Evolution and the Chronology of the Geological Column

[Deamiter]

Wow, what a great blog post! It's amazing that the single qualified geologist that creationists can field is utterly unwilling to discuss his research with peers and actually test the predictions his supposedly scientific model should be making!

Ás to linking to another forum, I can answer as a former mod (so things may have changed) that it's best to avoid Internet Infidels but most message boards are fine. The standard for all links is that the linked content must be acceptable by CF standards. Now there's always quite a lot of debate over what content should be evaluated, and sometimes if unacceptable content were found anywhere on the linked site (not just the linked page) the link could result in mod action. Now our official position half a year ago was that the content on the actual page linked is what is evaluated so unacceptable content elsewhere on IIDB forums would not outlaw every link to IIDB. That said, many people on IIDB work very hard to annoy many people at CF (and the other way around of course) so a page with just a single curse word might be reported at IIDB whereas nobody would care at other forums.

In short you're never ABSOLUTELY safe when linking to other forums, but if the language is generally pretty clean you probably won't run into problems. A link to IIDB will likely be more closely scrutinized than most. Finally, linking to other forums in general (aside from content issues) is only against the rules if you are promoting your personal forum or if it appears you are spamming for personal gain.

Thus endeth the unofficial discussion of links to other forums.

 

[busterdog]

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.

I think the correlation seems to be part of the problem. Some of the correlation would appear to include uniformitarian assumptions regarding the deposition of materials.

I wonder if a meaningful algorithm could be written to describe what happens each time one correlates from remote events. Like using the measured radioactive isotopes associated with an impact crater, which allegedly distinguishes deposition layers, and the variety of layers is used to verify the other isochrons associated with individual layers.

It does yield a rather elegant framework when so many scientists come to the same conclusion. But, if one is used to working with evidence, and seeing that when you have multiple sources of fresh evidence, and not just very old evidence (such as isochrons) from which you build inferences, the evidence just never really behaves properly and never lines up with such precision.

It is all well and good to take a shot at isochrons or deposition models, and I still think that the OP is interesting, but I find more sniping back and forth on only single aspects of these models rather than a clear summary that puts it all together.

 

[shernren]

It does yield a rather elegant framework when so many scientists come to the same conclusion. But, if one is used to working with evidence, and seeing that when you have multiple sources of fresh evidence, and not just very old evidence (such as isochrons) from which you build inferences, the evidence just never really behaves properly and never lines up with such precision.

But that's just it, the evidence in this case does line up with high precision. Geochemical analyses, index fossils, and radiometric dating all line up in a way that a global flood can't explain.

 

[plainswolf]

My apologies for not posting a link to the origional article. I've had it saved on file for a few years and it included no link in the file. Guy Berthault has never claimed either old or young earth creationism, nor anything about Noah's flood, nor have I. He simply put certain assumed geologic principles to the test, the results of which (far from just basic stratigraphy) were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and presented at geologic conferences and he invited further scientific investigation. Berthault is a scientist conducting scientific experiments, not some preacher preaching from the pulpit. We can talk of "real scientists/geologists" and completely ignore the fact that Berthault has the academic credentials in geology, is doing the science, and is published in international scientific journals.

The results of his experiments, if you watch the whole video, demonstrate that multiple sets of sedimentary layers can form simultneously instead of taking millions of years or having millions of years between them. As Laptopop said very well - "discussion is a healthy part of investigation." The one aspect I've always loved about science is the fact that new and exciting discoveries are made all the time. I can only urge again, go to the links I provided and watch the whole video and read his published works. Fascinating stuff.






+

 

[laptoppop]

But that's just it, the evidence in this case does line up with high precision. Geochemical analyses, index fossils, and radiometric dating all line up in a way that a global flood can't explain.

