Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:36 am

Catastrophism Model
Thanks for your answers, Gordon. I'll repost them below. Gordon, do you have any comments on this?

Noah’s Flood: The Key to Correct Interpretation of Earth History
https://www.socalsem.edu/noahs-flood-the-key-to-correct-interpretation-of-earth-history
... In the context of the global Flood described in the Torah, what could possibly have been the mechanism that resulted in such a large-scale pattern of erosion and sedimentation? ... [In this theory] the continental geometry has been restricted to a single circular supercontinent that covers 38% of the spherical surface. Numerical experiments so far suggest that large tidal pulses [tsunamis 2500 m high] are required to drive the water strongly enough to erode, transport, and deposit the required volumes of sediment [i.e. sedimentary rock mostly confined to the supercontinent]. ... The treatment of erosion is restricted to cavitation [which is vacuum erosion under fast-moving water over irregular surfaces].
... [TSUNAMI] MAX VELOCITY = 242.4 M/SEC [= 872.6 km/hr = 545.4 mi/hr] ... The velocities ... are ... near the top of the moving water layer. ... Cavitation erosion of crystalline bedrock is assumed to produce sediment that is 70% fine sand with a mean grain size of 0.063 mm, 20% medium sand with a mean grain size of 0.50 mm, and 10% coarse sand with a mean grain size of 1.0 mm. ... [M]oderate erosion and sedimentation continues for several weeks after the tidal pulse. A significant amount of erosion occurs at the continent margin.
... The logical place in the rock record for the onset of this cataclysm therefore must be where five striking global-scale geological discontinuities — a mechanical-erosional discontinuity, a time/age discontinuity, a tectonic discontinuity, a sedimentary discontinuity, and a paleontological discontinuity — all coincide (Snelling 2009, 707-711). This unique boundary lies at the base of the Ediacaran in the late Neoproterozoic part of the geological record. Where Ediacaran sediments are missing, it coincides with the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary.... This striking erosional unconformity ... is indeed of global extent (Ager 1973, 10-11). In much of North America, the sedimentary layer just above this discontinuity is the Tapeats Sandstone and its equivalents. The violence of the erosion at this discontinuity is revealed by huge quartzite boulders in the basal portion of the Tapeats Sandstone in the Grand Canyon.
... The experiments conducted thus far indicate that six such pulses spaced about 30 days apart are adequate to erode, transport, and deposit, on average, the 1,800 m of sediment observed to blanket the continental surface today. The strong, global-scale tsunami-like waves these pulses initially generate do indeed result in erosional unconformities that affect most of the continent surface. [These huge tsunamis would seem to require a large body passing close to the Earth about once a month on a very elliptical orbit. Was the Moon on an elliptical orbit at that time? - LK]


7 GEOLOGY QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
I got some of my answers from the paper above.

1a. Since sedimentary rocks include three main types, shale (mud), sand and lime, why are they in separate strata and not all mixed together?
A: Because huge tsunamis sorted the sediment.

1b. [GW] ... How often are strata found in the order ... of particle size [eg. from bottom up, sandstone-shale-siltstone-limestone] in agreement with Berthault's stratigraphy?
A: [GW] Grand Canyon is such a place. [See also an earlier post].

2. Did strata form primarily on lake or sea bottoms? If not, then where else did they form primarily?
3. Why did strata form almost entirely on continents instead of on ocean floors?
A: They formed on the supercontinent; Because tsunamis flowed over the supercontinent and deposited most of the cavitated continental margin onto the supercontinent where the flow slowed down enough for the sediments to drop out.
A: [GW] Strata form where water carries them, which then begs the question: from where did the water come, which leads to my conclusion: the water came primarily from the sea, washed over the land depositing [and resorting] surface materials into a lowland basin area. Berthault's stratigraphy demonstrates that strata can be deposited over hilly terrain, not limited by the standard model's "principle of original horizontality" -- that said, sediments carried by water ultimately will be dropped when the current meets an inertial body of water slowing the flow. This could be at a continental edge or inland lake or sea. The number of times the phrase "shallow seas" occurs in the standard geologic history is illustrative that this depositional condition occurred over continental landforms repeatedly during the course of the depositional event[s].

4. Were there mountains of clay, mountains of sand and mountains of lime that took turns eroding sediment onto lake or sea bottoms, so that the separate strata could form, like a few meters of limestone, then a few meters of sandstone, then a few meters of shale (since that's what we find in geologic cross-sections)? Or where did the different major rock types come from? How did they separate?
A: They came largely from the continental margin where the tsunami hit the supercontinent and partly from the seafloor.
A: [GW] Because these strata very often occur in the order demonstrated by Berthault's flume experiments, I find that to be the most plausible answer for the occurrence of the separate layers. As I explained in an earlier post, the standard model has no plausible explanation for this grand scale depositional phenomenon, particularly since the model requires millions of years for the strata to build up. Why should [or how could] these strata be of only one type of rock material for an entire epoch of time?
Is this info at Berthault's site, http://sedimentology.fr?

