Searching for Ancient Truth

I'm sure you do believe that, however it seems that many of us haven't quite understood your explanation. So, let's see if we can get you to rephrase it so we can understand. Really? Let's examine that.In Chemistry I can say that if this theory is true I should see xyz.Do you agree with that?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Could you give me more detail how replicable tests in chemistry and physics differ from those involving TOE or geology?How does this different replicability in the testing eliminate "some other explanation" for a particular theory in chemistry or physics?An example involving...say...The Theory of Gravitational Attraction or The Atomic Theory of Matter will do if you have problems articulating answers to the questions above.Edited to change subtitle (don't want 'em ta get old!!)This message has been edited by LinearAq, 03-09-2006 06:55 PM

---

Hey pastor! Where do we set up the Deuteronomy 23:1 inspection station?

lolDon't kid yourself, I don't normally read your posts either, except when they happen to occur in threads I'm intersted in. In this case, I felt it was necessary to point out your original comments were about the early scientists who constructed the geologic timescale, not any scientists on this board.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-09-2006 07:12 PM

What roxrkool is trying to point out to you is that your comment was NOT about present company. It was not specifically about Darwin, either, but it was about geologists in the century leading up to Darwin, most of whom were Christian ministers.Go back and read post 1 and look at the context of your quote; the statement of roxrkool's that it is a response to.

I had present company in mind even when I first answered her. She had said that geologists don't just make this stuff up about the demarcations between the strata and I said no, etc...Present company and modern geology in general. If she meant some specific generation of geologists who preceded Darwin I didn't get the reference. The thinking that explains the demarcations in the way I consider laughable is held by present geologists whenever it originated.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 04:11 PM

it would help if we could get you to point to some things we should find if the flood ever happened.There's still a question awaiting your answer in Message 16
and you still have not answered the questions posed in Message 47, Message 52and Message 119It's very hard to look to see if the flood even happened if no one will tell us what the flood level will look like.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It's just a collection of interpretations or explanations.Fact: There are great depths of stratified sediments throughout the earth in which fossils occur in a certain order that parallels the phylogenetic tree. Interesting facts.The standard interpretations include:1. That this represents sedimentary buildup of the surface of the earth over a very long period of time -- multiplied millions of years.2. That the fossil contents represent what was living in a given time frame represented, and that what is not represented in that "time frame" but is represented in other "time frames" was not living then.3. {abe: That the apparent gradation in life forms is confirmation of the theory that all life evolved from earlier forms of life.4. That the individual sedimentary deposits themselves, so neatly marked off from those above and below in many cases, represent identifiable measurable millions of years in which very particular fossil contents represent the living things of that particular period.These are interpretations. How do you test such things? You can't. You can only keep rationalizing them with other interpretations and keep feeding the scenario. Unless you are willing to recognize that it makes no sense. The only actual test that exists is radiometric dating, and that apparently confirms the age factor, so they say, but there are no other tests, and there are problems with radiometric dating anyway.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 04:28 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 04:29 PM

Sorry, this is a misunderstanding. I used the term "field" in the sense of "the field of geology" not in the sense of "field work." not that it is necessarily crucial. The field work that identified the strata as discrete eras in which particular living things lived and died was based on the appearance of things in the field but this idea remains a mere speculation nevertheless. Yes and this is a fascinating fact. But it seems to me that this would be far more consistent with the explanation that {abe: since} the living things contained in these similar rock types somehow died IN the sediments that became those rock types, that they had somehow become associated with those sediments for some reason and that this would far more likely have happened in a major event than over millions of years, which is what a particular depth of rock is normally interpreted to mean. It just makes no sense to think that such a depth of such specific rock containing such specific life forms could have taken millions of years of SLOW accumulation inch by inch to form. All you have to do is observe how things get jumbled up NOW to wonder how such a huge swath of earth stayed so absolutely precisely ONE sediment with ONE KIND of fossil contents for millions of years. It is a problem for the Flood theory to explain how all this happened TOO, but the current theory is a lot more irrational it seems to me. The geological column certainly exists. It's a fascinating phenomenon. The interpretation of it in terms of millions of years of inch by inch accumulation is what boggles the mind. I have no problem at all with the existence of the geological column itself, but with the interpretation of it in terms of the OALD EARTH TIMETABLE. This kind of knowledge is perfectly valid geological knowledge that I would not argue with. The names of the rocks are tendentious but I can ignore that for now. The preconceptions I'm talking about are the interpretation in terms of millions of years of slow buildup which remains nothing but an interpretation. There is no argument with the observations you are laying out above. The argument is with how you think all that got there -- which involved an imaginative leap in the first place and is not testable. Fortunately you are wrong and nobody is questioning the actual geological facts which is all you've talked about so far. Again, it's the interpretation, the imaginative scenario, that is used to EXPLAIN the rocks, that is disputed, not the formations themselves, which are undisputed. They are the data. The theory is the problem.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 05:40 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 05:41 PM

It doesn't really matter to the point I was makingk as the same geologic timescale has been accepted by geologists ever since, and what I said about how they continue to rationalize it remains true.

