Summations Only

In reference to old Earth geology: I think there is substantial truth to Faith's statement, although having absolute dating methods sure does help in tying the "picture" together.A lot of the "picture" comes together quite fine, just by using relative dating methodology. Because of geometric relationships, geologists can determine a vast sequence of processes and events that resulted in the current Earth's geology.And, even without any variety of absolute dating methods, it can be determined that these vast sequences must have taken a lot of time, certainly well outside of the young Earth time frame.Just a few examples from Minnesota, oldest to youngest:On a field trip I was shown an amphibolite, a high grade metamorphosed basaltic volcanic. It was in fault contact with a much lower grade metamorphosed basaltic volcanic. Now, laboratory pressure/temperature studies say that to get amphibolite requires a burial depth (per what the geology professor said, IIRC) of something along the lines of 20 kilometers (60,000 feet, 12 miles). Now, since this amphibolite is now at the surface, it means that approximately 20 km of material must have been eroded from above it. That's two times Mount Everest's height above sea level. That took some time. By the way, the rock is dated at C. 2.7 billion years old, so it has had plenty of time.The rocks of the Lake Superior basin is mostly (younger, only 1.1 billion years old) basaltic volcanics. At the thickest, there is about 6 miles (30,000 feet, 10km) of strata there. Again, it takes some time to pile up that much rock. Basically, we have an Everest height of flood (not that flood) basalts.Now to "modern" history - The Pleistocene of Minnesota. There were 4 distinct glacial advances and retreats during the Pleistocene. Again, it takes some time to form, move, and melt back a continental glacier.And that doesn't consider the rocks that happened between 2.7 bya and 1.1 bya in northern Minnesota, or all that Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic overburden that happened after the 1.1 bya volcanics and before the glorious glacial debris.The Earth's geology is a vast and extremely complicated 3 dimensional jigsaw puzzle, that required much more than 5 to 10 thousand years to get to the present state.Critiques of my geologic statements welcome.Moose

No, you should make it clear that it is an interpretation instead of describing it as if it were a fact. There is no way I know of to prove an interpretation is not factual. It's an interpretation, there is no way to prove it one way or the other. Other interpretations can be offered and that's about it. All I'm saying is it's an epistemological error, or even a form of fraud, to describe an interpretation, which cannot be proved, as a fact. And there are other interpretations that could be mentioned too, such as the Flood interpretations of many of the phenomena that are described as ancient as if it were fact. Actually that's not true. Partially true at best. It would have to be a well known geologist or biologist in good standing, not a creationist. Sigmund Koch who was the critic of Psychology I mentioned, had first established a reputation as a Psychologist at the top of the field, through many papers and projects. See above. Sorry to have to tell you this, but revered though EvC is among its regulars, the level of thought here isn't exactly the highest quality.

Of course I can't help myself, I have to think in terms of shorter time periods about everything, and I suspect that rocks that are said to require great heat and pressure requiring huge amounts of time, probably don't need that much time. For instance, I believe the schist and the granite at the base of the Grand Canyon probably formed quite rapidly during whatever tectonic disturbance upended the Supergroup and sent magma intrusions into the lowest rocks. I also think the Flood did deposit sediments to quite an enormous height, over six miles at the Grand Canyon for instance, and that it all eroded down to the level of the Kaibab with the receding Flood waters. I'd give it a few years max to get the job done. Even more than that could have been carried off at other locations. Getting your amphibolite to the surface might also entail volcanic force? I mean, the explanation that first occurs isn't always the only explanation possible. Certainly not the OE idea of "some time" if the Flood did it. One advance and retreat brought about by the Flood makes sense. Whatever the evidence is that is interpreted as four of them most likely should be reinterpreted in terms of one. Oops, there you go assuming the standard OE time spans. It isn't all that vast and complicated if the Flood explains as much of it as I think it does.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How does your flood explain vertical stacks of millions of alternating light colored and dark colored, fine grained the coarse grained layers?How does your flood explain the biological sampling found in reality?How does your flood explain the White Cliffs of Dover or the other British Chalk deposits?How does your flood explain cross bedded sand dunes?

