• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Literal Creation Account and the Actual Roots of Science. Read on …

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Loudmouth said:
The dating of meteorites puts the age of the Earth at 4.45 to 4.55 billion years old.
Its interesting to note that this portion of Genesis don't address the actual total age of the earth in any way. It presents events as having happened in the past in the period of time presented.

Actually only the events in Genesis 1:1 through 2:4 are given a duration of time. We are not told now much time passed between the end of 2:4 and the beginning of 2:5. After that no time durations are given either.
Loudmouth said:
Amazing how the geologic record falsifies the OT literal chronology.
Amazing how the geologic record, included in the 'geologic colunm' is all based on a theory of science. Even the actual 'geologic column' that is supposed to represent that record exists no where physically in the world. It is an assemblage of data taken from all around the world and assumed how it may fit together.
So, the conclusions and theory presented by the 'geologic record' ...does not falsify the first two chapters of Genesis in any way. If that is the only objection with the information presented in the OP, I'm pleased. Thanks ... ..:)

----------------
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
TheInstant said:
[/color][/font][/color]
Maybe you should make up your mind on this?
Thanks, I'll change that in the summary from.. "Genesis introduces plant life as a separate form of life from that of creatures;" ...to ...."Genesis introduces plant life as a separate grouping of life from that of creatures;" ... :)

--------------------------------------
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Edmond said:
The purpose of that statement is to allow the text of Genesis to be examined on its own, apart from formal 'Christianity', the church or other doctrines may attempt to place on it.





My point is that a literal interpretation of the text would be a doctrine in and of itself. Similarly, a literal interpretation of the work “Beowulf” interpreted literally would require a sort of interpretive doctrine. Or, a literal interpretation of the “Epic of Gilgamesh” would be a sort of interpretive doctrine.



The problem is that no one interprets these works that way, and the reason Genesis is ever taken literally, because it is placed within the scope of a certain Christian doctrines. Taken by itself, apart from a certian Christianity, Genesis wouldn’t necessarily be interpreted literally, and probably would not be interpreted literally, as we find with other texts.



It is objectively open to the examination as described above. …. I'm please if that is the only objection you have to the content presented. Thanks ...



-----------------




No, it wouldn’t be my only, objection, just the first that came to mind, I'll look through it later and see whether it warrants further comment.
 
Upvote 0

platzapS

Expanding Mind
Nov 12, 2002
3,574
300
35
Sunshine State
Visit site
✟5,263.00
Faith
Humanist
Thanks, I'll change that in the summary from.. "Genesis introduces plant life as a separate form of life from that of creatures;" ...to ...."Genesis introduces plant life as a separate grouping of life from that of creatures;" ...
:)

Even disregarding these semantics, what's the point? Don't almost all creation stories either explain or imply that animals are a different kind of life than plants?
 
Upvote 0

Valkhorn

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist
Jun 15, 2004
3,009
198
44
Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟26,624.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Amazing how the geologic record, included in the 'geologic colunm' is all based on a theory of science.

Your point? The Bible was written by man, too.

Even the actual 'geologic column' that is supposed to represent that record exists no where physically in the world.

I know North Dakota is in the middle of nowhere but it's still there:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

The Geologic Column Exists in its entirety in North Dakota.

Will you stop stonewalling now?
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
TheInstant said:
Yes, and these theories are based on evidence.

Anyway, even if we were to study Genesis scientifically, how would you suggest that we go about doing it? How do you test for a literal Genesis?
Well, since evolution is a theory and there is information that can be used to try to support that theory.
The creation account should also be considered as a theory since ..... Gen. 1&2 successfully presents evidence that it has introduced the living elements that are included in the studies of botany and biology and that Genesis has presented documentation that disclose the unfolding of the environment needed to support such living elements.


----------
 
Upvote 0

TheInstant

Hooraytheist
Oct 24, 2005
970
20
42
✟16,238.00
Faith
Atheist
Edmond said:
Well, since evolution is a theory and there is information that can be used to try to support that theory.
The creation account should also be considered as a theory since ..... Gen. 1&2 successfully presents evidence that it has introduced the living elements that are included in the studies of botany and biology and that Genesis has presented documentation that disclose the unfolding of the environment needed to support such living elements.


----------

Just because a story contains some information that does not conflict with reality does not make the entire story valid, and it certainly does not make it a scientific theory.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory because "there is information that can be used to try to support" it. It is a scientific theory because all of the available evidence supports it and none contradicts it. It also makes predictions and can be tested. Can the "theory" of creation do any of this? As I asked before, how do you test for a literal Genesis?
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Valkhorn said:

Your point? The Bible was written by man, too.
My point is that the entire geologic 'time table' and 'record' are based on assumption. The assumed dates and order of the fossil are used as the basis of dating the assumed age of the geologic strata. Conversely, the assumed dates of the strata is used to date the fossil. Both are based on assumption.