What is testable (among other things):
1. Measuring the before and after conditions of local flooding (i.e. deposits)
2. Rate of sedimentation.
3. The ability or inability to create sedimentary rock (i.e. pressures & temperatures, etc.)
4. How run-off water forms tributaries above ground and under water.
5. Rate of erosion of soil and of rock (including the smooth rocks in a riverbed)
6. Rate of deposition of diatom shellsSo, based on the above, interested folks can (to a limited degree) backtrack a series of event explanations to get from current condition to historical Earth configuration that we observe in the many formations around the world.The problem is, Creationists have spot explanations that are not tied together, and have no desire to explain strata and other conditions in any level of detail that is backed-up by the tested observations (see above list) of geologic change. It all comes down to the Bible says it and the case is closed. Something is buried here and over there, therefore the Bible's global flood occurred.

Yes, I'm sorry, i did misunderstand your use of 'field.' What exactly is "mere speculation" about mapping out the rock units, identifying the fossils, and then correlating the resultant stratigraphy/ies across Europe and then the entire globe?The 'ages' were relative when the column was first constructed - 'these fossils are always older than these fossil, therefore in our column we will show that relationship.'The names assigned to various stratigraphic assemblages reflect the location of well-known discrete fossil assemblages or specific/important characteristics - Jurassic for the Jura Mountains, and Carboniferous for the prodigious amount of coal found in those rocks.Subsequent to assigning names to eras, periods, etc., the same name was given to any other sections of rock found to have the same fossil assemblages in other parts of the world.Are the rocks themselves always the same? No.Are the same fossils found everywhere and/or on each continent? No.If marine sediment from a certain time period was not being deposited in Germany because it was in the central portion of the continent at that time, then marine fossils associated with that time period will be missing. However, terrestrial fossils may be present and those correlated to other parts of the world. If organisms died due to suffocation IN the sediment, then we would not find evidence of teeth marks on fossilized skeletons, or even large dinosaur teeth embedded in fossilized skeletons, and we would find more evidence of fur, hair, feathers, skin, etc.The problem is that for the most part, the rocks are devoid of fossils. Only in certain locations or rocks can we find fossils. If we found fossils everywhere, more kids would be out looking for them. Fossil preservation is imperfect because of preservation bias. Soft parts are rarely preserved, bony parts and teeth better preserved. We often find shark teeth, but few sharks. This would be different if all the sharks died and were buried quickly.Marine rocks contain more fossils simply because the ocean is capable of accomodating a large amount of life within a small area. Compared to a jungle, a desert is lifeless - unless you know where to look. This happens in the ocean as well. The near shore environment has much more life than the deep sea. We see this today and it's indicated in the rock record as well.What happens in marine rocks that you often get condensed sections. In the deep marine setting or when the surface area of the ocean increases (especially in carbonate settings), less sediment is deposited. This can result in a concentration of fossils. Similarly, if clastic (sand silt) input significantly increases, mass death can occur, also resulting in a large accumulation of fossils. Usually, people find a fossil here and there, some fish scales, a fish bone, some burrows, parts of carbonized plant remains, a shark tooth, etc., and then an oyster colony. But the ocean is different than the surficial environment. What is getting jumbled in the ocean? What is going to affect the ocean floor 10,000 feet below the surface? Not even tsunamis reach the ocean floor. Old Earth theory explains it very well in terms of sequence stratigraphy, which models changing sea levels and depositional environments over time.

Yes, it's accepted because we have found no reason to reject it. However, the column of today is not the column of 1800. Even today it is being changed and refined to fit new data.

Nothing whatever. If we are going to have a discussion at all it is going to have to be clear that I'm never calling this kind of work speculation. I have tried to explain this many times but apparently fail to get it across. Even in my last post I tried to be clear that I am only talking about the theory or interpretation or explanatory scheme of the geo timetable and not the kind of work you are describing here. My Message 22 lists the interpretative elements I am calling speculative and untestable. Well, on the rule that the lower is always older than the higher that is in a sense unassailable logic. But if the difference in age is at most, say, weeks or months, then it's not particularly significant. AND if the fossils represent life forms that all died in the same event, then the logic calling some older than others is simply wrong. Yes, no problem with the geographic designations and their peculiar contents of course; it's the time factor that attends each grouping that I'm objecting to. Makes sense, no problem. Again it is the time factor that is assigned that is the problem, not anything that merely describes the physical conditions, the geographical location, the specific sediments and fossil contents and so on. I figure they aren't but not knowing a lot about the differences I have no way of assessing the significance of this. I am unable to judge the interpretive significance of this. Of course to my mind we aren't talking about a "time period" at all. Probably a plausible guess but still only a guess, only a conjecture. We can never know for sure. That's my whole point. The whole thing is speculative and interpretive. Again I'm failing to grasp the significance of this statement, what point you are trying to make. Again, I simply don't know what conclusion you would have me draw from this. Ditto my above comments. If you think that ALL the strata were formed in ocean water then that becomes a decent argument for the FLood it seems to me. Which is a highly jerryrigged sort of scenario compared to the "elegant" explanation of the Flood.

