Evolution and the Chronology of the Geological Column

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since evolution depends upon an extreme age in the chronology of the gelogical column, I thought I'd throw this out there, which seems to cast great doubt upon the chronology of the Geological column.


"In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, a number of natural scientists claimed to discover "irrefutable evidence" that contradicted the literal sense of Genesis on several points. The most important of these claims were made by geologists whose postulates violated certain fundamental rules of science.

In any scientific discipline the fundamental physical laws of nature must be respected. A law is considered to be a law so long as there are no known exceptions to it in normal conditions. Examples include the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy and the law of entropy. Respect for these laws insures that the framework within which research is undertaken is anchored by laws accepted by the scientific community.

Unfortunately, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries researchers in geology and stratigraphy abandoned these basic constraints and proposed revolutionary theories on the basis of unproven principles. The false principles of stratigraphy first arose in the seventeenth century when, Scandinavian clergyman and naturalist Nicolas Steno interpreted his observations of geological formations and published them in Canis Calchariae (1667). Up until that time, and for many years after, the idea that Steno’s principles could be taken to indicate long periods of time were necessary to form stratified rock was not recognized. The idea of sedimentary rock being exceedingly old came in later. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries geology was not the structured discipline in universities it is today. James Hutton (1726-1797) although leaning towards uniformitarianism and long ages, promoted catastrophism as the main explanation of rock formations.

Hutton and subsequent geologists were already applying Nicolas Stenos’ principles to ascertain the age of rocks. The basic principles were superposition and continuity. Not having the sophisticated hydraulic laboratory equipment and research facilities for experimentation available today, these 17th century principles were formulated on purely field observation. Yet despite the fact they have never been tested by experiment, they are still used as the tools of geology to this day. Other principles were added by later geologists, but they were really variations on Steno’s main theme of superposition and continuity of strata.

For instance, the principle of paleontological identity mentioned later, used to interpret the fossil record and develop a theory of evolution. The principle of superposition is uncomplicated and apparently so logical that for a long time most geologists never thought to put it in doubt. Steno, like geologists who succeeded him, considered that particles of sediment in rivers, lakes or seas deposited at the bottom of the water and formed a layer. Once that layer had hardened sufficiently, a further layer deposited on top. This process, it was assumed, would continue all the time there was water and sediment. After all, the water could dry up, and sediment sources cease preventing further layers from forming. Steno, looking at the massive geological formations around the earth came to the conclusion that, provided there was no physical obstruction to stop a layer or strata forming, the layer would girdle the earth. By looking at the particles of sediment in any particular sequence of layers, he deduced that similar sedimentary particles would be depositing at the same time all along the layer. He concluded from this that any point in the same layer would have the same age, and it was this reasoning which led to his principle of continuity of the layer.

During the late nineteenth century, speculation amongst paleontologists regarding the time necessary for large changes in species to take place led to a demand for a dating method. A geological time-scale was formulated on two basic assumptions. The first was that the rate of sedimentary deposit was, on average, uniform over time. The second was that the time needed for a single-celled organism to evolve into a complex multi-celled biological unit, such as a human being, would take many millions of years. Using the rate of sedimentation at the time the scale was constructed, which is the same rate today, 150 years later, and applying the principles of stratification, mentioned earlier, to all the earth’s sedimentary rocks, they realised that there would not be enough time for macro-evolution. So a time-scale had to be devised so that the sequences of strata corresponded with the biological evolution proposed by the paleontologists. Those strata that were empty of fossils would be considered as having deposited first and would therefore be oldest. Those containing simple invertebrate fossils would feature next on the scale, and those with vertebrate fossils would follow. Marine fossils would precede terrestrial fossils on the evolutionary scale thus providing a continuum of primitive life through to homo sapiens. Where the strata provided insufficient time for the postulated evolution to take place, it was assumed that the conditions producing strata had stopped, and only started again thousands or millions of years later. A proposed cause for this interruption in stratification was that the ocean under which strata were forming, had retreated or dried up completely.

This scenario would be perfectly feasible if Steno’s principles had not left out one important detail, the effect of moving water upon sedimentary particles. The catastrophic relevance of this omission to the science of stratigraphy was demonstrated by Guy Berthault’s recent experiments <--[VIDEO] in a laboratory flume with re-circulating water in the Colorado State University. The results were published in 1993 in the journal of the French Geological Society, and more recently in the Russian Academy of sciences journal Lithological and Mineral Resources (2002 and 2004).