I believe with further study you will find the real world is much less precise than you are thinking. For example, with various types of radiometric dating, adjacent samples can vary quite significantly. Averages, etc., are often used. "Blanks" which should have no carbon-14 for example, often have measurable C-14. Index fossils are not appropriate, imho, to be used for dating because of the circular reasoning involved.

 

[Deamiter]

My apologies for not posting a link to the origional article. I've had it saved on file for a few years and it included no link in the file. Guy Berthault has never claimed either old or young earth creationism, nor anything about Noah's flood, nor have I. He simply put certain assumed geologic principles to the test, the results of which (far from just basic stratigraphy) were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and presented at geologic conferences and he invited further scientific investigation. Berthault is a scientist conducting scientific experiments, not some preacher preaching from the pulpit. We can talk of "real scientists/geologists" and completely ignore the fact that Berthault has the academic credentials in geology, is doing the science, and is published in international scientific journals.

The results of his experiments, if you watch the whole video, demonstrate that multiple sets of sedimentary layers can form simultneously instead of taking millions of years or having millions of years between them. As Laptopop said very well - "discussion is a healthy part of investigation." The one aspect I've always loved about science is the fact that new and exciting discoveries are made all the time. I can only urge again, go to the links I provided and watch the whole video and read his published works. Fascinating stuff.
+

The problem here is that you are begging the question, "what is a layer." Yes, he's created anisotropic sedementation, but no geologist has ever claimed that these must have been laid down over a long period of time.

Usually when scientists talk about different layers, they're talking about completely different types of rock laid down by different processes. The experiments you've cited don't in any way show that these utterly different formations could have been produced quickly. It is this second definition of 'layer' (different method of deposition, not just slight stratification) that is unexplainable by flood models.

You're absolutely right, this is fascinating work, but it's neither particularly new nor suprising as discussion of flow-induced stratification can be found in journals dating back hundreds of years. It would also be dishonest to present it as contradicting millions of years as no geologist has EVER claimed that the type of stratification he's produced was laid down over millions of years.

 

[Deamiter]

I believe with further study you will find the real world is much less precise than you are thinking. For example, with various types of radiometric dating, adjacent samples can vary quite significantly. Averages, etc., are often used. "Blanks" which should have no carbon-14 for example, often have measurable C-14. Index fossils are not appropriate, imho, to be used for dating because of the circular reasoning involved.

Do you have any sources for this claim of poor precision or are you just claiming what you think should be if radiometric dating were inaccurate?

In publications, I've rarely seen standard deviations that were significant enough to suggest failure of the method (i.e. over 5-10%) and every creationist claim of inaccuracy I've read of centered around a creationist experiment that deviates significantly from standard practice and was apparently designed to produce faulty results (i.e. dating whole rocks rather than individual minerals or dating rocks that were collected from areas sure to have contamination).

If index fossils line up with other dating methods in a statistically significant way (and it's not just statistically significant but virtually certain) and the dates determined by index fossils are routinely checked against other methods as what my advisor would call a 'sanity check' (as they nearly always are) I don't see any reason why you could continue to claim that they are based solely on circular reasoning! That would be like checking your watch against atomic time every morning but still claiming that your watch cannot give even a remotely accurate time because you know it's not as precise as atomic time. The fact is that both your watch and index fossils are quick and easy measures and neither would be used alone to make important measurements.

 

[plainswolf]

The problem here is that you are begging the question, "what is a layer." Yes, he's created anisotropic sedementation, but no geologist has ever claimed that these must have been laid down over a long period of time.

Uniformitarian geologists postulated "periods" of millions of years duration to slowly deposit the strata systems. A single sedimentary lamina, or bed, was supposed by uniformitarian geologists to represent typically a year or many years duration. It was concluded, therefore, that multiplied thousands of laminae and beds superimposed required millions of years.

Usually when scientists talk about different layers, they're talking about completely different types of rock laid down by different processes. The experiments you've cited don't in any way show that these utterly different formations could have been produced quickly. It is this second definition of 'layer' (different method of deposition, not just slight stratification) that is unexplainable by flood models.