Valkhorn said:

----------------------------------------

I know North Dakota is in the middle of nowhere but it's still there:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
The Geologic Column Exists in its entirety in North Dakota.
Valkhorn said:
Will you stop lying now?
Please identify paragraph(s) or quotes that attempt to authenticate that claim. ....

-------------------------------
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
TheInstant said:
Just because a story contains some information that does not conflict with reality does not make the entire story valid, and it certainly does not make it a scientific theory.
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory because "there is information that can be used to try to support" it. It is a scientific theory because all of the available evidence supports it and none contradicts it.
Please present the evidence to confirm that claim.
TheInstant said:
Can the "theory" of creation do any of this? As I asked before, how do you test for a literal Genesis?
Well, the testing of anything takes place in steps. Step one, we have already tested and authenticated that...
"the literal reading of Gen. 1&2 has introduced the living elements that are included in the studies of botany and biology. In addition, it has presented documentation that disclose the unfolding of the environment needed to support such living elements.
“Botany is the scientific study of plant life. As a branch of biology, it is also sometimes referred to as plant science(s) or plant biology. Botany covers a wide range of scientific disciplines that study the growth, reproduction, metabolism, development, disease, ecology, and evolution of plants.” (ref 5)
Genesis introduces plant life as a separate grouping of life from that of creatures; it introduces the elements necessary for the growth of that plant life; it introduces the specific subject of the reproduction of that plant life (the presence of seeds); it presents the conditions needed for the metabolizing processes within plant life. (Gen. 1:9, 11a, 16a, 17, 18); Genesis 1&2 therefore introduces and addresses specific elements and characteristics found to be a direct part of the study of botany today.
“ Biology is the study, or science, of life. It is concerned with the characteristics and behaviors of organisms, how species and individuals come into existence, and the interactions they have with each other and with the environment. Biology encompasses a broad spectrum of academic fields that are often viewed as independent disciplines. However, together they address phenomena related to living organisms (biological phenomena) over a wide range of scales.” (ref 6)
Genesis introduces and presents biological life; it introduces distinct characteristics of that life and their behavior… that is large sea creature and swarming sea creatures; birds and winged creatures; cattle; creeping things; beasts of the earth…..how these creatures came into existence. In so doing, Genesis introduces and addresses specific elements and characteristics found to be a direct part of the study of biology today.

Therefore it can be said of Genesis 1&2, that its content introduces, include and address the specifics elements and their characteristics that exist as part of the study of biology and botany as a science of today.

That is a sizable step forward. We could now move to Genesis 6 through 8 and begin a re-evaluation the evidence of paleontolgy and geology based on the information presented there rather than through the lens of Lyell's uniformatarian theory of geology only. ...

---------------------------
 
Upvote 0

TheInstant

Hooraytheist
Oct 24, 2005
970
20
42
✟16,238.00
Faith
Atheist
Edmond said:
Please present the evidence to confirm that claim.

Are you asking for ALL of the evidence that supports evolution? I don't have enough time to do that. Maybe you should check out the Quiet Thread, there seems to be a lot in there.

As for evidence confirming that there is none against it, suffice it to say that if there were such evidence the theory would be revised or abandoned. That's how science works.


Edmond said:
Well, the testing of anything takes place in steps. Step one, we have already tested and authenticated that...
Edmond said:
"the literal reading of Gen. 1&2 has introduced the living elements that are included in the studies of botany and biology. In addition, it has presented documentation that disclose the unfolding of the environment needed to support such living elements.
“Botany is the scientific study of plant life. As a branch of biology, it is also sometimes referred to as plant science(s) or plant biology. Botany covers a wide range of scientific disciplines that study the growth, reproduction, metabolism, development, disease, ecology, and evolution of plants.” (ref 5)
Genesis introduces plant life as a separate grouping of life from that of creatures; it introduces the elements necessary for the growth of that plant life; it introduces the specific subject of the reproduction of that plant life (the presence of seeds); it presents the conditions needed for the metabolizing processes within plant life. (Gen. 1:9, 11a, 16a, 17, 18); Genesis 1&2 therefore introduces and addresses specific elements and characteristics found to be a direct part of the study of botany today.
“ Biology is the study, or science, of life. It is concerned with the characteristics and behaviors of organisms, how species and individuals come into existence, and the interactions they have with each other and with the environment. Biology encompasses a broad spectrum of academic fields that are often viewed as independent disciplines. However, together they address phenomena related to living organisms (biological phenomena) over a wide range of scales.” (ref 6)
Genesis introduces and presents biological life; it introduces distinct characteristics of that life and their behavior… that is large sea creature and swarming sea creatures; birds and winged creatures; cattle; creeping things; beasts of the earth…..how these creatures came into existence. In so doing, Genesis introduces and addresses specific elements and characteristics found to be a direct part of the study of biology today.

