Jump to content


Photo

Limestone And Trilobite Fossils On Mt. Everest


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
85 replies to this topic

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 28 April 2009 - 06:07 AM

...this is derived from dating evidence primarily in both cases.

View Post

Something tells me you may be having trouble connecting some critical dots here. The "dating evidence" that you mention above when used to declare old earth concepts always, and I mean ALWAYS, have the assumption of uniformitarianism lurking in the equation.

#22 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 01 May 2009 - 12:59 AM

Yes, I do remember seeing that a while back now you mention it.  I don't know why you mention uniformitarianism in this context - what's happened is new evidence has been found that contradicts the previous picture. That happens all the time. Something is wrong with the old model, or the new data. Uniformitarianism isn't assumed by EITHER view (new or old) on the age of the uplift - this is derived from dating evidence primarily in both cases.

View Post


If the old model is wrong then the operative word is WRONG.
These things are always shown wrong with just a few new data points by a few people.
This shows the lack of science or competence done in origin subjects.
Everything is untestable and stays in the books until some new information also untestable overthrows the original gibberish.
All of modern geology has been poorly studied because of presumptions upon presumptions. Then they are forced to admit to some new change and the poverty of thier original models comes out.
Nothing in geology books today should be seen as likely there next year.
Yet they use this geology as scientific expertise against creationism.
Creationism is well done but our opponents failures help too.

#23 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 05 May 2009 - 09:59 AM

About everest it must be remembered it was only thrown up by the colliding continents during the flood year.
Its not a clue as to the height of water.
So it brought up or caught up in water flow whatever was in the area just before the rise.
NO problem with any fossil or rock type found on everest.

View Post


Sorry but with no proof that it actually happened then and not earlier it is pure conjecture and unsupported.

Also Deuteronomy 33:15 refers to mountains as ancient.

#24 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 05 May 2009 - 10:02 AM

It is no problem, for a Global Flood to cover these mountains anyways, simply because even at an extreme height, oxygen would not be a problem simply because all the water in equal amounts globally, would push the oxygen outward.

View Post


It is a problem for the biblical flood to cover mount Everest and still be believable. The day the flood waters started to recede is the day the ark comes to rest on Ararat. If the flood waters covered Everest, then the ark would have been thousands of feet above Ararat and would not have been able to come to rest

#25 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 05 May 2009 - 04:33 PM

It is a problem for the biblical flood to cover mount Everest and still be believable.  The day the flood waters started to recede is the day the ark comes to rest on Ararat.  If the flood waters covered Everest, then the ark would have been thousands of feet above Ararat and would not have been able to come to rest

View Post


I don't see how it's a problem??? There are thousands of mountains all over the world. The ark just happened to rest on Mt. Ararat. I mean the Bible could have said that the ark landed on the Rocky Mountains in North America, but it just so happens that it landed on Mt.Ararat.

It's no problem to cover Everest, because this is a HUGE flood. It's covering the whole planet, not just someones back yard. Since oxygen is being pushed outwards then yes it's still believable.

#26 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 05 May 2009 - 05:27 PM

I don't see how it's a problem???  There are thousands of mountains all over the world.  The ark just happened to rest on Mt. Ararat.  I mean the Bible could have said that the ark landed on the Rocky Mountains in North America, but it just so happens that it landed on Mt.Ararat.

It's no problem to cover Everest, because this is a HUGE flood.  It's covering the whole planet, not just someones back yard.  Since oxygen is being pushed outwards then yes it's still believable.

View Post


Just a slight correction here. The bible states that the Ark came to rest on the "mountains" of Ararat. Not Mount Ararat itself. There is a significant difference and it makes sense when you consider the disembarking of the animals etc.

#27 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 May 2009 - 06:44 PM

If the flood waters covered Everest, then the ark would have been thousands of feet above Ararat and would not have been able to come to rest

View Post

Is abstract reasoning not taught in school anymore? Who said Mt. Everest was there before the flood? Could all the fossilized clams on Mt. Everest be interpreted as proof that as the flood subsided it did so because the mountains rose up and the valley's sank down?

#28 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 21 June 2010 - 02:00 AM

If the old model is wrong then the operative word is WRONG.
These things are always shown wrong with just a few new data points by a few people.
This shows the lack of science or competence done in origin subjects.
Everything is untestable and stays in the books until some new information also untestable overthrows the original gibberish.
All of modern geology has been poorly studied because of presumptions upon presumptions. Then they are forced to admit to some new change and the poverty of thier original models comes out.
Nothing in geology books today should be seen as likely there next year.
Yet they use this geology as scientific expertise against creationism.
Creationism is well done but our opponents failures help too.

View Post


It is obvious that you know next to nothing about the subject of geology and its published literature. Geology textbooks published decades ago basically hold true. Many studies from over a century ago such as Gilbert's classic Bonneville study are considered almost fully accurate as written The one major change in direction during my lifetime was a shift from the focus on geosynclinal ideas to those involving plate tectonics, but this occured 40 years ago.

