[_ Old Earth _] The Flaws of the Geologic Column (Timeline)

[lordkalvan]

No need to be so dramatic brother.

Ummm, you were the one who bandied around accusations of an inability 'to grasp simple terminology'.

I do apologise if I insulted you.

I didn't regard it as an insult, simply as reflecting a sort of superior dismissiveness. And my apologies for the delay in replying to this post.

I actually believed a person of your apparent intelligence would obviously understand this basic language, and I therefore assumed you were being disingenuous as many others have used that tactic in relation to the biblical “kinds†of Genesis before. I guess I was wrong in this case.

The point is is that the language is so basic that its applicability offers no meaningful standard of comparison.

It's just that I never cease to be amazed by people who come out with intelligent, well thought out and executed arguments involving somewhat complex scientific theories and ideas and yet these simple examples of very basic English and grammar seem to baffle them. So I trust you can understand when I am forced to call the bluff.

There is no problem with either basic English or grammar, but rather with efforts to imbue it with some kind of scientific value when, quite demonstrably, it has none.

You are obviously too intelligent to be stumped by this brother.

Is this a compliment?

Let’s not play games. I respect your opinions and beliefs, there is really no need for this kind of tactic.
The account in Genesis is very clear and easy to comprehend except when it comes to atheistic or theistic evolutionists.

It certainly is easy to comprehend within the context of its intent and purpose. That intent and purpose was not, however, to provide a meaningful scientific categorization of types of organisms.

The reason these two groups in particular have such an apparent hard time comprehending simple English and grammar I believe, is they do not have any real effective rebuttal for the obvious historical account of Genesis.

I am sorry, but this is quite absurd. There is no 'obvious' historicity about the Geenesis account; it may purport to be history, but this does not make it an accurate historical account any more than Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae is an accurate historical account of the history of Britain up to the Norman Conquest.

Perhaps you could help out by explaining as best as you can exactly what each of the following scriptures actually means...
What do you suppose the writer of this scripture is getting at?
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:
If you were asked to explain exactly what is meant by that sentence, what would you say?

My best guess would be that the writer was intending to convey the idea that God caused everything to be created, in much the same way as Bakuba legends recount that the giant Mbombo vomited forth the first man and woman and all the animals.

Ok next...
livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind."

Same as above. 'Kind' is not classificatory. It derives from OLD English gecynd, meaning kind, nature or race, coming down to English from the original Latin gens, meaning clan, race, nation, people or tribe.

God made the wild animals according to their kinds

the livestock according to their kinds,

and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

The problem is not what you might assume the writers were intending to convey, but rather whether the use of the term had any scientific validity in terms of classifying and understanding what constitutes a living organism. It is quite clear that the term 'kind' is used in the Bible to refer to a range of different groupings of organisms:

Genesis refers to sub-species as 'kinds' - Gen 1:25 ...and cattle after their kind....; Leviticus refers to genera as 'kinds' - kites (Lev 11:14) - and to families as 'kinds' - vultures (Lev 11:14); it also refers to species as 'kinds' - ravens (Lev 11:15).

It’s difficult for me to take you serious when you try to convince people that you don’t know what is meant when someone discuses different “breeds†of dogs for example.

The reason I mentioned this at all was because of your assertion that God created 'the first pair of dogs and from that first pair or kind, all other breeds were based'. Insofar as dogs are not mentioned at all until Exodus 11:7, I rather wondered what you understood these archetypal dog-kinds to comprise and what your understanding was concerning 'breeds'. For example, did all Canidae derive from such an archetypal 'kind', or was the 'kind' pitched at a more specific level of classification? Hence, you see the difficulty I have coming to terms with 'kind' as anything more than a catch-all term intended to reinforce the idea in the writers' minds that God created everything.

If you are still having trouble then perhaps you could benefit by reading the information here...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/variety-within-kinds

I would only comment that, after 70 years of supposed 'research' into baraminology, creation 'science' has yet to develop any meaningful and intelligible definition of 'kind' that is neither self-serving nor so generalized as to be scientifically useless.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The fact remains, I cited for you, numerous examples of sedimentary deposits on land, which are many millions of years old. The oldest I cited are sand dunes near the shore of a sea, which have the oldest evidence of land animals in them.