Therefore it can be said of Genesis 1&2, that its content introduces, include and address the specifics elements and their characteristics that exist as part of the study of biology and botany as a science of today.

That is a sizable step forward. We could now move to Genesis 6 through 8 and begin a re-evaluation the evidence of paleontolgy and geology based on the information presented there rather than through the lens of Lyell's uniformatarian theory of geology only. ...

---------------------------

So you have established that Genesis says a few things that are correct about the life we observe. Many creation stories do this as well, as it's really not that surprising that the authors of these stories were able to recognize that plants are different from animals. But what about the parts of Genesis that are not supported by any evidence? Are we ignoring those parts?
 
Upvote 0

HairlessSimian

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2005
602
28
68
in the 21st century CE
✟875.00
Faith
Atheist
Edmond said:
Well, since evolution is a theory and there is information that can be used to try to support that theory.
The creation account should also be considered as a theory since ..... Gen. 1&2 successfully presents evidence that it has introduced the living elements that are included in the studies of botany and biology and that Genesis has presented documentation that disclose the unfolding of the environment needed to support such living elements.
----------

The Genesis account is horribly incomplete as "documentation that disclose the unfolding of the environment needed to support such living elements", since it does not talk about certain other essentials for plant life, like minerals (P, K, trace elements), nitrifying microbes, denitrifying microbes, carbon dioxide, oxygen, etc. If you tried to engineer life on Mars, you would not be successful if you followed the Genesis recipe.

Does Genesis ever mention air? In fact, the concept of life-giving air was not really understood before Lavoisier and Dalton and others only a couple of centuries ago.

Genesis is also ignorant of algae, fungi, lichen, diatoms, krill, plankton and coral, not to mention
blue-green algae or archaebacteria. The thermophiles and chemotrophs do not need the light and rain and seeds and stuff that Genesis provides, but rather need geothermal/volcanic heat or sulfurous emanations which Genesis does not provide.

None of these lifeforms (
algae, fungi, lichen, and the rest and more besides) fit the 'kinds' that Genesis describes.

Another, more minor objection: visible light (the only kind ever known by any human before recent times and what most people refer to simply as 'light') does NOT provide heat. From the OP: "
The presence of a gathered source of light in [Gen.] 1:4 would have been sufficient to generate a source of heat energy." Absolutely false. Infrared light is what is sensed as heat and is not visible. The earth, as presented by Genesis, would have started out at absolute zero (0 deg. K) and stayed that way until the sun had a chance to do something about it, but it would have taken more than a few days to thaw the earth and the 'lights' of the firmament, as understood by Genesis, would have done very little to warm the earth.

Finally: the moon is presented as a 'light' of the night-time firmament to differentiate it from the day. This is also false. The moon has no light of its own and merely reflects sunlight and only part of the month. The other part, the moon is out at the same time as the sun, so out the window goes the idea of using the moon for the stated purposes.

The Genesis account can never be considered a scientific account of the origin of the earth, the universe and life, if only because it is terribly incomplete and simplistic. It can never be considered a scientific hypothesis (let alone a theory). Most serious people only view it as a story.
On technical and scientific matters, it is merely a reflection of the state of knowledge of the ancient humans who devised and wrote the tale, plausibly to answer the basic Large Questions every human asks at one time or another in their lives.

At best, this thread argues that students of the history of knowledge might look to the Genesis account for information on what the ancients knew.

At worst, this thread attempts to argue that botany and biology students should be made to study the Genesis account. That would be stultifyingly stupid and an enormous waste of time and money. Time and money are better spent educating non-botanists/non-biologists who get their botany and biology from the bible, at least those that can be educated.
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
HairlessSimian said:
<snip>
Finally: the moon is presented as a 'light' of the night-time firmament to differentiate it from the day. This is also false. The moon has no light of its own and merely reflects sunlight and only part of the month.<snip>

This offers just one example of the fallacies found in this posted quote mine. Genesis does not says or implies that the moon has light of its own. Genesis says ..."And the God made two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night." (1:16)
Amazing how people can find ways to even twist literal statements to say what they want them to say in order to 'falsify' them. ...

---------------------------------------
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
variant said:
My point is that a literal interpretation of the text would be a doctrine in and of itself.

