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

[Edmond]

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.

That is the era of the Protestant Reformation. The doctrines being challenged during thst period did not include that of the Genesis account. http://www.eldrbarry.net/heidel/heidel.htm

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.

The doctrines of creation came into clear question with the publications of Darwin (a naturalist's view of biology) and Lyell ( a uniformatarian's view of geology).

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.

I have included the following from the ND Geologic Column publication..

]
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

This topic of earth’s total age and sedimentation has nothing directly to do with the subject of the literal Genesis 1&2. However, a mention of the geologic column has been made in a prior post. I will therefore follow up with this reply. ...

The following is part of the concluding statement by the author of the N.D. publication which includes quotes of depths of and presentation of proposed geologic column above....
--------------------
“What does all this mean?
First, as I have noted before, the concept quite prevalent among some Christians that the geologic column does not exist is quite wrong. Morris and Parker (1987, p. 163) write:

"Now, the geologic column is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence."

They are wrong. You just saw the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it. ..." (underline added)
------------------

The claims is, that the column present in ND present the physical depth of each period, or age, defined by the geologic column, Therefore the entire depth of this geologic column also presents the entire period of time represented by the geologic column. Therefore these depths represent the proposed and corresponding period of time that the evolutionists have given to each of these periods and to the entire geologic column.

The Cretaceous and Jurassic periods will be used as the example that will demonstrate the unrealistic conclusions found in such a proposition. The Cretaceous will be presented here. The same conditions apply to the Jurassic period.

This data says that the top of the Cretaceous period begins at the 4910 ft level and continues down to 5790 ft. If that column in North Dakota presents the entire thickness of geologic column as it is claimed, that means the entire cretaceous age is represented in a column of deposition 880 ft deep. Now, the same Evolutionary theory places the beginning time of the Cretaceous layer at approx. 140 myrs. They say the Cretaceous period ended at about 65 myrs. That mean the Cretaceous period lasted for 55 million years. Some evolutionist move this time frame out to 80 million yrs.[ http://www.palaeos.com/Mesozoic/Cretaceous/Cretaceous.htm ] but for your benefit, in this particular case, we’ll keep it at the minimum period of time.

Therefore, the ND Cretaceous layer that is supposed to represent the entire Cretaceous age says that it took 55 million years to lay down 880 feet of sediment. Do you have any remote idea of the amount of sediment that would represent being deposited per year, or even per 1000 years? Here is the infromation.

The average sediment depostition laid down per year if this layer only represented a 55,000 years period of time would then be … (880 ft. divided by 55,000 yrs.) That equals .016 ft of deposition per year. That included the depositions of decomposition of the flora and founa (like brush, shrubs, trees, grass at that site for a time period of 55,000 years. That is using 55,000 yrs to represent the Cretaceous period. That actual shortest period of time offered by most evolutioists for the cretaceous period is 1000 times longer than this, that is 55,000,000.

Using the actual minimum time factor of 55,000,000 years for the Cretaceous layer, the average deposition rate would be reduced to .000016 ft per year.
With that kind of data, you and evolution, proposes that this part of this column represents the Cretaceous period and that these rates of deposition in both the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods will account for the fossilization of countless organisms the size of Dinosaurs and million of other organisms that SLOWLY EVOLVED over a period of from 55 to 80 million years?

Therefore the proposed ages used to represent the proposed periods of the ‘geologic column’ and the ‘geologic record’ and as prepresnted by the presence of the column in ND are as preposterous as the ages that the same evolutionary theory places on the dates of the fossils they find in these layers.

Therefore, I cannot accept this proposition as factual. Either the column in N.D. does not present the actual physical Geologic column that represents a total of 500, 000, 000 years of evolution, deposition and fossilization in the earth’s crust…or…if that column does represent the physical height of the total depositions of each of the proposed geological column and their collective ages, …then the age, the actual period of time, represented by that entire geologic column cannot remotely represent the period of time proposed , as has been demonstrated by the Cretaceous example.

