Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

[webolife]

The fossils record is neatly laid down in textbooks only. The alleged "geologic column" is a wishful assemblage of idealized strata from many locations, arranged by index fossils upon the presumption of evolution; it's a simple to complex story, so the snails that have simpler sutures are presumed to be less evolved, so those fossils and their strata are placed lower in the column... it matters not that there are snails with simpler and snails with more complex sutures living contemporaneously today. Evolution is the reigning paradigm, so the fossils must be arranged to support that hypothesis, then superposition and . In the field, when fossils are found "out of order", which is the case more often than standard modelers like to admit, the strata are deemed to have been reversed, either by deformation of strata or by faulting then overthrusting... not infrequently an entire hill of "older" fossils is found conformably lying atop strata bearing "younger" fossils, ie. no evidence of scraping across the lower strata to acjhieve their current position, and with no other similar structures in the region. Numerous strata in the field are "dated" strictly by reference to the geologic column, then their fossils are used to support the hypothesis of evolution upon which the column is based. The more fossils have been found the less the geologic column is supported as an evolutionary model. Punctuated equilibrium is a more valid model for explaining the fossil evidence than the geologic column, which relies on there being a progression of forms from simple to complex. This progression simply isn't found, and the fossil record is actually a conglomeration of many complex forms coexisting from the lowest layers of the Cambrian, and throughout the record, with a few examples of catastrophic extinction events. The fossils are a testament to catastrophic death, not a story of slow progression of life according tho the evolutionary story. Of course this does not prove that gradualistic evolution is false, it simply shows that the fossil record does not actually support it.
The vast majority of alleged "transitional forms" touted by modern evolutionists are intermediates between geni of families, solid proof of adaptive selection, but not of phylogenetic descent as depicted in typical evolutionary tree diagrams. With these claims in mind, reread my post above describing the "hiatal" [lack of] evidence for long time spans given for deposition of the rock layers.

[chrimony]

The fossils record is neatly laid down in textbooks only. The alleged "geologic column" is a wishful assemblage of idealized strata from many locations, arranged by index fossils upon the presumption of evolution

[snip rest of regurgitated creationist material]

This is a typical creationist argument, to try to poke holes and ignore the large body of evidence that clearly shows a progression. Just a snippet from a rebuttal site:

The principle of faunal succession in the geologic record was established by direct observation as early as 1799 by William Smith. By the 1830's Adam Sedgwick and Roderick Murchison established a correlation between the various types of fossils and the rock formations in the British Isles. It was found that certain fossils, now referred to as index fossils, were restricted to a narrow zone of strata. Studies done on the European continent soon demonstrated the universal validity of index fossils. That is, an index fossil corresponded to a very specific point in the geologic column. Once the worth of index fossils had been established on the basis of stratification studies, they could logically be used to extend the correlation of rock formations to other continents. At this point in time they were simply a useful tool for correlating rock formations.

One can hardly accuse these pioneers of evolutionary prejudice. Nearly a half-century would pass before Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, was published! By then, the relative ages (order) of the geologic column had already been worked out in some detail. Radiometric dating would later confirm the relative ages of the strata and tie them to absolute dates. (Far from being a rubber stamp, radiometric dating would go on to revolutionize our understanding of the Precambrian.) Thus, it became possible to date strata directly from index fossils.

[Lloyd]

7 QUESTIONS
1. Since sedimentary rocks include three main types, shale (mud), sand and lime, why are they in separate strata and not all mixed together?
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?
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?
5. What prevented delicate organisms from decaying before being fossilized?
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?
7. How did fossils get sorted out into different strata?

[Cargo]

Is there mud on the ocean bottoms?

I never actually thought about this, and the first Google return was this:
http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/c ... iment.html

Which seems to cover that and other questions pretty closely. Also, I think 'mud' is too general a term. One mans mud is another mans goo.

