Geologic Column

Status
Not open for further replies.

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Graham4C said:
Hi,

I'd like to know what the TEs out there think of the geologic column.

What is the evidence for the geologic column compared to that of noahs flood.

Graham.

There is no evidence of a global flood in the geological column. No Creationists has ever pointed out what part of the column was created by the flood and when in the column the flood occured. All through out the column there is evidence against the flood since there are things such as multiple layers of sediment that can only form in calm waters.
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟16,420.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ummmm, Random, not really. For most YECs the vast majority of the geologic column was made at the time of the flood. In some places there may be a few layers on top, but the flood did most of it. Calm waters are no problem. A global flood could not possibly be expected to be uniform -- some regions would be calm, others intense, with lots of time variance. Also, saturations could be expected to vary dramatically as well, which also drastically affects sedimentation rates.

The harder thing is for conventional science to explain how the column was formed, if it was formed by a sequence of "local" events.
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟25,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Glenn Morton is a prominant theistic evolutionist who makes his living looking at and evaluating geological strata while looking for oil. In responding to Woodmorappe (a creationist) he essentially answered your entire question.

In short, the entire Geological Column exists in North Dakota. NONE of the layers present could have been laid down by a global flood. I won't copy his work here, but if you don't believe the assertion, feel free to evaluate his rather extensive summary of each layer and why it is inconsistant with a global flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟25,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
laptoppop said:
Ummmm, Random, not really. For most YECs the vast majority of the geologic column was made at the time of the flood. In some places there may be a few layers on top, but the flood did most of it. Calm waters are no problem. A global flood could not possibly be expected to be uniform -- some regions would be calm, others intense, with lots of time variance. Also, saturations could be expected to vary dramatically as well, which also drastically affects sedimentation rates.

The harder thing is for conventional science to explain how the column was formed, if it was formed by a sequence of "local" events.
When talking about still waters in this context, a scientist is often talking about totally still water. This is never seen in the ocean (even at the bottom) but in stagnant ponds or lakes cut off by extended drought.

That's by no means universal... just know that some of these formations could not have been created at the bottom of the ocean.

Anyway, you might look up the article I cited by Glenn Morton as it's not as simple as just "some layers needed stagnant water." There are numerous layers between those that required evaporation or large amounts of heat energy for formation.

If you look at any one layer, you could certainly either explain it as an unusual feature of a flood or say the flood happened either above or below. When taken together, there really is nowhere a global flood could have produced the features seen in North Dakota.

There are a few other articles out there going over different sites around the world. It's generally better to focus though, since I've always found that makes it much harder for me to focus on what I want to see rather than what's really there.
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟16,420.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Battie said:
But then how do YECs explain why there is progression in the column? Instead of being all jumbled up as we'd expect from a flood, there is clear progression and separation in the column.

Edit: Comment was in reference to laptoppop's post.
The geologic column represents hydrodynamic sorting, not chronological sorting. Such sorting is imperfect, so you'd expect to find things such as "out of order" layers, fossils, such as tree fossils, cutting across multiple layers, jumbles of bones heaped together in a mess, dinosaur footprints in straight lines as if they were running from something, etc. -- All things you find in the real geologic column, as opposed to the cleaned-up version presented in beginning textbooks.
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟16,420.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Check out "COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD" which was presented at the Third International Conference on Creationism by Dr. John R. Baumgardner. Computer modeling of a world-wide flood and the vast array of effects that would be caused by such an event is in its infancy. It is only recently that supercomputing power has reduced in price enough for such research. The flood was not a homogeneous event in any way. It is quite reasonable to expect huge shifts of the earth, as well as calm areas, as well as areas being covered, dried, covered, etc. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_jb_largescaletectonics
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,169
226
62
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
laptoppop said:
The geologic column represents hydrodynamic sorting, not chronological sorting. Such sorting is imperfect, so you'd expect to find things such as "out of order" layers, fossils, such as tree fossils, cutting across multiple layers, jumbles of bones heaped together in a mess, dinosaur footprints in straight lines as if they were running from something, etc. -- All things you find in the real geologic column, as opposed to the cleaned-up version presented in beginning textbooks.