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

 

[Valkhorn]

Big problem with that Edmond. You are assuming way too much and you have zero knowledge about sedimentation.

First, sedimentation can occur at different rates in different ways. You can have volcanic sedimentation, desert sedimentation, and you can have aquatic sedimentation. Each one can be at different rates. Also, you fail to realize that this is not just loose soil, this is ROCK.

It takes quite a bit longer than .16 feet a year of soil or sand to turn it into rock. You also need lots of pressure and lots of time to solidify it.

The same mistake with creationists is made with the polar ice caps. They fail to realize that precipitation there is slow, and that the snow crystals that have landed on top have slowly compressed due to the weight of the ice so that the ice has turned completely solid. That's why you can walk on it.

Case in point, the AiG people like to use the planes that were found in greenland under all that snow. Well that's a place that recieves a lot of snow and plus the planes were found in very loose snow. It hadn't turned into rock solid ice as far as I'm aware of.

The same applies to stratification. If you pile a bunch of sand loosely it will just blow away and you really can't stand on it without sinking into it somewhat. And, even if you compress the sand as is done with sand castles, you still won't turn it into rock. Stratification with rock requires heat and pressure and time.

The reason why the layers may appear so thin per year is that they have been buried so long. They are under a mile of rock and sediment. That is quite a lot of weight. Do you not think that that much weight and heat (remember things heat up under pressure) would compress supposed soil and sand layers to something a lot thinner than what you claim?

Edmond, if what you claimed were true, you wouldn't be able to even build a house on ground anywhere because you seem to think that soil and sediment never compress and are never subjected to heat and pressure.

 

[Valkhorn]

Using the actual minimum time factor of 55,000,000 years for the Cretaceous layer, the average deposition rate would be reduced to .000016 ft per year.

Again, no it wouldn't. That just means that the sediment has been COMPRESSED to that depth per year.

I dont know how you could not think that a mile of rock wouldn't cause some sort of compression with soil or sediment.

Also, these rocks are dated through radiometric dating. Are you going to tell me that radiometric dating is wrong now simply because it contradicts a literally interpreted Genesis?

 

[Deamiter]

Indeed as Valkhorn stated, you're making a great leap of logic to say that the sediments MUST have been deposited as they are now (uncompressed) when they're now under thousands of meters of solid rock!

Of course, this issue is also answered in the article (which apparently you still refuse to read?) Wouldn't it be easier to go back to the original source rather than have us go through each little bit quote by quote?

I'll post just two of the relevent paragraphs below. Essentially you're pretending that the sedementation rate is constant in every environment... In fact, there is no question at all that the sedementation rate changes dramatically from year to year (and century to century). While the area was a desert it had a dramatically lower sedementation rate than when it was at the bottom of the ocean (again demonstrated in the article). Obvious mud slides (identified by features again explained in the article) cover periods of much slower sedementation which contain myriads of tiny burrows.

Further, no geologist would EVER claim that the whole geological column represents every single DAY of time! If they did, you could easily show (as has been done) that there are areas where erosion has removed portions of the distinct layers. Still, the article clearly shows how each seperate environment (separated into time periods) is represented one on top of the other. And it shows how NOWHERE in the ENTIRE column is a layer compatible with some global flood! Considering that YECs generally propose that the MAJORITY of the column has been created by the flood (if not, how did those thousands of feet of solid rock form in just a few thousand years?) this shows that there is simply not a single SMALL layer that the flood could account for, much less a whole section!

Anyway, on to exactly why it's such a bad argument to claim that the geological column must have been laid down at a constant rate (he's actually responding to Whoodmorappe's quote, but it's VERY similar to your objection, and the reasoning remains the same). You might also consider actually reading in-depth sources so we can move on to new objections rather than regurgitating those that have been brought up ad nauseum!

There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8-16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field.

