Jump to content


Photo

Young Earth Age Correlations


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#141 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 29 January 2012 - 09:09 AM

Interbedded layers are evidence of a catastrophic origin of the geologic column.

In the Grand Canyon the cambriam muav and the mississippian redwall limestone is interbedded.

Posted Image

Nicolas Steno first proposed that interbedding can only occur during contemporaneous deposition, so a 200 million year time gap between the cambrian and mississippian is impossible according to this principle of geology.



The catastrophic origin of these layers is further corroborated by billions of orthocone nautiloids found by Steve Austin.




http://gsa.confex.co...tract_45610.htm


The picture from the Grand Canyon a prime example of something I posted about last week. Recently it was posted that I refuse to comment upon pictures showing examples of geology and I replied that I have done so quite often, but perhaps this impression came from my mentioning that there is a danger in making geologic determinations from photos as it is difficult to correctly ascertain spatial relationships between strata. Here is an example of what I was saying, where a wrong conclusion has been reached. However, an experienced geologist that has worked in the field would not make the mistake made here as it is relatively easy to see in this photograph that there is no inter-bedding of the Redwall Limestone and the underlying Muav Limestone. Having a portion enlarged makes this even more clear.

As I posted in another thread a long time ago, the strata indicated as inter-bedded appear to me to be the Temple Butte Limestone underlying the Redwall Limestone. This unit has weathered into a series of ledges that here are being claimed as inter-bedding with the Muav yet clearly are not. It is bedded, as shown by multiple ledges, but there is no evidence of inter-bedding with the Muav which weathers into a characteristic slope. The individual beds can be followed laterally as far as one can determine from looking at a photo.

I have commented on that unconformity claim before and why I feel it is bogus and an example of poor geology that was poorly documented. It was not done where this photo was taken, and the scale of the inter-bedding was less than what appears to be claimed in this photo. However, I would bet that it was this study that caused somebody to make a claim for this photo. I have also commented on Steve Austin's work with nautiloids and nobody was able to tell me why Austin has never published his findings if they were so conclusive and impressive. All we have is the oft-quoted abstract which does not give outcrop locations or data such as the numbers of fossils in the outcrops he studied, etc.

I also do not remember Steno writing about inter-bedding, and I doubt that he ever did so directly. His contributions were very significant but he wrote about the lateral continuity of facies and not inter-bedding. I believe I once saw a creationist piece that jumped to this conclusion but I do not think this can be verified in the actual writings of Steno. He is not attributed with coming up with such a concept outside of perhaps some creationist claims. What he actually wrote about was the observation that sediments that form strata are deposited from water.

#142 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 29 January 2012 - 09:18 AM

The uniformitairian model predicts slow gradual deposition over many millions of years. But according to geologic principles inter-bedding of strata can only occur during contemporaneous deposition.

Posted Image

The Cambrian Mauv inter-beds with the Mississippian Redwall Limestone seven times despite the Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian epoch being completely absent (an unconformity of 180-200 million years).

The strata also tells us from the number of fossils and their orientation by Rose Diagrams, that this is a catastrophic deposition.


Can you provide the Rose diagrams that show this catastrophic deposition? Can you also provide documentation of the way that it was determined that there are 7 times inter-bedding occurred? Did such documentation accompany this photo? I would be interested in seeing it.

#143 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 29 January 2012 - 12:32 PM

Geode,

Your contention is tentative at best and neglects other clear lines of geologic principles. There are (according to circular reasoning) 200 million years of geologic time missing between these two strata without any topograhpy evidenced. How long can a strata remain on the bottom of the ocean without currents cutting ridges or depositing sediment?

Here is another example from the same location:

Posted Image

I don't have access to the peer reviewed journal that Austin published his rose diagrams in, but Paul Garner shows them and gives reference in this video.

http://edinburghcrea...up.org/video/19

Reference: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsuburgh P. 71 2003


Enjoy.

#144 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 29 January 2012 - 01:55 PM

There's much much more evidence that the universe is a lot older than the Earth. You can come up with as many young Earth theories as you like, but it doesn't make the fact that the universe itself is older go away.


My pastor is an old earth Creationist

so if you want millons or billons of years go and read genesis 1:1. According to him we dont know

how long it took the creation of the universe



#145 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 30 January 2012 - 01:50 AM



My pastor is an old earth Creationist

so if you want millons or billons of years go and read genesis 1:1. According to him we dont know

how long it took the creation of the universe


Yeah, that's the gap theory. Some have seen this verse as a possible place to squeeze in a few billion years.

