Is the geologic column real?

Achilles6129 · May 27, 2014

The order of the fossils in the alleged "geologic column" is probably the strongest piece of evidence that evolutionists have at their disposal. It is regularly alleged that evolution explains the order of the fossils better than a global flood and therefore evolution must be true.

However, in the course of my research into this topic I have begun to seriously question the existence of the geologic column, for several reasons:

1) The geologic column is mostly laterally correlated (!)
2) The geologic column is constructed based upon evolutionary presuppositions
3) There are examples of "out of order" fossils (or even entire geologic periods) in the geologic column

Based upon the above points I strongly suspect that the geologic column is an entity that exists only in the minds of its believers. Here are a few sources:

Geologic column global sequence - creation.com

does geologic column exist - creation.com

There is no escaping the fact that the Phanerozoic geologic column remains essentially non-existent. It should be obvious, to all but the most biased observers, that it is the anti-creationists who misrepresent the geologic facts. The geologic column does not exist to any substantive extent, and scientific creationists are correct to point this out.

Geologic column general order - creation.com

One obvious problem is that the geological column is a vertical or stratigraphic representation that has been abstracted from rock units that are mainly found laterally adjacent to each other in the field.

Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column

Thoughts?

gluadys · May 27, 2014

Achilles6129 said:
The order of the fossils in the alleged "geologic column" is probably the strongest piece of evidence that evolutionists have at their disposal. It is regularly alleged that evolution explains the order of the fossils better than a global flood and therefore evolution must be true.

However, in the course of my research into this topic I have begun to seriously question the existence of the geologic column, for several reasons:

1) The geologic column is mostly laterally correlated (!)

Yes, with good reason.

2) The geologic column is constructed based upon evolutionary presuppositions

Not true. The geologic column was worked out by the early 1800s. Darwin's evolutionary thesis was not published until 1859. It would be more accurate to say that the theory of evolution was based on geological suppositions.

3) There are examples of "out of order" fossils (or even entire geologic periods) in the geologic column

True, and there are good geological reasons why. The proper order of geological strata is only found where the strata have remained undisturbed. There are various geological events which can disturb that order. A thrust fault, for example, pushes one section of land up onto another so that older strata lie above younger strata. Cave-ins drop younger material into older strata. Darwin actually visited a town in South America where he saw the effects of a recent earthquake which had lifted a segment of land out of the ocean by several feet. That's enough to represent many thousands of years now moved above the place of its original formation. Any time strata are lifted, folded, or otherwise disturbed, the fossils in them get displaced as well.

Based upon the above points I strongly suspect that the geologic column is an entity that exists only in the minds of its believers.

Not true. There are some 30 places in the world where all the major strata of the geological column are found in order. One is in North Dakota. Not that it really matters, as there is more than sufficient overlap between one locality and another to justify the work of early geologists (most of them Christians) who constructed the column in the first place.

Here are a few sources:

Geologic column global sequence - creation.com

does geologic column exist - creation.com

Geologic column general order - creation.com

Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column

Thoughts?

It would be a good idea to supplement this selection of readings with even one reading of an actual geology text, and perhaps something on the history of those instrumental in devising the geological column in the first place. To take one example above, John Woodmorappe's article begins by suggesting there is not enough sediment in the North Dakota location for some strata, as if the sediment in one layer must be evenly laid down in all locations. But that is just not so. It is entirely likely that a particular layer will be thick in some localities, thin in others and non-existent in still others depending on local circumstances of sedimentation. A sound understanding of basic geology would help people pick out this sort of error in logic.

Achilles6129 · May 28, 2014

gluadys said:
Yes, with good reason.

Right, because they don't have enough of a vertical column to work with

gluadys said:
Not true. The geologic column was worked out by the early 1800s. Darwin's evolutionary thesis was not published until 1859. It would be more accurate to say that the theory of evolution was based on geological suppositions.

The geologic column was not worked out by the early 1800s:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/geologic-time-scale/geologic-column/

The standard geologic column was constructed by combining descriptions of local areas to form a composite record. By 1885 the finer divisions of the column had been identified based on the principles established by Steno, Smith, and Lyell.

The geologic column as we have it today (meaning all the fossils, etc.) was not worked out by the early 1800s. Many, many fossils remained yet to be discovered to put in that column, and, in addition, dating methods had not even been invented yet. The point is that evolutionists put these newly discovered fossils into that column and dated them using evolutionary presuppositions.

gluadys said:
True, and there are good geological reasons why. The proper order of geological strata is only found where the strata have remained undisturbed. There are various geological events which can disturb that order.

Yes, and whenever any fossils or geologic periods are found in the wrong order those ideas will always be invoked. That creates an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

gluadys said:
Not true. There are some 30 places in the world where all the major strata of the geological column are found in order. One is in North Dakota. Not that it really matters, as there is more than sufficient overlap between one locality and another to justify the work of early geologists (most of them Christians) who constructed the column in the first place.

