Jump to content


Photo

Another Look At The Flood


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

#21 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

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

Posted 09 October 2008 - 01:51 PM

Well, at one time as we can see from space, it looks as if the continents are one big puzzle that can be pieced back together to make one complete continent.  Thing is why would a planet randomly be a one continent planet??? Me thinks God had it made as one continent for a purpose.

Yes i believe this could be provided as more evidence for a Global Flood, simply put, it seems easier Flooding one continent.

View Post


Yes the continents seem to have been one in the past but for them to drift to their current positions in a couple thousand years would have required greater speed than currently exists in continental drift then a sudden decrease and there is no indication in the Bible or other writings that such a thing actually happened.

#22 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

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

Posted 09 October 2008 - 02:01 PM

Actually, the middle east has some of the richest oil deposits in the world, so yes, that oil deposit is one big jumble of pre existing carbon based lifeforms.

You must understand, that at the time of Noah, all the land masses were connected, and there is evidence for this, provided for by both creationist and evolutionist alike.  You see when you look at the continents, they can be connected back together.

The evidence is in the fossils, you see no geological time column has ever been found. Fossils are never found in complete and perfect order as you see in the textbooks.

View Post


Oil deposits, unfortunately do not support the flood since there are oil deposits from as little as a couple hundred feet down to nearly 38,000 feet and indicate a vast time difference between the two. If the oil deposits were the result of the flood they would be at the same level and are not.

#23 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 09 October 2008 - 05:28 PM

Oil deposits, unfortunately do not support the flood since there are oil deposits from as little as a couple hundred feet down to nearly 38,000 feet and indicate a vast time difference between the two.  If the oil deposits were the result of the flood they would be at the same level and are not.

View Post


Actually they would be at different levels, simply because all around the world you have things called above and below sea level. All ground levels using human sight appear to be level, but are not.

The deepest man has ever dug, is 40,226 feet, which is 7.62 miles, the highest mountain on earth is only about 30,000 feet high, so unfortunately for evolutionist this poses no problem for the flood.

Just think about it, a valley 40,226 feet below the highest mountain would be a piece of cake for a Global Flood to fill, and you must also realize these layers are sediments, and sediments had to be laid by moving water.

#24 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 09 October 2008 - 08:58 PM

Yes the continents seem to have been one in the past but for them to drift to their current positions in a couple thousand years would have required greater speed than currently exists in continental drift then a sudden decrease and there is no indication in the Bible or other writings that such a thing actually happened.

View Post


Also when you think about it, why then was the world one continent at one time? A logical creationist view would be that God made it that way, for a simpler way to get around the entire earth, but evolutionist would have to believe that it just formed one land mass by coincidence.

I also believe it's completely logical for the land masses to move in a relatively short time, as from observation we have observed whole Islands become formed, and whole Islands destroyed in about a days time.

You must also understand that when soil is exposed to water for more than 2 weeks time, it becomes extremely loose, and 7 mile deep ocean water on top of a once dry land mass could have serious effects on the total land mass itself. Also the Bible indicates water from the deep, which could have induced underwater volcanoes to help seperate the land masses and help produce oil out of all the compressed dead animals covered by all of the Flood sediment.

#25 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 09 October 2008 - 09:19 PM

Scott,

You should look at the evidence for exponencial decline in the geologic column.If you put the first erruption at yellowstone on a graph and end with Mt. St. Helens that errupted in 1981,you can see clear exponencial decline by an order of magnitude of a thousand or more.In fact,if you go even further back to the permian era you find 2 mile deep lava flows in siberia.

In my opinion,it's irrefutable proof that tectonic activity must have been thousands of times faster than present rates.

#26 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 October 2008 - 07:45 PM

Scott,

You should look at the evidence for exponencial decline in the geologic column.If you put the first erruption at yellowstone on a graph and end with Mt. St. Helens that errupted in 1981,you can see clear exponencial decline by an order of magnitude of a thousand or more.In fact,if you go even further back to the permian era you find 2 mile deep lava flows in siberia.

In my opinion,it's irrefutable proof that tectonic activity must have been thousands of times faster than present rates.

View Post


Wow, that's pretty amazing, I'm going to look more into this.

#27 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 10 October 2008 - 08:19 PM

quote;Wow, that's pretty amazing, I'm going to look more into this.

I would recommend seeing "Geologic Evidences"by steve austin in the video on demand section at answers in genesis.He also gives the seizmic charts for earthquakes kept since the 1920's,guess what? Earthquakes have also declined in just that short period of time.

Enjoy.

#28 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 13 October 2008 - 10:49 AM

Scott,

You should look at the evidence for exponencial decline in the geologic column.If you put the first erruption at yellowstone on a graph and end with Mt. St. Helens that errupted in 1981,you can see clear exponencial decline by an order of magnitude of a thousand or more.In fact,if you go even further back to the permian era you find 2 mile deep lava flows in siberia.

In my opinion,it's irrefutable proof that tectonic activity must have been thousands of times faster than present rates.

View Post


I am quite fascinated by the kind of data that you consider to be "irrufutable proof"? I downloaded the video and Austin simply shows the relative sizes of four volcanic flows. There is no graph of the average volcanic flow over time around the world. It does not mention the Siberian flows or the Deccan traps in India (each were several million times larger than Mt. St Helens).
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Deccan_Traps

He also does not mention that small flows are easier to detect if they are recent. Older one's become weathered eroded. So even if there was some evidence that flows were once larger one would need to correct by this factor.

He does mention two of the recent mega-eruptions of the Yellowstone Caldera. The Huckleberry Ridge eruption with 2500 cubic kilometers would have been hugely distructive. Austin suggests it would have been "lethal over half a continent" at least. Indeed, if you dig down into the sediment of much of the midwest, one can see the delicate ash layers of the different eruptions. Some in Kansas are many feet thick.

