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

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Okay I'm asking on this thread for mostly help.

---

Quite admirable. Most learning begins with a question.

quote:

---

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?

---

Some clarification might be in order here. Are you asking about the stratigraphic column or the geological time scale? Because the subject is so complex, and difficult to address in a forum such as this, I recommend picking up a basic geology text and reading about it. One of the first things you will learn is that geology is not as easy to pick up as some creationists would have you think. There is a lot of abstract thinking in time and space, along with historical aspects to learn, in order to see just how the column developed.

quote:

---

Why is accepted as the standard? (the ruler so to speak)

---

A simple answer would be because of meticulous correlation carried out over many generations of work on all continents. In reality there is no true single stratigraphic column. Rather there is one for each location and those locations can be correlated from one to the next, virtually around the world. This was not an easy task and some work is still going on. The geological time scale is a bit different. It is a relative time scale based on mapping during the early days of geologic studies, mostly in Europe, and now extended in usefulness around the world. This is an off-the-cuff, and highly abbreviated description, of course. There is a lot of colorful history and arcane terminology that goes into a real study of the subject.

quote:

---

In our household we are very interested in our earth and it's constant movement.

---

All the more reason to pick up a text. Remember to keep it basic at first. If you miss this step, you will end up unable to understand and critically analyze what you read later on. Many of our creationist posters on this board have committed this error and now place themselves in jeopardy of believing or rationalizing almost any hypothesis that comes along. For example, virtually every one of them does not have a basic understanding of uniformitarianism. They have been told what it is by their professional creationists and are unable to say, "Wait a second, that's not what I learned from my basic reading!"

Let's be nice to him, Edge. Just for now.This site No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm has a map showing where the entire geological column can be found in situ.It is 100% consistent across the globe. We only ever find layers in the wrong order where there is clear evidence of massive earth movements such as folding and overthrusting.

[QUOTE][B]It is 100% consistent across the globe.[/QUOTE][/B]That really needs to be clarified. The Principle of Superposition (that the oldest layers are at the bottom and layers get progressively older as you go up) works except at unconformities and thrust faults.

Please see:
"Topic: TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV?"
http://EvC Forum: TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV? -->EvC Forum: TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV?Somewhere in there (I think), Edge and I had a discussion of the difference between a specific geologic section and the more general "geologic column".The above topic is the successor to the now closed "Topic: So how did the GC get laid down from a mainstream POV? Deterministic models?", which can be found at:
http://EvC Forum: So how did the GC get laid down from a mainstream POV? Deterministic models? -->EvC Forum: So how did the GC get laid down from a mainstream POV? Deterministic models?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

I'd just like to emphasize the point that the geological column itself, in approximately its modern form, had been accepted for decades before biological evolutionary theory started to be accepted, and even before a lengthy age of the Earth was accepted.This absolutely counters the various arguments that the geological column is based solely on circular reasoning from evolutionary assumptions.I'm not saying you've stated any such thing, fmf, but it's an obvious point that is too often overlooked in these discussions, so I'd like to interject it here.