Woodmorappe already talked about this in his essay:

(from the abstract)

Close examination reveals, however, that even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column, as represented by sedimentary-thickness, is mostly missing. In fact, the thickest local accumulation of rock is only a tiny fraction of the inferred 600-million years worth of depositions. The global stack of index fossils exists nowhere on earth, and most index fossils do not usually overlie each other at the same locality. So, even in those places where all Phanerozoic systems have been assigned, the column is still hypothetical.

gluadys said:
It would be a good idea to supplement this selection of readings with even one reading of an actual geology text, and perhaps something on the history of those instrumental in devising the geological column in the first place. To take one example above, John Woodmorappe's article begins by suggesting there is not enough sediment in the North Dakota location for some strata, as if the sediment in one layer must be evenly laid down in all locations. But that is just not so. It is entirely likely that a particular layer will be thick in some localities, thin in others and non-existent in still others depending on local circumstances of sedimentation. A sound understanding of basic geology would help people pick out this sort of error in logic.

You may want to read Woodmorappe's essay

gluadys · May 28, 2014

Achilles6129 said:
Right, because they don't have enough of a vertical column to work with

Yeah, sure.

The geologic column was not worked out by the early 1800s:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/geologic-time-scale/geologic-column/

The geologic column as we have it today (meaning all the fossils, etc.) was not worked out by the early 1800s.

If you are going to wait until all the fine details are worked out, then the geological column is still not established because geologists are still working out many of the fine details. The major order of primary, secondary, tertiary & quaternary strata was worked out in the 18th century and the major divisions (e.g Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, etc.) had all been established while Darwin was still a schoolboy. Many of the ages within these periods had also been established.

Many, many fossils remained yet to be discovered to put in that column,

Fossils are found where they are, not planted (except by someone wanting to pull a hoax). They are where they are in the column, not put there by their discoverers.

and, in addition, dating methods had not even been invented yet.

Radiometric dating was not invented until the 20th century so no absolute dates were available before then; but the basic geological principles did allow for relative dating. It was worked out that Cambrian strata are always older than Ordovician strata and Triassic strata always older than Jurassic strata. Relative dating is sufficient to establish the order.

The point is that evolutionists put these newly discovered fossils into that column and dated them using evolutionary presuppositions.

No, they use geological principles and the principles of particle physics to date the rocks in which the fossils are found. Fossils are dated from the rocks, not vice versa, so there is no application of evolutionary principles to dating them.

Yes, and whenever any fossils or geologic periods are found in the wrong order those ideas will always be invoked. That creates an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Not at all. Disturbances must leave evidence of the disturbing event. Steno discussed some of these in his writings, explaining how certain events would disrupt the normal pattern of sedimentation. So in order to make a claim that strata are in the "wrong" place or out of order, one must also be able to point to the cause of this improper placement. So the principle of falsifiability is not violated.

Woodmorappe already talked about this in his essay:

(from the abstract)

You may want to read Woodmorappe's essay

I did. In fact you posted the very paragraph that I critiqued. Read it again. he talks about "the column, as represented by sedimentary thickness, is mostly missing". IOW, it's not missing. It's just very thin. A geologist would not presuppose how thick the sediment would be in any one place. If a representative sediment is there, it is there, whatever the thickness--because there is no reason to assume the same thickness over the whole range where the sediment occurred, neither originally, nor subsequent to later erosion. So Woodmorappe is wrong from the get-go.

Achilles6129 · May 29, 2014

gluadys said:
If you are going to wait until all the fine details are worked out, then the geological column is still not established because geologists are still working out many of the fine details.

Right, and the point is that the people who worked on the details were evolutionists

gluadys said:
The major order of primary, secondary, tertiary & quaternary strata was worked out in the 18th century and the major divisions (e.g Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, etc.) had all been established while Darwin was still a schoolboy. Many of the ages within these periods had also been established.

Source, please I am aware that there was a certain geologic framework that was in place in the early 1800s, but as far as I know the geologic column which they had then is nothing like how it is today.

gluadys said:
Fossils are found where they are, not planted (except by someone wanting to pull a hoax). They are where they are in the column, not put there by their discoverers.

I am aware they are found where they are. What I'm saying is that the geologic column is laterally correlated, which seems to me to leave lots of room for mistakes, particularly when you're laterally correlating it on the assumption of evolution.

gluadys said:
No, they use geological principles and the principles of particle physics to date the rocks in which the fossils are found. Fossils are dated from the rocks, not vice versa, so there is no application of evolutionary principles to dating them.

I have news for you: rocks are dated by fossils! That's the entire idea of index fossils!

The fossil record - creation.com

During the time that parts of the geologic column were still being worked out in the mid 19th century, the Victorian philosopher Herbert Spencer commented on the illogicity of the geologic column in his appropriately-named essay, Illogical Geology.20 In doing this, Spencer could hardly be accused of creationist bias. After all, he was a hardened atheist who had been an enthusiastic supporter of both social Darwinism and scientific Darwinism.
One of the things Spencer challenged was the use of fossils for the correlation and dating of strata. Specifically, he took issue with the practice of using particular fossils as supposed time-markers for the global correlation of strata, and then not questioning the whole procedure when frequently finding such fossils in the wrong strata with further collecting of fossil specimens.21 As we have seen, the finding of fossils in previously-unrecognised stratigraphic horizons has continued unabated to this very day, and dwarfs anything that Spencer could have been familiar with. What would Spencer think were he alive today?

