Jump to content


Photo

Geologic Column: Fact Or Fiction?


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#1 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 02 April 2012 - 12:51 AM

I am a creationist, however I like to see myself as a realist as well. When I look at the current flood model I see flaws , and so I prefer to see the last 6000 years as generally conforming to the generally accepted geologic column. I see the flood in the Permian Triassic extinction event, but believe that one year flood only explains some layers (very well I must add) and yet fails to explain the entire geologic column.

There are many studies of conditions of the various layers, I've listed a few below, and although not conclusive, you start to see some sort of pattern that makes it nearly impossible to believe a flood did it all:

1) Richard Fortey shows how the anatomy of trilobites shows suitability to an anoxic and sulfuric environment. In what manner did the flood create a layer of trilobites suitable to sulfuric conditions in a layer of sulfur-rich sediments?
"The best-preserved trilobite specimens occur in sulfur-rich “stinkstone” nodules, which occur scattered through a highly condensed and generally laminated black shale sequence. In the Upper Cambrian part of the Alum shales, the macrofauna is dominated almost entirely by trilobites belonging to the family Olenidae"
2) Carbon 13 ratios indicate widespread oxygen deficiency during certain worldwide layers, why would this occur in the flood model?
3&4) there are various changes recorded in CO2 levels in the various layers, how does the flood cause this?
5) Oxygen levels change in certain geologic layers.
6) the layering shows consistent recorded ages according to radioactive dating, starting with old ages lower down, and recent ages higher up, how does the flood do this over 1 year? Even considering that the rate of decay could be dramatically underestimated why would there be such a range of dates over a one year period?

I know you will come up with explantions, but let's see if they are weak arguments that are some sort of justification for your position, or really convincing arguments that I'm looking for.

1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18664/ Richard Fortey:Olenid trilobites
Late Cambrian to early Ordovician trilobites, the family Olenidae, were tolerant of oxygen-poor, sulfur-rich sea floor conditions, and a case is made that they were chemoautotrophic symbionts. Olenids were uniquely adapted to this habitat in the Lower Paleozoic, which was widespread in the Late Cambrian over Scandinavia. This life habit explains distinctive aspects of olenid morphology: wide thoraces and large numbers of thoracic segments, thin cuticle and, in some species, degenerate hypostome, and the occasional development of brood pouches. Geochemical and field evidence is consistent with this interpretation. Olenids occupied their specialized habitat for 60 million years until their extinction at the end of the Ordovician.

2) http://www.geology.g...11/995.abstract
Hiroto Kimura/Yoshio Watanabe: Oceanic anoxia at the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary
The Precambrian-Cambrian (PC-C) boundary separates fossils representing two discrete evolutionary phases: the Neoproterozoic soft-bodied Ediacarian biotas and Cambrian small shelly faunas. The biological discontinuity is suspected to have been a result of mass extinction; however, recent discoveries of the Ediacarian biotas in Cambrian sediments have led to an understanding that the faunal change was gradual through the PC-C transition. Th/U ratios, which are high in oxidizing conditions and low in reducing conditions, show a considerable positive correlation with δ13C values at all studied sites of the PC-C boundary. This correlation indicates that reported δ13C variation across the PC-C boundary from numerous localities corresponds to redox variation in the depositional environment. The negative δ13C anomaly that occurs worldwide at the PC-C boundary, therefore, corresponds to the widespread development of an oxygen-deficient shallow marine environment. This finding suggests that widespread oceanic oxygen deficiency, which has been interpreted to reflect Phanerozoic mass extinction events, also occurred immediately before the Cambrian explosion

3) http://www.ncbi.nlm....es/PMC130500/
Paleozoic CO2 Reconstructions. Quantitative paleo-CO2 reconstructions obtained by calibration of the fossil SI values show consistent and tightly constrained values for the Carboniferous and Permian (Table ​(Table1).1). The assumed CO2 signal in the fossil lycopsid cuticles is stable within the Namurian (330 and 320 Myr ago) and the Westphalian (320–300 Myr ago) stages of the Carboniferous and gives mean global values of 379 ppm and 336 ppm, respectively. These results are supported by two qualitative estimates of CO2 obtained by analysis of fossil conifers dating to the Carboniferous and early Permian