In his experiments Berthault used a pump to create a current in a re-circulating flume and fed particles of sediment into the moving water. These were shown to deposit according to the velocity of the current: above a certain velocity all the particles were transported without any of them being deposited. When the current slowed, the largest particles started to deposit. They formed a layer, whilst the smaller ones continued to be carried by the water. A further reduction in current velocity caused smaller particles to deposit, and so on.

This meant that the smaller particles were forming a layer on top of the layer composed of larger ones. It showed that the particles sorted into strata not over time but according to size. There was no chronology between strata. An increase in the velocity of current would cause some of the particles already deposited to be eroded and re-transported by the moving water. So the superposition principle of all the sedimentary particles, irrespective of size, being deposited in a single layer, hardening and then another layer superposing on top, was shown not to occur when there was a water current. It must be recalled that in oceans and seas, where the vast majority of the sedimentary strata were originally formed, there are always water currents. Not taking them into account was thus shown to have led to over three centuries of geological confusion, and to the creation of the science of stratigraphy based upon invalid principles.

It now appears that the entire geologic column was developed on the unfounded superposition principle that layers form in succession, one on top of the other and that by adding together the time taken to form each layer, and leaving gaps for oceans to empty and re-fill, the sedimentary rocks on earth would have taken 500 million years or so to form. The significance of this data used in conjunction with the proof that strata do not deposit in succession becomes apparent when analysing existing sequences of strata. It clears the way for ascertaining the actual time needed for large stratified rock formations to arise. It also shows that the living organisms which became fossils were buried rapidly and provide no data for evolutionary development of life. Berthault undertook a paleohydraulic analysis of the Tonto Group in the Grand Canyon which is hundreds of miles long and up to 1,700 feet high stretching from the state of Nevada, through Arizona to New Mexico. The study based upon the laboratory experiments showed that it would have taken, not the 13 million years according to the geological time-scale, but less than fifty days to form. Further field research by other geologists such as Alexander Lalomov in the Crimean Peninsular has resulted in similar findings, which completely invalidate the principles underlying the multi-million year geological time scale."




.
 

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟25,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you have citations for any of this? I've done a good deal of study in geology (though never as a major) and I've never once seen any geologist claim that sedement deposits at a uniform rate. If anything the opposite is understood as deposition rates change seasonally and yearly depending on the environment. Further I have never ONCE seen any layer dated by its depth. Do you have even a single source showing how a scientist has simply measured the depth of a layer and used the depth alone to determine age? I highly doubt it, but I'll certainly wait for your citation here!

Further, it is certainly true that sedements are sorted by size, but this is certainly nothing new! Scientists have been studying sedementation for hundreds of years!

Finally, you've discussed deposition under water but you've ignored that most geologic columns include multiple layers deposited in dry conditions. Since you're apparently claiming that a global flood deposited the majority of the column, could you please point out in one or more spots around the globe where the flood layers begin and end? Surely this should not be difficult if standard deposition was interrupted by a catastrophic world-wide event! I'd prefer if you focused on North Dakota or the Grand Canyon as those are the ones I've studied most, but do feel free to branch out if you think there's better data elsewhere.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
The most important of these claims were made by geologists whose postulates violated certain fundamental rules of science. ...The basic principles were superposition and continuity. Not having the sophisticated hydraulic laboratory equipment and research facilities for experimentation available today, these 17th century principles were formulated on purely field observation. Yet despite the fact they have never been tested by experiment, they are still used as the tools of geology to this day.

You don't have any idea what either "superposition" or "continuity" are, do you?

Superposition is the idea that strata that are lower were laid down before the strata above them. And yes, we test them by experiment every time we build a brick wall! The lowest layer of bricks was laid down before the layer above it! How could it be any different?

Steno's Principle of Lateral Continuity simply states that sediments being laid on an ocean floor will be in a layer that extends for considerable distance in all directions. Again, well tested. Again, how can it be otherwise? You are seriously going to have sediments piled in a very limited spot?

Notice that Flood Geologists also adhere to these principles! Sediments lower down were laid before the ones on top. The Flood laid down sedimentary layers in considerable distances in all directions.