Geologic column global sequence - creation.com

Many people believe index fossils were supplemented by radiometric dating in the 1900s, but index fossils continue to have pre-eminence in dating. Radiometric dates must agree with the geological column, or the radiometric dates are assumed wrong (or reinterpreted) for various reasons.3

gluadys said:
Not at all. Disturbances must leave evidence of the disturbing event. Steno discussed some of these in his writings, explaining how certain events would disrupt the normal pattern of sedimentation. So in order to make a claim that strata are in the "wrong" place or out of order, one must also be able to point to the cause of this improper placement. So the principle of falsifiability is not violated.

If a fossil (or geologic period) is out of place then an overthrust or reworking will simply be supposed with or without evidence.

Geologic column global sequence - creation.com

Robinson31 claimed that overthrusts are based on geophysical evidence and not out-of-order fossils. This is true for some, but the Lewis overthrust in Montana and Alberta (figures 911) was identified based on fossils. In the Lewis overthrust, Precambrian rocks supposedly slid tens of kilometers eastward up a low slope over Cretaceous rocks. There is a 900 Ma out-of-order time gap at the Lewis overthrust, and this time gap was first based on out-of-order fossils. Bailey Willis32 first hypothesized the overthrust in 1902 after he found Precambrian crustacean shells in the upper block above the Cretaceous strata. The Lewis Overthrust may or may not be a true overthrust, but the determination should be made by geological and geophysical methods and not by fossils.

gluadys said:
I did. In fact you posted the very paragraph that I critiqued. Read it again. he talks about "the column, as represented by sedimentary thickness, is mostly missing". IOW, it's not missing. It's just very thin. A geologist would not presuppose how thick the sediment would be in any one place. If a representative sediment is there, it is there, whatever the thickness--because there is no reason to assume the same thickness over the whole range where the sediment occurred, neither originally, nor subsequent to later erosion. So Woodmorappe is wrong from the get-go.

I suggest you read his conclusion

sfs · May 29, 2014

I'm not going to get involved in the geology, but I would like to point out that the genetic evidence for common descent is much stronger than the fossil evidence (which is plenty strong on its own of course).

Papias · May 31, 2014

Achilles wrote:

I have news for you: rocks are dated by fossils! That's the entire idea of index fossils!

Please. Gluadys certainly knows about index fossils.

Fossils is one of many ways to date rocks. THere are literally dozens of different dating methods, and when the same rock is tested by different methods, the dates agree with each other. In other words, a date may be suggested by a fossil, and further testing using other methods confirms the date. This has been done hundreds of times with thousands of data points. Anyone who denies the correct dating of the geologic column has to explain why all the dates agree - why, if they were wrong, they'd "just happpen" to give "wrong" answers that agree with each other.

However, a more impotant point is this:

You wrote:

The order of the fossils in the alleged "geologic column" is probably the strongest piece of evidence that evolutionists have at their disposal.

False. Simply and totally false.

The order of the fossils in the geologic column is indeed clear evidence of evolution. It alone is conclusive evidence that evolution happened, and no other evidence would be needed. The fossils have spectacularly confirmed Darwin's speculations about what would be found, and Geologists worldwide (including Christian geologists) have stated that.

However, it is far from the only piece of evidence. There are many other whole classes of evidence, and whole fields of study, which, not only each confirm evolution, but confirm the same family tree of common descent.

Many of these, such as genetics - as sfs pointed out, are at least as conclusive as the fossil record. The fact is that any handful of the 29+ major areas of evidence would establish the family tree of evolution beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of the fossil record.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

This quote from a noted biologist helps explain it well:

"If Darwin and Wallace decided to open a resort and spa in Cuba instead of going into science, if every fossil was still hidden-- The second we found ERVs, common descent would have smacked us in the head like a sack full of doorknobs." -Dr. A Smith

It is regularly alleged that evolution explains the order of the fossils better than a global flood and therefore evolution must be true.

Of course it does. Any flood model makes no sense in light of the fossils.

Ideas of "sorting" by floodwaters always fail because they can't take into account internal anatomy. For instance, why would dolphins, who are nearly identical in shape, size, contour, and habitat, be sorted so differently than sharks? Or why would horseshoe crabs be sorted so effectively from similarly sized trilobites? How did so many series of transitional forms become so effectively sorted with the most primitive forms deepest? In each case, deep time explains it well, the flood can't.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

Achilles6129 · May 31, 2014

Papias said:
Fossils is one of many ways to date rocks.

Right, and you do realize that any rock with dinosaur in it is not going to be dated later than 65 million years, no matter what "dating" methods are applied, right?

Papias said:
THere are literally dozens of different dating methods, and when the same rock is tested by different methods, the dates agree with each other.

The dating methods often do not agree with one another and are discordant:

Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers - creation.com

Papias said:
In other words, a date may be suggested by a fossil,

Aha!

Papias said:
and further testing using other methods confirms the date.

Of course it will always confirm the date, Papias. They're going to throw out any discordant data.

Papias said:
This has been done hundreds of times with thousands of data points. Anyone who denies the correct dating of the geologic column has to explain why all the dates agree - why, if they were wrong, they'd "just happpen" to give "wrong" answers that agree with each other.

Please read the link cited above.

Papias said:
The order of the fossils in the geologic column is indeed clear evidence of evolution. It alone is conclusive evidence that evolution happened, and no other evidence would be needed. The fossils have spectacularly confirmed Darwin's speculations about what would be found, and Geologists worldwide (including Christian geologists) have stated that.

