Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,484 Year: 3,741/9,624 Month: 612/974 Week: 225/276 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 163 of 1163 (786836)
06-28-2016 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by mike the wiz
06-27-2016 5:01 PM


The creationist "hypothetical geologic column"
...the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column
So what is this "hypothetical geologic column"?
My understanding of the creationist "hypothetical geologic column" is that they find the thickest sediment layer they can, of each Phanerozoic period, regardless of where on Earth such is found. Then they pile all these into some sort of grand (and very thick) column of rock, which becomes their "geologic column". Then the creationists complain that such a column is found nowhere in the world. Of course it isn't - Their column is pieced together from strata from all over the world.
Moose
Added by edit:
OK, I just looked at Mike's source. It contains:
quote:
The column to the left represents the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period (100 miles).
That page or similar must have been where I got my understanding.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by mike the wiz, posted 06-27-2016 5:01 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by edge, posted 06-28-2016 9:59 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 165 by jar, posted 06-28-2016 10:03 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 304 of 1163 (787438)
07-14-2016 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by edge
07-14-2016 12:01 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
I looked through the Wikipedia article on the Norian stage and fail to see what makes it a stage. That is, I don't see any particular order to the fossil creatures characteristic of the time period allotted to them.
But that is exactly what the article explains. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer.
The Wiki article gives examples of creatures of the Norian stage, both marine and land. Maybe Faith is thinking that all these creatures should be found in any given Norian aged deposit.
Not a paleontologist, but I think that such relatively fine divisions in the geologic time scale ("geologic column") is based on marine life studies (as per your message 298). How they extended such to land deposits, I don't know.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by edge, posted 07-14-2016 12:01 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by edge, posted 07-14-2016 8:44 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 341 of 1163 (787505)
07-16-2016 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Pollux
07-16-2016 12:21 AM


Re: Baumgardner's try - New wrinkle in catastrophic plate tectonics?
In essence, he postulates rapid plate tectonics of 2 metre per second causing massive tsunamis which wash over the continents and erode them. There are fast ocean currents to carry the sediment load required, which gradually slow as the plate speed drops off, and the sediment is deposited.
I am aware that Baumgardner had proposed extra rapid sea floor spreading, but I had never encountered the tsunami term being used.
Just to refresh the reality record, increased sea floor spreading rates are indeed thought to be the major cause of the major sea transgressions onto the continents. The idea is that increased rates cause the oceanic crust as a whole to be warmer, less dense, and more buoyant in floating on the mantle. Thus the sea floor rises significantly and displaces water onto the continents (and I would think that the continents would also have to subside to some degree).
Somewhere in the past, I calculated that if the sea floors were brought up to what is currently sea level, the water level on the continents would (IIRC) rise several thousand feet. This is considerably more that what is found in the geologic record, which I believe to be in the ballpark of (maybe) 2000 feet maximum.
There is also the consideration, that the biosphere heating by this extreme spreading rate would truly cook the planet. Which would get the largely sterilizing the planet job done. Even more extreme than the standard "flood story".
Critiquing by other geologists (and non-geologists) welcome. Although this would thrash the "state of the on-topic" even worse than currently.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Pollux, posted 07-16-2016 12:21 AM Pollux has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by edge, posted 07-16-2016 5:08 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 345 by edge, posted 07-16-2016 5:18 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 362 of 1163 (787568)
07-18-2016 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Dr Adequate
07-17-2016 1:09 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
Sweeping generalizations detector has kicked in...
Amongst other things:
Lava flows lie flat because lava when liquid is self-leveling.
Gee, how did those Hawaiian islands form?
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2016 1:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2016 2:08 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024