Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(2)
Message 38 of 377 (528946)
10-07-2009 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:39 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
Much of the American west is similar to what you see in this photo:
LOL
Are you kidding? I've lived my entire life in the western U.S. and the only locations that look like that are the plains of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska, obviously.
This sort of absurdness epitomizes Creationism. You write meaningless statements while at the same time glossing over all the evidence to the contrary.
If you were truly interested in finding evidence for Creationism using the Agate Springs example, you would already know what the *evolutionists* think caused the deposition of fossils: arid climate, water hole, death, and entrainment and re-deposition of the bones during subsequent flooding events. The same sorts of events we see happening today and all through the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:39 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 4:49 PM roxrkool has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 74 of 377 (529008)
10-07-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 4:49 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
lol
That's the Midwest. CA, OR, WA, ID, UT, AZ, etc. do not all look like that.
Weathering and erosion. Simple as that. Erosion over hundreds, thousands, and millions of years. Since you only have 6,000 years, I can see your dilemma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 4:49 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 92 of 377 (529038)
10-07-2009 11:01 PM


Spamfest
I think Calypsis needs to stick with one topic (missing geologic layers, polystrate trees, fossil beds) and explore that thoroughly. This spamming is just really annoying.

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 11:19 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 102 of 377 (529200)
10-08-2009 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Adminnemooseus
10-08-2009 2:40 PM


Re: Reopened for final/summary statements only
Thank you!
The reason creationists think they win discussions with non-creationists is because they dive bomb their adversaries to death with a myriad of unsupported assertions. They think their one- or two-sentence statements are quality refutations, while the rest of us who know better are drafting 200+ word arguments... which go largely ignored because the creationist doesn't understand them.
Creationists who want to advance their *theory* need to do so on a case by case basis. That's how science works. When all the pieces come together to form a logical and coherent story, then they have a leg to stand on.
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.
Edited by roxrkool, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-08-2009 2:40 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 110 of 377 (529617)
10-09-2009 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 7:17 PM


Re: Address the evidence please
One would think that the tops of many peaks across the country, world even, would be chock-full of bones, and yet...
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 7:17 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(4)
Message 126 of 377 (529986)
10-11-2009 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Calypsis4
10-11-2009 8:33 AM


Re: Summation
So they found the 'geologic column' in North Dakota? Are you sure? And it supposedly exists in 31 other places in the world?
Do you think people would lie about it?
Despite what you might believe, dispelling creationist mumbo jumbo is not what most geologists do in their day-to-day jobs.
What about the hundreds of thousands of other locations in the world?
The geologic column is not complete in the sense that every single second of every day over the last 4.6 billion years of earth's history is recorded in the rocks. That is impossible. A complete geologic column is one that records depositional events (i.e., the stratigraphic record) during each of the known geologic time divisions; and this is why sedimentary rocks comprise the bulk of the geologic column. These divisions in time were constructed from the rock record itself by piecing rocks from various locations together, based primarily upon fossil evidence, but backed up and confirmed by absolute dating methods.
The key word is "depositional." Some places in the world are at this moment in time experiencing depositional processes, which means sediment is building up by way of a variety of processes. Among these are flood plains, ocean basins (e.g., limestone, shale, siliceous ooze), continental basins (e.g., the Great Basin is a good example), and the like. Simultaneously, in order for there to be material which can be deposited, it must first be weathered, eroded, and transported to these depositional areas. The best place for this to happen is the highlands, in other words, hills and mountain ranges.
For these highlands, this means that material is being removed. Material that had previously been deposited there, either by other sedimentary/depositional processes, igneous intrusion, plus others, is slowly removed. This material being removed also represents other, older time periods. Should this removal of material of a particular highlands continue until the highlands is effectively removed down to the level of the surrounding lowlands, it could essentially become a depositional setting. Should this happen and new material be deposited upon this eroded surface, the gap between the older eroded surface and the new material represents an unconformity.
Depending on how much time is represented by the eroded rocks, we could essentially lose millions or billions of years of rock record. In other words, we are losing examples of those time periods from the local geologic column. Depending on the lateral extent of this unconformity surface, this loss may not be so localized, but extend across entire continents. There are various ways in which the rock/time record is lost to us forever, and that is why having a complete record of the geologic time scale is so rare.
And what about the many locations in the world where part of it is completely upside down?
When the rocks are buried deep in the subsurface and subjected to great pressures and elevated temperatures, the rocks do no behave in a brittle manner. They fold in a ductile manner because rocks are in fact composed primarily of ductile minerals, which when exposed to stress, strain, heat, and pressure, they slowly bend. A flat expanse of layered rock can bend back onto itself under the right conditions. This is when you get reversed stratigraphy. These sorts of processes are common during mountain-building events and when buried deep in the subsurface.
If you are interested in learning more about folding, there are plenty of texbooks around to help you out.
Good grief, you are so shallow in your thinking and gullible its pitiful. You would have done well to stay out of this for good.
Beware of the delusions of arrogance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Calypsis4, posted 10-11-2009 8:33 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Calypsis4, posted 10-12-2009 5:23 PM roxrkool has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 161 of 377 (530254)
10-12-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Calypsis4
10-12-2009 6:12 PM


