Jump to content


Photo

Geologic Column: Fact Or Fiction?


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#61 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 07 August 2012 - 12:02 AM

Relevant reading material - Young Earth Creationist source.

I recently found a couple of printouts I did about 4 years ago. I tried the url's, and they're still there.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN: PART I - http://www.grisda.or...igins/08059.htm

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN: PART II - http://www.grisda.or...igins/09028.htm

Grisda is the Geologic Research Institute, affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church - Homepage http://www.grisda.org/

I haven't read these in years, but I am in the process of rereading. They seem to be a pretty good discussion of the geologic column concept origins, from a YEC and hopefully YEC friendly source. The first pages say that the material was also published in "Origins" back in 1981 and 1982.

Moose

#62 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 07 August 2012 - 01:51 PM

Biblically we expect:

  • Creation Rock (The first dry land).
  • Post-Creation/Pre-Flood Deposition
  • Flood Deposition
  • Post-Flood Deposition


Do you have examples of a "geological" column and then one can see how this matches (or not). I recall this being quite diverse on times. But it's not what I'd expect to find after "millions of years of slow deposition".

#63 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:16 AM

Relevant reading material - Young Earth Creationist source.

I recently found a couple of printouts I did about 4 years ago. I tried the url's, and they're still there.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN: PART I - http://www.grisda.or...igins/08059.htm

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN: PART II - http://www.grisda.or...igins/09028.htm

Grisda is the Geologic Research Institute, affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church - Homepage http://www.grisda.org/

I haven't read these in years, but I am in the process of rereading. They seem to be a pretty good discussion of the geologic column concept origins, from a YEC and hopefully YEC friendly source. The first pages say that the material was also published in "Origins" back in 1981 and 1982.

Moose


Thank you for the links Moose. Being new to the subject I never realised the extent to which geology relied on the type of sedimentation for sequencing purposes. I thought the emphasis was on the fossils found. Generally I see no reason to contradict the flood model I have been proposing, and its interesting to me that this is what the earliest geologists had come up with as well. ie a flood at the P-T boundary. The flood model embraced by most YECs of the flood being the source of sedimentary deposits from the Cambrian through to the Triassic and more recent, I find untenable with the evidence.

#64 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 14 August 2012 - 08:51 AM

He meant to say that he refuses to see any contradiction.Posted Image

#65 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 14 August 2012 - 08:59 AM

Relevant reading material - Young Earth Creationist source.

I recently found a couple of printouts I did about 4 years ago. I tried the url's, and they're still there.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN: PART I - http://www.grisda.or...igins/08059.htm

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN: PART II - http://www.grisda.or...igins/09028.htm

Grisda is the Geologic Research Institute, affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church - Homepage http://www.grisda.org/

I haven't read these in years, but I am in the process of rereading. They seem to be a pretty good discussion of the geologic column concept origins, from a YEC and hopefully YEC friendly source. The first pages say that the material was also published in "Origins" back in 1981 and 1982.

Moose



We rely on more current sedimentation experiments these days. A hypothesis is good, but we really need to test it some how.



#66 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 15 August 2012 - 11:02 AM

He meant to say that he refuses to see any contradiction.Posted Image


Haha, good one!

You are welcome to point out any specifics that have been discovered that would contradict those original assertations that the flood is at the P-T boundary. I do love a good point and a challenging point. One good point I have heard against a P-T flood is an article that stated that the Triassic/Jurassic deposits leading down to the Mississippi River mouth are way too excessive to be able to be explained by any post-floodsedimentation. Of course they chose the exact point where there is still currently the most rapid post-flood sedimentation on earth, thereby negating their own point by the very place they chose as their example against rapid post-flood sedimentation. What happens is that excessive sedimentation causes subsidence and then upliftment, which would have been happening during the time that the Mississipi river mouth traveled southwest to be at its present position.

If you could forward any other well thought out and specific responses to my view I would actually really appreciate it. Another good argument against my view is the lack of human and mammal fossils in the pre-flood era. The lack of huge numbers of human fossils is actually a challenge for any flood model. My model would have to include mammals in the pre-flood era. This has a number of explanations, chiefly that of proliferation of swamp dwelling animals in an easily fossilizing environment. Wetlands are the dominant environment of the carboniferous, and wetlands fossilize well. Therefore mammals were rarer and lived in non-fossilizing environments in the pre-flood era. Any rare mammal fossils found in a non-wetlands environment could easily be mistaken for a later period. Another point to consider is to look at a map of the iced up carboniferous world. You will see that carboniferous fossil sites are found in what was known as the wetlands region of that era. (the central part of that continent). This in itself speaks volumes about environmental factors shaping assumptions.