His experiments demonstrate evidence of rapid sedimentation that do not follow the principle of superposition, and give good reason to believe that entire strata systems, and even groups of systems, could accumulate in a hydraulic cataclysm. Neither he nor I am saying Noah's flood, but I'm not ruling it out either. As I posted before, he conducted paleohydraulic analysis of the Tonto Group in the Grand Canyon which showed that it would have taken, not the 13 million years according to the geological time-scale, but less than fifty days to form. Research by other geologists such as Alexander Lalomov in the Crimean Peninsular has resulted in similar findings.



+

 

[Mallon]

I think the correlation seems to be part of the problem.

You only see the geological column as a problem because it doesn't support your preconception that the world's sedimentary deposits were caused by a global flood, busterdog. Geologists -- the people who actually put the column to work -- find it highly applicable.
Besides that, as a YEC who advocates a global flood, you would need to draw correlations amongst related strata if you ever wanted to find support for such. Otherwise, the Flood turns into a bunch of unrelated, local events.

 

[laptoppop]

Besides that, as a YEC who advocates a global flood, you would need to draw correlations amongst related strata if you ever wanted to find support for such. Otherwise, the Flood turns into a bunch of unrelated, local events.

Actually, no. Because of the varied nature of a global flood, the fossil record is best examined in terms of various elements such as flood transport, erosion and deposition, localized ecosystems, motility of animals, etc. etc. I'm going to have to keep reminding you that the flood is a worldwide event -- and its a BIG world. There are lots of variations around the world. In many ways, analyzing the record as localized events makes the most sense. Of course, for deposits that stretch a long distance, such as the Lewis overthrust, you start having to talk about a global event in order to explain the amount of material dissolved/transported. We can come up with some cross-site correlations, but they are by no means something we need to do.

 

[Mallon]

I'm afraid the Flood geology "research program" is going to be much more robust and comprehensive than you will allow it if it is ever going to be taken seriously by trained geologists, pop. If your models don't coincide with ground truth (and they don't), Flood geology will never catch on. It has to prove itself first. No amount of denial will change that.

 

[laptoppop]

I'm afraid the Flood geology "research program" is going to be much more robust and comprehensive than you will allow it if it is ever going to be taken seriously by trained geologists, pop. If your models don't coincide with ground truth (and they don't), Flood geology will never catch on. It has to prove itself first. No amount of denial will change that.

C'mon Mallon - don't give me a non-content answer, please. A global flood is huge. Just because sediments were formed one way in China does not mean that there would be the same dissolved solids, transported sediment, temperatures, speed of current, etc. in New Mexico.

 

[Mallon]

C'mon Mallon - don't give me a non-content answer, please. A global flood is huge. Just because sediments were formed one way in China does not mean that there would be the same dissolved solids, transported sediment, temperatures, speed of current, etc. in New Mexico.

If you think my last post was without content, pop, it is only because it was in response to a claim about a field devoid of applicability and content. I am more than happy to discuss details if you wish, but every time I ask about the details of Flood geology, I get none. To wit, you have yet to provide an explanation for Jurassic termite mounds or put a name to any of the various extensive and homogeneous sedimentary deposits you claim to have been a result of a global flood. (You repeatedly keep naming the Lewis overthrust, I'll grant you that. But shernren and others repeatedly refute you on the specifics, too.)
The bottom line is that uniformitarian geology reigns and Flood geology has yet to prove itself as a competent and applicable discipline both in the classroom and in the field.

 

[laptoppop]

I have not found an explanation for the termite mounds -- but there are a lot more problems that I see with an evolutionary model for me to reject YEC over one thing to be explained.

I haven't found the book yet with the drawings I referred to -- but in this context I refer to the overthrust, not in the way it is out of order - but that it is a deposit hundreds of miles in size and up to 3 miles in depth. That takes a HUGE event -- this one deposit alone is huge and difficult to explain the transport mechanisms for the sediment apart from a huge event.