Posted Image

There are even ash layers in places like Indiana that can be traced to volcanoes that were once in Virginia (360 million years ago).
http://vulcan.wr.usg...st_indiana.html

Many of the best preserved fossils come from ashfalls like this. The ash both kills the animals and provides excellent preservation. Many of our best fossils from China come from ancient ashfalls. Ten million years ago, one ash fall in Nebraska killed now extinct rhinos, camals and three toed horses.

http://www-museum.un...eo/ashfall.html

If we dig underneath just about anywhere in the Midwest we will find that the sedimentary layers alternate with these ashfalls. We will also find vast salt layers showing evidence of ancient dry salt seas, as well as vast coral reefs that surround these ancient seas. However, these coral reefs and salt layers are NOT near the bottom but are dispersed throughout geologic column. We do NOT see evidence of a single flood. What we see is evidence of dry periods, interspersed with ancient seas, periods where trees and plants and animals lived and died. And all of these different layers are interspersed with layers of volcanic ash.

And you are quite correct that the Permian period had one of the largest eruptions (250 million years ago, or 1/10th of the way back to the beginning of the planet). Enough lava was produced in this eruption to cover the entire earth to a depth of 20 feet. This eruption was around 3 cubic kilometers or about 1000 times larger than the largest eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera and about about 3 million times larger than Mt. St. Helens.

So if the Hucklenberry Ridge eruption was distructive to half a continent, what would happen during the Siberian flows that were 1000 times larger? Scientists currently estimate that during these Siberian flows over 90% of species vanished. More than 99.99% of individuals must have died during this time since the species that vanished at this time disappeared everywhere across the planet and never were found in higher layers again. We have evidence of acid rains and large changes to the heights of the oceans A few million years after this huge extinction, we start to see the first dinosaurs appear in the fossil record.

http://ngm.nationalg...4/fulltext.html

At the time the dinosaurs disappeared (65 million years ago), we also see another huge eruption - the Deccan Traps in India. This one was about 1.5 million times larger than the Mt. St. Helens (but a flood basalt).
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Deccan_Traps


From all this, I see no evidence of a consistent change in the size of eruptions. I see no evidence of a worldwide flood in any sedimentary layers. I do see evidence of local floods alternating with volcanic eruptions, dry periods with great salt seas (many producing salt layers) and layers with vast coral reefs hundreds of miles long. I see animals and footprints buried in ash. I see extinctions and I see the rise of new species after these extinctions.

James

#29 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 13 October 2008 - 01:58 PM

I am quite fascinated by the kind of data that you consider to be "irrufutable proof"?  I downloaded the video and Austin simply shows the relative sizes of four volcanic flows. There is no graph of the average volcanic flow over time around the world. It does not mention the Siberian flows or the Deccan traps in India (each were several million times larger than Mt. St Helens).
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Deccan_Traps

He also does not mention that small flows are easier to detect if they are recent. Older one's become weathered eroded. So even if there was some evidence that flows were once larger one would need to correct by this factor.

He does mention two of the recent mega-eruptions of the Yellowstone Caldera. The Huckleberry Ridge eruption with 2500 cubic kilometers would have been hugely distructive. Austin suggests it would have been "lethal over half a continent" at least. Indeed, if you dig down into the sediment of much of the midwest, one can see the delicate ash layers of the different eruptions. Some in Kansas are many feet thick.

Posted Image

There are even ash layers in places like Indiana that can be traced to volcanoes that were once in Virginia (360 million years ago).
http://vulcan.wr.usg...st_indiana.html

Many of the best preserved fossils come from ashfalls like this. The ash both kills the animals and provides excellent preservation. Many of our best fossils from China come from ancient ashfalls. Ten million years ago, one ash fall in Nebraska killed now extinct rhinos, camals and three toed horses.

http://www-museum.un...eo/ashfall.html

If we dig underneath just about anywhere in the Midwest we will find that the sedimentary layers alternate with these ashfalls. We will also find vast salt layers showing evidence of ancient dry salt seas, as well as vast coral reefs that surround these ancient seas. However, these coral reefs and salt layers are NOT near the bottom but are dispersed throughout geologic column.  We do NOT see evidence of a single flood. What we see is evidence of dry periods, interspersed with ancient seas, periods where trees and plants and animals lived and died. And all of these different layers are interspersed with layers of volcanic ash.

And you are quite correct that the Permian period had one of the largest eruptions (250 million years ago, or 1/10th of the way back to the beginning of the planet). Enough lava was produced in this eruption to cover the entire earth to a depth of 20 feet. This eruption was around 3 cubic kilometers or about 1000 times larger than the largest eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera and about about 3 million times larger than Mt. St. Helens.

So if the Hucklenberry Ridge eruption was distructive to half a continent, what would happen during the Siberian flows that were 1000 times larger?  Scientists currently estimate that during these Siberian flows over 90% of species vanished. More than 99.99% of individuals must have died during this time since the species that vanished at this time disappeared everywhere across the planet and never were found in higher layers again. We have evidence of acid rains and large changes to the heights of the oceans A few million years after this huge extinction, we start to see the first dinosaurs appear in the fossil record.

http://ngm.nationalg...4/fulltext.html

At the time the dinosaurs disappeared (65 million years ago), we also see another huge eruption - the Deccan Traps in India. This one was about 1.5 million times larger than the Mt. St. Helens (but a flood basalt).
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Deccan_Traps
From all this, I see no evidence of a consistent change in the size of eruptions. I see no evidence of a worldwide flood in any sedimentary layers. I do see evidence of local floods alternating with volcanic eruptions, dry periods with great salt seas (many producing salt layers) and layers with vast coral reefs hundreds of miles long. I see animals and footprints buried in ash. I see extinctions and I see the rise of new species after these extinctions.

James

View Post


Amazing, over a period of days a flood should create layers, and each layer should contain some salt in each layer, so I have no idea what your getting at, but as far as the geologic time column is concerned, there is no hands on evidence for it even existing. So yes we do see evidence of a single flood, because all the sedimental layers would not have been layed over night. Also as fossil evidence shows, everything is in disorder, not happily aligned like the textbooks show.