Presenting interpretation as fact: And: And: Is this dishonest ? Bearing in mind that the assumption of an error was unlikely in the first place ? And that the poster here was guessing, based on a map that they had difficulty reading:

I don't see interpretations as a problem. In fact, that is how we make scientific progress.We formulate an interpretation and then we test it. After some degree of confirmation it is logical to treat an interpretation as a fact.I can think of no better way to test an interpretation.What do you accept as a fact? How have you proven it? Do you test your interpretations? I can think of several ways to 'prove' an interpretation of old ages (for instance). I call it 'testing by multiple independent methods'.As yet, neither you nor the professional creationists have done so. Okay then, a majority of YECs use the same argument and vanishingly few do anything about it. Well, some have tried. All have failed.Obviously. So, you're on your own.Lots'a luck!

Not all "interpretations" are of equal value.In particular, why should someone interpret one when the evidence shows four? And when the evidence contradicts one?

Today's comments and requests:

1. From PaulK's Message 1085 responding to me:
   ​
   PaulK in Message 1085 writes:

   ​

   quote:

   ---

   At the Grand Canyon it is fact that the proportions of various radiometric elements vary in a consistent and ordered fashion from layer to layer, and great age along with increasing age with depth is a scientific explanation that fits the facts

   ---

   ​

   I believe that this is an oversimplification - generally sedimentary rocks are not datable by radiometric methods. The dates are obtained from igneous rocks, and the age of sedimentary rocks is inferred from the relationship between rocks.
   ​
   PaulK is correct that sedimentary rocks are not directly radiometrically datable. To get an absolute age range a sedimentary layer would have to be bracketed above and below by radiometrically dateable layers, such as igneous or metamorphic rock or volcanic basalt or ash, a circumstance not present at the Grand Canyon for layers above the supergroup. Intrusions can also help bracket the date, another circumstance I don't think is present at the Grand Canyon for those layers.
   ​
   For sedimentary layers where absolute dating techniques cannot be applied geologists rely upon correlating index fossils with the geologic timescale, in part established using sedimentary layers existing in circumstances where absolute dating techniques could be applied. This is only accurate within millions of years, which is fine on a geologic timescale. I checked a few online sources, and they all say that this is the best that has been done for the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon above the supergroup (such as this from the National Parks Service: The Grand Age of Rocks: The Numeric Ages for Rocks Exposed within Grand Canyon).
   ​
2. From Faith's Message 1089:
   ​
   Faith in Message 1089 writes:

   ​

   Epistemopathy. That’s a term that was used by a "maverick" psychologist back in the sixties with the wit and the insight to expose the field of Psychology as generally sick with "epistemopathology, " suffering from symptoms that would in any other context be considered schizophrenia. The term just popped into my head to describe historical geology. Psychology of course is an interpretive science that can't be proved, just as historical geology is...etc...
   ​
   This is the kind of name calling that could only justifiably follow a scathing presentation and analysis of evidence showing the other side's position severely wrongheaded, which was noticeably absent. Let's please skip the name calling and focus on the evidence. If a discussion ignores evidence then what is left but name calling, with each side yelling "No, you're stupid" at the other.
   ​
   I encourage both sides to let evidence guide the discussion.
   ​
3. From Edge's Message 1093:
   ​
   edge in Message 1093 writes:

   ​

   So then, all you need to do is prove that the interpretations are not factual.
   ​
   While I would probably say "show" instead of "prove," this pretty much echos my own feelings. If someone's interpretations of the evidence are wrong then it must be explained how they are wrong.
   ​
   PaulK says pretty much the same thing in Message 1095:
   ​
   PaulK in Message 1095 writes:

   ​

   Every fact about the observable world is an interpretation.

   ​

   Nobody...sticks to purely relaying fact without interpretation.

   ​

   [The] claim...that the evidence is insufficient to justify conclusions...needs to be justified.
   ​
4. From Minnemooseus's Message 1096:
   ​
   Minnemooseus in Message 1096 writes:

   ​

   Sure they work. That's because you consistently confuse the physical level of a rock -- or its depth or position in the geologic column -- with the ridiculous ancient age you assign to it. The level is all you need to know, the age is a lie.