Your guys are just wrong. Obviously so.

Is this a marine or land environment:

Land. The marine environment is under the water. Keep in mind, the oldest environment I showed you was land near water. But the rest were deserts.

Where did the sand for the dunes from?

Eroded rock from aeolian sources. How do we know? The grains are worn differently. And the dunes in those strata show evidence of aeolian formation; the cross-bedding, and angle of repose are different in water.

What was the dominate source of the eolian forces?

Wind.

How old are the majority of your citations?

1938; 1944; 1947; etc...

So Newton's work is invalid because it's old? Did you not know that most of these formations were studied during the first part of the 20th century?

Would you like some newer cites for the same information?
http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/ge ... yer.htm#cs
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1306505

 

[Bronzesnake]

I would only comment that, after 70 years of supposed 'research' into baraminology, creation 'science' has yet to develop any meaningful and intelligible definition of 'kind' that is neither self-serving nor so generalized as to be scientifically useless.

I see, so when creation scientists define their definition of “kinds†that’s self serving, however when evolutionists do it, that’s scientific.

You are extremely biased and cannot see past your own Darwinian bent nose my friend.
The evolution classification system is not more reality than any creation model. Most creationists are able to understand such ideas in the context of their own presuppositions and assumptions, the evolutionists have a more arrogant slant on their own presuppositions and assumptions which cannot be corroborated via the scientific method. “We say it’s so and therefore it is so, because we are the real scientistsâ€

Take care brother.

Bronzesnake

 

[lordkalvan]

I would only comment that, after 70 years of supposed 'research' into baraminology, creation 'science' has yet to develop any meaningful and intelligible definition of 'kind' that is neither self-serving nor so generalized as to be scientifically useless.

[quote:e6zg6uah]I see, so when creation scientists define their definition of “kinds†that’s self serving, however when evolutionists do it, that’s scientific.

[/quote:e6zg6uah]
Creation 'scientists' can define 'kinds' however they want, but as yet (and after seven decades of, one presumes, research) they have yet to present a meaningful classification system based on the pseudoscience of baraminology. If you have any information that suggests otherwise, please provide it.

You are extremely biased and cannot see past your own Darwinian bent nose my friend.

If you say so.

The evolution classification system is not more reality than any creation model.

Evidence? What criticisms do you have to make of nested hierarchies, cladistics and molecular genetics, all sciences that point towards the same conclusion? Do you not think it worthy of note that a nested hierarchy of species based on shared characteristics is in virtually one-to-one concordance with one constructed using genetic information?

Most creationists are able to understand such ideas in the context of their own presuppositions and assumptions, the evolutionists have a more arrogant slant on their own presuppositions and assumptions which cannot be corroborated via the scientific method. “We say it’s so and therefore it is so, because we are the real scientistsâ€

Nope, by and large scientists observe, measure and analyse evidence and reach reasoned conclusions based on that evidence. If you believe a nested hierarchy is the product of something other than this process, please explain your reasoning.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Most creationists are able to understand such ideas in the context of their own presuppositions and assumptions, the evolutionists have a more arrogant slant on their own presuppositions and assumptions which cannot be corroborated via the scientific method. “We say it’s so and therefore it is so, because we are the real scientistsâ€

Nope, by and large scientists observe, measure and analyse evidence and reach reasoned conclusions based on that evidence. If you believe a nested hierarchy is the product of something other than this process, please explain your reasoning

.
Does that apply to creation scientists also?
Or, are you blinded by your presuppositions and assumptions to the point where you believe the scientists in your camp are the "real" scientists?
Why do evolutionists have such a difficult time admitting they are human and have presuppositions and assumptions which can never be corroborated using the scientific method?
I have no problem with honesty, and I openly admit what is obvious to any honest and open minded person. I have presuppositions and assumptions! I am human!!!