5. What prevented delicate organisms from decaying before being fossilized?
A: Rapid burial under deep tsunami sediments.
A: [GW] The dead organisms didn't sit around long on the land, that's for sure. Preservation is the key requirement for fossilization, so first, oxidation must be prevented. Then bacteria and other decomposers must be kept away. While slow deposition might be plausible in a sea bottom, we don't see the type of sedimentation processes on the ocean floor that would explain the strata we see in mountains and road cuts; one objection is that typically the orientation of fossils [eg. shells] shows they were overlaid by a current, not passively covered by a slow rain of detritus; generally fossils are found transported to their final positions rather than buried in place.

6. What minimum pressure is needed to form solid rock from sediment? How much weight per square meter is needed to form solid rock? What depth of overburden does that translate to, either for soil, sand, water, or ice? Is there mud on the ocean bottoms? If so, isn't there enough water weight to lithify the mud (when the mud is under the weight of 2 or 3 miles deep water)?
A: [Partly paraphrasing GW] Overburden pressure can help form solid rock, maybe partly by removing excess water, but cementation may be the main process, which is a chemical process which takes a relatively short time.
A: [GW] Since we know clays act as catalysts for a variety of chemical transformations, the compaction and cementation processes must have occurred fairly rapidly in order for fossils to have remained intact. I have a fossil of mammalian dung that is a particularly good illustration of the necessary rapidity of the fossilization [in that case petrifaction] event. We can create a solid cement structure in a few hours with the right mix of rock forming materials. Where do we get these materials? From nature's rocks. Clearly the conditions were right for the cementation of these formations; there is no need for millennia of rock hardening time -- weeks, months, years, or perhaps decades, maybe even centuries in some cases...

7. How did fossils get sorted out into different strata?
A: [Non-answer] I don't know the data on this very well yet.
A: [GW] ... The key strength of [the geologic column model] is our ability to correlate fossiliferous formations globally, which I think is a testament to a global cataclysm. I explained my view of fossil sorting briefly in a previous post; but like particulate sorting, fossil sorting occurs in current laid depositional events. We wouldn't expect this to occur differently in different parts of the world. Biomic and other factors play a part....
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4209
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby webolife » Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:27 am

I appreciate the work of the RATE group {Baumgardner, et.al} and generally agree with their conclusions;
I recommend it.
I have a difficulty with the height of their tidal pulses; I suspect that multiple pulses of perhaps 600 m could accomplish the work of their five major pulses, but my experience in hydrodynamics is unquestionably more limited than the RATE group.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby webolife » Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:44 am

In an earlier post I tiredly wrote "disconformity" when I should have said "discontinuity".
:roll:

Chrimony,
The talkorigins folks are incorrect about the geologic column being found in its entirety anywhere in the world, let alone 25 different basins, that's pure propaganda.
I see your attempts to discredit the work of Berthault, but you should check the facts for yourself.
Do you have any geologic training?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby chrimony » Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:07 am

webolife wrote:In an earlier post I tiredly wrote "disconformity" when I should have said "discontinuity".
:roll:

Chrimony,
The talkorigins folks are incorrect about the geologic column being found in its entirety anywhere in the world, let alone 25 different basins, that's pure propaganda.
I see your attempts to discredit the work of Berthault, but you should check the facts for yourself.
Do you have any geologic training?


Do you have an actual argument to my last post? It appears not. Merely saying "it is not so" when 15,000 feet of strata is described in detail is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said, "This is a typical creationist argument, to try to poke holes and ignore the large body of evidence that clearly shows a progression."
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby webolife » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:01 pm

Chrimony,

I challenge your "large body of evidence that clearly shows a progression".
Progression of what? Evolution of bacteria to human? No. Transitional forms between any major classes, orders or phyla? No. Index fossils showing progressively increasing complexity from the Cambrian to the Cenozoic? No. Vast numbers [a preponderance] of intermediates between any forms fully distinguishable as currently existing [or dead end] classes or orders would be predicted by the phylogenetic model of evolution, yet such forms are rare and controversial. The tired rebuttal to this statement always lists multitudes of transitional [adaptive] species or genera within a familial genome, and not the requisite larger clad transitions which must have occurred by the millions, yet do not show up in the record. The fossils simply do not tell the [macro]evolutionary story. It was "Darwin's Enigma" and it is still an enigma today for honest evolutionists. This is repeatedly verified by the number of times you will read, on at least an annual basis, the statement "new findings challenge evolutionary theory" or to that effect. The conclusion of such reports is invariably that "...[xxorganism] must have evolved much earlier than was supposed..." The surprise factor is the "rule" in paleontology rather than the exception... why is that? Of course the evolutionary dogma is so broadly brushed as to be "adjustable" to any finding that may come along... which places it in no higher or more certain a category than the alternate theories of biologic and geologic prehistory being proposed by some of us here. For example, I have presented some alternate [non-evolutionary] "progressions" to fit the available data that actually predict the surprises and exceptions the standard model has to ignore or shrug off.