#29 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 June 2010 - 09:20 PM

It is obvious that you know next to nothing about the subject of geology and its published literature. Geology textbooks published decades ago basically hold true. Many studies from over a century ago such as Gilbert's classic Bonneville study are considered almost fully accurate as written The one major change in direction during my lifetime was a shift from the focus on geosynclinal ideas to those involving plate tectonics, but this occured 40 years ago.


You sure are stuck in the past. The Grand Canyon alone has been redated 3 different times in just the last 2 years. And that isn't even including any dating done by creationists.

ScienceNOW’s Phil Berardelli writes:

    New research indicates that the Grand Canyon is perhaps 65 million years old, far older than previously thought—and old enough that the last surviving dinosaurs may have stomped along its rim.

Now, regular News to Note readers may remember that it was only six weeks ago that old-earth-believing scientists reported the Grand Canyon’s age at not 6 million years old (the previous view), but rather 17 millions years old. And now, in the short span of six weeks, the canyon has gained another 48 million years!


http://www.answersin...o-note-04192008


The biggest shock, even to me, was experimental data that falsified the "law of superposition".


7exxtkN8610&hl=en_US&fs=1


Posted Image

#30 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 21 June 2010 - 10:19 PM

http://www.answersin...o-note-04192008
The biggest shock, even to me, was experimental data that falsified the "law of superposition".
7exxtkN8610&hl=en_US&fs=1
Posted Image

View Post


The dating of the Grand Canyon has little or nothing to do with respect to the principles of geology that I made reference to in my reply. I can't open the link you provide so I have no idea if it contains any relevant evidence to back what you claim.

Even if there is validity in this claim, which I doubt since scientific research rarely moves anywhere near that quickly, I can't see where this changes anything that is fundamental to geology that would be found in a textbook.

The "Law of Superposition" remains valid. I can't look at youtube at work, but I think what you provide is from the same source as a video I commented upon recently, the studies of a French sedimentologist, many of the the conclusions reached are not correct. I don't know what point you are making with the diagram. Deltaic deposition fits in with this principle just as other sedimentary rock units.

#31 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 22 June 2010 - 01:56 AM

The dating of the Grand Canyon has little or nothing to do with respect to the principles of geology that I made reference to in my reply. I can't open the link you provide so I have no idea if it contains any relevant evidence to back what you claim.


Try this one.

http://news.sciencem...8/04/11-01.html

The "Law of Superposition" remains valid. I can't look at youtube at work, but I think what you provide is from the same source as a video I commented upon recently, the studies of a French sedimentologist, many of the the conclusions reached are not correct.


Operational science is dependant upon direct observation and experimentation. N. Steno wasn't there to observe the sedimentary layers form, so he assumed the layers on the bottom were layed down first. A reasonable assumption for 400 years, but you would rather accept the assumption over the observation?

I don't know what point you are making with the diagram.


It's a diagram of the flume experiment. It shows how the particles sorted according to density in a horizontal pattern instead of one layer at a time as the law of superposition says.

Our experiments have invalidated the identification of superposed rock strata with successive sedimentary layers. Consequently, the experiments invalidate the principles of superposition and continuity upon which the geological time-scale was founded. They shed light upon the mechanism of stratification.

Our laboratory work contributes to discoveries in sedimentology in the domain of observation and experimentation. Our new series of experiments currently taking place, has as its objective for 1997–1998 the development of an understanding of sedimentary mechanics. Despite what is said to the contrary, ‘the present is the key to the past’ if contemporary sedimentary mechanisms can be used to explain those which created the sedimentary rocks.


http://www.answersin...ation_reply.asp

One pattern that is repeated around the world is:

1) Sandstone
2) Shale
3) Limestone

Coincidentally, that pattern is sorted according to density as Julien et al’s flume experiment demonstrates. It can be sucessively observed in the Grand Staircase.

Posted Image




Enjoy.

#32 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 22 June 2010 - 02:58 AM

But you still say the deepest rocks were lain down first! It's just you say it happened quickly and because the bottom ones were heavier.

You are welcome to think that, because superficially the appearance may be like that, but when it is examined more closely, there are issues that come up such as fossil reptile tracks half way up.

During all that turbulent year when all these sediments were being hydrologically sorted (which requires a lot of water and a lot of shaking) some reptiles decided to go for a walk.

How sweet! You can just imagine them basking for a while in the tonnes of water and rocks before scurrying off to find somewhere to sleep.

#33 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 22 June 2010 - 03:02 AM

Try this one.

http://news.sciencem...8/04/11-01.html
Operational science is dependant upon direct observation and experimentation. N. Steno wasn't there to observe the sedimentary layers form, so he assumed the layers on the bottom were layed down first. A reasonable assumption for 400 years, but you would rather accept the assumption over the observation?
It's a diagram of the flume experiment. It shows how the particles sorted according to density in a horizontal pattern instead of one layer at a time as the law of superposition says.
http://www.answersin...ation_reply.asp

One pattern that is repeated around the world is:

1) Sandstone
2) Shale
3) Limestone

Coincidentally, that pattern is sorted according to density as Julien et al’s flume experiment demonstrates. It can be sucessively observed in the Grand Staircase.

