Stratigraphy and Creationism

Roxrkool, you are summarizing. Read a few of Northrup's 125 specific points in:
http://www.sedin.org/PDFS/final125.pdf
You cannot be more specific than this, or you are blind.LuNkHeAd

I'm sorry, it seems to me that Northrup (while discussing specific geologic units) does not supply a global correlation. I see lots of wriggling around his part. From many of his descriptions, this global calamity was very calm and progressed slowly. We have wonderfully developed Silurian reefs for example that can only develop in calm, non-turbid waters. I just don't see much value in Northrup's 'model'. Despite Northrups attempts to defend his model, deposits like the old Red Sandstone are problematic for a global flood. He has very mobile boundaries to account for any single example thrown up because he lacks specificity in his model. This is the problem with ye-creationist flood models. Because they lack specificity, they can invent a scenario for any specific model, but overall the picture makes no sense. For example, in trying to diffuse the problem of the Cambrian Fish River deposit, he claims:

quote:

---

"THe problem is the expectation that the flood leaped to universality".

---

JM: The bible says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and the earth was covered. Genesis tells us that after 40 days the earth was covered. Yet, in Namibia we move from marine (Latest Neoproterozoic to Cambrian) to non-marine deposits. We don't see the slow progression of a flood, we see the drying out of the region as the ocean is closed off. Geology has a perfect explanation for this because during the assembly of Gondwana, the Brasiliano Oceans closed precisely during this interval and the region of Namibia became a continental interior. Northrup's lame attempt to explain it away is just that! Northrup also ignores early supercontinents such as Columbia, Rodinia, Pannotia and Gondwana and only deals with Pangea. Northrup may have traveled the world looking at rocks, but it's clear that he has no understanding of what the rocks are telling him. If Northrup has a scientific model that better explains the geologic record, then he should publish it. As it stands, he's just another creationist whining about geology from the sidelines.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-19-2004]

I'll let Joe handle the geology. And I would like to see more details from him too.Meanwhile, it appears that Northrup has at least agreed that the Bible is not to be taken literally and is not inerrant. He may offer all sort of verses but I can read too. There was, according to him, no such thing as the Biblical Noahacian flood.There was something else not described in the Bible. You're ok with that?

Okay, I'll jump back into this pool of sharks with my chum-bucket...While I'm not here to defend Northrup, but the Bible, he most certainly correlates the Paleozoic deposits with the Noachian flood. I don't get why NosyNed says Northrup doesn't believe in the Noachian flood or the inerrancy of scripture. (read Northrup's points 17-55).Also, Joe, the Bible says much more than "it rained for 40 days and all flesh died." I'm sure you've seen this before but I'll spell it out anyway:Genesis 7
11 ... all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.
12 The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.
17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.
18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.
19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;
22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.24 The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.[So, the water rose for 5 months, and all land dwelling animals died.]Chapter 8
1 ... and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided.
2 Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained;
3 and the water receded steadily from the earth, and at the end of one hundred and fifty days the water decreased.
4 In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.
5 The water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.[So the second 5 months the water receeded, and a couple more to completely receed and dry out. Northrup points out that with this great wind, and water receeding, you could have oscillations of alternating water and wind deposited material. Also, I think he addresses Red Sandstone in his points somewhere as well.]Anyway, I'm tired of talking. The fact is, you people will never be satisfied nomatter what we present.Nice yacking with you,
Lunkhead

quote:

---

Anyway, I'm tired of talking. The fact is, you people will never be satisfied nomatter what we present.

---

JM: Perhaps that's because your presentations are totally lacking in scientific rigor! Northrup mentions the Old Red, but again the point is that by making everything nebulous, he can come up with an excuse for almost any single bed. THe problem for the global flood model comes when trying to extend it to a global basis and correlate the layers. So, where in Namibia do we find the flood deposits? For that matter, where is the 'Lipalian' interval in Namibia? If Northrup is so certain that his 'model' is correct, then why does he not submit it to Nature or Science? After all, something that revolutionary, if correct, is worthy of significant press.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-20-2004][This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-20-2004]

quote:

---

Anyway, I'm tired of talking. The fact is, you people will never be satisfied nomatter what we present.

---

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-20-2004]

Would you mind showing us(doubters) real facts to prove this myth is not a myth.I was told by a catholic(recently) that they(the church)had hard evidence to prove the flood.Does anyone know of this proof(whether a rumor or true)?If yes please tell me where to review said proof.

Moving on to a slightly different topic...
There is some extremely fascinating work by JP Dawson on the breakup of the continents. He's a real thinker, it's quite a lot to digest, but I suggest perusing his book "In the Days of Peleg" over the next few days. I would be interested in some expert feedback (assuming there are experts on board... there only seems to be a handful of people here at any given time):JpDawson.com is for sale | HugeDomainsThe later chapters are especially interesting. Some of his propositions are:Jordan was the center of Gottsland (his version of Pangea).
An alluvial Vortex resulted from the drainage of the Flood at Jordan, which spirals into Oklahoma (which was connected to Europe) (chapter 7?).
Measurements of continental drift over the last 40 years (chapter 8) indicate the continents are slowing down. Extrapolation of data puts the breakup thousands of years ago instead of millions.Fascinating read, if not "revolutionary". He nor Northrup would never be accepted by the conventional masses simply because they present a Biblical point of view.Lunkhead

Lunkhwad wrote:"Fascinating read, if not "revolutionary".
He nor Northrup would never be accepted
by the conventional masses simply because
they present a Biblical point of view."Having read through a few of his his chapters, it is quite obvious that the main problem with either Northrup nor Dawson isn't their Biblical point of view. The main problem is that instead of being either "revolutionary" or great thinkers, both are basically functionally illiterate in their understanding of even the basic facts and principles of geology. The science present in their article is far more dreadful than then the term papers / projects that I graded in beginning physical or historical geology laboratory courses. The only expert advice, as a geologist, that I can give these people is that their future is in becoming lawyers instead of geologists. :-) :-) They misstate, misrepresent, misunderstood, and mangled facts, observations, and theories so completely, that their arguments are beyond any hope of salvaging. Steven Austin, Andrew Snelling, and ICR crowd have published far more convincing and "logical" YEC arguments, which also show a vastly greater understanding of geology, then these people have done.Just Some ThoughtsBill Birkeland

That's not as detailed as your usual, Bill. Can you pick out a couple of the most spectacular failures?