As for the geologic column, I have to [for now] take the word of the article you linked that the 12 major horizons of the geologic column exist in those 25 named basins. However, the descriptions of those beds gives no indication of any kind of faunal succession, so the point is moot. You are claiming that the geologic column shows the progression expected by evolution, yet your linked talkorigins article does not do this except by making claims that are themselves based in the premise of evolution. What your article does show, however, is that the talkorigins folks are ignorant of the Guy Berthault's flume experiments which show exactly why there are so many micro-beds in a formation, and additionally how particles of different sizes become interbedded as currents deposit multiple beds horizontally (rather than vertically as the article repeatedly describes). The twinned presuppositions of uniformitarianism and superposition [with their attendant implications) are inadequate and unjustified to explain the action of the flood. The repeated assertion that they could not find evidence for "the flood layer" is further presupposed upon the assumption of the local flood they attempted to prove. In flood geology, the "column" from Cambrian to Cenozoic is claimed to be the evidence for a global cataclysm that laid multiple horizons of sediment horizontally such that many more sediments must be in evidence for each surge than is presupposed by the vertical deposition model. In short their conclusions were drawn logically from their presuppositions and selected mechanisms, just as I would unashamedly assert are mine. Further I assert that more of the data fit my expectations than are explainable by the uniformitarian paradigm. I've given several examples of such challenges in previous posts that you have ignored [eg. my post on Mar 22].

I've engaged for many hours with talkorigins people and know their arguments, more importantly I understand their closely held premises. As I stated in previous entries, this is a battle of ideologies. Frankly the sides are unbalanced, as the preponderance of available data and documentation has been presented from the standpoint of the standard model, and it takes real diligence and patience to ferret out the islands of substance from the ocean of presupposition. And some honest open-minded field work. I've been at it since 1973, and have arrived at my claims with no small effort. Not "arrived" -- still on the journey.

[I diverted this topic from "archaeology" to paleontology early on... perhaps the moderators can find a more appropriately titled thread to move this to?]
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby chrimony » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:29 pm

webolife wrote:As for the geologic column, I have to [for now] take the word of the article you linked that the 12 major horizons of the geologic column exist in those 25 named basins.


So when you first dismissively waved away 15,000 feet of strata as propaganda, giving not a single refutation, would you call that somebody interested in the examination of all the data?

webolife wrote:However, the descriptions of those beds gives no indication of any kind of faunal succession, so the point is moot.


Did you read the article? Or even my post, which drew from the conclusion of the article, and contained a faunal succession argument? Numerous examples were given throughout the article. Just to give a few examples that are found early in the description:

  • "There are some trilobites found in the Cambrian strata."
  • "Above this lies 1300 feet of Ordovician limestone and dolomite... Fossils include graptolites, gastropods, cephalopods, and corals."
  • "Above the Ordovician carbonates lies the Silurian Interlake formation... 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."

And from my post, which quotes from the conclusion:

talkorigins.org wrote:Sixth, the fact that the fossils mammals are not found with the earliest dinosaurs, or that no primates are found until the Ft. Union formation or that no full dinosaur skeletons are found in the Tertiary section, implies strongly that the column was not the result of a single cataclysm. Worldwide, no whales are found with the large Devonian fish. If the column was an ecological burial pattern, then whales and porpoises should be buried with the fish. They aren't. The order of the fossils must be explained either by progressive creation or evolution.


webolife wrote:You are claiming that the geologic column shows the progression expected by evolution, yet your linked talkorigins article does not do this except by making claims that are themselves based in the premise of evolution.


No, the article describes what is laid down by layer. Try reading it. It is you who are imposing their bias and not looking at the evidence.

webolife wrote:What your article does show, however, is that the talkorigins folks are ignorant of the Guy Berthault's flume experiments which show exactly why there are so many micro-beds in a formation, and additionally how particles of different sizes become interbedded as currents deposit multiple beds horizontally (rather than vertically as the article repeatedly describes).


And how do Guy Berthault's flume experiments explain 300 feet of salt?

talkorigins.org wrote: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.


webolife wrote:I've engaged for many hours with talkorigins people and know their arguments, more importantly I understand their closely held premises. As I stated in previous entries, this is a battle of ideologies. Frankly the sides are unbalanced, as the preponderance of available data and documentation has been presented from the standpoint of the standard model, and it takes real diligence and patience to ferret out the islands of substance from the ocean of presupposition. And some honest open-minded field work. I've been at it since 1973, and have arrived at my claims with no small effort. Not "arrived" -- still on the journey.


All those "talkorigins.org" quotes are from the single article I linked to, and they were written by a single person, and you'd know if you actually read my post that it was written by a Young Earth Creationist. Here's a snippet from the article I linked to:

Glenn R. Morton wrote:For years I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a Biblical perspective. Being a physics major in college I had no geology courses. Thus, as a young Christian, when I was presented with the view that Christians must believe in a young-earth and global flood, I went along willingly. I knew there were problems but I thought I was going to solve them. When I graduated from college with a physics degree, physicists were unemployable since NASA had just laid a bunch of them off. I did graduate work in philosophy and then decided to leave school to support my growing family. Even after a year, physicists were still unemployable. After six months of looking, I finally found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield.

