Fossils, Strata and the Creation Model.

[keyarch]

I’m interested in finding an accurate representation of the fossils found within different strata of the earth. I find the typical “geologic column” drawings of what would fit Darwin’s theory, but I’d like to see some kind of illustration of what actually exists which will hopefully bolster the Creationist model.

The “ages” of the strata are insignificant to me as I am more interested in the depths/relationships to the surface.

To be honest, I already have a creation model, and I want to verify (if possible) that the real evidence is in harmony with what I would expect to see if it’s correct.

My Model/Predictions (based on a literal Genesis):

1. Universe and core planet earth of unknown ancient age. This makes all the basic minerals (prior to any catastrophic geomorphology) older than 6,000 years and probably billions.

2. Prior to any biology being created the earth was re-shaped to establish dry land. There should be evidence of non-biotic sediments within the rocks that were part of this re-shaping.

3. All the “kinds” (hierarchal species) were created during the “creation week” some 6,000 years ago. For some 1656 years the earth (land and oceans) would have accumulated many dead things. Most of this biology would have experience the same type and rate of decay that is currently observed.

4. Global Flood around 4400 years ago: When the ocean ridges (fountains) broke open spewing water from the lithosphere, heating the oceans and causing the flood, there would have been many types of catastrophic events to cause sediments that would cover over and mix in the previously decayed biology along with things that were currently alive. I picture Tsunamis, volcanoes, landslides, tornadoes and hurricanes, earthquakes etc, etc. There could have been surges that would have caused erosion to occur between events in different layers of mud/rock but with no normal types of biological accumulation from living things.

5. I picture that most of the biology that existed would have been covered up at the lower levels and converted to oil and coal. Anything that was floating would have eventually sunk and been distributed in a random fashion or lasted to the end of the year and deposited onto the unstable surface, but again in a random fashion.

6. I postulate that any animals that we are able to find (near the surface) of current land forms (fossilized or not) that died in-situ are descendants of the animals that were preserved on Noah’s Ark. In other words, (baby) dinosaurs went off the Ark and multiplied, but were covered by mud flows from an unstable earth. The same with human fossils, although the different tribes congregated in one place (Babel) for about 100 years and when they split up probably picked safe places to dwell.

7. The ‘Ice Age’ transpired post flood and contributed to the demise of the dinosaur population. Any animals that are found in ice or permafrost are definitely post flood, as the waters would have melted any pre-flood ice.

8. In general, I would expect to see in a cross section of hundreds (if not thousands) of feet, sediment that contained shells and other hard bodied things from the oceans in multiple levels (mostly lower) as they were blasted ashore and dinosaur (fossilized or not) in the top layers with not much in between.

I really don’t want to see some artist rendering of the geological column. I would prefer to see something like the Grand Canyon with an overall picture of the strata and then enlargements of the different levels with photos and descriptions of the types of fossils they contain. I have books on similar topics, but they are very hard to understand and void of good graphics.

 

[timlamb]

The opening statement of your model says you are not a Young earth creationist, so you do not believe in a literal Genesis.

When examining fossel records don't for get some other factors that determined placement. When the waters came heavy slower animals drowned first and sank deeper. Smaller quicker animals would have stayed out of the water longer and not sank as far in the mud. Birds of course were the last as they are light and flew as long as they could. Marine life woud be left behind as the water receeded, so not being deep but, as has been found, leaving clams on mountains.(although I am sure some marine life was burried by erosion which covered other things.)

Many supporting factors for a litteral Genesis are found in examining the flood and it's effects.

 

[keyarch]

The opening statement of your model says you are not a Young earth creationist, so you do not believe in a literal Genesis.

Please be careful when you say that I do not believe in a literal Genesis. By saying this you are suggesting that the YEC model is the only result of a literal interpretation.
I have to say that you're wrong on both accounts.

 

[FallingWaters]

I’m interested in finding an accurate representation of the fossils found within different strata of the earth. I find the typical “geologic column” drawings of what would fit Darwin’s theory, but I’d like to see some kind of illustration of what actually exists which will hopefully bolster the Creationist model.

Firstly, I don't believe such a true rendering exists because the Scientific Establishment does not allow beliefs other than its own.