In the narrowest use of the word, a doctrine can be defined as your person beliefs about what I said in the posted you quoted from me. In that narrow sense, it can be anything that is held to be true by any person.
variant said:
Similarly, a literal interpretation of the work “Beowulf” interpreted literally would require a sort of interpretive doctrine. Or, a literal interpretation of the “Epic of Gilgamesh” would be a sort of interpretive doctrine.
The Gilgamesh epic is about a person and a wild companion. Gilgamesh was a king of Uruk, a hero who was supposed to have all knowledge and who built a great city. It is a writing about a person and his adventures, journeys and battles. It is a compiled biography.
variant said:
The problem is that no one interprets these works that way, and the reason Genesis is ever taken literally,

Yes people do read literally and believe Genesis to be a literal account as it presents itself.
variant said:
because it is placed within the scope of a certain Christian doctrines.
There are many “Christian doctrines” today that present the creation account as non-literal. There are Christian Doctrines that also present it as literal.
variant said:
Taken by itself, apart from a certian Christianity, Genesis wouldn’t necessarily be interpreted literally, and probably would not be interpreted literally, as we find with other texts.
It writings stood alone, apart of "Christianity" for centuries before Christianity was ever a thought in the minds of mankind. It certainly has the merit to continue to do so today. It has only been a mere 150 years since its authenticity to be read literally even begun to be questioned. There is no reason given in the account or by the author that would suggest it should not be understood literally.

---------------------



 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟32,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually it's been around 500 years (since the end of the dark ages) that people have challenged how the church traditionally interpreted the Bible. It was about 100 years before darwin (or 250 years ago) that geology started to erode the concept of a global flood and significantly change the timeline of prehistory.

Anyway, since you're apparently unwilling to read the whole article (though it's VERY good, and much MUCH more readable than any scientific paper since it purposefully avoids jargon common to geology) here's the significant portions outlining the geological column in North Dakota. Note that a short discussion of why this represents the entire column is presented at the beginning of the paper. I'm not sure precisely how you expect somebody to outline the entire geological column in one paragraph to support the claim that the whole geological column exists in North Dakota. Still, if you like you could read just the conclusions (they're placed at the end).

Edited to add: the main point of this discussion is to show that nowhere in the entire geological column -- down to the precambrium strata -- could the flood have occured. It's in response to a particular claim that if one of the layers could NOT have been created by the flood, then that layer is either above or below the REAL flood layer.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/ said:
The Cambrian of this region consists of the Deadwood Formation. This formation consists of a lower sandstone with scolithus burrows (Wilmarth, Part 1, 1938, p. 578.). These scolithos burrows are widely found in similar basal sandstones around the world. They are found in Newfoundland, Scotland, Antarctica, Greenland always in Cambrian sands. Thus, the basal sandstone appears to have been the tranquil home for whatever animal made the scolithos burrows. Sedimentologically, these basal quartzites are nearly pure sand and must have taken a lot of time to winnow the shale out from them. It is unlikely that this winnowing could be accomplished in a yearlong flood with all its turbulence. There are some trilobites found in the Cambrian strata.

Above this is a black shale. Shale, due to the very small particle size requires quiet, tranquil waters for deposition to take place. This is one of the unrecognized difficulties of flood geology. Every shale, which is approximately 46% of the geologic column, is by its existence, evidence for tranquil waters.

Above this is the Ordovician Winnipeg formation. It consists of a basal sand whose lithology is very similar to that of the Deadwood scolithus sand, "suggesting that the Deadwood Sandstone may be a source for the Winnipeg Sandstone" (Bitney, 1983, p. 1330). This would mean that local erosion was the cause of the sand for the Winnipeg sand rather than a world wide catastrophe. The Winnipeg does not have scolithus burrows.

Above this is the Icebox shale. Once again a shale requires still water for deposition.

Above this lies 1300 feet of Ordovician limestone and dolomite. These are the Red River, Stony Mountain and Stonewall formations, collectively known as the Bighorn Dolomite. (data from W. H. Hunt Trust Larson #1 well, Mckenzie Co., North Dakota) These can not be the flood deposits for a reason of heat. Each gram of carbonate gives off about 1207 kilocalories per mole (Whittier et al, 1992, p. 576). Since the density of the carbonate is around 2.5 g/cc this means that there are 2.2 x 106 moles of carbonate deposited over each meter. Multiply this by 1,207,000 joules per mole and divide by the solar constant and you find that to deposit these beds in one year requires that the energy emitted by each meter squared would be 278 times that received by the sun. Such energies would fry everybody and everything. Besides, throughout these carbonates are layers upon layers of burrows (Gerhard, Anderson and Fischer, 1990, p. 513). These Ordovician carbonates also show interesting sedimentological features. Fossils include graptolites, gastropods, cephalopods, and corals. The Red River dolomite is burrowed by some type of animal (Kohm and Louden, 1983, p. 27).

Above the Ordovician carbonates lies the Silurian Interlake formation. This formation consists of carbonates, anhydrite, salt, with minor amounts of sand. Layers throughout this deposit are also burrows and mudcracks from drying out of the layers (Lobue, 1983, p. 36,37). There are also intact corals of a totally different type than are alive today. The Paleozoic corals are belong to one of three groups - only one of which is found in Mesozoic rocks; the other two became extinct at the end of the Paleozoic. The four-sided corals are only found in the Paleozoic. Modern corals of the 6-sided or 8-sided kind are not found until the Triassic.