   ​

   I think there is substantial truth to Faith's statement, although having absolute dating methods sure does help in tying the "picture" together.
   ​
   Even after reading to the end of Minnemooseus's post, which contained some valuable explanations, I couldn't pinpoint where the "substantial truth" lay. If Faith is correct that geologists are in some way confusing "depth or position in the geologic column" with age then it would be helpful to know what that is.
   ​
5. From Faith's Message 1097:
   ​
   Faith in Message 1097 writes:

   ​

   No, you should make it clear that it is an interpretation instead of describing it as if it were a fact.
   ​
   As Edge and PaulK said earlier, it's all interpretation on both sides, and as PaulK points out in Message 1100, Faith does this herself.
   ​
   People needn't litter their messages with repeated declarations that they're interpreting facts. Both sides should be interpreting facts and explaining how their interpretations are superior to others.
   ​
   Next Faith says:
   ​
   There is no way I know of to prove an interpretation is not factual.
   ​
   To demonstrate an interpretation wrong one merely shows it doesn't align with the evidence. Scientific interpretations of evidence become accepted when they're convincing enough to build a consensus.
   ​
6. From Faith's Message 1098:
   ​
   Faith in Message 1098 writes:

   ​

   Of course I can't help myself, I have to think in terms of shorter time periods about everything, and I suspect that rocks that are said to require great heat and pressure requiring huge amounts of time, probably don't need that much time. For instance, I believe the schist and the granite at the base of the Grand Canyon probably formed quite rapidly...etc...
   ​
   This thread shouldn't become another Flood discussion. It's about accurately communicating the views of modern geology.

Heh, heh ...Once again, I slip into the YEC mode of argument. If we have to prove that there are landscapes in the geological record, why not ask the same in return? I used the word 'prove' very intentionally.

You are calling a general critique of the thinking in a field "name calling?" Am I in the Twilight Zone? That absolute nonsense plus some other remarks by you and others are my cue to take another long break. Good grief.

Hi Faith,Sorry I took so long. I kinda just post here when I have a few minutes during break and such at work.
Hope you had a good Labour Day weekend. I played video games with my wife all weekend and had a blast I've read through all the new posts since my last update, and I'm just going to continue where we left off.
I'll answer your questions from my previous post. Understood.
If you'd like, we can consider this entire example as "how geologists see the rocks."
It isn't necessary to consider this example as "reality" if you don't want to.
The point is to show that what geologists think is an idea that is continuous and can stand on it's own.
The point isn't to convert you to "geologism" or "evolutionism" or anything like that. Right. I haven't defined what kind of sediment because I don't know what the different kinds mean and I am hesitant to claim something I don't understand.
I am hoping that there is some sort of "terrestrial sediment" that you acknowledge exists, and we can consider it to be that.If you think this is an important sticking point, we would have to take a side-track into the "rock cycle" (sort of like the "water cycle" but with rocks) and sort of start to understand where sediment comes from and add to the scenario to incorporate those specifics.But if you just want to look at the sediment becoming rock without destroying the surface, I think we can proceed if you're okay with accepting "sediment is accumulating." You're absolutely right.In my scenario, we have rock at 2 million years and 1600 feet deep. Let's say that is "100%" finished becoming rock.
Then at 50 000 years and 40 feet deep we would be 2.5% of the way there.
At 25 000 years and 20 feet deep we would be 1.25% of the way there.
At, say, 37 feet deep (46 250 years) we would be about 2.3% of the way there.The entire process is ongoing and continuous if the sediment accumulation has no break in it.This example is very simplified because it uses a rate of sedimentation that never changes. However, in any real-life areas there is no "steady rate of accumulation" that lasts forever or all of earth's history (that I'm aware of). There can be a bunch of sedimentation, then some erosion, then some stagnancy, then some more accumulation, or any other conceivable order. Each change of state will add complexity to the required explanation.I was going to get into things like that after we look at (and possibly agree on) how "at least one rock" could form with this simple example.Again, the numbers used in my scenario are made up by me, only taken from what I can see are "generally accepted" values from the geological community. I understand that these values are very slow and maybe even "seemingly impossible" for you to accept... but they are what geologists say are required to explain the things we see. Right.
And the problem is because the "column" generally discussed isn't created under the extremely simple constant-rate of sedimentation I've used for this example.Again, I'm only using this constant-rate for this first example in order to show how "a landscape can become a rock."Once we agree on how geologists say such a thing can occur, we can then add things to the scenario to create "stacks of rock" and even "stacks of rock at the surface" and other such things.But those are more complicated, so I thought it would be best to start with the most simple starting example - creating "one rock from a landscape." Good.
I think you have in mind a specific stratigraphic column that is created by a series of events that will be more complicated that this first, simple example.
That's okay, and we can get into that later.
For now, I suggest that we finish this current simple example and understand the stratigraphic column that is created by it and then we can move onto a more complicated one. Does that sound acceptable? I understand your issues with "accepting longer geological timescales" and such.
I think we should simply consider my examples as "the way geologists think it happened" as opposed to some sort of firm "accept this as reality or I'm going to be angry" thing.I would like to alter the numbers to accommodate you here, but I don't think I can. If we're going to go through things to see how geologists view things, I think we'll have to use numbers at least acceptable to geologists. Let me know if this is going to be a problem.Okay, let me know if we're still on the same page or not and we'll move on from there.

