Back to the fundamentals

Disclaimer: I, minnemooseus, am one who has fallen under the influence of a college education in geology.As I see it, the most fundimental exponent of the evidence of evolution (inorganic and organic) is the geologic column. It is a record of what happened through the long passage of time. The rocks at the bottom, and any contained fossils, are the earliest available record of what happened at that location. The rocks at the top, and any contained fossils, are the latest available record of what happened at that location. There are also methodologies for sequencing other events, such as faulting and folding. This is the conventional wisdom.Conventional geologic and related study weaves a complex, interlocking story of the processes that resulted in the geologic record. Fundamental to this study is the idea (theory?) of uniformitarianism, which says that the processes we see happening today, are the same processes that happened in the past. This uniformitarianism certainly dosn't exclude the occasional catastrophic event. It does say that most of what we see is a result of ordinary, common processes.This kicker of this discussion, of course, is the reality of the "great flood" of Noah's time. At least some believers in this event think that much of the geologic column is a result of that short term (few years?) event. As such, the geologic column is not a record of the happenings during the passage of time. Rather, the geologic column is the result of some sort of sorting process.My personal opinion mirrors that of the vast majority of those trained in geology. That is, that a vast part of the geologic column could be from a short time period, single flood event, is plainly absurd. Now this statement, in itself, is (as I understand it) called "an arguement of authority (AOA)", or something like that. An AOA is considered to be a not valid method of debate.Thus, I get challenged to supply specific data to support the idea that the geologic column is indeed a result of uniformitarianistic processes. Now, offhand, doing this should be easy. I have the entire history of conventional geologic study at my disposal. All I need do is post a significant portion (with references) of this history. And then further defend the details of that history.As I see it, an at least equal burdon in on the "flood geology" advocate, to supply a history of geologic study, demonstrating how a single flood process can acount for the rocks of the geologic column.What we need to come up with, is an example geologic column, or even better, a related set of columns (real world raw data), and then have both the conventional geologist and the "flood" geologist offer up their versions of how it happened. It would perhaps be nice if the column included some coal horizons. I am, of course, confident that the "flood" geologist would be unable to come up with a plausable explanation.So, can anyone out there come up with an internet version of a geologic column? Maybe we need to track down that Grand Canyon section. The problem is finding a description that is detailed enough to study in depth.Comments?Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

John Paul: And if it were just a single flood event I would agree with you. However it wasn't 'just a single flood event'. It was a continent splitting up and then some of the pieces crashing into each other forming the mountain ranges we observe today. Also the ocean basins sank and that is where the water went to causing erosion.

---

The Bible relates a story of a great flood. At the Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A thread, a mechanism for this flood is being debated. The Bible, however, makes no comment (am I wrong?) about anything beyond that "great flood", so thoughts of continents splitting and crashing, and mountains being built, in conjunction with the "great flood" is pure speculation.

quote:

---

John Paul: What is the data that shows mountain peaks can be formed by the slow & steady plate movements we observe today? Wouldn't the rock layers just flop over one another? Try it. You can see the difference when a car crashes into a stationary object at high speeds as opposed to 1-2 mph. Why would mountain making be any different?

---

I'm no expert, and I havn't done any special research to confirm it, but I believe that the Himalaya Mountains are still rising at a measureable rate.As far as impact rates - Remember, the forces driving the collision didn't cease after the initial contact. Think of a car being slowly pushed into a solid object by a strong force. It may crumple slowly, but ultimately it will still get very crumpled.I would prefer that a discussion of this nature be instead at that other string: Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&AWhat I was trying for in this string, was to get back to the rocks themselves (or the best possible internet version of the rocks themselves). Then to try to interpretate those rock to see what origins model they fit. Or something like that.Best regards,
Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Re: Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of MexicoI skimmed through it, and I am under the impression that the main point of it it that the "flood geologists" are having an internal debate over which rocks to include as "great flood" deposits, and which to exclude.They are also seemingly showing a greater honesty in recognizing the problems of getting the real world data to fit in a "great flood" model.In a way, I must commend the paper as being better than most of the "flood geology" papers I have encountered. I have bookmarked it, for further study.Best regards,
Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Re: Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico

​

I skimmed through it, and I am under the impression that the main point of it it that the "flood geologists" are having an internal debate over which rocks to include as "great flood" deposits, and which to exclude.

​

They are also seemingly showing a greater honesty in recognizing the problems of getting the real world data to fit in a "great flood" model.