That is basically a lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steen
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

Battie

Veteran
Dec 6, 2004
1,531
158
38
Northern Virginia
Visit site
✟9,989.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
laptoppop said:
The geologic column represents hydrodynamic sorting, not chronological sorting. Such sorting is imperfect, so you'd expect to find things such as "out of order" layers, fossils, such as tree fossils, cutting across multiple layers, jumbles of bones heaped together in a mess, dinosaur footprints in straight lines as if they were running from something, etc. -- All things you find in the real geologic column, as opposed to the cleaned-up version presented in beginning textbooks.

Can you explain to me more fully how this is supposed to work? Anomalies aside, I understand that for the most part things are pretty well sorted out. For example, I recently read in Kenneth Miller's book that flowers appear much later in the column than other prehistoric plants, which is just what we should find. Why don't we find flowers in more ancient layers? Wouldn't a flood have just mixed them all up?

Also, could you elaborate on the footprint comment? Is that supposed to imply that they were running from the flood?
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟9,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
laptoppop said:
The geologic column represents hydrodynamic sorting, not chronological sorting.
What an odd claim, in light of the chronological sorting of fossils adhering rather strictly to the layers in the column. No pollen below a certain level, no dinosaurs above a certain level, no trilobites above a certain level, no mammals below a certain level etc. Certainly, if you claim hydrological sorting, then items should be sorted by size and weight, which we don't see.

As such, your claim seems to be utter nonsense, a "just because I want it to be true" postulation in direct opposition to what we actually see in the Geological Column.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
laptoppop said:
dinosaur footprints in straight lines as if they were running from something, etc.

This is one of the silliest claims from creationists out there. The footprints are in between layers of sediment supposedly laid down by the flood that are above hundreds of feet of layers and covered by a hundred more.

To suggest that dinosaurs were running from the flood and that these footprints were laid down during the flood just doesn't make any sense unless the dinosaurs were walking along the bottom of the flood waters after the majority of sediment was already laid down.

This is just a typical ad-hoc answer that really doesn't explain the placement of the evidence in any way that can be judged as being realistic or matching the true nature of the footprints we find.

Such is the nature of creationist explanations.
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟25,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As a couple others have noted, one of the simplest and easiest-to-understand critiques of any type of hydrodynamic sorting is the complete absence of pollen below a specific layer.

In fact, not only is there an absense of pollen below a certain layer (although spores of non-flowering plants and other fossils abound), there is a distinct progression of pollen types. In fact, pollen is often used to give a vague date (or verify other dating methods) to strata in which it's found BECAUSE it's so distinctly layered.

Note that this makes a lot of sense in a chronologically sorted geological column -- as plants evolved, the types of reproductive systems also evolved. Flowering plants didn't appear until a certain point, and thus are never found prior to those layers. In contrast, since pollen and spores have overlapping ranges of weight and size, there is no way such stratification could have occurred if both were present in a global flood.

In any layer that was deposited while both spore-bearing and flowering plants existed, there MUST be both spores and pollen. Since that is not the case, you'd either have to suggest that flowering plants were poofed into existance halfway through the flood (i.e. no fruit in the garden of Eden) or the pollen and spores were not hydrodynamically sorted.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
laptoppop said:
The geologic column represents hydrodynamic sorting, not chronological sorting. Such sorting is imperfect, so you'd expect to find things such as "out of order" layers, fossils, such as tree fossils, cutting across multiple layers, jumbles of bones heaped together in a mess, dinosaur footprints in straight lines as if they were running from something, etc. -- All things you find in the real geologic column, as opposed to the cleaned-up version presented in beginning textbooks.


On the other hand there are a lot of features in the geologic column that cannot be explained by hydro dynamic sorting. The distribution of pollen for example, and trace fossils such as burrows and footprints.

Have you studied the physics of hydrodynamic sorting? I haven't, but from what I have heard, it doesn't begin to account for how fossils are arranged in the various rock strata.

Then there are paleo-ecological studies and taphonomic studies that also yield evidence counter to a global flood.
 
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
✟16,420.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I am totally disenheartened by the level of discourse around here. I desire intelligent, respectful interchange with other believers. I believe in the iron sharpens iron concept, and I desire to grow and learn – even if it means I need to change my opinion about something in particular.
From dictionary.com (emphasis added):
Lie:
  1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
  2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
I’m human, and I’m more than a little stubborn, so I may well be wrong. Call me wrong, call me misguided, challenge my sources, logic, and conclusions – but do NOT call me a liar. My integrity is extremely important to me.

