The Geologic Column

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
weve said this before, explain the links you give, well, and give your own summary of it.

​

---

Penguin, I suspect you have a problem with understanding some simple concepts.Red's initial was was basically a request for information. Moose's suggested link provides the information requested. He is not providing an argument or even information which could be considered to be contentious. Therefore it is not necessary for him to explain it (this would only reiterate the information available in the linked article) or give his own summary (he might omit some information which Red might need). Can you see the difference between citing a link for information or citing one as support for your argument?The main problem for creationists presented by the geological cloumn, which was recognised by geologists as early as at least the 19th century, is that fossils were deposited in patterns, not randomly. This, and other data, allowed the geological column to be ordered in a consistent manner, oldest at the bottom etc. And the fossils showed that evolution of living organisms had occurred.The actual age of the various layers was not important, except that they included evidence that they had formed over long periods of time; it was not critical if the timeframe was millions or billions of years. Radiometric dating has allowed the ages of various strata to be measured with great precision.Perhaps, as a development of this thread, creationists might like to explain why the pattern of fossils is as they appear (eg. simple life forms only near the bottom, advanced vertebrates first appearing near the top, etc.).

Penguin, you have cited circumstances which might result in disruption to the otherwise expected deposition and stratification of rocks and their embedded fossils. Don't you think that the natural processes which you have nominated would leave other evidence of their actions which geologists could identify?However, the most telling point is that, despite the range of processes which could cause disruption to the formation of the standard geologic column, it has been produced in nature. And not just in one location, the complete geologic column has been found in 26 locations:
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta
(Sources:
Robertson Group, 1989;
A.F. Trendall et al , editors, Geol. Surv. West. Australia Memoir 3, 1990, pp 382, 396;
N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990, p. 517)(Figure courtesy of Thomas Moore)
from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/Seems more than just coincidence.As for your supernatural explanations, there is no scientific evidence to start to support them so I won't bother addressing them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Would you expect animals to be deposited randomly in the event of a flood?

​

Do you believe that animals are always found in the correctly dated layers?

​

---

Yes, Red, I believe that animals, plants and microorganisms are always found in the correctly dated layers, except where there is evidence of natural or artifical disturbance. Do you want to cite examples whcih contradict this?

Red, was it stupidity or dishonesty which caused you to repeat the list of sites from my post but not reproduce the reference to the sources of the information whcih was immediately below the list?Why don't you read the article at http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm ? It deals with the geological column in North Dakota. It may be easier for you to find other sources for this example to cross reference.It seems you are working yourself up to a grand conspiracy theory where all of the world's geologists, paleantologists, biologists etc. have been duped into believing an incorrect age of the earth because no one has ever seen the physical evidence.You might be interested in reading the story of Glenn Morton, the author or the TalkOrigins.Archive article which I referred to. He is a professional geologist and a former creationist. But not just any creationist, he published 20+ articles for Creation Research Society Quarterly, and presented a paper at the First International Conference on Creationism in 1986. However he has come to reject young earth creationism because of the data which proved that scenario to be wrong. Strangely, I have seen some of his old work still being cited by creationists. He presents his story at http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gstory.htm