Posted Image
Enjoy.

View Post


Did you see my rather lengthy response to the conclusions made from those flume tests in a couple of different posts? The conclusions reached extrapolated results from an experiment using one set of conditions and applied them to all sedimentary rocks. There are flume tests done by others which show what will happen with altered conditions, including horizontal beds stacked neatly one on top of each other. This is basically analogous to "quote-mining" one result from a multitude. The fact that other sedimentary patterns exist in laboratory experiments should satisfy your need for so-called observational evidence. A study of actual deposits in the field is really even better, since the confines of the flume, etc. that do force assumptions when comparing to what occurs in a bay or basin. The experiment I saw analysed showed alternating micro-laminations. But, the "Law of Superposition" as held by geologists is not violated at all by the flume tests you cite. Why do you think the case is otherwise?

That sequence you mention is found in a number of places, but so is:

1) Limestone
2) Shale
3) Sandstone

1) Shale
2) Sandstone
3) Limestone

1) Sandstone
2) Limestone
3) Limestone

1) Sandstone
2) Shale
3) Sandstone

The geologic formations shown in the example from the Grand Canyon show quite a variation in sequence of lithology. The graded bedding you note is sort of present some places and not others. But those flume tests are not a very good analogue for most Grand Canyon rocks.

Just taking a break, no time to write further.

#34 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 22 June 2010 - 07:42 AM

Try this one.

http://news.sciencem...8/04/11-01.html

ScienceNOW’s Phil Berardelli writes:

New research indicates that the Grand Canyon is perhaps 65 million years old, far older than previously thought—and old enough that the last surviving dinosaurs may have stomped along its rim.

Now, regular News to Note readers may remember that it was only six weeks ago that old-earth-believing scientists reported the Grand Canyon’s age at not 6 million years old (the previous view), but rather 17 millions years old. And now, in the short span of six weeks, the canyon has gained another 48 million years!

View Post


Thank you for the new link. This one works for me, the AIG one still does not. I assume that the second part of your quote came from AIG as I do not see it in the ScienceNow article. In my opinion there is no validity to that claim, which insinuates that all "old earth" scientists held to a 6 million year age for the creation of the canyon one day, then a day later held to a 17 million year date, then six weeks later added another 48 million years on top of that. This is of course total poppycock.

By the way, I think your comment about me being out of date was a bit out of line. You made a false assumption. When I could finally read what the story was about I remembered coming across a report of these two studies a couple of years ago. So, yes, I was aware of both the studies referenced even though it is not in an area of current interest to me. I even commented on it at the time giving my opinion how hard it is to come to any age date for the creation of the canyon, and agreeing that it probably formed in stages anyway with several initial dates before parts converged into the modern canyon. After all. one is trying to date something where the matter involved in its creation is long gone. This is an erosional feature, and not one between successive strata. The study reported was and still is controversial, unlike what that comment above (from AIG?) implies.

But thank you for supplying this link to a journal that stands in stark contrast to AIG in terms of allowing an objective study of science. It provides a great example of how scientific technical journals work to advance science.

Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table-Type Speleothems
Victor Polyak, Carol Hill, Yemane Asmerom

The age and evolution of the Grand Canyon have been subjects of great interest and debate since its discovery. We found that cave mammillaries (water table indicator speleothems) from nine sites in the Grand Canyon showed uranium-lead dating evidence for an old western Grand Canyon on the assumption that groundwater table decline rates are equivalent to incision rates. Samples in the western Grand Canyon yielded apparent water table decline rates of 55 to 123 meters per million years over the past 17 million years, in contrast to eastern Grand Canyon samples that yielded much faster rates (166 to 411 meters per million years). Chronology and inferred incision data indicate that the Grand Canyon evolved via headward erosion from west to east, together with late-stage (~3.7 million years ago) accelerated incision in the eastern block.


New claim for age of Grand Canyon

After publication other workers in the field submitted comments.

Comment on "Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table–Type Speleothems"
Philip A. Pearthree, Jon E. Spencer,1 James E. Faulds, P. Kyle House

Polyak et al. (Reports, 7 March 2008, p. 1377) reported that development of the western Grand Canyon began about 17 million years ago. However, their conclusion is based on an inappropriate conflation of Plio-Quaternary incision rates and longer-term rates derived from sites outside the Grand Canyon. Water-table declines at these sites were more likely related to local base-level changes and Miocene regional extensional tectonics.


Comment in opposition

Comment on "Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table–Type Speleothems"
Joel Pederson, Richard Young, Ivo Lucchitta, L. Sue Beard, George Billingsley

Polyak et al. (Reports, 7 March 2008, p. 1377) reported speleothem data leading to their inference that the western Grand Canyon incised much earlier than previously thought. This contradicts several lines of published geological knowledge in the region, hinges upon unjustified hydrogeological assumptions, and is based on two anomalous data points for which we offer alternative explanations.


