Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
57 online now:
AZPaul3, candle2, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tanypteryx (6 members, 51 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,129 Year: 4,241/6,534 Month: 455/900 Week: 161/150 Day: 7/8 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence
ooh-child
Member (Idle past 136 days)
Posts: 242
Joined: 04-10-2009


Message 226 of 377 (620038)
06-13-2011 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Chuck77
06-13-2011 7:34 AM


Re: Evidence of the entire geologic column?
Umm....just a regular viewer here. I have never heard any geologist say what you are saying about the earth. Granted, I'm only married to someone who studied some geology, & I just read stuff here. Oh, and I look at the ground.

Maybe 'entire geologic column' does not mean what you think it means?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Chuck77, posted 06-13-2011 7:34 AM Chuck77 has taken no action

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3879
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 227 of 377 (620045)
06-13-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Chuck77
06-13-2011 7:34 AM


Re: Evidence of the entire geologic column?
Earlier in this topic, I exchanged a series "geologic column" messages with Roxrkool. I will not so humbly say, this was a pretty good summary of what the geologic column is or isn't. This discussion starts at message 181 and goes thru message 185.

You might also consider reading and/or taking the related discussion to the Geologic Column topic. Edge has a pretty good message at message 3 there.

By the way, I, Rox, and Edge all have geology degrees. They are real world working geologist while I'm much more pseudo.

For me to try to say anything else would to be highly redundant.

Moose

Added by edit: Above, I linked to where I came in on the discussion in this topic. I neglected to cite the Roxrkool message at the beginning of the chain. It is a massive work found at message 176.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Chuck77, posted 06-13-2011 7:34 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by anglagard, posted 06-13-2011 11:30 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message
 Message 230 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 1:23 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 228 of 377 (620056)
06-13-2011 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Minnemooseus
06-13-2011 10:24 PM


Re: Evidence of the entire geologic column?
As someone with mild familiarity with the geosciences (BS geological engineering 82 - New Mexico Tech) I completely agree with Edge, Rox, and Moose. My sole difference with Roxrkool on this issue of Woodmorappe is I would have been less polite and restrained.

Sorry, intentional deception really upsets me.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-13-2011 10:24 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 377 (620064)
06-14-2011 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Calypsis4
10-12-2009 5:23 PM


Re: Summation
Calypsis said: "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?

Yes.

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.

'Not complete'??? I smile at that one.

Now let me show you the real facts in the matter:

Read carefully:
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. The following list is as found at 'The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota':

The Ghadames Basin in Libya.
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morocco.
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia.
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman.

etc...

This is what I was talking about. Unless im misunderstanding something. The gelologic column doesn't exist then? Or it's sorta different layers of sediment? found at different times around the world and pieced together according to there estimated dates?

Im asking because in some places the "column" seems to be "missing" and the "non" believers in the flood say it's due to erosion?

Sorry for the confusion, im still learning how to properly use the quote box's. This is an exchange between Calypsis4 and another poster.

It's Message 141 by Calypsis4

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Clipped much of the text out of the quote box (left the first part) - See the source message for the entire content.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Calypsis4, posted 10-12-2009 5:23 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by dwise1, posted 06-14-2011 1:34 AM Chuck77 has taken no action
 Message 232 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-14-2011 1:47 AM Chuck77 has taken no action

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 377 (620067)
06-14-2011 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Minnemooseus
06-13-2011 10:24 PM


Re: Evidence of the entire geologic column?
Minnemooseus writes:

Earlier in this topic, I exchanged a series "geologic column" messages with Roxrkool. I will not so humbly say, this was a pretty good summary of what the geologic column is or isn't. This discussion starts at message 181 and goes thru message 185.

Thanks, Iv'e made it up to message 166. So i'll be there shortly, and probably see the error in my comment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-13-2011 10:24 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5063
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 231 of 377 (620069)
06-14-2011 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Chuck77
06-14-2011 1:09 AM


Re: Summation
The geological column is a reconstruction that seeks to place all strata within their historical context. The actual geology of any given location tends to be unique, but characteristic and identifiable layers are there.

A question that's been bugging me, though. We find the strata of the geological column in continental masses, with ocean floors being more recent. And we find a complicated history in which those continental masses have been submerged at times and exposed as dry land at other times, such that we do not find depositation taking place all the time.