4) Steinthorsdottir/Jeram/McElwain: Elevated Co2 concentrations: Jurassic/Triassic http://www.sciencedi...03101821100306
Although progress has been made in recent years in reconstructing the environmental conditions at the Triassic/Jurassic Boundary (TJB), published records of atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been of low resolution and/or based on multi-taxon estimates. This is addressed here by reconstructing CO2 concentrations across the TJB using stomatal frequencies of four phylogenetically and ecologically distinct plant groups from two depositionally, geographically and taphonomically separate boundary sections in East Greenland and Northern Ireland, with stomatal proxy methods and regression analysis. The resulting CO2 records then are compared with an additional existing TJB record from a geological section in Sweden. The final results indicate that pre-TJB (Rhaetian), the CO2 concentration was approximately 1000 ppm, that it started to rise steeply pre-boundary and had doubled to around 2000–2500 ppm at the TJB. The CO2 concentration then remained elevated for some time post-boundary, before returning to pre-TJB levels in the Hettangian. These results are in very good accordance with published C-isotope, fire and leaf dissection records, and clearly indicate steeply rising and lingering CO2 concentration at the TJB.
5) Robert A. Berner: Atmospheric oxygen over Phanerozoic time
Oxygen and the Rise of Vascular Land Plants.
The data of Fig. 2 show a pronounced and extended rise in atmospheric O2 over the period 375–275 mega-annum (Ma) spanning the Carboniferous and Permian periods. What could have brought this rise about? The modeling shows that increased oxygen production (reaction 1) caused by increased burial of organic carbon was the chief suspect. This increased burial is attributed to the rise and spread of large woody vascular plants on the continents beginning at about 375 Ma (9, 23). The plants supplied a new source of organic matter to be buried on land and carried to the oceans via rivers. This “new” carbon was added to that already being buried in the oceans, thus increasing the total global burial flux. This is especially true of lignin, a substance that is decomposed only with difficulty by microorganisms. The rise of ligniferous plants and an initial level of microbial lignin breakdown lower that that at present may have contributed to increased organic matter burial and better preservation. This high burial rate is reflected by the abundance of coals during this period, which is the greatest abundance in all of earth history.
Another factor favoring extensive Permo-Carboniferous organic matter burial was the presence of vast swamps on the continents, brought about by the presence of extensive poorly drained flatlands, and large areas of coastal plains, brought about by glacially induced fluctuations of sea level. This situation enabled the preservation of organic debris, leading ultimately to coal formation, because of the relative lack of organic decay in stagnant anoxic waters. Why coal formation, organic burial, and oxygen production dropped toward the end of the Permian period (Fig. 2) is not clear, but it may be tied up with sea level drop and a general drying of the continent
6) How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. H*vind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims byDave E. Matson

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/H*vind/howgood-gc.html
Based on the present decay rate of U-238, the Cambrian period began about 570 million years ago. Since then the amount of uranium-238 has been reduced a bit (to 91.544% of itself) by radioactive decay. Had the decay rates remained high after the flood or in its later stages, the zircon crystals in the more recent strata (the last strata laid down by Noah's flood) would have "aged" considerably, which is not the case. Furthermore, the zircon crystals had to be created during Noah's flood in order to be "aged" according to the strata in which they were associated. It is too much to assume that each one just happened to be deposited in the right strata. Therefore, at the time of Noah's flood the decay rate had to be at least fast enough to reduce the amount of uranium-238 to 91.544% of itself in one year. If we generously take that minimum decay rate, with no thought of increasing it further as we look back into the past, we can calculate how much uranium-238 had to be present 1656 years before Noah's flood (when the earth was created, according to Dr. H*vind). It turns out that the amount of uranium-238 needed is 3.47 x 1063times the amount of uranium-238 around at the start of Noah's flood! In other words, if our entire solar system were made of uranium-238 the quantity would not even begin to suffice.