This of course is NOT the definition of the geologic column that ANY geologist would use. If we can show that Woodmorappe's logic is flawed, then we can show that his case falls flat on its face. Woodmorappe and other young-earth creationists are trying to say that if we add the thickest sediments in each period from anywhere in the world this defines the entire geologic column. This is a ridiculous and silly argument. This is like saying the following:

The Antarctic region receives less than 1/10 of an inch of snow per year. Places in Colorado Ski country recieve up to 5-10 feet of snow per year and Houghton, Michigan receives up to 20 feet per year. Let us add up the maximum snow fall anywhere in the world each day of the year. Most likely we would tally up something like 200 feet of snow as the total maximum daily snow fall. If we then conclude that this means that Antarctica only gets 1/2000 of the yearly snow fall and therefore Antarctica doesn't represent a full years snowfall, we would have done the same thing that Woodmorappe is doing with the geologic column. This is rather spurious to say the least. Antarctica received a full year's worth of snowfall--it is just a smaller amount than Vail, Colorado. Similarly to add up the maximum sedimentation in each geologic period and then expect that that represents the entire geologic column is perverse. Woodmorappe's argument doesn't stand up.

 

[Edmond]

Again, no it wouldn't. That just means that the sediment has been COMPRESSED to that depth per year.

I dont know how you could not think that a mile of rock wouldn't cause some sort of compression with soil or sediment.

Really? ...How much can sediment deposition be compressed until it will become solid rock? Would 50 time compression be enough to consider? I doubt that dirt would take much more compression that without beginning to vaporize.

But just to give you the full benefit of the doubt, I'll up that to 500 times compression of the deposition. Therefore, .00016 times X (because we're now expanding the dirt back to its 'supposed' original sedimentation thickness), So, .000016 ft X 500 now equals, =, .008 ft per year or .096 inches of deposition per year. An average of less than 1/10 of an inch of depiosition per year.


These are in the two 'geologic ages' that most of the Dinosaurs are found fossilized, Cretaceous and Jurassic. I think your 'geologic column' conclusions have a very serious problems.

Even that unreasonably extreme amount of compression makes no actual difference with the original problem I defined whatsoever.
--------------------------

Also, these rocks are dated through radiometric dating. Are you going to tell me that radiometric dating is wrong now simply because it contradicts a literally interpreted Genesis?

The issue is the geologic column. Let's not try to resort to the diversion method quite that fast.


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

 

[Edmond]

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?

What other presentations are you referring to that actually and clearly present creation?

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

 

[Edmond]

Big problem with that Edmond. You are assuming way too much and you have zero knowledge about sedimentation.

First, sedimentation can occur at different rates in different ways. You can have volcanic sedimentation, desert sedimentation, and you can have aquatic sedimentation. Each one can be at different rates. Also, you fail to realize that this is not just loose soil, this is ROCK.

It all addes up to the same amount of ground....880 feet of compressed sedimentation that is supposed to equal 55, 000,000 to 80,000,000 (million) years of time. Those are using the minimum time period given by evolution. The deposition numbers do not add up no matter how they are stretched. at 55 million years of time the compress rock at 500 times compress equal less than 1/10 of an inch of compressed deposition per year. That is a ridiculously and unreasonably low fugure. At least rate, ten times that amount of deposition should be added per year just from flora and fauna decomposion in the area alone.

In addition, the rock introduction is far less supportive of your agrument then is sedimentation. Rock can be compressed far less than sedimentation. Therefore that helps to falsify your original proposal that compression would make the column higher in its initial state.

It takes quite a bit longer than .16 feet a year of soil or sand to turn it into rock. You also need lots of pressure and lots of time to solidify it.

That is exactly my point. You need lost of simultaneous sedimentation as well as pressure to fossilize dinosaurs. Where does that scale of sedimentation come from over 55 million years that ends up with 880 feet of sediment to show for it? We are not only failing to identify that disparity, you have failed to understand that animals were supposed to have lived full durations of life spans for 55 million year during the various layerings of this sediment while others were being buried deeply enough to fossilize them. All of this 55 million years of life and death cycle is now supposed to by represented in 880 feet of rock? I don't think so? That takes more than an imagination to conceive that conclusion. That takes delirium.