I will say that if the geologic column is actually real (and I strongly suspect that it isn't) that that would probably be better evidence for evolution than for a global flood. But that in no way would actually prove evolution to be true. As a matter of fact, there is an enormous amount of evidence against evolution from other quarters, which makes me strongly suspect that they're wrong about the geologic column.

The law of biogenesis alone (formulated by Louis Pasteur in 1864) is sufficient to prove that evolution is false. Life can only come from life: nothing to the contrary has ever been shown, and this is one of the strongest laws in all of science. That alone is sufficient to disprove the normal view of "evolution" (a random process without a Creator) that is advanced in public schools.

Papias said:
However, it is far from the only piece of evidence. There are many other whole classes of evidence, and whole fields of study, which, not only each confirm evolution, but confirm the same family tree of common descent.

These fields of study simply leave out all evidence against evolution. No evidence against evolution is allowed to be presented, only evidence for evolution is considered. That is the reason why the evidence "appears" to be so overwhelming.

Papias said:
Many of these, such as genetics - as sfs pointed out, are at least as conclusive as the fossil record. The fact is that any handful of the 29+ major areas of evidence would establish the family tree of evolution beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of the fossil record.

Genetics Questions and Answers - creation.com

Enjoy.

As I said again, the only reason why this appears to be true is because they refuse to consider any evidence whatsoever against evolution: only evidence for evolution is allowed.

Papias said:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

I didn't really see any proof of evolution in the source you cited, more of arguments based upon certain patterns (many of which when be expected from a common Creator). The author seems to be looking for patterns on the basis of his belief in evolution and hence not considering the vast amount of difference between organisms that superficially appear similar.

Again, as I said above, only evidence for evolution is allowed. All other evidence is simply not worthy to be considered.

You might also be interested in the following essay:

Ancient mutant Jamaican sea cows? - creation.com

Recently I was browsing the Talkorigins.org website, in particular an article by Douglas Theobald PHD, entitled 29 + Evidences For Macroevolution, in which he writes of a fossil found in Jamaica recently, which is claimed to be a transition from a four legged land mammal to a sea cow.

The bones pulled together by Daryl Domning to construct what he named Pezosiren portelli came from five separate bone beds within the five-metre thick Guys Hill Member stratum of rock in Jamaica. (Note, in evolutionary thinking, those five metres would represent several million years worth of accumulated sediments.) Some of the bones were found by themselves and some as partial skeletons. The stratum in question has yielded many hundreds of bones, including those of a rhinoceros (Hyrachyrus),3 a lizard,4 a crocodile (Charactosuchus kugleri),5 a turtle,5 sea cows (abundant remains of sirenians1 ), and possibly a primate,6 along with lots of invertebrate marine fossils (mollusks, etc.).7
According to the Nature paper, some of the bones Domning used (the skull and ribs) have features typical of sea-cow bones8, while others (the vertebrae, pelvis, and limb bones) have features typical of hoofed land animals.9 It seems quite likely to me that in constructing his legged sea-cow, Domning combined bones from different kinds of creature. Remember that bones of both land animals and ordinary sea cows have been found in the Guys Hill Member bone beds.]

Papias said:
Of course it does. Any flood model makes no sense in light of the fossils.

Well I wouldn't say it would make no sense, but certainly if the geologic column were real it would appear to support evolution better than a Flood. To say that the Flood could not account for the geologic column (as commonly defined) is silly, in my opinion.

Papias said:
Ideas of "sorting" by floodwaters always fail because they can't take into account internal anatomy. For instance, why would dolphins, who are nearly identical in shape, size, contour, and habitat, be sorted so differently than sharks? Or why would horseshoe crabs be sorted so effectively from similarly sized trilobites?

Start citing some sources!

Fossils Questions and Answers - creation.com

gluadys · May 31, 2014

Achilles6129 said:
Right, and the point is that the people who worked on the details were evolutionists

No, they were, and are, geologists.

Source, please I am aware that there was a certain geologic framework that was in place in the early 1800s, but as far as I know the geologic column which they had then is nothing like how it is today.

You might try any of these:
History of Geology

I am aware they are found where they are. What I'm saying is that the geologic column is laterally correlated, which seems to me to leave lots of room for mistakes, particularly when you're laterally correlating it on the assumption of evolution.

Actually, a lot of the lateral correlation was also done pre-Darwin and so not on the assumption of evolution. This is shown by the fact that while evolution was still a controversial biological hypothesis, scientists on both sides of that controversy continued to use the same geological perspectives. You don't find any geologist of the 19th century accusing Darwin of getting geological facts wrong.

But the most basic divisions (primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, now referred to a Proterozoic, Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozic) were recognized by the middle of the 18th century and all the larger subdivisions of the latter three (e.g. Cambrian, Permian, Jurassic, Pleistocene) by the end of the 18th century. These have not changed, though the precise dating and boundaries may have been changed.

I have news for you: rocks are dated by fossils! That's the entire idea of index fossils!