 

[shernren]

Index fossils are not appropriate, imho, to be used for dating because of the circular reasoning involved.

Well, tell the oil companies that the index fossils don't work, and provide a better solution. You will immediately be recognized as a brave new geologist and flood geology will never really be embarrassed ever again.

Index fossils are not circular dating methods because they were discovered and formalized quite a while before there was any intellectual commitment to evolution or to an old earth. People started noticing that the same fossils are always found in the same kind of rocks, long before they had any idea that the fossils were supposed to be arranged in evolutionary order or that the rocks were millions of years old. And then they started noticing too that everywhere you had a particular series of rocks, you would often have a particular group of fossils that went with each of those rocks. At first these were relatively large fossils like ammonites and the lot. But soon people noticed microfossils as well being well correlated with rocks.

That's all there is to it. But the system is robust, and it makes a lot of money for oil and gas companies, who can employ geologists to find index fossils knowing that when they find the right fossils, they have found the right layers. And this should give pause to any attempt at flood geology. Many index fossils used today are microfossils like graptolites and foraminifera. They are really small and most of them are pretty much the same size, density, and composition, differing only in minute ways in shape. What sort of hydrodynamic sedimentation process would a) be able to deposit them within less than a year, and b) sort them according to such minute differences, and so consistently worldwide?

 

[laptoppop]

I have never said all the deposits were within one year. There are preflood deposits, flood deposits, early post flood, late post flood, etc.

I would expect similar sorting for various locations and organisms -- subject to the observed variations. These variations are expected and predicted by the variety of a global flood, but have to be accomodated post theory as overthrusts and underthrusts for conventional geology. This is not to say that some formations have been moved around - but the frequency of out of order layers is more consistent with a flood model.

 

[Deamiter]

I have never said all the deposits were within one year. There are preflood deposits, flood deposits, early post flood, late post flood, etc.

I would expect similar sorting for various locations and organisms -- subject to the observed variations. These variations are expected and predicted by the variety of a global flood, but have to be accomodated post theory as overthrusts and underthrusts for conventional geology. This is not to say that some formations have been moved around - but the frequency of out of order layers is more consistent with a flood model.

What exactly IS the frequency of overthrusts and underthrusts? Are they frequently found in areas that have no other evidence of having been formed on a fault line? Can you cite even one or two examples?

Overthrusts are observed today as the cause of many major earthquakes. It's not just speculation that these formations could have been caused by plate movement. On the other hand, while you claim a high frequency of overthrusts and underthrusts that is unexplainable by plate tectonics, I strongly doubt you can begin to quantify the frequency or show that these features have ever occurred away from the fault-lines where they are observed today (a detail that would apparently be predicted by your global flood model).

 

[pastorkevin73]

The flood definitely was not localized. Here is what the scriptures say:

3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible. - Gen 3:2-5

In verse five it says that on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountians became visible. It's not possible for the flood to be localized because as water rises it runs into other areas. The peaks of the mountians are not enough land to keep a flood localize. The flood was definitely global.

 

[Mallon]

It's not possible for the flood to be localized because as water rises it runs into other areas. The peaks of the mountians are not enough land to keep a flood localize. The flood was definitely global.

Well, as long as you're invoking a miraculous flood, why must the waters necessarily operate according to natural laws??? Seems like a double standard to me. Once you open the door to supernatural explanations, the sky's the limit.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Well, as long as you're invoking a miraculous flood, why must the waters necessarily operate according to natural laws??? Seems like a double standard to me. Once you open the door to supernatural explanations, the sky's the limit.

I just brought forth what the account in Genesis says. You can accept it or not, but this is what God's Word says about the flood.

BTW, from some of the posts I have read since coming back to the boards I see that you still are treating people with respect on both sides of the debate. Awesome! Good on ya!