The order of fossils in the geological column

[OldWiseGuy]

Deleted.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Henry Morris says this in Geology and the Flood :

Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age".

Is he correct?

I think that's partly correct. You can have 'old' basalt rocks and 'young' basalt rocks. Just being basalt doesn't tell you anything about age. However radiometric methods (which depend on isotopic composition, not mineralogy or petrology) can tell the difference between old and young.

(Of course, this thread is, in part, about explanations for the different kinds of fossils found inside rocks. Some sedimentary rocks have dinosaurs in them, and some have woolly mammoths. This is also used to determine the age of rocks, and we would not expect to find dinosaur-fossil-bearing rocks 'in any age'. But again, this is about the paleontology of the rock, not its mineralogy.)

However, some kinds of rock, or maybe I should say geologic layers, depend on life in a different way than fossils.

I'm thinking of, say, the white cliffs of Dover, which are made of chalk, which is nothing more than the compressed calcium shells of a particular kind of tiny algae. I mean, I guess you could say it's made of fossils. Anyway, you wouldn't expect to find chalk deposits that are older than the critters that make them.

Also, I think when early plants or algae finally added significant amounts of oxygen to the atmosphere, that event actually altered the chemistry of the earth enough that it enabled many different kinds of minerals that couldn't exist before that time in an oxygenless environment.

Maybe someone who actually knows something about geology could tell you more.

 

[Loudmouth]

Henry Morris says this in Geology and the Flood :

Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age".

Is he correct?

Can we find the same types of igneous rocks throughout the history of the Earth? Yeah. I don't know why you brought this up since it is a trivial matter. Perhaps you meant to ask a different question?

 

[Seipai]

Henry Morris says this in Geology and the Flood :

Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age".

Is he correct?

Essentially yes. So what?

And of course it did not take him long to start to lie in his article:

He begins in the second paragraph and does not seem to stop. Early geologists did believe in the Flood. They went looking for evidence of it. What he does not tell you that careful inspection of the evidence convinced them that there was no flood. And as a civil engineer, that was his field not geology, not biology. he would know that wet sediments cannot make cliffs. He knew that the Grand Canyon could not have been cut by the flood. He lies when he tries to convince people that it could have been.

I am about 35 miles away from a town called Oso. You may have heard about it in the news. There was a massive landslide that killed over 40 people about a month ago. The slope that slid was nowhere near being vertical. But it was made of sediment. Sediment that gave away due to the wettest march in western Washington's history. How are you going to have much more massive cliffs in a much wetter environment?

 

[janxharris]

Essentially yes. So what?

And of course it did not take him long to start to lie in his article:

He begins in the second paragraph and does not seem to stop. Early geologists did believe in the Flood. They went looking for evidence of it. What he does not tell you that careful inspection of the evidence convinced them that there was no flood. And as a civil engineer, that was his field not geology, not biology. he would know that wet sediments cannot make cliffs. He knew that the Grand Canyon could not have been cut by the flood. He lies when he tries to convince people that it could have been.

I am about 35 miles away from a town called Oso. You may have heard about it in the news. There was a massive landslide that killed over 40 people about a month ago. The slope that slid was nowhere near being vertical. But it was made of sediment. Sediment that gave away due to the wettest march in western Washington's history. How are you going to have much more massive cliffs in a much wetter environment?

You seem to like calling people liars.

Would you care to provide proof for your assertions?

 

[Armoured]

You seem to like calling people liars.

Would you care to provide proof for your assertions?

Um... his whole post was proof of his assertion. Maybe you should have read the whole thing?

 

[Loudmouth]

You seem to like calling people liars.

Would you care to provide proof for your assertions?

Henry Morris is a liar. Canyons with vertical walls like those in the Grand Canyon can not be made out of mud. It is physically impossible. Henry Morris pretends as if it isn't a problem.

The problem that young Earth Creationism poses is that it causes well meaning people like yourself to pass on lies. The professional creationists take advantage of the trust that christians feel towards each other.

 

[janxharris]

Henry Morris is a liar. Canyons with vertical walls like those in the Grand Canyon can not be made out of mud. It is physically impossible. Henry Morris pretends as if it isn't a problem.

The problem that young Earth Creationism poses is that it causes well meaning people like yourself to pass on lies. The professional creationists take advantage of the trust that christians feel towards each other.

I'm not sure I have passed on a lie. I am just asking questions.
I haven't said that I trust what Morris asserts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's also important to keep in mind that it you are only talking about relative depth. In some places, Cambrian deposits are right on the surface while in other parts of the world Cambrian deposits are buried under hundreds of feet of sediment.

What flood geologists really need to explain is the relationship between fossil species and the ratio of isotopes in the igneous rocks above and below them. How does a flood sort fossils and igneous rock so that dinosaurs are only found below igneous rock that has a U/Pb ratio consistent with 65 million years of decay? You can argue up and down about whether or not radioactive decay is constant or other topics. What can't be argued is the actual measured ratio of those elements, and there is a huge correlation between those ratios and fossil species that flood geology can not explain.

The Theory of Evolution can explain the relationship between isotope ratios and fossil species quite easily.

This can't be stressed enough.

Making up nonsense to "explain away" the fossils in their respective and ridiculously consistent places is one thing.

Explainig away the gigantc ridiculously consistent convergence of evidence from different fields is something that is impossible imo.
And that's exactly what makes evolution theory so strong. It literally is supported in extreme consistent ways from all of the natural sciences.