This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers. One could follow these beds from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by vast thicknesses of sediment. I would see buried mountains which had experienced thousands of feet of erosion, which required time. Yet the sediments in those mountains had to have been deposited by the flood, if it was true. I would see faults that were active early but not late and faults that were active late but not early. I would see karsts and sinkholes (limestone erosion) which occurred during the middle of the sedimentary column (supposedly during the middle of the flood) yet the flood waters would have been saturated in limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:44 am

webolife wrote:I appreciate the work of the RATE group {Baumgardner, et.al} and generally agree with their conclusions;
I recommend it.
I have a difficulty with the height of their tidal pulses; I suspect that multiple pulses of perhaps 600 m could accomplish the work of their five major pulses, but my experience in hydrodynamics is unquestionably more limited than the RATE group.


Gordon, I think Baumgardner's reasoning about 6 major tidal pulses being needed to account for most of the sedimentary rock strata must be probably based mainly on unconformities, disconformities, or nonconformities in the geologic column and somewhat on how much sediment can be transported by waves of different heights. Do you know how many breaks there are in the average geologic column? Aren't there 5 or 6? And are you very sure that 600 meter waves could transport enough sediment over the supercontinent (before mountains formed) to account for the strata?

By the way, the Flood can be considered archeological, can't it?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4209
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby webolife » Sat Mar 26, 2016 8:34 am

Lloyd,
1. A single 600 foot tidal pulse can not explain the "15000 feet of strata" Chrimony keeps bringing up. But several, perhaps a dozen, I believe could.
2. Archaeology is a study of artifacts and settlements of people, often found in tels, ie. mounds typically made of layers of mud or stone type dwellings built atop each other in a succession where erosion or other alluvial sediments may form a layer between the successive constructions. Archaeology chronicles the migrations and settlements of people following the flood as they moved outward away from the middle east areas. Generally [eg. Chrimony and the OEC and talkorigins folks] these alluvial sediments are used to evidence a local flood, and to try to support their claim that the great deluge was such a localized event. However, the great deluge we are describing happened prior to and on a much greater scale than these local events, encompassing the burial of organisms from the seabottom/continental shelves to the more mobile terrestrial groups, including pre-flood people. The study of fossils left behind is paleontology; and to my knowledge, except for the rare tools that are found in the vicinity of some of these fossils, we do not find other artifacts that characterize the settlements studied by archaeologists. Likewise, the dating of archaeological finds places virtually all of them in the ice-age to post ice-age times, which were after the deluge proper.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby webolife » Sat Mar 26, 2016 9:38 am

Chrimony,
Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by "faunal succession" as it relates to evolution?
You are referring to the chart of index fossils used to correlate strata across the globe by the geologic column model. I do not dispute that such correlations are useful, and in fact believe that they largely serve to support the global flood model.
chrimony wrote:So when you first dismissively waved away 15,000 feet of strata as propaganda, giving not a single refutation, would you call that somebody interested in the examination of all the data?

I do not and never have dismissed 15000 feet of strata... that's the data I would say support the flood model!
But I do dispute Morton's interpretations and claims. I have provided an alternate model [Guy Berthault's sedimentology]. Further, Morton [as a former YEC, and now spokesman for the OEC] has an agenda he is pushing, and is selective in the way he goes about it. I can't afford to be selective, as I have the greater burden of proof supporting a claim that is not the scientific consensus paradigm. It is for that reason, despite my early interest and study of the YEC position, I too have parted ways with many of the YEC's, as I believe they are too quick to be dismissive of certain evidences and data.
Chrimony wrote:talkorigins.org wrote:
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.

Says who? The rapid evaporation of a surge of seawater flowing over volcanically active environs [as described in the deluge model] would cause a huge amount of evaporation and the remnant salt beds. In fact I think this is the more plausible explanation. The sheer volume of salt described makes the global scope even more evident. Additionally I have studied the diatomite beds in eastern Washington [before they were quarried away by the Celite corp] -- here are tens of meters thick beds of diatom shells found lensed between basalt flows that are elsewhere sitting directly/successively one atop the other. In the middle of these diatomite beds are recrystallized opal [I have in my collection several large samples] formed as steam pressure remelted the silica diatom shells to form large stones of opal, yet these are surrounded by the diatomaceous earth both above and below the opal layer. These extensive evaporate deposits are alleged to be the result of 100,000's of years of accumulation at a sea-floor, yet as I said they are found sandwiched between lava flows elsewhere found sitting directly one upon the other.
Chrimony wrote:Did you read the article? Or even my post, which drew from the conclusion of the article, and contained a faunal succession argument? Numerous examples were given throughout the article. Just to give a few examples that are found early in the description:
"There are some trilobites found in the Cambrian strata."
"Above this lies 1300 feet of Ordovician limestone and dolomite... Fossils include graptolites, gastropods, cephalopods, and corals."
"Above the Ordovician carbonates lies the Silurian Interlake formation... 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."
And from my post, which quotes from the conclusion:
talkorigins.org wrote:
Sixth, the fact that the fossils mammals are not found with the earliest dinosaurs, or that no primates are found until the Ft. Union formation or that no full dinosaur skeletons are found in the Tertiary section, implies strongly that the column was not the result of a single cataclysm. Worldwide, no whales are found with the large Devonian fish. If the column was an ecological burial pattern, then whales and porpoises should be buried with the fish. They aren't. The order of the fossils must be explained either by progressive creation or evolution.

