Someone who admits he knows nothing about geology, asking where the colum came from?

Okay I'm asking on this thread for mostly help. I get frustrated looking at geology because I personally can't look at this colum. How consistent across the globe is this column, as far as we have discovered? Why is accepted as the standard? (the ruler so to speak)In our household we are very interested in our earth and it's constant movement.------------------
saved by grace

Thanx so far guys i do have a geology textbook actually pretty much a whole course. But like a skeptic of the bible wants to know where the content came from, forgive me but i hold the same skepticism to anything i read in any other book that skeptics of the bible do when they read it. I intend to use this thread for questions only. As i do not know enough in this area to take an opinion. In this thread let's stick to sharing information and keep the opinions to other threads.I figured this is the best way to learn is to ask people who have studied. I am trying to be completely objective here, so i don't want an opinion mixed into the fact. From creationists or from evolutinists. I'm trying to do what i think everyone should do and throw the whole works out the window and start over from facts, working objectively to an end conclusion.
Thanx for the info so far guys I apreciate it. Thanx for being nice so far there king smart. Oh one more thing you guys told me the column (i believe i'm talking about the stratigraphic column) is based on observations made over the years, where is the record of this data? How can i look at what has been recorded? Who were the scientists who gave us this column? Sorry guys i told you i don't know anything. ------------------
saved by grace[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-27-2002]

Do you guys know where i can find 3-d models/video of tectonic plates, ice ages, effects of volcanic activity. We are visual people around here. So any models are good. thanx ------------------
saved by grace

Please remember I am an objective party here unlike the rest. I want no opinions just data, info and places to get such. I do have ability to examine and reason all on my own. Just using this to get clarification from those who are more knowlegeable than I. Not trying to prove the flood or creation just interested in how crazy this earth is.------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Please remember I am an objective party here unlike the rest.

---

​

Thems fighting words, Funkie. Not to mentions quite obviously untrue judging from the contents of your posts. Shame shame...

​

---

I was hoping to study geologic processes because of an interest i've developed reading these threads. I acknowlegde my poor behavior in some of my other recent forums
(I'm been workin on controlling my temper...)------------------
saved by grace

Thankyou Coragyps. I apreciate this. ------------------
saved by grace

You see what from what i gather so far; remember my limitations guys but we are guessing at everything below the crust. Now the plate tectonics seems perfectly rational, and absolutely incredibly fascinating. My problem now is our dating where does this come from. Now I do have a problem with this assumption and it is one I would hold whether or not I had ever read the bible, how do we expect that things have been as we would guess all the time. Our dating has to have a ruler, now we have to base that ruler with observation, WHAT IF, things have not always moved at the supposed rate. How do we date these layeres in the geological time scale.So under the earth is like a giant lava lamp, the earth is constantly in motion somehow. Being pushed up from the bottom and worn off at the top. What is the core supposed to be made of? Is it said to be solid or a liquid? Help the more I learn the more questions I have. Forgive my ignorance i'm trying to stick to questions. thanx ------------------
saved by grace

Yes Karl i am interested to check out this book. Sorry i just about didn't see this post.I lost some questions back there too . So under the earth is like a giant lava lamp, the earth is constantly in motion somehow. Being pushed up from the bottom and worn off at the top. What is the core supposed to be made of? Is it said to be solid or a liquid? Help the more I learn the more questions I have. Forgive my ignorance i'm trying to stick to questions. thanx------------------
saved by grace[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-28-2002]

quote:

---

The whole core is iron (or iron-nickel alloy, maybe with a little iron sulfide), solid at the center and liquid around. The mantle is above the core, and is silicate-based rock - but hot enough that it flows very slowly, like "molasses in January." The crust, that we live on, is a skin of rock about as comparatively thick as the peel of an apple.
The liquid iron generates the Earth's magnetic field, and the fluidity of the mantle drives the "lava lamp" of plate tectonics.

---

I do have a text book i figured this out all by myself pretty simple. Just curious what we think the core is made of. And if it is solid how is it staying solid in such heat? This is probably really basic but then it's hard to understand to much else if you don't get all the basics. So the lithosphere is where we have our cracked shell (the plates) and they are all moving ontop of superheated rock that has become maluable like heated plastic. This heated rock is acting like a lava lamp (sort of) This is stuff i learned in highschool science pretty much. This neat stuff. Oh by the way i'm not implying that geology is a simple science, just that what i thouroughly understand so far is a simple concept. I think this is crazy stuff.------------------
saved by grace

Thanx for your help Gene90 i appreciate it. This makes sense to me so i take it both sides are in agreement that at some point in the earths history (however it came to be) the earth was very maluable and the heavier metal elements sunk to the core, which would point to metorites hitting the earth alot at this point (as i understand most space rock has more metals in it). Then the very inner core due to pressure maintains it's solid form but the outer core is a liquid, kind of acting as a lubricant. Oh thanx for the mass of the earth info that makes sense too. So we can reasonably guess that our core is very dense. How accepted is the idea that there was once a "super continent" pangea i think it's refered to as? To me even the tectonic plate theory lends to this idea. Oh yeah why is catastrophism not very widely accepted, it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me?Forgive me if this is rudementary stuff I am trying not to overlook anything here. I apreciate any clarification and correction. I'm actually ending up with interests in chemistry due to this studying geology, which is crazy i used to hated chemistry as i am not a fan of math, so chem and physics get a little tough going for me. My mind is more suited to analyzing social history.------------------
saved by grace

