Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 5:55 PM
33 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, WookieeB (10 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,340 Year: 15,376/19,786 Month: 2,099/3,058 Week: 473/404 Day: 77/63 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 50 of 740 (733802)
07-21-2014 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
07-21-2014 3:19 AM


In Defense of Steve Austin
In defence, only so far as to say, Steve Austin's essay is not quite as bad as it has been painted. There are plenty of valid criticisms that could be made of it.

I would say that of Steve Austin's points this one seems to be addressed at naive misconceptions held by (some) uninformed lay people. While it would be somewhat dishonest to present such as a valid attack on mainstream geology it is not an outright lie. (Others, are worse,though)

However, the quoted point only says that there are considerable gaps in the geological record at any given location. This thoroughly refutes any idea that large scale erosion at any particular location is "the end" of the geological column and of geological time. In mainstream geology such events are expected.

quote:

I'd also like to point out that he's answering mainstream Geology in such a way that implies the standard view of the Geologic Column IS that identifiable stack of sedimentary strata I've been taking it to be.

That is, it is not just any old pile of dust or eroded material, it is not just any core sample, it is not just any sequence of layers of this that or the other, it does not include igneous rock and so on and so forth, which is what I've been arguing here.


In fact he says none of that.

quote:

The Geologic Column is a specific recognizable formation of sedimentary strata that is found as partial stacks here and there, some more complete than others but none fully complete. Austin also makes clear that the individual strata ARE identifiable as separate recognizable sediments.

I'm not sure what the ten "systems" refer to that Austin talks about, as far as the rocks go, though they clearly refer to ten major time periods on the Geo Time Scale. He seems to be saying they can be identified by rock type, though, not just fossil contents.


You should read misconception number 5



Misconception No. 5. Because each strata system has distinctive lithologic composition, a newly discovered stratum can be assigned easily to its correct position in the geologic column.

Austin says that sequences of strata are helpful but individual strata are not diagnostic of any particular period. Even sequences only "may be" diagnostic.

Really Faith, if you are going to use a source you need to read it rather more carefully than you seem to have done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 07-21-2014 3:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 110 of 740 (733939)
07-23-2014 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
07-23-2014 12:32 AM


Re: Mt. Pinatubo is Proof Positive
quote:

I know you are all convinced that the evidence shows this but I am not. Either the layers beneath the current deposition are not the Geo Column, or if they are then certainly the new deposits are not.

Perhaps you would like to - finally - explain that assertion.

If the strata on which modern sediments are deposited happen to be not part of the abstract geological column on some technicality why would it be significant ? Because certainly they must be part of the local geological column which seems rather more important.

And how can you know that future strata will not become part of a future geological column ?

This doesn't seem to be a view that is "BASED ON THE EVIDENCE".

Edited by PaulK, : fixed tag


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 07-23-2014 12:32 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 07-23-2014 2:20 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 112 of 740 (733942)
07-23-2014 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
07-23-2014 2:20 AM


Re: Mt. Pinatubo is Proof Positive
No apologies for the truth.

And if that gives you an excuse for continuing to keep your argument a secret, so be it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 07-23-2014 2:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 125 of 740 (734071)
07-25-2014 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
07-25-2014 4:12 AM


Re: a partial review
quote:

Starting with Percy's first post the main argument is that the geo column is all the rocks everywhere, although I've many times defined my view of it as specific to the particular strata that define the Geo Time Scale, that are very thick and very extensive and so on. I could also say it's the rocks that represent the ten systems of the time scale that Steve Austin tied it to, from Cambrian to Tertiary. And really, they should probably be defined as only those that contain fossils, since they are definitive of the Time Scale. Igneous rocks are not part of this. They may be part of some poster's idea of the geo column but they aren't part of mine.

That's a pretty weird idea. The idea of excluding strata without fossils is especially daft - even the reason give is false. The time scale is mainly worked out by geometric relationships between the strata with some distinctive fossils helping extend the scale where the relations of the strata can't be easily applied.