But in the Flood Geology Model, all strata are created by the Flood. In that case, we should be able to find the entire geological column physically present in its entirety in many places. Why don't we see that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 1:09 AM Chuck77 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Robert Byers, posted 06-14-2011 1:51 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3879
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 232 of 377 (620073)
06-14-2011 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Chuck77
06-14-2011 1:09 AM


The concept of a "complete geological column" is basicly BS
From the quote box:

quote:
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.

Yes, there are numerous examples of stratigraphic sections (my preferred term) that include rocks of all the geologic periods of the Phanerozoic (the Cambrian to the present). If you want to call this a complete geologic column, well OK - But I think such is BS. There is no such thing as a universal stratigraphic section, and no qualified sane geologist would claim that there is.

Somewhere along the line, I'm going to post a follow up to something upthread from a year plus ago. It may or may not be tonight.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 1:09 AM Chuck77 has taken no action

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 3601 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(2)
Message 233 of 377 (620075)
06-14-2011 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by dwise1
06-14-2011 1:34 AM


Re: Summation
The strata, below the k-t line for this creationist, is simply what looks like. Segregated flows. so there is no reason to expect to find the whole strata everywhere on earth. in fact there are great gaps as we would expect.
it looks like flow events within a single great event put this layer or that on top of this.
Why not?
why imagine an unlikely case of millions of years of different layering from great events to account for the layering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by dwise1, posted 06-14-2011 1:34 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by dwise1, posted 06-14-2011 1:54 AM Robert Byers has taken no action
 Message 239 by Admin, posted 06-14-2011 9:26 AM Robert Byers has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5063
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 234 of 377 (620076)
06-14-2011 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Robert Byers
06-14-2011 1:51 AM


Re: Summation
Uh, excuse me, but why not? In a long geologically complex history, we shouldn't expect to see the entire column. But in a single one-year-long world-wide flood that created all geological formations, we should expect to see the entire column with every single layer right in place in several places around the world. So why don't we?

In coherent English, please. Instead of your usual incoherent blathering.

Edited by dwise1, : request for coherent English


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Robert Byers, posted 06-14-2011 1:51 AM Robert Byers has taken no action

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3879
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 235 of 377 (620078)
06-14-2011 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Minnemooseus
10-15-2009 1:51 AM


Re: The 100 mile "geologic column"
Minnemooseus writes:

Woodmorappe comments on this with:

quote:
What they are saying, as is seen in the part usually not quoted by anti-creationists, is that nowhere on earth is the geologic column complete in the sense of having the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period.

They (the creationist side) found examples of thick sedimentary sections from the individual Phanerozoic (post pre-Cambrian) geologic periods, from various locations (and times) around the world. These sections are the result of the geologic processes happening at that time and at that location.

Then they (the creationist side) go on to expect that the results of those geologic processes, of different times and locations, should be all found stacked up (to ~100 miles thick) at a single location, if the concept of a geologic column is to be true.

The sediments are the evidence of the geologic history of a specific time and a specific place. To expect the same evidence of geologic history to be found at a single location is akin to expecting to find the evidence of human activity in the U.S. in the 1900's, the evidence of human activity in England in the 1800's, the evidence of human activity in Germany in the 1700's, the evidence of human activity in Japan in the 1600's, the evidence of human activity in Iran in the 1500's, the evidence of human activity in China in the 1400's, ..., the evidence of human activity of Egypt in the 100's, etc., etc., etc., all at one single location on Earth.

Of course you're not going to find it at any one location - It happened at different locations.

Moose

Added by edit:

John Woodmorappe quotes Morris and Parker (Morris, H. and Parker, G., What is Creation Science? Master Books, El Cajon, 1982.):

quote:
...to see the standard geologic column. That’s in the textbook! ... almost any textbook, in fact, that deals with evolution or earth history. A typical textbook rendering of the standard column is shown in Figure 44. This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]),...

I would love to see that figure 44. It's not reproduced at the cited online source - Anyone have a copy of (Morris, H. and Parker, G., What is Creation Science? Master Books, El Cajon, 1982.), or able to find a reproduction online?

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.


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 248 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-14-2011 10:01 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 236 of 377 (620081)
06-14-2011 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by roxrkool
10-13-2009 3:36 PM


Re: Even though Capypsis couldn't be bothered to write out his own arguments...
roxrkool writes:

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.