Secondly, here is an excellent and lengthy discussion of the problem with illustrations-

Evolution Exposed
Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record
by Roger Patterson

 

[timlamb]

Please be careful when you say that I do not believe in a literal Genesis. By saying this you are suggesting that the YEC model is the only result of a literal interpretation.
I have to say that you're wrong on both accounts.

I don't know what I have to be carefull about. Litteral Genesis is six days of creation including the earth and the stars, and one day of rest. The new testement writers seemed to believe this by their writings and Jesus refers to creation, He knew the book of Genesis, and He refers to it for a historical perspective.

There is no reason to believe those wre not litteral days.

Never question scripture unless scripture says otherwise.

 

[keyarch]

Firstly, I don't believe such a true rendering exists because the Scientific Establishment does not allow beliefs other than its own.

Secondly, here is an excellent and lengthy discussion of the problem with illustrations-

Evolution Exposed
Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record
by Roger Patterson

Thanks for the link.

One thing that I can't get past is the vast and thick sedimentations all over the world. How can the "scientific" establishment consider that these were laid down in a uniformatarian way, in such thick and distinguishable layers, rather than catastrophism?

What's equally absurd is they (to my knowledge) think there was life at all these intervals with ocean waters covering major land masses, and then the mountains pushed up thru it. It's actually the other way around. The mountains were there first with even more earth over them, until the flood washed it down into the valleys exposing the "roots" of the mountains. The formation of mountains by plate tectonics is a lie, along with things like reverse polar magnetism.

They try and hit us with so many things to bolster the uniformatarian religion, and it's put out by the media in a way that people start believing it's true because they don't have anything else to counter it.

 

[keyarch]

I don't know what I have to be carefull about.

Saying that I don't believe in a literal Genesis. That is an unfounded accusation and judgemental based on your views.

Litteral Genesis is six days of creation including the earth and the stars, and one day of rest.

Yes, the creation week was six 24 hour days. This included forming and finishing the earth which was established in a primative form in Genesis 1:1. The stars were also part of Genesis 1:1 and not on the fourth day (Gen. 1:16). Some here have argued this with me, but you will be hard pressed to prove otherwise by using the wording of the Hebrew and not a translation that has added words.

The new testement writers seemed to believe this by their writings and Jesus refers to creation, He knew the book of Genesis, and He refers to it for a historical perspective.

There is no reason to believe those wre not litteral days.

Never question scripture unless scripture says otherwise.

We agree here.

All this is a side note from the OP, but I think that it should be understood that the only difference between my model and that of a YEC one is the age of the universe and primitive planet earth (that we see in Gen. 1:2). Please see more on this at: http://tinyurl.com/35rorz

 

[timlamb]

Yes, I didn't mean to side track your thread, and the majority of my first post is more directly related to the op.

I do see your point. I believe the first two verses of Genesis are integral to the first day, and you obviously see them as a prologue, and I'm ok with that (sort of). The idea that God was just dotting space with void spheres for billions of years seems odd to me, but, oh well, back to topic.

 

[FallingWaters]

Thanks for the link.

One thing that I can't get past is the vast and thick sedimentations all over the world. How can the "scientific" establishment consider that these were laid down in a uniformatarian way, in such thick and distinguishable layers, rather than catastrophism?

What's equally absurd is they (to my knowledge) think there was life at all these intervals with ocean waters covering major land masses, and then the mountains pushed up thru it. It's actually the other way around. The mountains were there first with even more earth over them, until the flood washed it down into the valleys exposing the "roots" of the mountains. The formation of mountains by plate tectonics is a lie, along with things like reverse polar magnetism.

They try and hit us with so many things to bolster the uniformitarian religion, and it's put out by the media in a way that people start believing it's true because they don't have anything else to counter it.

When the evidence doesn't match their theory,
they say there's something wrong with the evidence.

Polystrate fossils, for example.
Or when they find humans bones in rock that is supposed to be a lot "older".

 

[Floodnut]

I’m interested in finding an accurate representation of the fossils found within different strata of the earth. I find the typical “geologic column” drawings of what would fit Darwin’s theory, but I’d like to see some kind of illustration of what actually exists which will hopefully bolster the Creationist model.