#67 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 15 August 2012 - 06:09 PM

We rely on more current sedimentation experiments these days. A hypothesis is good, but we really need to test it some how.

{Video snipped out of quote}


Interesting video - I will try to explain it in text.

What they are modeling in the flume is a river delta. This actually shows 2 depositional environments:

1) The upstream, shallow water higher velocity flow zone - This results in a thin layer of near horizontal sedimentation.

2) The transition from shallow water to deep water / transition from higher velocity flow to lower velocity flow zone. - This results in the much more sloped (crossbedded) sedimentation. Note that there is an illusion of horizontal layering in their drawing(s) but that is not real and not seen in the video.

Yes, you can get 2 different varieties of sedimentation happening at the same time. Note that both are not happening at the same point at the same time.

In any vertical section, the sediment that is above is the more recently deposited. That is all that the law of superposition claims.

Now, their illustration/model of where the different life forms get deposited. They are putting them in the different illusionary layers mentioned above. In reality, they are all in the same crossbedding layer. And in a greater reality (the real world), I suspect the life form remains would probably be carried much further out into deeper water.

They also brush upon what happens in the shallow water zone as the flow rates are varied. I can also get into that if you wish, but it doesn’t really seem to be your desired focus (and it is getting remote to the geologic column concept). For some reading material on that, see some of the material at http://en.wikipedia....ary_structures.

Moose

#68 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 21 August 2012 - 08:30 PM

We rely on more current sedimentation experiments these days. A hypothesis is good, but we really need to test it some how.


Is that "current" as in "recent times", or as in "flowing water"? Posted Image

Anyway, I fail to see what modeling river delta deposits has to do with the big picture of the geologic column. What is the point you were trying to make?

Moose

#69 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 28 August 2012 - 07:59 AM

You guys might be a tad ahead of me on these questions.... but let me throw something out for you for your review and comment. This is not for arguments sake, but I think there "could" be support of a little variance in the our discussion of the topic.

First of all I heavily lean towards a YEC position, but having said this, I believe that some of the YEC "truths" have holes in their armor? So I don't employ some of the flood arguments because I believe that the evidence in the earth itself calls for a lot more pre-flood catastrophes prior to the flood? THere are a host of things to look at that would support that.

When the earth was void and covered in water (eretz) what was under the water, do you believe it was a water sphere as some or do you believe it had land underneath the water? Following this biblical narrative one seems to find the earth being "pre-pared" to receive GODs creation of the biosphere, the flora and fauna... So I know many people that are Christians that believe that the earth split up into continents after the flood. Some believe during the flood. But let me give you another possible scenario---could the psudo-continients already have existed under the water, the earth was void (and I also assume this implies the earth did not have a purpose by implication. When the land appeared at GOds command, the narrative implies waters (s) or multiple water sources. Anyway could the psudo-continients have risen at that time, which it was these land masses that GOd created the biosphere on in the beginning. I think YECs have grossly mis interpreted the conditions of the earth pre-flood. Also it is very possible the mountain ranges and other various structures were "built" at that moment in time as it arose. NOw there are some that believe that the earth was mush under the water, I don't buy that. I believe that not only would there but the could have been strata under the land masses already in place, not necessarily because of implied geologic discussions going on here, but as the foundation of creative land for the next step in covering with trees, flowers, animals etc.

I do not get the idea of land masses splitting apart after the flood and moving thousands of miles, the implication of that splitting would ahve been so huge the effect on the earth would have been as bad as the implications of the flood????

So God in his infinite wisdom created the fauna and flora, of which we have hundreds if not millions of fossils in many forms to define a diversity that was much bigger than it is now. It seems that many of our animals created by God had huge distribution areas compared to todays? Mammoths for one, but dinos for another, or the bison for instance. We can point to many many different evidences of GODs footprints in the sand. THese are not suppositions on our part, no they are factual, and the evidence is there for us all to see.