So James, have you found a T Rex then an allosaur in layers directly below it, without having to go a few miles down the road just to find the allosaur skeleton, then claim the allosaur as older?

#30 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 14 October 2008 - 07:43 AM

Amazing, over a period of days a flood should create layers, and each layer should contain some salt in each layer, so I have no idea what your getting at,

View Post


Hi Scott,
I think it it worth looking at those salt layers and coral reefs more closely. 2000 feet below me, one finds the remains of an ancient salt lake that extends over New York, Ohio, and Michigan. The salt layer is about 100 feet thick directly below me (we have a big salt mine nearby), but becomes about 400 feet thick in the Michigan basin. This layer is mined to produce most of the road salt used in the Northeast. The material is the same sort of evaporate that we find in the Great Salt Lake in Utah.

Why not take a good look at this link and see what questions you have. It has a number of excellent figures explaining the salt locations and mining.

http://www.saltinsti...org/mich-1.html

The ancient lake is surrounded by huge barrier reef system full of corals much like the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The reef is 200 meters thick in places and up to a kilometer wide. It is mostly buried but it is a common source for natural gas, so a lot of gas drillers search it out.

If you go up 1000 feet above this ancient salt sea, one can find another reef system that extends hundreds of miles and dated to around 350 million years. This reef system is exposed at a number of places like the "Falls of the Ohio"
http://www.fallsofth...patch-reef.html


You can do the same in Kansas. If you want to find 'solid' evidence of an ancient sea in Kansas - and not a flood. Go to the middle of Kansas and go 650 feet down. You will find the remants of a 275 million year old (Permian) sea that evaporated. They left vast salt layers as noted in the link below.
http://www.kancoll.o...ogress/salt.htm

"The salt deposit underlying Hutchinson and that section of Kansas is one of the largest in the world. Covering several thousand square miles and reaching a thickness in some places of 400 feet, it is the remains of an old salt sea and contains enough salt to supply the United States for the next 250,000 years at the present rate of consumption."

This one also has a reef system.

Remember that none of these coral reefs are near the bottom of the geologic column. No complex animals are found at the bottom (in the many many layers of rock dated from 600 million to 3.5 billion years old). Only single cell algae are found in these lower layers.

So what is your theory of how these coral reefs and salt layers were laid down?

As far as finding fossils in successive layers, I have discussed this elsewhere. But would be happy to discuss this again if you feel what I wrote does not answer your questions.
http://www.evolution...188

Everywhere I have looked, the textbook model fits the fossils I find quite accurately. I would love to find a fossil out of order and gain a bit of fame. I certainly hope you notify your local museum and call the Creation Museum in Kentucky if you have good evidence that the textbooks are wrong anywhere on the planet. Remember to photograph your find.

#31 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 14 October 2008 - 08:32 AM

Hi Scott,
I think it it worth looking at those salt layers and coral reefs more closely. 2000 feet below me, one finds the remains of an ancient salt lake that extends over New York, Ohio, and Michigan. The salt layer is about 100 feet thick below me, but becomes about 400 feet thick in the Michigan. This layer is mined to produce most of the road salt used in the Northeast. The material is much the same as what we find in the Great Salt Lake in Utah.

Why not take a good look at this link and see what questions you have. It has a number of excellent figures explaining the salt locations and mining.

http://www.saltinsti...org/mich-1.html

The ancient lake is surrounded by huge barrier reef system full of corals much like the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The reef is 200 meters thick in places and up to a kilometer wide. It is mostly buried but it is a common source for natural gas, so a lot of gas drillers search it out.

If you go up 1000 feet above this ancient salt sea, one can find another reef system that extends hundreds of miles and dated to around 350 million years. This reef system is exposed at a number of places like the "Falls of the Ohio"
http://www.fallsofth...patch-reef.html
You can do the same in Kansas. If you want to find 'solid' evidence of an ancient sea in Kansas - and not a flood. Go to the middle of Kansas and go 650 feet down. You will find the remants of a 275 million year old (Permian) sea that evaporated. They left vast salt layers as noted in the link below.
http://www.kancoll.o...ogress/salt.htm

"The salt deposit underlying Hutchinson and that section of Kansas is one of the largest in the world. Covering several thousand square miles and reaching a thickness in some places of 400 feet, it is the remains of an old salt sea and contains enough salt to supply the United States for the next 250,000 years at the present rate of consumption."

This one also has a reef system.

Remember that none of these coral reefs are near the bottom of the geologic column. No complex animals are found at the bottom (in the many many layers of rock dated from 600 million to 3.5 billion years old). Only single cell algae are found in these lower layers.

So what is your theory of how these coral reefs and salt layers were laid down?

As far as finding fossils in successive layers, I have discussed this elsewhere. But would be happy to discuss this again if you feel what I wrote does not answer your questions.
http://www.evolution...188

Everywhere I have looked, the textbook model fits the fossils I find quite accurately. I would love to find a fossil out of order and gain a bit of fame. I certainly hope you notify your local museum and call the Creation Museum in Kentucky if you have good evidence that the textbooks are wrong anywhere on the planet. Remember to photograph your find.

View Post


Well, the same thing happened here in mississippi, directly below me are the remains of cretacious and pleocine era dinsoaurs and marine life. You see in mississippi albertosaurus, a relative of T- rex has been found here, also 1000 feet below me is not all that much. Not too far down the road from me at a local hunting club, a basilosaurus was found.

You must understand that 40,000 feet is the approximate depth of the sediment layers all around the earth, the tallest mountain is only 39,000 feet. A global flood should have no problem explaining this.

Scientist also don't know if those coral reefs were deposited there, much like any other fossil site. Yes I would expect there to be large deposits of salt in places, but I do not believe they are being truthful with distribution, as they cannot provide not one single real picture, but a textbook diagram.