However, it contradicts Exodus 20:11:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.."

#146 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 30 January 2012 - 03:11 AM

Geode,

Your contention is tentative at best and neglects other clear lines of geologic principles. There are (according to circular reasoning) 200 million years of geologic time missing between these two strata without any topograhpy evidenced. How long can a strata remain on the bottom of the ocean without currents cutting ridges or depositing sediment?

Here is another example from the same location:

Posted Image

I don't have access to the peer reviewed journal that Austin published his rose diagrams in, but Paul Garner shows them and gives reference in this video.

http://edinburghcrea...up.org/video/19

Reference: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsuburgh P. 71 2003


Enjoy.


My conclusion about the inter-bedding between these units is consistent with geologic principles, and as far as I can determine what has been reported in all but one study. I don't think even Dr. Austin claims that inter-bedding is present between them. That one study was done in a very limited area along a trail and not shown in the photo as I already pointed out, and it also was on a different scale than claimed here. Proper geologic principles indicate that inter-bedding is not present, as well as just looking at what is present in the photo. Please explain where you can see inter-beds (where I cannot).

Whether or not the unconformity exists is a separate issue, but fossil analysis shows that there is a gap in the strata. This is not circular reasoning but a correct application of biostratigraphy and the correct principle of Faunal Succession. There is topography demonstrated at places in the canyon where the Temple Butte is shown eroded into the Muav.

The picture you show is not of this unconformity but between other units. The creation of the unconformable surface would not be at the bottom of an ocean. However, if we were to deposit new sediments in an area like the Bonneville Salt flats due to a major rise in the Great Salt Lake you would see a bounding surface not unlike what is shown here.

Thank you for the link, but I cannot get it to work at present. But what would you expect rose diagrams to show due to deposition in a flood model? From the descriptions I have read of the flooding conditions from various sources it could be unimodal, bimodal, or have no directional preference. As such I think one could take diagrams and claim that it matched their model no matter what they showed.

#147 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 01 February 2012 - 02:23 AM

My conclusion about the inter-bedding between these units is consistent with geologic principles, and as far as I can determine what has been reported in all but one study. I don't think even Dr. Austin claims that inter-bedding is present between them. That one study was done in a very limited area along a trail and not shown in the photo as I already pointed out, and it also was on a different scale than claimed here. Proper geologic principles indicate that inter-bedding is not present, as well as just looking at what is present in the photo. Please explain where you can see inter-beds (where I cannot).


You clearly saw it as plainly as everyone else did. There are even reports from geologists in peer reviewed journals that have made successive research exploration trips to confirm previous results from other geologists.

Depositional Interbedding and Time Frames in the Grand Canyon


William Waisgerber, a consulting geologist and President of William Waisgerber and Associates, Consulting Geologists; George Howe, Director of the CRS Grand Canyon Experiment Station and Chairman and Professor, Division of Natural Science and Mathematics, The Master's College; and Dr. Emmett Williams (1987, pp.160-7) reported on two field trips to the Grand Canyon to study the alleged unconformity between the Mississippian Redwall Limestone and the Cambrian Muav Limestone along the North Kaibab Trail. Evolutionary and other uniformitarian geologists believe that there exists a 200 million-year time gap between the top of the Cambrian Muav Limestone and the base of the Mississippian Redwall Limestone, since intervening Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian rocks are absent. Clifford Burdick, a consulting geologist who had made an earlier study of the contact between the Cambrian Muav and the Mississippian Redwall, reported that he had found evidence of intertonguing between these two formations, contradicting the notion that 200 million years had intervened between the deposition of the Cambrian Muav and the Mississippian Redwall. Waisgerber and his colleagues, with support from the CRS Research Committee, formed a field team to reinvestigate the area studied by Burdick.

