Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 181 of 377 (530807)
10-15-2009 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by roxrkool
10-13-2009 3:36 PM


The 100 mile "geologic column"
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:
‘The column is supposed to represent a vertical cross-section through the earth’s crust, with the most recently deposited (therefore youngest) rocks at the surface and the oldest, earliest rocks deposited on the crystalline basement rocks at the bottom. If one wishes to check out this standard column (or standard geologic age system), where can he go to see it for himself? There is only one place in all the world to see the standard geologic column. That’s in the textbook! ... almost any textbook, in fact, that deals with evolution or earth history. A typical textbook rendering of the standard column is shown in Figure 44. This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages. However, the average thickness of each local geologic column is about one mile (in some places, the column has essentially zero thickness, in a few places it may be up to 16 or so miles [25 km], but the worldwide average is about one mile [1.6 km]). The standard column has been built up by superposition of local columns from many different localities.’
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:
What they are saying, as is seen in the part usually not quoted by anti-creationists, is that nowhere on earth is the geologic column complete in the sense of having the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period.
Repeating a bit from the first Morris - Parker quote:
quote:
The standard column has been built up by superposition of local columns from many different localities.
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:
In fact, the geologic column is not found complete at any place on Earth, except in books and on web sites. While the geologic column consists of ten basic layers, all ten layers are found in very few places making up less than 1% of Earth's surface. The theory says it should be 100 miles thick, whereas, on average world wide, the sediment layers are only one mile thick. The entire geologic column was patched together from various locations.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by roxrkool, posted 10-13-2009 3:36 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by roxrkool, posted 10-15-2009 1:50 PM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 235 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-14-2011 2:11 AM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 237 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 2:42 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 182 of 377 (530919)
10-15-2009 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Minnemooseus
10-15-2009 1:51 AM


Re: The 100 mile "geologic column"
moose writes:
quote:
This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages.
I'm guessing that quoted is the original source of the "100 mile" number, or perhaps some earlier work from the same people.
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.
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:
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.
Correct.
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.
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.
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.
I have a pretty decent education in geology and I still don't consider myself an "expert."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2009 1:51 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2009 6:21 PM roxrkool has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 183 of 377 (531007)
10-15-2009 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by roxrkool
10-15-2009 1:50 PM


Re: The 100 mile "geologic column"
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:
It has been claimed that the geological column as a faunel succession is not just a hypothetical concept, but a reality, because all Phanerozoic systems exist superposed at a number of locations on the earth. Close examination reveals, however, that even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column, as represented by sedimentary-thickness, is mostly missing. In fact, the thickest local accumulation of rock is only a tiny fraction of the inferred 600-million year’s worth of depositions. The global ‘stack’ of index fossils exists nowhere on earth, and most index fossils do not usually overlie each other at the same locality. So, even in those places where all Phanerozoic systems have been assigned, the column is still hypothetical. Locally, many of the systems have not been assigned by the index fossils contained in the strata but by indirect methods that take the column for granted clearly circular reasoning. Thus the geologic column does not exist and so does not need to be explained by Flood geology. Only each local succession requires an explanation and Flood geology is wholly adequate for this task.
My "bolds".
Sure it does.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by roxrkool, posted 10-15-2009 1:50 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by roxrkool, posted 10-15-2009 6:55 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 185 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2009 7:17 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 184 of 377 (531013)
10-15-2009 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Minnemooseus
10-15-2009 6:21 PM


Re: The 100 mile "geologic column"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2009 6:21 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 185 of 377 (531019)
10-15-2009 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Minnemooseus
10-15-2009 6:21 PM