LOL
And how did you determine that, pray tell?
Oh, never mind...
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Calypsis4, posted 10-12-2009 6:12 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Calypsis4, posted 10-12-2009 7:04 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(3)
Message 176 of 377 (530455)
10-13-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Calypsis4
10-12-2009 5:23 PM


Even though Capypsis couldn't be bothered to write out his own arguments...
Why in the world would geologists lie? What an absurd thing to say.
About the only thing you can get more than two geos to agree upon at any one time is whether beer is a food group. The very idea that geologists from all over the globe, and amongst all the myriad of disciplines, would come together and form a consensus to LIE to the entire global population about a bunch of rocks that no one BUT geologists give a hoot about, is absolutely comical. The sheer magnitude of the logistics involved in such a conspiracy is mind boggling. No. That is simply impossible and a stupidly moronic assertion to make. Geologists have better things to do with their time than to go about organizing conspiracies to fool the loony creationists.
'Not complete'??? I smile at that one.
Do you have a problem with that statement?
Geologists sometimes claim to have found the entire geological column at certain sites, but what they really mean is that they have found layers that they can assign to all ten geologic ages.
Well of course that's what we mean. It's only the creationists who have changed the criteria to suit their agenda. Geologists understand the nature of geologic processes and the inherent limitations. Creationists, on the other hand, demand the impossible and then rail at the obvious results.
There is little if any mention of fossils other than micro fossils such as pollen. Often the rocks seem to have been assigned their geologic age by comparing them with rocks from other locations. Most of these are hundreds of miles away and there is no direct observation of a physical connection. In some cases the "ages" are assigned to a rock layer based on the strata above or below it.
Well, gee, if accurate, this brainiac just described what geologists do in a typical day in the field: 1) collect samples for petrographic and paleontologic study; 2) construct a stratigraphic (i.e., geologic) column by mapping the stratigraphy from various locations and comparing them to each other to see which horizons are absent or present from each location (because deposition and erosion contemporaneous processes and we're trying to develop a picture of the paleoenvironment); and 3) assigning relative ages to rocks based on their stratigraphic position and any available age dates (usually on bentonite seams).
The image below illustrates how geologists gather stratigraphic data from various locations and compare them to each other in order to get a better idea of how depositional environments changed across the paleo landscape. Notice units change in thickness depending on where on the landscape it was located. Many smaller beds/horizons to not even make it across to other sections because they were localized events. This perfectly illustrates why there is no such thing as a *complete* geologic column as the Creationists demand.
.
*****************************************************************
Since I'll be getting a little out of my league below, I welcome any technical corrections or amendments.
.
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
In this case, the only reference to fossils was a general reference to micro fossils. So this site seems to have little or no bearing on fossil order.
Contrary to the claim that this site represents the entire geological column, the Permian period is missing. How can one claim the entire geological column is present when it is missing an entire period? The geological column labels seem to have been assigned based on the correlation with rocks from all across Libya. This means that there was sufficient room for subjective analyses, and that the labeling process assumed the geological column and thus cannot be used as evidence for its validity.
The cross-section of the Ghadames Basin hints that coincidence rather than long ages brought these layers together as they are. The cross-section shows some 25 fracture lines and the pattern suggests that rather than being fault lines they are the result of compression stress. The Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic seem to have been forced over the others. This seems to have occurred after they and the rock beneath them had buckled down and before both had hardened completely. Such an event could have occurred during the Flood while the layers were not yet completely solidified.
With a little bit of research, I was able to find that, low and behold, CreationWiki was wrong. While a large portion of the Upper Paleozoic rocks are missing from the Ghadames Basin due to the Hercynian Unconformity (erosional event), Permian rocks are not entirely absent from the basin after all, they can be found in the eastern part of the basin.
Per T.R. Klett page 11 (U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2202-C: Total Petroleum Systems of the Trias/Ghadames Province, Algeria, Tunisia, and LibyaThe Tanezzuft-Oued Mya, Tanezzuft-Melrhir, and Tanezzuft-Ghadames):
quote:
"Permian rocks are only present in the eastern portion of the province. These rocks include Lower Permian pelagic limestone and mudstone, and Upper Permian bioherms, carbonate, and clastic rocks (Rigo, 1995). The Upper Permian Bir Jaja mudstone serves as a seal where present (Boote and others, 1998). Due to the limited extent, Permian stratigraphy is not shown in figure 5.
As for the third paragraph, it's nothing but ignorant Creationist drivel referencing a cross-section the author does not even bother to include.
.
*****************************************************************
.
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