webolife wrote:
You are claiming that the geologic column shows the progression expected by evolution, yet your linked talkorigins article does not do this except by making claims that are themselves based in the premise of evolution.

No, the article describes what is laid down by layer. Try reading it. It is you who are imposing their bias and not looking at the evidence.


As I said before, I have read and studied the talkorigins rebuttals to flood geology extensively. I do not disclaim bias, and anyone who does, especially any scientist, is being dishonest. There is evidence, and there is belief.
Do you believe that there is some kind of evolutionary progression from trilobites to graptolites, gastropods, cephalopods, and corals? Trilobites are much more complex in their body structures than the other four groups! Now each of those groups has some complex features as well, but a progression there is not. Extinction of particular species or genera of organisms whose archetypes are recognizable in living organisms is the predominant story of the fossil record, and totally supports the flood model. There is no dispute that up to 95% of the variety of organisms that have lived on this planet are now extinct. It is remarkable in this context that the major types are still in existence today! Horseshoe crabs, cephalopods, crustaceans, fish, the list goes on -- the Paleozoic creatures are identifiable with living organisms of today or are extinct... ie. they died and their fossils are left behind around the earth, exactly as would be expected in the global flood scenario.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby webolife » Sat Mar 26, 2016 9:38 am

The fact that mammals may be found with dinosaurs but in higher layers, shows the mobility argument.
Likewise the primate mobility/intelligence argument is supported by primates being buried higher. These arguments are premised on evolutionary belief, and furthermore only relevant if Berthault's horizontal deposition model is ignored.
Last edited by webolife on Sat Mar 26, 2016 9:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby chrimony » Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:05 pm

webolife wrote:Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by "faunal succession" as it relates to evolution?


Do you? You are the one that made a black and white statement that, "However, the descriptions of those beds gives no indication of any kind of faunal succession, so the point is moot."

Yet the principle was laid down before the theory of evolution. And even in the context of evolution, faunal succession arguments were advanced in that article that were in favor of evolution. Yet rather than reply to the arguments, you just tried to hand-wave them away.

chrimony wrote:So when you first dismissively waved away 15,000 feet of strata as propaganda, giving not a single refutation, would you call that somebody interested in the examination of all the data?


webolife wrote:I do not and never have dismissed 15000 feet of strata... that's the data I would say support the flood model!


It's here in black and white, for everybody to read.

Further, Morton [as a former YEC, and now spokesman for the OEC] has an agenda he is pushing, and is selective in the way he goes about it.


Yes, but he had an agenda as a Young Earth Creationist until he was confronted with the data that he worked with as part of his job. So you can't claim it was his atheistic belief in evolution driving him to an Old Earth model.

I can't afford to be selective, as I have the greater burden of proof supporting a claim that is not the scientific consensus paradigm. It is for that reason, despite my early interest and study of the YEC position, I too have parted ways with many of the YEC's, as I believe they are too quick to be dismissive of certain evidences and data.


But your pattern of posting in this thread has been nothing but selective, putting forth Young Earth arguments and ignoring/dismissing data and arguments until your nose is shoved into them.

The rapid evaporation of a surge of seawater flowing over volcanically active environs [as described in the deluge model] would cause a huge amount of evaporation and the remnant salt beds. In fact I think this is the more plausible explanation. The sheer volume of salt described makes the global scope even more evident. Additionally I have studied the diatomite beds in eastern Washington [before they were quarried away by the Celite corp] -- here are tens of meters thick beds of diatom shells found lensed between basalt flows that are elsewhere sitting directly/successively one atop the other. In the middle of these diatomite beds are recrystallized opal [I have in my collection several large samples] formed as steam pressure remelted the silica diatom shells to form large stones of opal, yet these are surrounded by the diatomaceous earth both above and below the opal layer. These extensive evaporate deposits are alleged to be the result of 100,000's of years of accumulation at a sea-floor, yet as I said they are found sandwiched between lava flows elsewhere found sitting directly one upon the other.


Did you publish your research so that others may respond and verify it? If not, then it's nothing more than a personal anecdote. And even if I were to accept your anecdote at face value, we are talking about 300 feet of salt, not tens of meters, and there's no description of adjacent lava flows in the North Dakota strata.

Do you believe that there is some kind of evolutionary progression from trilobites to graptolites, gastropods, cephalopods, and corals?


I said those were just early examples, as found in the article, of faunal succession, to contradict your black and white claim that "the descriptions of those beds gives no indication of any kind of faunal succession". I also quoted from the article:

talkorigins.org wrote:Sixth, the fact that the fossils mammals are not found with the earliest dinosaurs, or that no primates are found until the Ft. Union formation or that no full dinosaur skeletons are found in the Tertiary section, implies strongly that the column was not the result of a single cataclysm. Worldwide, no whales are found with the large Devonian fish. If the column was an ecological burial pattern, then whales and porpoises should be buried with the fish. They aren't. The order of the fossils must be explained either by progressive creation or evolution.


webolife wrote:The fact that mammals may be found with dinosaurs but in higher layers, shows the mobility argument.
Likewise the primate mobility/intelligence argument is supported by primates being buried higher. These arguments are premised on evolutionary belief, and furthermore only relevant if Berthault's horizontal deposition model is ignored.


It's an absurd argument to say that in a global flood with waves hundreds of meters high that a progressive layer of smarter/faster animals were able to outrun it? Even the relatively minor 2004 tsunami killed hundreds of thousand of people. Do you think if you do some archeology from the sediments of that flood that you're going to find anything like the kind of sorting found in strata worldwide?
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby webolife » Tue Mar 29, 2016 12:20 am

chrimony wrote:webolife wrote:
Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by "faunal succession" as it relates to evolution?

Do you? You are the one that made a black and white statement that, "However, the descriptions of those beds gives no indication of any kind of faunal succession, so the point is moot."

Yet the principle was laid down before the theory of evolution. And even in the context of evolution, faunal succession arguments were advanced in that article that were in favor of evolution. Yet rather than reply to the arguments, you just tried to hand-wave them away.


We are using "faunal succession" two different ways, I think. For clarification, I will refer to faunal succession in reference to index fossils and the artifact known as the geologic column, a textbook model for evolution; and "evolutionary progression" for the succession of fossils expected to be found [but not found] in the actual fossil record. This succession should be comprised almost entirely of transitional/intermediate forms since the story of evolution requires minute genetic mutations accumulating over hundreds of millions of years. But in fact this preponderance of intermediates is not found, and the few that have gained some popularity are controversial: archaeopteryx, "quilled" dinosaurs, tiktaalik, et.al. The weakness of the homology argument is subject for another thread. So for the rest of this post, I will distinguish the terms this way.

The geologic column was presented before Darwin published The Origin of Species, but even then was labeled with terms like Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic, and was itself a prompt for the hitherto-delayed publicizing of the Origins. There is a general succession of fossils given in the early geologic column compilations, and these successions were derived from strata from England, Germany, Russia, et.al. Certain fossils correlated to rock types, but also there was a vertical progression seen of these fossils referred to as index fossils. However, these index fossils are not the only types of fossils found in those rocks. The index fossils themselves show no evolutionary progression, and one is hard-pressed to find an evolutionary sequence in the other fossils as well! What is seen in the fossil record are explosions and extinctions, what SJ Gould called "punctuations", for example:
1. The Cambrian Explosion -- in the lowest fossiliferous layers we find represented [although dead!] nearly 80% of all faunal phyla known today. No progression or transitions of forms. Virtually all marine, virtually all bottom dwelling. Complex anatomical structures. This is not a good evidence for the evolution of life.
2. The Permian Extinction -- 95% of the varieties of living organisms [past and current incl] are found [dead] in the Permian stratum, but not above. However the phyla found in the Cambrian, and also in the Permian, are also found in geologically recent strata or living today. Lots of evidence of variation/adaptation, then extinction, but no direct evidence of evolutionary progression, ie. macroevolution or phylogeny. The direct evidence is of lots of animals being killed and buried in sediment. Virtually all marine, lots of fish, largely continental margin types, ie. none of the unusually adapted deep-sea forms we're aware of in today's abysses.
3. The Cretaceous Extinction -- famous for the presence of dinosaur fossils, these strata also contain fossils of many mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians, many extinct varieties, but families with representative adaptions that characterize the "Triassic" strata fossils overlying this boundary.
4. The entire fossil record is the story not of evolution of life, but of things being killed and/or buried in sediment, lots of it. The generation of multiple strata have been debated in previous posts so I won't repeat myself here.
chrimony wrote:webolife wrote:
I do not and never have dismissed 15000 feet of strata... that's the data I would say support the flood model!

It's here in black and white, for everybody to read.

Further, Morton [as a former YEC, and now spokesman for the OEC] has an agenda he is pushing, and is selective in the way he goes about it.

Yes, but he had an agenda as a Young Earth Creationist until he was confronted with the data that he worked with as part of his job. So you can't claim it was his atheistic belief in evolution driving him to an Old Earth model.