What bothers me, is the eco-systems for our diversity requires certain types of terrain or plants or water runs or deserts for certain animals to exist... I think that we have gotten our interpretation scientifically and biblical hermeneutics as to what we do observe wrong, evolutionists even more so..... (we ahve put gods creative acts in a box) While I don't believe the Canadian fossil beds, or Karoo, or the volcanic ash fossils in the northern states are a result of the flood? YECS are insistant on that, yet these dino beds also show signs of cyclical activity, and so the pre-flood volcanic ash such as those in China and the US are clear signs of catastrophe taking place after creation. When YECS speak of GODs "good" creation, what is good? A forest fire from lightning replenishes the grasslands? GOd put into motion that which the earth itself needs to be sustained. How can for instance you have miles of animals all of the same specie and nothing else in the karroo fossils, and they are layered, and then several miles away a mix mash of other species, and layered? THe flood that is implied by YECs would certainly have been a whole lot more destructive given the nature of the thousands of sedimentary layers implied to have been laid down by the flood?

There are huge questions that go unanswered, but of some that have been given possible answers, I am more at ease myself in believing that we just don't know for sure???? Some of these teachings I read about are most insistently put forth as fact?

I think our hermeneutics are an issue also, but I am not going to argue that as it is not my place to. For instance there are some that imply hermeneutics that don't fit with their scheme of interpretation is false or not following the "inerrant" scriptures. There are those who for instance would say Psalms 104 is flood verse...I disagree it is a creation verse, and should be read in that context. So we are condemning one another with are hermeneutics and insisting we are right, we look at the fossil record and the evidence of GODs foot prints in the sand, and we are dogmatic about what that actually does say to us?

I want to know the truth as much as any of you. BUt I am sure in my own heart that some of this is purely wrong, when we point our fingers at the evolutionists that they are wrong (and they are its all contrived), we also should have grace for one another as well. I am interested in your views about the earth in the beginning?

Because of the huge holes in the floating matt theory, and adaptive variation, and pre-flood evidences of catastrophe I lean towards a local flood view, but I am open to a wwflood given more information and answers which seem to fail in the light of scrutiny. Our existent diversity is a product of the original creation of God set in place through out the world, DNA support fixity of species, environmental changes do cause extinction, but cannot affect procreative genes. All real fossil evidence shows no ancestors and animal body plans have not changed since their creation, with one exception... HYbridization, do to domestication, mans tampering, or animals of the same kind being able to breed and crossing over into each other territory. A prime example is the Goode's Horned LIzard at Ocotillo Wells, where the flat tail horned lizard and desert HOrned lizards ranges have invaded one another (intergradation), and hybrid horned lizards have been found, ergo Goode's HOrned lIzard, it is a hybrid, this happens rarely in nature but it does. In all cases new procreative information is introduces so body plan change happens.
Have a great day....

#70 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:26 AM

... Some believe during the flood. But let me give you another possible scenario---could the psudo-continients already have existed under the water, the earth was void (and I also assume this implies the earth did not have a purpose by implication. When the land appeared at GOds command, the narrative implies waters (s) or multiple water sources. Anyway could the psudo-continients have risen at that time, which it was these land masses that GOd created the biosphere on in the beginning. I think YECs have grossly mis interpreted the conditions of the earth pre-flood. Also it is very possible the mountain ranges and other various structures were "built" at that moment in time as it arose. NOw there are some that believe that the earth was mush under the water, I don't buy that. I believe that not only would there but the could have been strata under the land masses already in place, not necessarily because of implied geologic discussions going on here, but as the foundation of creative land for the next step in covering with trees, flowers, animals etc.
....

Those sediments in the geologic column frequently contain fossils. And it's pretty clear that they've been buried there rapidly in an catastrophic event. So it's not just animals dying and then being sprinkled with soil material over "millions of years".

#71 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:33 AM

When the earth was void and covered in water (eretz) what was under the water, do you believe it was a water sphere as some or do you believe it had land underneath the water? Following this biblical narrative one seems to find the earth being "pre-pared" to receive GODs creation of the biosphere, the flora and fauna... So I know many people that are Christians that believe that the earth split up into continents after the flood. Some believe during the flood. But let me give you another possible scenario---could the psudo-continients already have existed under the water, the earth was void (and I also assume this implies the earth did not have a purpose by implication. When the land appeared at GOds command, the narrative implies waters (s) or multiple water sources. Anyway could the psudo-continients have risen at that time, which it was these land masses that GOd created the biosphere on in the beginning. I think YECs have grossly mis interpreted the conditions of the earth pre-flood. Also it is very possible the mountain ranges and other various structures were "built" at that moment in time as it arose. NOw there are some that believe that the earth was mush under the water, I don't buy that. I believe that not only would there but the could have been strata under the land masses already in place, not necessarily because of implied geologic discussions going on here, but as the foundation of creative land for the next step in covering with trees, flowers, animals etc.