[webolife]

Sorry Crimony,
Your ad hominem rebuttal to my comments is characteristic of many detractors of catastrophism. The reference you quoted contains a lot of standard modeler story-telling and double talk.
First, the correlation of index fossils to particular strata in no way establishes faunal succession as an evolutionary sequence. Strata are often arranged, eg. the Grand Canyon, by order of sedimentary particle size which corresponds to the depositional model described by Guy Berthault's sedimentology. The rough succession of fossils that was observed in the early 1800's and referenced by Darwin, is also attributable to biomic succession, as well as mobility; bottom dwelling sea creatures tend to be found nearer the Cambrian, and more motile land dwellers are found in higher layers, as would be expected if the strata were laid down in a major cataclysmic event. Additionally, the very fact that major strata are identifiable by index fossils worldwide attests to the universality of the cataclysm. It makes little sense to suggest that all over the world only sand-sized sediments were eroded and deposited for millions of years, then only silts were deposited for many more millennia, then limes were the predominant materials of the crust for yet more eons of time, then vast swampy woodlands, etc.; yet this is the scenario the standard model represented by the geologic column would have us believe. Great worldwide orogenies, followed by eons of erosion, leaving flat plains of only one kind of rock across the globe over a hundred million year period... and all of that presumed by... the zero evidence interpolated between generally conformable strata; then the whole process begins again, and again leaves only... an imagined story attributed to an empty hiatus. And again each fossiliferous rock formation is a testimony to massive watery death, not to life, let alone a progression of it. The many exceptions to the geologic column's faunal succession paradigm are predicted by the catastrophic paradigm. Of course if there were not any exceptions, then the geologic column might be considered a valid model for geologic history... many anomalous radiometric age/dates assigned to recent lavas show that it is not at all an "absolute" nor certain method. How about petrified woods? They are achieved under the right conditions in hours in a lab. Obviously the right [albeit rare] conditions were available in the past as well. I have samples of ashrock from Mt. St. Helens's log jam at the edge of Spirit Lake that contain coalified twigs...
The predominance of evidence oft alleged for the evolutionary story is nearly all in favor of adaptation through natural selection, with little support for the "simple-to-complex" requirement of phylogeny, and hardly a whisper for the genesis of phyla, classes, orders, families that we find fully formed in the fossil record, starting with the Cambrian "explosion" of many complex forms. Natural selection is by definition an information-reducing process incapable of producing the complex of living systems of the past and present. All new genetic material must come through random mutation, which by all accounts and observations is rarely beneficial to the organisms receiving the defects. Hardly a reliable set of mechanisms... evolution is really a dogma clothed in propaganda [such as the rebuttal quote of Crimony's previous post]. The standard model of geology is a paradigm built upon a foundation of many assumptions, many of which are certainly reasonable, yet they are a belief system nonetheless.

"Well-established" is a euphemism for scientific consensus... it's a window to which its many adherents have crowded to look upon the world; they get the "feel-good" assurance that so many others see the world the same way they do, then not only forget, but also come to vehemently deny that other windows even exist... and may even persecute others who view nature through a different window. This is of course not true for a great many honest scientists, who understand the limitations of the scientific method, and the tentativity of scientific conclusions.

[chrimony]

Sorry Crimony,
Your ad hominem rebuttal to my comments is characteristic of many detractors of catastrophism.

I don't think it was particularly ad hominem. All I did was point out the creationist talking points you were parroting. It's no worse than the creationist-based claim that scientists used an evolutionary bias to come up with the geologic column, while on the other hand, creationists clearly have a bias when it comes to trying to force a particular interpretation on the geologic evidence.

The reference you quoted contains a lot of standard modeler story-telling and double talk.
First, the correlation of index fossils to particular strata in no way establishes faunal succession as an evolutionary sequence.

I don't understand your point here. The point being made by the rebuttal site was that the strata was already being indexed before evolutionary theory, contrary to creationist claims that the strata was indexed by evolution.

Strata are often arranged, eg. the Grand Canyon, by order of sedimentary particle size which corresponds to the depositional model described by Guy Berthault's sedimentology.

This was covered in the first video I linked to earlier debunking Noah's Flood.

The rough succession of fossils that was observed in the early 1800's and referenced by Darwin, is also attributable to biomic succession, as well as mobility; bottom dwelling sea creatures tend to be found nearer the Cambrian, and more motile land dwellers are found in higher layers, as would be expected if the strata were laid down in a major cataclysmic event.

This was covered in the second video I linked to earlier debunking Noah's Flood. You accused scientists of "wishful" models. You have that in abundance with these absurd mobility arguments.

[Lloyd]

Chrimony, why not answer the first 6 questions that I asked above at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 50#p112336? The questions get down to the heart of the issues. The last question was for Webb, which he answered in part, but not in detail.