Waisgerber and his colleagues confirmed Burdick's observations concerning interbedding of the Cambrian Muav and the Mississippian Redwall. Along the North Kaibab Trail is a sign erected by the National Park Service identifying the contact between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone. The CRS team reports that commencing from an area about 100 yards north of the sign to about 100 yards south of the sign, all beds apparently interfinger with one another. They determined that yellowish appearing micaceous shales were the uppermost Cambrian Muav Limestone. Immediately above these shales were typically reddishcolored Mississippian Redwall Limestone beds. Any attempt to trace individual beds laterally, southerly or northerly along the North Kaibab Trail, however, resulted in a reverse stratigraphic relationship. Supposedly, older Muav Formation yellowish beds rested on allegedly younger reddish-stained Redwall limestone beds. Lateral and vertical facies changes within both formations indicate the absence of unconformable relationships between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone. In other words, where allegedly older Cambrian Muav Limestone rests on allegedly younger Mississippian Redwall Limestone, the contact is a true sedimentary contact and thus the Muav Limestone was deposited on top of the Redwall Limestone.

http://creationresea.../25/25_4a2.html



Whether or not the unconformity exists is a separate issue, but fossil analysis shows that there is a gap in the strata. This is not circular reasoning but a correct application of biostratigraphy and the correct principle of Faunal Succession. There is topography demonstrated at places in the canyon where the Temple Butte is shown eroded into the Muav.


It's dated by the fossils it contains and not by geologic princples, which is circular reasoning and contrary to the observed strata formation. It may be a proper application if you believe it to be true without evidence, but not all applications are scientific.There are two fluid escape channels that are present, but there is no topography.

The picture you show is not of this unconformity but between other units.


The contrast between the yellowish brown Muav and the reddish brown Redwall limestone can be seen from miles away.

Thank you for the link, but I cannot get it to work at present.


Your welcome.

But what would you expect rose diagrams to show due to deposition in a flood model? From the descriptions I have read of the flooding conditions from various sources it could be unimodal, bimodal, or have no directional preference. As such I think one could take diagrams and claim that it matched their model no matter what they showed.


To instantaneously kill an entire population of nautiloids would take a hyper concentrated flow and would leave very distinctive flow patterns. It wouldn't show nautiloid shells randomly scatered on the bottom in nornal ocean current velocities.


Enjoy.

#148 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 01 February 2012 - 03:55 AM

"My conclusion about the inter-bedding between these units is consistent with geologic principles, and as far as I can determine what has been reported in all but one study. I don't think even Dr. Austin claims that inter-bedding is present between them. That one study was done in a very limited area along a trail and not shown in the photo as I already pointed out, and it also was on a different scale than claimed here. Proper geologic principles indicate that inter-bedding is not present, as well as just looking at what is present in the photo. Please explain where you can see inter-beds (where I cannot)."


You clearly saw it as plainly as everyone else did. There are even reports from geologists in peer reviewed journals that have made successive research exploration trips to confirm previous results from other geologists.


I'm sorry. I don't really understand what you are saying here. I think I have seen the situation more plainly than the person who annotated that photo and mistakenly said that inter-beds were present. If you are saying that there are articles in peer-reviewed jornals that claim that inter-beds are present here I think you are mistaken. If this is what you mean please supply a citation of one or more of these. Did the original source tell where the view in this photo is located? A peer-reviewed paper most certainly would have done so.

Depositional Interbedding and Time Frames in the Grand Canyon


William Waisgerber, a consulting geologist and President of William Waisgerber and Associates, Consulting Geologists; George Howe, Director of the CRS Grand Canyon Experiment Station and Chairman and Professor, Division of Natural Science and Mathematics, The Master's College; and Dr. Emmett Williams (1987, pp.160-7) reported on two field trips to the Grand Canyon to study the alleged unconformity between the Mississippian Redwall Limestone and the Cambrian Muav Limestone along the North Kaibab Trail. Evolutionary and other uniformitarian geologists believe that there exists a 200 million-year time gap between the top of the Cambrian Muav Limestone and the base of the Mississippian Redwall Limestone, since intervening Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian rocks are absent. Clifford Burdick, a consulting geologist who had made an earlier study of the contact between the Cambrian Muav and the Mississippian Redwall, reported that he had found evidence of intertonguing between these two formations, contradicting the notion that 200 million years had intervened between the deposition of the Cambrian Muav and the Mississippian Redwall. Waisgerber and his colleagues, with support from the CRS Research Committee, formed a field team to reinvestigate the area studied by Burdick.

