Jump to content


Photo

Geologic Column: Fact Or Fiction?


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:24 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.


As I explained in my opening post, the Geologic Column is entirely man-made. It is a contrivance based upon assumptions with a smattering of facts. Also yours is a hypothesis (not theory).

#22 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 11 April 2012 - 11:12 PM

As I explained in my opening post, the Geologic Column is entirely man-made. It is a contrivance based upon assumptions with a smattering of facts. Also yours is a hypothesis (not theory).

It is a theory because I have facts at my disposal to support my hypothesis. I want to emphasize that I am not an evolutionist, I believe that the geologic column reveals pre-flood conditions of a wetlands environment followed by flood layers, followed by a dry post-flood environment. Nature causes certain species to dominate when the environment suits them. There is plenty of evidence for the entire sequence, a biblical flood model can explain the geologic column better than the evolutionists can explain it. It is the lack of flexibility of creationists to adopt a more biblical flood model that makes the current flood model so unbelieveable by the wider scientific community.

You keep saying the geologic column is contrived, even though I have actually posted non-contrived studies which do show differing conditions in different layers. These layers, even though labelled incorrectly, do exist. There is a worldwide sequence of conditions, and the current flood model does not explain this sequnce satisfactorily.

#23 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 April 2012 - 04:11 AM



As I explained in my opening post, the Geologic Column is entirely man-made. It is a contrivance based upon assumptions with a smattering of facts. Also yours is a hypothesis (not theory).


It is a theory because I have facts at my disposal to support my hypothesis. I want to emphasize that I am not an evolutionist, I believe that the geologic column reveals pre-flood conditions of a wetlands environment followed by flood layers, followed by a dry post-flood environment. Nature causes certain species to dominate when the environment suits them. There is plenty of evidence for the entire sequence, a biblical flood model can explain the geologic column better than the evolutionists can explain it. It is the lack of flexibility of creationists to adopt a more biblical flood model that makes the current flood model so unbelieveable by the wider scientific community.

You keep saying the geologic column is contrived, even though I have actually posted non-contrived studies which do show differing conditions in different layers. These layers, even though labelled incorrectly, do exist. There is a worldwide sequence of conditions, and the current flood model does not explain this sequnce satisfactorily.

I’ll try this one more time, in an attempt to assist you. The term “Geologic Column” is an entirely “CONTRIVED” term, for a non-phenomenon. I explained why and how it was originally created. It can be likened to a “FAMILY TREE” in that a “FAMILY TREE” is also a “CONTRIVED” phenomenon used to elucidate one’s historical lineage. The major difference is that a “FAMILY TREE” contains “HISTORICAL FACTS” to verify it in its entirety (i.e. its veracity and validity). On the other hand the “Geologic Column” contains nothing more than opinions based upon some facts found in the layering of “DIRT” (the term dirt is loosely over simplified, as the diversity of types of dirt would convolute the conversation here). Further, some phenomena have been found to transcend the supposed millions of years severally, thus destroying the evolutionist’s concept of said “Geologic Column”.

Further, I at no time accused you of being an evolutionist, I fully understand what you are attempting to do in your explanation. What I did do was point out that your “HYPOTHESIS” of a “Geologic Column” is contrived as well. Why, because you cannot PROVE that your explanations for the layers are factual, you can only PROVE that there are layers of “DIRT”, and that there are provable phenomena (singular facts) within said layers of dirt, and that you are attempting to explain why YOU think these things are as they are (which is, in fact, supposition, NOT fact). Also, I never said that I disagree with your hypotheses, I simply pointed out the fact that “Geologic Column” is an entirely “CONTRIVED” term, for a non-phenomenon.


As an aside; exactly what empirical experimentation (via the scientific method) have you personally performed on your hypothesis concerning this so-called “Geologic Column”, to promote it from a hypothesis to the level of a scientific theory; AND what peer reviewed validation have you received from the overall scientific community concerning this so-called “Geologic Column”, to promote it from a hypothesis to the level of a scientific theory?

#24 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 12 April 2012 - 06:02 AM

I believe that the geologic column reveals pre-flood conditions of a wetlands environment followed by flood layers, followed by a dry post-flood environment.