Bronzesnake

 

[lordkalvan]

Nope, by and large scientists observe, measure and analyse evidence and reach reasoned conclusions based on that evidence. If you believe a nested hierarchy is the product of something other than this process, please explain your reasoning

.
Does that apply to creation scientists also?

Not if they are directed by guidelines such as those of AiG's Statement of Faith 4.6:

'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
'
Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

Or, are you blinded by your presuppositions and assumptions to the point where you believe the scientists in your camp are the "real" scientists?

I have yet to see any peer-reviewed papers by creationist scientists using a creationist paradigm and presuppositions that have contributed anything to an understanding of the natural world or our place in it.

Why do evolutionists have such a difficult time admitting they are human and have presuppositions and assumptions which can never be corroborated using the scientific method?

The scientific method attempts (not always successfully) to eliminate presuppositions and assumptions as far as possible, hence its insistence on observable and measurable evidence, repeatability and allowing the evidence to lead to inferences unfettered by theological doctrine (contrast with AiG's Statement of Faith). Austin, Snelling and Baumgardner, all prominent 'creationist' scientists publish in the mainstream scientific literature using a non-creationist understanding of the science they are writing about.

I have no problem with honesty, and I openly admit what is obvious to any honest and open minded person. I have presuppositions and assumptions! I am human!!!

How honest do you regard Austin, Snelling and Baumgardner in this instance, then?

 

[Crying Rock]

Barbarian observes:
The fact remains, I cited for you, numerous examples of sedimentary deposits on land, which are many millions of years old. The oldest I cited are sand dunes near the shore of a sea, which have the oldest evidence of land animals in them.

Your guys are just wrong. Obviously so.

Is this a marine or land environment:

Land. The marine environment is under the water. Keep in mind, the oldest environment I showed you was land near water. But the rest were deserts.

[quote:1oqq1odr]Where did the sand for the dunes from?

Eroded rock from aeolian sources. How do we know? The grains are worn differently. And the dunes in those strata show evidence of aeolian formation; the cross-bedding, and angle of repose are different in water.

What was the dominate source of the eolian forces?

Wind.

How old are the majority of your citations?

1938; 1944; 1947; etc...

So Newton's work is invalid because it's old? Did you not know that most of these formations were studied during the first part of the 20th century?

Would you like some newer cites for the same information?
http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/ge ... yer.htm#cs
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1306505[/quote:1oqq1odr]

Here's your chance to be famous. Write a rebuttal (and get it through peer review), to the Geological Society of America's Bulletin, concerning these individuals joint research:

Ari Matmon†
The Institute of Earth Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Jerusalem 91904, Israel

Ori Simhai
The Institute of Earth Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Jerusalem 91904, Israel, and Geological Survey of
Israel, 30 Malkhe Israel Street, Jerusalem 95501, Israel

Rivka Amit
Geological Survey of Israel, 30 Malkhe Israel Street, Jerusalem 95501, Israel
Itai Haviv
The Institute of Earth Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Jerusalem 91904, Israel

Naomi Porat
Geological Survey of Israel, 30 Malkhe Israel Street, Jerusalem 95501, Israel

Eric McDonald
Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, Nevada 89512, USA

Lucilla Benedetti
Centre Européen de Recherche et d’Enseignement des Géosciences de l’Environnement, Europôle Méditerranéen de l’Arbois, BP 80,
Aix en Provence, cedex 04, 13545, France

Robert Finkel
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, California 94550, USA

And the Geological Society of America.

Matmon, A., and others 2009, Desert pavement–coated
surfaces in extreme deserts present the longest-lived
landforms on Earth. Geological Society of America
Bulletin vol. 121, no. 5-6, pp. 688-697.

CR:

Where did the sand for the dunes from?

Barb:

Eroded rock from aeolian sources. How do we know? The grains are worn differently. And the dunes in those strata show evidence of aeolian formation; the cross-bedding, and angle of repose are different in water.

You don't think the sand came from marine sources?


CR:

What was the dominate source of the eolian forces?

Barb:

Wind.

What I'm asking is where do you think the majority of the wind was generated?