#2 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 02 April 2012 - 06:54 AM

Just another thought, how would you explain the distribution of fossils according to certain patterns that are currently being used to support the theory of the continent of Pangea? How did the flood distribute those fossils according to a pettern that seems to indicate different continental shapes before? I wonder if certain body types caught different currents during the flood, and thats why you find these fossils in these regions. I'm sure I could speculate on some wild models that would somehow justify this pattern, but realistically it looks like at a certain period in the layering the continents had a different structure to them and this is why you find these animals in lines of latitude conducive to their proliferation in those regions during a time when those continents were adjacent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea
Posted Image
  • Calum likes this

#3 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 02 April 2012 - 09:00 AM

1) Richard Fortey shows how the anatomy of trilobites shows suitability to an anoxic and sulfuric environment. In what manner did the flood create a layer of trilobites suitable to sulfuric conditions in a layer of sulfur-rich sediments?
"The best-preserved trilobite specimens occur in sulfur-rich “stinkstone” nodules, which occur scattered through a highly condensed and generally laminated black shale sequence. In the Upper Cambrian part of the Alum shales, the macrofauna is dominated almost entirely by trilobites belonging to the family Olenidae"


Could the flood have buried them in that sulfuric environment?

2) Carbon 13 ratios indicate widespread oxygen deficiency during certain worldwide layers, why would this occur in the flood model?
3&4) there are various changes recorded in CO2 levels in the various layers, how does the flood cause this?
5) Oxygen levels change in certain geologic layers.


Could you please explain the implications of these things for the current flood model on a layman's level?

6) the layering shows consistent recorded ages according to radioactive dating, starting with old ages lower down, and recent ages higher up, how does the flood do this over 1 year? Even considering that the rate of decay could be dramatically underestimated why would there be such a range of dates over a one year period?


There are many discrepancies though. One example would be:

http://www.icr.org/i...ion=view&ID=353

Objects in "older" strata have also sometimes been dated and found to be "younger".

Would you concede that the column doesn't always hold up in some locations like the Grand Canyon (with the East Kaibab Monocline)?

#4 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 03 April 2012 - 12:03 AM

Could the flood have buried them in that sulfuric environment

Yes, I just included this point to highlight that entire environments have been fossilised, but you are right that this point does not challenge the current flood model.




Could you please explain the implications of these things for the current flood model on a layman's level?

LOL well I am a layman so I'm unable to explain this at any other level.

The implications are that there were entire environmental changes and atmospheric changes DURING the flood, on a worldwide basis. I feel the flood model would battle to explain this.


There are many discrepancies though. One example would be:

http://www.icr.org/i...ion=view&ID=353

Objects in "older" strata have also sometimes been dated and found to be "younger".

I agree that radiometric dating is not 100% reliable, and throws out incorrect dates. I also agree that rates are vastly underestimated. However even if the dates are wrong, and even if there are occasional exceptions, nevertheless generally there is surprising consistency in rock dates despite the occasional exception. This fact is often ignored by creationists. If rock does take time to decay (even if its 100 years or 500 million years) why would there be a general trend of much older dates for lower layers, and more recent rates for upper layers, all this decay occurring over 1 year in a flood?

Would you concede that the column doesn't always hold up in some locations like the Grand Canyon (with the East Kaibab Monocline)?


Yes, its not as consistent as sometimes claimed, even open-minded evolutionists seem to agree with that point. ie animals that should never be found in earlier layers are there. If you find a high proportion of modern animals in early layers and many early animals found alive today this makes creation look more likely and evolution looks like a "fairytale". My argument is against the flood explanation for the easily fossilising Carboniferous period, which I think is pre-flood. You don't need a flood to create many layers of easily fossilised wetland environments. And in these environments you would find many extinct animals that were in a different co2/oxygen atmosphere, the kind of creatures that became extinct in an oxygen-deprived, dry and desertlike post-flood world.
  • Calum likes this

#5 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 04 April 2012 - 07:24 AM

The implications are that there were entire environmental changes and atmospheric changes DURING the flood, on a worldwide basis. I feel the flood model would battle to explain this.


I don't really see why there couldn't be environmental and atmospheric changes during the flood (some people say that accelerated nuclear decay occured during the flood), but you may have a point.

I agree that radiometric dating is not 100% reliable, and throws out incorrect dates. I also agree that rates are vastly underestimated. However even if the dates are wrong, and even if there are occasional exceptions, nevertheless generally there is surprising consistency in rock dates despite the occasional exception. This fact is often ignored by creationists. If rock does take time to decay (even if its 100 years or 500 million years) why would there be a general trend of much older dates for lower layers, and more recent rates for upper layers, all this decay occurring over 1 year in a flood?


Maybe that just means that the lower layer was deposited before the one above it? I think the layers in the Grand Canyon have this radiometric dating thing going on, but it still seems like all of the layers had to be laid down in a relatively short amount of time, because of the bent layers.