And here is the article that the 65 million date apparently came from:

Unroofing, incision, and uplift history of the southwestern Colorado Plateau from apatite (U-Th)/He thermochronometry

1. R.M. Flowers1,†,
2. B.P. Wernicke2 and
3. K.A. Farley2

+ Author Affiliations

1.
      1Division of Geological and Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
2.
      2Division of Geological and Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA

1. †E-mail: Rebecca.Flowers@colorado.edu

Abstract

The source of buoyancy for the uplift of cratonic plateaus is a fundamental question in continental dynamics. The ~1.9 km uplift of the Colorado Plateau since the Late Cretaceous is a prime example of this problem. We used apatite (U-Th)/He thermochronometry (230 analyses; 36 samples) to provide the first single-system, regional-scale proxy for the unroofing history of the southwestern quadrant of the plateau. The results confirm overall southwest to northeast unroofing, from plateau margin to plateau interior. A single phase of unroofing along the plateau margin in Late Cretaceous to Early Tertiary (Sevier-Laramide) time contrasts with multiphase unroofing of the southwestern plateau interior in Early and mid- to Late Tertiary time. The Early Cretaceous was characterized by northeastward tilting and regional erosion, followed by aggradation of ≥1500 m of Upper Cretaceous sediments along the eroded plateau margin. Sevier-Laramide denudation affected the entire southwestern plateau, was concentrated along the plateau margin, and migrated from northwest to southeast. Following a period of relative stability of the landscape from ca. 50–30 Ma, significant unroofing of the southwestern plateau interior occurred between ca. 28 and 16 Ma. Additional denudation north of the Grand Canyon took place in latest Tertiary time.

Mid-Tertiary dates from the Grand Canyon basement at the bottom of the Upper Granite Gorge limit significant incision of the modern Grand Canyon below the Kaibab surface to <23 Ma. Modeling the age distributions of samples from the basement and Kaibab surface nearby suggests that the gorge and the plateau surface had similar Early to mid-Tertiary thermal histories, despite their >1500 m difference in vertical structural position. If these models are correct, they indicate that a “proto–Grand Canyon” of kilometer-scale depth had incised post-Paleozoic strata by the Early Eocene. Evidence for kilometer-scale mid-Tertiary relief in northeast-flowing drainages along the plateau margin, as well as the mid-Tertiary episode of plateau interior unroofing, imply that the southwestern plateau interior had attained substantial elevation by at least 25–20 Ma, if not much earlier. These observations are inconsistent with any model calling for exclusively Late Tertiary uplift of the southwestern plateau.

Sevier-Laramide plateau surface uplift and incision thus result from one or more processes that enhanced the buoyancy of the plateau lithosphere, expanding the Cordillera's orogenic highlands into its low-standing cratonic foreland. The onset of the Laramide slab's demise at ca. 40 Ma and the major pulse of extension in the Basin and Range from ca. 16–10 Ma appear to have had little influence on the denudation history of the southwestern plateau. In contrast, the post-Laramide unroofing episodes may be explained by drainage adjustments induced by rift-related lowering of regions adjacent to the plateau, without the need to otherwise modify the plateau lithosphere. Our data do not preclude a large component of post–Early Eocene elevation gain (or the geodynamic mechanisms it may imply), but they do point toward Laramide-age buoyancy sources as the initial cause of significant surface uplift, ending more than 500 m.y. of residence near sea level.


Unroofing

And there you have it in its original form.

This is how science works. Scientists publish their work and others comment upon it. Through time some ideas are found to be less valid and the science advances towards a generally accepted viewpoint that takes into account the best evidence. But this is not an area involving geologic principles such as The Law of Superposition, which still holds as being proven true. I still can't see your video but I know it cannot make a good case that "falsifies" this principle of geology. However, I look forward to your explanation of how you it convinced you.

#35 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 22 June 2010 - 09:02 AM

This is how science works. Scientists publish their work and others comment upon it. Through time some ideas are found to be less valid and the science advances towards a generally accepted viewpoint that takes into account the best evidence. But this is not an area involving geologic principles such as The Law of Superposition, which still holds as being proven true. I still can't see your video but I know it cannot make a good case that "falsifies" this principle of geology. However, I look forward to your explanation of how you it convinced you.


Gee, i'll have to ponder that one myself. LOL

Lets say we conducted an experiment and video taped a fish growing legs and showed it to the whole world and then some creationists said "So, I still don't see why your convinced evolution is true". Rather than assume were correct, we actually conduct experiments that validate our hypothesis instead of having faith in falsified OE dating methods that give different ages every six weeks.

It also took only one creationists to verify catastrophic deposition in the Redwall Limestone. Hundreds of OE geologists have been looking at the same formation for over a hundred years and never even noticed the evidence right under their noses.

Billions of large fossil orthocone nautiloids occur within a single lime packstone bed of the Redwall Limestone through the Grand Canyon region, northern Arizona and southern Nevada. The uppermost 2-m-thick packstone bed of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone (Osagean Series of the Mississippian System) contains a coplanar horizon averaging 1 nautiloid fossil per m2. The bed with abundant nautiloids extends westward 290 km from Marble Canyon on the Colorado River to Frenchman Mountain near Las Vegas. The platform facies of the bed with abundant nautiloids originally occupied an area of at least 1.5 x 104 km2. Nautiloids resemble the genus Rayonnoceras, but the siphuncle differs from any described in the literature.

