Jump to content


Photo

Geologic Column: Fact Or Fiction?


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#41 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 14 April 2012 - 03:29 PM

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


SomchaiA, I believe that God only intervenes supernaturally when there is a good reason for him to do so.. Did God supernaturally sort out fossil layers? I can think of no reason why he would. A better explanation is that the layers represent separation by geography (location & altitude), speed of retreat from flood waters, ability to swim, and other factors.

#42 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:00 AM

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

Layers known as "carboniferous", including carboniferous coal deposits, not Permian coal deposits.

Please note that the pre P-T boundary world is known by scientists to be flat and close to sea level. Large flood plains and coastal wetlands dominated the environment. And so they would also confirm fossilisation through water-borne sedimentation, and the predominance of swamp-type fauna due to the predominance of that environment. I would add that the lack of a widespread drylands environment and the lack of fossilisation in a drylands environment would explain why there are very few drylands type fauna fossilised in the carboniferous period.

#43 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:34 AM

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

Notice the bolded statement at the bottom.



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

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

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



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


I hear you on this, but Richard Fortey was not saying that ALL trilobites are adaptable to anoxic conditions. He just noted that certain earlier proliferate types had an anatomical structure that appeared conducive to living in anoxic sulphuric conditions. Nevertheless this layer I was referring to is the first layer of fossils and so even if it was a complete environment I already did acknowledge to Chris that this does not contradict the flood model that simply says the environment was covered in sediment, and so that point is conceded. The higher layers that show complete environments are more difficult to explain by the current flood model, the lowest layer wouldn't challenge anyone's thinking.

However I do appreciate you answering the opening post , and this also highlights the possibility that the same environment can be interpreted differently depending on the data. Nevertheless I do find the studies quoted in points 2 to 5 quite convincing.

#44 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:03 AM

Layers known as "carboniferous", including carboniferous coal deposits, not Permian coal deposits.

Please note that the pre P-T boundary world is known by scientists to be flat and close to sea level. Large flood plains and coastal wetlands dominated the environment. And so they would also confirm fossilisation through water-borne sedimentation, and the predominance of swamp-type fauna due to the predominance of that environment. I would add that the lack of a widespread drylands environment and the lack of fossilisation in a drylands environment would explain why there are very few drylands type fauna fossilised in the carboniferous period.

And how were these environments turned to stone?

#45 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:58 PM

And how were these environments turned to stone?


Well the way I see it, there was a build-up of sediment over the wide flat floodplains during the 1700 years before the flood, as well as in the coastal wetlands. These were the prevailing environments. A large proportion was in such swampy conditions peat had probably already formed. This was all covered over during the flood, the weight of the flood sediments causing the pre-flood peat/swamps to form what is known as "carboniferous coal", and also causing stone to form.

#46 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

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

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:11 PM

Well the way I see it, there was a build-up of sediment over the wide flat floodplains during the 1700 years before the flood, as well as in the coastal wetlands. These were the prevailing environments. A large proportion was in such swampy conditions peat had probably already formed. This was all covered over during the flood, the weight of the flood sediments causing the pre-flood peat/swamps to form what is known as "carboniferous coal", and also causing stone to form.

I'm sure the earth was covered heavily with vegetation. Although I wouldn't rule out your hypothesis, A potential problem is that you have alot of fossils under the PT boundary and under some coal seams. Do you have any literature that shows that all fossils under coal seams show signs of degradation (non catastrophic burial). Alot of fossils are either well preserved, or disarticulated, both signs of catastrophic burial.

I personally like Steven Auustin's theories based on his research at Mt St Helens. Log and debri mats were responsible for some, if not many coal seams.

#47 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:04 PM

Well the way I see it, there was a build-up of sediment over the wide flat floodplains during the 1700 years before the flood, as well as in the coastal wetlands. These were the prevailing environments. A large proportion was in such swampy conditions peat had probably already formed. This was all covered over during the flood, the weight of the flood sediments causing the pre-flood peat/swamps to form what is known as "carboniferous coal", and also causing stone to form.

OK.

Why do you need 1700 years of slow deposits before a single event with mass deposits?

#48 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 15 April 2012 - 11:11 PM

OK.

Why do you need 1700 years of slow deposits before a single event with mass deposits?