#6 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 04 April 2012 - 11:37 PM

I don't really see why there couldn't be environmental and atmospheric changes during the flood (some people say that accelerated nuclear decay occured during the flood), but you may have a point

Wellll not quite the strong argument I was hoping for, you see, the very chemical content of the fossils changed, let me repeat the question:

Could you give any possible scenarios in which a flood would have created these situations:
2) Carbon 13 variations in the very deepest "flood layers". these would indicate low oxygen oceans
3) very low layers of conifer fossils show high CO2 levels, but slightly higher conifers show lower CO2 levels.
4) Across a wide region of Greenland/Europe there is a consistent increase in co2 levels in higher "flood" layers, followed by a drop back to the previous level.
5) High Oxygen levels in earlier flood layers across earth, yet lower oxygen levels in later flood layers across earth

These were all widespread studies, not localised, and show a general trend of changes in atmospheric conditions for the fossils buried there.




Maybe that just means that the lower layer was deposited before the one above it? I think the layers in the Grand Canyon have this radiometric dating thing going on, but it still seems like all of the layers had to be laid down in a relatively short amount of time, because of the bent layers.


Not necessarily, imagine a swampy environment full of sediments that have not yet formed into rock, peat formations that have not yet formed into coal. If a flood occurs together with tectonic movements this would explain the bending in the layers before the full extent of the flood sediments causes rock to form. The flood didn't have to create those pre-flood sediments, the tectonic movements merely bent them and they formed into rock after the flood.

Although I believe radiometric decay rates have been vastly underestimated, still there has been no evidence that decay can occur so rapidly that there will be vast differences over merely one year.

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 April 2012 - 02:23 AM

Newpath,

There is no evidence that oxygen, co2, sulfur or anything else can suddenly change without a catastrophic event. It's these changes themselves that strongly refute uniformitairianism. If trilobites were quickly buried and all of the oxygen rich water was pressed out of the sediment, then the organic matter in the absence of oxygen would form hydrogen sulfide. How would anyone explain the existence of these fossils without being buried quickly anyway?

Radiometric dates are consistent? That isn't what any expert in the field has ever said especially now that they have found vastly different age inclusions within the same zircon.

"Another geologist was even more worried.“The results‘suggest that analyses of zircon inclusions can’t be trusted much at all,’adds Jonathan Patchett, an isotope geochemist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.” Another geologist was not so pessimistic but warned that use of zircon dating information will have to be done more carefully from now on."

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=76933

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’” Stansfield, William D. The Science of Evolution. New York: Macmillan, 1977, p. 84.


Enjoy.

#8 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 05 April 2012 - 04:50 AM

Not necessarily, imagine a swampy environment full of sediments that have not yet formed into rock, peat formations that have not yet formed into coal. If a flood occurs together with tectonic movements this would explain the bending in the layers before the full extent of the flood sediments causes rock to form. The flood didn't have to create those pre-flood sediments, the tectonic movements merely bent them and they formed into rock after the flood.


Are there swampy environments in the pre-Permian Grand Canyon? You don't think that atleast the Cambrian would have been rock by that time? That's also a lot of sediment to be deposited in about 1700 years.
Posted Image

What if the Proterozoic was pre-flood and tectonic activity at the beginning of the flood caused it to tilt like it is and then all of the other sediments were deposited on top of it during the flood?

#9 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 05 April 2012 - 01:55 PM

Newpath,

There is no evidence that oxygen, co2, sulfur or anything else can suddenly change without a catastrophic event. It's these changes themselves that strongly refute uniformitairianism. If trilobites were quickly buried and all of the oxygen rich water was pressed out of the sediment, then the organic matter in the absence of oxygen would form hydrogen sulfide. How would anyone explain the existence of these fossils without being buried quickly anyway?


I agree that the flood explains the changes. But I don't see how the flood explains the changes WITHIN the flood layers.