WARNING: As often happens I came back and added some material to this post. Sorry, a habit I have to break.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I guess I'll have to take my break later. I'm not concerned about any of that. What I had in mind was trying to work with what I understand geologists say about all this so we're fine. The problem is that the rocks in the stratigraphic column are clearly different from each other. I don't think we need to go into all the details as long as this fact is taken into account. If the sediments accumulating on the original landscape are the same as the landscape's then we can just leave it at that for now: The original sediment plus the accumulated sediment will then all belong to the same rock in the end.There is another problem in that the rocks are generally made up of a fairly uniform kind of sediment, all sand, say, or all clay and so on, which is not the case with landscapes. Even though there are some exceptions and there is some mixture in the strata here and there, for purposes of this discussion I think we should think of them as all clearly different from each other, since they are different enough to make that statement, so we can't go with some kind of generic soil. Whatever it is has to be what we see in the rock in which the clues are found to this particular landscape. Again it is a sediment, not a soil, and that is already a bit of a problem for the idea of the rocks being a representation of a landscape, since landscapes, at least landscapes with a variety of plants and animals, are not single sediments; but for now let's just leave that too.Anyway, if you had a different kind of sediment accumulating on the original landscape then it would have to be a different rock in the end. I've argued that if it isn't a landscape itself and doesn't contain fossils then it isn't to end up in the column at all and will have to be eroded away. But since you've had the landscape simply growing up through the new sediments I'll just leave it for now as one rock representing the original landscape. I hope this is clear but obviously it gets pretty complicated pretty fast. Actually I'm OK with that. At first I thought your depth was too much but I realize there are rocks in the column that are that thick so that problem is no longer a problem. So I'm OK with calling this the formation of one single rock in the stratigraphic column, the sediment all being the same sediment, fossils accumulating according to whatever environment this represents and so on. Whatever problems I have with any of this I don't think are crucial to the overall situation I have in mind so I'd just like to leave it at this. I don't think that's the problem, as long as we keep in mind that WHATEVER sediments we are dealing with DO have to end up as rocks in the column, and those are characterized by particular sediments with particular fossil contents that are interpreted as originating in a particular environment. I'm OK with all this. Again this is fine. I'm not expecting the probems I have encountered to show up until later in the scenario. Carry on.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You don't know how to read either. You've demonstrated that twice within a day by now.ALL THE TERMS REFER TO THE THEORY, NOT TO PERSONS. Yikes.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ha ha, don't let me get in the way of you keeping your health up. If you feel like taking a break... take a break. I just left for 4 days, right? I agree with this issue. And this example isn't going to deal with it very well.
I'm not going to say "...and this is clay!" or "...and this is limestone!" At the end of this example, it will just be "rock" that was formed "from the accumulating sediment."If you want to get into those other specifics, we should be able to do that later. Just not with this first, simple example.Okay, let's move on a bit and see where we go. Again, the italics is just a copy of the stuff we've already gone over in more detail, and the normal text is the next-step.

---

We'll take your simple environment #1 with a realistic amount of sedimentation: About a quarter of a millimeter per year.
This means that it will take about 100 years for something to be buried an inch deep.
We have 100 years going by. Creatures are growing up, dying, decomposing. Plants are growing and being eaten, trees are getting hit by lightning. Some fall over, some keep growing. But no living things are being buried. No habitats are being destroyed. There's simply an inch of sediment to deal with over the course of 100 years.
But... all the creatures that lived in year 1 are all dead by year 100. They are all decomposed and eaten away by scavengers, bugs and bacteria.
During year 1, an asteroid dropped onto the surface, leaving a chunk of lead 6" across. This chunk of lead just sits there. Nothing touches it, nothing moves it. There's no reason for any living creature (even bugs/bacteria) to take any interest in it.
After 100 years, this chunk of lead is surrounded by 1 inch of sediment.