During the late nineteenth century, speculation amongst paleontologists regarding the time necessary for large changes in species to take place led to a demand for a dating method. A geological time-scale was formulated on two basic assumptions. The first was that the rate of sedimentary deposit was, on average, uniform over time. The second was that the time needed for a single-celled organism to evolve into a complex multi-celled biological unit, such as a human being, would take many millions of years. Using the rate of sedimentation at the time the scale was constructed, which is the same rate today, 150 years later, and applying the principles of stratification, mentioned earlier, to all the earth’s sedimentary rocks, they realised that there would not be enough time for macro-evolution.

Sorry, but this is simply false. The time scale was constructed in the early 19th century, before evolution. And was constructed by creationists.

What happened later was that evolution was tested by comparison to a fossil record that was already established! Evolution could have been falsified if the existing fossil record did not correspond to the statements of evolution.

In his experiments Berthault used a pump to create a current in a re-circulating flume and fed particles of sediment into the moving water. These were shown to deposit according to the velocity of the current: above a certain velocity all the particles were transported without any of them being deposited. When the current slowed, the largest particles started to deposit. They formed a layer, whilst the smaller ones continued to be carried by the water. A further reduction in current velocity caused smaller particles to deposit, and so on.

This meant that the smaller particles were forming a layer on top of the layer composed of larger ones. It showed that the particles sorted into strata not over time but according to size. There was no chronology between strata.[/quote]

You can't be serious! Of course there is chronology between strata! The bottom strata was still laid down before the strata above it! You just stated that.

An increase in the velocity of current would cause some of the particles already deposited to be eroded and re-transported by the moving water.

So? As you said "some of the particles". So the layer underneath those "some" is still laid down before the layers above them!

It now appears that the entire geologic column was developed on the unfounded superposition principle that layers form in succession, one on top of the other and that by adding together the time taken to form each layer, and leaving gaps for oceans to empty and re-fill, the sedimentary rocks on earth would have taken 500 million years or so to form.

Ah, here is your unfounded assumption: that the oceans had to empty and re-fill for each layer. Sorry, but no. The ocean can stay there and new layers continue to accumulate. There doesn't have to be an "empty".

It also shows that the living organisms which became fossils were buried rapidly and provide no data for evolutionary development of life.

Yes, for fossils to form, the organism has to be buried rapidly. That is the consensus view. But that doesn't mean that all fossils had to be buried at the same time.

This isn't even a good try at trying to refute geology.
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟19,429.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You don't have any idea what either "superposition" or "continuity" are, do you?

Guess this plays well with your crowd. Not all of us fall for harsh rhetoric, however.

Carry on Plainswolf, this was a good OP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: plainswolf
Upvote 0
Hey I just posted an article I found, that's all. Seems like you two making assumptions about me without even knowing anything about me.. As for all your questions, obviously you didn't watch the video or you wouldn't be asking.. The video both explains the principles involved and shows the results of his laboratory experiments as well as animations. So here is the video link again -- Experiments in Stratification (35 mins long) which were conducted at Colorado State University.

He shows that multiple layers of strata can and do form simultaneously in the presence of a current, and they all prograde in the direction of the current. Multiple layers forming not just one upon another, but sideways as well. If you click on the areas in blue in the origional article you can read his own works that were published in international, peer-reviewed scientific journals. I take it you haven't read these either.


August 2002 : publication of G. Berthault in the Chinese journal Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics : Geological Dating Principles questioned (pdf document), Vol. 22, No 3, 2002, pp. 19-26

October 2002 : publication of G. Berthault in the Russian Journal Lithology and mineral Resources, English translation of Litologiya i Polznye Iskopaemye : Analysis of Main principles of Statigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data (pdf document), Vol. 37, No 5, 2002, pp. 509-515

October 2004 : Sedimentological Interpretation of the Tonto Group Stratigraphy (Grand Canyon Colorado River) (pdf document), Lithology and Mineral Resources, Vol. 39, No 5.