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

funkmasterCreationists in the past used to make the claims that the geological column was estbalished through 'circular reasoning'. Most present young-earth creationist geologists accept the geological column as described mainstream. We accept the basic fossil order as true. We simply don't accept the mainstream ages.The great ages come from two souces:(1) Generally from assuming that layering has always occurred at slow rates.(2) Specifically, by radiodating of certain minerals. This assumes nuclear radiodecay has always occured at the same rate.Now (1) is completely unjustifiable if one beleives the global flood was a literal event. Of course sedimentaiton rates were vastly increased during the flood and could have generated much of the geolgoical column in a year.However, (2) is a very sensible thing to do. However, creationists have recently found very promising evidence that the radiodecay rate was accelerated in the last 10,000 years. Why would God do this? Radiodecay of minerals generates heat. Mainstream we already know that some of the Earth's inner heat comes from radiodecay. We think decay was acclerated by God to heat up the crust and mantle and rapidly generate continental drift and sea-level changes during the flood.The geological column is fine with me. it's just how it got there that I disagree with evolutionists on. What mainstream geologists rarely point out is that most layering on land is due to marine (seawater) inundations, not rivers, lakes and small floods. The geo-column is very compatible with the Genesis Flood. No-one can explaion in detail why every fossil type is where it is. But as I'm sure you know, almost all fossils appear suddenly in the fossil record without transitonal forms so the evolutionary explantion is a faith based one too.Much of the fact that formations can be correlated semi-globally actually favours the flood model. Many of the formaitons can be associated with particular innundaitons that were almost definitely global. (Sea levels can rise locally if the land subsides of course). Mainstream geologists call these 'epeiric-seas' becasue they think they inundated slowly and formed placid seas. However, the rocks frequently reveal they were formed under strong currents and we simply reinterperet these 'epeiric seas' as impinging flood waters from the sea. Because of their blinkered approach mainstream geologists have completely misinterpreted how the huge formations around the world were formed. I love geology but the flood is the answer, not gradualism.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The great ages come from two souces:

​

(1) Generally from assuming that layering has always occurred at slow rates.

​

(2) Specifically, by radiodating of certain minerals. This assumes nuclear radiodecay has always occured at the same rate.

​

Now (1) is completely unjustifiable if one beleives the global flood was a literal event. Of course sedimentaiton rates were vastly increased during the flood and could have generated much of the geolgoical column in a year.

---

That's one mighty big 'if.'

quote:

---

However, (2) is a very sensible thing to do. However, creationists have recently found very promising evidence that the radiodecay rate was accelerated in the last 10,000 years. Why would God do this? Radiodecay of minerals generates heat. Mainstream we already know that some of the Earth's inner heat comes from radiodecay. We think decay was acclerated by God to heat up the crust and mantle and rapidly generate continental drift and sea-level changes during the flood.

---

Actually, there is no evidence for this variable decay rate.

quote:

---

The geological column is fine with me. it's just how it got there that I disagree with evolutionists on. What mainstream geologists rarely point out is that most layering on land is due to marine (seawater) inundations, not rivers, lakes and small floods.

---

Incorrect. If this were so, how do geologists explain coral reefs, beach sands, ribbon cherts, and shale basins? I don't know where TC and TB ever got this idea, but it really is erroneous.

quote:

---

The geo-column is very compatible with the Genesis Flood.

---

Except that there is no flood deposit.

quote:

---

No-one can explaion in detail why every fossil type is where it is.

---

I can. Evolution.

quote:

---

But as I'm sure you know, almost all fossils appear suddenly in the fossil record without transitonal forms so the evolutionary explantion is a faith based one too.

---

Actually, many transitional forms are known and the sudden appearance is simply apparent.

quote:

---

Much of the fact that formations can be correlated semi-globally actually favours the flood model. Many of the formaitons can be associated with particular innundaitons that were almost definitely global. (Sea levels can rise locally if the land subsides of course). Mainstream geologists call these 'epeiric-seas' becasue they think they inundated slowly and formed placid seas. However, the rocks frequently reveal they were formed under strong currents and we simply reinterperet these 'epeiric seas' as impinging flood waters from the sea.

---

Never mind that every time I ask for evidence of these strong currents I am greeted with deafening silence.

quote:

---

Because of their blinkered approach mainstream geologists have completely misinterpreted how the huge formations around the world were formed. I love geology but the flood is the answer, not gradualism.

---

Yes, thousands of geologists, past and present are wrong, but TB has the answer. LOL!