Above this are the Devonian formations. The lower Devonian is the Winnepegosis formation and it consists of a bioclastic (meaning made up of the shells of dead carbonate producing animals) limestone, and the upper part is interbedded carbonate with anhydrite. Mud cracks are also found as are burrows.(Perrin, 1983, p. 54, 57.) There is no sand, no shale so it is hard to see how this could be the flood deposits. Anhydrite is an evaporitic mineral and not compatible with a global flood.

The next Devonian bed is the Prairie Evaporite. It consists of dolomite, salt, gypsum, anhydrite and potash. These are generally considered evaporitic and thus incompatible with deposition during a worldwide flood (Gerhard, Anderson and Fischer, 1990, p. 515). There are also oncolites which are the spherically concentric carbonate depositions, due to algal growth on shells after the animals die. This takes time (Wardlaw and Reinson, 1971, p. 1762). An excellent example of an oncolite is shown in figure 58 of Dean and Fouch (1983, p. 123). It says. "Cross section of an oncolite developed around a gastropod-shell nucleus from Ore Lake, Michigan. Concentric layering is the result of annual couplets of porous and dense laminae.) Fig. 59 is an example from the Eocene period.

The Devonian Dawson Bay formation is a carbonate which shows evidence of subaerial erosion (Pound, 1988, p. 879). The evidence consists of eroded limestone horizons which can't be created under the ocean. There is also salt cementation. This means that salt was deposited in the fractures and crevices in the rock. Halite plugged burrows are found. Numerous erosional surfaces are found (Dunn, 1983, p. 79,85). Once again, hardly a result to be expected from the flood.

Next up is the Duperow formation. It also shows signs of subaerial erosion, salt deposition in the pores, anhydrite deposition. The deposition of these chemicals are more consistent with arid environments than with flood environments. (Dunn, 1974, p. 907). Burrows and stromatolites (limestone rocks deposited by daily increments of limestone deposited by algae on a shallow (less than 30 feet) sea bottom. See Burke (1982, p. 554) and Altschuld and Kerr (1983, p. 104).

Above this is the Birdbear formation with desiccation, caliche development (caliche is widespread in west Texas- a dry area) and burrows (Ehrets and Kissling, 1983, p. 1336; Halabura, 1983, p. 121).

Above this is the is the Threeforks shale. Once again, a shale requires quiet water to be deposited. (Wilmarth, 1938, part 2, p. 2144)

The overlying Bakken formation is an organic rich shale. Tranquil, even stagnant-oxygen poor, water required.

The mississippian Madison group is probably my favorite deposit in the whole world. It largely consists of dead crinoid parts. In the Hunt Larson #1 well, it is 2200 feet thick. The following quote makes the problem with the Madison quite understandable (Clark and Stearn, 1960, pp. 86-88):

The upper Mission Canyon formation (of the northwestern states and the Williston Basin) or the Livingstone formation (of Alberta) is more interesting, not only for its contribution to mountain scenery but also for its lithology and importance as an oil reservoir.

Much of the massive limestone formation is composed of sand-sized particles of calcium carbonate, fragments of crinoid plates, and shells broken by the waves. Such a sedimentary rock qualifies for the name sandstone because it is composed of particles of sand size cemented together; because the term sandstone is commonly understood to refer to a quartz-rich rock, however, these limestone sandstones are better called calcarenites. The Madison sea must have been shallow, and the waves and currents strong, to break the shells and plates of the animals when they died. The sorting of the calcite grains and the cross-bedding that is common in this formation are additional evidence of waves and currents at work. Even in Mississippian rocks, where whole crinoids are rare fossils, and as a result it is easy to underestimate the population of these animals during the Paleozoic era. Crinoidal limestones, such as the Mission Canyon-Livingstone unit, provide an estimate, even though it be of necessity a rough one, of their abundance in the clear shallow seas they loved. In the Canadian Rockies the Livingstone limestone was deposited to a thickness of 2,000 feet on the margin of the Cordilleran geosyncline, but it thins rapidly eastward to a thickness of about 1,000 feet in the Front Ranges and to about 500 feet in the Williston Basin. Even though its crinoidal content decreases eastward, it may be calculated to represent at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates. How many millions, billions trillions of crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers the imagination.

That is enough crinoids to cover the entire earth to a depth of 3 inches and yet this deposit is only a small part of a vast Mississippian crinoid bed that almost does cover the world (Morton, 1984, p. 26-27). These crinoidal limestones are called the Redwall in Arizona, the Leadville, in Colorado, the Rundle, in Canada, the Lisburne, in Alaska, the Keokuk and Burlington in the Mid-continent region of the U. S. Other crinoidal limestones are found in England, Belgium, European Russia, Egypt, Libya, central Asia, and Australia. How can the preflood world be covered in dead crinoids and still have room for people and the dinosaurs? At the top of the Madison are karsts and occasionally, caverns due to subaerial erosion, with salt deposition etc. It is also heavily burrowed. Other fossils include half millimeter long scolecodonts, spores, coral, ostracods, gastropods and plants (Altschuld and Kerr, 1983, p. 106,107).

Above the Madison is the Big Snowy group. The lower part is composed of algal laminated dolomite with desiccation features. Intertidal channels are cut into this surface and are filled with sand. (Guthrie, 1985, p. 850)

Above this is the Minnelusa formation which contains three features which are incompatible with the flood. First there is a desiccated dolomite with desiccation cracks. Secondly, there are two anhydrite layers with a peculiar "chicken-wire" structure (Achauer, 1982, p. 195). Thirdly, the sands are cross-bedded in a fashion identical to modern desert dunes! The importance of these three features is that desiccation is not likely in a world wide flood, and "chicken-wire" anhydrite only forms above 35 degree C. and near the water table (Hsu, 1972, p. 30). This type of anhydrite is deposited in the Persian Gulf area today. Fossils include brachiopods, cephalopods, gastropods, fish teeth, crinoids pelecypods. None of the Minnelusa beds are likely to be deposited under flood waters.

The Opeche shale is of Permian age and overlies the Minnelusa. The interesting thing about the Opeche is that in the center of the basin, at its deepest part, it is salt - 300 feet of salt. Permian pollen is found in the salt, modern pollen is not found (Wilgus and Holser, 1984, p. 765,766). This bed has the appearance of a period of time in which the Williston Sea dried up, leaving its salt behind in the deepest parts of the basin as would be expected. The area of salt deposition is 188,400 square kilometers. Assuming that over this area the salt averages half that 300 feet(91 m) or averages 45 meters, then this deposit represents 9 trillion cubic meters of salt! With a density of 2160 kg/m^3 this represents the evaporation of 845 million cubic kilometers of seawater. This is 1/14 of the world's ocean water. This is hardly something to be expected in a global flood.

Above this is the Minnekahta limestone which was deposited in hypersaline waters. Hypersaline waters were not likely to be the flood waters which would have been brackish at worst due to the large influx of rainwater.

Next is the Triassic Spearfish formation. It contains the Pine Salt Bed, some gypsum and highly oxidized sands and shales. These red beds have the appearance of the deposits found in modern arid environments. Gypsum is an evaporitic mineral. The Spearfish deposits have the appearance of modern deposits found on an arid intertidal flat.(Wilmarth, 1938, p. 2037) There are conglomerates in which the Mississippian rocks where deposited, hardened, then eroded and fragments deposited in the Spearfish redbeds. (Francis, 1956, p. 18)

The Jurassic Piper formation comes next. The lowest member is the Dunham salt (Gerhard,Anderson and Fischer, 1983, p. 529). Highly oxidized red beds, (normally marine deposits are dark, continental,subaerial deposits are reddish) with gypsum,an evaporitic bed lies above the salt (Peterson, 1958, p. 107). A small limestone followed by more redbeds and gypsum finishes the Piper formation.

The Rierdon formation is a set of interbedded marine and evaporitic rocks. Some times the ocean covered the area and the it was exposed long enough for gypsum and anhydrite and once again salt to be formed. Remember that it must be above 35 degree C for anhydrite to form. Ocean water is not often that hot. These beds are also very fossiliferous, containing pelecypods, ostracods, and foraminifera (Peterson, 1972, p. 178). This formation also contains oolitic limestones. Since oolites are formed from algal deposition of limestone, this bed requires some time.

The Jurassic Swift formation is predominantly shale in the lower part. Shale requires tranquil water for deposition. This shale has abundant belemnites, oysters and pelecypods. All oceanic creatures. These beds are above the terrestrial, salt depositing beds discussed previously. This oceanic deposit does not look like a flood deposit but the tranquil deposition from an ocean (Peterson, 1958, p.112).

The upper Jurassic Continental Morrison formation is next. This is the bed with all the dinosaur bones. It extends from Canada to Arizona. It consists of sands and shales. It has footprints (Stokes, 1957, p. 952-954), fossil soil profiles (Mantzios, 1989, p. 1166), mammals, plants, some coal (Brown, 1946, p 238-248). Both the mammals and plants are different from anything alive today. Huge dinosaurs, as well as smaller ones are found here.

