The Dilemma of the Geological Layers and their Fossil Contents

[bob b]

Bob B are you saying that all the rock layers around the world were formed in one year ?

If so what year roughly do you believe this happened, if not then when and how do you believe it happened.

Let's have a good starting point from your side to debate.

I maintain it happened over millions of years, that's my starting point.

How did it happen in your opinion ?

(And we are discussing sedimentary layers)

 

[macguy]

Bob, can you state the creationist explanation? I think people want to hear it as that would help others understand our position more. Although I realize that there are different theories such as the hydroplate theory.. I would however like to hear your position on the matter.

 

[Skeptic]

How did it happen in your opinion ?

(And we are discussing sedimentary layers)

The following is not my opinion, but it is my opinion that it is probably a correct rough characterization of the science.

Sedimentary rocks are formed because of the overburden pressure as particles of sediment are deposited out of air, ice, wind, or water flows carrying the particles in suspension. As sediment deposition builds up, the overburden (or 'lithostatic') pressure squeezes the sediment into layered solids in a process known as lithification ('rock formation') and the original connate fluids are expelled. The term diagenesis is used to describe all the chemical, physical, and biological changes, including cementation, undergone by a sediment after its initial deposition and during and after its lithification, exclusive of surface weathering.

Sedimentary rocks are laid down in layers called beds or strata. Each new layer is laid down horizontally over older ones in a process called superposition.There are usually some gaps in the sequence called unconformities. These represent periods in which no new sediments were being laid down, or when earlier sedimentary layers were raised above sea level and eroded away. (see Thrust faults)

Sedimentary rocks contain important information about the history of Earth. They contain fossils, the preserved remains of ancient plants and animals. The composition of sediments provides us with clues as to the original rock. Differences between successive layers indicate changes to the environment which have occurred over time. Sedimentary rocks can contain fossils because, unlike most igneous and metamorphic rocks, they form at temperatures and pressures that do not destroy fossil remnants.

The sedimentary rock cover of the continents of the Earth's crust is extensive, but the total contribution of sedimentary rocks is estimated to be only five percent of the total. As such, the sedimentary sequences we see represent only a thin veneer over a crust consisting mainly of igneous and metamorphic rocks.

source

 

[Skeptic]

Responses to relevant creationist claims:

Uniformitarian assumption is untenable.

Sandstone and shale layers are too extensive for normal deposition.

Limestone and dolomite layers are too extensive for normal deposition.

The mouth of the Colorado River does not have enough sediment for the Grand Canyon.

Mississippi delta could have formed in 5,000 years.

There is not enough sediment in the ocean for an old earth.

Much more sediment is deposited than removed by subduction.

Oceans do not have enough dissolved minerals for an old earth.

Sodium accumulates in oceans too fast for an old earth.

Juvenile water is added to oceans too fast for an old earth.

Natural gas escapes too fast to allow for long ages.

High pressures in oil fields would have bled off if earth were old.

Oil seepage would have drained offshore reservoirs in 20,000 years.

Experiments show that strata can violate principles of superposition.

Varves can form in less than a year.

Stalactites can grow very rapidly.

Coconino Sandstone was deposited underwater.

 

[DoogieTalons]

Bob B I pretty much gotta go with Skeptic on this one... and the overwhelming evidence contained within the earth's almost universally uniform layering.

The model fits old earth. Simple things at the bottom complex at the top and unless there's been folding it's the same order of evidence world wide. Nothing manmade is ever found at the bottom and if we have been here "Since the begining" with cities like the land of nod being there almost from the start man made archaeological evidence would be in the lower layers every time.

The earths evidence simply does not conform in anyway to a young earth model, not with out really stretching the imagination to absurdity.

Bob I'm a popular science kinda guy, I love reading the evidence and where it points but I really can't go with creationist explanations and I've read an awful lot of em.

Tell us where you stand bob and how you think it happened ?

Do you think there was a great flood that lasted a year, if so how does the evidence fit this ? are you also like one eyed jack and beleive there were no ancient chinese ect before babel ? what year roughly do you think the flood happened ?