Mean length of nautiloids is 0.8 m with log-normal size distribution indicating mass kill of an entire population. Implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity argue that bodies were within the shells at the time of burial. Orientations of nautiloids indicate they were swept up in a westward or southwestward sediment flow. About 15% of nautiloids are vertical within the bed. The packstone bed has inverse grading and abundant fluid-escape pipes indicating strongly fluidized condition and deposition by abrupt freezing from a hyperconcentrated sediment gravity flow. The enormous hyperconcentrated flow hydroplaned westward at a velocity of over 5 m/sec through a shallow, carbonate platform environment, sweeping up, smothering and depositing an entire seafloor population of nautiloids.

Discovery of the extent of the packstone bed, inventory of nautiloid fossils, and interpretation of depositional process were made possible within Grand Canyon National Park by special use permits allowing motorized raft operations with geologists on the Colorado River. Float boulders with nautiloids directed our attention to the source bed within the Redwall cliff. Because of the Antiquities Act, we chose to collect nautiloids for research from outside the national park. Our investigations provide an interesting example of how paleontological discoveries can be made in remote areas of national parks.


http://gsa.confex.co...tract_45610.htm

How many times have OE geologists sat in the air conditioning and said "Rapid deposition of limestone isn't possible" without even looking at the massive catastrophic deposits right in front of their faces?



Enjoy.

#36 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 24 June 2010 - 04:55 AM

Geode: "This is how science works. Scientists publish their work and others comment upon it. Through time some ideas are found to be less valid and the science advances towards a generally accepted viewpoint that takes into account the best evidence. But this is not an area involving geologic principles such as The Law of Superposition, which still holds as being proven true. I still can't see your video but I know it cannot make a good case that "falsifies" this principle of geology. However, I look forward to your explanation of how you it convinced you."

Jason: "Gee, i'll have to ponder that one myself. LOL"

Lets say we conducted an experiment and video taped a fish growing legs and showed it to the whole world and then some creationists said "So, I still don't see why your convinced evolution is true". Rather than assume were correct, we actually conduct experiments that validate our hypothesis instead of having faith in falsified OE dating methods that give different ages every six weeks.

View Post


I asked a very simple question, and you appear to have completly dodged it. If you accept that superposition is falsified, I think it only fair that you explain why you feel this way instead of simply taking on faith it was falsified because a creationist sedimentologist with what appears to be a rather obvious agenda claimed this to be the case. I am wondering why you accept this when none of the geological scientific community that is non-creationist has done so? This is on the order of what some say about evolution, that almost any biologist would love to be the one that could show conclusive evidence that a difefrent concept was more valid. They would go down in history as one of the most famous people in history. It is the same in geology. If a geologist could actually disprove something as fundamental to the sceince as superposition they would not hestitate to do so.

This one is not even close, right up there with the fossils on the top of Mt. Everest being deposited at great altitude where oxygen is scarce. I can only see two possibilities, the individual involved lacks the ability to understand one of the easiest geologic principles, or he has purposely distorted it to make a point. In this case it appears that he wished to make a case to doubt the usefulness of the fossil record in the relative dating of rocks. That is what the video does with his idea. But even if he were correct about this, and he is not even close to correctness, the status of the fossil in the beds shown would remain exactly the same in terms of said usefulness.

That experiment simply showed one form of laminations under certain conditions of flow. It is not a model for all sedimentation, and it most certainly did not falsify superposition.

How do you understand superposition? Please give me your definition and how this experiment shows anything different than what it means.

The dating techniques of the Grand Canyon were not proven to be falsified. I guess you didn't read what I provided, or at least not carefully. Workers are trying various methods which may or may not ultimately work out.

Billions of large fossil orthocone nautiloids occur within a single lime packstone bed of the Redwall Limestone through the Grand Canyon region, northern Arizona and southern Nevada. The uppermost 2-m-thick packstone bed of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone (Osagean Series of the Mississippian System) contains a coplanar horizon averaging 1 nautiloid fossil per m2. The bed with abundant nautiloids extends westward 290 km from Marble Canyon on the Colorado River to Frenchman Mountain near Las Vegas. The platform facies of the bed with abundant nautiloids originally occupied an area of at least 1.5 x 104 km2. Nautiloids resemble the genus Rayonnoceras, but the siphuncle differs from any described in the literature.

Mean length of nautiloids is 0.8 m with log-normal size distribution indicating mass kill of an entire population. Implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity argue that bodies were within the shells at the time of burial. Orientations of nautiloids indicate they were swept up in a westward or southwestward sediment flow. About 15% of nautiloids are vertical within the bed. The packstone bed has inverse grading and abundant fluid-escape pipes indicating strongly fluidized condition and deposition by abrupt freezing from a hyperconcentrated sediment gravity flow. The enormous hyperconcentrated flow hydroplaned westward at a velocity of over 5 m/sec through a shallow, carbonate platform environment, sweeping up, smothering and depositing an entire seafloor population of nautiloids.