Pictures of the REAL thing must be provided, which you nor any evolutionist throughout the history of mankind has done. Offcourse, you should find fossil marine life throughout all the world on land, but what I'm asking is why do you not find Allosaur below T- Rex and dig further and further and find older and older, this sequence has NOT been found, all the dinosaurs are NOT found in perfect textbook order. When we find trilobites in states with dinosaurs, you usually just go a few miles down the road from each other.

Everything is in a big jumbled mass, I remember going to colorado, and yes you find trilobites and dinosaur fossils all over the place. You find cretacious triceratops near jurassic or right beside jurassic apatosaurus.

You should also realize that trilobites should be found near the bottom of every fossil site, why? because they are highly advanced short legged bottom dwellers, and no you'll find it hard to convince me that trilobites are primitive.

To sum it up, I will not believe the geological time column exist unless definitive proof for it's supposed existance is found. If you find some dinosaur skeletons older than each other above or below it, then there you have proven it, but using small marine organisms to prove it doesn't work too well, simply because many from the cambrian have survived to this day mostly unchanged.

You absolutely most positively have to use dinosaurs or mammals to prove this, not small crustacians which can be found in each layer.

#32 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 14 October 2008 - 09:50 AM

Scientist also don't know if those coral reefs were deposited there, much like any other fossil site. 

View Post


Scott,
Of course, they know they were deposited there. Are you joking with me? Are you now suggesting that a 1000 mile coral reef floated there? And the trillions of tons of salt just happened to move there too? Coral doesn't float and salt dissolves in water. Is that what you need to believe in order to hold your theory together?

Do you at least understand why the geologists that have studied the salt and drilled the drill holes and mined the salt don't accept your point of view?

Yes I would expect there to be large deposits of salt in places, but I do not believe they are being truthful with distribution, as they cannot provide not one single real picture, but a textbook diagram.

Pictures of the REAL thing must be provided, which you nor any evolutionist throughout the history of mankind has done. 

View Post


Those links I provided gave quite a few photographs. Did you look at any of the links I provided? I am sorry you don't trust the geologists or the photographs, but this is what they do for a living. They drill bore holes all over the country to investigate what lies beneath their feet. I am sure that if you really had doubts, you could find pictures of the drill cores. Or you can get photographs of the mines like this one.

Posted Image

There are hundreds of photographs and hundreds of mines and thousands of drill cores.

Remember, these cores were not drilled to prove or disprove anything about evolution or the flood. They were simply interested in where the salt was of sufficient quantity to mine. Sometimes they find salt layers several hundred feet thick and hundreds of square miles wide. Sometimes they drill and find coral reefs. If you take all the data together you can make a drawing of where the salt is and where the reefs are. It is really not that difficult. The drawings provide a summary of many hundreds of cores and data points. Since they are a summary of thousands of data points, most geologists find the drawings much more informative than any single photograph of a single core. But I am sure you can get the photos if you have doubts.

Everything is in a big jumbled mass,  I remember going to colorado, and yes you find trilobites and dinosaur fossils all over the place.  You find cretacious triceratops near jurassic or right beside jurassic apatosaurus.

You should also realize that trilobites should be found near the bottom of every fossil site,

View Post


First one never finds trilobites at the bottom. In the thousands of feet of sediment below the Cambrian, no one has ever found a trilobite. In fact, no one has yet found a tooth, or a clam or a branch or a bone or a single coral below the Cambrian layers. Although one finds lots of delicate single cell algae. And the Cambrian is no where near the bottom. It is in the top 1/7th.

Second, if everything was a big jumbled mess then it would be easy to demonstrate this You could take a photograph and a GPS measure and demonstrate this easily. But the rules hold everywhere on earth. No one has found a modern mammal fossilized with a dinosaur or a trilobite. No one has ever found a trilobite below the Cambrian layers. No one has ever found Cretaceous or Jurassic dinosaurs or any marine dinosaurs with trilobites.

If you think you have seen an exception then please please please report this to your local museum. You will be famous. Why not go and find a trilobite in the same layer they found the basilosaurus. It doesn't need to be in the same position, just in the same layer or in a higher layer. If you don't know how to track layers, ask a geologist.

Most of the time it is very very easy to track geologic layers. For example, in this picture of dinosaur national park, one can see the layers clearly.
http://www.agpix.com...a12_0147_Lg.jpg
Posted Image
There are lots of dinosaurs and they always come from the same layers (e.g., the Morrison formation). There are lots of trilobites and they always come from the same layers. Find an exception and you will be famous. If you are so confident that the rules are wrong, then prove it. Why not become famous and get photographs. Since you trust photographs more than summary drawings, then go get some photographic evidence to prove your point.

Get some evidence to back up your claims. If you think it is all a jumble then why not show evidence of this? You will be famous if you can prove your point.

#33 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 14 October 2008 - 10:58 AM

Scott,
   Of course, they know they were deposited there. Are you joking with me? Are you now suggesting that a 1000 mile coral reef floated there? And the trillions of tons of salt just happened to move there too? Coral doesn't float and salt dissolves in water.  Is that what you need to believe in order to hold your theory together?

   Do you at least understand why the geologists that have studied the salt and drilled the drill holes and mined the salt don't accept your point of view?
Those links I provided gave quite a few photographs. Did you look at any of the links I provided? I am sorry you don't trust the geologists or the photographs, but this is what they do for a living. They drill bore holes all over the country to investigate what lies beneath their feet. I am sure that if you really had doubts, you could find pictures of the drill cores. Or you can get photographs of the mines like this one.

Posted Image

There are hundreds of photographs and hundreds of mines and thousands of drill cores.