Well ok, I think I fully grasp what the geological column actually is
now. It's sort of like piecing a puzzle together from all over the globe and simply calling it the geological column based on time periods, dating methods and well, what roxrkool said.

So, I guess if I were to rephrase my question it would simply be, where is the flood layer? Maybe? . So, is it at all possible since most of the world is covered by water, a lot of the evidence of the flood could be barried under the ocean floors, if in fact we aren't finding any evidence on land? Or "enough" on land? Im sure almost everywhere in the world has been under water at some point in time and that there are areas that would say so but can it be certain it wasn't all at once at some point in time?

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by roxrkool, posted 10-13-2009 3:36 PM roxrkool has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by jar, posted 06-14-2011 9:19 AM Chuck77 has taken no action
 Message 240 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2011 10:36 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 241 by Buzsaw, posted 06-14-2011 7:22 PM Chuck77 has taken no action

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 377 (620082)
06-14-2011 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Minnemooseus
10-15-2009 1:51 AM


Re: The 100 mile "geologic column"
Minnemooseus 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.

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.

Let me correct myself on my previous post. I DO NOT fully understand what the geological column is. I have a good idea tho, for now.


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

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33890
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 238 of 377 (620131)
06-14-2011 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Chuck77
06-14-2011 2:26 AM


There was no Biblical Flood.
Chuck writes:

So, I guess if I were to rephrase my question it would simply be, where is the flood layer?

There are lots of flood layers, lots and lots of flood layers.

There is no Biblical Flood level because the Biblical Flood never happened and anyone claiming that there was a Biblical Flood at this point in history is simply wrong at best, lying quite often.

The Biblical Flood has been totally refuted unless the God that caused it is also a lying, cheating scum bag that then erased all of the evidence.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 2:26 AM Chuck77 has taken no action

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12788
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 239 of 377 (620133)
06-14-2011 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Robert Byers
06-14-2011 1:51 AM


Re: Summation
Hi Robert,

As has been the case in other threads, you are posting unsupported assertions. Your history is that you distract attention from a thread's topic as attention increasingly focuses on trying to get you to support your assertions, which you never do. For this reason, please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.

Your considerate manner of participation is greatly appreciated, and if you would begin providing the rationale and evidence behind your positions you could become a very valuable creationist contributor to EvC Forum.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Robert Byers, posted 06-14-2011 1:51 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Robert Byers, posted 06-16-2011 2:59 AM Admin has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1339 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 240 of 377 (620143)
06-14-2011 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Chuck77
06-14-2011 2:26 AM


Brief notes on the "flood"
So, I guess if I were to rephrase my question it would simply be, where is the flood layer? Maybe? . So, is it at all possible since most of the world is covered by water, a lot of the evidence of the flood could be barried under the ocean floors, if in fact we aren't finding any evidence on land? Or "enough" on land? Im sure almost everywhere in the world has been under water at some point in time and that there are areas that would say so but can it be certain it wasn't all at once at some point in time?

When dealing with the "flood" we aren't looking at geological layers, but soil layers. The dating of the flood is ca. 4350 years ago, not in distant geological time. This is the conclusion of biblical scholars.

An early lesson in archaeology states, "if you want 10,000 year-old sites, look in 10,000 year-old dirt." For the flood we have to look in 4,350 year-old dirt.

Fortunately that is easy to find. You probably have some in your back yard.

The easiest place to find and analyze 4,350 year-old dirt is in archaeological sites where there are a lot of different time markers.

I have tested probably over a hundred sites that cross-cut that time period, and have found neither evidence of massive erosion nor depositions from a flood at the appointed time.

My colleagues around the world have tested tens of thousands of sites with the same results.

But we do find evidence of localized floods. The channeled scablands of eastern Washington state are a good example. These are about three times older than the 4,350 year date ascribed to the "flood" but they are clearly seen by archaeologists and geologists. See this website for some good details:

http://www.uwsp.edu/...ticipants/dutch/vtrips/scablands0.htm

Let me know what you think.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 2:26 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2011 10:25 PM Coyote has seen this message
 Message 262 by Chuck77, posted 06-18-2011 1:05 AM Coyote has seen this message
 Message 264 by Chuck77, posted 06-22-2011 4:57 AM Coyote has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022