​

This whole process continues. Creatures live and die. Plants live and die. Habitats are moved or re-arranged. The sediment keeps piling up. Another hundred years, another inch surrounds our chunk of lead from the asteroid 200 years ago.

​

Fast forward 2500 years.
Our piece of lead from year one is now buried under 2-feet of sediment. Everything organic that existed at year 1 is now long dead. Some of the habitats are destroyed, others were re-arranged over the years, others were moved completely. The surface is still only dealing with an extra inch of sediment every 100 years.
The surface itself, though, still contains a thriving landscape. It still contains creatures and plants and trees. They live and die and decompose. They still go about their business of "dealing with" the extra inch of sediment every 100 years.

​

Obviously, the trees and creatures that exist within the similar landscape at 2500 years are not the same trees and creatures and existed before. These trees and creatures are simply long-long-descendants of the ones alive during year 1. Yet they live very similar lives... just dealing with the extra 1 inch of sediment every year. Trees and plants grow faster than that, so they stay perfectly fine at the surface. Creatures move around so they just stay on top of the incoming sediment.

​

Keep going for 25 000 years.
The chunk of lead is now 20 feet under the surface. The surface, however, is still growing away as a lush landscape. Plants are still growing, dying. Trees are still growing, some falling over, some destroyed in forest fires. Creatures are still scurrying about in new habitats they find/make during their time. Every living creature easily overcomes the incoming inch of sediment every 100 years.
At this depth of 20 feet, though... all the sediment at this depth is starting to compress together due to the weight of the 20 feet of sediment on top of it. This 20-foot-deep sediment used to be at the surface 25 000 years ago when the chunk of lead fell onto it. 25 000 years ago this sediment was the landscape... it had trees, creatures and all sorts of stuff living on it. Now, however, all this year-1 sediment is buried 20 feet under, along with our chunk of lead. And it's starting to get pressed together by the pressure on top of it caused by 20 feet of sediment.

​

Now we're at 50 000 years.
The chunk of lead is buried by 40 feet of sediment.
The sediment at the same level (40 feet under) has even more pressure on it, and it starts to squeeze out the little bits of moisture that are still in it. This process is still just starting. No rock yet. Just very compressed, pressurized sediment with 40 feet of sediment weighing down on top of it.
At this 50 000 year mark, at the surface, we still have a lush landscape. Still growing and dying with creatures and living things simply dealing with their extra inch of sediment every year.The elevation changes and the ocean starts encroaching into the land above our chunk of lead.The ocean comes in at a rate of 0.001 miles each year. That's about 5 feet in-land each year. Plenty of time for animals to re-arrange their habitats on the surface. To move away completely. To just eat elsewhere. Or to live and die as they've been doing for 50 000 years now.Each year, 5 feet of our surface-terrestrial-landscape dies off and is ruined by the incoming ocean.
Each year, 5 feet of more-ocean is created as the beach-area moves further and further inland.
Just as creatures can easily deal with the extra inch of sediment every 100 years... they are also able to deal with the 5-feet less of their landscape every year. They just move further inland as well.At 100 000 years, the ocean has moved in 50 miles.
Sedimentation continues.
The sediment more-than-50-miles inland is still the same "terrestrial sediment" accumulating from before.
However, the sediment above our chunk of lead is now "marine sediment" that is different from terrestrial sediment.The landscape is still on-going, with creatures and trees and plants living and dying. It's just not going on like this over our chunk of lead anymore. It's going on like that "50 miles inland" and beyond that, now.
The "landscape" above our chunk of lead is now a marine-scape (I don't know the word?) it has fish and other ocean-creatures living above it now.The fish swim around, and continue with their lives and deaths and off-spring, dealing with the extra inch of sediment every 100 years.Our chunk of lead is now buried 80 feet below the bottom of the ocean, 50 miles from shore.

---

Alright. Let's see what comes up now that we have the water move in overtop our chunk of lead.The main points for the rock-formation are as follows:
-the rock is now 80-feet deep, with 80 feet of sediment above it (40 feet of terrestrial-sediment, and 40 feet of marine-sediment).
-the sediment around the chunk of lead is now 5% along it's way to becoming rock.The main points for the non-destroyed surface (the "landscape") are as follows:
-the landscape continues on land... now 50 miles away from the chunk of lead... still growing trees and plants and creatures as happily as ever
-the marine-scape continues above the chunk of lead... still swimming fish and other ocean dwelling creatures. They are also happy.