While this area is rich in fossils, other than Pre-Cambrian, only Late Permian through Late Cretaceous seem to be represented and so it does not really contain the entire geological column. At least five of the formations in the area "generally lack biostratigraphically useful fossils"[4] and were at least to some degree assigned ages based on indirect means such as the "age" assigned the strata above or below it. Thus any claim that this site is evidence for the geological column in place and in order is an example of circular reasoning.[4]
I could not find enough information online to determine where this basin is precisely located. It appears based on the image above that it could be either the Pelagian Basin in northern Tunisia or the northwestern portion of the Ghadames Basin. A USGS Bulletin does discuss the area and from what I gather, there was insufficient data and therefore a complete discussion of the area was not possible at that time. It appeared to me that the reason stratigraphy appears to be absent is because the author only discusses the petroleum system itself (Permian to Cretaceous rocks) and not any superfluous units.
.
*****************************************************************
.
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The only geologic "ages" that seem to be represented here are Jurassic and Cretaceous. Pre-Cambrian can be included since the basement rock is automatically labeled as such. The description seems to suggest that this is all that is actually found at this location. So only two out of ten geologic periods seem to be represented.[5]
Again, there is not enough information online to determine whether this basin contains all the necessary divisions. My limited research shows that the petroleum systems are present in Mesozoic rocks and therefore all the literature I was able to find only discusses that sequence of rocks. This in no way indicates that the Paleozoic, remainder of the Mesozoic, or Cenozoic sequences are missing. All it indicates is that the CreatoWiki author has not bothered to conduct the appropriate amount of research required to refute this claim. This could be accomplished by spending time in the right university library. The author appears to be relying on the fact that much petroleum-based research is inaccessible to the lay public.
.
*****************************************************************
.
The Qingxi Basin in China
Only the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras seem to be present with no sign of the Paleozoic except for the Pre-Cambrian era (the generic label for the basement rock). In fact it seems to include only the Tertiary and Cretaceous periods, the Tertiary being Cenozoic and the Cretaceous being Mesozoic. So only two of ten geologic periods seem to be represented here. Furthermore, the nearby Qilian Shan (mountain range) Ordovician strata can be found over Pleistocene strata (part of the Tertiary). So contrary to being an intact geological column there is a place were "older" rock is found on top of "younger" rock and thus in the wrong order.[6]
Again, there is not enough information online to determine whether this basin contains all the necessary divisions. Research shows that the petroleum systems are present in late Mesozoic-Cretaceous rocks and therefore all the literature I was able to find only discusses those sequences of rocks. Same as before, this in no way indicates that the rest of the stratigraphic sequences are missing.
.
*****************************************************************
.
The Bonaparte Basin in Australia
This one is fairly complete in that all "geologic periods" are present but it in no way qualifies as a complete column, since there are numerous gaps when the strata are spread out on the geologic column chart.
There seems to be cases of interbedding that go between periods. They are at Devonian / Carboniferous and Triassic / Jurassic boundaries. There may be others as well. There are also cases of interbedding spanning large portions of periods that should still be separated by tens of millions of years. They occur in the Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary.
This means that the evidence suggests that this column formed a lot more rapidly than the geologic column suggests. There seems to be no reference to how any of the rock layers were assigned their respective ages but at the same time there seems to be no reference to fossils, so it is doubtful that they were used. This means that this site shows nothing about fossil order.[7][8]
Apparently this column is complete, except that the CreatoWiki author here has concluded that he is better qualified than professional geologists in determining what actually constitutes a complete geologic column. The fact of the matter is that ALL geologic columns contain numerous gaps, many of which are unrecognizable to scientists. In addition, it is also the nature of sedimentary rocks to be intercalated with underlying and overlying sediments, particularly those deposited by water.
Imagine the sea level rising and falling over time. A rising sea level deposits marine sediments on the beach. A falling sea level means that beach is subjected to the elements and deposition by fluvial processes. A fluvial system also shows much intercalation between various sediment types because a river moves across the landscape. The river will deposit its own sediment, but when it moves across the land, that sediment is exposed to the elements where it can be eroded or buried by alluvial gravels, volcanic rocks/ash, etc. This intercalation in no way indicates rapid burial, but natural surficial and marine processes that can include slow (limestone) and rapid (river flooding) deposition.
See image below for an example of what we would find in such a system.
This is the nature of geologic processes and anyone who studies geology expects this as the absolute norm. It is painfully apparent that this author knows nothing about geology and if he/she does, they are intentionally misleading their audience.
.
*****************************************************************
.
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
