85 replies to this topic

[Geode]

First of all, I personally read abstracts and other information from standard geology and have studied the geologic timescale on Berkley.  As well, I study other disciplines, such as molecular biology and chemistry.  I do not claim to have geological knowledge like yourself, but PhD's like Baumgarder, Austin (studied at Harvard), Berthault, and others do.  They have all the specialized knowledge that you yourself have, and yet do not agree with your conclusions.

You will not learn much geology from abstracts, yet I have seen one from Steve Austin cited as full evidence supporting a viewpoint. What did a study of the geologic timescale at Berkley entail? I would have thought this would require taking a course such as Historical Geology. Yes, I have seen writings from Austin and others where they basically throw out or ignore the principles of geology that they had learned in favor of backing creationist theories that are impossible if one holds to geologic laws. In my opinion they show great disrespect for the science in doing this.

Yes scanman, who told us about desert varnish, but had no explanation for shale dunes in the Colorado Plateau.  Do you?

I don't know what you are talking about. What is a "shale dune"...? Is this a made-up creationist term like "polystrate tree"...?

Since you say we know "next to nothing"  I think I should also note the following.  I have noticed you have made errors with statements like the Colorado Plateau not being a basin or containing a large basin. This is obvious by looking at a relief map. As well as the massive drainage evidence in the plateau (s). 

Where did I say you or others know "next to nothing"...I don't think I said that. On the other hand you don't "know" enough to really know when I am wrong about geology. It does happen, but not as you note here.

My statement about the Colorado Plateau was correct. The one you gave, borrowed from a non-geologic source, was wrong and I explained why this is the case. It is much better termed a plateau than a basin.

Also you said that limestone is not found worldwide--this is wrong--it is found all over the earth.  I find it hard to believe a geologist would make such a statement.

I don't think I have ever posted that the existence of limestone has limits in distribution in terms of general world geography and cannot be found pretty much anywhere on the planet. I doubt that I would ever make a statement that taken in context would make the claim you are making here. I think what I did say was in a reply about that obscure geology text you have referenced, and that unlike what you and the author were implying, that there is not a continuous limestone or chalk body worldwide, such as in one that could be called the same formation. You really must be getting desperate if you have to try this approach, apparently needing to twist my words or meaning around to make a case that I have stated something other than what was clearly intended, At best you have taken my words out of context and did not understand what I was saying.

I never did address the "hydrated minerals" error you made.  You said that hydrated minerals are rare. 
Besides hydroxides, there are some minerals which have water molecules between their crystalline sheets.  Have you never heard of the "water of crystallization?"
Based on this, this list of hydroxide minerals (List) is defined to have water in their structure, as an hydroxide is an ion of water.  Also quartz (SiO2), the most abundant mineral, can crystallize in water in marketed lab kits.  The scientific fact that one of the principles of crystallization requires  supersaturation of a substrate or substrates  in a solution does not require all minerals to contain water, but points to the strong possibility that many minerals were formed in water. 

Desperate yet again? No, I was again correct and did not make an error. Look at my original post. I am tired and not in the mood to search for it. Also the search feature has been rendered rather useless since one can no longer search key words by post, but just by thread. Some threads have so many posts that it is like looking for a needle in a haystack now.

Such minerals are rare in the composition of the earth. Quartz is not the most common mineral. It is just the most common at the earth's surface. Your argument is scratching at straws and not a good one. Once again in context of what I posted I did not make an error. I do not remember limiting my post to "at the surface"....

In light of the fact that you do allow God into your list of possibilities, you should check Genesis, which states that the Earth was covered by water AT CREATION, not just in the deluge.  Therefore minerals forming in water at creation would not by any means contradict scripture. 

I don't believe I made a statement about whether or not minerals forming in water contradicted scripture. Personally I think this subject has nothing to do with scripture. I also did not exclude God from my list of possibilities in any post I remember making. You sure are on a roll saying that I have made statements that I have not. But for what possibilities do I not allow for God? You really have jumped to a conclusion here as I do not remember saying anything along these lines. In fact I think I remember posting something to the contrary. I am listed as a "theistic evolutionist" which by definition includes God with in my beliefs about the subject of evolution.