 

[Barbarian]

Here's your chance to be famous. Write a rebuttal (and get it through peer review), to the Geological Society of America's Bulletin, concerning these individuals joint research:

The literature is already full of work showing land-based sediments hundreds of millions of years old. Why would you need me to write another one?

You don't think the sand came from marine sources?

In the desert deposits, it's quite obvious that they didn't. The Coconino sandstone, such as that found in the walls of the Grand Canyon, have angular grains, reddish color (from oxidation in air), and lack marine fossils.

What was the dominate source of the eolian forces?

Barbarian chuckles:
Wind.

What I'm asking is where do you think the majority of the wind was generated?

Middle latitudes, for the Coconino sandstone, I think. Prevailing Westerlies. The continents move, so I'm not sure where Arizona was 260 million years ago.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Arizona was about here

260 MYO

The faded bit is where everything is today, the larger solid red dot on the left is the location of Arizona now, the one between the hairlines is where it was 260 million years ago

 

[Crying Rock]

Have you read the report I cited?

Even the Arizona deposits appear to be derived from marine deposits and the eolian forces derived from the oceans.

 

[Barbarian]

Even the Arizona deposits appear to be derived from marine deposits and the eolian forces derived from the oceans.

Not possible. The sand grains would be rounded and there wouldn't be the sort of extensive cross-bedding we see in the Coconino sandstone. And it would be yellowish, not reddish.

Winds are generated by differences in pressure, caused by changes in temperature. Because rock has a lower specific heat than water, land masses tend to generate variable winds more often than oceans. The tropical zones produce more winds from the sea.

The prevailing winds that cause the Sahara desert, for example, are formed in Central Asia.

 

[Crying Rock]

Even the Arizona deposits appear to be derived from marine deposits and the eolian forces derived from the oceans.

Not possible. The sand grains would be rounded and there wouldn't be the sort of extensive cross-bedding we see in the Coconino sandstone. And it would be yellowish, not reddish.

Winds are generated by differences in pressure, caused by changes in temperature. Because rock has a lower specific heat than water, land masses tend to generate variable winds more often than oceans. The tropical zones produce more winds from the sea.

The prevailing winds that cause the Sahara desert, for example, are formed in Central Asia.

Where do you think the sediments that form these dunes originated:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/86/22287 ... 943da0.jpg

Not possible.

The sand grains would be rounded and there wouldn't be the sort of extensive cross-bedding we see in the Coconino sandstone.

Secondary deposition? Eolian forces don't round/ smooth sediments?

...Cross-bedding structures are formed in bedforms such as ripples and dunes by the motion of sediment due to a flowing fluid. Sediment grains bounce up the windward/upstream ("stoss") side of a ripple, and then tumble down the lee side.

Cross-bedding can form in any environment in which a fluid flows over a bed with mobile material. It is most common in stream deposits (consisting of sand and gravel), tidal areas, and in aeolian dunes...

...Cross-bedding can also be recognized by truncations in sets of ripple foresets, where previously-existing stream deposits are eroded by a later flood, and new bedforms are deposited in the scoured area...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-bedding

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Not possible. The sand grains would be rounded and there wouldn't be the sort of extensive cross-bedding we see in the Coconino sandstone. And it would be yellowish, not reddish.

Winds are generated by differences in pressure, caused by changes in temperature. Because rock has a lower specific heat than water, land masses tend to generate variable winds more often than oceans. The tropical zones produce more winds from the sea.

The prevailing winds that cause the Sahara desert, for example, are formed in Central Asia.

Where do you think the sediments that form these dunes originated:

Because the Coconino sandstone is red and consists of angular grains, we know it was produced on land by wind and rain erosion.

In geology, cross-bedding refers to inclined sedimentary structures in a horizontal unit of rock. These tilted structures are deposits from bedforms such as ripples and dunes, and they indicate that the depositional environment contained a flowing fluid (typically, water or wind). This is a case in geology in which original depositional layering is tilted, and the tilting is not a result of post-depositional deformation.