 

[Seipai]

You seem to like calling people liars.

Would you care to provide proof for your assertions?

Sure, no problem at all. This stuff:

http://www.landscapeinfoguide.com.au/articleFiles/201011071159ANGLESOFREPOSEOFSOILS.pdf

Was Morris's bread and butter before he became a lying creationist.

What is the angle of repose.

The angle of repose of a soil is the gradient of the slope at which the soil settles naturally. A firm soil will
have a steeper angle of repose than a loose soil.


PROBABLE ANGLES OF REPOSE (NATURAL)

Very wet clay 15
Wet clay 18
Wet sand 25
Sandy gravel 26 - 27
Dry earth/dry clay 30
Damp sand 33 - 34
Dry sand 35 - 36
Shingle 40
Well drained clay/moist earth 45
Clean gravel in natural deposit 50

As you see, the wetter a sediment is the lower its angle of repose. Very wet clay has a maximum angle of 15 degrees. And it can still slide and slump at lesser angles.

Nowhere do you see anything approaching 90 degrees, not even in a dry gravel which can get up to 50 degrees.

Morris knew this stuff and yet he tried to claim the flood both laid down and cut the Grand Canyon. He was a liar, he was not a total idiot. He lied when it came to the science that he knew best.

 

[Seipai]

Or you could read this article, it is a little more scholarly and explains how the presence of water can reduce the angle of repose:

Mass Wasting

For example:

4. In summary, small amounts of water can aid in holding grains together, but excess water actually reduces the shear strength and promotes slope failure.

These facts would have been well pounded into Morris' head. He knew that the sediments of the Grand Canyon would not be able to form a cliff if wet.

 

[Queller]

Does the order of the fossils found, from lowest to highest, equate to what Darwinists (or Neo-Darwinists if preferred) would expect to find.

Yes.

Can they therefore say that the order of fossils that we would expect to find from the Noachian flood is inconsistent with the reality?

Yes.

 

[janxharris]

Or you could read this article, it is a little more scholarly and explains how the presence of water can reduce the angle of repose:

Mass Wasting

For example:



These facts would have been well pounded into Morris' head. He knew that the sediments of the Grand Canyon would not be able to form a cliff if wet.

Thank you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes we find dinosaur eggs only with the dinosaurs of the same species. We don't find them many layers early or many layers late.

The flood occurred long after the dinosaurs went extinct and were buried.

I don't know why you even try to repeat this tripe. These claims were debunked by people who actually studied this long before you were born.

To my knowledge no one has ever studied my claims.

There is no self consistent Flood model. They all are eventually debunked by the physical evidence that says there was no Flood.

There is no evidence that the actual biblical flood has ever been researched, only flood models created in the minds of both Christians and scientists.

 

[Queller]

The flood occurred long after the dinosaurs went extinct and were buried.

How old is the earth?

There is no evidence that the actual biblical flood has ever been researched, only flood models created in the minds of both Christians and scientists.

What's the difference between the actual Biblical Flood and the flood model of YECs and scientists?

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no evidence that the actual biblical flood has ever been researched, only flood models created in the minds of both Christians and scientists.

What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify the actual biblical flood?

 

[Seipai]

The flood occurred long after the dinosaurs went extinct and were buried.

Okay, those are your beliefs. Every creationist tends to have different beliefs.

To my knowledge no one has ever studied my claims.

Perhaps because they are not supported by either the Bible or reality. If they are your claims you are responsible for gathering the evidence that supports those claims. Until you do all you have are unsupported claims and there is no need to debunk them. Claims that are handwaved in can be handwaved away

And now they are gone.

There is no evidence that the actual biblical flood has ever been researched, only flood models created in the minds of both Christians and scientists.

All that is is an admission that all flood models proposed to date have failed. You are making the mistake of assuming that there was a flood. That is not how science is done. You look at the evidence and see where the evidence takes you. Trying to squeeze reality into a false model has always ended up with reality "winning" and the false model failing.

It is not wise to do so.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How old is the earth?

Pretty old. Billion of years perhaps?

What's the difference between the actual Biblical Flood and the flood model of YECs and scientists?

The YEC flood model has the flood taking up and laying down huge layers of sediment, creating fossils, causing massive uplift and destruction. Science attacks this model therefore making it it's 'flood model' as well. The biblical model does no such thing.

Both YEC and science envision a highly destructive flood going far beyond what God intended the flood to do. A good example would be the ark. Science says that such a structure would be destroyed by the flood as they envision both the ark and the flood. And of course it would be. But the story has the ark successfully resting on a mountain after the flood recedes, therefore all flood conditions and the integrity of the ark were substantially different than is commonly supposed. One cannot attack just one aspect of the story i.e. "Well, the ark would have sunk, therefore the whole event never happened."

Note that the ark was 'lifted up', not washed away in a tsunami-like flood. This suggests slowly rising water, which is supported by the time frame given in the story. If slowly rising, and equally slowly falling, whence all the destruction?

This would explain the 'missing' evidence. There is no 'evidence' of a massive, tsunami-like, gully washing, mountain moving, sediment making flood, because that flood didn't happen.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Okay, those are your beliefs. Every creationist tends to have different beliefs.

Perhaps because they are not supported by either the Bible or reality.

Is that your claim?

 

[Seipai]

Is that your claim?

It is an observation. You have not supported your claims either scientifically or Biblically.