Waisgerber and his colleagues confirmed Burdick's observations concerning interbedding of the Cambrian Muav and the Mississippian Redwall. Along the North Kaibab Trail is a sign erected by the National Park Service identifying the contact between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone. The CRS team reports that commencing from an area about 100 yards north of the sign to about 100 yards south of the sign, all beds apparently interfinger with one another. They determined that yellowish appearing micaceous shales were the uppermost Cambrian Muav Limestone. Immediately above these shales were typically reddishcolored Mississippian Redwall Limestone beds. Any attempt to trace individual beds laterally, southerly or northerly along the North Kaibab Trail, however, resulted in a reverse stratigraphic relationship. Supposedly, older Muav Formation yellowish beds rested on allegedly younger reddish-stained Redwall limestone beds. Lateral and vertical facies changes within both formations indicate the absence of unconformable relationships between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone. In other words, where allegedly older Cambrian Muav Limestone rests on allegedly younger Mississippian Redwall Limestone, the contact is a true sedimentary contact and thus the Muav Limestone was deposited on top of the Redwall Limestone.

http://creationresea.../25/25_4a2.html


I have seen this article before, and I was making reference to in my last post. One study basically attempting to validate an earlier study along the North Kaibab Trail. But the picture you provided does not appear to show the North Kaibab Trail as I already posted.

"Whether or not the unconformity exists is a separate issue, but fossil analysis shows that there is a gap in the strata. This is not circular reasoning but a correct application of biostratigraphy and the correct principle of Faunal Succession. There is topography demonstrated at places in the canyon where the Temple Butte is shown eroded into the Muav."

It's dated by the fossils it contains and not by geologic princples, which is circular reasoning and contrary to the observed strata formation. It may be a proper application if you believe it to be true without evidence, but not all applications are scientific.There are two fluid escape channels that are present, but there is no topography.


No, what you write here is an often made creationist claim that is false. Dating by fossils is not circular reasoning. There is nothing circular in the fact that rocks dan be indentified by the fossil content (diagnostic assemblages) as the Law of Faunal Succession has demonstrated. This is a totally correct geologic and scientific principle that is a scientific law because it works anywhere in the world, and in any part of a geologic section. But since you think it is circular, please explain why you think so. Saying that the rocks are dated by the fossils, and the fossils by the rocks will not suffice, as that is not what was done in the process here. The rocks in the Grand Canyon have been dated by the fossil assemblages in them. If the fossil assemblage is found in a unit of rock the rocks are dated by that assemblage. Missing units (and assemblages) show the presence of the unconformity.

There is solid evidence from the actual geologic mapping of the Temple Butte to show that it exists in places as channel deposits that have been deposited into the Muav. These channels are reportedly 40 to 100 feet deep. Fluid escape channels are generally vertical in orientation. They do not occur where rock is lithified, as it was with the Muav. The Temple Butte actually fills in channel cuts in the Muav where Muav sediment has been eroded away after lithification. With fluid escape it is more of a disruption of soft sediment and does not contain material from overlying units. The channels are also filled with a range of sediment types, including sandstone and claystones that are laminated with ripples. Conglomerate has been identified.This is consistent with channelized flow on the surface, not fluid escaping from the subsurface. How would such be created in a fluid escape feature?

And more than two channels have been found. Here is a picture of one with the characteristic or typical shape of a channel.

http://digital.lib.u...CISOBOX=1&REC=3

There was topography on the uppermost surface of the Muav after it was eroded, as shown in the channels. This is direct physical evidence of the unconfornity.

"The picture you show is not of this unconformity but between other units."

The contrast between the yellowish brown Muav and the reddish brown Redwall limestone can be seen from miles away.


Interesting, but it does not address my observation. The stratigraphic units are different. I don't think the Muav appears at all to be yellowish brown in the photo.

"Thank you for the link, but I cannot get it to work at present."

Your welcome.


I just tried it again and it opened, but I don't have an hour and a half to watch a video just now. Do the diagrams appear early in the presentation?


"But what would you expect rose diagrams to show due to deposition in a flood model? From the descriptions I have read of the flooding conditions from various sources it could be unimodal, bimodal, or have no directional preference. As such I think one could take diagrams and claim that it matched their model no matter what they showed."

To instantaneously kill an entire population of nautiloids would take a hyper concentrated flow and would leave very distinctive flow patterns. It wouldn't show nautiloid shells randomly scatered on the bottom in nornal ocean current velocities.


Why would you need a hyper-concentrated flow to kill the entire population of natiloids? There are documented causes such as red tides that kill populations quite well. I thought Steve Austin claimed that nautiloids were found with a preferential orientation, is this the basis for the rose diagrams? Wouldn't such flow smash the fossils into fragments?