Discovery of the extent of the packstone bed, inventory of nautiloid fossils, and interpretation of depositional process were made possible within Grand Canyon National Park by special use permits allowing motorized raft operations with geologists on the Colorado River. Float boulders with nautiloids directed our attention to the source bed within the Redwall cliff. Because of the Antiquities Act, we chose to collect nautiloids for research from outside the national park. Our investigations provide an interesting example of how paleontological discoveries can be made in remote areas of national parks.


http://gsa.confex.co...tract_45610.htm

How many times have OE geologists sat in the air conditioning and said "Rapid deposition of limestone isn't possible" without even looking at the massive catastrophic deposits right in front of their faces?


Geologists don't say that rapid deposition of limestone isn't possible. This simply sounds like the strawman comment using an outdated definition of uniformitarianism that I often see postulated by creationiosts. Geologists parted company with the strict Lyellian notion so commonly used by creationists long ago.

In a recent post I told of my own findings in the field, where I found evidence of rather rapid depositions of limetsones. We see it happening today, so why would we dispute that it happened in the past?

It also took only one creationists to verify catastrophic deposition in the Redwall Limestone. Hundreds of OE geologists have been looking at the same formation for over a hundred years and never even noticed the evidence right under their noses.


He didn't verify catastrophic deposition, he offered his hypothesis. He should be appauded for actually going out into the field and doing research as this is a rarity for creationist geologists. But this is no more proven that the studies of the age of the Grand Canyon which you apparently dismissed without a moment's hestitation yet you accept Steve Austin's ideas of gospel truth. One article fits your worldview so you accept it without question whereas the others do not so you dismiss them? Other geologists have studied the Redwall Limestone and its fossil content. and reached other conclusions. I read a different account some time ago that did not find the same morphology in the nautiloids or the same number per unit rock volume. To reach a personal opinion using intellectual honesty we must evaluate all the studies that are relevant. This is just an abstract. Do you have a more complete version that actually offers the evidence used to reach the conclusions?

#37 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 June 2010 - 10:55 AM

I asked a very simple question, and you appear to have completly dodged it.


And your ignoring my reply because you know that an empirical experiment isn't questionable.

If you accept that superposition is falsified, I think it only fair that you explain why you feel this way.


For the third time; an empirical experiment.

instead of simply taking on faith it was falsified because a creationist sedimentologist with what appears to be a rather obvious agenda claimed this to be the case.


If an OE geologist performed the experiment it wouldn't have worked, the experiment was a fraud, or the camera equipment must have been faulty. Perhaps your missing the correct option; the experiment meets all of the requirements of being scientific: observable, testable, and repeatable, and your simply going to stick with the old untestable assumptions about the law of superposition anyway.

Besides, even a scientist that attempted to refute the conclusions as inappropriate, acknowledged it as changing our understanding of sedimentary rock formation.

In his preamble, Hoskin states that our

    ‘experimentation is now recognised as a valuable and necessary contribution to our understanding of the petrology of sedimentary rocks and their structures.’

I thank him for the acknowledgment. His praise adds to that expressed in dozens of letters emanating from geologists from many countries who have read the reports and, in particular, have seen the video Fundamental Experiments on Stratification.


That doesn't sound like some religious nut with an agenda. :)



That experiment simply showed one form of laminations under certain conditions of flow. It is not a model for all sedimentation, and it most certainly did not falsify superposition.

How do you understand superposition? Please give me your definition and how this experiment shows anything different than what it means.


If we had a catastrophic flow of homogeneous sediment (sandstone,shale, and limestone) pouring into the ocean then the understood process would leave a thick homogeneous mixture. But the experiment shows this isn't the case. It would form in a horizontal formation and sort the particles in a laminated fashion according to density with the heaviest (sandstone) being on bottom and the lightest (limestone) being deposited on top.

He didn't verify catastrophic deposition, he offered his hypothesis.


The paper I linked gave the corroborating evidence. The chance that the nautiloids could have slowly died off and oriented themselves in the same direction by chance is almost impossible. Especially since 15% are standing vertical and 15% of 1-10 billion is still a huge number and matches the prediction of the hyperconcentrated flow model. Is that by chance as well?

One article fits your worldview so you accept it without question whereas the others do not so you dismiss them? Other geologists have studied the Redwall Limestone and its fossil content. and reached other conclusions.


Before Austin's research they documented a few nautiloid fossils in the Canyon. In fact, the literature will tell you that the Redwall Limestone is fossil poor. In that case, how could they reach the same conclusion as Austin? I'm not dismissing anything because of a bias, i'm simply going on data as it becomes available.



Enjoy.

#38 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 26 June 2010 - 01:51 AM

For the third time; an empirical experiment.


You missed my point. I was asking why you think the experiment falsifies the Law of Superposition. I watched the video and heard their version and claim. I wanted you to tell me in your own words why you agree with this. I asked what you think the Law of Superposition states, and how this is overturned by that experiment. In doing this we can have a more meaningful discussion because I think if I simply say why I disagree with the content in more detail you might simply reply that you agree with what they stated without thinking it through.