But in reading this the problem seems simple. Most of the argument is a massive obfuscation concealing the old claim that current deposits of sediment don't occur on a wide enough scale (complete with the old exaggeration of the extent)

And quite frankly the obfuscation begins to look like a deliberate tactic to justify the claims of "straw man". Statements which serve only to confuse the issue are answered as best they can be - only to be met with accusations of dishonesty. Whether the confusion is a deliberate tactic or not, it seems it is necessary to be suspicious of everything Faith writes and to demand the clear explanations that she is so reluctant (or perhaps unable) to give,

quote:

That's good, that's an answer. But those places are awfully limited when you compare the great extent of some of the layers that extend across states and continents. The Sahara desert is often pointed out as an exception, since its extent is even greater than the whole of the USA, but the Sahara is not a rock layer.

Of course if the Sahara were a "rock layer" it wouldn't be an example. Any valid counter example would have to have loose sediment being deposited over a very wide area. It must be loose sediment - not rock.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 07-25-2014 4:12 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 351 of 740 (734430)
07-29-2014 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Faith
07-28-2014 9:29 PM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
quote:

Anyone who can't see the evidence for the Flood in the miles-deep sedimentary strata and their fossil contents has no appreciation of what evidence is.

Perhaps you could explain your concept of evidence because it does not seem to be the one that everyone else uses.

I know that you assume that the Flood created the strata but this is not a position that seems even remotely sensible, and to take that assumption as evidence is silly. And since you also assert that it is impossible to work out what the Flood would have done, even you can't consistently claim that it is anything more than an assumption.

I also know for a fact that your position on the fossils requires taking the fossil record as merely a large number of dead things without considering any of the other information we have discovered about the fossil record. Information which rules out the Flood as a plausible cause.

On both counts we cannot say that either the strata or the fossil record should be counted as evidence for the Flood, as the word is usually understood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 9:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 6:31 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 354 of 740 (734433)
07-29-2014 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Faith
07-29-2014 6:31 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
quote:

Would have thought that evidence is simply anything that evidently would have been caused by the event it evidences.

In that case the strata and the fossil record are definitely not evidence for the Flood.

quote:

Strata and fossils on the scale they in fact exist would evidently have been the result of a worldwide Flood.

As I've pointed out in the case of the strata you simply assume this, in the case of the fossils you have to intentionally ignore evidence to conclude this.

quote:

Raising objections to parts of it is simply another subject.

I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out that you have no valid basis for your assertion.

Edited by PaulK, : Fixed tag


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 6:31 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 7:29 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 361 of 740 (734440)
07-29-2014 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
07-29-2014 7:29 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
quote:

But my point was that you are missing the forest for the trees.

I think that anyone who has read my posts can see that that is not true. In the case of the strata I'm not even looking at anything more detailed than the evidence you claim to be using. Even when looking at fossils the order of the fossil record - to use just one example - is a pervasive large-scale feature that clearly is not a minor detail that can be so easily dismissed.

quote:

The big picture is that the strata and the fossils are OBVIOUSLY excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood.

It's obvious to me that they are not. That they are not even weak evidence for a worldwide flood. That they show no sign that a worldwide flood occurred at all.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 7:29 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 383 of 740 (734474)
07-30-2014 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by Faith
07-30-2014 12:16 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
quote:

As long as you say there is no evidence for the Flood you are obviously misunderstanding the evidence

There's nothing obvious about that. Indeed I would say that a correct understanding cannot be established by fiat and certainly cannot be based on suppressing strong evidence to the contrary.

quote:

How all the strata and the fossils aren't sufficient evidence I can't fathom

They're not things we would reasonably expect the Flood to produce.

What I find odd is that you spend a lot of time repeating your assertions on this point and no time at all rationally defending them.

quote:

Just because they can be interpreted other ways, to fit into the Old Earth/ evolutionist scenario, doesn't make them any the less clear evidence for the Flood

It's rather more important that they can't be sensibly interpreted as evidence for the Flood.

quote:

I'm only talking about the broad issue of there having been a worldwide Flood and I know that happened no matter what.

In other words you assume that the Flood is unquestionable fact, and it seems that your understanding is quite severely warped by the strength of your conviction. Is it so hard for you to imagine that what seems obviously true to you might be obviously false to others ? It's happened often enough here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 12:16 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by edge, posted 07-30-2014 1:13 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 392 of 740 (734483)
07-30-2014 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Faith
07-30-2014 1:05 AM


Re: igneous layers
The context was your claim that igneous rocks within your "geological column" are always intrusive.

I would say that pointing out that tuffs are never intrusive is very relevant to that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 1:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by edge, posted 07-30-2014 1:17 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 396 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 1:47 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 397 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 1:48 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 395 of 740 (734486)
07-30-2014 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by edge
07-30-2014 1:13 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
I think that the more important point is the the Flood can't reasonably account for them. Even ignoring the obvious problems that Faith wants to dismiss, the scale and variety of geological structures argue against a single short event accounting for everything. And when we consider the fossils we can't ignore the ordering, or the absence of so many familiar species from strata we should expect to contain them if the Biblical account was even remotely true.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by edge, posted 07-30-2014 1:13 AM edge has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 401 of 740 (734492)
07-30-2014 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by Faith
07-30-2014 1:48 AM


Re: igneous layers
quote:

And within my very carefully defined understanding of The Geologic Column they are, the only exception THAT I'M AWARE of being the Cardenas. Sorry if I've missed others but I don't remember them. All the tuffs are NOT in The Geo Column AS I DEFINE IT. That WAS the context whether you like it or not

I guess that you are going to have to explain how your definition of "The Geologic Column" can include intrusive igneous rocks and exclude tuffs. And why anyone would adopt such a definition.

Here's your claim again:


All this stuff about the igneous rocks came up way back when I said they aren't part of the geologic column as I envision it and that when they are seen there it is as intrusives, or dikes and sills.

It certainly seems to me that your definition ought to include tuffs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 1:48 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 2:19 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 403 of 740 (734494)
07-30-2014 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by Faith
07-30-2014 2:16 AM


Re: igneous layers
quote:

If the tuffs are one of your examples then they are not examples of what I was talking about within the context given, as I SAID. The tuffs do NOT occur within what I've been calling The Geo Column, and what I've been calling the Geo Column IS the context.

I asked you to explain why they are excluded. There is no explanation there, just an assertion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 2:16 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 2:20 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 406 of 740 (734497)
07-30-2014 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Faith
07-30-2014 2:20 AM


Re: igneous layers
Please explain in what way they fail to fit your definition, when intrusive igneous rocks clearly do. Shouting at me is not an explanation. It only makes it look as if you don't have one,
This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 2:20 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 4:26 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 409 of 740 (734502)
07-30-2014 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by Faith
07-30-2014 4:26 AM


Re: igneous layers
Then refer me to a post which explains it. It's really odd that you spend so much time in assertion and evasion and so little on explanation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 4:26 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15328
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 422 of 740 (734516)
07-30-2014 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Faith
07-30-2014 5:09 AM


An important admission
quote:

Well, of course YOU wouldn't, because you think the Bible is a myth, but if it ever hit you that it's not, that it is in fact all true, all real, a revelation of truth you couldn't ever guess at, you'd have a whole different perspective on these things. And if the revelation hit you suddenly I'm sure you'd be knocked to the floor by it and take weeks or months, really years, to get back to anything remotely normal

None of which would change the fact that natural explanations work perfectly well - and even better than the Flood. And an honest person would admit that, even if they personally believed in the Flood.

And certainly I hope that if it happened to me that I wouldn't feel the need to claim that things were evidence for the Flood just because I needed to attribute them to the Flood.

It's pretty clear that your assumption that the myths of Genesis are literally true governs your views much more strongly than you care to admit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 5:09 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:05 AM PaulK has responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019