#149 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 01 February 2012 - 08:48 PM

My pastor is an old earth Creationist

so if you want millons or billons of years go and read genesis 1:1. According to him we dont know

how long it took the creation of the universe


This is what you say:
The Bible clearly points out that it took 6-24 hour days. What else in time has: Morning, noon, evening and night? Does this discribe a billion years or one day?
Also the Bible is very capable of expressing a million: gen 24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

And a billion: dan 7:10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

10,000 x 10,000 = 1billion.

The main mistakes that Christians make concerning the time-line is that they think that the Bible has no way to express such huge numbers but it does. Whch means if it took billions of years it would have been said.

And to the other poster:

About the many people coming from just a few idea.

1) They did not have birth control so they did not have abotion mills destroying 3 million of them a year.
2) They lived a long time and there were usually more women then men or there would not existed the ability for man to have wifes and concubines. With that many women it was not uncommon for one man in a tribe to have several children and grandchildren.
3) Why have it to where man could marry and have concubines? How else would it be possible to populate the earth like it is in a short period of time?

If man could have only one wife and no concubines during the old testament, there would not have been many chidren and there would not be many on the earth today. And because they usually married young the families started early. Also that many children, a person needs help raising. So enough parents need to be around. And when some of the children became old enough they were given the job of helping watch after their younger siblings.

#150 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 03 February 2012 - 12:35 AM

No, what you write here is an often made creationist claim that is false. Dating by fossils is not circular reasoning. There is nothing circular in the fact that rocks dan be indentified by the fossil content (diagnostic assemblages) as the Law of Faunal Succession has demonstrated. This is a totally correct geologic and scientific principle that is a scientific law because it works anywhere in the world, and in any part of a geologic section. But since you think it is circular, please explain why you think so. Saying that the rocks are dated by the fossils, and the fossils by the rocks will not suffice, as that is not what was done in the process here. The rocks in the Grand Canyon have been dated by the fossil assemblages in them. If the fossil assemblage is found in a unit of rock the rocks are dated by that assemblage. Missing units (and assemblages) show the presence of the unconformity.


It's comical watching you clutching at straws. Above I underlined your question and your later response that proves the contention.



Enjoy.

#151 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 03 February 2012 - 01:01 AM

"No, what you write here is an often made creationist claim that is false. Dating by fossils is not circular reasoning. There is nothing circular in the fact that rocks dan be indentified by the fossil content (diagnostic assemblages) as the Law of Faunal Succession has demonstrated. This is a totally correct geologic and scientific principle that is a scientific law because it works anywhere in the world, and in any part of a geologic section. But since you think it is circular, please explain why you think so. Saying that the rocks are dated by the fossils, and the fossils by the rocks will not suffice, as that is not what was done in the process here. The rocks in the Grand Canyon have been dated by the fossil assemblages in them. If the fossil assemblage is found in a unit of rock the rocks are dated by that assemblage. Missing units (and assemblages) show the presence of the unconformity."

It's comical watching you clutching at straws. Above I underlined your question and your later response that proves the contention.


I think what this actually might show is that you need to review the subject of biostratigraphy before you are able to make an argument involving this topic. I could be wrong, but since you give no explanation at all here leads me to believe that you fervently just want to believe that the Principle of Faunal Succession is not valid because it is not consistent with a YEC viewpoint involving flood geology, and not because it is incorrect. I agree that it does in fact demonstrate that the worldwide flood did not occur unless it was different than any flooding event witnessed in our own times in terms of various aspects of fluid dynamics (Stoke's Law, etc.)

So, when you are ready please explain why Faunal Succession is circular in terms of reasoning, as well as how the dating of strata using fossils in the Grand Canyon is circular.

#152 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 03 February 2012 - 11:54 PM

Geode,

Your not only ignoring my previous post, trying to reverse guilt, but you are also being completely ignorant of other falsifiable principles of biostratigraphy. Rocks containig graptolites are not valid dating markers of paleozicic rocks since graptolites have been found still living today. Making this assumption is not only circular reasoning, but provably wrong.

Your problem is that you have no empirical counter argument against interbedding in the Muav/Redwall. So, now your trying to deny that dating rocks by the fossils they contain is circular because your embarassed that there is no science supportive of your position. Your last ditch effort now is to use "creationists reasoning" as a red herring rather than concede to the fact that you already know is true.



Enjoy.

#153 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 04 February 2012 - 01:59 AM

Geode,

Your not only ignoring my previous post, trying to reverse guilt, but you are also being completely ignorant of other falsifiable principles of biostratigraphy. Rocks containig graptolites are not valid dating markers of paleozicic rocks since graptolites have been found still living today. Making this assumption is not only circular reasoning, but provably wrong.