Where is my dismissal? Where did I claim Morton is an atheist? OEC means old earth creationist.
Selectivity is Morton not considering any of the data which confound the standard stratigraphy models: places where horizons are reversed or completely absent, fossils found out of evolutionary order, the hiatal story of orogeny and erosion down to a horizontal plain ignored, the evidence that the major strata were flood borne sediments laid down according to current-based horizontal deposition rather than vertical detritus precipitation... on this last point it's no wonder why some of the early formulators of the geologic column model surmised that the earth may be infinitely old.

Much of your argumentation is "he said, she said" stuff. On what basis are you disputing my claims, as a trained scientist, or geologist? I've researched geologic history and its sister field biologic evolution since 1973. On the way I considered the possibility of the Biblical record being reliable, and asked the question, "If taken at face value, with due hermeneutical consideration for context, culture, language, word derivations and comparative usage, scholarly debate, etc., what would be the implications for our understanding of earth history if the Genesis record was completely true?" I have had to confront pretty much every counter claim ever made; I've waded through and had to reject claims made by creationists and atheists alike; in the confrontation of opposing paradigms, I have come to see that the actual data, devoid of presumption, supports a catastrophic view as well if not better than the gradualist view. I've come to the conclusion that observable design [vs. random accumulation of unobservable billions of mutations] is a more elegant and unifying explanation for biodiversity. But as a public school teacher for nearly 4 decades, I also understand the importance of asking good questions, respecting tentativity, respecting the dialogue of opposing viewpoints as the only way to advance true understanding. I'm just old fashioned enough to believe there is Truth, so I welcome the pursuit of elegance via Occam's Razor. I would hope you have these same respects?

That said, let me address your last points, regarding the extent of various beds, such as salt [and I'm wondering why you haven't brought up hundreds of feet of coal?] -- you understand certainly that such [salt] deposits are found as lens-shaped strata, ie. they were deposited in basins, ie. they were transported brines. The presence of geothermal activity [which I should have said instead of "volcanics"] in the region or adjacent regions is enough to force the evaporation of the brines, and the depth would be focused in the basin rather than being a generalized depth over a broad area requiring millennia if they were precipitated out of water evaporating at current slow rates.
chrimony wrote:It's an absurd argument to say that in a global flood with waves hundreds of meters high that a progressive layer of smarter/faster animals were able to outrun it? Even the relatively minor 2004 tsunami killed hundreds of thousand of people. Do you think if you do some archeology from the sediments of that flood that you're going to find anything like the kind of sorting found in strata worldwide?


Your reference of the Indonesian tsunami event is interesting. Here is an argument for gradualism employing a major evidence of catastrophism! The world wide flood was a global changing event [if it occurred], with many more factors involved than a mere several-meter surge of water that was over in 5 hours. Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder, and there are many absurdities in the gradualistic view as well. The sorting you keep pleading is not as widespread or consistent as you wish it were, and there are alternate explanations which you have already tried to rebut in previous posts... arguments from OEC are full of biased claims that the OECs must make in order to support their overarching claim of a local flood and the belief in progressive creation, aka theistic evolution, aka evolution. Finally, the smarter/faster animals were not able to outrun the flood. They too were killed and ended up like the others in the fossil record. Dead and buried. Preserved as fossils. Filling our museums and the ground beneath our feet.

It's an argument of paradigms, ideologies, biases. The evidence [all of it] speaks for itself... perhaps... but the listener/observer receives the message through his or her window, then each becomes the self-appointed spokesperson for their peculiar view. Best we take the time to really look through each other's windows, and if not, then respect the claims as genuine conclusions logically derived from an evitable faith base, learn what we can, and hopefully advance our mutual understanding.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:06 am

Gordon, I think it would be most helpful if there were detailed charts we could examine to prove what you say. Can you give us links to such detailed charts, either online or in books that we could see at a library or purchase? Are there charts that show the actual sedimentary strata, say in the center of each inhabited continent? And are there charts that show what fossils are found in each stratum? And can the actual charts (or geologic cross-sections) be shown side-by-side with the geologic column with the discrepancies highlighted? And likewise re the fossils? People here seem to tend to talk in generalities too much, with the result that statements and claims are too vague to test conclusively.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4209
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby webolife » Tue Mar 29, 2016 11:23 pm