Remember, these cores were not drilled to prove or disprove anything about evolution or the flood. They were simply interested in where the salt was of sufficient quantity to mine. Sometimes they find salt layers several hundred feet thick and hundreds of square miles wide. Sometimes they drill and find coral reefs. If you take all the data together you can make a drawing of where the salt is and where the reefs are. It is really not that difficult. The drawings provide a summary of many hundreds of cores and data points. Since they are a summary of thousands of data points, most geologists find the drawings much more informative than any single photograph of a single core. But I am sure you can get the photos if you have doubts.
First one never finds trilobites at the bottom. In the thousands of feet of sediment below the Cambrian, no one has ever found a trilobite. In fact, no one has yet found a tooth, or a clam or a branch or a bone or a single coral below the Cambrian layers. Although one finds lots of delicate single cell algae. And the Cambrian is no where near the bottom. It is in the top 1/7th.

Second, if everything was a big jumbled mess then it would be easy to demonstrate this You could take a photograph and a GPS measure and demonstrate this easily. But the rules hold everywhere on earth. No one has found a modern mammal fossilized with a dinosaur or a trilobite. No one has ever found a trilobite below the Cambrian layers. No one has ever found Cretaceous or Jurassic dinosaurs or any marine dinosaurs with trilobites.

If you think you have seen an exception then please please please report this to your local museum. You will be famous. Why not go and find a trilobite in the same layer they found the basilosaurus. It doesn't need to be in the same position, just in the same layer or in a higher layer. If you don't know how to track layers, ask a geologist.

Most of the time it is very very easy to track geologic layers. For example, in this picture of dinosaur national park, one can see the layers clearly.
http://www.agpix.com...a12_0147_Lg.jpg
Posted Image
There are lots of dinosaurs and they always come from the same layers (e.g., the Morrison formation). There are lots of trilobites and they always come from the same layers. Find an exception and you will be famous. If you are so confident that the rules are wrong, then prove it. Why not become famous and get photographs. Since you trust photographs more than summary drawings, then go get some photographic evidence to prove your point.

Get some evidence to back up your claims. If you think it is all a jumble then why not show evidence of this? You will be famous if you can prove your point.

View Post


I know cambrian layers are found on the top layers of the grand canyon, further disproving the geological time column. Why in the entire universe would the oldest layers be on the top, and have no other layers on top. The grand canyon is most likely not even flood sediments: meaning they were there before the flood.

Yes jurassic and cretacious dinosaurs are found in the same layers as I highly doubt any evolutionist has ever taken pictures of these dinosaurs layered in perfect order. Go find a Tyrannosaur skeleton, dig deeper, and I can 100% guarantee that you will NOT find any dinosaurs from the jurassic below it, same with the allosaur. Same as with mammal fossils, you just don't find anything above or below them, but go a few miles out of state or a few miles to another area and you begin to find dinosaur fossils.

Yes the opossum has been found with dinosaurs thank you, and it is a living fossil. You can use text book diagrams all you want, but fossil evidence points toward a young earth, and a geological time column not existing.

Coral reefs, offcourse, thats what I meant, deposited by a flood. Also, there shoud be salt deposits below coral, seeing as how it is a salty ocean. The salt could have been there before the flood, as with many things.

Offcourse I understand that Geologist bore holes in the earth in search of oil, the salt deposits themselves could have been deposited there long before the flood, and let me ask you this, are those coral reefs on top of the salt deposits or on the bottom, Because if they are on top, then that further proves my point.

Please, dont tell me you think trilobites are NOT cambrian, because thats exactly what they are.... cambrian arthropods. And the fact remains that they are bottom dwellers. I wasn't saying anything is found below the cambrian, nor should it, because the Flood has to have a bottom layer. Also the cambrian layers consist almost entirely of marine organisms, so offcourse you wouldn't find any dogs or dinosaurs in it.

Always come from the same layers you say? Well how can you determine these layers if you didn't find any animals above or below those layers.

Yes, and in colorado i believe small children are disproving the geological time column each day. Simply because on one of those fossil hunt sites where families can go, the kids find all sorts of fossils, trilobites, T Rex teeth, and so and so forth. And all the fossils are in the same general area, in the same general layer.

Also, I am going to have to plan another trip out west, and bring my camera, because the fossil evidence plainly almost painfully shows that the geological time column does not exist. Your right, I might get famous, but unfortunately evolutionist will hand wave all of the hands on evidence away, in favor of some cool, neatly drawn pictures in a textbook. Oh wait, I'll just get pictures of skeletons of dinosaurs still in ground, that evolutionist have taken, and show you with their pictures, how there isn't anything above or below them. And usually if you do find animals above and below them, you can clearly see how jumbled everything is, but definetely not perfect textbook order.

These layers that the dinosaur skeletons were found in had to be layed down by moving water, as with all fossils. Layers don't just magically appear, they are layed. And no it's not the least bit convincing to think that every dinosaur or mammal that ever died, half hazardly died by a river or creek, or a local flood. Seeing as how the evidence points to all fossils having been formed by a body of moving water, this further provides evidence for a global flood.

#34 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 14 October 2008 - 12:40 PM

I know cambrian layers are found on the top layers of the grand canyon, further disproving the geological time column. 

View Post


Please show evidence. I provided a link. Can you do the same? Show anywhere in the Grand Canyon where Cambrian fossils are above Devonian fossils or above Silurian fossils etc. Or find a single complex organism in the layers below the Cambrian.

Are you willing to demonstrate any such evidence? You have made many unusual claims, but have so far provided no support for any of these. I really am interested in seeing any single piece of evidence that shows that the textbooks are wrong.

Yes jurassic and cretacious dinosaurs are found in the same layers

View Post


Can you provide any evidence for this claim? Do you have a photograph? Or anything that would allow anyone to evaluate your claim? Are you expecting everyone to trust you?

Yes the opossum has been found with dinosaurs thank you, and it is a living fossil. You can use text book diagrams all you want, but fossil evidence points toward a young earth, and a geological time column not existing.