The Cretaceous begins with the Dakota Group. Unique ammonites mark each of the beds in the Cretaceous. The Dakota also is formed of sand and shales with lignite (Bolyard, 1965, p. 1574). Parts of this group have ripple marks, burrows, animal tracks, worm trails. The deposits are interpreted as being formed by a delta (Bolyard and McGregor, 1966, p. 2221-2224). The Dakota formation has numerous channels eroded into underlying strata. Some of these channels are 30 feet deep. There are numerous borings, volcanic ash layers, in which the ash is relatively pure. If the volcanoes which produced these ash layers occurred during a raging flood, the ash would have been thoroughly mixed with other sediment. They aren't. Plant fragments are found throughout the strata (Lane, 1963, p. 229- 256)

The Belle Fourche shale is next. As mentioned many times previously, due to small particle size, a shale needs tranquil water. There is a bentonite (volcanic ash) bed near the base which would be mixed in with other sediments if it were laid down in a raging flood.

Above this is the Greenhorn limestone. The limestones are made mostly of coccoliths, small skeletal remains approximately 3-5 micrometers in diameter. This formation is about 40 ft thick and consists of 16 ledge-forming, burrowed limestone beds separated by thin shales. Over a distance of 450 miles the ledges lie on and below persistent bentonite (volcanic ash beds). The parallelism proves that the ledges are synchronous across their extent. The coccoliths had to grow in the water, and then die and fall to the bottom. After this, organisms had to burrow into the sediment. When the coccoliths were not as productive in the waters above, shale was deposited, separating the limestone beds. All of this required still water. there are also abundant fecal pellets in this deposit as well as burrows and feeding traces (marks an animal makes on the sediment when he is feeding) (Hattin, 1971, p. 412-431; Savrda and Bottjer, 1993, p. 263-295).

The Cretaceous Carlile shale lies above the Greenhorn. It consists of sands and shales. There are erosional channels, burrows, feeding markings. Shark teeth and bones are found. A shark during its lifetime sheds numerous teeth which fall to the ocean floor to be buried (McLane, 1982, p. 71-90).

The Niobrara Chalk is next. It too is made up largely of coccoliths, has abundant fecal pellets, which are made of the eaten remains of coccoliths. Whatever fish dined on the plankton, let their presence be known by leaving their droppings. More than 100 bentonite beds are found throughout the formation. Fish bones and scales are found throughout the formation. The fossils of the Niobrara are quite interesting. There is a 14- foot Portheus (fish) which apparently died after trying to digest a smaller 6-foot fish. Skulls of the giant marine lizard Tylosaurus was found. Pterodactyls have also been recovered from this bed (Stokes and Judson, 1968, p. 372,377,379). Sediment filled burrows occur rarely in the bed (Hattin, 1981, p. 831- 849). But what has recently come to my attention is that Fourier analysis of the Niobrara laminations reveals that the laminations vary in thickness according to the periodicities of the orbital cycles. If this bed were deposited in a two day time frame required by the assumption of a global deluge, there is absolutely no reason to find orbital periodicities in this rock (Fischer, 1993, p. 263-295).

The Pierre shale is rich in organic matter and it is almost entirely contained in the fecal pellets. Marine reptile bones are concentrated in the Sharon Springs member. Note in all the above, that the fossils are not sorted as Morris would assume by ecological zonation. This marine bed is above the Morrison bed which contains the dinosaurs (Parrish and Gautier, 1988, p. 232). There is also the Monument Hill Bentonite which is 150-220 feet thick and represents one heck of a volcanic eruption. Above this is another bentonite, the Kara, which is 100 feet thick. Mt. St. Helens pales by comparison (Robinson, et al., 1959, p. 109).

The Fox Hills formation is next. It is sands, shales, coal and limestone. It contains coal, root casts, Ophiomorpha (a crab) burrows, dinosaur bones, turtle plates, shark teeth, and erosional channels over 120 feet deep. There is a fossil clam bed (Pettyjohn, 1967, p. 1361-1367).

The Hell Creek formation is the last Cretaceous deposit. It tells one of the most interesting stories of any of the beds in the column. Other than the types of animals found in it, it looks just like the Ft. Union discussed below (McGookey, et al, 1972, p. 223). The Hell Creek section has is formed of sands and shales, with many,many meandering channels incised into it. The fauna found in it consists of dinosaurs and Cretaceous style mammals. The highest dinosaur layer is at the top of this section. The Hell Creek section contains the famous iridium anomaly from the K/T meteor impact. In 1984, the iridium in a 3 centimeter layer was about 12 nannograms / gram (ng/g) and in the other layers it was undetectable. Extremely few dinosaur remains or Cretaceous style mammals are found above the iridium anomaly and only in the lowest layers of the Fort Union formation. They are believed to be eroded and re-deposited material. A look at the pollen/spore record reveals an interesting pattern also. Just below the iridium anomaly there is a ratio of 1 pollen grain to every fern spore. At the iridium anomaly, the angiosperm pollen practically disappears, the ratio being 100 fern spore to every angiosperm pollen grain. It is as if the angiosperm plants disappeared. Several taxa of angiosperm pollen disappear at the iridium anomaly (Smit and Van der Kaars, 1984, p. 1177-1179). The stratigraphically equivalent strata in Saskatchewan and New Mexico also shows the iridium anomaly and the quantity of angiosperm pollen is severely decreased relative to the spores of ferns. The question is why would a global flood cause fern/pollen and iridium to alter in a way that would mimic an asteroid impact? (Kamo and Krogh, 1995, p. 281-284; Nichols et al., 1986, p. 714-717)

