|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Curiously while the theoretical column thickness is 100 miles, the maximum thickness of sediment found any place is only 16 miles. That means that at any given location at least 84% of the geologic column is missing. Again, who came up with that theoretical thickness? John Woodmorappe quotes Morris and Parker (Morris, H. and Parker, G., What is Creation Science? Master Books, El Cajon, 1982.):
quote: I'm guessing that quoted is the original source of the "100 mile" number, or perhaps some earlier work from the same people. Woodmorappe comments on this with:
quote: Repeating a bit from the first Morris - Parker quote:
quote: I have previously never heard of such a concept of a "standard column". Or any concept of a "standard column". From http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp:
quote: The creationist side is decrying that there is no real "standard" geologic column (section) to be found. As if any sane geologist would expect to find such a thing. I truly doubt that such a thing can be found in "books and on web sites". To me (and I may be wrong), when I hear the term "geologic column" used outside of any context that would refer to a local section, I interpret it to be referring to the geologic time scale. Geologic column = geologic time scale. And the pure geologic time scale is not annotated with either rock types or thicknesses. I think most creationists (and people in general) are pretty much totally ignorant about the complexities of the Earth's crust. My guess is that the stratigraphic section(s) of the Grand Canyon are looked upon as being highly representative of the Earth in general. And such ignorance is understandable. Before college I also knew barely more than diddly squat about geology. It took the education I did absorb to get me to now know how massively geologically ignorant I still am. Well, a fine piece of writing organization. I need an editor. OSLT, Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1017 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
moose writes:
You are very likely correct. I was trying to think of why any geologist would say such a thing. Then I thought perhaps Morris was just pulling it out of thin air, but then it occurred to me. He's thinking of the thickness of the earth's crust. According to a USGS diagram, the earth's crust is estimated to be between 0 and 100 km thick. It's possible that back in the 80s, geologists thought the crust was up to 160 km thick.
quote: I'm guessing that quoted is the original source of the "100 mile" number, or perhaps some earlier work from the same people.
In his flood investigations, he would have learned about stratigraphic columns. Theoretically, we should be able to construct a stratigraphic column from surface of the earth to the base of the crust -- if we could drill that deep -- with the youngest rocks at top and oldest rocks at bottom. THAT column could be up to approximately 100 km thick (not miles). And even that column would never be Creationist-complete. It seems to me that in his profound ignorance, Morris conflated his idea of stratigraphic columns, with the thickness of the crust, and in turn with the geologic time scale; resulting in this 100 mile thick "standard geologic column" concept that no one outside the Creationist community is familiar with.
moose writes:
Correct. The creationist side is decrying that there is no real "standard" geologic column (section) to be found. As if any sane geologist would expect to find such a thing. I truly doubt that such a thing can be found in "books and on web sites". To me (and I may be wrong), when I hear the term "geologic column" used outside of any context that would refer to a local section, I interpret it to be referring to the geologic time scale. Geologic column = geologic time scale. And the pure geologic time scale is not annotated with either rock types or thicknesses. When I hear the phrase "geologic column," it refers to the geologic time scale. A time scale that is nothing more than a diagrammatical representation of earth's history constructed in such as way as to make the most sense to the scientists who use it. The geologic column does not convey stratigraphic thickness in any way, shape, or form. A stratigraphic column, on the other hand, does convey stratigraphic thicknesses, rock types. And it looks like the Creationists have conflated the two.
I think most creationists (and people in general) are pretty much totally ignorant about the complexities of the Earth's crust. My guess is that the stratigraphic section(s) of the Grand Canyon are looked upon as being highly representative of the Earth in general.
Agreed. What I find disturbing is this penchant of the lay Creationist to take a subject in which he or she is completely ignorant, with the exception of reading a few short blurbs online, and feel the confidence to discuss that subject as if they are an expert. And such ignorance is understandable. Before college I also knew barely more than diddly squat about geology. It took the education I did absorb to get me to now know how massively geologically ignorant I still am. I have a pretty decent education in geology and I still don't consider myself an "expert."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Then I thought perhaps Morris was just pulling it out of thin air, but then it occurred to me. He's thinking of the thickness of the earth's crust. I think they looked at the thickest section of sediment found from each of the Phanerozoic periods. A Cambrian section from one location, an Ordovician section from another location, etc. These all added up to 100 (or more) miles thick, which is probably true. They then called this composite section "the geologic column" and bemoaned that it's not found at any single location, only in textbooks etc. I certainly doubt such was ever in even a textbook. Going back again to the John Woodmorappe article. The opening paragraph:
quote: My "bolds". Sure it does. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1017 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
That's possible, too.