Anyway – Graham4c, sorry about taking this thread in another direction. I just had a hard time letting what I saw as a mischaracterization of the typical YEC position stand.

I went to Glenn Morton’s site. Interesting Scriptural interpretations, to say the least. I had a hard time reading past some of the attacks on YECs and the way “they” think. There’s probably some good stuff for discussion and learning in there – I just wish he’d can it in terms of evolutionary elitism. I may try it again later.

What I like best is the interchange of peer review, with folks challenging each other and pointing out limitations and objections. I applaud it when I see it in the context of YEC research. Elitism turns me off quicker than just about anything.

On to some of the topics raised:

1)Pollen. It is not as easy to detect pollen reliably as one might think. One of the most crucial things is to prevent contamination. Pollen is everywhere, and it is notoriously easy to contaminate the samples. For example, modern pollen has been found (supposedly) in precambrian rocks from the Grand Canyon, in India, in Russia, and elsewhere. However, in each case it is crucial to eliminate any possibility of contamination. In the case of the Grand Canyon shale, there have been several attempts to validate the discovery. Something like 3 out of 4 attempts have found modern pollen. The researchers have used extreme care to try to avoid contamination, including taking the samples below the surface and washing the samples extremely thoroughly before crushing and analysis. However, some have pointed out the possibility of micro-cracks in the shale not visible to the naked eye which may have let in groundwater which in turn carried in pollen. This seems extreme, but I am willing to accept that the jury is still out. However, I would be VERY cautious about dogmatically saying pollen has never been found out of sequence.

2)Sorting of the geologic column. The column is hardly as sorted as one might hope. Layers which are out of assumed chronological order occur in a large number of places throughout the globe, and in each case the mechanism must be explained in terms of post deposition movement of the strata itself. It is not appropriate to dismiss anomalies as unimportant – they challenge the interpretational framework itself. The fish fossils in the Green River varves directly challenge the yearly varve interpretation. I would also be careful about putting too much stock into a particular fossil never appearing again. There are numerous examples of things that were thought to be extinct for millions of years that have been found alive, such as the coelacanth fish, etc. One must also explain polystrate fossils, such as trees spanning long distances within coal beds, and fossil graveyards, etc. that show multiple fossils which appear to be thrown together violently.

3)Hydrodynamic sorting and deposition can explain the fossil record quite well. It is *crucial* to remember that a world wide flood is not a calm uniform event. Eventually, all of the mountains were covered, but during the initial stages there would be a multitude of local floods getting worse and worse over time. It is to be expected that there would be layers of silt deposition upon layers as the waters built up over time, washing over and receding, time and time again, until they were finally covered everywhere. It is also important to remember that there are a huge variety of factors which affect sedimentation rates. The concentration of dissolved solids, temperature, speed of flow, etc., all affect how layers are laid down and can be affected easily. One would expect lots and lots of layer variation in a huge flood.

4)Straight tracks. The normal animal track is meandering, as animals feed, etc. There is also typically a significant percentage of young within the herds. Many of the dinosaur tracks are straight, without the young, as if made in haste trying to get away from something. This could easily be explained by the sequence of floods, where they ran over the wet ground leaving their footprints even as the local floods came along to deposit more silt, etc. Over time, no more escape was possible.

5)Again, while there is much more research to be done, the dynamics of a global flood are hugely varied. Some areas would be calm, others raging, others covered and uncovered repeatedly. Please do not assume a calm progression of waters everywhere. There would be areas where water trapped early, only to be let out – whether before or after the flood. Many YECs believe the Grand Canyon, for example, was formed quickly after the flood as an inland sea found a path to the ocean. However, modeling and understanding all of the dynamics of such a flood is in its infancy – there is a LOT more research to be done.