Cargo, your link discusses subduction etc, but the subduction model appears to be wrong, as it has plate edges going down into the mantle and melting into it, but the reality seems to be that the plates remain horizontal because of less density than that of the mantle, so one plate slides over another. As Mike Fischer explained, a huge impact off east Africa split apart the supercontinent and caused the continents to move apart at high speed, not gradually. The theory is explained at http://newgeology.us and the sliding mechanism is explained in detail at http://newgeology.us/presentation10.html.

[chrimony]

Chrimony, why not answer the first 6 questions that I asked above at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 50#p112336? The questions get down to the heart of the issues. The last question was for Webb, which he answered in part, but not in detail.

Why don't you respond to the videos I linked to debunking Noah's Flood? It would take you all of 20 minutes. I think they get right to the heart of the matter.

[Lloyd]

Chrimony, tell me what their arguments are. I've read conventional geology claims for many years, so I think I'm well familiar with all of their arguments. I haven't heard any of them answer my questions, which are very simple. Like where did the sedimentary strata come from? Mountains or highlands? How did the different kinds of sedimentary rock get separated instead of mixing together? Were the strata formed on lake or sea bottoms or where? Etc.

[webolife]

Chrimony,
I have seen your linked videos and often reference their claims in the course of a 20 hour powerpoint presentation I give on the subject of catastrophic earth history and intelligent design (particularly the video "Who Pulled the Stake Out" by Eugenie Scott chronicling the public controversy of creationism and intelligent design), which demonstrates in a fairly direct manner the atheistic agenda behind the defense of neo-Darwinism. Now I know as well as anyone that not all evolutionists are atheists, nor are all catastrophists religious, so I don't make that generalization. I mention it here to put forward simply that what we have is a controversy of ideologies, although I prefer the word paradigms when talking science and science history. Modern (more accurately "post-modern") science has placed upon its practitioners the limitation to deal only with naturalistic, materialistic causes and effects. This limitation forces "creditable" scientists to couch all their researches, experiments, and claims in the secular language of determinism. Folks in the EU face the same dilemma. Well, there's nothing inherently wrong with that as long as the [post] modern "bulldogs" don't force their ideology on people who rightly observe that some effects are simply not creditably explainable in naturalistic terms alone... but in a direct sense that is exactly what is done in the arena of public education. Of course, to some folks [perhaps you?] questions and challenges to [your] ideology, er paradigm, feel like threats to the cause of delimited scientism. And I'm quite sure, as you allude to in previous posts, that you would say the same for us catastrophists.
As for the case for ID, there is no honest way to separate "Intelligent Designer" from "God" so attempts to do this will always be seen as disingenuous. But as I claimed at the beginning of this response, this is a controversy of ideologies. For me it's not really about who can collect the most evidence or perform the best experiments when it comes to understanding earth history. Its not about who can come up with the most fanciful way of explaining complex origins of living systems. It's about whether all the data supports the most elegant hypothesis, a pursuit thankfully still in mid race. It's about asking questions instead of parroting propaganda, on both sides of the controversy. People still have the right [at least in the West] to choose to have their children attend a private, charter, or home school where open challenges to Neo-Darwinism are allowed.
I majored in Earth Science at the University of Washington and taught science and math for 37 years in public schools. I also taught in the private sector, and homeschooled my first three children up to the secondary level.
I'm well familiar with the claims [and the assumptions behind them] for the standard models of geology, evolutionary biology, relativistic physics and astronomy/cosmology that I regularly research. I will continue to ask questions, challenge claims, and address presumption on this forum, which I appreciate for the variety of folks welcomed here... there are good reason for the "boards at the bottom", and there are many propositions put forth here at the TB forum that are frankly preposterous... and some of them just may be true!! I shy away from standard YEC fare these days, so I challenge you to answer my claims on their own merit. I enjoy and benefit from respectful discourse.
Hence my signature line.

[chrimony]

Chrimony, tell me what their arguments are.

Why should I, when you can spend 20 minutes watching them? Presumably you spent at least several hours in your research by now, looking for answers? Any summary I'd give would lack visuals and details.

I've read conventional geology claims for many years, so I think I'm well familiar with all of their arguments. I haven't heard any of them answer my questions, which are very simple.

The answers to some of your questions are in the videos, along with questions of your own that you should be asking or able to answer for a Noah's Flood type event.