Of course you can test all that, but that's not either the geo timetable or the flood theory, and any kind of connection you seek to make between any particular measurement and the theory about what happened in the distant past remains an interpretation, a guess, a speculation. You can't KNOW that your application of any of these measures says anything at all about what actually happened, nor can you rule out other possible explanations by these methods. That is because such detailed explanations are a red herring from the point of view of the Flood. A complete distraction. And they prove nothing whatever (see above comment). Apparently you haven't noticed, but on this thread I have not said one word in defense of the Flood. My entire effort has been to explain why I consider the geological timetable to be erroneous. And that appears to me to be the topic of the OP as well, not the Flood.

Faith, the work we do in the field is what leads us to our theories.Once the early naturalists were able to construct a column based on the order of fossils in the rocks, which you don't seem to have a problem with, it was later noted that the fossils changed not only vertically, but also laterally; and these changes were tied to subtle or significant changes in the rocks as well. Different types of rocks contained different types and varieties of fossils.Say you're standing on a beach in Australia looking out towards the Great Barrier Reef and the open ocean. You are standing on a sandy beach, but if you walk into the water far enough, the sand changes to carbonate and you will eventually reach the reef - full of marine life of all types. If you kept walking, however, you'd be in water over your head and you would eventually reach the portion of the ocean where shale is being deposited. These sediments are all being deposits contemporaneously - the beach sands, the carbonate, and the shale. Each one of these environments contains organisms that have adapted to life on a beach (clams, insects, plants, etc.), to a carbonate system (coral, fish, clams, starfish, gastropods, plant life, etc.), and to a shale environment (sharks, squid, different bivalves, ammonites, burrowers, etc.). While some marine life can cross into different ecological systems, some do not. Coral reefs are restricted to certain environments based on water depth, temperature, and clarity.These are the same relationships the early naturalists found in the rocks. Shales contained fossils resembling modern fossils found in deeper sea environments, limestones had fossils similar to those found in modern carbonate settings, and adjacent sandstones (found interfingering with limestone),were found to contain fossils similar to those found on modern beach environments. These observations clearly indicated (and hence our interpretations that you don't like) that the rocks represented various depositional settings. Mapping out the aerial extent of these various rock units (i.e., shale, limestone, beach sands, etc.) produced maps that looked exactly like modern coastal settings, replete with coastal swamps (coal deposits), volcanoes (supplied the ash layers often found in shallow continental sea deposits), alluvial and fluvial (stream) systems, etc.This is how we moved away from the flood theory. You cannot have various depositional settings during a global flood. Everything gets mixed together and homogenized and order is lost. The problem for you is that throughout the entire geologic column, there is ample evidence that large portions of the globe were underwater at the same time others were subaerial. In addition, the stratigraphic column is not complete except in a few places around the world, which conflicts with what would be expected if the strata were all deposited in one global event. This, along with the evidence of depositional settings (and many other things), tells us 'time periods' or paleolandscapes were an important part of this earth's geologic history and therefore difficult to explain via a flood interpretation. The point is, Faith, that it's a plausible explanation because it makes 'sense.' It makes sense once we are made aware of the details.The fact is teeth marks and teeth embedded in complete fossil skeletons would not be possible during a flood. Teeth marks indicate the skeleton was stripped of flesh (eaten) and skeletons stripped of flesh cannot remain intact during a deluge of Noachic proportions. They would be scattered within days of heavy rains and flooding. In addition, we also find intact dinosaur nests. The amount of rain necessary to erode the continents and to form the geologic column, would wipe out something as fragile as nests and fleshless skeletons. It is sensible to assume that. My replies are directed to this statement of yours (which, it turns out, I don't fully understand): If all the organisms died at one time, why are they spread out over the entire column which is thousands and thousands of feet thick? This doesn't make sense in anyway. Hydraulic sorting does not sort on morphological characteristics as far as I know.The reason there are so many marine fossils in the rock record has to do with the 1) most of the world is covered by water and always has been, 2) marine settings are extremely rich in life especially carbonate systems, 3) carbonate settings are most often located adjacent to continents, and 4) marine settings are particularly conducive to fossil preservation. Therefore, it's no surprise that a large portion of the rock record is composed of marine rocks and fossils and so this line of evidence is not necessarily indicative of a flood. I'm not sure what in my statement above suggests I think ALL strata are marine. All I said was that the ocean is a calm and stable environment that allows sediment to slowly deposit over a long period of time. Where things become jumbled and complex is near the coasts (where sea level changes affect the most change in the way of depositional systems), and on the continents where weathering, erosion, and tectonics reign supreme. The marine setting is not affected significantly by tectonics, erosion, or sea level changes, but it is affected by climate. Not "jerryrigged," though certainly complex. A complicated concept that beautifully (and elegantly!!) explains the complexity of the geologic record.