G
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.laptoppop said:The geologic column represents hydrodynamic sorting, not chronological sorting.
laptoppop said:dinosaur footprints in straight lines as if they were running from something, etc.
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.
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.laptoppop said:3)Hydrodynamic sorting and deposition can explain the fossil record quite well.
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?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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?