Also known as the North Dakota Column, this is claimed to contain the entire geologic column. As stated earlier, the total theoretical column depth is 100 miles, but the depth of the Williston Basin is only 3.4 miles. This means that much of the column is missing. Such large amounts of sedimentation are possible during a year-long global Flood, because it was laid down sideways making it quite possible to lay down such large amounts of sediment very quickly, the main factors being available sediment and the rate of current flow.[9]
It does have rocks labeled as coming from all ten ages, but some interesting data can be found in The Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.. The Williston Basin is part of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.
The details of the labeling of these strata are as follows:
  • Hay River Embayment (van Hees, 1964) - a depositional area northwest of the Peace-Athabasca Arch, developed on the Interior Platform, containing remnants of rocks that have been interpreted as being equivalent to Lower and Middle Cambrian units of central Alberta. The rocks have not been dated, and some of the strata may be younger than here interpreted. The embayment extends westward into the mountains of northeastern British Columbia. This indicates that when lacking fossils, geologists find rocks that they can interpret as equivalent to the rocks they are dating, in order to set a geologic age. The US Geological survey, reporting on the Williston Basin, says, "biostratigraphy based on pollen and spores has been used to determine the age of the coal beds."[10] Other fossils include shells and fish but many layers have few if any fossils. In general these layers have not been dated by fossils. Furthermore, there is little reference to radiometric dates beyond the pre-Cambrian. The one set that is mentioned produced inconsistent results.
  • Local lithostratigraphy and sedimentology are generally well known. However, the paucity of reliable radiometric dates and the absence of biostratigraphic control has hindered correlation within and between the assemblages and precluded accurate dating of each assemblage.
There are several other cases where poor or no biostratigraphic data is mentioned, as well as no reference to radiometric dates. As a result it seems that many of these strata were assigned geologic ages based on comparing rocks. Then the comparisons were interpreted based on the geological column. The authorities seem to be assuming that because of the geologic column, the gaps must contain ages for which they have no fossils.
Basically, their argument against this location being a complete column consists of its not being *thick* enough and what some atlas from states back in 1964 — a source more than 40 years out of date. How very typical. Much research has been conducted on the Williston Basin, much of it biostratigraphic. Here is a link to the USGS Publications Warehouse where some research is available online: USGS - Williston Basin research. In addition, Google Williston palynostratigraphy and anyone can see just how much biostratigraphic work is and has been conducted on the Williston Basin since 1964.
As for the section not being *thick enough*, where did that number come from? I've not heard of any such thing and I can hardly conceive of how something like that could ever be determined.
The conclusion that they have a complete geologic column in this area is based on the assumption of the existence of the geologic column. This is circular reasoning.
What sort of mind numbing medication does someone have to be on to come up with this twisted bit of non-logic??? The geologic column comes to us as a result of hundreds of years of studying rocks. There is no assuming anything. . It was constructed using (but not limited to) fossils, lithologic markers, and comparing local sections to others in the area, across countries, and then across continents. No, it is not *complete* in the sense that every single geologic process, sediment, intrusion, that happened over the last 4.6 billion years is present. The geologic column is simply a way for scientists to make sense of the complex geologic history of the earth. Not too much different than breaking the day up into 24 hours. Except we’ve broken up the age of the earth based on lithostratigraphy, geologic events, and fossils.
If that is not enough there is a place where a rock layer labeled Devonian can be found between rock layers labeled Carboniferous. Devonian is alleged to be older than Carboniferous, but this would suggest that they are really the same age.
Without knowing what this person is referring to, I can’t comment. But resulting from a multitude of geologic processes (e.g., faulting, folding), this is not a problem for geologists.
Curiously while the theoretical column thickness is 100 miles, the maximum thickness of sediment found any place is only 16 miles. That means that at any given location at least 84% of the geologic column is missing.
Again, who came up with that theoretical thickness?
Are you starting to get the idea? You've been lied to about the 'geologic column'. It is found complete almost nowhere in the world.
I’ve never been lied to because I was taught to understand the nature of geologic processes. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a complete geologic column in the sense that you Creationists demand. That *complete* column does not exist and has never been purported to exist by any geologist. It exists only in the agenda-driven fantasies of cranks in the business of promoting Creationism.
I think you need to go back to your sources and lay a skeptical eye to it all. You've not been right yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Calypsis4, posted 10-12-2009 5:23 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2009 1:51 AM roxrkool has replied
 Message 236 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 2:26 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 182 of 377 (530919)
10-15-2009 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Minnemooseus
10-15-2009 1:51 AM