Its only logical that when God created plant life throughout earth during creation week, we would have 1700 years of static or growing oxygen levels. It would have been static if God had also created the atmospheric oxygen levels at equilibrium levels, and growing if God had let nature run its course allowing for increased fertilisation of earth and increased vegetation and oxygenation over time. This is the most likely scenario in my eyes, increasing oxygen levels until the flood, followed by a slow decline after the flood, agreed that the changes are caused by the catastrophic flood. Howvwe the scientists are proving this scenario of a steady increase, then a steady decline, yet creationists are refuting this. I'm with the scientists on this one, increasing oxygen levels, sudden massive extinction, sudden methane spike, dry world, lowering oxygen levels. Recovering levels. This speaks to me of a flood, and these different layers are difficult to explain away from the current flood sedimentation model. I'm asking again, how does a flood do the following:

2) Carbon 13 variations in the very deepest "flood layers". these would indicate low oxygen oceans
3) very low layers of conifer fossils show high CO2 levels, but slightly higher conifers show lower CO2 levels.
4) Across a wide region of Greenland/Europe there is a consistent increase in co2 levels in higher "flood" layers, followed by a drop back to the previous level.
5) High Oxygen levels in earlier flood layers across earth, yet lower oxygen levels in later flood layers across earth






Radiometric dates are consistent? That isn't what any expert in the field has ever said especially now that they have found vastly different age inclusions within the same zircon.


I don't know anything about zircons but isn't this just one type of uranium dating, are other types of uranium dating also incorrect? And there are other forms of dating as well, eg argon.

Yes creationists list the exceptions, but there is surprising consistency. For example across the P-T boundary when measuring the dating of the Siberian basalt flood they consistently get dates of 250 million years. This same date comes up almost universally with any event closely associated with the Permian-Triassic boundary. ie the layers of rock just above the amphibian proliferate fossil layers and just below the reptile proliferate fossil layers show consistent results across a few dating methods of 250 million years old. Discrepancies are often of the nature of only 1%

I do not agree with the dates they give, believing the exponential rate of half-life used is incorrect, as well as possible stronger magnetic field effects increasing decay during the last 6000 years. however I believe there was a worldwide consistent effect on decay rates, they are not random at all, but show a consistency between methods that creationists undermine by concentrating on exceptions.

#10 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 05 April 2012 - 02:09 PM

Are there swampy environments in the pre-Permian Grand Canyon? You don't think that atleast the Cambrian would have been rock by that time? That's also a lot of sediment to be deposited in about 1700 years.

I believe the earth existed before the first day was created (genesis 1:1)

I believe the layers up until the Great Unconformity were already there before creation week. The layers from the Tapeats Sandstone until the Redwall Limestone are pre-flood. Surprise Canyon through to the Supai Group are flood deposits. Coconino Sandstone and later are post-flood. This is all subject to change, but that's my own current flood model.


What if the Proterozoic was pre-flood and tectonic activity at the beginning of the flood caused it to tilt like it is and then all of the other sediments were deposited on top of it during the flood?


Not enough fossils there and I believe the current flood model does battle to explain everything found in the other layers as per my opening post. The flood only lasted a year. I don't see why 1000 years of erosion in a flood plain would cause less sedimentation and erosion than that one year of swirling currents.

#11 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 06 April 2012 - 04:34 AM

I believe the earth existed before the first day was created (genesis 1:1)


I'm an agnostic concerning this, but I also tend to think that it existed before the first day. I just imagine that any land on that original earth was wiped out when the earth became a chaos and water covered the surface, but some could have remained.

The layers from the Tapeats Sandstone until the Redwall Limestone are pre-flood. Surprise Canyon through to the Supai Group are flood deposits. Coconino Sandstone and later are post-flood.


Would you still say that all of these layers were relatively soft when they were bent?

The flood only lasted a year. I don't see why 1000 years of erosion in a flood plain would cause less sedimentation and erosion than that one year of swirling currents.


You have a point.

#12 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 10 April 2012 - 12:37 AM

I'm an agnostic concerning this, but I also tend to think that it existed before the first day. I just imagine that any land on that original earth was wiped out when the earth became a chaos and water covered the surface, but some could have remained.

OK, I just don't like the idea that God created anything to look old. So if you have this huge base of rock that appears older and is tilted, sitting underneath the layers of the earliest fossilisation, this rock simply appears older to me. So looking at the evidence of the rock itself it seems to fit in with this chaos, bent out of shape world before creation week began. Thanks for being open to ideas though.

Would you still say that all of these layers were relatively soft when they were bent?

Yes



You have a point.

Thanks again for your open-minded thinking.

