Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 6:08 AM
15 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,246 Year: 5,283/19,786 Month: 1,405/873 Week: 301/460 Day: 1/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Geology- working up from basic principles.
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4141 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 31 of 156 (418781)
08-30-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Minnemooseus
08-30-2007 1:56 AM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Ok, let me start over with a question.

Why is it valid to use the law of superposition, which is obvious, and apply it to rocks? Has the law of superposition been observed in this context?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-30-2007 1:56 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jazzns, posted 08-30-2007 12:01 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 34 by bluegenes, posted 08-30-2007 1:34 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2007 5:25 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2007 7:35 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2023 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 32 of 156 (418810)
08-30-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 9:42 AM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Has the law of superposition been observed in this context?

Yes.

The nice thing about basic geology principles is that they are really simple. All the LoS basically says is that if I find B on top of A, unless there is evidence of disruption, I can assume that A was put down before B. It doesn't tell you how fast it took to put down A or what caused A to change to B. The evidence within the rocks tells you that.

The nice thing about this is law is that it even works in a flood model. It doesn't matter how fast it happened, the Cononino Sandstone was laid down after the Hermit Shale in the Grand Canyon. Period.

You can look at river deltas and see how they have expanded over time.

We can watch the LoS in action any time there is a depositional enviroment.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 9:42 AM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 10:43 PM Jazzns has responded

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 33 of 156 (418822)
08-30-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Ihategod
08-29-2007 11:42 PM


Re: Preaching to the choir
This is assuming perfect environment. What if's abound. Example, your cat got a clever idea and decided to put the top on on the bottom. Or the maid mixed the top two out of spite for her poor employment wage. How is that each layer represents a certain age? More to the point; How is it that this is a law of geology? Wouldn't you have to have a foundational religion..., say, uniformitarianism? For this to even hold water?

What in the world are you talking aboiut? Superposition doesn't assume a perfect environment. It doesn't depend on any environment at all. It happens in any environment on earth. It happens on Mars. It only assumes God created an orderly universe with constant laws of physics and geometry spatial relationships. Superposition can be observed at countless places any time anybody cares to observe it. Overturned bedding and thrust faulting are not exceptions to superposition. Clastic dikes are not exceptions to superposition. Clastic dikes of fluidized sand can fill fractures like an igneous intrusion. They can even intrude parallel to bedding planes. But clastic dikes that intrude in this manner will invariably cross-cut bedding at some point. They are massive and show no internal stratification. There are no documented exceptions to superposition. Any clever ideas to mess with superposition would amount to God deliberately stacking the deck to fool us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Ihategod, posted 08-29-2007 11:42 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 10:45 PM bdfoster has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 34 of 156 (418829)
08-30-2007 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 9:42 AM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Vashgun writes:

Why is it valid to use the law of superposition, which is obvious, and apply it to rocks? Has the law of superposition been observed in this context?

Yes, it can be observed, apart from its obvious logic. "Varve" is the word given to annual layers of sediment or sedimentary rock, and there are many places, usually lakes, where these are still being laid down.

Here's a brief explanation of varves, including a nice picture of some old ones which have been uplifted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 9:42 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 35 of 156 (418844)
08-30-2007 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 9:42 AM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Why is it valid to use the law of superposition, which is obvious, and apply it to rocks?

If, as you say, it is "obvious", then what but hysterical denial of the facts would prevent us from applying it to rocks?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 9:42 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 36 of 156 (418845)
08-30-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Ihategod
08-29-2007 11:42 PM


Re: Preaching to the choir
This is assuming perfect environment. What if's abound. Example, your cat got a clever idea and decided to put the top on on the bottom. Or the maid mixed the top two out of spite for her poor employment wage. How is that each layer represents a certain age? More to the point; How is it that this is a law of geology? Wouldn't you have to have a foundational religion..., say, uniformitarianism? For this to even hold water?

What if there are no magic cats shuffling the geological record?

I invite you to consider this possibilty because there aren't any magic cats shuffling the geological record.