View Post


I understand that you believe this. Can you provide any evidence of this modern opossum? Could you explain how you evaluated this evidence without photographs? Who do you trust to tell you this? Do you know how to identify the fossil of a modern opossum or do you trust the scientists?


Coral reefs, offcourse, thats what I meant, deposited by a flood.  Also, there shoud be salt deposits below coral, seeing as how it is a salty ocean.  The salt could have been there before the flood, as with many things.

Offcourse I understand that Geologist bore holes in the earth in search of oil, the salt deposits themselves could have been deposited there long before the flood, and let me ask you this, are those coral reefs on top of the salt deposits or on the bottom, Because if they are on top, then that further proves my point.

View Post



There are coral reefs found at many many levels. We find salt layers at many layers. The primary salt levels of the Silurian are surrounded by these reefs (at the same layer). But there are many hundreds of feet below of sediment below these layers of salt. There are reefs at higher levels as well (I have part of one in my backyard).

The salt layers in central Kansas are 600 feet down, but you need to go down a few thousand feet to get to the basement rock.

Let me repeat, we have layers of salt, layers with corals, layers with volcanic ash. We have layers with dinosaurs along with evidence of forests and all the evidence of the plants and animals alive at that time.

When geologist see this, they do not see a world wide flood. Can you at least understand why a geologist sees this?



Please, dont tell me you think trilobites are NOT cambrian, because thats exactly what they are.... cambrian arthropods. And the fact remains that they are bottom dwellers. 

View Post


Sigh. The vast majority of trilobites are NOT Cambrian. We do find the first trilobites in the Cambrian (540 million to 488 million years ago). However, trilobites survived for another 240 million years after the Cambrian. They survived through the Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian etc.. all the way until the great Permian extinction 250 million years ago.

Any decent paleontologist could look at a trilobite and tell you whether it is Cambrian or not. In upstate NY, most of the trilobites on the surface are Devonian (Phacops, Greenops etc). One never finds these trilobites in the Cambrian. You would need to go down 2500 feet to get to the Cambrian rock and the Cambrian trilobites, then you would need to go further down to get to the Pre-cambrian algae layers.

Remember, Cambrian rock is NOT at the bottom. Cambrian rock is just 500 million years old. There is 3 billion years of life before this (below this layer). If you go to the most famous Cambrian layer in the world, the Burgess Shale in British Columbia, you need to hike up to nearly 8000 feet. In this particular area, that is the lowest layer that shows complex life. The many thousand of feet below this, one finds only single cell life.

Do you understand that the Cambrian is not at the bottom? Do you understand the trilobites are NOT found at the bottom. They are not found in the thousands of feet below the Cambrian.




Always come from the same layers you say? Well how can you determine these layers if you didn't find any animals above or below those layers.

View Post


It is very easy to find animals in the layers above and below. Did you read the link I provided regarding Dinosaur National Monument? Many many tens of thousands of fossils have been found in the park within easily identified layers. No one, to my knowledge, has ever found a fossil out of sequence in the park. You can ask any geologist what age a particular layer is and track this layer throughout the park.

If you don't trust scientists, then why not try to send your out of place fossils to the creation museum or your local museum or church. Just make sure you keep good records.


Also, I am going to have to plan another trip out west, and bring my camera, because the fossil evidence plainly almost painfully shows that the geological time column does not exist. 

View Post


I wish you luck. Just find a single fossil out of order. Get a good geologic map so you know where you are, then look in your fossil book to see if you can find a single fossil that isn't where it is supposed to be. I would love to see it.


These layers that the dinosaur skeletons were found in had to be layed down by moving water, as with all fossils.  Layers don't just magically appear, they are layed.  And no it's not the least bit convincing to think that every dinosaur or mammal that ever died, half hazardly died by a river or creek, or a local flood.  Seeing as how the evidence points to all fossils having been formed by a body of moving water, this further provides evidence for a global flood.

View Post


Sigh. This is quite false. Do you read any of the links I give you? Are you unwilling to read anything that conflicts with your views? I really can't tell. Many of the best preserved fossils are buried in volcanic ash. The fossils are still covered in the ash, so it is easy enough to see. Most of the new feathered dinosaur fossils found in China are preserved because the ash allows very delicate preservation.

Why not read one of these links I provide? You might learn something new. Just click on the link below for just one example that shows your statement is not correct.

http://ashfall.unl.e...allgeology.html

#35 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 14 October 2008 - 01:28 PM

Please show evidence. I provided a link. Can you do the same. Show anywhere in the Grand Canyon where Cambrian fossils are above Devonian fossils or above Silurian fossils etc. Or find a single complex organisms in the layers below the Cambrian.

Are you willing to demonstrate any such evidence? You make claims, but have so far provided no support for any of you claims.
Can you provide any evidence for this claim? Do you have a photograph? Or anything that would allow anyone to evaluate your claim?
I understand that you believe this. Can you provide any of this evidence? Could you explain how you evaluated this evidence without photographs?
There are coral reefs at found at many many levels. We find salt layers at many layers. The primary salt levels of the Silurian are surrounded by these reefs (at the same layer). But there are many hundreds of feet below of sediment below these layers of salt. There are reefs at higher levels as well (I have part of one in my backyard).

The salt layers in central Kansas are 600 feet down, but you need to go down a few thousand feet to get to the basement rock.

Let me repeat, we have layers of salt, layers with corals, layers with volcanic dust. We have layers with dinosaurs along with evidence of forests and all the evidence of the plants and animals alive at that time.

When geologist see this, they do not see a world wide flood. Can you at least understand why a geologist sees this?
Sigh. The vast majority of trilobites are NOT cambrian. We do find the first trilobites in the Cambrian (540 million to 488 million years ago). However, trilobites survived for another 230 million years after the Cambrian. They survived through the Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian etc.. all the way until the great Permian extinction 250 million years ago.

Any decent paleontologist could look at a trilobite and tell you whether it is Cambrian or not. In upstate NY, most of the trilobites on the surface are Devonian (Phacops, Greenops etc). One never finds these trilobites in the Cambrian. You would need to go down 2500 feet to get to the Cambrian rock and the Cambrian trilobites, then you would need to go further down to get to the Pre-cambrian algae layers.

Remember, Cambrian rock is NOT at the bottom. Cambrian rock is just 500 million years old. There is 3 billion years of life before this (below this layer). If you go to the most famous Cambrian layer in the world, the Burgess Shale in British Columbia, you need to hike up to nearly 9000 feet. That is the first layer that shows complex life. The many thousand of feet below this, one finds only single cell life.

Do you understand that the Cambrian is not at the bottom? Do you understand the trilobites are NOT found at the bottom in the thousands of feet below the Cambrian?
It is very easy to find animals in the layers above and below. Did you read the link I provided regarding Dinosaur National Monument? Many many tens of thousands of fossils have been found in the park within easily idenitified layers. No one has ever found a fossil out of sequence.

If you don't trust scientists, then why not try to send your out of place fossils to the creation museum or your local museum or church. Just make sure you keep good records.
I wish you luck. Just find a single fossil out of order. Get a good geologic map so you know where you are, then look in your fossil book to see if you can find a single fossil that isn't where it is supposed to be. I would love to see it.
Sigh. This is quite false. Do you read any of the links I give you? Are you unwilling to read anything that conflicts with your views? Many of the best preserved fossils are buried in volcanic ash. The fossils are still in the ash, so it is easy enough to see. Most of the new feathered dinosaur fossils found in China are preserved because the ash allows very delicate preservation.

Why not read one of these links I provide? You might learn something new. Just click on the link below for just one example that shows you are in error.

http://ashfall.unl.e...allgeology.html

View Post


Again, provide pictures of T Rex - then allosaur - then older and older, nope you can't because it doesn't exist that way. You want me to provide real pictures even though you haven't provided any real pictures yourself. Textbook Diagrams are not REAL pictures.

You have not provided any order whatsoever, you just did exactly what I said, happily walk a few miles down the road claim an allosaur as jurassic, then walk back to another area and claim the T- Rex as cretacious. Now I will ask again, please provide pictures of this, Text book diagrams will not work.

Provide pictures of dinosaurs in layers on top of each other, ( which would in itself provide yet more evidence for a flood since sediments with extremely large animals don't just stack themselves).

Yet you yourself cannot provide any pictures of this so called order. Provide pictures of this Burgese shale with the progression of more advanced organisms in it.

If I am going to post pictures of disorder, then you yourself must provide pictures of order, and I ask that you not beat around the bush by using textbook diagrams.

Again you need to realize that even with volcanic ash on top of organisms, there is also a rather decent amount of non volcanic sediment on top of that too. Also don't think that I'm so naive as to think I think that evolutionist think that trilobites are all one age, but offcourse I believe they are all from one age as the evidence shows.

You claim the geological time column exist in perfect order, but this is NOT what the fossil evidence shows. You yourself have not provided the column in perfect order in any way.

Your claim: pre-cambrian-->> cambrain--->>ordovician-->>silurian-->>devonian-->> mississippian-->>pennsylvannian-->> permian-->> triassic-->>jurassic-->>cretacious-->>tertiary-->>quaternary all exist in perfect order and can obviously be seen in perfect order, with all the trilobites, dinosaurs all the way up to prehistoric mammals in perfect order.

This has never been found.

You cannot go from one side of the world, find a deposited habitat, then fly all the way back and connect the pieces the way you want. You HAVE to find them in the exact order in the same place.

Good luck in actually finding the geological time column outside of textbook diagrams because the evidence shows that it does not exist.

In my next post, I will provide pictures and refute all the geological evidence you provide if you so wish. And it can be easily refuted because the fossil evidence does not support the idea of a geological time column. Remember, use real pictures, not text book diagrams which have no bases in reality whatsoever.

#36 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

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

Posted 14 October 2008 - 01:29 PM

quote;The ancient lake is surrounded by huge barrier reef system full of corals much like the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The reef is 200 meters thick in places and up to a kilometer wide. It is mostly buried but it is a common source for natural gas, so a lot of gas drillers search it out.

Stoney corals grow an average of ~3 inches per yer,so 200 meters of growth is only thousands of years and not millions.In fact,i'm still searching for millions or at least hundreds of thousands of years of coral growth layers.Not finding them is evidence enough for me that they dont exist,so the geologic column could easily fit the biblical time frame.

#37 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

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

Posted 14 October 2008 - 01:53 PM

quote;There are coral reefs found at many many levels. We find salt layers at many layers. The primary salt levels of the Silurian are surrounded by these reefs (at the same layer). But there are many hundreds of feet below of sediment below these layers of salt. There are reefs at higher levels as well (I have part of one in my backyard).

The salt layers in central Kansas are 600 feet down, but you need to go down a few thousand feet to get to the basement rock.

Let me repeat, we have layers of salt, layers with corals, layers with volcanic ash. We have layers with dinosaurs along with evidence of forests and all the evidence of the plants and animals alive at that time.

When geologist see this, they do not see a world wide flood. Can you at least understand why a geologist sees this?

Actually the scientist that developed the geologic column from the evidence they found in the field,were bible beleiving christians and they concluded that a 1 year flood is'nt a satisfactory explanation for all the geologic evidence we observe.

Is the massive sedimentation and erosion from Mt. St. Helens evidence of a 1 year flood?Ofcourse not,because it occured thousands of years after the flood.

Most creationist geologist agree that the 1 year long flood occured at the top of the pre-cambrian and the rest of the geologic column represents the recolonization of plants and animals after the flood.

The reason you have'nt found an elephant in the cambrian is because there were only 2 elephants alive at that time.Large mammals have the longest gestation period so only finding large mammals at the top of the geologic column is exactly what creationist would predict.

#38 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

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

Posted 14 October 2008 - 02:03 PM

quote;It is very easy to find animals in the layers above and below. Did you read the link I provided regarding Dinosaur National Monument? Many many tens of thousands of fossils have been found in the park within easily identified layers. No one, to my knowledge, has ever found a fossil out of sequence in the park. You can ask any geologist what age a particular layer is and track this layer throughout the park.

Are you saying that malachite man is'nt a fossil?Or are you sticking with talkorigins and claiming they have been found but must be hoaxes?Hundreds of such examples have been found,in fact,the malachite man site is still being excavated.

#39 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 October 2008 - 10:56 PM

Oil deposits, unfortunately do not support the flood since there are oil deposits from as little as a couple hundred feet down to nearly 38,000 feet and indicate a vast time difference between the two. 

View Post


If you do the math, and understand that there is a process to make quick oil. Here is the process for it to be done naturally.

VdcHIeH0KsM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1

Here is the process for it to be man made in less than a day.

Attached File  Thermal_conversion_steps_1_5.jpg   37.11KB   52 downloads
Thermal Conversion Process (steps 1-5):
1) Preparing the organic and inorganic feed with water.
2) Heating the siurry, under pressure, to reaction temperature.
3) Depolymerization reaction: Separating the organic from the inorganic.
4) Inorganic material goes to solid storage.
5) Hydrolysis reaction: Water splitting complex molecules into simpler units.


Attached File  Thermal_conversion_process_steps_6_7.jpg   22.11KB   57 downloads
Thermal Conversion Process (steps 6 and 7):
6) Separation of gases, renewable diesel, water and remaining solids.
7) Renewable Diesel storage.
http://www.changingw.../what/index.asp

Conditions required to make quick oil:
Takes 50 atmospheres (50x14.3psi one atmosphere) equals 715psi.

The material used is heated to 500 F degrees twice.

Flood conditions:
28-30,000 psi (up to 2000 atmospheres) at the bottom of the ocean during the flood. the flood was 14 miles deep. Every 33 feet equals one atmosphere. You divide that in half for surface pressures, which means more than 10,000 psi which beats the 715 psi required.

And to bring up that much water from the fountains of the deep. You would also be bring up some of the earth's mantle. Water under extreme pressure (over 10,000 psi) can reach high temps without boiling. Black smokers have had temps recorded at around 700 F. Which beats the required 500 F.

GYVFs9-nv4c&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1


1) So oil can be made naturally, and is called hydrothermal oil. And is made daily naturally.
2) Oil can be man made, and is made daily as well.
3) Using the techniques of man made oil, we find that the flood produced those conditions, and well over those conditions. Even on the surface of the earth.

The math:
The Radius of the Earth = 3963 miles
The Radius of the earth with 5 miles of water = 3968 Miles.
The volume of the earth = 260711882973.3396 cubic miles
The volume of the earth with water = 261699925947.5533 cubic miles.
261699925947.5533 - 260711882973.3396 = 988042974.2136999965
So the volume of the flood water = 988,042,974.2136999965 cubic miles. But lets round it to 988,042,974 Cubic Miles.
If this water was put into a sphere, it would have a radius of 618 Miles.
http://geocities.com...athofflood.html

According to scuba diving books, every 33 feet equals one atmosphere. One atmosphere equals 14.3 psi.

To flood the whole the whole earth to the highest mountains, you have to have between 13-14 miles of water. That's 7 miles of water above the earth's crust. And about 6 miles to the bottom of the ocean.

Where did the water go?:

There has been testing and research done on the upper mantle of the earth A mineral called wadsleyite, holds about 3% water by weight. And the estimated amount of wadsleyite that exists, the water contained in it works out to be about 30 of our oceans. 30 oceans worth of water is more than enough to flood the earth to the highest mountain.

http://www.ldolphin....deepwaters.html

How did the water get in there without boiling off?

28,000-30,000 psi will raise the boiling point of the ocean water so that it will flow right into the upper mantle of the earth without boiling off. Plus the salt of the ocean will also raise the boiling point even more.

Flood and kinetic energy.

Some would claim that this much condensation would cause so much kinetic energy, the earth would broil. And they would be right. But what is not factored in is the heat of the sun is totally being blocked. In order for the kinetic energy being produced to broil the earth, it would first have to match the sun's energy, then surpass that by several times.

Sun's energy is:

Averaged over an entire year and the entire Earth, the Sun deposits 342 Watts of energy into every square meter of the Earth*. This is a very large amount of heat—1.7 x 1017 watts of power that the Sun sends to the Earth/atmosphere system. For comparison, a large electric power plant would produce 100 million watts of power, or 108 watts. It would take 1.7 billion such power plants to equal the energy coming to the Earth from the Sun—roughly one for every three people on the Earth!
http://earthobservat...v/Library/Oven/

The kinetic energy produced actually kept the earth warm enough to support life after the rain stopped.

If the oil deposits were the result of the flood they would be at the same level and are not.


You first have to know the conditions in which oil is made to know this.

#40 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 15 October 2008 - 03:38 AM

Jamesf

I know very little about geology but have found your posts quite interesting.

You've mentioned dozens of times in various threads that there are a number of layers, each of which contains a range of fossils, and that fossils do not occur in the wrong layer.

I have a question about the arrangement of the layers themselves...

Is it possible to find, say a cambrian fossil and a jurassic fossil at the same depth, say 1000 ft (just an example)? If so, then my guess would be that this is beacuse the layers are not evenly distributed across the globe. Probably as the result of tectonic movement and so on.

Are there places where the surface of the earth is so buckled that the entire cambrian layer sits on top of the jurassic layer (again, just an example)? This doesn't mean that the jurassic layer is older, just that it has been moved.

From this you could argue that even though cambrian fossils occur at a shallower depth or at the same depth as jurassic fossils, they are not out of place because they only occur in the cambrian layer.

I might have over simplified here, but am I on the right lines?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users