What did I ignore in your previous post? I didn't intentionally ignore anything. Please point out what you think I ignored.

I feel no guilt in posting about correct principles of geology and their application.

You have not made a correct conclusion about the use of biostratigraphy here, for more than one reason. The first reason is that graptolites actually are excellent fossils in terms of their use in dating rocks because those found in successsive stratigraphic (younger using the Principle of Superposition) are different than those forms found lower in the stratigraphic sequence. It has been argued that a living form such as Cephalodiscus graptolitoides can be classified as a graptolite but its shape is different than that of Paleozoic graptolites allowing it to be distinguished from them. Also biostratigraphers do not usually date rocks using a single fossil form, they use assemblages of fossils. The fossils have different ranges in terms of being found in rocks with the section and this allows a more precise determination of the relative age of the rock. It would usually not prevent dating a rock unit fairly well even if one of the fossils in the assemblage had lived with no detectable change from the Cambrian to the Recent since other fossils in the assemblage usually would narrow the time range in which the rock unit was deposited.

Your problem is that you have no empirical counter argument against interbedding in the Muav/Redwall. So, now your trying to deny that dating rocks by the fossils they contain is circular because your embarassed that there is no science supportive of your position. Your last ditch effort now is to use "creationists reasoning" as a red herring rather than concede to the fact that you already know is true.


My empirical counter-argument against inter-bedding in the photo is that it does not appear to be present. This can be determined and any of us go there and look if we were there in person and make a definitive conclusion instead of engaging in "armchair" geology. However, the best evaluation comes from the observation that the strata present appear to have continuity and not inter-finger. It appears to me that somebody had read the account of inter-bedding being present along the North Kaibab Trail and assumed that the same claimed inter-bedding is also present in the area where this photo was taken. That person does not seem to have paid much attention despite the use of the term "obvious"....Did the source of this photo claim that this is the case? Was the actual location given so that we can investigate the veracity of the claim and stop engaging in "armchair geology"... Once again. I'll bet that the Temple Butte is present here and it has been mis-identified as inter-beds of the Muav and Redwall.

No embarrassment in me because scientific study supports the unconformity being present through the non-circular use of dating by fossils, in addition to the physical evidence of erosion reported in geologic studies at the surface in question. You have failed so far to make a case for dating by fossils being circular, for graptolites from various periods are different from each other and they are not the sole basis of assigning ages.

#154 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 05 February 2012 - 08:47 AM

My empirical counter-argument against inter-bedding in the photo is that it does not appear to be present. This can be determined and any of us go there and look if we were there in person and make a definitive conclusion instead of engaging in "armchair" geology. However, the best evaluation comes from the observation that the strata present appear to have continuity and not inter-finger


Your rhetoric here is beyond being acceptable. I posted several geologists that have actually gone there and confirmed it being present from a peer reviewed journal and you have provided none. So, the armchair geologist here is you. And if you don't explain how you can empircally demostrate fossils appearing in strata that weren't observed as not being circular I'm going to issue you a warning for posting faith based statements as facts and ignoring posts.


Thanks.

#155 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 25 March 2012 - 08:15 PM

New Genomes Project Data Indicate a Young Human Race A continuation of Post #112

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

n 2008, an extensive international effort was begun to sequence in unprecedented detail over 1,000 representative human genomes from around the world. The results of three preliminary pilot projects were published in October 2010—one of which uncovered a result that points to a youthful age for the human race.

In this pilot project, researchers examined in great detail the DNA base sequences from two families, including the mother, father, and child of each. A summary of the results appeared in Science, which stated that based on the data, "offspring inherit about 60 mutations that arose in their parents."

In large measure, the research for the "1000 Genomes Project" is aimed at pinpointing exactly which mutations cause which diseases. Knowing the number of new mutations that arise with each generation can assist with tracking the new diseases that they may cause.

The measurement of close to 60 new mutations occurring within the reproductive cells of each generation is less than a prior estimate of 100. This figure can help answer key questions. For example, does this number of mutations provide enough "fuel" for change to have innovated modern humanity from primate ancestors? Also, can the potentially harmful effects of this rate of mutation accumulation be somehow reversed before too many incorrect DNA bases compromise humanity's survival?

Currently, the most accurate way to answer these questions is to use the freely downloadable population genetics modeling program called Mendel's Accountant. Developed by a team of scientists, including Cornell University plant geneticist John Sanford, the program calculates the cumulative effects on the fitness (average survivability) of individuals that inherit mutations— some beneficial, some harmful, but mostly neutral—over multiple generations.