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 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...------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

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

funkmasterMy geology education has been via the geology department library of our university in addition to posters on this site. I borrowed a dozen or so hihg-level texts on sedimentaiton and stratigraphy. Pettijohn and Blatt et al are good. I also bought my self some basic geology texts (you already have by the sounds of it). My tectonics etc is very rudimentary from introductory texts. However I have read up on straigraphy and paleontology from high-level monographs. I have quoted from these texts in thse forums.My biggest 'discoveries' were about the global sea-level curves, that the majority of layering on land is from marine inundations, that paleocurrents (ripples etc in rocks) reveal strong currents throughout the geo-col and also how paleontology actually works.A monograph by M.J. Benton called 'Vertebrate Paleontology' is very good and shows actual vertical distributions of fossil families rather than the misleading diagrams shown in most other books. From this you find that trees ('cladograms') are built from anatomical similarity. The fossil order distribuitons are rearranged horizontally to match the cladograms and then arbitrary length lines are drawn in to link groups that the similarity tree predicted.In short, any fossil distribution can be made compatible with any anatomical similarity tree by rearranging and drawing in arbitary length lines. Of course these fossil distributions are drawn as continuous flows in almost all secondary sources.My creationist readings have simply backed these readings up. Flood geologists suspect that the inundations are the flood. There is much evidence of rapidity and continuity in layerig. Breaks in layering with trackways etc are explained via flood surges and temporary habitaiton from highlands. They propose catastrophic plate tectonics including computer gnerated dynamic models to cause these things to occur quickly. Recent new findings on helium retention in biotites suggest that radiodecay was accelerated within the last 14,000 years.Have a fun and fruitful journey. And, yes, it is a bizaree planet we live on. The stuff we hear about via TV documentaries is understated if anything.PS: You will find no book that actually systematically describes how the geological column arrived from a mainstream point of view. You will get a lot of books listing dozens of sedimneary environments. But no book will systematically go though 20 local geo-cols and tell you how it got there. If you find a book like that I'll buy it too.When you read about all of the dozens of sdimentary environments just keep remembering that most of the geo-col was deposited by marine inundations onto land. A handful of pages in each book will descirbe this 'epeiric sea' environment even though it is responsible for the majority of the geo-column.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-27-2002]

quote:

---

The geological column is fine with me. it's just how it got there that I disagree with evolutionists on. What mainstream geologists rarely point out is that most layering on land is due to marine (seawater) inundations, not rivers, lakes and small floods. The geo-column is very compatible with the Genesis Flood.

---

But there are deposits throughout the geologic column that are from rivers and lakes. There are also marine layers that must have been deposited slowly such as massive chalk deposits which coragyps has pointed out.http://EvC Forum: General Flood Topic -->EvC Forum: General Flood TopicOther features such as eolian sandstones, paleosols and pure evaporates are completely impossible in your whirling swirling surging flood model. These facts show that the geologic column was not deposited by a worldwide flood. You continue to claim the compatibility of the geologic column with the flood but your ideas are shown to be nonsense when you try to defend them. It does not matter how much of the column was deposited under water. None of it was deposited during a year of worldwide flood.

quote:

---

We think decay was acclerated by God to heat up the crust and mantle and rapidly generate continental drift and sea-level changes during the flood.

---

You think this but it is absurd. As Edge has pointed out there is no evidence of this magically accelerated decay. Have you forgotten that this runaway subduction boils away the oceans and cooks the earth to death thousands of times over as I pointed out on the Baumgardner threadhttp://EvC Forum: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators! -->EvC Forum: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators!and predicts a seafloor profile nothing like that seen now as Joe has pointed out?Here is what you said about it on that thread.

quote:

---

Don't confuse 'the' Biblical model with the musings and models of Baumgardner et al. No one is claiming runaay subduction as absolute truth.

---

Your problem is that while the best that the best and brightest of young earth creationist geologist can come up with to try to produce a source for the flood water runaway subduction is not only not absolute truth it is absolute nonsense.You think that you see some features in some parts of the geologic column that are compatible with deposition by a worldwide flood though you have never been able to substantiate this claim. You then use this unsubstantiated claim as your excuse to ignore the mountains of other data that totally falsify the flood of Noah as a scientific hypothesis.Randy