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

 

[Valkhorn]

Allright Edmond, I think you're still missing the big picture here. The rocks have been dated using independent methods. The sedimentation rates, since you show you know nothing about sedimentation as I've guessed, are not an irrelavent point because I cannot argue with someone that doesn't know that much about sedimentation.

Now consider the following:

Usually when there is a big find such as this, or a major finding of any nature, all of the findings are published. That's right, published. They are published for all of the scientific community to see. All test results, and all 'work' is shown and usually rocks when questioned are sent to different labs using different methods and usually when a major finding is discovered it is published everywhere.

This is a fact. Hopefully you can agree with that.

So what difference does that make? Do you honestly think that if they were just making up the ages of these rock layers that the whole scientific community would just ignore it? Science is based on finding what is wrong with a theory or idea and fixing it, and if someone found out that through that work a step was missed and that the age of the Earth or the rock layers or geologic column is off by even a million years guess what?

Someone would publish it in a second. It would be found, and do you know why?

This is also a fact, and this should be pretty obvious to you.

Because any errors, even slight, are the chance of a lifetime for a scientist to publish something new and to become famous.

Scientists check after their work, Edmond. These rocks have been dated to the best of our ability and the work is not hidden anywhere. In fact if you ask a geologist at a local university I'm sure he could point you exactly to where the work was done or to at least someone who could show you where and how it was done.

Of course some creationists claim that science won't listen to them but since when do they even publish findings in peer reviewed journals? They don't. They don't even follow the scientific method, and yet they expect their stuff to show up in textbooks without even being checked?

But what can I say to someone who no matter what the evidence shows has a preconcieved notion. You have a preconception, so therefore you simply cannot have a logical argument:

This is how a logical argument goes:

1) Fact
2) Fact
3) Conclusion based on facts 1 and 2

It does not go

1) Conclusion
2) Fact
3) Fact
4) Ignore/Throw away facts that don't line up

You see you might possibly be thinking that using a literal genesis as a fact is a good thing, but really you're doing the second thing. You are forming a conclusion, how you think it must have happened based on an old book that was written by man whether you care to admit it or not, and written based on man's understandings at the time. I mean obviously do you think that if there was a god and they told these guys to write it down based on what they thought at the time do you think they would have listened to the way science really was? Hell they couldn't even understand what we know today so how could they even think they got it right? Especially after they assuredly checked over and changed things that they thought sounded better whether or not there was evidence or not.

You simply cannot do that, and frankly I don't think you even have a clue as to what science is out there, what evidence is out there, because you haven't once decided to ask someone who knew more than you did about geology or biology because you'd rather tell them how it is even though I doubt you have a career in either.

As to sedimentation rates, no matter what they are, even if there wasn't sediment added every year, even if some eroded (yes erosion happens) it is really irrelavent because the dates are there.

The dates are black and white, clear as crystal. They are found using physical laws, and so you cannot simply throw them out when they are unbiased FACTS when they disagree based on your interpretation of genesis.

 

[Opethian]

This data says that the top of the Cretaceous period begins at the 4910 ft level and continues down to 5790 ft. If that column in North Dakota presents the entire thickness of geologic column as it is claimed, that means the entire cretaceous age is represented in a column of deposition 880 ft deep. Now, the same Evolutionary theory places the beginning time of the Cretaceous layer at approx. 140 myrs. They say the Cretaceous period ended at about 65 myrs. That mean the Cretaceous period lasted for 55 million years. Some evolutionist move this time frame out to 80 million yrs.[ http://www.palaeos.com/Mesozoic/Cretaceous/Cretaceous.htm ] but for your benefit, in this particular case, we’ll keep it at the minimum period of time.

