Jump to content


Photo

Geologic Column: Fact Or Fiction?


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#121 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,294 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 12 May 2013 - 08:00 AM

...

If these ages are being arbitrarily assigned, why are there rocks from several different depositional environments present among the layers? Why are there distinct layers throughout areas like the Grand Staircase? Why do we only find dinosaur fossils in certain layers of the rock instead of every layer? Why don't we find any human fossils in any layer with or below the dinosaur fossils? ...

 

Consider different habitats. The deeper you go the more "marine" it gets. 



#122 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 12 May 2013 - 12:57 PM

Why do we assign ages to layers by the fossils they contain to begin with? Because you're already assuming evolution and geotime.

 

A good case in point, out of dozens that can be referenced, are modern plants and insects found below trilobite fossils.

 

Why now assume an underthrust where no evidence of one exists? Because you have already assumed evolution and geotime.

 

  http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html



#123 Megan

Megan

    Member

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

Posted 12 May 2013 - 10:05 PM

"The deeper you go the more "marine" it gets."

 

That makes sense. But that is not how the fossils are found. The link I have posted below gives a brief description of each layer. Note that the Kaibab Limestone layer contains "marine" fossils. But the Hermit Shale, found below the Kaibab, contains fossils that are not of marine nature. 

http://www.bobspixel...gy/gc_layer.htm

 

 

"Why now assume an underthrust where no evidence of one exists?"

 

Have you seen what the mountains look like? Just a peek at the photos of the mountains very clearly shows that there was a thrust there. The strata layers are on their side. This is very clear evidence of thrusting. 

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Salt_Range



#124 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,294 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 15 May 2013 - 05:04 AM

"The deeper you go the more "marine" it gets."
 
That makes sense. But that is not how the fossils are found. The link I have posted below gives a brief description of each layer. Note that the Kaibab Limestone layer contains "marine" fossils. But the Hermit Shale, found below the Kaibab, contains fossils that are not of marine nature. 
http://www.bobspixel...gy/gc_layer.htm
 
...

What's the problem with that? I was describing a trend. In a flood New layers can still form over existing one's that already contain material infested with non-marine creatures.
 



#125 Megan

Megan

    Member

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

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:20 PM

What's the problem with that? I was describing a trend. In a flood New layers can still form over existing one's that already contain material infested with non-marine creatures.
 

 

Yes, but if there was only one flood, how did the layers of marine animals get above and below the layers of non-marine deposits?



#126 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,294 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:46 AM

The mud containing them was flushed there for example. 



#127 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 16 May 2013 - 11:01 AM

Mark:

 

Yes, but if there was only one flood, how did the layers of marine animals get above and below the layers of non-marine deposits?

 

No one ever said that there was only one flood! Do you see how she twists things!



#128 Megan

Megan

    Member

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

Posted 16 May 2013 - 12:41 PM

Mark:

 

 

No one ever said that there was only one flood! Do you see how she twists things!

 

How did I twist things????? The only Christian Creationism Great Flood that I have ever heard of is the one involving Noah and his arc. What other great floods were there?



#129 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 16 May 2013 - 03:11 PM

How did I twist things????? The only Christian Creationism Great Flood that I have ever heard of is the one involving Noah and his arc. What other great floods were there?

 

You didn't specify so what else are we supposed to think?



#130 Megan

Megan

    Member

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

Posted 16 May 2013 - 05:32 PM

Specify what? I asked how it was possible for there to be a thick layer of non-marine deposits sandwiched between marine deposits if there was only one flood. Then you said no one claimed there was only one flood. So, how many floods were there? I'm sorry, I just don't know of any other great floods.



#131 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 16 May 2013 - 06:49 PM

Specify what? I asked how it was possible for there to be a thick layer of non-marine deposits sandwiched between marine deposits if there was only one flood. Then you said no one claimed there was only one flood. So, how many floods were there? I'm sorry, I just don't know of any other great floods.

 

It was your wording that caused the confusion. But since you have rejected the video clips presentation that explained the action of the waters of the Noahic flood, I can do no better. You have no will to believe the truth about this anyway.



#132 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

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

Posted 16 May 2013 - 08:55 PM

"There is no single "geologic column" that represents the varied geology of the Earth."
 
Case closed.

Nice out of context quote mine.

My entire context was:

So, there are countless examples of graphic representations of various stratigraphic columns ("geologic columns"). Just what mainstream geologists think.

There is no single "geologic column" that represents the varied geology of the Earth. The only "geologic column" that represents the entire Earth is the geologic time scale (http://en.wikipedia....Geologic_column). Note that Wikipedia redirects "geologic column" to "geologic time scale" (http://en.wikipedia....ogic_time_scale). Both those links end up at the same place.