You don't need that, I just feel on the balance of probabilities that is what the evidence is showing. The evidence seems to show lower sedimentary deposits as having a worldwide wetlands type fauna and flora (not exclusively but mainly). This worldwide layer seems to show signs of increasing biological debris over time, and also increasing oxygen levels over time. This layer is followed by a worldwide extinction event during a volcanic phase, followed by a proliferation of dry climate fossils and lowering oxygen levels, and highly restricted peat development.

To me, this is exactly what you would expect from the biblical perspective. You would expect a world highly conducive to life (900 year lifespans), you would expect the sudden appearance of worldwide vegetation to cause increasing oxygenation and fertilisation over time, because vegetation does grow in soil, but grows even better in soil combined with dead vegetation (fertilised). You would then have a sudden drowning of all vegetation, causing spikes in methane levels, and marine fungal spikes. This rotting vegetation would be exposed as flood waters recede, causing a non-marine fungal spike. This would be followed by an earth full of silt, with vegetation battling to return to previous levels. Oxygen levels would drop until a new equilibrium is reached as vegetation returns to a maximum in the new environment ( we may only be reaching that equilibrium now).

This is what science confirms around the so-called P-T boundary, exactly what we would expect from a logical projection of a world wide flood drowning a fertile oxygenated world followed by humans of stunted growth (100 year life-spans compared to 900 year life-spans). To place the biblical great death event together with the scientific great death event seems like the most logical thing to do.

#49 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 15 April 2012 - 11:25 PM

I'm sure the earth was covered heavily with vegetation. Although I wouldn't rule out your hypothesis, A potential problem is that you have alot of fossils under the PT boundary and under some coal seams. Do you have any literature that shows that all fossils under coal seams show signs of degradation (non catastrophic burial). Alot of fossils are either well preserved, or disarticulated, both signs of catastrophic burial.

I personally like Steven Auustin's theories based on his research at Mt St Helens. Log and debri mats were responsible for some, if not many coal seams.

1) Swamps are very conducive to fossilisation. Good fossils do not always require catastrophic burial.
2) Nevertheless there are some recorded catastrophes during the Carboniferous according to the widely accepted scientific model.

I am differentiating between Carboniferous coal, and Permian coal.
I am wondering if generally "carboniferous" fossils are more complete (swamps), and Permian fossils more disarticulated (flood), do you know?

#50 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 15 April 2012 - 11:57 PM

You don't need that, I just feel on the balance of probabilities that is what the evidence is showing. The evidence seems to show lower sedimentary deposits as having a worldwide wetlands type fauna and flora (not exclusively but mainly). This worldwide layer seems to show signs of increasing biological debris over time, and also increasing oxygen levels over time. This layer is followed by a worldwide extinction event during a volcanic phase, followed by a proliferation of dry climate fossils and lowering oxygen levels, and highly restricted peat development.

To me, this is exactly what you would expect from the biblical perspective. You would expect a world highly conducive to life (900 year lifespans), you would expect the sudden appearance of worldwide vegetation to cause increasing oxygenation and fertilisation over time, because vegetation does grow in soil, but grows even better in soil combined with dead vegetation (fertilised). You would then have a sudden drowning of all vegetation, causing spikes in methane levels, and marine fungal spikes. This rotting vegetation would be exposed as flood waters recede, causing a non-marine fungal spike. This would be followed by an earth full of silt, with vegetation battling to return to previous levels. Oxygen levels would drop until a new equilibrium is reached as vegetation returns to a maximum in the new environment ( we may only be reaching that equilibrium now).

This is what science confirms around the so-called P-T boundary, exactly what we would expect from a logical projection of a world wide flood drowning a fertile oxygenated world followed by humans of stunted growth (100 year life-spans compared to 900 year life-spans). To place the biblical great death event together with the scientific great death event seems like the most logical thing to do.

Would you think it possible that all of the fossilisation and lithification happened during the flood?

#51 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 16 April 2012 - 12:15 AM

Would you think it possible that all of the fossilisation and lithification happened during the flood?


It may be possible, but I believe the evidence currently contradicts it all being flood-formed.

#52 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 06:01 AM

What is the evidence that provides the distinction between 1700 years of slower deposition and a few week of quick?