[chrimony]

I have seen your linked videos and often reference their claims in the course of a 20 hour powerpoint presentation I give on the subject of catastrophic earth history and intelligent design

Then what's your response to the segment with the chalk example?

(particularly the video "Who Pulled the Stake Out" by Eugenie Scott chronicling the public controversy of creationism and intelligent design), which demonstrates in a fairly direct manner the atheistic agenda behind the defense of neo-Darwinism

That's the cart leading the horse. Atheism came about because when people looked at the evidence, the non-supernatural explanations provided better answers. What was left is God of the Gaps. Scientists have stopped filling in "?" with "god did it" because it overwhelmingly works and leads to predictive answers, whereas "god did it" is a dead end.

For me it's not really about who can collect the most evidence or perform the best experiments when it comes to understanding earth history. Its not about who can come up with the most fanciful way of explaining complex origins of living systems. It's about whether all the data supports the most elegant hypothesis, a pursuit thankfully still in mid race. It's about asking questions instead of parroting propaganda, on both sides of the controversy.

But from my view, you've been parroting creationist propaganda in a very one-sided manner. When it comes to all the data, as you put it, I don't see you asking challenging questions, but rather accepting fanciful explanations such as mobility to explain the fossil strata.

[Lloyd]

Well, Chrimony, I'm pretty sure the video you mentioned won't answer my questions, so it's up to you or anyone else who has seen the video or knows the answers to answer my questions here, if you think the questions are answered there and if you want the answers to be known to readers here.

If anyone else knows the answers to these questions, feel free to state them here. Here are the questions again.

7 GEOLOGY QUESTIONS
1. Since sedimentary rocks include three main types, shale (mud), sand and lime, why are they in separate strata and not all mixed together?
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?
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?
5. What prevented delicate organisms from decaying before being fossilized?
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)?
7. How did fossils get sorted out into different strata?

[webolife]

Lloyd ---
I'll give you some seed replies to get you thinking further:
1. More important and informative question: How often are strata found in the order [contrary to a Chrimony linked statement that strata are found in no particular order] of particle size [eg. from bottom up, sandstone-shale-siltstone-limestone] in agreement with Berthault's stratigraphy. Grand Canyon is such a place. I gave further discredit to the standard model's lack of explanation for this worldwide phenomenon in an earlier post.
2. 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].
3. Answered in #2
4. 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?
5. 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. 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. Well, there is the geologic column model, we've all heard that story. The key strength of that device 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. And as I said earlier [and this was affirmed even in one of the "rebuttal" videos linked by Chrimony], there are many exceptions to these sorting scenarios. These are predictions of the catastrophic model, less so of the geologic column model. Geologists know this, and have created names for the various "exceptions" they find, eg. "unconformities", "disconformities", "non-conformities", etc. In the field, despite Chrimony's objection, when a stratigraphic position or sequential placement is uncertain, the evolution-based geologic ages from the geologic column are used to "date" the fossils, thus this new "evidence" for evolution is interpreted in the light of its evolutionary presupposition. I've seen this first hand in field trips led by geology professors. Honest geologists know this. Chrimony apparently did not.

[chrimony]

Well, Chrimony, I'm pretty sure the video you mentioned won't answer my questions

And you're so interested in answering those questions, that you won't bother to spend 20 minutes watching videos that challenges Noah's Flood myth and potentially answers some of your questions -- because you're sure it doesn't answer them, without even watching. Uh huh.

contrary to a Chrimony linked statement that strata are found in no particular order

The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota:

You just saw the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it. Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order.

2. 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.

In that, you actually seem to be in agreement with geologic column:

Fourth, the geologic column is not sorted be ecological zones. The Silurian Interlake, Devonian Prairie, Pennsylvanian Minnelusa and Jurassic Morisson formations are continental deposits. Oceanic deposits sandwich these beds. The ocean came and went many times.

Except it doesn't show hydrodynamic sorting, many of the layers require long periods of time to form, and the pattern of fossils fits the evolutionary model:

Third, the geologic column is not divided by hydrodynamic sorting. (..) 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. (..) 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.

I'll note here that the author, Glenn Morton, started out as a Young Earth Creationist but then became disillusioned when he actually looked at the data. And while he still held on to his Christian roots, even he gives evolution as a possible explanatory model alongside a creationist view that fits with standard geological time scales.