a question for geologists

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I have been reading ‘shattering the myths of Darwinism’ by Richard Milton. The author suggests that the geological column is correct in that is consistently shows various fossils of the same type, in the different strata, but that the dating methods are unreliable.
I don’t know that much about geology, I am a layman, but not a gullible ignoramus. YECs claim that all the geological strata were laid down during the supposed biblical flood. That doesn’t seem to be true. What Milton suggests is that there has been catastrophism, but perhaps many separate catastrophic events, throughout geological time, which is probably not on the evolutionist’s required timescale.

The age of the earth is somewhere from 10,000 years to 170,000 years. So what I would like to get, is some more information on the geology, soft rock geology, showing the evidence that the rock layers are Carboniferous, Devonian, etc. showing specific life forms in each layer; ammonites in one layer, dinosaurs in another, mammals in another, and not mixing of any kind.
Perhaps suggest a book which is not a nauseating celebration of Darwinism; just the evidence.

I would classify myself, at the moment, as a middle-earth progressive creationist. I suspect that the universe has an outside morphogenic plan, which governs not just biology, but everything. What I am trying to establish, as a hard fact, is that there have been successive ages, as like the classic geological column, with specific life forms arising in each age.

 

[juvenissun]

I have been reading ‘shattering the myths of Darwinism’ by Richard Milton. The author suggests that the geological column is correct in that is consistently shows various fossils of the same type, in the different strata, but that the dating methods are unreliable.
I don’t know that much about geology, I am a layman, but not a gullible ignoramus. YECs claim that all the geological strata were laid down during the supposed biblical flood. That doesn’t seem to be true. What Milton suggests is that there has been catastrophism, but perhaps many separate catastrophic events, throughout geological time, which is probably not on the evolutionist’s required timescale.

The age of the earth is somewhere from 10,000 years to 170,000 years. So what I would like to get, is some more information on the geology, soft rock geology, showing the evidence that the rock layers are Carboniferous, Devonian, etc. showing specific life forms in each layer; ammonites in one layer, dinosaurs in another, mammals in another, and not mixing of any kind.
Perhaps suggest a book which is not a nauseating celebration of Darwinism; just the evidence.

If you hold on that "definition" of a Young Earth, then you would have no need to "use" any geological knowledge derived from science. Because it won't fit within the system.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

If you hold on that "definition" of a Young Earth, then you would have no need to "use" any geological knowledge derived from science. Because it won't fit within the system.

i'm free to tolerate the old earth beliefs, to get to the truth about what has happened in the past. it's not a dotrinal thing, but a search for the truth based on the evidence.

 

[troodon]

So what I would like to get, is some more information on the geology, soft rock geology, showing the evidence that the rock layers are Carboniferous, Devonian, etc. showing specific life forms in each layer; ammonites in one layer, dinosaurs in another, mammals in another, and not mixing of any kind.

The flood is an awful explanation for the fossil assemblages we see in the geologic record. I was actually planning on making a thread addressing one of the flood explanations so expect that soon!

Anyways, the phenomenon you mention is absolutely real, the fossil record is highly segregated - the fossils we find in one layer are almost always only found in that layer. Here is a thread I made a very long time ago on the subject. I can vouch for this with my own personal experience having been to and studied fossil sites that are stratigraphically right on top of each other and seen how there is no faunal overlap.

 

[verysincere]

i'm free to tolerate the old earth beliefs, to get to the truth about what has happened in the past. it's not a dotrinal thing, but a search for the truth based on the evidence.

Trodon has effectively summarized that reality of fossils and strata so there's not a lot more that I need to say. But I'm curious about the "progressive" aspect of your creationist view. Dr. Hugh Ross emphasizes his progressive creationism also. As a former young earth creationist (and a committed evangelical minister who still studies a lot of science, though I'm retired from the university classroom) I'm intrigued by the "progressive creation" topic. My first question is always, "Why should it be assumed that the Creator needs to intervene and perform additional creations?" Frankly, I'm led to wonder, wouldn't an omnipotent deity get it right the first time? That is, why shouldn't I assume that God (who is outside of time) was able to create the laws of physics and chemistry in such a way that life on earth was inevitable and that evolutionary processes would bring about exactly what God willed?

I realize that there are many forms of progressive creationism and I don't expect you to speak for all of them. But I'm interested in hearing how you came to your particular view of progressive creation. (You see, to me, the ever-intervening, guiding-it-along deity sounds too much like a bumbling human engineer who can't know exactly how his designs will pan out and therefore must work 24/7 to repair and maintain.)

Thanks for whatever insights you can provide.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Trodon has effectively summarized that reality of fossils and strata so there's not a lot more that I need to say. But I'm curious about the "progressive" aspect of your creationist view. Dr. Hugh Ross emphasizes his progressive creationism also. As a former young earth creationist (and a committed evangelical minister who still studies a lot of science, though I'm retired from the university classroom) I'm intrigued by the "progressive creation" topic. My first question is always, "Why should it be assumed that the Creator needs to intervene and perform additional creations?" Frankly, I'm led to wonder, wouldn't an omnipotent deity get it right the first time? That is, why shouldn't I assume that God (who is outside of time) was able to create the laws of physics and chemistry in such a way that life on earth was inevitable and that evolutionary processes would bring about exactly what God willed?