#53 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 16 April 2012 - 03:08 PM

Well if He created an old earth then there would have to be some reason that it was necessary, not simply to deceive us. Ikester believes that God created the world old because it was the only way to make the world stable enough to support life. Simply put, of course the rock is older, God formed it on creation day, all other rock deposition happened subsequently either before, during, or after the flood.

Radiometric data has shown to be unreliable, giving ages of 100s of millions of years in disparity from the same radiometric method, not giving correct ages to rocks we know the age of in the case of volcano eruptions, different methods giving different dates. We have no idea what processes have disturbed radiometric "clocks" over the years enough to be able to "date" them back to millions and billions of years. Uniformity is assumed prior to drawing conclusions. Assumptions are unscientific, and such large scale assumptions have been overwhelmingly self-serving to the community of materialists.




#54 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 06:15 PM

:chuckle:

#55 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 16 April 2012 - 10:59 PM

What is the evidence that provides the distinction between 1700 years of slower deposition and a few week of quick?


The entire environmental changes as reflected in the opening post, points 2 to 5. Changes in atmospheric content between "flood layers".

#56 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:23 AM

Those changes in atmospheric conditions are read from isotopes within the rock or even more tenuous features. What do you think the chances are that a rapid deposition event locked in the variations you see rather than 1700 years worth?

#57 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 17 April 2012 - 02:10 AM

Those changes in atmospheric conditions are read from isotopes within the rock or even more tenuous features. What do you think the chances are that a rapid deposition event locked in the variations you see rather than 1700 years worth?


I see very little chance of that happening. Unless you have an explanation for say the changing carbon 13 levels in lichen through the layers? At the moment I see very little evidence for your flood model being correct, but I am open to a series of logical explanations for these changes detected in the layers. Restricted environments, incorrect interpretations of the isotope studies etc etc. Only problem is that if anyone does manage to explain those 4 studies from the opening post , it must appear to be a convincing argument, and then I will have another ten studies for you to explain as well. I just started with those, yet there are endless environmental studies of these so-called "flood layers" that just don't fit in with the logic of a 1 year flood.

The basic explanation of the swamp amphibians covered over quickly by waters and sediment and drowning first, followed by the reptiles sinking faster than mammals which tend to bloat up within their skins before sinking; is quite a competitive theory to the theory of firstly a predominately amphibian wetlands environment, then a desert reptilian environment, then a grasslands mammalian environment over time. Which theory is better? I would say the second one judging by the changing atmospheric environments. Additionally there are events like the signs of fungal spikes and massive air exposed basalt flows within the flood layers that may be difficult to explain.

#58 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:26 AM

I see very little chance of that happening. Unless you have an explanation for say the changing carbon 13 levels in lichen through the layers? At the moment I see very little evidence for your flood model being correct, but I am open to a series of logical explanations for these changes detected in the layers. Restricted environments, incorrect interpretations of the isotope studies etc etc. Only problem is that if anyone does manage to explain those 4 studies from the opening post , it must appear to be a convincing argument, and then I will have another ten studies for you to explain as well. I just started with those, yet there are endless environmental studies of these so-called "flood layers" that just don't fit in with the logic of a 1 year flood.

The basic explanation of the swamp amphibians covered over quickly by waters and sediment and drowning first, followed by the reptiles sinking faster than mammals which tend to bloat up within their skins before sinking; is quite a competitive theory to the theory of firstly a predominately amphibian wetlands environment, then a desert reptilian environment, then a grasslands mammalian environment over time. Which theory is better? I would say the second one judging by the changing atmospheric environments. Additionally there are events like the signs of fungal spikes and massive air exposed basalt flows within the flood layers that may be difficult to explain.

OK.

Sounds like something to look into. Thanks. :)

#59 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 19 April 2012 - 08:00 AM

OK.

Sounds like something to look into. Thanks. :)


Well thanks for the open-mindedness, I just want to point out that of the 6 points made in the opening post, two have been challenged and reasonably successfully (the trilobites and radioactive dating). If so, I wonder why no-one has challenged the other 4 studies? There must be some sort of explanation from someone for changing oxygen/carbon/co2 levels.

#60 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 19 April 2012 - 09:05 AM

There must be some sort of explanation from someone for changing oxygen/carbon/co2 levels.

I'd need to read up on how the numbers were obtained.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users