My only hesitation with that particular scenario is that it would require an exorbitant amount of work on the part of the creationist. When geologists conduct stratigraphic investigations with the intention of correlating to other sections, identifying the fossils contained within the stratigraphic section is part of the task. That includes macro- and micro-fossils. His assertion that geos rely on "indirect methods" (probably meaning marker beds) to correlate strata is intentionally vague and disingenuous. The only time fossils are of little importance in strat studies if the area has already been well studied and the fossils and units well documented. Woodmorappe is a slimeball. Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
From my previous message:
Minnemooseus writes: They then called this composite section "the geologic column" and bemoaned that it's not found at any single location, only in textbooks etc. I certainly doubt such was ever in even a textbook. As I was wrapping up my previous message, I got to thinking more about the above quoted. I decided it would be best elaborated on in a separate message (besides, I wanted to be done with the previous). It occurred to me that, to a degree, such a "composite geologic column" does exist in the scientific literature. It's called the legend, key, explanation, or (?) of/for a geologic map. Such can range from being only a time scale, to being a time scale and general rock type, to being a time scale and a more specific rock types, to (maybe?) actually also listing thicknesses or ranges of thicknesses. But such is not intended to imply that that "column" is necessarily found at any single location on the map (although in some cases it might). USGS.gov | Science for a changing world:
quote: The large view of the example key is at USGS.gov | Science for a changing world. This example has only sedimentary units. Other maps and keys (explanation columns) will also have igneous (intrusive and extrusive) and metamorphic rocks. Other things to see:
State geologic maps index page Minnesota map and legend from the above United States geologic map Key for U.S. map Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change subtitle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
menes777 Member (Idle past 4347 days) Posts: 36 From: Wichita, KS, USA Joined: |
quote: Not a fossil.
quote: Also you fail to understand how fossils are formed. Show me that same car completely replaced with minerals and you will be more accurate. No one is claiming that it would take millions of years to form a layer of calcium carbonate (or other quickly dissolving mineral) on your little car there. What they are saying is that if they discover that same car completely fossilized (ie, every part replaced by another minerals, however impossible), buried in a layer dated to millions of years old, found in a layer with older layers below and younger layers above, with other fossils independently dated at other locations to be around the same age, found above fossils of a certain era but below fossils of another and the materials themselves dated to around the same time then it's pretty safe to say it's millions of years old. Yet you come along and say that a few years of calcium carbonate build up disproves that? Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
menes777 Member (Idle past 4347 days) Posts: 36 From: Wichita, KS, USA Joined: |
I would very much like to hear this rebuttal of Post #6 as well. Even if the dating is wrong it still puts a crimp in the flood story. If the flood and Babel stories are correct why do we see this mitochondrial DNA in the America's only? I guess changing the DNA was part of the plan to confuse people later on?
Actually I have a question to Coyote regarding mtDNA. Is there any way to use mtDNA to show a link between those of an Asian descent and those of an Americas descent?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Just FYI, since I've been here so long and you're new:
lyx2no is a sarcastic evolutionist and that post was a parody.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Actually I have a question to Coyote regarding mtDNA. Is there any way to use mtDNA to show a link between those of an Asian descent and those of an Americas descent?
There has been a reasonably good sequence worked out for worldwide mtDNA. One recent paper on the American side is: Achilli et al. (2008), The Phylogeny of the Four Pan-American MtDNA Haplogroups. ... That is available online at PLOS One. I can't get the link to work as it wants to put a smiley in the middle of it! Do a google for the title. There are other papers on the Asian/African side, but I don't have a quick reference (I'm not in the office today). Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Hi menes777
I just want to assure you that my argument was every bit as accurate, meaningful and powerful as those Calypsis4 had been making. Of course, these arguments should have been in the Humor Thread. You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
there is a button just above "show signature" to disable smilies in the post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
there is a button just above "show signature" to disable smilies in the post Of course there is! Now, if I had just remembered that... (Thanks!) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
menes777 Member (Idle past 4347 days) Posts: 36 From: Wichita, KS, USA Joined: |
Doh! You got me.
And here I was thinking you and Calypsis were good buddies. Oh well, I hope that my fossil analogy maybe will sink in with someone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
menes777 Member (Idle past 4347 days) Posts: 36 From: Wichita, KS, USA Joined: |
Thanks for the info Coyote, I found the site and I think it's really great. Of course for me to take it all in I will have to approach it the same way as eating an elephant, one piece at a time.
My next question is to the creationists who believe in the flood. Why is it when a line of evidence exists that destroys the flood hypothesis, that the creationist diverts and points to something as only possible due to the flood? I admit at one point in my life I could only believe that a flood was the only answer. Yet after so much evidence builds up against it I just had to let it go. At what point do you say "These guys are right, it doesn't add up"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2439 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
Hey there menes777.
Strict creationists wear blinders, you know. Maybe not visibly, but they're there. I was never this way--I've been a skeptic for as long as I can remember, but that's not to say I've never believed in the flud (or a real, historically valid Genesis). But I believe I was in 7th grade or so when I started to look at things and say, "Hey, rationally and reasonably, this stuff can't be true. Unless you include the unfalsifiable caveat of magic, of course." Repeat, I was in 7th grade! I'm not sure where the logical disconnect comes in. It surely has something to do with education, as the less educated will experience less exposure to real, honest-to-goodness evidentiary data. But the true moments of incredulousness, as far as I'm concerned, is when you have educated creationists who, to the evolutionists' chagrin, seem to require a willful suspension of disbelief when they consider the evidence that is staring them in the face. It's truly staggering. You're right. It doesn't add up. Have a good one.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024