Cross-bedding structures are formed in bedforms such as ripples and dunes by the motion of sediment due to a flowing fluid. Sediment grains bounce up the windward/upstream ("stoss") side of a ripple, and then tumble down the lee side.

Cross-bedding can form in any environment in which a fluid flows over a bed with mobile material. It is most common in stream deposits (consisting of sand and gravel), tidal areas, and in aeolian dunes.

Cross-bedded sediments are recognized in the field by the many layers of "foresets", which are the series of layers that form on the lee side of the bedform (ripple or dune). These foresets are individually differentiable because of small-scale separation between layers of material of different sizes and densities.

And

Sands deposited in deserts gradually redden as iron minerals break down and lend their red coloration
to the sand. The reddening continues after burial as more overlying sedimentary units are added. Over millions of years, these loose sand grains are compressed and cemented into the rock called sandstone. In these red sandstones, microscopic, oxidized iron films of the mineral hematite spread and coat the quartz grains. The amount of hematite is very small, but since iron is a powerful pigment a little
red goes a long way!

Given enough pressure and force, water moves relatively easily through porous sandstone almost
like water through a sponge. Even during heavy rains with much surface runoff, some water infiltrates the sandstone. Under certain conditions, iron pigment will dissolve in water and be removed, or be rendered colorless by chemical reactions with the water. This is much like a bleaching detergent permeating a red cloth, removing color as it spreads.
http://geology.utah.gov/online/pdf/pi-77.pdf

 

[Crying Rock]

Barbarian observes:

Not possible. The sand grains would be rounded and there wouldn't be the sort of extensive cross-bedding we see in the Coconino sandstone. And it would be yellowish, not reddish.

Winds are generated by differences in pressure, caused by changes in temperature. Because rock has a lower specific heat than water, land masses tend to generate variable winds more often than oceans. The tropical zones produce more winds from the sea.

The prevailing winds that cause the Sahara desert, for example, are formed in Central Asia.

Where do you think the sediments that form these dunes originated:

Because the Coconino sandstone is red and consists of angular grains, we know it was produced on land by wind and rain erosion.

In geology, cross-bedding refers to inclined sedimentary structures in a horizontal unit of rock. These tilted structures are deposits from bedforms such as ripples and dunes, and they indicate that the depositional environment contained a flowing fluid (typically, water or wind). This is a case in geology in which original depositional layering is tilted, and the tilting is not a result of post-depositional deformation.

Cross-bedding structures are formed in bedforms such as ripples and dunes by the motion of sediment due to a flowing fluid. Sediment grains bounce up the windward/upstream ("stoss") side of a ripple, and then tumble down the lee side.

Cross-bedding can form in any environment in which a fluid flows over a bed with mobile material. It is most common in stream deposits (consisting of sand and gravel), tidal areas, and in aeolian dunes.

Cross-bedded sediments are recognized in the field by the many layers of "foresets", which are the series of layers that form on the lee side of the bedform (ripple or dune). These foresets are individually differentiable because of small-scale separation between layers of material of different sizes and densities.

And

Sands deposited in deserts gradually redden as iron minerals break down and lend their red coloration to the sand. The reddening continues after burial as more overlying sedimentary units are added. Over millions of years, these loose sand grains are compressed and cemented into the rock called sandstone. In these red sandstones, microscopic, oxidized iron films of the mineral hematite spread and coat the quartz grains. The amount of hematite is very small, but since iron is a powerful pigment a little red goes a long way!

Given enough pressure and force, water moves relatively easily through porous sandstone almost
like water through a sponge. Even during heavy rains with much surface runoff, some water infiltrates the sandstone. Under certain conditions, iron pigment will dissolve in water and be removed, or be rendered colorless by chemical reactions with the water. This is much like a bleaching detergent permeating a red cloth, removing color as it spreads.

http://geology.utah.gov/online/pdf/pi-77.pdf

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, this is how we know the red sandstones were not formed in a marine environment or even a wet one. You would see red sandstone only in arid environments. And as you learned, such deposits are sometimes hundreds of millions of years old.