There are places where the French sedimentologist is basically doing something similar to what Thierry Henry did to help his team win against Ireland last year to qualify for the World Cup. The French team has already received what some say was deserved shame, due in a large part to the cheating last year.

And I am also interested in your opinions about "polystrate" fossils and your explanation of what these are all about. Once again in your own words and not just a link to a claim about them.

If an OE geologist performed the experiment it wouldn't have worked, the experiment was a fraud, or the camera equipment must have been faulty. Perhaps your missing the correct option; the experiment meets all of the requirements of being scientific: observable, testable, and repeatable, and your simply going to stick with the old untestable assumptions about the law of superposition anyway.


As I have said all along, the experiment did show an observable, repeatable process of sedimentation. What it clearly did not show was a falsification of The Law of Superposition. It is that conclusion that I do not find correct or scientific. The Law of Superposition is very testable. It was tested once again in the experiment shown and proven valid by what was shown in the experiment. There was even a point where a blade was used to create what they termed a "cross-section" that most clearly was a demonstration of the validity of this principle. If they had sketched that section and diagrammed it, the conclusion could only lead to a verification of the concept. This would be similar to what we would find in an actual rock outcrop.

Besides, even a scientist that attempted to refute the conclusions as inappropriate, acknowledged it as changing our understanding of sedimentary rock formation.

That doesn't sound like some religious nut with an agenda. :rolleyes:


What was shown are aspects of sedimentation already published in geologic literature before these experiments confirmed the earlier ones. I saw no new understanding except on perhaps the minute scale of lamination. Even then it would only be minor variations on documented "knowns." The claim against superpoistion was immediately followed by another false claim about fossils and on the next drum beat a claim against fossils being of any use in dating or evidence for evolution. This was followed by a claim that everything had shown proof for a worldwide flood...and the religious agenda became evident. The basis for the last conclusion was made on the claim the Superposition was an incorrect concept.

If we had a catastrophic flow of homogeneous sediment (sandstone,shale, and limestone) pouring into the ocean then the understood process would leave a thick homogeneous mixture. But the experiment shows this isn't the case. It would form in a horizontal formation and sort the particles in a laminated fashion according to density with the heaviest (sandstone) being on bottom and the lightest (limestone) being deposited on top.


First off a mixture of sediment including the ingredients that make up sandstones, shales, and limestones would not be termed homogeneous. By definition it would be the opposite of homogeneous and be heterogeneous. And the resulting rocks that formed from this mixture would never be homogeneous as a whole. Like the experiment shows, only some lithologic units would have homogenerity. Geologists have know that stratification will result from such a situation for a very long time. Even your video admits that claims held before the experiment was done thought this to be true. The principles of density sorting were set forth in Stoke's law back in the 19th Century.

The paper I linked gave the corroborating evidence. The chance that the nautiloids could have slowly died off and oriented themselves in the same direction by chance is almost impossible. Especially since 15% are standing vertical and 15% of 1-10 billion is still a huge number and matches the prediction of the hyperconcentrated flow model. Is that by chance as well?


You gave an abstract that gives mainly conclusions. The evidence you cite is simply a summation of conclusions. The methods used and raw data are needed before anyone can really comment upon the veracity of the conclusions made.

Before Austin's research they documented a few nautiloid fossils in the Canyon. In fact, the literature will tell you that the Redwall Limestone is fossil poor. In that case, how could they reach the same conclusion as Austin? I'm not dismissing anything because of a bias, i'm simply going on data as it becomes available.


Parts of the Redwall have been reported as fossil poor, other parts fairly fossiliferous. One must take the evidence found in the entire into account when making conclusions for all of it.

#39 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 26 June 2010 - 05:25 AM

You missed my point. I was asking why you think the experiment falsifies the Law of Superposition. I watched the video and heard their version and claim. I wanted you to tell me in your own words why you agree with this. I asked what you think the Law of Superposition states, and how this is overturned by that experiment.

View Post


Forgive my interruption Geode, but aren't you a petroleum geologist? What reasons would you have for NOT accepting the physics of what has happened in water currents. Namely that there were sediments in a strata ABOVE another strata that were there FIRST. However the LAW of superpositioning says that all sediments in a strata ABOVE another strata are placed there AFTER that strata has been laid.

"Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top."

The principle was first proposed in the 11th century by the Persian geologist, Avicenna (Ibn Sina)[citation needed], and the law was later formulated more clearly in the 17th century by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno.



There are places where the French sedimentologist is basically doing something similar to what Thierry Henry did to help his team win against Ireland last year to qualify for the World Cup. The French team has already received what some say was deserved shame, due in a large part to the cheating last year.

View Post


Again forgive me. But I am really confused this claim of dishonesty, if it is that (?).
The experiments speak for themselves. A 5th grader can interpret what is happening. It clearly shows that density sorting in currents is a verifiable possibility. Furthermore, these experiments justify geologists in reinterpreting obvious catastrophic settings, of which there are many throughout the earth.

And I am also interested in your opinions about "polystrate" fossils and your explanation of what these are all about. Once again in your own words and not just a link to a claim about them.
As I have said all along, the experiment did show an observable, repeatable process of sedimentation. What it clearly did not show was a falsification of The Law of Superposition. It is that conclusion that I do not find correct or scientific. The Law of Superposition is very testable....


