16%

[seebs]

Randman, the issue is that Nick's "points" are often things like the allegation that the geological column is "only 16% as tall as it should be". He has refused to explain exactly where this conclusion comes from; as such, it's not much of a "point", because he has offered absolutely no support for it.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Bump.

Nick you have yet to answer this one...

We will have to assume you lied about the information if you don't answer.

Your credibility is being questioned.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Has Nick even acknowledged this thread? Or is he trying to act like he hasn’t seen it.

 

[fossilman]

Bump. Bump. Bump.

Hey all. I'm a new poster to this forum, but I have been reading along for a while. I would like to know the background on Nick's info also. Being a geologist, the geological column interests me. It is very useful in the study of stratigraphy. However, I have never been taught that we should ever expect to find strata representing the entirety of geologic history in any single location (due to regional nondeposition and erosion). So it seems to me that expecting scientists to produce what they don't necessarily believe exists amounts to creating a straw man argument.

The so called "standard" geologic column, in truth, is theoretical. It includes all possible geologic ages in their correct order (oldest at bottom, youngest at top). However, no lithology or rock type or THICKNESS is assumed for each age. So how can one say that 84% of a theorized geological column that has no thickness is missing? Simple: One can not.

I for one would love to see Nick's citations.

fossilman

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Welcome fossilman

 

[Morat]

Fossilman: I hate to correct you, but the full geologic column exists in over 20 places.

Verified, as you'd suspect, by having people drill through it looking for oil.

Talk.Origins has the complete list, as well as the references for it.

 

[fossilman]

Lewis:

Thanks for the welcome.


Morat:

I have no problem being corrected. I have seen that list, and I suspect that is were Nick's 1% figure is somehow arrived at. But the point I was trying to make, is that the standard geologic column was developed to be used as a tool and not to represent any one real location. Though these locations exist, they are the exception and not the rule. Somehow, creationists developed the misguided impression that it should be the rule.

 

[randman]

Well, if TO said it, it must be true.

Gimme a break. TO has observed and proved macro-evolution too.

Think about it. It is impossible to have the entire column under uniformatarian principles. If they do have it, that more or less proves YEC's contentions. Well, maybe they do have it. The more I look into it, the more YEC appears credible.

 

[Morat]

Yeah, that point is made over and over in the FAQ on the geologic column.

 

[randman]

You mean TO advocates a young earth?

 

[Morat]

No, but I do believe they added an addendum encouraging people to beat about the head and shoulders with a "clue".