Thanx again you don't know how much i appreciate the insight..------------------
saved by grace

Okay so, we make alot of guesses in this science (educated ones, guesses nonetheless). Now we know that catastrophic events such as earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, flooding ect. occur, and that they have an impact on the earth. Volcanic ash spewed into the atmosphere can alter our global temperature and weather paterns for years. So we know that yes, while the earth is changing at a certain rate visible to us now, that there are plenty of forces capable of causing alterations to this process.So the face of the earth as we see it today has to have been formed by a mixture of these two views (uniformitarianism/catastrophism). We can't ignore either, we see that the earth is constantly moving and changing at a certain rate, but we also observe that many natural forces can and have, very drastically changed our planet as well.Now i see this getting very difficult from here. Now if we were a closed system with no exceptions dating and figuring out how everything came to be would be much easier. Unfortunately this is not the case and there are a countless number of variables (meteorites, volcanic activity, earthquakes, flooding, storms ect.). We do not have detailed geological records going back very far so we can't really know what all happened to our planet (especially if we are to believe this planet is millions of years old).Thinking as scientists we cannot assume catastrophies unless we have observed and examined evidence of a catastrophy happening. Though this is a good thing, for if we assume too much or incorrectly our final conclusion ends up far from accurate. On the flip side of this coin however in millions of years we know there must have been a great deal of catastrophies, if we ignore this fact and turn to only what we can figure out so far, we can gurantee that our conclusions will be off. We are ignoring the fact that the earth as we know it has been carved by a great many things, and has seen some drastic changes.If we have drastic changes in temperature and weather, atmospheric changes ect, then it would seem to me a great folly to expect that the face of this earth has been carved at a uniform rate. I have a feeling this is generally agreed with.Now I do not know hardly anything of dating methods, though i have been reading up on these things slowly. Lacking the knowledge right now i cannot rightly dispute these dating methods. However the assumption that the "ruler" we are using is constant seems shaky to me. I know that this is a tested assumption, unfortunately to guarantee our results we would have to observe and this decay process over millions of years and under hundreds of different environments. Unfortunately for me this gets into chemistry beyond my current understanding.Please forgive me if i have misrepresented a point of view or come to any blatantly false conclusions. I am not adverse to correction. If you can at all help clarify/support/refute my doubts as to the radiometric dating I would appreciate it. thanx ------------------
saved by grace

Okay then now i get curious how we know the speed of light? How was this arrived at? Does it's speed decay, or maintain at the same rate forever? If it doesn't decay then why not?I still have really yet to learn to much other than re inforcing some basics. However this idea in my head has formed (please note i said idea, instead of theory, or even hypothesis)concerning the biblical account of the history of the earth. Now I also know that the bible is pretty much considered fasified and generally thought of as having no place in science. However i cannot help entertain the idea that this earth may have experienced some very quick drastic changes. Two of which would be the flood, the obvious first and secondly the tower of Babel. (again note this is pure speculation based on an idiots understanding of the earth). But while the flood would have caused great damage to the earth ,it speaks of the waters of the deep coming up. Now I draw in my mind a giant jacuzzi tub where the earth is ripped up and huge jets of water tear things up not to mention the power of this water once it is storming upon the earth. (note i know there are a great many complications with this and that i'm assuming alot ).Well we know that once something like that happens in the earth the energy doesn't just quit there that activity continues in volcanoes and earth quakes. Now this waters of the deep had to come from somewhere. (again i'm speculating i don't know where they were) So i'm expecting that they tore up from somewhere spewed on the earth and then receded.When the tower of babel happens I'm wondering if that's where the plates which had become broken and weakened by the flood really seperated. It says that the people were scattered across the globe and their language confused. Is there any evidence to support the idea that there was some sort of enormous earthquake "earth shattering" quake lol. Now this would cause all sorts of things i'm not even going to start. How ridiculous is this? I'm sure someone will let me know. This is catastrophic extreme dreaming and speculating. Don't take it as anything more than it is, a wild guess . thanx guys.------------------
saved by grace

I wasn't refuting radiometric dating i was asking questions about it. I am asking questions to learn because i don't know. If you feel you don't have time to bother with my musing and questions ignore me. Sorry to waste your precious time. ------------------
saved by grace

Again questions from the muser. I still do not understand how the speed of light is determined though i will continue to look into this. Thank you to anyone who has provided links pertaining to my questions. In particular the radiometric dating. Now I am musing and speculating here again, thinking of the great many extinct species wondering if this evolution idea is all ass backwards. See it seems at one point to me that this planet was teeming with life and wondrous variety of plant and animal life, that has very much dimished. Even a single life does not evolve it de-volves. When you are born you begin to die. Children are wonderful beings filled with curiosity and unbiased thought. Ever talked to a 3-5 year old? Sometimes I think these little people are far more intelligent advanced and objective than the rest of us. Now they seem to devolve mentally and physically from here.Anything that begins to live does so with the purpose of dying. No matter the lifespan it is evolving toward death. This would to me (uneducated as I am) suggest a backwards process, a de-evolution. I have the feeling that our planet is actually going in the reverse process. Cooling core, diminishing atmospheric layers, less and less species surviving in changing conditions ect.So how probable is it that we have the whole concept backwards? I'm sure this is not an original thought. It would definately give some credibility to sin=death as spoken of in the bible. Note again this is a wild stab in the dark by a man with a great imagination but little knowledge.------------------
saved by grace