Therefore, the ND Cretaceous layer that is supposed to represent the entire Cretaceous age says that it took 55 million years to lay down 880 feet of sediment. Do you have any remote idea of the amount of sediment that would represent being deposited per year, or even per 1000 years? Here is the infromation.

The average sediment depostition laid down per year if this layer only represented a 55,000 years period of time would then be … (880 ft. divided by 55,000 yrs.) That equals .016 ft of deposition per year. That included the depositions of decomposition of the flora and founa (like brush, shrubs, trees, grass at that site for a time period of 55,000 years. That is using 55,000 yrs to represent the Cretaceous period. That actual shortest period of time offered by most evolutioists for the cretaceous period is 1000 times longer than this, that is 55,000,000.

Using the actual minimum time factor of 55,000,000 years for the Cretaceous layer, the average deposition rate would be reduced to .000016 ft per year.
With that kind of data, you and evolution, proposes that this part of this column represents the Cretaceous period and that these rates of deposition in both the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods will account for the fossilization of countless organisms the size of Dinosaurs and million of other organisms that SLOWLY EVOLVED over a period of from 55 to 80 million years?

Therefore the proposed ages used to represent the proposed periods of the ‘geologic column’ and the ‘geologic record’ and as prepresnted by the presence of the column in ND are as preposterous as the ages that the same evolutionary theory places on the dates of the fossils they find in these layers.

Therefore, I cannot accept this proposition as factual. Either the column in N.D. does not present the actual physical Geologic column that represents a total of 500, 000, 000 years of evolution, deposition and fossilization in the earth’s crust…or…if that column does represent the physical height of the total depositions of each of the proposed geological column and their collective ages, …then the age, the actual period of time, represented by that entire geologic column cannot remotely represent the period of time proposed , as has been demonstrated by the Cretaceous example.

Ever heard of erosion? And diagenesis? and metamorfosis? Different types of sedimentation?
I guess not.
This is a typical creationist misinterpretation and oversimplification. Just because they think their incredibly oversimplified version of the process is the correct one, they think our arguments are false. You need to learn!
Unless you know what you're talking about, I think it's better to not say anything at all and learn from the people who do know.

 

[Valkhorn]

Ever heard of erosion? And diagenesis? and metamorfosis? Different types of sedimentation?
I guess not.

How could they? It would shatter their over simplified magic world

 

[Valkhorn]

Edmond, please read post 44. Your two posts after it shows you obviously did not read it because you kept regurgitating the same tired argument that was refuted right before you kept posting away.

 

[Edmond]

Indeed as Valkhorn stated, you're making a great leap of logic to say that the sediments MUST have been deposited as they are now (uncompressed) when they're now under thousands of meters of solid rock!

I have addresses the subject of compression in post 45 as a result of a comment similar to this one from another post.

I have posted a reply to the subject of compression based on an earlier post 43.

Of course, this issue is also answered in the article (which apparently you still refuse to read?) Wouldn't it be easier to go back to the original source rather than have us go through each little bit quote by quote?

I did go through the article and presented a quote taken from its conclusion in the introduction of my post 45. However, I appreciate the points that you have extracted from the article and have included in your post 44. The points found there confirm the initial argument I presented. I said in Post 21 “Even the actual 'geologic column' that is supposed to represent that record exists no where physically in the world.’

The point I presented by that statement is the exact point that is made in the quote you have presented from the article… ‘There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8-16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field.’ (bolding & underlining added for focus on points stated)

In other words, as I originally stated, “ Even the actual 'geologic column' that is supposed to represent that record (the geologic record; added here for clarification) exists no where physically in the world.’’ The statement made by this author presents the same exact conclusion.

I'll post just two of the relevent paragraphs below. Essentially you're pretending that the sedementation rate is constant in every environment... In fact, there is no question at all that the sedementation rate changes dramatically from year to year (and century to century).

I do not propose consistent rates of sedimentation in every environment. See response below.

While the area was a desert it had a dramatically lower sedementation rate than when it was at the bottom of the ocean (again demonstrated in the article). Obvious mud slides (identified by features again explained in the article) cover periods of much slower sedementation which contain myriads of tiny burrows.