The Fort Union formation is the first Tertiary deposit. It also cannot be the flood deposit. It consists of shale, sandstone, and conglomerate. The fossils consist of marsupials, a bat, the earliest monkeys, the earliest ungulates, alligator, root casts, erosional channels, fossil leaves, spore and pollen (Keefer, 1961, p. 1310-1232). Animal burrows are quite common as are minerals deposited in poorly drained swamps,e.g. pyrite and siderite (Jackson, 1979, p. 831-832). It also has standing fossilized tree stumps (Hickey, 1977, p. 10).

The Golden Valley Formation is made of two layers, a hard kaolinitic claystone and an upper member made of sandstone lenses interspersed with parallel bedding made from finer grained material as well as numerous incised channels cutting through the section. This bed contains a unique plant fossil Salvinia preauriculata. The list of plants remains found is quite long. The animals include fish, amphibians, reptiles (4 species of crocodile), mammals such as five genera of insectivores, three primates, rodents, a pantodont, an allothere, Hyracotherium, which is the ancestor of the horse, and an artiodactyl. Fresh water mollusks,and two species of insects are also found. There are also tree trunk molds. This means that the trees had time to rot away before they were buried by the next layer, meaning that this layer took some time to be deposited. (Hickey, 1977, p. 68-72,90-92,168)

The rest of the Tertiary consists of sediments like the Golden Valley followed by a gravel bed and topped by Glacial tills.

The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):

Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
Precambrian...................................14945 feet
 
Upvote 0

Oliver

Senior Member
Apr 5, 2002
639
23
52
Visit site
✟23,492.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Edmond said:
This offers just one example of the fallacies found in this posted quote mine. Genesis does not says or implies that the moon has light of its own. Genesis says ..."And the God made two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night." (1:16)

Precisely: Genesis does not say or imply anything specific about the moon, which makes it useless as a tool to understand what the moon really is or where does this light come from.

And the same is true of most of the other points made in Genesis. What does it tell us about botanics, appart from "plants exist and are different from animals"? Nothing much actually. Nothing about photosynthesis, the structure of plants, their use of CO2, etc (all really basic stuff).

Amazing how people can find ways to even twist literal statements to say what they want them to say in order to 'falsify' them. ...

---------------------------------------

Actually, to suggest that the Bible teaches that the moon doesn't have "light of its own" is just as much a twisting of this verse. After all, what we get from a "plain reading" of this verse is that the moon IS a "great light".

So for it not to contradict what we know about the moon, you need to really not read much into it, which makes it quite useless as a description of the moon.
 
Upvote 0

Oliver

Senior Member
Apr 5, 2002
639
23
52
Visit site
✟23,492.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Edmond said:
[/font][/color]

It certainly has the merit to continue to do so today. It has only been a mere 150 years since its authenticity to be read literally even begun to be questioned.

Actually, it's been much more than that: st Augustine wrote quite a lot about this very subject, some 1600 years ago, and AFAIK, it's not sure that an absolute literal reading was the rule before that time.
 
Upvote 0

Joman

Active Member
Sep 9, 2005
337
1
70
✟15,482.00
Faith
Christian
Does Genesis ever mention air? In fact, the concept of life-giving air was not really understood before Lavoisier and Dalton and others only a couple of centuries ago.

Genesis 2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Joman.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Edmond said:
My point is that the entire geologic 'time table' and 'record' are based on assumption.


What assumptions?

The assumed dates and order of the fossil are used as the basis of dating the assumed age of the geologic strata. Conversely, the assumed dates of the strata is used to date the fossil. Both are based on assumption.

Bullpucky. The geologic strata are dated by the ratio of isotopes in the igneous rocks above and below the strata.


----------------------------------------

I know North Dakota is in the middle of nowhere but it's still there:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
The Geologic Column Exists in its entirety in North Dakota.

Edmond: Please identify paragraph(s) or quotes that attempt to authenticate that claim. ....

-------------------------------

Are you really saying that the geologic record, in it's entirety, does not exist anywhere in the world? It exists in at least 25 places, one of which is in North Dakota. If you need a quote, try the very first paragraph from the site that Valkhorn cites: "This article is a detailed examination of the young earth creationist claim that the geologic column does not exist. It is shown that the entire geologic column exists in North Dakota. I do this not to disprove the Bible but to encourage Christians who are in the area of apologetics to do a better job of getting the facts straight."

IOW, the author of the article is trying to keep you from spreading lies penned by your creationist heroes.
 
Upvote 0