That's a great question and important point to understand about the nature of geology and the interpretation of geologic history. But here is an example of what we face in attempting to deliver such a tool:
http://geology.about.com/od/maps/ig/stategeomaps/WAgeomap.htm
The map is a simplified, generalized view of Washington State Geology. If you go to that site and read the brief description accompanying the geologic map, you'll see that geologists must generalize a great deal in order to make sense of the tremendous amount of variation seen at the surface. It is difficult to know what is at depth, except by observing and trying to piece together what is seen on the surface. Not knowing exact angles/pitch of strata, extent of faulting, etc. a lot of guesswork is involved in the field. I have traveled with geologists doing field work, and let me tell you, these folks come with a great many presuppositions about the geologic history of a region, using those presuppositions to interpret the formations we see in the field. In 1982, following one such field study for a post grad geology class, I wrote an alternate catastrophic interpretation of the Cascadia region expositing first hand observations of the Columbia Plateau lava flows[including the pillow basalts, diatomite beds, and various petrified woods that intersperse the flows], the uplift of the Cascades and the Olympics, the trapping of coals on both sides of the Cascades, the geologically recent volcanic ranges, the glaciation and superflooding events that carved out the coulees, and the ongoing faulting that crisscrosses the state due to the collision of the Juan de Fuca and North American plates, and proposing why it was necessary that continental drift be at a higher rate in the past. The professor's response was to this effect: "...You have some very interesting ideas, but you will find it difficult to do geology outside of the traditional framework".
Because of the high degree of faulting, erosion, intrusions and metamorphic sequences, mountainous regions are particularly difficult to analyze while plains and plateaus are less geologically complex, as shown also in this simplified example from Colorado:
http://geology.about.com/od/maps/ig/stategeomaps/COgeomap.htm
When it comes down to pure data or lack thereof, geologists in the field use a sense of basic rock cycle modeling, plate tectonics, and the geologic column to paint a picture of the region they are studying. Much revision takes place as other geologists do additional work and analysis. At the end of the day, persistent presuppositions rule the conclusions.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

Unread postby chrimony » Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:27 am

webolife wrote:We are using "faunal succession" two different ways, I think.


Only because you keep trying to force the incorrect assumption that evolution invented the principle, despite having been shown that it came before the theory of evolution. You questioned my understanding, but it was your mistake. If you want to carry on in your mistake that's on you.

The index fossils themselves show no evolutionary progression


A whale is a mammal adapted to the sea. In terms of evolution, it wouldn't make any sense to see whales where fish first appear, but only after mammals first appeared. That's just one example. And while you can harp on all you want about intermediaries, the general progression fits evolution.

Selectivity is Morton not considering any of the data which confound the standard stratigraphy models: places where horizons are reversed or completely absent, fossils found out of evolutionary order, the hiatal story of orogeny and erosion down to a horizontal plain ignored


You already mentioned standard explanations for such events earlier, such as "by deformation of strata or by faulting then overthrusting". Morton's main focus was on countering the Noah Flood myth, as he could not reconcile a single flood event with the geological evidence.

the evidence that the major strata were flood borne sediments laid down according to current-based horizontal deposition rather than vertical detritus precipitation... on this last point it's no wonder why some of the early formulators of the geologic column model surmised that the earth may be infinitely old.


He doesn't directly address Berthault in his paper, but he gives several lines of evidence that discount Berthault's idea. For example:

Morton wrote:Fifth, the persistent burrowing which is found throughout the geologic column, the erosional layers and the evaporative salt requires much more time than a single year to account for the whole column. Here is how I know the Williston Basin sediments couldn't be deposited in a single year. 15,000 feet divided by 365 days equals 41 feet per day. Assuming that a burrow is only 1 foot long and that the creature could not survive the burial by an additional foot of sediment, the creature doing the burrowing must accomplish his work in less than 40 minutes. That doesn't sound all that bad, until it is realized that if the poor critter ever stops to rest, even for a half an hour, he will be buried too deeply to escape.


webolife wrote:That said, let me address your last points, regarding the extent of various beds, such as salt [and I'm wondering why you haven't brought up hundreds of feet of coal?]


There are many arguments I did not present just from the single Morton paper. I selected just a few of the biggest ones to avoid an argument of gigantic lists when the few would do.

-- you understand certainly that such [salt] deposits are found as lens-shaped strata, ie. they were deposited in basins, ie. they were transported brines. The presence of geothermal activity [which I should have said instead of "volcanics"] in the region or adjacent regions is enough to force the evaporation of the brines, and the depth would be focused in the basin rather than being a generalized depth over a broad area requiring millennia if they were precipitated out of water evaporating at current slow rates.


Sounds fanciful. Enough geothermal activity, with no evidence for the heat source, to evaporate enough sea water to leave 300 feet of salt in a short time, while also laying down strata above and below as part of a single world-wide flood?

Your reference of the Indonesian tsunami event is interesting. Here is an argument for gradualism employing a major evidence of catastrophism!


That there have been catastrophe's, including world-wide ones, is part of standard geology. What's being debated is the ridiculous idea that the strata and the contained fossil record can be explained by Noah's Flood myth.

The world wide flood was a global changing event [if it occurred], with many more factors involved than a mere several-meter surge of water that was over in 5 hours.


Indeed, and that's entirely the point.

Finally, the smarter/faster animals were not able to outrun the flood. They too were killed and ended up like the others in the fossil record. Dead and buried. Preserved as fossils. Filling our museums and the ground beneath our feet.


The point is, given the enormity and speed of the supposed tidal waves, the idea that the fossils would be separated out by intelligence and mobility is absurd. Different species would not have had time to avoid being swept up together.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest