Jump to content


Photo

Lack Of Full Stratigraphy


  • Please log in to reply
193 replies to this topic

#1 YoungDavid

YoungDavid

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Johannesburg

Posted 01 December 2009 - 01:52 AM

I have been reading the thread: YEC argument - No stratigraphic column on
http://www.freeratio...ad.php?t=279191. The basic question comes down to how the Young Earth Creationists draw the conclusion that the absence of some strata in some basins indicate a young earth. I have been wondering about the same question, but nobody could answer it on that thread. The references given by respondents in that thread were not exactly clear on the subject. Can anyone please answer the question here? The question could be phrased as: how do Young Earth Creationists come to the conclusion that the absence of some strata in the stratigraphic column indicate a young earth? :wacko:

#2 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 December 2009 - 02:53 AM

Don't believe everything you read about creationists at the Atheism Я Us clubhouses. If they cannot address an opposing position honestly from the very get-go, that should raise red flags about their competence and integrity.

#3 YoungDavid

YoungDavid

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Johannesburg

Posted 01 December 2009 - 03:19 AM

Don't believe everything you read about creationists at the Atheism Я Us clubhouses. If they cannot address an opposing position honestly from the very get-go, that should raise red flags about their competence and integrity.

View Post


That may be true, but does not answer the question I asked. Do you have any idea how YEC's get evidence for a global flood from absence of strata?

#4 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 December 2009 - 05:21 AM

The basic question comes down to how the Young Earth Creationists draw the conclusion that the absence of some strata in some basins indicate a young earth.

View Post

Hi David,

Welcome to EFT.

This question you present is not quite set up correctly and it reveals the misdirection that you have fallen prey to at FRDB. Any time a person argues for a position, two things must occur; A: the contenders position must be invalidated and B: the alternate view must be defended.

Your faulty argument is assuming that action "A" (contenders position being invalidated) must contain the conclusion for action "B" (alternate view being defended). These actions can and often will function independently.

When the geologic orthodoxy of our age (uniformitarianism) is properly questioned, technically, no alternate view needs to be presented (at that time) to soundly reject an idea as false. To insist that the process of determining that something is fallacious also must contain the argument for an alternate view is not logical or rational.

#5 YoungDavid

YoungDavid

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Johannesburg

Posted 01 December 2009 - 06:05 AM

Hi David,

Welcome to EFT.

This question you present is not quite set up correctly and it reveals the misdirection that you have fallen prey to at FRDB. Any time a person argues for a position, two things must occur; A: the contenders position must be invalidated and B: the alternate view must be defended.

Your faulty argument is assuming that action "A" (contenders position being invalidated) must contain the conclusion for action "B" (alternate view being defended). These actions can and often will function independently.

When the geologic orthodoxy of our age (uniformitarianism) is properly questioned, technically, no alternate view needs to be presented (at that time) to soundly reject an idea as false. To insist that the process of determining that something is fallacious also must contain the argument for an alternate view is not logical or rational.

View Post


Hi Adam, thanks, it is nice to be here.

You are under the wrong impression. I am not trying to falsify anything. I am trying to find out how YEC's think.

For the life of me I really cannot understand how the absence of some strata can be used to deduce a global flood. I am trying to get into that thought process and attempting to find out how they come to such a conclusion. That is what a rational and logical thought process is. Thus, there is neither any action "A", nor action "B". It is purely a question of finding out how they think to reach a conclusion.

#6 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 December 2009 - 07:06 AM

That may be true, but does not answer the question I asked. Do you have any idea how YEC's get evidence for a global flood from absence of strata?

View Post


Well I don't know what absence of strata has to do with the flood. But they did find the water: http://ldolphin.org/deepwaters.html 30 oceans worth.

#7 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 01 December 2009 - 07:31 AM

Well I don't know what absence of strata has to do with the flood. But they did find the water: http://ldolphin.org/deepwaters.html    30 oceans worth.

View Post

Really? All that water is left over from The Flood? How then did it get to where it is? Anyone have a clue? Seems like another great area for creation scientists to investigate.

#8 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 December 2009 - 10:39 AM

For the life of me I really cannot understand how the absence of some strata can be used to deduce a global flood.

View Post

This statement demonstrates that you paid no attention to what I said. You will fail at understanding YEC as long as you maintain the attitude that you must fit YEC's into the contrived intellectual box that the folks at FRDB have built for you.

#9 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 December 2009 - 10:47 AM

Really?  All that water is left over from The Flood?  How then did it get to where it is? Anyone have a clue?  Seems like another great area for creation scientists to investigate.

View Post

There is a fair amount of debate regarding how the Earth was altered leading up to and including the immediate flood. However, there is less debate regarding the resultant sedimentation and rapid erosion events that followed.

I have to say that it is fun to ponder speculatively about how the earth transformed from pre-flood to post flood but all we have left to examine is the post flood world which is also changing from events that are in a continued state of exponential decline in severity and frequency since the day the fountains of the great deep burst forth.

You could have some interesting research material at the tips of you're fingers but I believe the only way you could ponder these speculations effectively is by dropping the snarky attitude towards these concepts.

#10 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 01 December 2009 - 01:43 PM

There is a fair amount of debate regarding how the Earth was altered leading up to and including the immediate flood. However, there is less debate regarding the resultant sedimentation and rapid erosion events that followed.

I have to say that it is fun to ponder speculatively about how the earth transformed from pre-flood to post flood but all we have left to examine is the post flood world which is also changing from events that are in a continued state of exponential decline in severity and frequency since the day the fountains of the great deep burst forth.

You could have some interesting research material at the tips of you're fingers but I believe the only way you could ponder these speculations effectively is by dropping the snarky attitude towards these concepts.

View Post

Oh, please, don't let my snarky attitude interfere with your evangelism, what research materials?

#11 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 December 2009 - 02:34 PM

Hi Adam, thanks, it is nice to be here.

You are under the wrong impression. I am not trying to falsify anything. I am trying to find out how YEC's think.

View Post

The common sense approach would be to read what actual YEC's say, in their own words, rather than carelessly-crafted distortions thereof.

#12 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 December 2009 - 02:58 PM

...what research materials?

View Post

How long have you been personally interested in and debating this issue, Otto?

#13 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 01 December 2009 - 03:25 PM

How long have you been personally interested in and debating this issue, Otto?

View Post

Years, what research materials? Before I get into a debate about the issue, it would be helpful to have your research materials.
Thanks

#14 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 01 December 2009 - 05:48 PM

The common sense approach would be to read what actual YEC's say, in their own words, rather than carelessly-crafted distortions thereof.

View Post


Its better than snarky attitudes and false inquisitiveness :) But reading the materials would be best.

#15 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 December 2009 - 06:01 PM

Its better than snarky attitudes and false inquisitiveness  :)  But reading the materials would be best.

View Post

Ron,

What do you recommend in this situation? I have Otto up here telling me that he has been debating this issue for years yet he thinks he's coming to the table with a relevant question thinking that there are possibly no arguments for where the water came from or where it went:

Really?  All that water is left over from The Flood?  How then did it get to where it is? Anyone have a clue?  Seems like another great area for creation scientists to investigate.

View Post

Ron, do you think it is safe to presume that he is most likely going to hear only what he wants to or twist what he hears beyond recognition?

#16 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

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

Posted 01 December 2009 - 07:17 PM

Depositional Interbedding and Time Frames in the Grand Canyon


The Grand Canyon and theories concerning its formation have long inspired interest by geologists, evolutionists and creationists alike. Evolutionary geologists have expressed increasing frustration at attempts to explain its formation. Evolutionary geologists believe that the area encompassing much of the Canyon was uplifted 65 million years ago, but that the Colorado River which flows through it did not originate until about four million years ago. It is obvious that if these assumptions are correct, the Colorado River could not have cut the Grand Canyon. If a newly flowing river encountered an uplifted area, it would never climb up over it and subsequently cut a canyon - it would simply flow around it. In the museum on the south rim of the Canyon is a description of several geological theories on the formation of the Canyon, followed by an admission that all of these theories have serious faults. The Havasupai Indian account of the formation of the Grand Canyon is then given. According to these Indians who live in one of the offshoots of the Canyon, the Grand Canyon formed during a great world-wide flood. Much physical evidence supports this belief.

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. The evidence contradicts the notion that here, where "older" strata (older by 200 million years!) rests on "younger" strata, the inversion was caused by overthrusting or other geologic events.

Waisgerber and colleagues searched an area 50 feet above and below the contact line between the Muav Limestone and Redwall Limestone for physical evidences of the supposed 200 million-year hiatus between these two formations. They point out that such evidences would include: 1) obvious, pronounced erosional features incised into the highest of Muav Limestone beds; 2) basal Redwall Limestone beds exhibiting boulders and cobbles of eroded Muav Limestone beds; 3) Muav Limestone beds dipping somewhat more steeply than overlying Redwall Limestone beds; 4) Muav Limestone beds being somewhat more folded than Redwall Limestone beds; 5) more complex joint systems in the Muav than in the Redwall; 6) more faulting in the Muav than in the Redwall, and particularly; 7) a decidedly different lithology within each of the formations, due to supposed changing regional environments. None of these features was seen. All of the beds were seen to be homoclinal, each bed resting directly on another bed with no known structural deviation. joint planes commencing in alleged Muav Limestone beds seemingly intersected Redwall Limestone similarly. There were no notches and grooves (which would be evidence of a time gap, the time required for the underlying strata to be incised by erosion) in the underlying Cambrian Muav Limestone filled in by material from the Mississippian Redwall Formation, as should be the case if there were a huge time gap between the laying down of these two formations. The evidence clearly indicates that the Mississippian Redwall Limestone was laid down conformably on the Cambrian Muav Limestone with no time gap in between.