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


#25 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 12 April 2012 - 11:41 AM

I’ll try this one more time, in an attempt to assist you. The term “Geologic Column” is an entirely “CONTRIVED” term, for a non-phenomenon. I explained why and how it was originally created. It can be likened to a “FAMILY TREE” in that a “FAMILY TREE” is also a “CONTRIVED” phenomenon used to elucidate one’s historical lineage. The major difference is that a “FAMILY TREE” contains “HISTORICAL FACTS” to verify it in its entirety (i.e. its veracity and validity). On the other hand the “Geologic Column” contains nothing more than opinions based upon some facts found in the layering of “DIRT” (the term dirt is loosely over simplified, as the diversity of types of dirt would convolute the conversation here). Further, some phenomena have been found to transcend the supposed millions of years severally, thus destroying the evolutionist’s concept of said “Geologic Column”.



Please understand , I am using the term "geologic column" loosely, to refer to a deposition of layers according to proliferation of species. I believe there is a time-scale that shows various environments through the ages, and through this time-scale we can learn what conditions were like close to creation, and in the various periods in the 1700 years between creation and the flood. I believe the ordering is not the same as evolutionists say it is, many of the environments were simultaneous and not consecutive, and so each environment has to be looked at seperately.

Wikipedia definition:
The geologic time scale is a system of chronological measurement that relates stratigraphy to time, and is used by geologists, paleontologists, and other earth scientists to describe the timing and relationships between events that have occurred throughout Earth's history.

We as creationists can help evolutionists with this time scale, because we have some biblical parameters which make it easier for us to understand the layers.




Further, I at no time accused you of being an evolutionist, I fully understand what you are attempting to do in your explanation. What I did do was point out that your “HYPOTHESIS” of a “Geologic Column” is contrived as well. Why, because you cannot PROVE that your explanations for the layers are factual, you can only PROVE that there are layers of “DIRT”, and that there are provable phenomena (singular facts) within said layers of dirt, and that you are attempting to explain why YOU think these things are as they are (which is, in fact, supposition, NOT fact). Also, I never said that I disagree with your hypotheses, I simply pointed out the fact that “Geologic Column” is an entirely “CONTRIVED” term, for a non-phenomenon.

If there is a general trend shown in layers , I believe the term still applies, but I do not like to be distracted by semantics. That is why I have been focussing on four of the studies as shown in the opening post, which show empirical evidence for widespread changes to the environment in different layers.


As an aside; exactly what empirical experimentation (via the scientific method) have you personally performed on your hypothesis concerning this so-called “Geologic Column”, to promote it from a hypothesis to the level of a scientific theory; AND what peer reviewed validation have you received from the overall scientific community concerning this so-called “Geologic Column”, to promote it from a hypothesis to the level of a scientific theory?


I have not performed my own experiments, but am relying on those four studies (points 2 to 5) as per the opening post. I do not see how the evidence of those studies can exist through the current flood model. There are many many more studies of this nature. I ran out of time, and so only posted those.

#26 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 12 April 2012 - 11:42 AM

Biblically we expect:

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


Exactly, I believe the extent of the pre-flood deposition has been underestimated by the current flood model.

#27 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 12 April 2012 - 12:02 PM

I think pretty much everything sedimentary we see above the granite was deposited by the flood or after.

#28 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:48 PM

Exactly, I believe the extent of the pre-flood deposition has been underestimated by the current flood model.


Which flood model you are referencing. I know there are a variety of flood models from different people at any given time. These are all subject to change.

#29 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 12 April 2012 - 11:03 PM

Which flood model you are referencing. I know there are a variety of flood models from different people at any given time. These are all subject to change.


The one mentioned by Stripe. Everything sedimentary above the granite is flood related.

I believe the extent of the pre-flood sediments and the post-flood sediments are underestimated by the commonly accepted flood model.

#30 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 13 April 2012 - 09:02 AM

Um .. my model doesn't agree with your idea of underestimates.

#31 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

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

Posted 14 April 2012 - 01:55 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


The most widely held flood models incorporate fast continent motion. Check Baumbarder, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. And Walt Brown, Hydroplate Theory. Also, as a creationist could you rule out supernatural intervention on seemingly impossible results--for instance--Did the earth expand to contain the waters in a short time?