The “ages” of the strata are insignificant to me as I am more interested in the depths/relationships to the surface.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I really don’t want to see some artist rendering of the geological column. I would prefer to see something like the Grand Canyon with an overall picture of the strata and then enlargements of the different levels with photos and descriptions of the types of fossils they contain. I have books on similar topics, but they are very hard to understand and void of good graphics.

The problem with your request is that the "GEOLOGIC COLUMN" does not exist anywhere on the earth. Evolutionists are unwilling to talk about what is really there, they don't want to discuss what is really there, they don't want to KNOW what is really there. They are only interested in their fantasy. If they were to discuss what is present in the layers of the earth, rather than in their "artist's renderings" and "graphic representations," they ONLY mention those few sections in a few locations where it happens to agree with what they posit. About the only thing definite as being on the bottom to my knowledge is the PRE-Cambrian lifeless strata. After that it is quite a jumble.

I might suggest you make the inquiry in the TE or general origins section. Or see if Busterdog can get an answer from Barry Setterfield.

The geologic column myth is like the horse progression. They have an idea of what they think it should be so they jump from continent to continent to find selected layers that seem to go along with their view of the column mythology, and similarly with the horse ancestry and the "development of the human species." They are arranged with regard to morphology only, and with no regard to the date of the strata. In fact the date of the strata is established based on the types of fossils found. And then in this circular manner the dates of the fossils are "determined." Fossils that are found in the wrong strata and strata with the wrong fossils are odd anomalies that are disregareded from consideration.

I don't believe you will ever find a graphic of "what actually exists," at least not in the evolutionary literature.
What exists is the jumble you described, or as Ken Ham puts it, "millions of dead things in hundreds of layers buried in sedimentary deposits at various levels all over the earth."

 

[keyarch]

I don't believe you will ever find a graphic of "what actually exists," at least not in the evolutionary literature.
What exists is the jumble you described, or as Ken Ham puts it, "millions of dead things in hundreds of layers buried in sedimentary deposits at various levels all over the earth."

This is why I'm not posting anything on the evolutionary side. I'm only interested in a true representation of the actual evidence. I've already heard the just-so stories and figured that there are better graphics out there somewhere.

Again, here's what would be perfect:
1. A full picture of a vertical cut thru all the layers (from the surface down to the "pre-Cambrian" or non-fossil bearing rock). Then a series of zoomed in photos of each layer keyed into the larger one with a list of the types (if any) fossils that are within these layers.
2. Within the enlarged pictures, any notes as to the type of sediment that formed that layer, how thick it is and whether there are any eroded soils between them (like would be evident if any significant time had passed between layers being put down). Something that is more understandable to a lay person.

 

[FallingWaters]

Firstly, I don't believe such a true rendering exists because the Scientific Establishment does not allow beliefs other than its own.

Secondly, here is an excellent and lengthy discussion of the problem with illustrations-

Evolution Exposed
Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record
by Roger Patterson

Did this article help you?

 

[keyarch]

Did this article help you?

Well, actually no more than I've read before, and why I still am longing to see the actual evidence. I still think that Biblically, man did walk with dinosaurs but that the evidence from that period may be so far down in the earth as to be no longer recoverable for many reasons. And, the current evidence for dinosaurs must be the ones that propagated from the Ark post flood because they seem to be found nearer the top layers of sediments that could have been from other mud flows, and not in the same type of state that one would expect if they were floating on top of the water (while the other layers were being laid down) and then just settled or sunk down and then buried.

From skimming the article, it seems like they are suggesting that all or most of the fossils were formed from the flood, and I just don't see this as being the case given the conditions they are found in. I don't think the article really addresses this.

Thanks for trying.

 

[busterdog]

http://www.setterfield.org/geology.htm

TALKING ABOUT GEOLOGY​

​

Barry Setterfield is well-studied in geology and has some information for those who are curious about the concept of a young earth creationist point of view and the geological record. Further explanations of the geology as it relates to a young creation on the Setterfield Vc model is in the article "A Brief Earth History."​

The Geological Column​

Varves​

Interesting Geology at Second Valley new May 8, 2003​

Snowball Earth? new May 16, 2003
​

The Geological Column

In your reply about the formation of the geological column, you said- "In other words, the geological column has been formed over a 3000 year period since Creation. A similar statement can be made for radiometric ages of astronomical bodies, like the Moon, or meteorites." The Bible says the Flood lasted for about one year. So how could it have been formed "over 3,000 years"?
​

