Geology- working up from basic principles.

The problem I am having with the LoS, is that from a creationists view, the LoS doesn't apply to geology. I doubt the geologic column existed pre-flood. You assume it did. You probably don't even think there was a flood. So, for me to accept the application of this LoS I would need to agree and submit to your ideology. Which I won't do. Even the Admins can't grasp another view of geology in lieu of their doctrines. There is even unconformities and flipped layers in your model, which you will readily admit. So how does this law apply to a creation model? It is as if we are back in ancient Greece discussing classical physics.

Sorry but that is not true. We can see that a Geologic column exists, so there is no need to make any assumptions about that.What we do not do is assume that some flood for which there is no evidence exists.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why is superposition not consistent with YEC? Superposition would still apply if every sedimentary rock in the world was deposited by a global flood. The rock at the bottom would be from the early flood as the waters rose and those at the top would be the very last deposits as the waters drained away.

I would like to bring back my point and stay on topic.Superposition is consistent with YEC, because I don't understand why it would even apply to geology doesn't mean someone can't. *If* there was a flood, then the law of superposition would only be relevant to a certain time frame, ie after the flood and not before. The first rock created could be closest to the top. It seems the LoS is set in place to promote old age earth ideas. In a fundamental creation model it wouldn't even matter. We are on two sides of the coin, why would I agree to play by your rules?

I explained varves to you in a post above. Annual layers of sediments can be observed in real time accumulating on lake beds with, logically, the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top, in accordance with the Law of Superposition.So, if the LoS, from a creationists view, does not apply in geology, then you can see these varves as a strong indicator that the creationist view is a false one, as it doesn't fit the evidence. Reality isn't ideology, and ancient Jewish mythology isn't reality. If you choose to believe in one of the ancient creation mythologies, Jewish or any other, of course it won't fit in with geology or any other branch of the sciences. That's because superstitious, ancient cultures tended to make things up to fill in the gaps in their knowledge.It isn't the job of science to fit in with the superstitions of any ancient culture.

Haven't you also argued that the flood created the Grand Canyon? I find the supposition that the flood created the geologic column and then the Grand Canyon through those layers, all in the span of one year. Please describe the mechanism by which such a thing is possible. I am truly curious to hear such an explanation.-xThis topic is for covering geologies most basic principles. Unless considerations of the Grand Canyon ties directly into those principle, it is off-topic.Edited by EighteenDelta, : GrammarEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner etc.

---

Idiots speak louder than words(yes its supposed to be ironical... twice)

Why would it not be relevant before the flood? What would happen so differently that could invalidate the principle?

quote:

---

It seems the LoS is set in place to promote old age earth ideas.

---

Not so. It makes no assumptions about the age of the earth and is based purely on observational evidence and logic.

And yet you wrote:

I have to confess I don't understand Vashgun's objections to superposition. I am at least familiar woth most of the arguments that YECs use, and while I don't agree with them, I at least understand what they are and where they are coming from. But even the publications from ICR and AIG don't flatly deny superposition (although they may deny it, and asorted laws of physics, by implication). Whatever surface a sedimentary layer is deposited on must have existed prior to deposition of the sediment. It's impossible for there to be any exceptions to this. It seems to me that flat denial that all sediments are younger than whatever surface they are deposited on (whether before, after or during the flood) is no better than flatly saying black is white or 1+1=3. Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.

---

Brent

Well consider this statement he made: So you see if God made the formations all at once then their position, above or below, does not indicate relative age. Although I'm sure you see it and he doesn't, this is the same argument of stating that the world was created 1 minute ago, and the entire concept of a past in time is an illusion created by God.However he also said this: Now I'm going to assume this means what it says, and that he has actually thought about this (both probably a big mistake).He appears to be saying that "geology" at creation has no LoS, but that the geologic column came into existence with the flood or after it.Since we can observe the LoS in action today there is no reason to suggest it was not in action going all the way back to the flood.This means tha Vashgun is really saying that geology has pre-LoS formations and post LoS formations.For this to be true and us to accept it, all he has to do is show us where this worldwide boundary is.I doubt he can do that, and I further doubt he has actually looked at any sequence of rocks/formations in person. That's the only way one could continue to believe the nonsense he has stated.Edited by petrophysics, : missed a [qs]

Yes but the two statements you quote from Vashgun are contradictory.
He's not really saying that geology has pre-LoS formations and post LoS formations. He's saying on the one hand everything came into existance at creation, and on the other hand the geologic column came into existence with the flood or after it. That can't be reconciled with anything. I think this is just knee-jerk obstructionism. If this is how he responds to superposition wait till he gets to x-cutting relationships and original horizontality. Weren't we on faunal succession? Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.