At the risk of repeating myself:

There are two uses of the term "geologic column". Geologists can handle that because they can understand from the context that it was used.

1 - Geologic column - The geologic time scale. A general time line of geologic history. It may be annotated with events, but that in no way implies that all those events happened at the same location.

2 - Geologic column - A stratigraphic column. A graphic that represents the geology of a specific location. It may also incorporate information from the geologic time scale, but that is not required.

The "geologic column" that you supplied was a stratigraphic column. The "geologic column" that I referred to in saying "There is no single "geologic column" that represents the varied geology of the Earth" was a stratigraphic column. The context of my message should have made such clear to anyone not determined to distort what I said.

So I repeat:

There is no single "geologic column" (as in stratigraphic column) that represents the varied geology of the Earth".

Moose

#133 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 17 May 2013 - 02:21 PM

Nice out of context quote mine.

You aren't telling the truth.

 

My entire context was:At the risk of repeating myself:

There are two uses of the term "geologic column". Geologists can handle that because they can understand from the context that it was used.

1 - Geologic column - The geologic time scale. A general time line of geologic history. It may be annotated with events, but that in no way implies that all those events happened at the same location.

2 - Geologic column - A stratigraphic column. A graphic that represents the geology of a specific location. It may also incorporate information from the geologic time scale, but that is not required.

The "geologic column" that you supplied was a stratigraphic column. The "geologic column" that I referred to in saying "There is no single "geologic column" that represents the varied geology of the Earth" was a stratigraphic column. The context of my message should have made such clear to anyone not determined to distort what I said.

 

 

Like Megan, you are mincing words to escape the reality. It really is disgusting to see how you neo-Darwinians play with words in order to escape the obvious.  

 

Notice: "Stratigraphy is a branch of geology which studies rock layers and layering (stratification). Wikipedia.

 

Then this: "The concept of formally defined layers or strata is central to the geologic discipline of stratigraphy."

 

Proof that we are talking about the same thing but you wish to split hairs over the matter.

 

So I repeat:
There is no single "geologic column" (as in stratigraphic column) that represents the varied geology of the Earth".

Moose

  

 

And I agreed. BUT...you did not make that statement with the parenthesis (as in stratigraphic column). Making a difference between one of your 'geologic column' definitions & the other one is like saying, "This is a many layered cake I just made....

 

manylayeredcake_zps47bc5c5d.jpg

 

and this piece I just cut is part of the many layered cake I just made...but it's not the same thing." Right. you must think we are all stupid.

 

Furthermore, if you really think I have no credibility then why are you still posting me?



#134 Megan

Megan

    Member

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

Posted 10 June 2013 - 02:07 AM

"Like Megan, you are mincing words to escape the reality. It really is disgusting to see how you neo-Darwinians play with words in order to escape the obvious.  

 

Notice: "Stratigraphy is a branch of geology which studies rock layers and layering (stratification). Wikipedia.

 

Then this: "The concept of formally defined layers or strata is central to the geologic discipline of stratigraphy."

 

Proof that we are talking about the same thing but you wish to split hairs over the matter."

 

Beds or cross-bedding is the term used to describe the smallest distinguishable sediment layers within stratigraphy. So, sure, there are thick layers which contain many distinguishable thinner layers of rocks in many sedimentary rock types. 

 

 

"Making a difference between one of your 'geologic column' definitions & the other one is like saying, "This is a many layered cake I just made....

and this piece I just cut is part of the many layered cake I just made...but it's not the same thing." Right. you must think we are all stupid."

 

It isn't actually the same thing... Because not all areas contain deposits from every time period. So, the cake would be like the Geologic Time Scale and if you were to use a distinct Geologic Column of say, the Grand Canyon, it would be missing layers like the millions of years of missing strata that we discussed earlier from lack of deposition or erosion. So, you would have to remove a few entire layers of the cake for it to be a Geologic Column of a specific area. (Hence the reason that it is not the same as the analogy for the cake slice.) The Williston Basin would be a very close example of the Geologic Time Scale(though it is also just a Geologic Column that represents deposition in a specific area), because it contains layers of deposition from nearly every time period. But the Grand Canyon has a different Geologic Column because it is in a different area of the world where the depositional environments differed. So, it is missing many more layers but shares some of the same depositional layers from times that the ocean covered both areas at the same time during oceanic transgressions. Geologic Columns also vary in the exact rock types for many layers, so it would be kind of like a different cake altogether for some of the Geologic Columns of completely different areas. But, there are many of the same rock layers throughout the Grand Staircase and many other vast expanses, as we would expect. So, if you wanted to use the cake analogy, it would most closely work if you were using the Grand Staircase as the whole cake and the Grand Canyon as the slice of that cake because the Grand Canyon is part of the Grand Staircase. But, still, there are some layers that are not present or uniform over the entire expanse of the Grand Staircase.



