Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Geology- working up from basic principles.
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 5 of 156 (410236)
07-13-2007 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Matt
07-13-2007 7:50 AM


The Matt writes:
This states that sedimentary layers form in a time progressive sequence with the oldest layers at the bottom and the youngest on the top.... Can we agree this principle is sound?
Sound? fairly obvious, actually, assuming gravity is the primary force involved.
However there are those that will wag their finger and claim that the present is not the key to past.
Go read the debate between Razd and Simple on the age of the earth.
Simple claims that at one time trees grew rings daily or weekly. So I suppose in the past there could have been a time when gravity was reversed, the speed of light was instantaneous, and leprechauns overturn the layers at night.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Matt, posted 07-13-2007 7:50 AM The Matt has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 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 replied

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

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 58 of 156 (419315)
09-02-2007 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Ihategod
09-02-2007 1:42 AM


This message is off-topic - Do not reply!
Vashgun writes:
How can we know the earth was not distorted from a catastrophe?
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!"

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 57 by Ihategod, posted 09-02-2007 1:42 AM Ihategod has not replied

      
    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 59 of 156 (419412)
    09-02-2007 3:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 57 by Ihategod
    09-02-2007 1:42 AM


    Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
    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
    Vashgun writes:
    How can we know the earth was not distorted from a catastrophe?
    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 #86-110
    I 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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 57 by Ihategod, posted 09-02-2007 1:42 AM Ihategod has not replied

      
    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 65 of 156 (419657)
    09-04-2007 1:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 63 by Ihategod
    09-03-2007 9:01 PM


    Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
    Vashgun writes:
    I'm not denying superposition, I believe it is trivial.
    Originally you did protest and now it is trivial! At one time you stated that the LoS doesn't apply to geology. I believe the appropriate and polite response maybe something like "oh ok now I see thank you" instead of suddenly claiming it is trivial after several people took care, time and patience to demonstrate what you could have found out for yourself had you spent the effort.
    Vashgun writes:
    Why does it have to be flat?
    Gravity. Actually some deposits are not horizontal like fossilized crossbedded dunes such as the Coconino formation. But if you look closely the cross bedding nature is obvious - the layers are curvilinear and are at shallow angles that match modern dunes.
    However you never find (flood or not) sediment layers deposited near vertical such as:
    Again note the metamorphosed lower layer with means that two sedimentation events did not occur any where near the same time or place. If you learn about the metamorphic process you will understand the significance of this point.
    This single image is sufficient on its own to falsify any notion of a young earth!
    And here is another of the famous Siccar Point.
    More images are here: No such page | The University of Edinburgh
    Vashgun writes:
    Also, with original lateral continuity I have the same basic protest of physics.
    No offense Vashgun but you seem to be a bit light in your background of physics and geology. Some of the folks who took the time to reply to you are professional geologist who have spent years in school and in the field. If you really feel they are misguided and that the last 400 years of geology is flawed then get some educated and set out to prove it. If you do you will assure yourself a position in history on par with Newton, Einstein and Darwin.
    Vashgun writes:
    Moreover, I find it interesting that a "flood" type catalyst must be involved with layering
    Yes so. Sediment layed down in a moving stream will form graded layers. Been studied, reported and understood. This does not explain the vast majority of geological formations.
    Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 63 by Ihategod, posted 09-03-2007 9:01 PM Ihategod has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 72 by Ihategod, posted 09-04-2007 4:55 PM iceage has replied

      
    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 74 of 156 (419775)
    09-04-2007 5:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 72 by Ihategod
    09-04-2007 4:55 PM


    Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
    ice writes:
    I never changed my position, I just wasn't getting anywhere arguing in the face of opposition and religious devotion to the LoS.
    I remember you mentioning that LoS applied to geology was "super sketchy". There is no religious devotion to the LoS - just a tendency of a system of particles to seek the lowest potential energy state. There is no more religious devotion than say to the understanding that gravity acts in the direction of masses and not away.
    ice writes:
    Again note the metamorphosed lower layer with means that two sedimentation events did not occur any where near the same time or place. If you learn about the metamorphic process you will understand the significance of this point.
    This single image is sufficient on its own to falsify any notion of a young earth!
    vash writes:
    Honestly, from a layman's perspective, it looks as if layers were formed, the somehow became less horizontal and more vertical maybe because the lower layers gave out. And if it is not the case that all the angular unconformities are at the surface exposed yet not throughout, then I don't see how this can be supporting evidence.
    Yes the lower layers where formed, buried or subsided to a point where heat and pressure acted on the sedimentary rock to transform the material into metamorphic rock, these layers uplifted and probably tilt them on the way, erosional processes beveled the metamorphic rock at an angle to the original dispositional layers, and deposition begin again followed by second lithofication (solidification) processes.
    These are all parallel processes, each requiring long geological periods of time. Angular Nonconformities are a very large elephant sitting in the young earth living room.
    Didn't follow you last sentence but definitely angular (and parallel) nonconformities exist throughout the geological column. Note the Great Unconformity of the Grand Canyon is "on the surface" because a river carved a canyon over a mile deep.
    Vash writes:
    Putting Darwin with Newton and Einstein is crass.
    I use to think the same until I learned more about his life and works. I have gained a deep respect for the man. He was *extremely* diligent and cautious in developing his theory. He spent years collecting data, he was frank on the possible weaknesses to his theory and described falsification conditions long before falsification was a concept, his theory was comprehensive and in areas where he was forced to make conjectures because of the lack of data he was surprising correct. Keep in mind that at Darwin's time things like the DNA molecule and even the rules of genetics were unknown.
    His theory was a huge step forward.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 72 by Ihategod, posted 09-04-2007 4:55 PM Ihategod has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 77 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 1:41 AM iceage has replied

      
    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 79 of 156 (419849)
    09-05-2007 2:07 AM
    Reply to: Message 77 by Ihategod
    09-05-2007 1:41 AM


    Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
    Thanks for the courteous response. Graciousness always provides a lesson for all.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 77 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 1:41 AM Ihategod has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024