​

In a way, I must commend the paper as being better than most of the "flood geology" papers I have encountered. I have bookmarked it, for further study.

​

Best regards,
Moose

​

---

Upon re-reading the first part of "Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico" at:
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.aspI find that it contains some interesting comments about the relationships between the creationsist camp and the science of geology.I give my personal encouragement to members on both sides, to give this paper a fairly careful reading, at least the first part. The later part of the paper gets rather "mucky", and can be given a lighter reading.Cheers,
Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Upon re-re-reading "Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico" at:
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp :I'm not really following some of their thought processes, but this paper seems to be more of a support for the "great flood" having not happened. By their own admission, they have not found evidence to support the "great flood" event.Moose

To the "flood geologists": Where is the evidence that the "great flood" happened?Cite some real physical evidence. Show me the sediments.Mooseps. could the creationist side please be a clear as possible to whether they are old earth or young earth------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Come on creationists:If the seven days of creation, the young earth, and the great flood are real - Why did God leave such a detailed worldly record to the contrary?The worldly record that so many scientists have carefully studied and find so convincing. Have they been deceived? Why would God do this deception?Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Upon re-re-reading "Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico" at:
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp :

​

I'm not really following some of their thought processes, but this paper seems to be more of a support for the "great flood" having not happened. By their own admission, they have not found evidence to support the "great flood" event.

​

Moose

---

John Paul - Do you have any comments on the above cited? You were the one to originally present the link. I did find it interesting.See the "uniformitarianism" spin off topic also."Talk to the rocks - they have the answers",
Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - MaybeEdited c. 8:30 pm ET, 1/20/01, to fix UBB code

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-20-2002]

quote:

---

Moose: If the seven days of creation, the young earth, and the great flood are real - Why did God leave such a detailed worldly record to the contrary?

​

The worldly record that so many scientists have carefully studied and find so convincing. Have they been deceived? Why would God do this deception?

---

Hey, I'm having to find my own answers to the above questions.From http://www.theistic-evolution.com/And more specificly, the authors "Essay in Favor of Theistic Evolution"
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.htmlFrom The Possibilities of Genesis

quote:

---

Perhaps God created the earth to look older. Adam certainly looked like a 25-year-old man in Genesis, even though he had just been created. Did God create the earth looking older to fool us or to tempt us? Absolutely not! He created the earth in accordance with his own natural laws, so that the natural laws make sense when projected backward past creation, just like Adam's body. The record of the past gives us clues to the future. Christians have always viewed creation as a divine miracle. Would anyone be bothered if someone claimed that the trees in the Garden of Eden had rings in their trunks? Why can't God create mountains with sedimentary layers in them? Why can't God create fossils in those layers? Is He not God Almighty?

---

And

quote:

---

At this point, we could all agree that the earth is 10,000 years old but God created it so that it appears to be older. Nobody could absolutely disprove this assertion. It looks older and it all fits together sensibly, so the scientists can continue with their research. Fundamentalist Christians can maintain the 6x24 accuracy of Genesis. Christians can concentrate on the Great Commission, and atheists will have to think up other ways to "bait" us. We can all go home now.
You may ask why God would create an earth that looks older. God is not a liar. There may be two reasons:
1. So that the natural laws make sense.
2. To give us clues to the future, based on a realistic past.
I am not satisfied with either of these reasons, but they are possibilities. Many of our "Why?" questions will have to wait until we get to heaven.
I have seen a hint of the "created recently but looks older" idea on one creationist web site, but most other creationist literature insists that all the natural processes must take place over 10,000 years. So unfortunately, because some Christians have chosen this path, this is the path I must address. The theory of evolution depends on having more than 10,000 years in which to work, so the natural age of the earth is important.

---

Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

The Geologic Column
and its Implications for the Flood
Copyright 2001 by Glenn Morton
[Last Update: February 17, 2001]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/Glenn Morton discusses a section of sedimentary rock in North Dakota, which span the periods of the Phanerazoic.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Upon re-re-reading "Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico" at:
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp :

​

I'm not really following some of their thought processes, but this paper seems to be more of a support for the "great flood" having not happened. By their own admission, they have not found evidence to support the "great flood" event.