Setterfield: A couple of points need to be made. First, the redshift observations show a systematic decrease in the speed of light. In fact the redshift data have allowed the cDK curve to be formulated with some exactness. It is a smooth exponential-type decline with a very small oscillation superimposed. As a result of the redshift data, the value of light-speed at any time in the past can be fairly closely determined.
Second, it is established from the physics of the situation that some atomic processes, including radiometric decay are light-speed dependent. More correctly, both light-speed and radioactive decay are mutually affected by the increasing energy density of the ZPE. Thus, as light-speed is smoothly dropping with time, so is the rate of radioactive decay upon which radiometric dates are dependent. The redshift data reveal that the bulk of this decay has occurred over a 3000 year period during which predicted radiometric ages dropped from 14 billion years down to a few thousand years on the atomic clock. More particularly, the Cryptozoic strata formed over a period of 2250 years, while the Phanerozoic strata formed over a period of 750 years.
The third point follows on from these two. You cannot account for all the radiometrically dated strata in a 1 year period. The whole process took close to 3000 years according to the redshift data. As a consequence, the data point to the geological column being formed by a series of catastrophes and their ongoing processes over three millennia rather than one catastrophe lasting just 1 year. If you turn the argument around the other way, one may predict that the strata from the Flood would date radiometrically from about 650 million years and younger. The Babel incident would correspond to events around 245 million years atomically, while the Peleg continental division would occur about 65 million years ago on the atomic clock. These are all significant atomic dates in the geological column.
Fourth, if you want to account for the bulk of the geological column and its dates in just one year, that would require the observed redshift sequence to undergo a massive jump at a set distance in space. This is certainly not observed. Likewise the value of light-speed would have to undergo a dramatic drop, a discontinuity, which the data do not reveal.
Fifth, the redshift data do something else. Evolutionists have been puzzled by some interesting facts. The asteroid impacts that ended the Mesozoic would have been expected to wipe out the dinosaurs. Yet a few dinosaurs were still there up to 2 million atomic years after the impact. They cannot account for this. However, the redshift data explains why. The speed of light at that point in time was about 500,000 times its current speed, so that 2 million years were just 4 years of actual time - soon enough after the catastrophe and the changing conditions it brought. The second puzzle that evolutionists have that has received a lot of attention in the Creationist press is the so-called "discordant" radiometric dates. There is a good reason for this, too. During much of the Palaeozoic, light-speed was around 1.5 to 2 million times its current speed. That means that the radiometric clocks ticked off about 2 million years in one orbital year. If a granite pluton was intruded into strata being laid down at that time, its interior would take some considerable time to cool. Time of the order of 10 years or more may not be unreasonable. That will give a spread of 20 million years in the dates from that structure. This might be considered to be an error of up to 10% in the radiometric date, when in reality it is quite accurate.
Finally, there is a problem facing Creationists who require the majority of the geological column to be built up at the time of the Flood. In the first place, throughout the fossil record there are many examples of creatures eating each other. According to Genesis 9:3-5 compared with Genesis 1:29-30 and Genesis 6:21, the diet of all creatures was vegetarian until after the Flood. Therefore, fossils of creatures eating other creatures must be post-Flood if the Scripture is to have any relevance on this matter.
In the second instance, the fossil record poses some significant problems in another way. The mammoths of Siberia were buried near the surface, virtually in situ. Yet they are underlain by thousands of feet of sediments, some fossiliferous. If their demise was in the Flood, where were they during the first few months when those sediments were being laid, and how did their food supply have time to germinate and flourish since they obviously did not starve to death? A similar problem exists with the Paluxy dinosaurs. These Mesozoic prints overlie thousands of feet of Palaeozoic sediments. Their food supply and method of survival during the first few months of the Flood while surrounded with water is a conundrum, unless they perished in a separate disaster in the days of Peleg.
This problem of in situ fossils is repeated many times throughout the geological column. It cannot be explained by the ecological zoning argument, nor the action of turbidity currents and sorting. In Europe, eggs from dinosaurs such as Protoceretops are found in their nests. Other dinosaurs were entombed by windstorms that built up the Mesozoic desert dune systems. In each case they lay on top of Palaeozoic sediments. These Mesozoic sands in Europe and the USA are nearly all of non-marine origin. However, they all lie on top of marine Palaeozoic sequences. Such wind-blown sand systems take time to develop, as do the annual layers of dinosaurs nests found in them. So do the many coral deposits that overlie Palaeozoic strata. This model based on the redshift data allows these fossil species to develop in situ on top of existing sediments and then be preserved in a separate (Scriptural) catastrophe.
As a consequence, the redshift model necessitates a re-think of some basic Creationist traditions which are not necessarily supported by Scripture. Yes the Flood lasted one year, but the Scripture does not say that all the geological strata formed at that time. I am acutely aware that this will be most unsatisfactory to many creationists who have supported the traditional Model over the years, but it really does seem to overcome a lot of problems which that Model has. We may yet have to put this new wine into new wineskins. But let's see how things develop. I trust that this answers the question. (October 22, 1999).