The fossil record - creation.com

Geologic column global sequence - creation.com

Typical creationist misrepresentation of how index fossils work. Actually, index fossils as an aid to geology came into use before Darwin as well and have been used as much by scientists who opposed Darwin (such as Georges Cuvier and Louis Agassiz) as by those who supported him. The seminal work was that of British engineer William Smith who discovered faunal succession during his work building canals across England in the early 1830s.

To be useful one must know a few things about an index fossil.

One must know first that it is a common and widespread fossil in rocks of a known age (known at least relatively). IOW, whenever you find rocks of this known age, you can count reliably on finding samples of this type of fossil.

And one must also know (or be reasonably persuaded by an abundance of evidence) that it is found only in rocks of this age..

If that pre-existing correlation between a particular type of fossil and the age of the rocks has not been made, the fossil tells you nothing about the age of the rock.

Only when there is enough evidence to link a particular type of fossil with rocks of known age, and only with rocks of that age, can you then take the occurrence of a fossil in undated rocks as an indication of their age. And that will be a preliminary estimate only, to be confirmed by other dating methods. One of those will often be radiometric dating. The reason the fossil estimate comes first is that it can be done in the field, but radiometry requires a laboratory.

Cuvier, who believed in successive catastrophes and creations rather than evolution relied as much on index fossils as any scientist who accepted evolution to tell him which creative period a new fossil belonged to.

So we have the basics of the geological column, the use of lateral correlation to establish it and the use of index fossils to aid in relative dating all introduced into geology by persons not using "evolutionary" principles, because their work preceded Darwin's publication, and certainly preceded the widespread acceptance of evolution into science.

Furthermore, many of these geologists were devout evangelical Christians. A case in point is Hugh Miller who wrote in the 1840s. He was a skilled amateur geologist (most scientists of the time were amateurs), but he was also a minister and a colleague of Thomas Chalmers when the Free Church broke from the Church of Scotland IOW on the forefront of evangelicalism in that era. Among other things he was appointed editor of Witness the Free Church monthly periodical, and in it he published a series of articles called The Old Red Sandstone (Devonian Age). Later the series was also published in book form. His articles were among those which influenced most evangelicals of the time to adopt Day-Age (or Old Earth) creationism.

If a fossil (or geologic period) is out of place then an overthrust or reworking will simply be supposed with or without evidence.

Geologic column global sequence - creation.com

Oh, so now we get to conspiracy theories. Do you have any basis whatsoever for such slanderous accusations? Of course not.

In fact Oard's article shows a precisely correct method of using index fossils. In 1902 the out-of-order presence of index fossils led to the hypothesis of an overthrust. But, as Oard quite properly says the actual determination of an overthrust "should be made by geological and geophysical methods and not by fossils."

Well, just what do you think geologists have been doing there for the last 110+ years? Today, when you go visit there (as many geology students do) you can learn about what they discovered using geological and geophysical methods. Of course the tentative hypothesis of 1902 had to be confirmed by additional studies: geological studies. And it was. It has become a textbook case, both because (unlike many other sites) it is easy to get to and the geological structures have been so well and clearly preserved.

Did you really think that after a century geologists were still relying solely on a century old observation by one pioneer?

I suggest you read his conclusion

I did. He reiterates the same error and a few others he threw in during the course of the essay.

Achilles6129 · Jun 1, 2014

gluadys said:
You might try any of these:
History of Geology

I did not really see anything in that link you provided to indicate that the geologic column, as we know it today, was in place back in the early 1800s. In fact, I have cited a source in a previous post that indicates it was not:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/geologic-time-scale/geologic-column/

By 1885 the finer divisions of the column had been identified based on the principles established by Steno, Smith, and Lyell.

gluadys said:
Actually, a lot of the lateral correlation was also done pre-Darwin and so not on the assumption of evolution.

Regardless, the point is that evolution greatly influenced the way paleontologists/geologists see fossils and correlate them with one another. Evolution came around when all of the details of the geologic column (as we know it today) did not exist. It became a powerful tool for explaining certain features of the geologic column and the assumption that evolution happened continues to hold sway when looking at the evidence even today.

gluadys said:
Typical creationist misrepresentation of how index fossils work.

Not really: they're based upon the assumption of evolution.

Index fossils - creation.com

gluadys said:
One must know first that it is a common and widespread fossil in rocks of a known age (known at least relatively). IOW, whenever you find rocks of this known age, you can count reliably on finding samples of this type of fossil.
And one must also know (or be reasonably persuaded by an abundance of evidence) that it is found only in rocks of this age..

Due to the fact that there are numerous "living fossils" (i.e., fossils that are missing from the fossil record for millions of years but are alive [and unchanged] today) it would seem that the use of index fossils can be rather superfluous.

Index fossils - creation.com

One famous example is the coelacanth, a fish regarded as becoming extinct supposedly 65 million years ago because it was missing from the fossil record since then. Yet, in 1938, it was discovered to be still alive.

Werner living fossils - creation.com

http://biblicalgeology.net/General/geologic-column.html

One of the most recent outstanding examples of a living fossil is the Wollemi Pine (Figure 9), found in a gorge in the Blue Mountains, 200 kilometers west of Sydney, Australia (Wieland, 1995). The Wollemi Pine was thought extinct since the Jurassic periodabout 150 million years ago on the uniformitarian timescale. This means that the Wollemi Pine should exist in strata between the Jurassic and the present. One researcher described the discovery like "finding a live dinosaur" (Wieland, 1995). Obviously, no evolution of the Wollemi pine has occurred for an alleged 150 million years.

gluadys said:
Oh, so now we get to conspiracy theories. Do you have any basis whatsoever for such slanderous accusations? Of course not.