Oh, and you might want to look up the meaning of the word "religion". A disbelief in magic rock-shuffling cats, in the absence of evidence for such cats, is not actually a "religion".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Ihategod, posted 08-29-2007 11:42 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 37 of 156 (418857)
08-30-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 9:42 AM


Re: Law of superposition and "rocks" -- (revisited again)
Why is it valid to use the law of superposition, which is obvious, and apply it to rocks?

There is something here that may be being overlooked in other responses: your use of "rocks" vs "rock" -- where "rocks" would be loose and no longer associated with the sedimentary layer they came from.

There are places where the law of superposition would not strictly apply to loose rocks -- rocks that are in a river bed for instance would come from erosion of layers of rock the river passes through, and they could be transported downstream onto a layer that is possibly younger than the one the rock came from. In fact any place where the surface has been eroded away those eroded elements would be in a similar situation (beds could be arid and wind eroded). This would require tilted layers and subsequent erosion across them, tectonic activity, or other disruption of the sedimentary layers, and this should be evident from the terrain involved.

Rock layers (whether consolidated or metamorphosed into rock or conglomerate or just compacted sediment layers) however would not be subject to this problem, and any eroded face would show the progression of layers. Geologists would be aware of the possibility of "contamination" of layers by errant rocks and would control for it by digging into the pristine layer of sediment.

The same issue applies to fossils found on the surface of the ground rather than in a layer of sediment, and this happens a lot due to the nature of the search process. In these cases we can only know that the found element is younger than the layer it is found on, but not know how much younger: that takes investigation to find the layer that the element in question came from.

So the issue is that you need the original sedimentary layers for accurate relative dating. This can also be (has been) an issue for radiometric dating of rocks.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 9:42 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4141 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 38 of 156 (418880)
08-30-2007 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jazzns
08-30-2007 12:01 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
I sincerely appreciate the replies, thank you.

The problem I have with superposition is, if God created earth (rocks, land, etc) then the rocks or earth would be the same age. Or the age of Creation.

So then why is there a necessity to prove otherwise? I understand that some will say that it's non bias science and only the results matter in a given experiment. How this basic principle can apply to earth and rock(s) amazes me. Where does the material come from to form the layers? If the earth were billions of years old?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jazzns, posted 08-30-2007 12:01 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 08-30-2007 10:51 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 41 by iceage, posted 08-30-2007 11:03 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 42 by Jazzns, posted 08-31-2007 2:09 AM Ihategod has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4141 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 39 of 156 (418881)
08-30-2007 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by bdfoster
08-30-2007 1:01 PM


Re: Preaching to the choir
What in the world are you talking aboiut? Superposition doesn't assume a perfect environment. It doesn't depend on any environment at all. It happens in any environment on earth. It happens on Mars.

It must in relation to geology. Which is why your arguments fail. I am not attacking superpostion, I just don't understand how it can apply so easily to rock(s) and rock(s) formation. Please help me understand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bdfoster, posted 08-30-2007 1:01 PM bdfoster has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 156 (418883)
08-30-2007 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 10:43 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
How this basic principle can apply to earth and rock(s) amazes me. Where does the material come from to form the layers? If the earth were billions of years old?

I have offered to walk you through a step by step chance for you to explain what is seen using some Flood model.

The offer still stands.

It could be set up not as a "Great Debate" but rather as a "Great Discussion".


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 10:43 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4026 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 41 of 156 (418887)
08-30-2007 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 10:43 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Vashgun writes:

The problem I have with superposition is, if God created earth (rocks, land, etc) then the rocks or earth would be the same age. Or the age of Creation.

Are you proposing that God created the geologic column complete with replete evidences of past processes.

As only one small example, take a microfossil deposits like chalk, diatomaceous shale, or fossiliferous limestone formations. There are comprised mostly of cast off animal parts. These deposits in some cases are **huge** and extensive. Are you suggesting the God created these deposits in situ and they were not the result of living things? Are the ash layers real. Are mudstones and sandstone deposits fake? Are the encased dinosaur fossils fake. Was coal instantaneously created with intervening layers of sandstone just the way God liked to do it.

What you are proposing is simply preposterous!

Vashgun writes:

So then why is there a necessity to prove otherwise?