This is not meant as a challenge of knowledge in geology, but the things I have stated, I have studied.  I don't just make undocumented statements.  I read, and don't just recite from videos. I have valid reasons why I object to modern geological and biological teaching.  It's not because I know "next to nothing" about it.

Yes, it appears to me that you have made these comments in an attempt to challenge my knowledge of geology. If you had studied the subject more completely I think you would know where I was in fact correct and not as you claim here. Yes, you seem to have picked up a tid-bit of geology here and there, and added them together to sometimes come up with answers a geologist with a fuller knowledge of the subject would not. That is why geologists are not hired without degrees. The degree shows that we have actually studied and understood the subject. Yes, anyone can study geology on their own and reach valid conclusions, but it helps to study with an objective mind and not with a bias to finding the bits and pieces one thinks support a pre-conceived notion. I'll tell you what, I will not give you advice about missionary work and you don't post more false accusations about where I am wrong about geology.

And like you have years of experience in geology, I have years of experience in Bible study.  Are you like Scanman, who said he believed on Christ?  But yet Christ said that the end times would be "like the days of Noah" in that people would continue on with their lives and never know that judgment was coming soon. If you believe in Christ, you believe what he says over what men say. Yet scanman ignored this contradiction in his faith. You can study 1000 years, but if you study an erroneous interpretation of the earth, which denies scriptural teaching, and is based on the wisdom of men, you are wrong.

I also have years of experience in Bible study. I think Christ was correct in predicting that men would value some of the wrong things now, as they did in the time of Noah. Yes, I believe what Christ said over the opinions of men in terms of Christ's message. But He didn't give sermons on science. Christ did not tell us of a 6,000 year old earth, and other misrepresented aspects of geology. Also, many of the aspects of the earth that YECs refuse to accept are not opinion, but scientific fact. Modern geologic principles are not erroneous and they do not address scripture, so your comment is irrelevant in my opinion. Christ focussed on what was essential for the spiritual well-being and salvation of men, and their opinions about how the earth formed and in how long a period in which this happened is really not important in His grand scheme of things in my opinion.

[Geode]

I think I may be able to simplify this by asking questions.  If you would be so kind as to answer them, I would appreciate it.

1. Is the law of superpositioning used to justify a "one at a time" formation of strata? Or is it believed that most strata were formed one at a time over long periods?

2. Is it believed by most geologists that most strata were formed by present slow processes, or rather quickly by flooding and/or catastrophic events?

3. What is the predominate view among geologists?  Were most strata formed is in still water, in dry conditions, or in current?

Let's start with that.  Instead of arguing, perhaps I can learn from you, and you could reach an understanding as to my personal objections with modern geology and it's uniformintarian assumptions.

Simplify what?

1. Perhaps I don't understand your meaning, but your question does not really seem to address the Law of Superposition. I guess you could say that it assumes successive sedimentary units deposited one after each other but it says nothing about the time involved

2. I think most geologists visualize in their minds having strata forming at various rates. Your term "present slow processes" shows a bias they would not have, as some present processes are not slow. As marine shales are the most common sedimentary rocks, this on its own would lead geologists to favor relatively slow processes for deposition, in general, but this is not something we really think about in the way you seem to be leading.

3. I think most geologists don't think in the "Guiness Book of World Records" approach that your questions are taking involving "most" because it really is not all that important. However, I can see why it is to creationists who must account for nearly all of the deposition taking place in limited sedimentary environments such as would be related to one great flood.

Most sediments are deposited in aqueous conditions. As currents are often involved in deposition of sediments in water to some extent they most likely predominate, but what constitutes presence of a current? Is there an arbitrary cut-off? Most sedimentary rocks probably have formed on marine shelfs where some currents are present. But non-YEC geologists do not tend to lump everything together and make generalizations.

As you have not accepted my earlier invitation before to explain what you think uniforitarianism means, are you going to do so now?

[AFJ]

Simplify what?

1. Perhaps I don't understand your meaning, but your question does not really seem to address the Law of Superposition. I guess you could say that it assumes successive sedimentary units deposited one after each other but it says nothing about the time involved

2. I think most geologists visualize in their minds having strata forming at various rates. Your term "present slow processes" shows a bias they would not have, as some present processes are not slow. As marine shales are the most common sedimentary rocks, this on its own would lead geologists to favor relatively slow processes for deposition, in general, but this is not something we really think about in the way you seem to be leading.

3. I think most geologists don't think in the "Guiness Book of World Records" approach that your questions are taking involving "most" because it really is not all that important. However, I can see why it is to creationists who must account for nearly all of the deposition taking place in limited sedimentary environments such as would be related to one great flood.

Most sediments are deposited in aqueous conditions. As currents are often involved in deposition of sediments in water to some extent they most likely predominate, but what constitutes presence of a current? Is there an arbitrary cut-off? Most sedimentary rocks probably have formed on marine shelfs where some currents are present. But non-YEC geologists do not tend to lump everything together and make generalizations.

As you have not accepted my earlier invitation before to explain what you think uniforitarianism means, are you going to do so now?

I was asking out of curiosity since you are a geologist. And so I could get a handle on defining things. I was not trying to lead into anything. To my understanding, uniformintarianism is that past geological processes should be no different than today, present is the key to the past. Therefore it would not have place for a past world where alot of water was under or in the crust--if that is what the deluge was--or that there was runaway subduction, or catastrophic plate tectonics, or rapid continental movement, or any other mechanism by which a worldwide flood could take place.

I am seeing that possibly a better word to define things is gradualism and catastrophism. Would you agree? Although I believe perhaps the reason creation science wants to still use it is that it was a rebuttal by mainly Hutton and Lyell to the long held belief that there was a flood. So there is a historical motive involved as well as scientific--just a thought.

As far as applying the law of superpostioning, yes, I think it can still be used to deduce what happened first. Especially if you have large deposits on top of others. But if you have strata forming laterally in current, then how would you be able to tell this after the fact. You don't know if two or more could have formed in close time proximity, or formed simultaneously. I think it may be difficult to distinguish that if you hadn't seen it happen. I think you should perhaps write the renewed law, because on the web, most places have Steno's law.

But you have never commented--at least I did not see it-- on the paper Berthault and Julienne wrote.

One more question. How much is the geologic timescale based on sedimentation rates? How much is based on dating? I know that now, because it is established as authoritative, they use index fossils, but I also know that even Darwin did calculations on sedimentation rates. I hope I am being clear.

[Geode]

To my understanding, uniformintarianism is that past geological processes should be no different than today, present is the key to the past.  Therefore it would not have place for a past world where alot of water was under or in the crust--if that is what the deluge was--or that there was runaway subduction, or catastrophic plate tectonics, or rapid continental movement, or any other mechanism by which a worldwide flood could take place. 

No, this is not how the principle is used by modern mainstream geologists in that they realize that past conditions were not necessarily the same as those presently found. Such a case is the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. There is no evidence of a lot of water under the crust. The evidence also does not lead to runaway subduction or these other mechanisms. If it did it would be accepted as something in the past that is unlike the present. Physical lawas are accepted as being in operation through time, or they are not true scientific laws. These concepts do not conform to what is known from some laws of physics.

I am seeing that possibly a better word to define things is gradualism and catastrophism.  Would you agree?  Although I believe perhaps the reason creation science wants to still use it is that it was a rebuttal by mainly Hutton and Lyell to the long held belief that there was a flood.  So there is a historical motive involved as well as scientific--just a thought.

No, because modern geologists accepting uniformitarianism as a general concept realize that some evidence does show catastrophic events have occurred in earth history and that some processes are rapid, and others more gradual. yes, many creationists still seem to be stuck back in the 19th Century arguing about concepts that have modified since the time of Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin. Younger geologists than myself seem to want to use the term "actualism" instead of "uniformitarianism" in that it does not imply "slow and gradual" as always having been operative in earth history.

As far as applying the law of superpostioning, yes, I think it can still be used to deduce what happened first.  Especially if you have large deposits on top of others.  But if you have strata forming laterally in current, then how would you be able to tell this after the fact. You don't know if two or more could have formed in close time proximity, or formed simultaneously.  I think it may be  difficult to distinguish that if you hadn't seen it happen.    I think you should perhaps write the renewed law, because on the web, most places have Steno's law.

It does not matter what amount of sediments are involved. It holds true regardless of the amount and Steno was essentially correct right from the get go. The sediment on top is younger if the principle is used correctly and not twisted to mean something different than the intent and accepted usage, as iis done by Berthault.

But you have never commented--at least I did not see it-- on the paper Berthault and Julienne wrote.

Have I seen the paper that they wrote? How can I comment on what I have not seen? I think it is only available in French.

One more question.  How much is the geologic timescale based on sedimentation rates?  How much is based on dating?  I know that now, because it is established as authoritative, they use index fossils, but I also know that even Darwin did calculations on sedimentation rates. I hope I am being clear.

It really is not now based at all upon sedimentation rates. This has not been shown to be a very accurate method of dating. The units started to be defined as used today by the use of fossils and relating them to the strata they were contained within. Radiometric dating provides the basic means of placing absolute time dates to the units which were first defined by fossil content.

[MarkForbes]

Can we get back to "Trilobite Fossils On Mt. Everest"?
I'd like to see some more pictures of marine fossils in that area.

[AFJ]

This explanation is inadequate because taphonomy requires rapid burial and removal from oxygen. Everest was not uplifted slowly over millions of years but quickly. The question is not whether the Himalayas are still rising but what effect did the rain, sleet, hail and strong winds at 29,000 feet, and lower levels, have on limestone and fossils on Mt. Everest over 45 million years?

Crispus,
Nice post. The statement above is probably one of the strongest counters to slow lifting from the ocean. Limestone is porous and ver y reactive to common acids found in groundwater http://www.iwaponlin...2/nh0120051.htm . Also average rainwater is slightly acidic with an average pH of 5.6 (7 being nuetral). http://www.scholarsh..._rainwater.html In 45 million years of precipitation, it should be easy to calculate even low ball (based on average rates today) how much limestone would have been eroded since 45 mya. The article below uses observed natural erosion of limestone caves, which if applied to Everest, makes the gradual orogeny model implausible.

http://www.icr.org/a...imestone-caves/

SOLUTION OF LIMESTONE

Solution cave chemistry can be simply stated: limestone and dolostone, the host rocks for most caves, are dissolved by natural acids (carbonic, sulfuric, and various organic acids) which occur in groundwater. Calcite (CaCO₃), the principal mineral comprising limestone, is dissolved in the presence of acid to produce calcium ion (Ca⁺⁺) and bicarbonate ion (HCO₃^_). Dolomite [CaMg(CO₃)₂], the most important mineral in dolostone, is dissolved by acid to produce calcium ion (Ca⁺⁺), magnesium ion (Mg⁺⁺), and bicarbonate ions (HCO₃^_ ). If the acid is able to flow through the rock, ions will be removed and a cavity or solution conduit will form.

Chemical analyses of the area's groundwater by Thrailkill¹² indicate that mean calcium ion concentration is 49.0 milligram per liter and the mean magnesium ion is 9.7 milligram per liter. Because rain water has only trace amounts of calcium and magnesium, essentially all of the dissolved calcium and magnesium in the groundwater must come from solution of calcite and dolomite. By simple chemical calculation it can be shown that these concentrations represent 0.16 gram of dissolved calcite and dolomite per liter of groundwater.

It is reasonable to assume that about 1.0 meter of the 1.22 meters of mean annual rainfall go into the aquifer. Therefore, each square kilometer (1 million square meters) of central Kentucky receives about 1 million cubic meters of infiltration each year (1,000,000 m² x l m = 1,000,000 m³). Because a cubic meter of water contains 1 thousand liters, 1 billion liters of water enter the ground through each square kilometer of land surface each year.

The above data can be used to calculate the amount of calcite and dolomite dissolved each year. This is done by multiplying the mass of minerals per liter times the water infiltration rate (0.16 g/l x 1,000,000,000 l/yr = 160,000,000 g/yr). The answer is 160 million grams (176 tons) of dissolved calcite and dolomite per year over each square kilometer of land surface. If the mass of calcite and dolomite dissolved is divided by the density of the minerals, the volume is obtained (160,000,000 g/yr ÷ 2,700,000g/m³ = 59 m³/yr). Thus, if the dissolving power of the acid in one square kilometer of central Kentucky is carried in one conduit, a cave 1 meter square and 59 meters long could form in a year!¹³

The high rate of solution of limestone and dolostone should be a matter of alarm to uniformitarian geologists. In 2 million years (the assumed duration of the Pleistocene Epoch and the inferred age of many caves), a layer of limestone well over 100 meters thick could be completely dissolved off of Kentucky (assuming present rates and conditions).