Re: The 100 mile "geologic column"
moose writes:
quote:
This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages.
I'm guessing that quoted is the original source of the "100 mile" number, or perhaps some earlier work from the same people.
You are very likely correct. I was trying to think of why any geologist would say such a thing. Then I thought perhaps Morris was just pulling it out of thin air, but then it occurred to me. He's thinking of the thickness of the earth's crust. According to a USGS diagram, the earth's crust is estimated to be between 0 and 100 km thick. It's possible that back in the 80s, geologists thought the crust was up to 160 km thick.
In his flood investigations, he would have learned about stratigraphic columns. Theoretically, we should be able to construct a stratigraphic column from surface of the earth to the base of the crust -- if we could drill that deep -- with the youngest rocks at top and oldest rocks at bottom. THAT column could be up to approximately 100 km thick (not miles). And even that column would never be Creationist-complete.
It seems to me that in his profound ignorance, Morris conflated his idea of stratigraphic columns, with the thickness of the crust, and in turn with the geologic time scale; resulting in this 100 mile thick "standard geologic column" concept that no one outside the Creationist community is familiar with.
moose writes:
The creationist side is decrying that there is no real "standard" geologic column (section) to be found. As if any sane geologist would expect to find such a thing. I truly doubt that such a thing can be found in "books and on web sites".
To me (and I may be wrong), when I hear the term "geologic column" used outside of any context that would refer to a local section, I interpret it to be referring to the geologic time scale. Geologic column = geologic time scale. And the pure geologic time scale is not annotated with either rock types or thicknesses.
Correct.
When I hear the phrase "geologic column," it refers to the geologic time scale. A time scale that is nothing more than a diagrammatical representation of earth's history constructed in such as way as to make the most sense to the scientists who use it. The geologic column does not convey stratigraphic thickness in any way, shape, or form. A stratigraphic column, on the other hand, does convey stratigraphic thicknesses, rock types. And it looks like the Creationists have conflated the two.
I think most creationists (and people in general) are pretty much totally ignorant about the complexities of the Earth's crust. My guess is that the stratigraphic section(s) of the Grand Canyon are looked upon as being highly representative of the Earth in general.
And such ignorance is understandable. Before college I also knew barely more than diddly squat about geology. It took the education I did absorb to get me to now know how massively geologically ignorant I still am.
Agreed. What I find disturbing is this penchant of the lay Creationist to take a subject in which he or she is completely ignorant, with the exception of reading a few short blurbs online, and feel the confidence to discuss that subject as if they are an expert.
I have a pretty decent education in geology and I still don't consider myself an "expert."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2009 1:51 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2009 6:21 PM roxrkool has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 184 of 377 (531013)
10-15-2009 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Minnemooseus
10-15-2009 6:21 PM


Re: The 100 mile "geologic column"
That's possible, too.
My only hesitation with that particular scenario is that it would require an exorbitant amount of work on the part of the creationist.
When geologists conduct stratigraphic investigations with the intention of correlating to other sections, identifying the fossils contained within the stratigraphic section is part of the task. That includes macro- and micro-fossils. His assertion that geos rely on "indirect methods" (probably meaning marker beds) to correlate strata is intentionally vague and disingenuous. The only time fossils are of little importance in strat studies if the area has already been well studied and the fossils and units well documented.
Woodmorappe is a slimeball.
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2009 6:21 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 359 of 377 (630201)
08-22-2011 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by TrueCreation
08-11-2011 2:08 PM


Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
I haven't read more than your last few posts, so I may have missed it, but what I would like to know is if you are still a YEC.
It's good to read your posts again. Hope you have been well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by TrueCreation, posted 08-11-2011 2:08 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by TrueCreation, posted 09-01-2011 2:05 AM roxrkool 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