There is no "necessity to prove otherwise" but a necessity to find out - to discover - and to ultimately understand. Are you advocating ignorance?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 10:43 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Ihategod, posted 08-31-2007 9:09 AM iceage has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2023 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 42 of 156 (418902)
08-31-2007 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 10:43 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
The problem I have with superposition is, if God created earth (rocks, land, etc) then the rocks or earth would be the same age. Or the age of Creation.

Forget about age for a second. All the LoS is saying is what came first with respect to what. If God created the Coconino sandstone in situ, then he probably had to have done so at least at the same time if not after the Hermit Shale. The point I am trying to get across is that the LoS should not be very controversial to anyone.

So then why is there a necessity to prove otherwise? I understand that some will say that it's non bias science and only the results matter in a given experiment. How this basic principle can apply to earth and rock(s) amazes me.

It is simply the best explanation for the evidence. We see sand piling up in basis today, it piles up on top of other "stuff". Why shouldn't we expect something like the Coconino sandstone to have been formed the same way especially when it has the same exact internal structure as sand dunes in nearby deserts?

Where does the material come from to form the layers?

Layers, is far too simplistic of a term. There are all kinds of rocks, some that are in layers, some that are not. Rocks that ARE in layers are (originally) built up from the eroded material from rocks up in mountains that are not in layers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batholith

Sometimes, we can even trace the source of a particular "sand" to the mountain it came from by its particularly weird mineral components.

If the earth were billions of years old?

That is kind of the point. It takes a LONG time for granite to be butchered into sand by water and wind. Even in the most catastrophic flood anyone can dream up, it just doesn't happen. It was little things like this that lead the first creationist geologists to question a young age of the earth.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 10:43 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Ihategod, posted 08-31-2007 9:18 AM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 3653 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 43 of 156 (418927)
08-31-2007 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Ihategod
08-29-2007 11:42 PM


Re: Preaching to the choir
I'm not sure I entirely understand your objection here, but I hope that this makes things clearer.

Superposition deals purely with how sedimentary rocks (and to some extent igneous rocks, but only those deposited at the surface) are laid down initially. Nothing more. Layers can be moved subsequently, but this is outside the scope of superposition. This is not to say that it is unacknowledged, as we do recognise that sequences can be subsequently moved and we find ways to tell if things have been. A couple of examples: We know that folds can overturn sequences so the oldest is at the top and the youngest at the bottom. In post 15 of this thread I described the 'way-up structures' we can use to see if this has happened. Layers, particularly igneous ones, can be squeezed in between layers of rock later on. Post 16 describes how we would confirm that these layers are younger than those surrounding them.

Does this help?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Ihategod, posted 08-29-2007 11:42 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 3653 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 44 of 156 (418928)
08-31-2007 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Adequate
08-28-2007 7:49 PM


I'd be happy to put some of this on the website, but for the moment I'd like to let this thread progress and then I'll make it into something that reads a bit more coherently when some more stuff has been covered.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-28-2007 7:49 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4141 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 45 of 156 (418938)
08-31-2007 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by iceage
08-30-2007 11:03 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Are you proposing that God created the geologic column complete with replete evidences of past processes.

Your assuming the geologic column existed pre flood.

As only one small example, take a microfossil deposits like chalk, diatomaceous shale, or fossiliferous limestone formations. There are comprised mostly of cast off animal parts. These deposits in some cases are **huge** and extensive. Are you suggesting the God created these deposits in situ and they were not the result of living things? Are the ash layers real. Are mudstones and sandstone deposits fake? Are the encased dinosaur fossils fake. Was coal instantaneously created with intervening layers of sandstone just the way God liked to do it.

Note: I proposed none of these things, you did by putting words in my mouth (metaphorically typing). Again, you assume that pre-flood world was the same as it is today. Like a blender, the world was mixed up. How this exactly happened, is and would be very hard to tell. Also claiming a certain model for the flood assumes that there were no supernatural causes.

Things and fossils are found in rocks. This doesn't explain anything. Only imagination makes a static model.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by iceage, posted 08-30-2007 11:03 PM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 08-31-2007 9:29 AM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2007 12:00 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019