Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 2:10 AM
31 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Some Young earth evidence
Arithus
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 9 (351155)
09-21-2006 6:45 PM


I had recently read this as evidence for a young earth. Is this really any evidence?

--The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).

--Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.

--Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata.

Edited by AdminNosy, : I took the liberty of editing the topic title to make clearer what it is about.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 09-21-2006 9:09 PM Arithus has not yet responded
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 09-21-2006 9:19 PM Arithus has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 09-22-2006 10:43 AM Arithus has not yet responded
 Message 7 by clpMINI, posted 09-22-2006 12:34 PM Arithus has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 9 (351167)
09-21-2006 7:17 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5393
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 3 of 9 (351181)
09-21-2006 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Arithus
09-21-2006 6:45 PM


The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things

That's not even true: there are bunches of both all over the geologic record. The Grand Canyon has paleosols that have been discussed here before. Any petroleum geologist can tell you about buried erosional surfaces - there's one about a mile below my chair on top of the Horseshoe Atoll. The Bartlesville Sand in northern Oklahoma has 'em, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Arithus, posted 09-21-2006 6:45 PM Arithus has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 9 (351186)
09-21-2006 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Arithus
09-21-2006 6:45 PM


Polystrate fossils
Message 1 references papers on on set of such fossils.

To critique any of them the specific references would be required.

Here is a closed thread on the topic:
Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)

From what I remember the claims made by creationists are often not well founded. We'd have to have them all brought here in detail to see.

Edited by NosyNed, : correct dBCodes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Arithus, posted 09-21-2006 6:45 PM Arithus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by dwise1, posted 09-22-2006 10:25 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3496
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 5 of 9 (351274)
09-22-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
09-21-2006 9:19 PM


Re: Polystrate fossils
Yes, specific references are essential. And very rarely forthcoming.

I have found polystrate fossil claims to be the most poorly documented of their claims (with the possible exception of Gish's bullfrog protein claim). When a local creationist activist demanded I explain polystrate fossils, I asked him for a reference and he had to admit that he couldn't produce a single one (and this guy is so bad that it was virtually impossible to get him to admit to anything).

Many years ago I did get one creationist to produce a reference. The claim was from the ICR's Steve Austin (formerly "Stuart Nevins") and his scientific reference was included. Austin misrepresented his source. Furthermore, part of Austin's claim depended on strata being laid down at a very slow constant rate for the thousands or millions of years between the formation of the top and the bottom layers of the formation, whereas the referenced article not only discussed episodic rapid depositation (eg, from localized flooding) but also discussed the geological evidence used to distinguish between rapid and slow depositation and pointed out the layers in the formation in question that had resulted from rapid depositation. In other words, this claim, as to most polystrate fossil claims, depends on misunderstanding and misrepresenting basic geology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 09-21-2006 9:19 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 6 of 9 (351275)
09-22-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Arithus
09-21-2006 6:45 PM


1. There are thousands of erosional surfaces in the geologic column. Some of these are called paleosols which are just ancient soil horizons. Sometimes these are stacked upon eachother indicating repeated series of soil formation. Other erosional surfaces are called erosional unconformities.

Most of these, especially the paleosols, DO SHOW evidence of living things such as plants, burrows, etc.

Whoever made the claim that these things do not exist did so completely blind of the evidence.

2. Polystrate fossils do cut through multiple layers (somtimes) but these are layers that do not represent millions of years. Some layers are deposited much faster than others. In the case of polystrate trees, often a mudslide can bury a tree in an instant. You can find pictures on the net of polystrate telephone polls. Obviously these didn't take millions of years to form.

3. Solid rock is known to deform plasticly under pressure. We can do this in the lab. There is no requirement that rock must be soft in order to deform. In fact, if rock is soft when it deforms it does not react in the way we see it in the geologic column. Other evidence that rock was hard when it deformed are clear evidence of fossil and clastic strain. That is where a fossil or other element in the rock is stretched in the direction of the deformation of the rock. If the rock had been soft when this happened, the fossils would not have streched with the rock. In order for a fossil to deform WITH the rock it must be PART OF the rock and that means the rock was hard.

In short, people who bring up these "evidences" really are only speaking in a fantasy world. Even a remedial knowledge of the actual evidence from geology, something you would get within a few weeks of freshman geology courses, shows that these are either lies or come from people who are VERY SERIOUSLY ignorant of reality.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Arithus, posted 09-21-2006 6:45 PM Arithus has not yet responded

  
clpMINI
Member (Idle past 3338 days)
Posts: 116
From: Richmond, VA, USA
Joined: 03-22-2005


Message 7 of 9 (351295)
09-22-2006 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Arithus
09-21-2006 6:45 PM


Folding
#3: How about folding? Do a quick google and you can come up with cool looking stuff like this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Arithus, posted 09-21-2006 6:45 PM Arithus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Arithus, posted 09-24-2006 5:49 AM clpMINI has not yet responded
 Message 9 by xXGEARXx, posted 10-27-2006 2:52 AM clpMINI has not yet responded

  
Arithus
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 9 (351740)
09-24-2006 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by clpMINI
09-22-2006 12:34 PM


Re: Folding
Thanks for the good info.

It's beginning to be clear to me that a lot of creationists like to provide proof by verbosity. Cause thats all I get when I question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by clpMINI, posted 09-22-2006 12:34 PM clpMINI has not yet responded

  
xXGEARXx
Member (Idle past 3294 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 9 of 9 (359212)
10-27-2006 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by clpMINI
09-22-2006 12:34 PM


Re: Folding
I want to give this a humpty bumpty. I want to hear about folding too. This seems to be one of the creationist arguements.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by clpMINI, posted 09-22-2006 12:34 PM clpMINI has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019