Superpositioning can happen. The question is did it happen? Especially over long periods of time as in the geo column? One could conceive that, even in a worldwide deluge, individual depositions (i.e.layers of sediment) could be laid in a time sequence. But these experiments show that superpositioning is no longer an exclusive explanation.

#40 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 26 June 2010 - 09:32 AM

Forgive my interruption Geode, but aren't you a petroleum geologist?  What reasons would you have for NOT accepting the physics of what has happened in water currents.  Namely that there were sediments in a strata ABOVE another strata that were there FIRST.  However the LAW of superpositioning  says that all sediments in a strata ABOVE another strata are placed there AFTER that strata has been laid.

View Post


Yes, I am a petroleum geologist. As I have been posting all along, I do not dispute any of the physics involved in the experiment. Check back through my posts and you will find this to be the case. Does the experiment in fact show that there were sediments in a stratum above another stratum that was there first? I think the video makes a claim somewhere in the first part that geologists mistakenly use the terms strata and layers rather interchangeably. It is true the terms may be used a bit loosely, and these are not the most precise terms to be using in some circumstances. I have one book about sedimentation that avoids the use of either term. It becomes apparent in the video that they use a new definition of "layer" basically to exclusively define what earlier geologic studies define as a "genetic increment" as developed by Busch. (Busch, D.A., 1971, Genetic units in delta prospecting. Bull. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 55, 1137-1154,) However, most YEC discussion I have seen also uses the terms in the same way, and not like this video.

The Law of Superposition basically is along the drift of what you state but the "all" isn't necessary and can lead to wrong conclusions and the use of "above" is not really correct although it does seem to be a possible source of where Guy Berthault's claim of what the experiment shows goes false. You also used the word above in the description of what the experiment showed.

  "Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top."

The principle was first proposed in the 11th century by the Persian geologist, Avicenna (Ibn Sina)[citation needed], and the law was later formulated more clearly in the 17th century by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno.


Yes, I accept this as being true to the concept.

(Geode @ Jun 26 2010, 01:51 AM)
There are places where the French sedimentologist is basically doing something similar to what Thierry Henry did to help his team win against Ireland last year to qualify for the World Cup. The French team has already received what some say was deserved shame, due in a large part to the cheating last year.

Again forgive me. But I am really confused this claim of dishonesty, if it is that (?).
The experiments speak for themselves. A 5th grader can interpret what is happening. It clearly shows that density sorting in currents is a verifiable possibility. Furthermore, these experiments justify geologists in reinterpreting obvious catastrophic settings, of which there are many throughout the earth.


My comment about dishonesty was about Thierry Henry breaking a rule of the game he was playing, yet the French team getting away with it. However, as the Law of Superposition is very basic geology, it is very hard to believe that Berthault is not aware of the correct application. He does not apply it correctly so one has to wonder if he intended to twist the meaning to suit his purposes.

Once again, the conclusion that the Law of Superposition is not valid in the experiment has nothing to do with what is shown in the experiment where sorting is due to density except of course that rocks settle out of water or air to form successive units. It happened and nobody would dispute that it happened. Of course it depends on your definition of what a catastrophic event entails whether or not the experiment shows such an occurrence. What was shown in the experiment may or may not qualify as being representative of such an event. It shows fluid movement in a high flow regime. Is a turbidity current a catastrophic event? They certainly are rapid and can affect a large area. Some probably could easily fit a definition of this for most of us. But what was shown was not as catastrophic as some recorded turbidity events.

"And I am also interested in your opinions about "polystrate" fossils and your explanation of what these are all about. Once again in your own words and not just a link to a claim about them.

As I have said all along, the experiment did show an observable, repeatable process of sedimentation. What it clearly did not show was a falsification of The Law of Superposition. It is that conclusion that I do not find correct or scientific. The Law of Superposition is very testable..."

Superpositioning can happen. The question is did it happen? Especially over long periods of time as in the geo column? One could conceive that, even in a worldwide deluge, individual depositions (i.e.layers of sediment) could be laid in a time sequence. But these experiments show that superpositioning is no longer an exclusive explanation.


Super-positioning does happen with only rare exceptions. These experiments do not fall under those exceptions, such as clastic dikes. No, those experiments validated the concept of Superposition when following just about any definition ever used for the principle, except for the one Guy Berthault seems to be using (and of course those who believe his version). His partner in the experiment does not seem to be making the same outlandish claim. His explanation of time equivalent points appeared to be correct, but brought a "so what" to my mind and I couldn't figure out why he bothered to expound on the subject as he did.

Something the video seems to carefully avoid is mentioning that geologists are very careful to separate Lithostratigraphy from Chronostratigraphy when studying rocks. Times transgressive units are carefully worked out, which is why the point that the video takes so long to make falls flat. Geologists will know that the fossils in all three lithologies shown in the colored diagrams between the depositional surfaces shown are the same age, just as those between the next set of depositional surfaces are the same age but younger than the ones in the genetic increment deposited before.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users