Obviously if there are fossils or geologic periods out of order then they are going to automatically assume an overthrust or reworking. And that will obviously be based upon evolution, not actual evidence.

OopsyDaisy · Jul 6, 2014

I'm still not sure - it seems that you don't find mammals mixed in with non-mammals. It would prove the y-e creationist idea, if they could show a fossil rabbit next to a dino of some sort - they never do, or can.
I think that there was a global flood, but the lifeforms that existed before the flood were different to after the flood. Animal distribution appears to me, to show a new creation, in situ. I don't believe in the biblical Noah, ark and all that - silly and doesn't work.

'Dr' Grady McMurtry (son of the leader/priest of Crowley's church) - but we won't mention that - says that you never find the geologic column laid out as in the evo textbooks -
Me thinks that some of the young-earth scenario is true - the earth atmosphere was hyperbaric, there was Pangaea, there was creation - but humans? I doubt it - I might be wrong, not sure as yet.
Not a huge evo conspiracy - just the collection of evidence in the fossil record - spun and worked over with Darwinist bias.

Achilles6129 · Jul 6, 2014

OopsyDaisy said:
I'm still not sure - it seems that you don't find mammals mixed in with non-mammals. It would prove the y-e creationist idea, if they could show a fossil rabbit next to a dino of some sort - they never do, or can.

Would rabbits really live with dinosaurs?

Part of the YEC framework is that during the global flood creatures were buried in ecological zones. This explains why you would never find a rabbit mixed in with a dinosaur.

gluadys · Jul 6, 2014

OopsyDaisy said:
I'm still not sure - it seems that you don't find mammals mixed in with non-mammals. It would prove the y-e creationist idea, if they could show a fossil rabbit next to a dino of some sort - they never do, or can.
I think that there was a global flood, but the lifeforms that existed before the flood were different to after the flood. Animal distribution appears to me, to show a new creation, in situ. I don't believe in the biblical Noah, ark and all that - silly and doesn't work.

'Dr' Grady McMurtry (son of the leader/priest of Crowley's church) - but we won't mention that - says that you never find the geologic column laid out as in the evo textbooks -
Me thinks that some of the young-earth scenario is true - the earth atmosphere was hyperbaric, there was Pangaea, there was creation - but humans? I doubt it - I might be wrong, not sure as yet.
Not a huge evo conspiracy - just the collection of evidence in the fossil record - spun and worked over with Darwinist bias.

Actually, you do find mammals mixed with non-mammals. After all, today mammals live with birds, snakes, fish, ants, spiders, crabs and many other non-mammals, so you would expect in some future age to find the remains of today's mammals with these other animals.

Mammals actually appear in the fossil record around the same time as the earliest dinosaurs; but they are not modern mammals. Throughout the Mesozic strata there are fossils of mammals, but they are all fairly small, nocturnal creatures. The modern mammals most like them are little things like tree shrews and some small rodents. Bones of these mammals are found with dinosaur bones (sometimes in dinosaur stomachs). And there was one fossil find of a mammal who had dinosaur bones in its stomach---a tiny baby dinosaur.

What you do not find along with dinosaur bones are any of the modern species of mammals which began appearing about 50 millions years ago: bats, sheep, squirrels, deer, camels, tigers, wolves, hippos, chimpanzees or humans. None of those (and several others) show up in the fossil record until after the dinosaur bones disappear from it.

On the geologic column: in most places you won't find every stage of the geologic column as shown in textbooks. In most places some of the strata are missing: different ones for different places depending on when they were exposed to erosion. But what you do find is that whichever part of the geologic column does exist in any place, it is always in the same order as long as it has been undisturbed. That is why geologists are able to correlate strata between one place and another.

gluadys · Jul 6, 2014

Achilles6129 said:
Would rabbits really live with dinosaurs?

Part of the YEC framework is that during the global flood creatures were buried in ecological zones. This explains why you would never find a rabbit mixed in with a dinosaur.

Would there be any terrestrial eco-zone without dinosaurs? Remember, 'dinosaur' does not refer to a small genus or even family, but to a very large and diverse group like 'mammals'. Compare a stegosaurus, a hadrosaurus, an apatosaurus and a tyrannosaurus and you see they are very different from each other just as different as pigs, monkeys, camels and lions. And there are hundreds of other kinds of dinosaurs as well, with various different dietary needs and preferred habitats, just as there are thousands of mammals living in various different eco-zones today.

Hard to imagine any ecozone a Mesozoic rabbit might live in that would not have some kind(s) of dinosaur in it as well.

As far as I know, however, there were no Mesozoic rabbits. The oldest rabbit-like fossils are only 53 million years old, more than 10 million years younger than the youngest non-avian dinosaur fossil.
Fossil of Oldest Rabbit Relative Found

gluadys · Jul 6, 2014

Achilles6129 said:
I did not really see anything in that link you provided to indicate that the geologic column, as we know it today, was in place back in the early 1800s. In fact, I have cited a source in a previous post that indicates it was not:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/geologic-time-scale/geologic-column/

That is not a reputable source of geological information.