The study of mutations that have no, or almost no, effect has presented a longstanding problem for evolutionary biology. Since these near-neutral mutations produce such tiny effects in cells, they do not appreciably affect any trait that is expressed in the organism.Therefore, these mutations are undetectable by any imagined natural process and simply add up over the generations

Mendel's Accountant can simulate, with unprecedented biological accuracy, the result of this accumulation. Assuming a population size of 2,000 individuals, assuming that each mother has six children, and using the rate of 60 mutations per generation in the algorithms, the simulation shows the extinction of the human race after only 350 generations. This also assumes that natural selection would have been effective at removing the least fit from the population every generation.

If this result is anywhere close to correct—that humanity's genetic mutations would have led to extinction within 350 generations—how could that possibly fit within evolution's long ages? But if the total age of the world is about 6,000 years, as is consistent with biblical history, then mankind has been here for fewer than 300 generations. Thus, the latest and most accurate research into human genetics confirms a straightforward reading of the biblical account of origins and human history.

http://www.icr.org/a.../view/5722/369/

#156 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 17 April 2012 - 04:49 AM

Yeah, that's the gap theory. Some have seen this verse as a possible place to squeeze in a few billion years.

However, it contradicts Exodus 20:11:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.."


I've just come across this now, not sure if we have had this discussion yet, but your view of the word "earth" does not really make sense.

The earth already existed on day one of the six days, and yet was only created on day three (verse 10).
The same with the heavens, they existed on day one, yet were only created on day two.
The hebrew word for earth cannot mean "planet earth" because they did not know the earth was a planet and therefore could not possibly have had a word for it, it means "LAND".

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


So the bible obviously has a dual meaning for these two words, meaning that Exodus could be referring to the creation of LAND on day 3 and not the creation of earth that had occurred by day 1.

#157 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 26 May 2012 - 09:03 PM

When did you last read about Setterfields hypothesis?

As far as I can understand he does not base his beliefs soley on some historical measurements of the speed of light. Instead his current ideas are due to five anomalies in astronomy and physics which current theories does not handle, namely:

  • The speed of light changing
  • The changing mass of subatomic particles
  • The quantization of the red shift
  • The measured changes in something called Planck’s Constant
  • The fact that the atomic clock, as measured by atomic processes, does not run at the same rate as our orbital clock, or the way we measure time by our motion through space.
Look at http://www.setterfie...%20summary.html for some basic info on what his hypothesis are today. He has been quite busy in recent years.


Here's a video seminar By Setterfield.




Enjoy.

#158 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 05 June 2012 - 04:32 PM

The first reason is that graptolites actually are excellent fossils in terms of their use in dating rocks because those found in successsive stratigraphic (younger using the Principle of Superposition) are different than those forms found lower in the stratigraphic sequence.

The question is why that is so. An alternate reasoning is that the various graptolites are selected for seperate layers because they each were dealt with seperately by the water do to differences in size, specific gravity, and shape.

It has been argued that a living form such as Cephalodiscus graptolitoides can be classified as a graptolite but its shape is different than that of Paleozoic graptolites allowing it to be distinguished from them.

And so, if both existed at the same time in a great flood they could easily be sorted into seperate layers by flow rate over a are appropriate distance. And other factors apply as well.

Also biostratigraphers do not usually date rocks using a single fossil form, they use assemblages of fossils.

As expected in a flood sorting various things into groups seperated by layers.

The fossils have different ranges in terms of being found in rocks with the section and this allows a more precise determination of the relative age of the rock.

Not hardly. Making an error about how the fossils were seperated into different layers can't not be corrected by the preciseness of the application of the error in thinking.

It would usually not prevent dating a rock unit fairly well even if one of the fossils in the assemblage had lived with no detectable change from the Cambrian to the Recent since other fossils in the assemblage usually would narrow the time range in which the rock unit was deposited. .

You are assuming there is such a thing as evolution by chance. Which, if thought true, must force the conclusion that chance and the evolution believed associated with it, was suspended at any point in a succession of time. So, really, ignoring the proof of no change is merely ignoring proof of no such thing as evolution.

My empirical counter-argument against inter-bedding in the photo is that it does not appear to be present.

Mere observation of a photo is not the kind of empiricism required of scientific conclusions, since, the old tried and true way is to accept observation as a basis for hypothesis rather than final judgment. Magicians love apparancy. (if I might possibly coin a word here)

This can be determined and any of us go there and look if we were there in person and make a definitive conclusion instead of engaging in "armchair" geology.

The naturalism philosophic proposal that one must themselves go and see to know the truth of anything is not realistic. A proof of the absurdity of thinking any naturalism philosopher ever has lived as one, by the way.

However, the best evaluation comes from the observation that the strata present appear to have continuity and not inter-finger.

This is a very good point seems to me.

It appears to me that somebody had read the account of inter-bedding being present along the North Kaibab Trail and assumed that the same claimed inter-bedding is also present in the area where this photo was taken.

We all rely on testimony. Which proves that faith is a necessity in practical life. Some think all faith is blind but, a person given over to blind faith, and one given over to having to have seen all things personally are both confined by the foolishness of either approach to knowledge.

I'll bet that the Temple Butte is present here and it has been mis-identified as inter-beds of the Muav and Redwall.

Maybe, but, I wonder why the staining of the Redwall didn't include the lower layers.

But, regardless I see here nothing convincing about lengths of time determinations.

The flat line between layers is clear evidence that immediate deposition occurred rather than a supposition of eons of time in which happenstance erosion events never occurred.
And again, it is absurd to reason that an enviro. nment ever existed wherein only one recipe of materials was allowed to be deposited.
But, the great flood is a very straightforward explanation since, water explains the flatness, the sharp break in layers, the seperateness of each layer's constituent materials, the lack of vertical erosion evidence, the coloration, and the absence of any evidence of passage of time. One can't measure the passage of time theoretically based on evolution by chance, which, as you revealed earlier in this thread, may involve spans of time minus any evidence of evolution whatsoever.

The accusation of circular reasoning appears false when one first starts to make the claim that they know that a layer of rock proves when a layer was deposited within a assumed utterly assumed theoretical timeline of a extreme span of years.
But, the alternative is the immediate timeline of the great flood of Noah.
And, the geologic evidence only supports the flood testimony of the Bible. Since no rational story can even be invented to try and explain how only one recipe of materials was deposited for millions of years. The idea is blatantly ludicrous. And, time etches valleys, and endless kinds of erosion features. And even the great and flat plains of the earth are easily seen as the outcome of a flood, which since then, wind could not get a grip on such flat surface and no materials of appropriate characteristics with which to gouge the plain deeply.

So, the naturalism philosopher is driven to seek evidence by use of some other interpative and assumptive means.
And then that means is reasoned to agree with the assumption of theory about fossils. And both agree because that is how they were interpreted to be.
Which really only proves the first one about fossils, in being as absurd a interpretation as it is, utterly proves the latter false as well.

#159 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 27 June 2012 - 05:03 AM

My empirical counter-argument against inter-bedding in the photo is that it does not appear to be present.This can be determined and any of us go there and look if we were there in person and make a definitive conclusion instead of engaging in "armchair" geology.


And this is determined how? By you sitting there saying it isn't true even after I linked a peer reviewed article from numerous geologists that have been there. And then what is your response?

"I have seen this article before, and I was making reference to in my last post. One study basically attempting to validate an earlier study along the North Kaibab Trail. But the picture you provided does not appear to show the North Kaibab Trail as I already posted."

And what did the article say?

"Waisgerber and his colleagues confirmed Burdick's observations concerning interbedding of the Cambrian Muav and the Mississippian Redwall."

And then you get banned and cry on another forum that we only banned you because you prove our religous bias wrong. How comical!

#160 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 27 June 2012 - 05:52 AM

The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young

by Jonathan Sarfati

"The earth has a magnetic field pointing almost north-south—only 11.5° off. This is an excellent design feature of our planet: it enables navigation by compasses, and it also shields us from dangerous charged particles from the sun. It is also powerful evidence that the earth must be as young as the Bible teaches.
In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century1 (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today2). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook,<a href="http://creation.com/...h-is-young#r3">3 proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core (see side note). Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth. So the earth must be younger than that."

http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young

Earth’s Magnetic Field Less Sustainable than Thought

"Geophysicists have found that their favored dynamo theory for Earth’s magnetic field is less sustainable than thought, leaving them wondering how our planet retained its magnetic field for “geologic time.”

"... We are left with the challenge of understanding how Earth has succeeded in maintaining its magnetic field over most of geological time."

http://crev.info/2012/05/earths-magnetic-field/




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users