#32 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

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

Posted 14 April 2012 - 02:25 AM

The one mentioned by Stripe. Everything sedimentary above the granite is flood related.

I believe the extent of the pre-flood sediments and the post-flood sediments are underestimated by the commonly accepted flood model.

I would tend to interpret all fossil bearing sedimentary rock/sediments as flood induced. As to the fact of the sedimentary record being produced by water, there is no dispute, except on those (sandstone) that standard geology says are of aeolian (wind) origin. You will find plenty of dispute on that point by the creation scientists. But the arguement of time is the central issue.

The fact that strata are commonly found in "pancake" layering, is quite apparent evidence that little time passed in their depostion. Where is the topological erosion between them? Look at the current topology in your area. Is it flat? Furthermore it has been demonstrated experimentally that a water sediment mixture in current procuces the particle segregation needed to produce strata and laminae. This can be done in a short time.

#33 SomchaiA

SomchaiA

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangkok, Thailand
  • Interests:Movies. music, science.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 14 April 2012 - 02:27 AM

The most widely held flood models incorporate fast continent motion. Check Baumbarder, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. And Walt Brown, Hydroplate Theory. Also, as a creationist could you rule out supernatural intervention on seemingly impossible results--for instance--Did the earth expand to contain the waters in a short time?


I think in supernatural intervention God can simply move the animals without need for geology to help. moving them from continent to continent as he wills. Am i correct? So comforming to science is not needed.

#34 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

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

Posted 14 April 2012 - 02:33 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"


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.


Do we know for sure what data caused this conclusion, or could one include another conclusion by the raw data? The data below refutes the trillobite hypothesis.

Notice the bolded statement at the bottom.

Posted Image








The diversity of soft-tissue fossils at Chengjiang is astonishing: algae, medusiforms, sponges, priapulids, annelid-like worms, echinoderms, arthropods (including trilobites), hemichordates, chordates, and the first agnathan fish make up just a small fraction of the total -- see an up to date list of Chengjiang Biota here. Numerous problematic forms are known as well, some of which may have represented failed evolutionary attempts at diversity that did not last for long.


The fossils are found in a 50 meter thick section of mudstone known as the Maotianshan Shale, named for a distinctive hill in Chengjiang County, Yunnan Province, China in the Qiongzhusi Section of the Yu'anshan Member of the Heilinpu Formation. Fossils occur in widely scattered outcrops within thin beds only 1 to 2 cm thick, with the soft parts preserved as aluminosilicate films where the structure has been infilled by iron-rich clay minerals or hematite. The fossils are commonly weathered to a reddish color, possibly as a result of oxidized pyrite, on a distinctive yellow matrix. Analysis of some specimens has shown an iron content as high as 43%, a five-to-eightfold increase over the background level of the matrix. http://www.fossilmus.../Chengjiang.htm


Why do the fossils contain a 5 to 8-fold increase of iron over the surrounding yellow matrix (probably sulfuric). The point is the fossils have absorbed the iron, which reacted with the oxygen within them, and the yellow matrix has not. Iron and sulpher must be heated to produce iron sufide, but iron oxide requires no heat. The point being the oxygen in the fauna reacted with iron in groundwater to produce iron oxide, but the supher matrix did not react (otherwise it would not have been yellow).

To say that the fossils were infilled by iron rich clay minerals is to not give an explanation of how the minerals concentrated into the fossils, while not infilling the matrix. Something within the fossils themselves attracted the iron, and that something is oxygen.

If you add the role of microbes in the present, this may give us a more clear picture of a possible process in the anoxic situation found in some fossil beds.

IRON - THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF A UNIVERSAL ELEMENT

An On-Line Version of a Column First Published in the:
National Environmental Journal May./June 1994 Vol. 4 No. 3 Page 24-25


by: David B. Vance


SUMMARY

The reactions described above are complex. At any given location it is difficult to determine the specific processes taking place. However, the overall effect is as follows: Impacting hydrocarbons provide a carbon source to stimulate aerobic microbial degradation. This consumes the readily available oxygen driving the system anoxic. In the anoxic state soluble ferrous ions are generated and soluble ferrous and ferric complexes are formed. High levels of soluble iron is an indicative side effect of hydrocarbon contamination in groundwater.