The authors of the paper cite the publications of several uniformitarian geologists which also indicate the difficulty in identifying evidences for an unconformity between the Muav and Redwall Limestones. Their paper also contains citations from the geological literature in which the authors admit the difficulty in documenting other alleged unconformities in the Grand Canyon. Waisgerber, Howe and Williams close their paper with the following conclusions:

"1. The unconformity supposedly separating the Redwall Limestone from the underlying Muav Limestone does not exist. Consequently there cannot be any 200 million-year hiatus.

"2. Since the 200 million-year hiatus cannot exist, the dating of Redwall Limestone and Muav Limestone as Mississippian and Cambrian with their supposed ages, respectively, cannot be valid.

"3. Because the Paleozoic time periods cannot be valid, then the longer time unit known as the Paleozoic Era cannot be real.

"4. Since the Paleozoic Era cannot be a real geologic time unit, historical geologic time must be suspect.

"5. Because historical geology is suspect, the megaevolutionary model cannot be confirmed by historical geology because there is no true definition of geologic time.

"6. Since the evolution model cannot be sustained historically, it behooves all scientists to search for alternative models as regards the origin of the earth, the origin of life on earth, and the time necessary to effect such origins.

"7. The various formations within the Grand Canyon area could have been deposited one formation on another, without the need for millions of years of depositional time and millions of years of unaccountable time (hiatuses)."

Source

Posted Image

Posted Image




Enjoy.

#17 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 01 December 2009 - 07:20 PM

Ron,

What do you recommend in this situation? I have Otto up here telling me that he has been debating this issue for years yet he thinks he's coming to the table with a relevant question thinking that there are possibly no arguments for where the water came from or where it went:

View Post


That an honest debate doesn't come with the baggage "Oh, please, don't let my snarky attitude interfere with your evangelism, what research materials?"

If he has a relevant question, then get to the business of discussing and not the reverse evangelistic platitudes. And, make no mistake, he is here evangelizing for evolutheism .

Ron, do you think it is safe to presume that he is most likely going to hear only what he wants to or twist what he hears beyond recognition?

View Post


I think its safe to look at the evidence, and watch the men trying to figure out what the elephant is by touching different parts of its anatomy. Only, here its being done with sarcasm and condescension.



As I said, reading the materials would be best. And leave the snarkyness at FRDB.

#18 YoungDavid

YoungDavid

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Johannesburg

Posted 01 December 2009 - 09:03 PM

Well I don't know what absence of strata has to do with the flood. But they did find the water: http://ldolphin.org/deepwaters.html    30 oceans worth.

View Post


I don't want to change the subject.

#19 YoungDavid

YoungDavid

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Johannesburg

Posted 01 December 2009 - 09:23 PM

This statement demonstrates that you paid no attention to what I said. You will fail at understanding YEC as long as you maintain the attitude that you must fit YEC's into the contrived intellectual box that the folks at FRDB have built for you.

View Post


No Adam. This is not an intellectual box the I was taught at FRDB. I was taught by my parents, my schools and my Universities to think like this. It is called logic. It works like this for me: 1. What do I observe? 2. Try to think about the evidence 3. Draw conclusions and provide logical reasons for my conclusions. 4. Make sure my conclusions do not contradict the evidence 5.If new facts are discovered, compare to my original conclusions. 6. If it contradicts the evidence, think again. This is my thinking process. That is how I try to make sense of this world.

#20 YoungDavid

YoungDavid

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Johannesburg

Posted 01 December 2009 - 09:54 PM

    The authors of the paper cite the publications of several uniformitarian geologists which also indicate the difficulty in identifying evidences for an unconformity between the Muav and Redwall Limestones. Their paper also contains citations from the geological literature in which the authors admit the difficulty in documenting other alleged unconformities in the Grand Canyon. Waisgerber, Howe and Williams close their paper with the following conclusions:

      "1. The unconformity supposedly separating the Redwall Limestone from the underlying Muav Limestone does not exist. Consequently there cannot be any 200 million-year hiatus.

      "2. Since the 200 million-year hiatus cannot exist, the dating of Redwall Limestone and Muav Limestone as Mississippian and Cambrian with their supposed ages, respectively, cannot be valid.

      "3. Because the Paleozoic time periods cannot be valid, then the longer time unit known as the Paleozoic Era cannot be real.

      "4. Since the Paleozoic Era cannot be a real geologic time unit, historical geologic time must be suspect.

      "5. Because historical geology is suspect, the megaevolutionary model cannot be confirmed by historical geology because there is no true definition of geologic time.

"6. Since the evolution model cannot be sustained historically, it behooves all scientists to search for alternative models as regards the origin of the earth, the origin of life on earth, and the time necessary to effect such origins.

"7. The various formations within the Grand Canyon area could have been deposited one formation on another, without the need for millions of years of depositional time and millions of years of unaccountable time (hiatuses)."

Source


Thanks Jason777 for this information. That is all I wanted to know. You see Adam, no ulterior motive. Now I know why YEC's see the absence of some strata as evidence for a global flood. I may not agree with them, but they gave me some evidence and a thought process.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users