The mechanics for the formation of the fossil record is one of the key discussions for this group. To a YEC, the geologic column stands in amazing tribute to a global catastrophic flood. To a TE, I would guess they’d say it stands in tribute to millions of years of repeated localized events.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
laptoppop said:
3)Hydrodynamic sorting and deposition can explain the fossil record quite well.
except it doesn't explain animal tracks, trace fossils, and plants in between the layers that are sorted along with the remains. Apparently their egg nests were sorted right along with them as well. Creationists who clai to hydrodynamic sorting seldom deal with things like how footprints got sorted and how egg nests completely in tact and still arranged in a circle got sorted right along with the dinoaurs that laid them. I would like to see an explanation that is internally consistent with the other claims of creationists, such as dinosaur tracks that supposedly show dinosaurs running from something.
4)Straight tracks. The normal animal track is meandering, as animals feed, etc. There is also typically a significant percentage of young within the herds. Many of the dinosaur tracks are straight, without the young, as if made in haste trying to get away from something.
Where? Please be specific and show this consistency with a large enough sample size to make this type of claim. You certainly can point us to some research on specific trackways and finds, right?

It is also funny to think about tracks being left to be covered and fossilized by a flood that was quick enough and large enough to apprently scare the dinosaurs to move away from it in haste, yet it didn't erode the tracks they left as they did so.

This is simply more creationist ad-hoc reasoning that doesn't fit within a consistent explanation for all the evidence we find in the fossil record.

Just for example, here is an example of footprints in the fossil record that show anything but this running away, hyrdologic sorting, or anything of the nature that creationists describe here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html

I have never seen a creationist explain these tracks. It falsifies the ideas being express related to dinosaurs, sorting, and their tracks being presented in this thread. Notice that the tracks circle around trees to show the animals are feeding. The tracks are right along with trees at the same level that are clearly rooted in the soil the tracks were left in. These tracks and trees (and the dinosaurs that left them) are smack in the middle of sediment supposedly left by the flood. The creationists model expressed here is directly contradicted by this evidence. It will surely be handwaved away or we will be presented with another adhoc explanation for their existence.
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟16,420.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
After reflection, I'll admit that the tracks argument is a weak, circumstantial argument that I personally find interesting. Here's one reference: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/footsteps.asp

The existence of "normal" tracks is no problem to the YEC model, just as the existence of "fleeing" tracks means little on further reflection. I may well have overstated it. But the burying of the tracks is also no problem and basically a non-issue. Many tracks would be washed away, some would be buried. In the context of a worldwide event, one would expect some "normal" tracks to be buried, and other "fleeing" tracks to be buried. No problem for YEC at all.

Once again you refer to "a" flood. The conditions that existed - with multiple sources of water building up over time, would have produced a series of local events -- local floods -- that would have gotten bigger and bigger and merged until the earth was finally covered.

I do apologize for overstating the importance of the tracks -- I had just read it, and it seemed interesting. As I understand it, there are a lot more straight tracks than meandering ones. On the other hand, does that mean a global flood, or simply a local flood to cause the next level of sedimentation? Most animals do not fossilize. As I understand it, TE requires a multitude of local events (often repeated in particular locations) to form the sedimentary layers. These local events would "scare" the dinos as much as an event building into a global event.
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟25,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As to your first point (laptoppop) you were not being labeled a liar, but the arguments. Only if you've demonstratably understood that you are telling lies could such a comment apply to you.

To respond to your points in turn:

1) I assume you are refering to Burdwick's findings (back in 1966) of pollen in supposedly precambrian shale. He claimed to have used very careful methods to avoid contamination. However, when scientists have returned and taken samples from the same sites cited in the 1966 paper, they have found quite the opposite -- a total lack of pollen in the precambrian layers. They also note that the pollen shown in the 1966 paper is distinctly modern in form and not found in any rocks younger than a couple millenia. Though I understand that you might find the second point unconvincing due to your position on the formation of this shale, the fact that this research has been reproduced, but never with the same results should give you pause.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/08007.htm

2) post deposition movement of strata is a currently observed phenomenon. Strata are observed bending and folding TODAY, so it's not a huge leap to posit that it could have created geological features in the past.

