Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8096 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-25-2014 7:22 AM
186 online now:
Heathen, herebedragons, Percy (Admin), Pressie (4 members, 182 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: Bliyaal
Post Volume:
Total: 733,092 Year: 18,933/28,606 Month: 2,204/2,305 Week: 409/671 Day: 15/69 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3233
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 96 of 377 (529045)
10-07-2009 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by obvious Child
10-07-2009 4:39 PM


Evo side clinker of the year?
Obvious Child writes:

All your ripple marks suggest (especially since that rock is limestone or other sedimentary rock) is that such rock was at the bottom of the ocean. It takes exceptionally long times to produce that kind of wear and tear on hard rock. You can try this yourself. Get an aquarium, take smooth rock, set up an agitator and let it run for a year. You will not get the same results as the pictures you show. But if you let that rock sit for millions of years, you will.

Someone rated this message to be a 5.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Those ripples are from a current moving the sediments, not a current carving solid rock. It may be a water current or it may be the wind.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by obvious Child, posted 10-07-2009 4:39 PM obvious Child has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 11:21 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3233
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by roxrkool, posted 10-15-2009 1:50 PM Minnemooseus has responded
 Message 235 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-14-2011 2:11 AM Minnemooseus has responded
 Message 237 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 2:42 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3233
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by roxrkool, posted 10-15-2009 6:55 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 185 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2009 7:17 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3233
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


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).

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gmap/gmap3.html:

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 http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gmap/gramerlegend.gif.

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 acknowledged this reply

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3233
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 227 of 377 (620045)
06-13-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Chuck77
06-13-2011 7:34 AM


Re: Evidence of the entire geologic column?
Earlier in this topic, I exchanged a series "geologic column" messages with Roxrkool. I will not so humbly say, this was a pretty good summary of what the geologic column is or isn't. This discussion starts at message 181 and goes thru message 185.

You might also consider reading and/or taking the related discussion to the Geologic Column topic. Edge has a pretty good message at message 3 there.

By the way, I, Rox, and Edge all have geology degrees. They are real world working geologist while I'm much more pseudo.

For me to try to say anything else would to be highly redundant.

Moose

Added by edit: Above, I linked to where I came in on the discussion in this topic. I neglected to cite the Roxrkool message at the beginning of the chain. It is a massive work found at message 176.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Chuck77, posted 06-13-2011 7:34 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by anglagard, posted 06-13-2011 11:30 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 230 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 1:23 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3233
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 232 of 377 (620073)
06-14-2011 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Chuck77
06-14-2011 1:09 AM


The concept of a "complete geological column" is basicly BS
From the quote box:

quote:
Geologists sometimes claim to have found the entire geological column at certain sites, but what they really mean is that they have found layers that they can assign to all ten geologic ages.

Yes, there are numerous examples of stratigraphic sections (my preferred term) that include rocks of all the geologic periods of the Phanerozoic (the Cambrian to the present). If you want to call this a complete geologic column, well OK - But I think such is BS. There is no such thing as a universal stratigraphic section, and no qualified sane geologist would claim that there is.

Somewhere along the line, I'm going to post a follow up to something upthread from a year plus ago. It may or may not be tonight.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 1:09 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3233
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 235 of 377 (620078)
06-14-2011 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Minnemooseus
10-15-2009 1:51 AM


Re: The 100 mile "geologic column"
Minnemooseus writes:

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.

They (the creationist side) found examples of thick sedimentary sections from the individual Phanerozoic (post pre-Cambrian) geologic periods, from various locations (and times) around the world. These sections are the result of the geologic processes happening at that time and at that location.

Then they (the creationist side) go on to expect that the results of those geologic processes, of different times and locations, should be all found stacked up (to ~100 miles thick) at a single location, if the concept of a geologic column is to be true.

The sediments are the evidence of the geologic history of a specific time and a specific place. To expect the same evidence of geologic history to be found at a single location is akin to expecting to find the evidence of human activity in the U.S. in the 1900's, the evidence of human activity in England in the 1800's, the evidence of human activity in Germany in the 1700's, the evidence of human activity in Japan in the 1600's, the evidence of human activity in Iran in the 1500's, the evidence of human activity in China in the 1400's, ..., the evidence of human activity of Egypt in the 100's, etc., etc., etc., all at one single location on Earth.

Of course you're not going to find it at any one location - It happened at different locations.

Moose

Added by edit:

John Woodmorappe quotes Morris and Parker (Morris, H. and Parker, G., What is Creation Science? Master Books, El Cajon, 1982.):

quote:
...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]),...

I would love to see that figure 44. It's not reproduced at the cited online source - Anyone have a copy of (Morris, H. and Parker, G., What is Creation Science? Master Books, El Cajon, 1982.), or able to find a reproduction online?

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-14-2011 10:01 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3233
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 248 of 377 (620215)
06-14-2011 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Minnemooseus
06-14-2011 2:11 AM


The geologic time scale (aka the "geologic column")
John Woodmorappe quotes Morris and Parker (Morris, H. and Parker, G., What is Creation Science? Master Books, El Cajon, 1982.):

quote:
...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]),...

I would love to see that figure 44. It's not reproduced at the cited online source - Anyone have a copy of (Morris, H. and Parker, G., What is Creation Science? Master Books, El Cajon, 1982.), or able to find a reproduction online?

I think the following is probably their "standard geologic column":


Source

A way more detailed version can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...time_scale#Table_of_geologic_time

These are not rock columns (stratigraphic sections) . There are no rock types or thicknesses mentioned. It is a timeline.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-14-2011 2:11 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3233
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 255 of 377 (620246)
06-15-2011 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Boof
06-15-2011 12:19 AM


Buz's old Earth/young life perspective - A topic elsewhere
I got a "Great Debate" with Buz, vaguely plodding along at What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only).

I could there use a reply from Buz.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Boof, posted 06-15-2011 12:19 AM Boof has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Boof, posted 06-15-2011 11:23 PM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3233
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 259 of 377 (620379)
06-15-2011 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Boof
06-15-2011 11:23 PM


Off-topic Buz position side note - Don't reply
As per the subtitle "You're trying to have it both ways", initiated here, Buz's position accepts (or is at least agnostic) about the c. 4.5 billion year age of the Earth. It that sense, he is NOT a young Earth creationist (YEC). As such (as I see it), he's also willing to accept those old lunar etc. radiometric dates.

Per animal life on Earth - He's a full blown YEC. It's those old Earth dates of rocks associated with his "young life" that he has problems with. Some sort of "part of the Earth is ancient, but large parts are much younger than the mainstream scientific perspective" thing.

Yes, it's a convoluted position. That's why I tried to isolate it in a "Great Debate" - To try to straighten things out without his (more or less) unique position mucking up other topics.

All this is off-topic here and should not be discussed further. And I have the special privilege of dealing with Buz one-on-one in the GD topic.

Personal Message me if you wish to discuss this further.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Boof, posted 06-15-2011 11:23 PM Boof has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3233
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 309 of 377 (622012)
06-30-2011 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Chuck77
06-30-2011 2:58 AM


Things "TrueCreation"
I couldn't understand half his post's. Im not sure if he's a genuis and im an idiot or im a genuis and he's an idiot. Either way it was too deep for me. I did recognize that TC was about Philosophy as much as he was about Science.

My impression is that he recognized the invalidity of his previous young Earth creationist (YEC) geologic positions, but was reluctant to completely abandon them. His later messages became quite murky and in general difficult to follow (and I have a geology degree).

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Chuck77, posted 06-30-2011 2:58 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014