2007 - Ongoing Research : Erosion research of the consolidated soils by water flow



+
 
Upvote 0

grimbly

Regular Member
Nov 29, 2005
240
21
✟7,986.00
Faith
Catholic
Ok, I must be missing something here because the principles of hydrodynamic sorting of particles according to size and density as a function of velocity has been taught in basic stratigraphy classes for at least the last 50 years. Geologists understand these principles extremely well and are factored in when they analyze sedimentary strata. Also as others have pointed out, strata are not assigned an absolute date by depth, so I don't really see the point you are trying to make.:scratch:

-
erosion_transportation_graph.gif
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟25,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Um, usually it is considered rather dishonest to copy and paste articles without citing your sources! Were you trying to take credit for somebody else's work?

I'm quite aware of the work done in Colorado, and the results come as absolutely no suprise to geologists. These types of layers are found all over the world where there were rivers creating currents!

The layers in the geologic column, however, are not characterized by a whole bunch of similar layers, but by utterly different environments. This process will never create a layer similar to varves that require still water or limestone deposits, or the remains of bogs or evaporates caused by stagnant pools etc...

Yes, this process produces many layers, but it's neither particularly novel nor particularly diverse as each of the small layers it produces are easily identifiable as being deposited by rather rapid currents.
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟23,920.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The point is that Berthault showed that multiple *sets* of sorted layers form at one time, simultaneously, proceeding horizontally, not vertically. I demonstrated the same point with a trivial experiment in my front yard using a 10 gallon aquarium. Similar stratification has also been demonstrated in local flood events - such as post Mt. St. Helens.
 
Upvote 0

grimbly

Regular Member
Nov 29, 2005
240
21
✟7,986.00
Faith
Catholic
Yes, but that still doesn't explain things like the Grand Canyon where you have sandstone deposits with trace fossils sitting on top of shale. It's the old raging calm water problem again. Also how many flumes did it take to form the Grand Canyon Basin? :scratch:

This phenomenon has been known for the past 50 if not 100 years. It's being taught as part of any intro stratigraphy class. You think field geologists are not aware of this effect and don't factor it into their stratigraphic analysis? The literature is filled with maps showing transgression/regression patterns indicative of changing sea levels and/or changing land elevation. Heck the land I'm sitting on is still rebounding from the last glaciation. (but it beats earthquakes) :eek:
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟25,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The point is that Berthault showed that multiple *sets* of sorted layers form at one time, simultaneously, proceeding horizontally, not vertically. I demonstrated the same point with a trivial experiment in my front yard using a 10 gallon aquarium. Similar stratification has also been demonstrated in local flood events - such as post Mt. St. Helens.
Right... and it's certainly not uncommon in flooding deposits! This only accounts for the layers of slightly differing particle sizes WITHIN what are commonly called layers. Usually when talking about the geologic column, you'll talk about a sandstone layer, a shale layer etc... and each of those types will certainly have the features we're discussing here.

The main problem with global flood geology is that since nobody is willing to step up and actually closely examine a specific column and identify which layers were laid down by the flood, it's unfalsifiable. Articles like this just compound the problem because people read them and think this process can produce the many larger layers seen in geology when in reality it's only capable of explaining the stratification within layers.

Of course if you DO claim that this process can produce every feature found in geology (or even a range of rock types) we can use the claim to make predictions about what we SHOULD find if your claim is true. I'd love you or anybody else to make such predictions because then we'd have a testable hypothesis and I LOVE testing hypotheses!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟23,920.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'll try one more time. Floods, whether local or global, exhibit variation, both spatially and temporally. Computer modeling of global flood waters over continents show huge variations. http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_jb_patternsofcirculation/

The amount and types of deposition and erosion of a global flood would show huge variations. Also, some deposits are pre-flood, and some are post flood -- not all deposits were laid down during the flood, or even immediately following.
 
  • Like
Reactions: busterdog
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟22,892.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Also, some deposits are pre-flood, and some are post flood -- not all deposits were laid down during the flood, or even immediately following.
How do you know if you can't identify which are flood deposits and which are not?

"Flood geology" can be summed up in one argument: "We know some of the earth's sedimentary rocks were deposited by the the Flood, we just can't tell which."