Rob

 

[Stripe]

What geologists claims that all deposits are slow and steady? The principle of unifomitarianism does not require a consistent or constant scope or magnitude. It only assumes that some principles remain constant. But those principles are influenced by inconsistent and changing conditions.

No matter what consistent uniform conditions are in force there is no way millions of years of accumulation can account for the three scenarios I described.

Are you making them an offer? :think:

I don't think anyone is dependant on my approval or invite to register at TOL.

 

[noguru]

No matter what consistent uniform conditions are in force there is no way millions of years of accumulation can account for the three scenarios I described.


I don't think anyone is dependant on my approval or invite to register at TOL.

So your point is?

 

[Stripe]

Anytime you are looking at a sequence such as I described and the professor tells you it took 4 million years to form you are more than entitled to burst out laughing.

 

[noguru]

Anytime you are looking at a sequence such as I described and the professor tells you it took 4 million years to form you are more than entitled to burst out laughing.

Great, thanks. :chuckle: I am not quite sure about the sequence you described or exactly what your professor said. But I will keep your suggestion in mind in my next class on geology.

 

[Stripe]

Feel free to give us a preview of the sites you'll be visiting. I should be able to make some predictions of what you'll find given the right information.

 

[noguru]

Feel free to give us a preview of the sites you'll be visiting. I should be able to make some predictions of what you'll find given the right information.

Sites?

Predictions of what I will find?

Tell you what, I pedict you will carry on with your same old obfuscations. And you will continue to get pos rep points from those who think your impish behavior helps your cause.

 

[Stripe]

Sites?Predictions of what I will find? Tell you what, I pedict you will carry on with your same old obfuscations. And you will continue to get pos rep points from those who think your impish behavior helps your cause.

If you are going to look at rocks, tell me what you are going to look at and then we'll see if what you find matches what I think you'll find.

 

[Wootenfan]

bob_b,

Hi I'm wootenfan. I'm new to this forum but I've seen many of your "scientific problem x" threads and I've been trying to figure out the point to them. I mean you're preaching to the choir on a religious forum, aren't you? Why not take your case to where it might make a difference. Publish some papers for peer review. That's how scientists decide what's good and bad information. They publish papers for each other to read and invalidate. Take your local school district to court because they're teaching lies to children....lies that contradict your sacred and holy bible! For goodness sake, bob_b, the longer you wait the more kids will be taught the universe evolved over billions of years and life naturally formed and evolved on our planet! Why don't you do something?

I think I know why...because you know you're wrong and you don't want to face it

Serouisly, go make some noise about your wacky ideas about the universe and everything in it. It'll be good entertainment. See you at the next Dover trial.

 

[Yorzhik]

Take your local school district to court because they're teaching lies to children....lies that contradict

... The Holy Bible? No, it would be the lies that contradict science that I would sue for.

See you at the next Dover trial.

And as we saw there, suing doesn't do any good if the judge doesn't care about truth.

 

[SUTG]

No, it would be the lies that contradict science that I would sue for.

You don't mean real science do you? I thought you believed in all of that stuff that wasn't supported by science?

 

[noguru]

You don't mean real science do you? I thought you believed in all of that stuff that wasn't supported by science?

Don't antagonize bottlebrush, he is a little unstable.

 

[Wootenfan]

... The Holy Bible? No, it would be the lies that contradict science that I would sue for.


And as we saw there, suing doesn't do any good if the judge doesn't care about truth.

What from judge Jones' ruling or his past record suggests he doesn't care about truth?

 

[Yorzhik]

You don't mean real science do you? I thought you believed in all of that stuff that wasn't supported by science?

Yes, I mean real science.

 

[Yorzhik]

What from judge Jones' ruling or his past record suggests he doesn't care about truth?

For instance, he ignored the author of the Panda textbook's brief.

 

[DoogieTalons]

Wow this post pretty much died when a common sense question was asked.

Do you think there was a great flood that lasted a year, if so how does the evidence fit this ? are you also like one eyed jack and beleive there were no ancient chinese ect before babel ? what year roughly do you think the flood happened ?