The underlined fact is nestled in another subject of how 'water gets rusty.' But facts are facts. Microbes drive a soil or sediment system anoxic by their consumption of biodegradable material in the sediments. The modern results found in these fossil caches do not necessarily reflect the situation at depostion.

#35 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 14 April 2012 - 04:25 AM

Um .. my model doesn't agree with your idea of underestimates.


Exactly, I think that the widely accepted flood model that you support underestimates the extent of pre-flood and post-flood sedimentation. The opening post emphasizes this, because I have showed changing atmospheric conditions during the so-called flood layers, that would be more easily explained by variations in atmospheric conditions over time in the pre-flood and post-flood environments.

JayShel was asking which common flood model I'm disagreeing with, I said your one.

#36 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 14 April 2012 - 04:30 AM

I would tend to interpret all fossil bearing sedimentary rock/sediments as flood induced. As to the fact of the sedimentary record being produced by water, there is no dispute, except on those (sandstone) that standard geology says are of aeolian (wind) origin. You will find plenty of dispute on that point by the creation scientists. But the arguement of time is the central issue.

The fact that strata are commonly found in "pancake" layering, is quite apparent evidence that little time passed in their depostion. Where is the topological erosion between them? Look at the current topology in your area. Is it flat? Furthermore it has been demonstrated experimentally that a water sediment mixture in current procuces the particle segregation needed to produce strata and laminae. This can be done in a short time.


Logic says the world was flatter before the flood, and that mountains started forming during the flood. This flatter world would also create a more pancake effect in comparison to today's world. But this is off topic to the thread, have you got any answers to the opening post's contention that there are atmospheric changes between layers?

#37 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 14 April 2012 - 04:56 AM

The most widely held flood models incorporate fast continent motion. Check Baumbarder, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. And Walt Brown, Hydroplate Theory. Also, as a creationist could you rule out supernatural intervention on seemingly impossible results--for instance--Did the earth expand to contain the waters in a short time?


I agree with rapid continental motion, and catastrophic plate tectonics, and believe this does explain a lot about the fossil record.

I cannot rule out supernatural intervention, but I see the bible confirmed in virtually every study that scientists produce about their Carboniferous and Permian and Triassic and Jurassic worlds. I see the bible in it, and see no need to use supernatural explanations when the scientific evidence confirms the flood, both describing the most major death-event the world has ever known.

ie the flood event fits in with what scientists refer to as the Permian-Triassic boundary, complete with huge acid rainfalls, and marine transgressions.

#38 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 14 April 2012 - 05:06 AM

Exactly, I think that the widely accepted flood model that you support underestimates the extent of pre-flood and post-flood sedimentation. The opening post emphasizes this, because I have showed changing atmospheric conditions during the so-called flood layers, that would be more easily explained by variations in atmospheric conditions over time in the pre-flood and post-flood environments.

JayShel was asking which common flood model I'm disagreeing with, I said your one.

Oh. OK. :)

#39 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

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

Posted 14 April 2012 - 05:32 AM

Logic says the world was flatter before the flood, and that mountains started forming during the flood. This flatter world would also create a more pancake effect in comparison to today's world. But this is off topic to the thread, have you got any answers to the opening post's contention that there are atmospheric changes between layers?


I've seen pancake layered facies that are level and horizontal within and/or juxtaposed to homogenously mixed non-stratified rock in more than one outcrop in Missouri. Along with other folded strata within other outcrops, this would inidicate earth movement and sediment mixture in turbulent water. Point being pancake layering is not universal. If the entire world was flat, as you say before the flood, we should see world wide pancake layering WITHOUT fossils above the granite. And then flood layers with fossils on top of it. There is no such thing. Obviously there were pre-flood sediments and soils, but many of them would have been redistributed as a result of catastrophic landslides and so forth.

Please read post 34. i did answer one of your points extensively.

#40 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 14 April 2012 - 08:55 AM

I really, really doubt there are any ancient soils preserved in a recognisable state. Do you have any candidate layers we can look at?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users