Further, no geologist would EVER claim that the whole geological column represents every single DAY of time!

I have never implied an argument of objection based nearly on an every single day of time or even a basis of time close to that. I have tried to find a reasonable conclusion that would support evidence for the gross assumptions of 600 million years of time never mind a few days at a time.

If they did, you could easily show (as has been done) that there are areas where erosion has removed portions of the distinct layers. Still, the article clearly shows how each seperate environment (separated into time periods) is represented one on top of the other. And it shows how NOWHERE in the ENTIRE column is a layer compatible with some global flood!

Please demonstrate how the entire column NOWHERE presents a layer, or multiple or contiguous layers, that are compatible geologically with some global flood.

Considering that YECs generally propose that the MAJORITY of the column has been created by the flood (if not, how did those thousands of feet of solid rock form in just a few thousand years?) this shows that there is simply not a single SMALL layer that the flood could account for, much less a whole section!

See request in note just above.

Anyway, on to exactly why it's such a bad argument to claim that the geological column must have been laid down at a constant rate (he's actually responding to Whoodmorappe's quote, but it's VERY similar to your objection, and the reasoning remains the same).

I do not claim or propose that the geo column was laid down any ‘consistent rate’ at all. I propose it was laid down at the ‘same time’ as a result of a catastrophic event, not at a ‘consistent uniform rate’ at all. The ‘consistent uniform rate’ idea is what the theory of Lyell’s uniformatarianism proposes. That is the antithesis of what I propose.

You might also consider actually reading in-depth sources so we can move on to new objections rather than regurgitating those that have been brought up ad nauseum!

The original objection remains further confirmed by the quote presentd by the author of the article you have presented. I appreciate the opportunity provided for this further reclarification and conformation. ...


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

 

[Edmond]

Edmond, please read post 44. Your two posts after it shows you obviously did not read it because you kept regurgitating the same tired argument that was refuted right before you kept posting away.

Valkhorn, Please read post 52, ...that presents my response to this inquire. It addresses the subject of the geologic column and affirms the conclusion of my initial agrument about the geologic column. It identifies your original objection to my agrument as invalid.

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

 

[Edmond]

I have posted a reply to the subject of compression based on an earlier post 43.

I did go through the article and presented a quote taken from its conclusion in the introduction of my post 45. However, I appreciate the points that you have extracted from the article and have included in your post 44. The points found there confirm the initial argument I presented. I said in Post 21 “Even the actual 'geologic column' that is supposed to represent that record exists no where physically in the world.’

The point I presented by that statement is the exact point that is made in the quote you have presented from the article… ‘There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8-16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field.’ (bolding & underlining added for focus on points stated)

In other words, as I originally stated, “ Even the actual 'geologic column' that is supposed to represent that record (the geologic record; added here for clarification) exists no where physically in the world.’’ The statement made by this author presents the same exact conclusion.

I do not propose consistent rates of sedimentation in every environment. See response below.

I have never implied an argument of objection based nearly on an every single day of time or even a basis of time close to that. I have tried to find a reasonable conclusion that would support evidence for the gross assumptions of 600 million years of time never mind a few days at a time.

Please demonstrate how the entire column NOWHERE presents a layer, or multiple or contiguous layers, that are compatible geologically with some global flood.

See request in note just above.

I do not claim or propose that the geo column was laid down any ‘consistent rate’ at all. I propose it was laid down at the ‘same time’ as a result of a catastrophic event, not at a ‘consistent uniform rate’ at all. The ‘consistent uniform rate’ idea is what the theory of Lyell’s uniformatarianism proposes. That is the antithesis of what I propose.

The original objection remains further confirmed by the quote presentd by the author of the article you have presented. I appreciate the opportunity provided for this further reclarification and conformation. ...


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

Deamiter, thank you for your response in post 44 and Woodmorapee's reviewed information. I have provided my original argument in my response in post 52 as defined above.

Please provide authentication requested in my response number five suted in repsonse above; Namely...that ...the entire column NOWHERE presents a layer, or multiple or contiguous layers, that are compatible geologically with some global flood. I believe this wording matches your original claim except for my inclusion of the phrase ,or mulitiple or contiguous layers,....and the word , geologically. Thank you ....

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

 

[Deamiter]

To avoid reposting it, I'm afraid I must refer you back to post 35 (I do hate doing that, and I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid it too whenever possible. It's just legalistic and extremely hard to follow, though occasionally it's necessary).

Did you miss how the article goes through each layer and explains the type of rock and how that sort of rock is formed? They layers are incompatible for a number of reasons: to name a few there is cracked mud in multiple layers (formed by evaporation), other crystals formed only by evaporation, filled burrows in multiple layers that could not have been created by a single catastrophic event, shale which requires stagnant oxygen-deprived water...

Some of the layers include features that could indeed be produced by a small flood, but these flooded layers are separated by strong evidence of evaporation, or by features that can only develop in stagnant water over a period of decades, or even by desert!

But don't argue against my extremely poor summary of the article! He's taken the time to go through and outline every single section of the geological column (at least as it exists in North Dakota). Since it is generally assumed that the VAST majority of these layers must have been created by the flood (otherwise they wouldn't have had anywhere NEAR enough time to fossilize organisms and traces of organisms in the sheer volume of solid rock either before or after the flood) where would YOU delineate the top and bottom of the flood layers? More pressingly, how do you explain the wide variety of environments and trace features, much less little details like the TOTAL lack of angiosperm pollen at the bottom layers despite the presence of the similar spores throughout the column (hint, they've got the same size, shape and even mass, so no sort of sorting mechanism could have produced this effect)?

I'll stop there, but I do implore you to respond to this marvelous article. The author hasn't just presented conclusions -- he's presented all the data he used to come up with the conclusions. At the level of response that you're demanding (for good reason) you can't simply look at short summaries. Since you're demanding detailed evidence of very complicated claims, you're really going to need to go through the data and arguments based on that data.

 

[Valkhorn]

Namely...that ...the entire column NOWHERE presents a layer, or multiple or contiguous layers, that are compatible geologically with some global flood.

Why don't you present evidence of where this supposed flood layer is?

No creationist has done this yet.

 

[Edmond]

Why don't you present evidence of where this supposed flood layer is?
No creationist has done this yet.

That is a response of my request to Deamiter as defined by her prior statement. It has nothing to do with a claim I have made. ...

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

 

[Hussar]

Why don't you present evidence of where this supposed flood layer is?

No creationist has done this yet.

Or indeed where all the water came from.

 

[Edmond]

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.

Genesis 1:16 does not present itself as a thesis on all of the functions of the moon. It does say what it was intended to does in the sense of contrast of its intensity of that of the light ruling the day. The subject of 1:14-16 was lights in the heavens. That is what the context addressed.

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).
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".

Actually, that is a wrong conclusion. The plain reading says the exact opposite of that. The moon is identified as the lesser light..."the lesser light to govern the night..." 1:16

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.

The moon is but one element that is identified, but in a very distinct way. The main thing identified about these two lights is their placement. None of the other lights are seperated out as being specifically 'placed'. They are in 1:17.

What we know about the specific 'placement' of the moon today is that, just as the sun, the moon's distance form the earth is critical to the intensity of the movements of the ocean tides. The sun's distance is literally vital to every function of climate, atmosphere and life that exists. So I think that just trying to focus of issues aboout how the moon gives off light entirely misses the focus place on the emphasis of the subject that is presented in the text. The real issue is not only light ...but ... the critical matter of placement...and therefore distance that is pointed out by the text. ...

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

 

[HairlessSimian]

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.

Yeah, OK. I knew that. But breath and wind are not what I was getting at. Every civilization in the world knew of those. Does Genesis speak of the creation of air?