Regardless, the point is that evolution greatly influenced the way paleontologists/geologists see fossils and correlate them with one another. Evolution came around when all of the details of the geologic column (as we know it today) did not exist. It became a powerful tool for explaining certain features of the geologic column and the assumption that evolution happened continues to hold sway when looking at the evidence even today.

One of the functions of a theory is to provide a good, coherent explanation of known facts. Faunal succession was already a known fact and had been used by non-evolutionist scientists for three decades to help correlate geological strata before Darwin published his thesis. Yes, his theory did explain many details of fossil distribution and that is one of several reasons why scientists accepted his theory. (It also explained known facts in several other fields of biology and these are additional reasons the theory of evolution is now considered key to the whole of biological studies.)

Not really: they're based upon the assumption of evolution.

Index fossils - creation.com

When you use sources that misinform you, you don't learn much correctly. Index fossils have to be identified before they can be used as indices of age. They are identified on geological principles. Indeed it is only through geological principles that a fossil can be identified as a useful index fossil.

Due to the fact that there are numerous "living fossils" (i.e., fossils that are missing from the fossil record for millions of years but are alive [and unchanged] today) it would seem that the use of index fossils can be rather superfluous.

That is why these are not used as index fossils. To be useful as an index fossil it must meet particular criteria, and these don't. Please don't be under the false impression that every fossil can be an index fossil. There are many that do not qualify.

Probably the most famous "living fossil" is the coelacanth. But even before the living coelacanth was found, the coelacanth was never used as an index fossil anyway, because its fossils were spread over too long a time frame. Its fossil forms were found in almost all strata from the middle Devonian to the early Cenozoic, so they were not of any use in establishing an accurate date. Only fossils which are widely found in a narrow time frame are useful in dating rocks.

One of the most common index fossils are the extinct marine creature, the foraminifera. They exist pretty well world-wide and those of different ages are quite distinct from each other, so when you find a particular type of foram, you can be pretty sure of when it was fossilized.

Obviously if there are fossils or geologic periods out of order then they are going to automatically assume an overthrust or reworking. And that will obviously be based upon evolution, not actual evidence.

Fossils are actual evidence. But scientists don't make "automatic assumptions". They formulate testable hypotheses. In this case the fossils suggested the hypothesis of an overthrust, but that hypothesis only gets acceptance if the geological factors also provide supportive evidence.

SkyWriting · Jul 26, 2014

Achilles6129 said:
The order of the fossils in the alleged "geologic column" is probably the strongest piece of evidence that evolutionists have at their disposal.

No. Evolution is proven through experimentation.
Unless you are talking about new experiments
the columns are just for observing and daydreams.

Calminian · Jul 29, 2014

gluadys said:
….One of the functions of a theory is to provide a good, coherent explanation of known facts. ….

Correction: A good coherent natural explanation of the known facts.

Others are trying to find natural explanations for things that happened in the N.T. such as the Resurrection and Christ's miracles. Many scientific theories include Christ not actually dying on the cross but just appearing to, and recovering quickly, so He could appear to his followers just a couple days later. To some this is known as the "swoon theory." It's what you would call a "coherent explanation of the known facts." It's what I would call stubborn unbelief in God's revelation.

A coherent natural scientific explanation for Christ turning water to wine, could actually be trickery. Perhaps He just slipped a concentrate into the water, and somehow made it taste like real wine.

We could go on and on, but this is definitely where your philosophy of naturalism leads if you apply it consistently.

gluadys · Jul 29, 2014

Calminian said:
Correction: A good coherent natural explanation of the known facts.

Yes. What would be wrong with that? Most explanations of natural phenomena are natural.

Others are trying to find natural explanations for things that happened in the N.T. such as the Resurrection and Christ's miracles. Many scientific theories include Christ not actually dying on the cross but just appearing to, and recovering quickly, so He could appear to his followers just a couple days later. To some this is known as the "swoon theory." It's what you would call a "coherent explanation of the known facts." It's what I would call stubborn unbelief in God's revelation.

A coherent natural scientific explanation for Christ turning water to wine, could actually be trickery. Perhaps He just slipped a concentrate into the water, and somehow made it taste like real wine.

True, but since these "theories" are not testable, no evidence supports them; they are really nothing but hypothetical speculations--not science.

We could go on and on, but this is definitely where your philosophy of naturalism leads if you apply it consistently.

My philosophy of naturalism is that the God who created nature normally chooses to work through natural means, so, other than where there is a clear witness to other means at work, we should give preference to natural explanations. This has been a standard Christian view of nature and natural processes since at least medieval times. Why change it?

Calminian · Jul 30, 2014

gluadys said:
...True, but since these "theories" are not testable, no evidence supports them; they are really nothing but hypothetical speculations--not science.

But they are testable in the very same sense your theories of origins are testable. Right now in the present, magician can turn water to wine using trickery. We can run these tests over and over. The big bang on the other hand, we cannot do this.

gluadys said:
My philosophy of naturalism is that the God who created nature normally chooses to work through natural means, so, other than where there is a clear witness to other means at work, we should give preference to natural explanations. This has been a standard Christian view of nature and natural processes since at least medieval times. Why change it?