I realize that there are many forms of progressive creationism and I don't expect you to speak for all of them. But I'm interested in hearing how you came to your particular view of progressive creation. (You see, to me, the ever-intervening, guiding-it-along deity sounds too much like a bumbling human engineer who can't know exactly how his designs will pan out and therefore must work 24/7 to repair and maintain.)

Thanks for whatever insights you can provide.

At the moment I am developing my views, based on the evidence, and departing from any religious doctrines regarding creation. The book that I mentioned is very good, as it shows how Darwinism has become a bit like the Church in Galileo’s time; the same sort of closed mind dogma, similar to a religious infallibility (although I still think there is a case for geocentrism).
What I am thinking about of late, has been like Rupert Sheldrake’s ideas about nature, morphogenic fields, which can be proven by experiment, so is hard science. I am thinking that there is a plan for form and life, which might be outside of space and time; life is not simple.
I don’t think that God was standing there making life forms appear out of nowhere; I think it is more likely that the creation of the universe has a built-in plan, design formula. The Genesis account is a very rough guide; let the seas teem with living things, etc. It is up to people in this age to try and figure some of it out, without having this bigoted anti-Christian bent, coming from narrow minded extremists like Dawkins and his ilk.

For me, Hugh Ross is too naturalistic, although he’s an old earth creationist. I don’t think that you can go along with everything in the bible. That’s just not for me. I think the ‘reasons to believe’ team are trying hard to harmonise the bible with science, and I don’t think that can be done. I think it’s time to break away from Genesis, and examine the mysteries of life, with freedom; that doesn’t mean that Christian faith falls apart; I think that Christianity is more resilient than that.

From what I can work out so far, it seems that life has arisen in a number of ages; life in the sea, life on the land, catastrophes, more life. Etc. Life might be built into the universe, or the blueprints of life. I think that’s what Hugh Ross has in mind, but I haven’t read anything that he has written on that, just his astronomy/cosmology books, and I read his ‘a matter of days’ a long time ago.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

The flood is an awful explanation for the fossil assemblages we see in the geologic record. I was actually planning on making a thread addressing one of the flood explanations so expect that soon!

Anyways, the phenomenon you mention is absolutely real, the fossil record is highly segregated - the fossils we find in one layer are almost always only found in that layer. Here is a thread I made a very long time ago on the subject. I can vouch for this with my own personal experience having been to and studied fossil sites that are stratigraphically right on top of each other and seen how there is no faunal overlap.

I don't go along with the flood geology; everything would have been mixed up together.. forests, animals, fish etc. I don't believe in the biblical flood anymore, I think it was lifted from the Al Ubaid civilisation, which was discovered under the Sumerian layer at Ur. It was a flood 100x400 miles.

Do you know of any good books which are specifically about the segregation of the fossil record? perhaps books you have used in your studies.
i'll look forward to your thread.

 

[Papias]

To get a direct look at the evidence, I'd go with a paleontology textbook - just be sure it is by a real paleontology professor, and is used for a real paleontology class. Here is a search:

Amazon.com: paleontology textbook

Or, it might be more fun, and easier, to either take a paleontology class at the local University, or a class on DVD or audio that you can take in on your own schedule, with a snack on your couch at home:

Major Transitions in Evolution
(note - the great courses are really cool, but only buy classes when they are on sale. This one is currently on sale.)

Papias

 

[troodon]

Do you know of any good books which are specifically about the segregation of the fossil record? perhaps books you have used in your studies.
i'll look forward to your thread.

I'm unaware of any books that approach the subject specifically. My research involves a whole lot of putting together comprehensive taxonomic lists and it mostly necessitates digging through papers and emailing experts. The closest thing to what you're looking for that's been published is the Dinosaur Distribution chapter of The Dinosauria. It methodically goes through all known occurrences of dinosaur taxa (at the time, 2007) and shows how incredibly segregated they are.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I've got this book...

World Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Creatures: The Ultimate Visual Reference to 1000 Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Creatures of Land, Air and ... the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Eras: Amazon.co.uk: Dougal Dixon: Books

which describes what era the creatures are from. those books you listed are a bit expensive, and a bit hardcore.
thanks anyway.

my fossil hunting is limited to lyme regis in dorset, where i found ammonites in soft gray 'rock'. there are also very big ammonites which you can walk over there.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have been reading ‘shattering the myths of Darwinism’ by Richard Milton. The author suggests that the geological column is correct in that is consistently shows various fossils of the same type, in the different strata, but that the dating methods are unreliable.
I don’t know that much about geology, I am a layman, but not a gullible ignoramus. YECs claim that all the geological strata were laid down during the supposed biblical flood. That doesn’t seem to be true. What Milton suggests is that there has been catastrophism, but perhaps many separate catastrophic events, throughout geological time, which is probably not on the evolutionist’s required timescale.

The age of the earth is somewhere from 10,000 years to 170,000 years. So what I would like to get, is some more information on the geology, soft rock geology, showing the evidence that the rock layers are Carboniferous, Devonian, etc. showing specific life forms in each layer; ammonites in one layer, dinosaurs in another, mammals in another, and not mixing of any kind.
Perhaps suggest a book which is not a nauseating celebration of Darwinism; just the evidence.

I would classify myself, at the moment, as a middle-earth progressive creationist. I suspect that the universe has an outside morphogenic plan, which governs not just biology, but everything. What I am trying to establish, as a hard fact, is that there have been successive ages, as like the classic geological column, with specific life forms arising in each age.

There is no age on the earth, mostly because it was created outside of time.
Though it may look like it has endured normal time, that's not likely.