#135 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 10 June 2013 - 04:22 AM

"Like Megan, you are mincing words to escape the reality. It really is disgusting to see how you neo-Darwinians play with words in order to escape the obvious.  

 

Notice: "Stratigraphy is a branch of geology which studies rock layers and layering (stratification). Wikipedia.

 

Then this: "The concept of formally defined layers or strata is central to the geologic discipline of stratigraphy."

 

Proof that we are talking about the same thing but you wish to split hairs over the matter."

 

Beds or cross-bedding is the term used to describe the smallest distinguishable sediment layers within stratigraphy. So, sure, there are thick layers which contain many distinguishable thinner layers of rocks in many sedimentary rock types. 

 

 

"Making a difference between one of your 'geologic column' definitions & the other one is like saying, "This is a many layered cake I just made....

and this piece I just cut is part of the many layered cake I just made...but it's not the same thing." Right. you must think we are all stupid."

 

It isn't actually the same thing... Because not all areas contain deposits from every time period. So, the cake would be like the Geologic Time Scale and if you were to use a distinct Geologic Column of say, the Grand Canyon, it would be missing layers like the millions of years of missing strata that we discussed earlier from lack of deposition or erosion. So, you would have to remove a few entire layers of the cake for it to be a Geologic Column of a specific area. (Hence the reason that it is not the same as the analogy for the cake slice.) The Williston Basin would be a very close example of the Geologic Time Scale(though it is also just a Geologic Column that represents deposition in a specific area), because it contains layers of deposition from nearly every time period. But the Grand Canyon has a different Geologic Column because it is in a different area of the world where the depositional environments differed. So, it is missing many more layers but shares some of the same depositional layers from times that the ocean covered both areas at the same time during oceanic transgressions. Geologic Columns also vary in the exact rock types for many layers, so it would be kind of like a different cake altogether for some of the Geologic Columns of completely different areas. But, there are many of the same rock layers throughout the Grand Staircase and many other vast expanses, as we would expect. So, if you wanted to use the cake analogy, it would most closely work if you were using the Grand Staircase as the whole cake and the Grand Canyon as the slice of that cake because the Grand Canyon is part of the Grand Staircase. But, still, there are some layers that are not present or uniform over the entire expanse of the Grand Staircase.

 

I will say it one more time, my stubborn counterpart. You and those of your persuasion have NO WITNESSES to what you believe happened in the so-called prehistoric past of the earth. We do.

 

There was no pre-historic past.



#136 Megan

Megan

    Member

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

Posted 10 June 2013 - 08:22 PM

You are correct and I did not disagree about the lack of witnesses. But you do not actually have a witness. You have a book that people wrote and claimed to be the word of God. There is no proof that it is the actual word of God. You have texts written by people who claim to be witnesses. How is that any more proof than anything else that solely uses supporting evidence? You do not have proof that there was no prehistoric past. You were not there. Just as I was not there. 

 

I was just explaining to you how your cake analogy did not exactly work. That was my only purpose of that post. 



#137 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 11 June 2013 - 06:09 AM

You are correct and I did not disagree about the lack of witnesses. But you do not actually have a witness. You have a book that people wrote and claimed to be the word of God. There is no proof that it is the actual word of God. You have texts written by people who claim to be witnesses. How is that any more proof than anything else that solely uses supporting evidence? You do not have proof that there was no prehistoric past. You were not there. Just as I was not there. 

 

I was just explaining to you how your cake analogy did not exactly work. That was my only purpose of that post. 

 

Wrong. Noah saw the flood and handed down what he observed to his children and his children's children. That was the origin of the hundreds of accounts that have come down to us from ancient man.

 

Secondly, and more importantly was Jesus Christ, co-Creator with the Father from eterntiy. His Spirit not only observed the flood and pre-flood times but He brought it all about by His eternal decree.

 

Jesus confirmed the flood of Noah: "Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

Matthew 24

 

The fact that you skeptics don't believe what Jesus said about the matter won't keep us from referring to what He said about it because He was the most truthful person that ever lived and He spoke in unambiguopus language about the matter.

 

Thirdly, the fossil record does not speak of slow and gradual evolution; it (most of it) bespeaks of quick burial and rapid fossilzation. But you've been shown this countless times since you have been posting here so I don't know why you persist in deny the evidence among those who don't believe nor accept what you are saying.

 

Again, we have witnesses, you don't.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users