Where did you get this rule? And what you would consider clear witnesses to other means at work? And why don't you follow this rule in regard to the miracles of the new testament? Do you feel the gospels are a clear witness, but Genesis isn't?

gluadys · Jul 31, 2014

Calminian said:
But they are testable in the very same sense your theories of origins are testable. Right now in the present, magician can turn water to wine using trickery. We can run these tests over and over.

A stage magician's trickery is not a test of the miracle of Cana. Just as no matter how often we see men die with no resurrection is not a test of Jesus' resurrection, nor of that of Lazarus. How often do you have to be told that science can only tell us a general rule, but not whether there have been miraculous exceptions to that rule?

The big bang on the other hand, we cannot do this.

No, we cannot repeat the big bang in a lab. But another way science tests an event like this is by observing in the present what such an event in the past would logically have to generate for an observer in the present to see. This is why common background radiation was seen as a confirmation of big bang theory over the steady state theory of Fred Hoyle. The theoretical mathematics of a big bang showed that CBR ought to exist, while it would not in a steady state universe. So when CBR was found to actually exist, to be observable and measurable, the logical inference is that its cause was the big bang. When an actual observation confirms a hypothetical observation based solely on mathematics and logic, it is normally taken as evidence that the hypothesis is correct, or at least highly probable as compared to a theory which makes no such hypothesis.

Where did you get this rule?

The first clear instance of it was set out in the late 12th and early 13th century around the time Thomas Aquinas published his masterful integration of Christian faith with Aristotle's philosophy. One of the controversies of the time generated by his work was exactly what you are raising. If we follow the logic of reasoning from experience, where is there a place for miracles? Can a philosopher/scientist rule out miracles?

The eventual compromise was 1) no, reason cannot rule out miracles; however, 2) it is not reasonable to suspect miracles at the drop of a hat for everyday occurrences. In God's economy, miracles serve a distinct purpose as a witness which is inconsistent with God's daily, hourly, providential care of the natural world. Conclusion: begin an investigation with the assumption that no miracle has taken place and admit miracle only when continued exploration requires it. In more formal terms this rule is called Ockham's razor. As you may know this principle is credited to William of Ockham, a Franciscan scholar. It is not intended as a denial of God's power (which is seen in both providence and in miracle), but as a pragmatic approach to the study of nature in its ordinary state.

We learn nothing useful from creation if we must introduce a miraculous explanation every time rain falls or a flower blooms. IOW, even if miracles occur and have occurred, the proper study of science is the natural world as it functions when miracles are not affecting it. If that suffices to account for whatever phenomenon a scientist is studying, there is no need to add a miracle to the mix. Still, the scientific account is limited to those situations in which miracle is not invoked. Anything observed could be a miracle even if it resembles closely ordinary non-miraculous happenings.

And what you would consider clear witnesses to other means at work?

Reliable testimony of those who were present, taking into account what an investigation might show as a more natural cause. As you know there are charlatans who claim to perform miracle cures and such, but a careful investigation usually turns up some sort of trickery, like the sleight of hand of your magician turning water into wine. But if no such trickery turns up--and the witnesses are otherwise reliable--a miracle can certainly be considered plausible, as in some of the cures recognized as miracles at Lourdes. As you know, the authorities there investigate each claimed cure quite thoroughly and consider most of them to be coincidental or not evidently miraculous.

And why don't you follow this rule in regard to the miracles of the new testament?

I do, and for the old testament too. I have no reason to discount such miracles as the provision of bread and oil to Elijah and the widow who sheltered him through the famine, nor for his miraculous raising of her son to life again, nor those of the plagues of Egypt or those which occurred during the wandering in the wilderness. It may be that some of these could be accounted for in non-miraculous ways, but that doesn't mean they were not miracles.

Another feature of all of these miracles is that they have purpose--to save a people, a prophet, to be a testimony to God's care and power. And none of them require denying what we do know through the observation of nature. IOW all of these are plausible miracles.

Do you feel the gospels are a clear witness, but Genesis isn't?

I think both are a clear witness, but I think you are reading more miracles into Genesis than the text can sustain. And for no clear purpose other than to support your personal preferred interpretation of the text. IOW the miracles you would have us believe in respect to the early chapters of Genesis fail on several accounts:

--they have no clear testimonial purpose; they seem to be used only to prop up a dubious reading of the text, not to glorify God.
--they require a denial of natural phenomena which are well established by observation and reason--and so set up a barrier to listening to the testimony of creation itself as scripture so often recommends to us.
--the conflict between these alleged miracles and our experience of nature leads to a theological crisis around the honesty of God.

I think this is too detrimental to faith in God to be acceptable. I think it hamstrings our witness when we can no longer point to the creation itself as a testimony to the existence and majesty of God, but it is certainly inconsistent to uphold the witness of nature while denying much of what it says. I think it leads to a concept of nature that has no place for God--so encouraging an atheist account of nature and science. I think that is too high a price to pay to insist the early Genesis account is literal, factual history. I think we lose nothing and gain much by taking it as a different genre of literature.

Is the geologic column real?

Veteran

Legend

Veteran

Legend

Veteran

Senior Member

Listening to TW4

Veteran

Legend

Veteran

OopsyDaisy

Guest

Veteran

Legend

Legend

Legend

The Librarian

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency