the geological column:

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD100

Answer 7

The geological column refers to two things ... (1) the fact that old geological formations around the world show a pattern of long, slow deposition that shows distinct *layering*; and (2) that buried in those layers are fossils that show patterns of progression from simpler species to more complex ones that more and more resemble modern organisms as you move up in the layers.



#1 provides abundant evidence of a very old earth. #2 provides abundant evidence of evolution of living things.



#1 is *EASY* to see from photographs.



Here's a nice picture of the layering that is observed at the Grand Canyon:

http://www.jwoolfden.com/jpg/geocol2.jpg



Now, if you are a Young-Earth Creationist you might argue that the Grand Canyon, and all the other *layering* around the world (from mountaintops to deep-sea floors) are all the product of the Noachian Flood. But scientists are almost unanimous that the layering was caused by deep time.



But you cannot deny the *layering*.





#2 is harder to see in photographs because it's not like you can see fossils of small copepods the size of a quarter in a photograph of the grand canyon. The scientists have to go in there and dig them out, clean them up, and photograph them.



But the problem is with people who have such a low opinion of science and scientists, that they will reject the scientists word that he found fossils A, B, and C at layers X, Y, and Z of the soil. They want a *PHOTOGRAPH* ... without "blaring sun" or "shadows" where they can both see and identify all these species of fossils still sticking in the walls of dirt!



That is why geology is done in the field, not by looking a photographs on the Internet.



But Creationists don't do science.



They "challenge" evolutionists to provide "proof", and then set absurdly high requirements for that "proof" that they know no scientist can achieve. And then they think they have 'stumped' the scientists.

Answer 8

Questions contribute nothing to a conversation and tell her nothing about you. Too many questions makes it feel like a job interview. Learn here http://AttractAnyWoman.emuy.info/?45K1



Never ask two questions in a row. Statements can often replace questions. Instead of asking where’s she’s from, tell her where you’re from and she may respond in kind. Or guess where she’s from. It doesn’t matter if you are right; either way it’s more interesting than yet another factual question.

Answer 9

Though I know from your previous questions that you are not interested in the facts or in evidence, I will answer your question for the sake of those who might click on it.



There are a vast number of geologic strata, or layers, that were laid down over hundreds of millions of years. These layers were, in large part, initially described by geologists in the early 19th century. These geologists, incidentally, were creationists, but since at that time creationists were not enamored of trying to disprove evolution (Darwin had not yet published his book), they honestly described their findings. To this day, though much new information about the geologic column has been discovered, the descriptions of the early geologists still pretty much hold for the most part.



Because of the way the layers were laid down in different areas of the world and because of erosion of some parts of the layers or inaccessibility of other parts, there is no one location that displays the full sequence. However, the layers from different areas can be matched up and the full sequence can be pretty well laid out.



There are literally thousands of layers, and in some locations they are tens of thousands of feet thick, and they are made up of alternating and varied types of material, showing that they were laid down under widely varying conditions, such as desert, forest, river, lake, etc. They also have fossils that show an evolutionary sequence through time. In the oldest layers, only fossils of primitive, simple life forms are found. As you follow the strata from older to younger you will find a progression of life-form fossils showing an evolutionary change over time.



What is clear is that these large numbers of different strata with different types of fossils could not possibly have been laid down by the mythical biblical flood. Such a flood would not have left multiple strata. It would have left essentially a single layer.



In light of that, let's take a look at why the geologic column is evidence against the biblical flood.



According to the creationists, all species (or basic kinds--whatever), living and extinct, were created at the same time and the fossil record was laid down by the biblical flood.



If that were the case, you would find fossils of the approximately 5,000 present-day species of mammals, including humans, and of the approximately 10,000 present-day species of birds, mixed in with the fossils of, for example, dinosaurs. You do not and will never find such a mixture. That is because they are separated in time by more than 60 million years and the fossil record reflects that fact. The only fossils of mammals and birds that are found in the same strata as dinosaurs are primitive types quite unlike anything that exists today (even if you consider the "kinds" that creationists refer to as the source of present-day mammals and birds). And you will also not find those fossils of present-day mammals and birds in the same strata with trilobites, or of numerous other early types of animals.



In the Cambrian strata, which was laid down long before the time of the dinosaurs, you will find the initial appearance of most of the phyla, but they will be only very primitive species--none of which exist today--belonging to those phyla. You will not find one single amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, bird, mammal, or teleost fish.



And that scenario even continues after the demise of the dinosaurs. As you progress through the strata you will find new forms, but still nothing like what you would find today until you get to relatively young strata. There are numerous strata which show that mammals became predominate for several tens of millions of years on up to today. But the strata that was laid down during the first half of that time contains a large number of fossils of mammals quite unlike anything that exists today, and again, none of the fossils are of present-day mammals, including humans, and present-day birds. As those strata get progressively younger, you begin to see more and more fossils of mammals and birds that are similar to the present-day species. That includes hominid fossils, which are present only in the strata laid down in the past few million years. Hominid fossils are totally absent in the vast number of earlier fossil-containing strata.



Thus, if you look at the geological strata, you will find a changing representation of species through the oldest to the youngest strata, and those changes reflect an evolutionary process. That is not what you would find if the fossil record had been laid down by a flood such as that described in the Bible. But it is what would be expected in an evolutionary scenario.



This is not a matter of interpreting things according to one's belief, as creationists usually say. It is a matter of honestly accepting the evidence for what it says. The Bible believer holds that all things must be interpreted according to the Bible. Therefore, they are are forced to be dishonest in interpreting the evidence.



The geological strata indicate an evolutionary progression. If there was no evolutionary progression, but all species (or kinds, whatever) had been created at the same time, then there would be no evolutionary progression in the strata. That is fact.



In addition, certain geologic formations show quite well the impossibility of their being laid down by the mythical biblical flood. One example is the Green River Formation in the American West.



The Green River Formation is an Eocene geologic formation that records the sedimentation in a group of inter-mountain lakes. The sediments are deposited in very fine layers, a dark layer during the growing season and a light-hue inorganic layer in winter. Each pair of layers is called a varve and represents one year. The sediments of the Green River Formation present a continuous record of six million years. The average thickness of a varve is about 1/8 inch. Typical Eocene fossils are found in the formation.



http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/varve.ev.pdf



I would like creationists to explain how the mythical biblical flood could have laid such a formation. It would have had to deposit more than 100 varves each minute of the flood.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_column

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_strata