Just a matter of time before it makes its way into the science classrooms, I suppose.
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟23,920.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As we have covered before-- there are some different opinions among creationist geologists about where the exact boundaries are. To me, this discussion is a healthy part of investigation. Personally, I think there is a weakness in using uniformitarian identifications and labeling for the layers -- and that the boundaries are best identified on a case by case basis.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟22,892.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Personally, I think there is a weakness in using uniformitarian identifications and labeling for the layers -- and that the boundaries are best identified on a case by case basis.
You may not like it, but the fact that layers can be correlated on sedimentary/chemical/biological levels makes the geologic column useful to real geologists. It has proven practical, and I will take the word of a majority of learned geologists over anyone else's any day.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

grimbly

Regular Member
Nov 29, 2005
240
21
✟7,986.00
Faith
Catholic
I'll try one more time. Floods, whether local or global, exhibit variation, both spatially and temporally. Computer modeling of global flood waters over continents show huge variations. http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_jb_patternsofcirculation/

The amount and types of deposition and erosion of a global flood would show huge variations. Also, some deposits are pre-flood, and some are post flood -- not all deposits were laid down during the flood, or even immediately following.

And yet we can never get those old wily flood geologists to tell us which layers are pre, syn, and post flood. You'd think that such a catastrophic event like the flood would leave some mark on the landscape that even a first year geology student would be able to find, heck they (and by they, I mean real geologists) can point out pre, syn and post Chicxulub impact strata all over the world that happened 65 million years ago.

Anyways, here's a blog from some guy's in Montana who where willing to help your flood geologists test out their flood model. Sadly, the boys from the RATE project opted out from doing some real science.

http://scienceantiscience.blogspot.com/2007/03/rate-conference-does-indeed-get.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: shernren
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Grimbly, that blog post was awesome to read. I've never laughed out loud reading flood geology refutations before, but this:

For background, we acknowledge that Terra was a great piece of code writing and as your resume shows you have used it to support both old earth and young earth models. With the RATE conference coming to town, the latter is of most interest to us because from our perspective you have used it, quite frankly, to develop models that appear to violate nearly every scientific principle from gravity, electromagnetism, to the consistency of nuclear decay constants on down. Furthermore, the heat problems appear to be enormous and impossible to overcome without invoking miracles. That aside, ...

was the most awesome deadpan beat I have ever seen, and it's not even part of a drama script.
 
Upvote 0

grimbly

Regular Member
Nov 29, 2005
240
21
✟7,986.00
Faith
Catholic
As we have covered before-- there are some different opinions among creationist geologists about where the exact boundaries are. To me, this discussion is a healthy part of investigation. Personally, I think there is a weakness in using uniformitarian identifications and labeling for the layers -- and that the boundaries are best identified on a case by case basis.

You may not like it, but the fact that layers can be correlated on sedimentary/chemical/biological levels makes the geologic column useful to real geologists. It has proven practical, and I will take the word of a majority of learned geologists over anyone else's any day.

LPT, this one's for you!
In other threads, you've stated that you have an interest in geology. Well in another forum there is an excellent discussion going on which addresses this very question concerning the utility of the geologic column. I'm under the impression that linking to another forum is a No-No so we'll do it the old fashioned way.

If your interested go to infidels.org, about in the middle of the page is a forum logo, select it which will switch you over to their forum. Select evolution/creation and find the thread called "Questions about the Geologic Column" started by shardsofnarcil (it may be on page 2). It's only 3 pages but is chock-a-block filled with excellent information, a lot of it from practicing geologists. Well worth your time. :thumbsup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship

LPT, this one's for you!
In other threads, you've stated that you have an interest in geology. Well in another forum there is an excellent discussion going on which addresses this very question concerning the utility of the geologic column. I'm under the impression that linking to another forum is a No-No so we'll do it the old fashioned way.

If your interested go to infidels.org, about in the middle of the page is a forum logo, select it which will switch you over to their forum. Select evolution/creation and find the thread called "Questions about the Geologic Column" started by shardsofnarcil (it may be on page 2). It's only 3 pages but is chock-a-block filled with excellent information, a lot of it from practicing geologists. Well worth your time. :thumbsup:
Is there any official rule forbidding us to post links to other forums/fora? I've done that before, and even discussed the policies of another forum here on CF.com.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

grimbly

Regular Member
Nov 29, 2005
240
21
✟7,986.00
Faith
Catholic
I don't know, I did it once in another post and somebody (not a mod) told me it was frowned upon. I never heard anything from the mods but in the spirit of the board I did it this way in case there is a problem. It is an excellent thread and I thought it was pertinent to our discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.