Are there any pre-Flood rocks that we can find today?
​

Setterfield: On the data I am using from the redshift, the Flood occurred about 700 million atomic years ago. The oldest earth rocks about 4.4 billion date from near the birth of Noah or a little earlier on the redshift correction. If the redshift correction is used, the Sturtian diamictites are the beginning of the Flood. Any rocks which are prior to the Sturtian diamictities would be pre-Flood.

Then did the entire landmass increase in volume and extent up to Cenozoic?
​

Setterfield: The model I am favouring at present has the shield areas swept clear by the Flood and the debris deposited in the mobile belts surrounding them, which grew from there. Geological activity continued up to the Cenozoic. For example, in the Mesozoic, strata were being added around the edge of the supercontinent [H.H. Read and Janet Watson, Introduction to Geology, volume 2, Earth History, 1985, MacMillan Education Ltd, London, p. 180].
Thus the supercontinent was certainly added to, and grew, after the Flood. The supercontinent was then divided at the end of the Mesozoic and the separate fragments moved to their present position during the Cenozoic, which added to landmass in some areas and decreased it in others. Increases would include mountain building and decreases in areas that were submerged in the process.

​

​

Varves
Setterfield: Varves are apparently cyclical deposits, usually finely layered. It is presumed that they are annual, reflecting seasonal deposits. However, in some cases at least, it has turned out that these are not seasonal at all, but often diurnal, reflecting the tides, and therefore indicating up to two daily deposits. For instance, the Elatina Formation in South Australia averages 120-150 meters in depth (thickness) and, in some places extends to 250 meters thick. It is composed of very fine varve-like layered materials (laminations). It had been presumed that this formation took millions of years to form. Closer study indicated that these were not annual varves at all, but tidal deposits and several million years was then shrunk down to about sixty years for the Elatina Formation to be formed.

Time, Life and Man​

God does not lie. The ages interpreted in atomic dating and via other atomic processes can be coordinated with the biblical time frame when it is understood that atomic processes have not been constant through time. Data regarding this may be found in, among other places, Atomic Constants, Light and Time, published in 1987. Both the creation and the Bible then come together when the correction is made, to show that the biblical time line is correct. In the geological record, three major catastrophes interrupt four major geological divisions. In the Bible, three major catastrophes are recorded, separating four distinct times. The coordination of these dates is in the chart below. The correction factor has been applied as taken from the standard redshift curve. The explanation for this may be found in Exploring the Vacuum and The Redshift and the Zero Point Energy.

For purposes of printing, the four different ages have been spaced to fit on different pages.

The geologic record on earth begins with the earliest dated rocks, or at approximately 4.5 billion atomic years ago. The time of beginning, however, has been judged by astronomers to be approximately 14 billion atomic years ago when considering the entire universe.

This 14 billion year age then corresponds with 0 time, or the beginning of Creation Week in the Bible, or about 5810 B.C. This is not the time scale which conforms to the Masoretic Text which is the basis for most our translations today, including the King James, but rather the time scale known to the earliest writers of the Christian era and substantiated by the Alexandrian Septuagint, translated 250 years before Christ from paleo-Hebrew to classical Greek. Material on this may be found in the Chronology section as well as in an excellently referenced online book by Robert Bradshaw, Creationism and the Early Church.

Dating, then, from the earliest time on earth to the most recent, the ages are as follows. Click on each in turn to see the chart connected with it.

Archaeozoic Era
Palaeozoic Era
Mesozoic Era
Cenozoic Era
Job's World

Combined Timeline
​

http://www.setterfield.org/timeline.htm

 

[mark kennedy]

busterdog,

I have tried to follow Setterfield but something about it keeps eluding me. It would seem that geology is something I have neglected when it appears to be a passion among creationists. I'm going to take another look at this and see if I can get a handle on it.

I'll let you know what I come up with.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[keyarch]

http://www.setterfield.org/geology.htm
http://www.setterfield.org/timeline.htm

This is a rather large article to sift through. Was there a point you were trying to make; something you agree or disagree with; or was it just for info?

 

[busterdog]

This is a rather large article to sift through. Was there a point you were trying to make; something you agree or disagree with; or was it just for info?

Floodnut raised the question about setterfield, so I pulled the easy stuff off his site. There is some interesting information on the column, but its not all that detailled. Just general information, really.

If Floodnut has a question, I would be happy to email Barry's wife Helen.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Archaeozoic era is seen here are a period of 2256 years. It covers a span of time up to just after the flood that corresponds to a period marked in secular geology around 600 to 572 million years ago. What I am wondering about here is the Cambrian explosion and whatever strata or other indicators are involved. Just an idle thought really but I noticed that the flood lines up with the Ice Age, which makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

I think I might have a vague idea where he gets the parabolic decrease in light speed. Relativity if it has demonstrated anything it's that time, speed and distance are all interelated and very little in Cosmology and physics is as linear as we would like for it to be. It does not seem all that unreasonable but I have to be honest here, I'm not sure if I'm following his train of thought here.

The Paleozoic Era starts with the Cambrian and what is strange is that I had always associated the Cambrian with the Flood. Massive mudslides encasing a wide variety of species in an epoch before their descendants started an accelerated adaptation to the post flood world. This chronology would seem to indicate that there was something about this period that left fossils galore and somehow encased far below the dinosaurs remains.

I suppose when I get back to this I will need to look up some of the terminology. At any rate those are some of my first impressions.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[busterdog]

Relativity if it has demonstrated anything it's that time, speed and distance are all interelated and very little in Cosmology and physics is as linear as we would like for it to be. It does not seem all that unreasonable but I have to be honest here, I'm not sure if I'm following his train of thought here.

There is enough to consider in terms of the OP. We can do a new thread if there is interest. Two comments can be made. LIght speed is not constant, but light speed multiplied by plancks' constant is. The latter is related to the properties of space, or the media through which light travels. We all know that a prism bends light because light slows in a different medium. So, we are simply begging the question of what the medium of space is. We have theories about dark energy, dark matter, the Casimir effect and all sorts of energy that resides in the "vacuum." Well, that vacuum is a "medium". Wouldn't you expect that the speed of light would vary under such conditions? And if God "stretches" the heavens as the bible says, he is stretching that medium. As you observe, indeed it is all relative.

If you have a comment on this , I would suggest a new thread.

THis really is a good OP. I would like to hear more from floodnut, keyarch and others about what the pre-Cambrian jumble looks like. (This thread is kind of cruel, however, since it will aggravate a number of our read-only brothers and sisters to no end. I mean, we are citing Setterfield and Gentry in this post alone, not to mention all the other geology cited above.)

Of course, at some point we may need to have a look at polonium halos in the pre-cambrian jumble. www.halos.com.

 

[keyarch]

... I would like to hear more from floodnut, keyarch and others about what the pre-Cambrian jumble looks like.

This is the point of the thread. We have our models based on whatever our worldview is, but what does a true cross section of the strata reveal within individual locations (not a hybrid of different sites in one composition)? So far all I've seen are charts that are so technical that I don't even know what I'm looking at.

I'm sure oil companies have drilled deep holes all over the world, and they probably keep track of a lot of the data because the types of fossils (and fossil fuels) give them clues about where to find the oil. In this regard, I find it interesting that the places they are most likely to find the oil are where the pre-flood terrain had low valleys that would have been inundated by the first "wave" of catastrophic events from the flood.