#13 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:14 AM

OK, I just don't like the idea that God created anything to look old. So if you have this huge base of rock that appears older and is tilted, sitting underneath the layers of the earliest fossilisation, this rock simply appears older to me. So looking at the evidence of the rock itself it seems to fit in with this chaos, bent out of shape world before creation week began. Thanks for being open to ideas though.


Well if He created an old earth then there would have to be some reason that it was necessary, not simply to deceive us. Ikester believes that God created the world old because it was the only way to make the world stable enough to support life. Simply put, of course the rock is older, God formed it on creation day, all other rock deposition happened subsequently either before, during, or after the flood.

Radiometric data has shown to be unreliable, giving ages of 100s of millions of years in disparity from the same radiometric method, not giving correct ages to rocks we know the age of in the case of volcano eruptions, different methods giving different dates. We have no idea what processes have disturbed radiometric "clocks" over the years enough to be able to "date" them back to millions and billions of years. Uniformity is assumed prior to drawing conclusions. Assumptions are unscientific, and such large scale assumptions have been overwhelmingly self-serving to the community of materialists.

#14 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 10 April 2012 - 05:36 AM

Well if He created an old earth then there would have to be some reason that it was necessary, not simply to deceive us. Ikester believes that God created the world old because it was the only way to make the world stable enough to support life. Simply put, of course the rock is older, God formed it on creation day, all other rock deposition happened subsequently either before, during, or after the flood.

Why did He tilt it?


Radiometric data has shown to be unreliable, giving ages of 100s of millions of years in disparity from the same radiometric method, not giving correct ages to rocks we know the age of in the case of volcano eruptions, different methods giving different dates. We have no idea what processes have disturbed radiometric "clocks" over the years enough to be able to "date" them back to millions and billions of years. Uniformity is assumed prior to drawing conclusions. Assumptions are unscientific, and such large scale assumptions have been overwhelmingly self-serving to the community of materialists.



There are many exceptions, agreed. Even though uniformity is not 100%, even some uniformity between dates is difficult to explain from a creationists perspective.

Nearly universally whenever a rock is found to be 252 million years old according to radiometric dating, this rock is located just above "Permian" fossils (extinct wetlands flora and amphibian fossils), this rock is located below Triassic (smaller reptile fossils), and this rock is associated with various aspects of the P-T extinction event. ie a period of ash/basalt flows, changes from wetlands flora to drylands flora, signs of high methane levels etc etc etc. Why do these rocks often show 250-252 million years during this transition period?

Wikipedia:Germanic Trias
Radiometric dating has shown the age of the Germanic Trias is not totally corresponding with the Triassic period. The base of the Buntsandstein was formed during the Changhsingian, the uppermost stage of the Permian, about 252 million years ago


Scientists are so used to the dates of the boundary being consistent, a slight discrepancy of just 0.8 percent becomes a subject of much debate:
http://www.le.ac.uk/...ith Meishan.htm
The U/Pb (zircon) age of the Meishan and Shangsi tuffs is slightly older than the equivalent 40Ar/39Ar sanidine age. Taken separately, the two dating techniques - Ar-Ar and U-Pb - give internally consistent ages that suggest that the Traps are contemporaneous with the Permo-Triassic boundary at Meishan. The Ar-Ar method suggests that the boundary is approximately 250 million years old, whereas the U/Pb method suggests that the boundary is slightly older, at about 252 Ma. Which of these two absolute dates is correct, and the reasons for the discrepancy, are matters of debate (e.g. Min et al., 2000, Kuiper et al., 2008). The crucial point is that both techniques show that the Traps are, within the errors of the technique, contemporaneous with the age of the P-Tr boundary

Believe me, I also don't believe these old dates, I believe dates are overestimated because of a consistent error in the rates, however rocks do decay over time, and this sudden burst of decay across the so-called flood layers appears unrealistic.

#15 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 April 2012 - 06:30 AM

The Geologic Column is total fiction... it is entirely man-made.

#16 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 10 April 2012 - 06:41 PM

OK, I just don't like the idea that God created anything to look old.


I don't like that idea either, but even if the earth were created before the first day, I still don't see any reason to think that it's more than about 6,000 years old. I don't think God was sitting around with a lifeless earth for no more than a week (amount of time, because days hadn't been created yet).

So if you have this huge base of rock that appears older and is tilted, sitting underneath the layers of the earliest fossilisation, this rock simply appears older to me.