"That's not as detailed as your usual, Bill.
Can you pick out a couple of the most
spectacular failures?"Which one? :-) There are so many spectacular mistakes that it is quite difficult to know where to start. :-)In case of Dawson, one problem is what he writes is so vague and nebulous that it is hard to find anything with enough substance to even comment about. It reminds a lot about the technical jargon a person finds in Star Trek movies when they talk about "delta particles", "warp fields", "dilithium", and how Kirk is beamed back and forth from ship to planet and back. it sounds scientific, but there not scientific substance to even began to comment on. It is all sort of technobabble that sounds scientific, but only the author never describes the specifics of what he talking about.A good example of this is Chapter 7 where he talks about reversals of the magnetic field in terms of vortexes, vectors, and torque. This Discussion started with:"The scientific literature has suggested that
the earth's magnetic field may have reversed
sometime in the past.153 If one assumes that
the axis of the earth was through the center
of Gottsland, then such a reversal may have
supplied the force required to set the
continents adrift."However, he totally ignored the fact that the reversal of the magnetic field isn't going to have effect on the tectonics of the Earth. In any case, magnetic field is far too weak to have any influence, in terms, of either causing the plates to move, controlling where they move, or how rocks are deformed. Given this, all of the talk about negative vortexes, vectors, and torque is meaningless technobabble without any real basis in reality. A good example of such technobable is found below the caption to Figure 88, where it is stated:"A negative vortex would be similar to a
sink hole on the earth or a black hole in
space where everything flows into the vortex.
A positive vortex would function as a source
of material similar to a volcano or a source
of energy, and energy is normally dissipated
in a spiraling manner. The change in magnetic
poles could produce a momentary negative
vortex and when the surface returned to a
steady state, this vortex could become a
point of energy distribution or a positive vortex."These vortexes are nothing more than a figment of Dawson's rather fertile imagination. They are technobabble lacking any basis in reality.In another case, near Figure 77, he makes silly statements such as:"The map shows that all the geologic provinces are
converging on a point at the center of the Arbuckle
mountains, point A, Figure 7"In this case, he either ignored or was ignorant of the fact that Ouachita Mountains is part of a curved segment of a lengthy mountain front. The so-called point of convergence is just an illusion generated by the way that this range is partially buried. A recent peer-reviewed paper on the geology of the Ouachita Mountains is discussed in "Mountains Buried Beneath Mississippi". The actual paper is: Harry, D. L., and Londono, J., 2004, Structure and evolution
of the central Gulf of Mexico continental margin and coastal
plain, southeast United States. Geological Society of America
Bulletin: Vol. 116, No. 1, pp. 188-199.As found below the caption to Figure 87, there are factually bankrupt statements such as:" The rotation around this point is shown
by the movement of the Quachita Mountains,
points B. These mountains are moving very
slowly in the direction of the arrow."Then, Dawson cited evidence, even if true, that doesn't do anything to support this conclusion such as:"The wall thickness of the well casing used
is four times the thickness used in similar
wells in the western side of Oklahoma.
If one does not use the heavier, stronger
walled casing, the well casing will collapse
over a period of time, due to the movement
of the mountains."Not only is there a complete lack of any documentation that the thickness of well casing on one side of Oklahoma is thicker on one side of Oklahoma than the other, but Dawson didn't realize there are many other reasons, instead of his imaginary vortexes, for the differences in casing thockness, even if they exist. This alleged evidence fails to demonstrate anything about whether the Ouachita Mountains are rotating or not. Other physical evidence showing that any sort of rotation is occurring around the Ouachita Mountains is lacking.He comes to all sorts of grandiose conclusions from very superficial analyses of patterns that have very complex origins. While coming to grand conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence and observation, he completely ignores almost everything that has been written the structural geology and stratigraphy of the Ouachita Mountains and other parts of North America by conventional geologists. Dawson is waving arms about how this is happening here and something else is happening someplace else without presenting any hard evidence that supports his ideas or credible explanation explaining what he claims is happening. It reminds me a lot about how New Agers discuss such things as Ley Lines and morphongenic fields without providing any solid evidecne of their existence.I don't know of single conventional geologist or anticreationist that would consider Dawson's writing serious enough to for them to considered it worth their time to write anything rebutting it.Yours,Bill[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 02-23-2004]

Ok, Ok, Enough. I see what you mean now. Yikes!

Lunkheadm wrote:"Roxrkool, you are summarizing. Read a
few of Northrup's 125 specific points in:
http://www.sedin.org/PDFS/final125.pdf
You cannot be more specific than this, or you are blind."Anyone, who would take the time to review what has been published on the any of the 125 specific points published above by 125 Northrup, would have to blind *not* to see that they are **not** at all specific as Lunkehead falsely claims them to be. They all over simplify and generalize what is found in the stratigraphic record as to create a inaccurate caricature of the real world. In his "specific points", Northrup repeatedly overlooks and ignores innumerable details about the sedimentology, paleontology, stratigraphy, and paleopedology of the geologic strata, of which talks about, that readily refute the various claims that he makes about their association with various parts of Genesis. Specific details are very important. However, in his "Readers Digest" condensed version of geology, Northrup ignores these details/For example, Northrup stated:"17. The Paleozoic deposits lie unconformably
on the Proterozoic surfaces wherever both
exist. According to Genesis 5-7, the Noahic
flood event series was preceded by an interval
of between 1,500 years (Heb.) and 2,000 years
(LXX) between the creation week and the flood.
The great unconformity represents this quiet
period of Biblical history.'Point no.17, along with Point no. 16, is a completely bankrupt statement. What "Northrup" stated about the "...Paleozoic deposits lie unconformably on the Proterozoic surfaces wherever both exist" is now known to be completely false. The fact of the matter is that there are known to be numerous locations where a continuous section of strata, lacking any significant unconformities, spanning the boundary from the Proterozoic into the Paleozoic have been found. The so-called "great unconformity", which Northup discussed in Points 16 and 17, is now known to have been a figment of some geologists imagination. Areas where the "great unconformioty" has found to be completely absent include Oman, Siberian Platform, Newfoundland, Morocco, Namibia, Death Valley (United States), Mackenzie Mountains (northwestern Canada) and so forth. In these points, he uses geological concepts that have been long discredited and refuted by later work. Some web pages are:GSSP for the Precambrian - Cambrian Boundary
Page not found · GitHub PagesAndrew Latham & Robert Riding, 1990, Fossil
evidence for the location of the Precambrian/
Cambrian boundary in Morocco. Nature 344, 752-754Frank A. Corsetti and James W. Hagadorn, 2000,
Precambrian-Cambrian transition: Death Valley,
United States. Geology. vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 299-302.For example, Northrup stated:"24. The overlying Bright Angel Shale and
Muav Limestone are much lighter deposits
than the Tapeats Sandstone at the bottom of
the Cambrian deposits. As the Noahic flood
expanded, lighter calcium materials remained
in suspension longer. These now began to
precipitate out of the water and provided
the materials for these formations.'In this point, Northrup is blind to an inconvenient fact detail consisting of the fact the Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale, and Muav Limestone successively interfinger with each other towards the northwest as shown on pages 14 and 16 of "Biostratigraphy". Thus, none of these rock layers represent a separate period of deposition as interpreted above. Rather, the deposition of these occurred simultaneously within laterally adjacent zones parallel to a shoreline as shown in pages 15 of "Biostratigraphy" at:
http://www.geo.wvu.edu/~kammer/g231/Biostratigraphy.pdfand at:
Page Not Found - Removed | University of North Dakota
Page Not Found - Removed | University of North Dakota In page 16 of "Biostratigraphy", the interval, in which Middle Cambrian trilobites are found, starts within the Mauv Limestone and drops into and gradually through the Bright Angel Shale and finally into the Tapeats Sandstone. Northrup's explanation again is blind to this detail, for which it is unable to explain. However, conventional geologists can explain the distribution of Middle Cambrian trilobites as showing these units having accumulated simultaneously within adjacent belts that migrated to the northeast as sea level rose with time. The base of the zone containing Middle Cambrian trilobites represents the ocean bottom at one point in time, which cuts across the boundaries of these units contradicting Northrup's explanation for their formation.In another case, Northrup stated:41. A major characteristic of the Pennsylvanian
"Epoch" in many places is its great coal beds.
In 1968 I proposed the "vegetation raft theory
of coal deposit," suggesting that great rafts
of antediluvian vegetation carried on the Noahic
flood waters began to be driven ashore and buried
by the powerful tsunamis of the retreating Noahic
flood waters."In point 41, Northrup, as well as Dr. Morris, Steve Austin, and various other Young Earth creationists are completely blind to an abundance of evidence that completely refutes their "great raft" hypothesis. For example, these people are blind to the existence of fossil soils (paleosols) that comprise the "seatearths" / "underclays" that directly underie the coal beds and occur throughout the strata containing these coal beds. They are blind to the presence of innumerable polystrate trees and, even more numerous, "monostrate" stumps that are found in abundance within these deposits that have intact root systems, which demonstrate that they grew in place and weren't part of any "great raft". These and other problems with the "great raft" theory are discussed in great detail by:1. Soracilla defends the Flood?
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)2. Gastaldo, R. A., 1999, Debates on Autochthonous and Allochthonous
Origin of Coal: Empirical Science versus the Diluvialists. in Manger, W.L.,
ed., The Evolution-Creation Controversy II: Perspectives on Science,
Religion, and Geological Education, The Paleontological Society Papers,
v. 5, p. 135-167.3. Gastaldo, R. A., 1984, A Case Against Pelagochthony: The Untenability
of Carboniferous Arborescent Lycopod-Dominated Floating Peat Mats in
Walker, K. R. ed. The Evolution-Creation Controversy, Perspectives on
Religion, Philosophy, Science and Education: A Handbook.
Paleontological Society Special Publications, Knoxville, TN., Vol. 1:97-116.Other related web pages are:1. Coal deposits: evidence for the Noah's Flood "model"?
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/aigcoal.htm2. Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mount St. Helens
Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mount St. Helens3. Coal & paleosol references
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199905/0432.htmlNorthrup completely ignored the fact that tsunamis, which he claims buried his floating mats, are completely incapable of producing the complexe interbedding and sedimentary structures exhibited by the layers of sand, silt, clay, and other sediments that enclose coal beds. Finally, Northrup totally ignored, as documented in innumerable published papers, the fact that the deposition of the sediments enclosing the coal beds, and the coal beds themselves, are easily explained using models of either deltaic, other coastal plain, or riverine environments. A few of innumerable papers, which Northrup refused to either discuss or even acknowledge in his article and provide very detailed explanation of how the coal beds and the strata enclosing were formed are:Ferm, J. C., and Cavaroc, V. V., Jr., 1968, A nonmarine sedimentary
model for the Allegheny rocks of West Virginia in Klein, G. deVries
Klein, ed., Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic Continental Sedimentation,
Northeastern North America, Geological Society of America Special
Paper no. 106, pp. 1-20.Flores, R. M., l986, Styles of coal deposition in Tertiary alluvial
deposits, Powder River Basin, Montana and Wyoming, in Lyons, P.C.
and Rice, C.L., eds., Paleoenvironmental and Tectonic Controls in
Coal-forming Basins of the United States: Geological Society of
America, Special Paper no. 2l0, pp. 79-l04.Greb, S. F., Andrews, W. M., Eble, C. F., DiMichele, W., Cecil,
C. B., and Hower, J.C., 2003, Desmoinesian coal beds of the Eastern
Interior and surrounding basins: The largest tropical peat mires in
earth history, in M. A. Chan and A. W. Archer, eds., Extreme
depositional environments: Mega-end members in geologic time:
Geological Society of America, Special Publication No. 370,
pp. 127-150.Horne, J. C., Ferm, J. C., Caruccio, F. T., and Baganz, B. P., 1978,
Depositional models in coal exploration and mine planning in
Appalachian region: American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, vol. 62, pp. 2379-2411.Weisenfluh, G. A., and Ferm, J. C., 1984, Geologic controls on
deposition of the Pratt seam, Black Warrior Basin, Alabama,
U.S.A., in Rahmani, R.A. and Flores, R.M., eds., Sedimentology of
coal and coal-bearing sequences: International Association of
Sedimentologists Special Publication No. 7, pp. 317-332.People can find numerous articles describing in great detail how specific coal beds are created in "The International Journal of Coal Geology". Unlike Northrup's article, they account in great detail for the physical characteristics of both the coal and the sediments surrounding it instead of simply claiming that "tsunamis" did it" without providing any detailed arguments to support such claims. Northrup certainly needs to provide specific details about how tsunamis can be produce not only coal, but strata, which enclosed the coal, that are virtually identical in external geometry, lithology, and internal sedimentary structures to the sediments that can be seen being deposited in modern deltas, rivers, and coastal plain settings.The home page for the The International Journal of Coal Geology is:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01665162In a final example, Northrup stated:"34. The Paleozoic marine deposits are found on most of
earth's surfaces. An evolutionary writer that I have
read marvels that they are unable to find continental
deposits of this period in Europe."Because Northrup is arguing that the Noachian Flood covered entire Earth during the Paleozoic, the existence of any of these continental deposits anywhere in the world would readily refute his hypothesis. In his article, Northrup overlooked the fact that continental Paleozoic deposits can be readily found in North America and elsewhere by focusing only on areas, i.e. Europe and Idaho, where marine deposits are dominate. Curiously, he doesn't provide a specific citation for his "evolutionary writer", which make me suspect that it is that antiquated research that has long since been refuted by later research. Here, Northrup, as he does elsewhere, engages in oversimplified descriptions and summaries of the evidence and observations.Gregory T. Rettallack's book "Soils of the Past" presents numerous examples of Paleozoic continental deposits.The problem with Northrup's article is that the information he uses to support his arguments is over generalized and over simplified to the point it presents an unreliable and erroneous caricature of the real world geology. It is an extremely biased article as these generalizations included only the evidence that supports his ideas and simply ignored anything that contradicts the arguments being presented.Yours,Bill Birkeland[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 02-22-2004]

All an old Oklahoma oily can say here is "What the F***!?" Maybe that maroon saw a drill collar once, and thought it was thick-walled casing.
Oy, weh!

Been incredibly busy the last two weeks ... Glenn Morton has some further information on the veggie mat "theory" at Wilcox Coals and the Floating Forest/VeggieMat Young-earth Theories.[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-21-2004]