---

Brent

no disrespect, but You have the concept of my argument. How can we know the earth was not distorted from a catastrophe? And please refrain from baseless assertions and provide links that describe your geological thought pattern. Also, remember since it is the truth it is not obstructing anything but lies.

Because there are *many* geological structures that could not be formed via a massive catastrophe flood. You have heard about angular unconformities but also consider:

Fossilized sand dunes such as the Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon. This formation is a petrified sand dune sandwiched in the Grand Canyon series and consists of wedge-shaped cross bedding with invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows.

​

Evaporate Deposits

​

Sand Deposits - sand is eroded weathered solid rock. There is huge sand dunes around the world. Sand could not be formed in a year long flood. Sand bears witness to unimaginable time and slow erosional forces.

​

Deep Incised river meanders such as the Goosenecks. Incised river meanders should be enough alone to make any YEC cry out in pain

​

Large microfossil deposits such as chalk, diaotomachious earth and cert, limestone. These deposits require many many generations of organisms and eons of depositions.

​

Exceptional well segregated fossils depositions. Another situation that alone falsifies a flood. Fossils are well ordered in the fossil record. A trilobite fossil bed is never ever found with dinosaurs, pleosaurs, birds, or mammals fossil, Dino's are never found with large mammals, etc.

​

Here is good article on this concerning microfossils and ordering of fossils http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htm

​

Layers upon layers upon layers of mudstones with fine ripple marks and mud cracks. Another falsification of a rapid flood. I have some ripple and mudcrack in my back yard. These rocks come from all elevations within some geological formations.

​

Layered lava flows with sediments in between. Which of these three sediment layers represents the flood?

​

etc. etc. etc.

​

Further there is no geological evidence that would indicate a worldwide flood such as a worldwide flood boundary.

​

​

The flood is off-topic. This topic is for discussing geologies basic principles (SEE TOPIC TITLE!).

​

​

Off topic messages are cause for suspension.

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner etc. Changed subtitle to "This message is off-topic - Do not reply!"

OK so the mod believes I was off-topic. However (grumble grumble) why doesn't he mark your originating post. How in hell can one answer And not talk about thing that falsify ye old floode?I have a hard time leaving such statements go unanswered or unchallenged - it is weekness I have.Well Vashgun, let's try to stay on topic and focused - what is it about the Law of Superposition that you find "super sketchy"? as you have put it.Let's consider one of the tools in a geologist kit - radiometric dating.If the Law of Supposition correct AND radiometric dating has any validity then one would expect a clear correlation of radiometric age with stratigraphic age.If there is problem with either (LoS or radiometric dating) one would not expect to find a correlation at all.Geologist Brent Dalrymple looked at this and published a paper , USGS Open-File Report #86-110I found this table from this article here Are Radioactive Dates Consistent?

---

Stratigraphic                           K-Ar Date       # Samples
Position        Name of Age             (millions)       Dated
========        ============            =========       ==========
    1           Irvingtonian              1.36              1
    2           Blancan                 1.5 - 3.5           7
    3           Hemphillian             4.1 -10.0           8
    4           Claredonian             8.9 -11.7          16
    5           Barstovian              12.3-15.6           9
    6           Hemingfordian             17.1              1
    7           Arikareean              21.3-25.6           4
    8           Orellian                   ---              0
    9           Chadronian              31.6-37.5           9
   10           Duchesnean                37.5              3
   11           Uintan                  42.7-45.0           2
   12           Bridgerian              45.4-49.0           2
   13           Wasatchian                49.2              1
   14           Puercan                   64.8              1

---

Wow! look at that... that is a good correlation.... Keep in mind LoS and radiometric dating both need to be valid for this correlation to work out!Even more convincingly, there is also a detectable correlation between a layers radiometric age and its fossil content. But that is topic for another day.Now if you are like me and are skeptical of everything. You might ask are those above numbers correct? Did the author fudge some of them? That is why I favor formations like Angular Unconformities or layers on layers of ripple rock, there is nobody else between you and the data.However consider this, in the science realm any fudging of data or misrepresentation will receive the equivalent of a career death sentence - a life time of work down the drain. Any lying, cheating, manipulation, omitting is strictly forbidden. This gives me some confidence in the presented data.However, in the creationist realm misrepresentation, partial truth, lies are often overlooked and even encouraged. I listen to Christian radio on the way to work and they will often make scientific claims that they know they can pass off to a select crowd. Sometimes the will mention something I have not heard before and i will look it up later only to find out they were lying or only reveal part to the data - so bad. Thus when Creationist present data I am immediately and automatically skeptical having been burned before.Have a good day.

quote:

---

How can we know the earth was not distorted from a catastrophe?

---

Distorted in what way?Anyway, the law of superposition deals only with how rock is initially laid down. We do find evidence of distortion (eg folding and faulting) however this is irrelevant to superposition.