I do not get the idea of land masses splitting apart after the flood and moving thousands of miles, the implication of that splitting would ahve been so huge the effect on the earth would have been as bad as the implications of the flood????


Most large mountain ranges show fossils. If you are a bible literalist like me, then this would mean that the mountain ranges were formed within the last 6500 years since biological life was created. There has been a general trend of increasing landmasses since the garden of Eden. For many many reasons I place the flood at the change point from a worldwide wetlands amphibian dominating environment to a worldwide desert reptile environment. This silted up, hot, dry post-flood world did not suit the swampy fauna/flora of the pre-flood world, and niche organisms from rare dry environments that never had the chance to even fossilize in the short 1750 years of pre-flood world came to dominate the post-flood world. The distribution of these POST-flood dry environment fossils show connected continents, indicating that continental drift did in fact occur after the flood, and not during the flood. This may seem impossible because of wild theories of the impossibility of the earth surviving the heat generated by continental drift, however in the Japan earthquake the plate shifted by FIFTY METERS without any damaging heat effects.

Looking at fossil distribution, I personally believe the North Atlantic was formed during the flood, the South Atlantic after the flood. The splitting of the North Atlantic created a "bottomless pit" into which the ocean possibly poured, ending the flood, and sure, a lot of heat was generated during this event. the temperature of the entire earth has never recovered from that event, being a few degrees hotter than the pre-flood temperatures.

All of this has been recorded in carefully generated studies which most creationists dismiss immediately as having evolutionist assumptions. I believe there are no such assumptions when temperatures and fossil distribution are studied, let the facts speak for themselves. How would the current flood model explain for example, changes in temperature, signs of melted glaciation, changes to atmospheric content etc etc all recorded in the MIDDLE of the flood layers?

#72 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:25 PM

Interesting video - I will try to explain it in text.

<snip - See message 67 for the entire message>


My message is my analysis of a video posted by Jason777 in message 65. I have not heard back from Jason or anyone else, about my message.

Any comments from the creationist side, about what I posted in message 67?

Moose

ps: Still thinking about the hydroplate thing at another topic. Someday I will get a message posted on that. But I am slow.

#73 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 19 March 2013 - 06:05 AM

Most large mountain ranges show fossils. If you are a bible literalist like me, then this would mean that the mountain ranges were formed within the last 6500 years since biological life was created. There has been a general trend of increasing landmasses since the garden of Eden. For many many reasons I place the flood at the change point from a worldwide wetlands amphibian dominating environment to a worldwide desert reptile environment. This silted up, hot, dry post-flood world did not suit the swampy fauna/flora of the pre-flood world, and niche organisms from rare dry environments that never had the chance to even fossilize in the short 1750 years of pre-flood world came to dominate the post-flood world. The distribution of these POST-flood dry environment fossils show connected continents, indicating that continental drift did in fact occur after the flood, and not during the flood. This may seem impossible because of wild theories of the impossibility of the earth surviving the heat generated by continental drift, however in the Japan earthquake the plate shifted by FIFTY METERS without any damaging heat effects....


Found a video relating to that:

  • Calypsis4 likes this

#74 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:23 AM

Thanks for the informative video, Mark.

#75 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 26 March 2013 - 05:39 PM

Wouldn't have all the layers hardened up pretty quickly, like cement would, when water is added?



#76 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 31 March 2013 - 04:46 AM

Not sure about that cementation. I think the hardening is from pressure and perhaps even some heat. Certainly depends also on the rock type or then previously mud type. 



#77 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 22 April 2013 - 12:10 AM

Hello,

I have found many interesting points and evidences which support rapid depositing of sediments on this forum. It is refreshing to hear young earth creationist evidence from the young earth creationists themselves. Much of it makes a lot more sense than the points that are often brought up by old earth/evolutionists and claimed to be young earth creationist arguments. I am studying Geology and I have some questions about the geologic column that I figured would best fit in this thread. 

Many people say the geologic column does not exist. That it is made up. I'm sorry if this has been addressed in a previous thread that I missed. What does one mean by saying it does not exist? What I mean to say is that from what I have studied, there are many sequential layers with specific deposits and types of sediments that separate them from each other. According to the Stratigraphic Database of Major Sedimentary Basins of the World, there are 26 basins around the world in which all of the same layers of the same rock types with the same deposits have been observed. If this is not the geologic column, what is it? 

Among these layers are the Madison formation, which contains over 40,000 cubic kilometers of crinoid plate fossils, and the Opeche Shale which contains approximately 9 trillion cubic meters of salt deposits. How could so many crinoids and so much salt be deposited in one year in separate rock layers?

Why are layers of ocean deposits found sandwiched in between layers of continental deposits in the rock layers? I learned that this is part of the evidence of the 6 major transgressions throughout Earth's history. How is this inaccurate?

I visited Bryce Canyon, Zion Canyon, and the Grand Canyon(among several other significant geological areas) on an Earth Science field course. Studying the layers of rock throughout the course, I found that the specific layers were present as claimed in the same order across the entire area of the four states we visited. How can the geologic column be a contrived lie?



#78 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 22 April 2013 - 08:50 AM

Hello,

I have found many interesting points and evidences which support rapid depositing of sediments on this forum. It is refreshing to hear young earth creationist evidence from the young earth creationists themselves. Much of it makes a lot more sense than the points that are often brought up by old earth/evolutionists and claimed to be young earth creationist arguments. I am studying Geology and I have some questions about the geologic column that I figured would best fit in this thread. 

 

Many people say the geologic column does not exist. That it is made up. I'm sorry if this has been addressed in a previous thread that I missed. What does one mean by saying it does not exist? What I mean to say is that from what I have studied, there are many sequential layers with specific deposits and types of sediments that separate them from each other. According to the Stratigraphic Database of Major Sedimentary Basins of the World, there are 26 basins around the world in which all of the same layers of the same rock types with the same deposits have been observed. If this is not the geologic column, what is it? 

 

Please document that. Let's see it. I am not going to believe them just because they say those layers exist.

 

Among these layers are the Madison formation, which contains over 40,000 cubic kilometers of crinoid plate fossils, and the Opeche Shale which contains approximately 9 trillion cubic meters of salt deposits. How could so many crinoids and so much salt be deposited in one year in separate rock layers?

 

Have you ever observed a world-wide flood? Have you ever seen the hydraulic power of a flood of such magnitude?

 

Why are layers of ocean deposits found sandwiched in between layers of continental deposits in the rock layers? I learned that this is part of the evidence of the 6 major transgressions throughout Earth's history. How is this inaccurate?

 

 

 

I visited Bryce Canyon, Zion Canyon, and the Grand Canyon(among several other significant geological areas) on an Earth Science field course. Studying the layers of rock throughout the course, I found that the specific layers were present as claimed in the same order across the entire area of the four states we visited. How can the geologic column be a contrived lie?

 

 

Observe this: Aug09269.jpg

 

Seven missing stratum that amounts to approx. 247 million yrs of so-called geologic column. Would you please explain to us what happened to all that massive amount of sediment?

 

Secondly: Aug09262.jpg

 

The strata of the Alps are not only completely upside down from uniformitarian expectations, but there are marine fossils found in the upper levels of that range. How did those marine animals get there?

 

Thirdly: from Trimbles booklet Rim of Time concerning the large formation in the American southwest:

Sep29286.jpg

 

750 million years of missing strata. What happened to all those trillions of cubic feet of sediment and rock?

 

Now, I've just laid before you evidence from those of your own persuasion. How do you answer these things and where is your evidence that the geologic column is 100% intact according to the textbooks...anywhere?



#79 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 22 April 2013 - 02:40 PM

I will have to dig up the information on each of these places in which all of the discovered layers exist:

 

The Ghadames Basin in Libya 
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco 
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia 
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman 
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt 
The Adana Basin in Turkey 
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey 
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria 
The Carpathian Basin in Poland 
The Baltic Basin in the USSR 
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR 
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan 
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan 
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran 
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China 
The Jiuxi Basin China 
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China 
The Tarim Basin China 
The Szechwan Basin China 
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska 
The Williston Basin in North Dakota 
The Tampico Embayment Mexico 
The Bogata Basin Colombia 
 
I have at least listed them for now.. 
No, I have not observed a world wide flood. It just seems to me that so much salt, which is deposited when water evaporates, must have been deposited during a time where a very large body of ocean water evaporated.
The Grand Canyon is not claimed to contain all of the known layers. Like many other places in the world, where the climate and altitude were different, there are missing layers because the layer may not have been deposited in that area or was deposited and eroded.
It makes sense that the strata in the Swiss Alps appears to be backward in age because of the way mountains are formed. I am aware of the way the Hydroplate Theory explains mountain uplift. But in Plate Tectonic Theory, mountains are mostly uplifted over a short period of time, often at a subduction zone. As the African and Eurasian tectonic plates slowly collide, the sediment was/is pushed upward. So, the top of the mountains would actually contain the oldest deposits. The marine animals got to the upper layers of the mountains because their shells and fossils were pushed upward with the sediment that was pushed upward as the mountain was forming. 
I have the same answer for the last diagram of missing strata you posted as I gave for why all of the layers are not present in the Grand Canyon.  Most places in the world do not contain all known layers because of differing altitudes, climates, etc. 

  • Minnemooseus likes this

#80 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 22 April 2013 - 04:53 PM

I will have to dig up the information on each of these places in which all of the discovered layers exist:

 

The Ghadames Basin in Libya 
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco 
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia 
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman 
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt 
The Adana Basin in Turkey 
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey 
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria 
The Carpathian Basin in Poland 
The Baltic Basin in the USSR 
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR 
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan 
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan 
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran 
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China 
The Jiuxi Basin China 
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China 
The Tarim Basin China 
The Szechwan Basin China 
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska 
The Williston Basin in North Dakota 
The Tampico Embayment Mexico 
The Bogata Basin Colombia 
 
I have at least listed them for now.. 
 
You'll have to do much better than that. A mere list doesn't prove anything. If I told you that my wife and I have 24 natural born children...would that statement alone prove that I am telling the truth? Shouldn't birth certificates and photographs come into play?
 

No, I have not observed a world wide flood. It just seems to me that so much salt, which is deposited when water evaporates, must have been deposited during a time where a very large body of ocean water evaporated.
 
And how would you know that? How would anyone of your persuasion know that since no one knows what the salt content of the oceans were like in ancient (or as per your belief) pre-historic times?
 

The Grand Canyon is not claimed to contain all of the known layers. Like many other places in the world, where the climate and altitude were different, there are missing layers because the layer may not have been deposited in that area or was deposited and eroded.
 
So 247 million yrs of missing strata doesn't trouble you? I ask WHERE did all the trillions of cubic yards of sediment end up and how was it moved so far away?
 
MonumentValley6.jpg
 
Notice that the erosion of the last several thousand years are in angular piles at the foot of all these plateaus. As would be expected by natural weather erosion processes. Now................where is/are all the multiplied thousands of square miles of all the other sediment...that was at one time at least as high as the flat leveled plateaus themselves?
 

It makes sense that the strata in the Swiss Alps appears to be backward in age because of the way mountains are formed. I am aware of the way the Hydroplate Theory explains mountain uplift. But in Plate Tectonic Theory, mountains are mostly uplifted over a short period of time, often at a subduction zone. As the African and Eurasian tectonic plates slowly collide, the sediment was/is pushed upward. So, the top of the mountains would actually contain the oldest deposits. The marine animals got to the upper layers of the mountains because their shells and fossils were pushed upward with the sediment that was pushed upward as the mountain was forming. 
 
Has anyone you have known or read ever seen an entire continent slide over another continent to produce entire mountain ranges? Give their names please.
 
We know of one who saw such things: Noah.
 
And why should be believe in Darwinian evolution since written human history gives us about 250 accounts from most ancient cultures that there was indeed a world-wide flood and that a man built a ship to saved his family from its destruction? Were they all lying? Was Moses lying about Noah's flood?
 

I have the same answer for the last diagram of missing strata you posted as I gave for why all of the layers are not present in the Grand Canyon.  Most places in the world do not contain all known layers because of differing altitudes, climates, etc. 

 

How do you know that? Give evidence to this 'fact' & document the observation. I don't want an opinion.

 

P.S I am an ex-evolutionist and I do not believe your theory. It's not even a good one at best.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users