As I understand the Green River argument, it's not that it defies a long-term formation, but that some creationists argue that it COULD have been formed in short periods with oscillating deposition. I have yet to see explanation for complex layers of settled fish scales or insect wings in these varves. A separate discussion by John R Dyni -- Geologist, USGS can be found here:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/varve.ev.pdf
John R. Dyni said:
Bradley also notes that larger-scale variations displayed by these laminated rocks suggest correlations with
astronomical cycles including the 11-year sunspot cycle and the 21thousand-year eccentric orbital cycle of the
earth which lends further evidence that the paired laminae are indeed varves, or annual units of sedimentation.
Units of laminated oil shale are laterally very persistent. Individual laminae within certain units of oil shale have
be correlated in drill cores over distances of 100 kilometers.

Tree trunks in many layers of strata are quite easily explained. There are a few different claims, and I'm afraid you'd have to focus on each individually as the answers are different, but I will try to summarize:

In some cases, trees are partially buried -- often to a depth of a few meters -- by floods. They do not immediately die, but can live for decades to experience further floods. In many cases, the existance of extensive root system (with tiny, delicate rootlets), along with a protected section of stump, then an abraded section of stump clearly tells the tale of a tree that was partially buried and subsequently battered by the elements (though the buried root system remained untouched).

In many places, there are whole forests of partially buried stumps. Not only are they widespread, but they are placed vertically (on top of each other) in the rock. It is easily verified that the upper layers were buried in place (and not transported by a flood) as there are often extensive root-systems (including rootlets which can be as small as a single cell and would never survive transportation) along with flow patterns or soil horizons around the trees. These fossil forests show that it is very possible for sections of trees to become fossilized through a number of strata as there was hardly enough time in the flood year for multiple generations to grow and become buried in the sediment!

3) the multiple small floods leading up to a greater global flood does not begin to explain the layers that contain crystals and formations that can ONLY be explained by stagnant waters which do not move at all (even many lakes have too much wave action) for many months. Further, animal burrows and cracks due to dried mud (which are later filled by sediment) are also unexplainable in a single year event. Note that cracks do form underwater, but their structure is much different (obviously so to anybody who's seen pictures, much less studied the subject). Structures produced by dehydrated soil cannot be reproduced by flood events.

4) A dinosaur's speed can generally be estimated by comparing the size of the print to the distance between prints. In many cases, the tracks are positively identified and the actual build of the dinosaur can be used to estimate speed. In truth, dinosaur tracks are almost always moving at a "leisurly pace" with occassional bursts of speed.

I've never seen any paleontologist claim that most dinosaur tracks were created at a running speed. If somebody has calculated that most tracks are in straight lines, it is probably due to the rarity of fossilization conditions which limits the number of prints (as a dinosaur is unlikely to turn in the span of three steps through a muddy spot).

5) The walls of the grand canyon are too steap to have been cut out of partially-solidified rock. Either there would be obvious slumping at the bottom of the canyon, or the walls of the canyon would be extremely wide if it were created in (for example) a year -- or even in a decade.

Just as importantly, you will never find such an extremely meandering river in soft sedements. At one point, the Colorado River meanders 5 miles to travel only one mile as the crow flies. You can easily test this yourself next time you're at the beach. Use ANY type of sand, clay, dry dirt etc... Dump water down the sedement and watch the formation of the "canyon." If you use very little water, you will be able to produce a small, deeper ditch with steeper sides, but it will be very straight. If you use more water, you'll likely get a meandering ditch with wider walls. Use even MORE water, and you'll get an extremely wide and straight channel.

This is very routinely modeled in the study of how dykes and dams fail. It's also scientifically modeled to study the formation of lakes and rivers. The only thing that's never been done is to show how all the current models are dead wrong and that a global flood can, indeed, create a formation like the Grand Canyon.
 
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
✟16,420.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To me, there is a HUGE difference between saying an analysis is wrong and that it is a lie. A lie implies deliberate deception.

In terms of the pollen -- the original findings just started the issue. Different scientists have tried to replicate. Some have succeeded, others failed. They both criticize the other's methodology. I tried to be fair and present it openly. This is a good example of peer review working. Each is pointing out limitations in the other's technique and both hopefully will benefit from it.

In terms of the varves, I was referring to the problem of fish fossils which cut across multiple varves -- buried in place. For the varves to be annual for at least those section of the strata would mean the fish would have to not rot for a long time, in the hundreds of years.

Interesting comment about the grand canyon. I'll have to look at it more. I believe I have read that the steepness of the walls was an argument *against* slow formation, not for it. :) Thanks for the mental stimulation!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.