The "geologic column" of geologic maps
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:
Map Key
All geologic maps come with a table called a map key. In the map key, all the colors and symbols are shown and explained. The map key usually starts with a list showing the color and letter symbol of every geologic unit, starting with the youngest or most recently formed units (in the example map those are the man-made deposits), along with the name of the unit (if it has one) and a short description of the kinds of rocks in that unit and their age (in the key, the age is described by Epochs, subdivisions of the Periods shown in the letter symbol). After the list of geologic units, all the different types of lines on the map are explained, and then all the different strike and dip symbols. The map key will also include explanations of any other kinds of geologic symbols used on a map (locations where fossils were found, locations of deposits of precious metals, location of faults known to be active, and any other geologic feature that might be important in the area shown by the geologic map). Because the geology in every area is different, the map key is vital to understanding the geologic map.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2009 6:21 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
menes777
Member (Idle past 4318 days)
Posts: 36
From: Wichita, KS, USA
Joined: 01-25-2010


Message 186 of 377 (544821)
01-28-2010 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by lyx2no
10-14-2009 1:54 PM


Re: U G G
quote:
Keep up the good work, Calypsis4. I collected this 'fossil' from Randle Cliff in the Calvert formation, Calvert County, Maryland, last Friday.
No evolutionist is going to convince me it's 15 to 18 myo.
Not a fossil.
quote:
Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by lyx2no, posted 10-14-2009 1:54 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-28-2010 4:16 PM menes777 has not replied
 Message 190 by lyx2no, posted 01-28-2010 7:46 PM menes777 has replied

  
menes777
Member (Idle past 4318 days)
Posts: 36
From: Wichita, KS, USA
Joined: 01-25-2010


Message 187 of 377 (544825)
01-28-2010 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
10-07-2009 12:07 PM


I am still waiting too, better not hold my breath though
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 10-07-2009 12:07 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2010 5:32 PM menes777 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 377 (544827)
01-28-2010 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by menes777
01-28-2010 3:42 PM


Re: U G G
Just FYI, since I've been here so long and you're new:
lyx2no is a sarcastic evolutionist and that post was a parody.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by menes777, posted 01-28-2010 3:42 PM menes777 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 189 of 377 (544847)
01-28-2010 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by menes777
01-28-2010 3:57 PM


Re: I am still waiting too, better not hold my breath though
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by menes777, posted 01-28-2010 3:57 PM menes777 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2010 11:02 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 194 by menes777, posted 01-29-2010 11:13 AM Coyote has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 190 of 377 (544858)
01-28-2010 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by menes777
01-28-2010 3:42 PM


Re: U G G
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by menes777, posted 01-28-2010 3:42 PM menes777 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by menes777, posted 01-29-2010 10:58 AM lyx2no has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 191 of 377 (544869)
01-28-2010 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Coyote
01-28-2010 5:32 PM


Re: I am still waiting too, better not hold my breath though
there is a button just above "show signature" to disable smilies in the post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2010 5:32 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Coyote, posted 01-29-2010 1:33 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 192 of 377 (544874)
01-29-2010 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by RAZD
01-28-2010 11:02 PM


Re: Button
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2010 11:02 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
menes777
Member (Idle past 4318 days)
Posts: 36
From: Wichita, KS, USA
Joined: 01-25-2010


Message 193 of 377 (544905)
01-29-2010 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by lyx2no
01-28-2010 7:46 PM


Re: U G G
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by lyx2no, posted 01-28-2010 7:46 PM lyx2no has seen this message but not replied

  
menes777
Member (Idle past 4318 days)
Posts: 36
From: Wichita, KS, USA
Joined: 01-25-2010


Message 194 of 377 (544907)
01-29-2010 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Coyote
01-28-2010 5:32 PM


Re: I am still waiting too, better not hold my breath though
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"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2010 5:32 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Apothecus, posted 01-29-2010 11:56 AM menes777 has not replied
 Message 196 by solja247, posted 02-20-2010 5:32 AM menes777 has not replied
 Message 197 by solja247, posted 02-20-2010 5:34 AM menes777 has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 195 of 377 (544911)
01-29-2010 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by menes777
01-29-2010 11:13 AM


Re: I am still waiting too, better not hold my breath though
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by menes777, posted 01-29-2010 11:13 AM menes777 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024