I agree.

So looking at the evidence of the rock itself it seems to fit in with this chaos, bent out of shape world before creation week began.


Couldn't it also be from day three when God made the land or from an area before the flood that wasn't fossilizing creatures?

Thanks for being open to ideas though.


No problem.

Why did He tilt it?


That would have happened at the onset of the flood or during an earthquake before the flood.

#17 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:20 AM

The Geologic Column is total fiction... it is entirely man-made.


Then where did the various environments come from as per the opening post? how would you explain the variations detected in atmospheric conditions in different layers? These variations show worldwide consistency in some of the examples of the opening post, and always concurrent with certain types of fossil proliferation.

#18 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 09:45 AM



The Geologic Column is total fiction... it is entirely man-made.



Then where did the various environments come from as per the opening post?


Good question! Is there anything other than suppositional opinion that covers how the layers got there? The lack of empiricism renders the opinions as “man-made”


how would you explain the variations detected in atmospheric conditions in different layers?


Another good question! Do you have factual evidences that cover the explanations, OR are you following the ‘a priori’ opining’s of evolutionists?
Therefore, the lack of empiricism renders these opinions as “man-made”


These variations show worldwide consistency in some of the examples of the opening post, and always concurrent with certain types of fossil proliferation.


Once again, man-made opinion… And, I have no problem with opinion, as long as we call it what it is.

But, the bottom line is this; this man-made ‘Geologic Column’ was constructed by evolutionists as a way to support their presupposed transition (macro-evolution) from primitive life forms to complex life forms.

Also note that according to John Woodmorappe (see The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column) “only a small percentage of the earth’s surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance."

There are many other problems with the so called ‘Geologic Column’, but there is no doubt that it is contrived.

#19 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 11:58 AM

If you're just thinking flood, then you cannot explain the entire geologic column. If you're thinking global restructuring, then you can. :)

#20 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 11 April 2012 - 01:31 PM

Good question! Is there anything other than suppositional opinion that covers how the layers got there? The lack of empiricism renders the opinions as “man-made”

Another good question! Do you have factual evidences that cover the explanations, OR are you following the ‘a priori’ opining’s of evolutionists?
Therefore, the lack of empiricism renders these opinions as “man-made”

I have my own theory on how the layers got there, and its not based on evolution. But I'm not discussing evolution in this thread, I'm discussing how the current flood model explains the following:
From a flood perspective: Right down at the bottom of most flood deposits is a layer of mainly lichen. This layer has been studied and shows signs of high co2 levels, above this worldwide layer of lichen is a worldwide layer of low carbon 13 levels showing no lichen, and then above this layer is another worldwide layer of lichen and other fossils showing increases in carbon 13 levels again. Nothing is based on suppositions, these layers exist, and the carbon 13 levels are empirically tested.

If you can explain how the flood managed to do this layering, then can you also explain how the flood managed the other points 3,4,5 mentioned in the opening post.



Once again, man-made opinion… And, I have no problem with opinion, as long as we call it what it is.

But, the bottom line is this; this man-made ‘Geologic Column’ was constructed by evolutionists as a way to support their presupposed transition (macro-evolution) from primitive life forms to complex life forms.

That's what the current flood model says, but other than creationist assumptions on the geologic column, I think that only Chris has understood the implications of the opening post so far.

I think that the use of labels for each layer is distracting you from the fact that across the earth the lower "flood" layers show signs of lower oxygen levels, and the slightly higher layers show signs of increased oxygen levels, this is established by studying the chemical content of the fossilised plant-life. How can a flood possibly do this?



Also note that according to John Woodmorappe (see The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column) “only a small percentage of the earth’s surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance."

There are many other problems with the so called ‘Geologic Column’, but there is no doubt that it is contrived


I would say partially contrived, I deliberately chose those studies in the opening post because they were showing worldwide changes in consistent patterns as you go from lower to higher layers. The studies above are showing a geologic column. They are showing worldwide changes to atmospheric conditions that are demonstrated through chemical content between the layers that has not yet been explained from an empirical basis from any creationist in this thread.


I believe slight adjustments to the current flood model would explain all this, and we would have better ammunition against the evolutionists when we agree that some aspects of the geologic column have been correctly defined by them.
  • Calum likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users