​

Moose

---

As I type this, this topic has fallen to 73rd place on the list of active topics - time to revive it.Creationists - any comments on the above quoted, or any of the messages between the source of the quote and this here message?I'm looking for the physical evidence of the flood, and in the bigger picture, how the entire geologic record fits into the creation story.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

The area of "Great Flood" discussion, that I'm trying to push in this topic, has started to show up in another topic.From http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=2&t=38&m=63#63 , is the following:

quote:

---

JM: Of course there is. You could start (an excellent start) with identifying the strata globally which marks the onset of the Noachian flood. You can then indentify the strata marking the end of the global flood and you can tell us what strata are 'intra-flood'. I would expect that these flood strata would not have any paleosols contained within them, wouldn't you?

---

So... BUMP!Moose

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Disclaimer: I, minnemooseus, am one who has fallen under the influence of a college education in geology.

​

As I see it, the most fundimental exponent of the evidence of evolution (inorganic and organic) is the geologic column. It is a record of what happened through the long passage of time. The rocks at the bottom, and any contained fossils, are the earliest available record of what happened at that location. The rocks at the top, and any contained fossils, are the latest available record of what happened at that location. There are also methodologies for sequencing other events, such as faulting and folding. This is the conventional wisdom.

​

Conventional geologic and related study weaves a complex, interlocking story of the processes that resulted in the geologic record. Fundamental to this study is the idea (theory?) of uniformitarianism, which says that the processes we see happening today, are the same processes that happened in the past. This uniformitarianism certainly dosn't exclude the occasional catastrophic event. It does say that most of what we see is a result of ordinary, common processes.

​

This kicker of this discussion, of course, is the reality of the "great flood" of Noah's time. At least some believers in this event think that much of the geologic column is a result of that short term (few years?) event. As such, the geologic column is not a record of the happenings during the passage of time. Rather, the geologic column is the result of some sort of sorting process.

​

My personal opinion mirrors that of the vast majority of those trained in geology. That is, that a vast part of the geologic column could be from a short time period, single flood event, is plainly absurd. Now this statement, in itself, is (as I understand it) called "an arguement of authority (AOA)", or something like that. An AOA is considered to be a not valid method of debate.

​

Thus, I get challenged to supply specific data to support the idea that the geologic column is indeed a result of uniformitarianistic processes. Now, offhand, doing this should be easy. I have the entire history of conventional geologic study at my disposal. All I need do is post a significant portion (with references) of this history. And then further defend the details of that history.

​

As I see it, an at least equal burdon in on the "flood geology" advocate, to supply a history of geologic study, demonstrating how a single flood process can acount for the rocks of the geologic column.

​

What we need to come up with, is an example geologic column, or even better, a related set of columns (real world raw data), and then have both the conventional geologist and the "flood" geologist offer up their versions of how it happened. It would perhaps be nice if the column included some coal horizons. I am, of course, confident that the "flood" geologist would be unable to come up with a plausable explanation.

​

So, can anyone out there come up with an internet version of a geologic column? Maybe we need to track down that Grand Canyon section. The problem is finding a description that is detailed enough to study in depth.

​

Comments?

​

Moose

​

---

Figure it was time to replay the initial post of this topic.So creationists, which rocks were a result of "the flood"? All of them? Much of them? A small portion of them?I would think that a small portion of them is the only plausible possibility, but which rocks were they?John Paul posted this, way back:
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.aspThey didn't come up with an answer. Indeed, they specificly stated that they didn't come up with an answer.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Joe, do you have any comments on:
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.aspThey don't really seem to accomplish much, but I am impressed with their facing up to the real problems of fitting the Noahtic flood into the "big picture". In all, probably the best creationist flood geology web page I have encountered (IMO).Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: Actually, I had see that discussion when it first came out. What they are basically confessing to is that there can be no useful 'flood stratigraphy'. If I understand their premise the flood deposits can be indentified by their energy requirements. This is going to lead to a whole host of problems for interpreting the flood. What happens when a sequence goes from 'high-energy' (never really defined by the way) to 'low-energy' (never really defined either) back to 'high energy'? Does this indicate the global flood waxed and waned? What about places where we only see 'low-energy' environments? Surely a global flood would affect the globe. Thirdly, if creationists switch to this definition, they lose all their (admittedly stupid) 'hydraulic sorting' arguments. The main conclusion from their paper is that creationist geology does not fit the observations! Of course, we've known this for a couple of hundred years! This paper is more damning of yec geology than I think the authors intended!

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

Quoting myself, from message 10:

quote:

---

I'm not really following some of their thought processes, but this paper seems to be more of a support for the "great flood" having not happened. By their own admission, they have not found evidence to support the "great flood" event.

---

I am rather amazed that such honesty would appear at True Origins.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe