Monday, June 30, 2008
K-D: THE CREATION OF THE WORLD Part 6
Till natural science has advanced beyond mere opinion and conjecture, with regard to the mode in which the rocks were formed and their positions determined; there can be no ground for assuming that conclusions drawn from the successive order of the various strata, with regard to the periods of their formation, must of necessity be true. This is the more apparent, when we consider, on the one hand, that even the principal formations (the primary, transitional, stratified, and tertiary), not to mention the subdivisions of which each of these is composed, do not always occur in the order laid down in the system, but in not a few instances the order is reversed, crystalline primary rocks lying upon transitional, stratified, and tertiary formations (granite, syenite, gneiss, etc., above both Jura-limestone and chalk); and, on the other hand, that not only do the different leading formations and their various subdivisions frequently shade off into one another so imperceptibly, that no boundary line can be drawn between them and the species distinguished by oryctognosis are not sharply and clearly defined in nature, but that, instead of surrounding the entire globe, they are all met with in certain localities only, whilst whole series of intermediate links are frequently missing, the tertiary formations especially being universally admitted to be only partial.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
I think what you're saying is modern geology is false because in some parts of the world the strata looks different?
No Healey what I think he is saying is that the evolutionary view imposed upon reality is wrong because it is contradicted by what we see.
One clear example is the Grand Canyon in Arizona where successive deep layers of sedimentary rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, are laid one upon the other with knife-edge boundaries between. The evidence is consistent with these layers (some 100m thick) being laid down under deep flowing water, each in one quick event.
The problem? If each layer was rapidly deposited where are all the billions of years? Aha says the long-ager, there must have been vast time periods between each depositional event, with many massive floods covering vast areas. But quelle horreur,there is a problem because nowhere is the surface between the layers eroded as they must be if unconsolidated sediments were left bare to the elements.
The more rational explanation is that each of the layers were deposited in one short-term event, with little time in between. But we can't believe that can we Healey, it sounds too religious, too much like Noah's flood!
Then there is the puzzle for long-agers of the Kaibab Upwarp!
Explain to me sorry, because I'm a little confused sorry, how so many different sedimentary layers, all defined with "knife edge" boundaries, can be laid down at the same time in the same single flood?
If it's done in one flood, one incoming rush of sediment, how would there be time for several different layers to form?
Healey I think it quite understandable that you are confused as such anti-long-ages, anti-evolution evidence is not taught in evolution 101.
What we have at the Grand Canyon is evidence, not proof. There are numerous layers of sedimentary rock such as the Coconino Sandstone which lies directly on top of the Hermit Shale. According to evolutionists the Hermit Shale was deposited 10 million years before the Coconino Sandstone was deposited upon it. However the boundary between the two is flat, described as 'knife-edge, without evidence of soil formation or erosion. If the Hermit Shale was exposed for such an immense time period there would be considerable erosion, soil formation and plant activity. Remember these are not layers of metamorphic rock but once soft sediments, now sedimentary rock.
The same is true for the other layers in the GC, no erosion at the interface, no soil formation or plant growth. Conversely, having been there I saw that the uppermost layer, the present exposed surface is well eroded, with deep soil present, and plant growth.
Therefore the evidence points to each of the layers (in the about 1.6k depth) being deposited one upon the other in a short period of time, so short that the surfaces did not have time to erode.
Am I saying this 'proves' the Biblical flood? Not at all, but that the mechanics at work here, and the time frame give support to it, but do not support the evolutionary millions of year idea.
Further evidence: In the Canyon there is a place referred to as the Kaibab Upwarp where deep sedimentary layers (now rock)which evolutionists say span 300 million years, are bent 90 degrees without any cracking. How can you bend sedimemtary rock 90 degrees without cracking it? Can't happen can it Healey. The alternative view is that these 5 layers of now sedimentary rock were deposited and bent in a short period, before they has hardened into rock.
Does this also 'prove' the Biblical flood? Once again, not at all, but the evidence is consistent with the Biblical view and contradicts the evolutionary long-ages uniformitarian view.
Interestingly evolutionary geologists missed this for decades, actually seeing the GC as evidence for long ages! But as the man said- I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it.
Their bias prevented them from seeing the obvious.
Still confused Warwick - how are 5 completely different layers of sediment laid down, one atop the other, in one flood event? How is it that one layer of sediment was laid down, then hardened in a few days, then another laid down (somehow), then hardened, and another and another, all from 1 flood?
Healey I wrote : 'The alternative view is that these 5 layers of now sedimentary rock were deposited and bent in a short period, before they has hardened into rock.'
But you asked: 'How is it that one layer of sediment was laid down, then hardened in a few days, then another laid down (somehow), then hardened, and another and another, all from 1 flood?'
Read more carefully young Healey!
I thought I had explained it well. My 9 year old granddaughter understood it! Year six high school students got the point, demonstrating this by the questions they asked.
The evidence at the Grand Canyon contradicts the long-ages uniformitarian view, as explained. Understand so far?
It supports the view that each deep layer of sediment was deposited upon the one below in a time period too short for the normal rain, wind erosion effects to occur. Too little time also for soil to form. This would have happened in the assumed 10 million year period between the deposition of the shale and the sandstone, wouldn't it? But it didn't and the only conclusion is that the surface was not exposed for any length of time. That's obvious isn't it?
The evidence is that the massive sedimentary layers were EACH deposited in one event (not all in one event)under deep flowing water and in a 'short' time period.
This is entirely consistent with a year-long world-wide flood which destroyed the world at that time. Such a flood would have obviously ebbed and flowed (over this year)causing discrete depositional events, containing different sediments, to be deposited from different directions, as is consistent with the evidence.
Healey the point is as demonstrated at the Kaibab Upwarp that the various sedimentary layers were deposited one upon the other before any of them being given time to harden. Surely it isn't hard to get the idea that sedimentary rock cannot be bent 90 degrees without cracking.
Conversely the fact the these layers are so bent, without cracking, is convincing evidence that these layers were bent while still plasitc. If they were deposited over 300 million years as claimed by long-agers they would have hardened to rock and cracked when bent. Too easy!
I can just imagine your next point-then how come the second layer didn't remove some of the first layer and so on, while being deposited? Did I suggest otherwise?
Once again Healey you have been a naughty boy and deserve a smack. However you may just enjoy that too much!
Why would the floods have ebbed and flowed? The waters covered "even to the tops of the highest mountains". For example at the bottom of the ocean there aren't too many ebbings and flowings - the bottom sediment generally isn't too disturbed.
And how are these sediments being hardened in a few months, and if the flood waters are rushing back and forth where is the sediment coming from and why isn't eroding anything out of your vaunted grand canyon?
So Healey in your fertile imagination a world-wide flood which destroyed the whole world would have been tranquil! Amazing.
Where o where Healey do you get this fantsmagorical idea that someone said the sediments were hardened in a few months? Have you been smokin those funny ceegaretts agin?
Healy my boy once again you have it backwards. The evidence supports the Grand Canyon being cut post-flood through unconsolidated sedimentary layers. Now read that again, 'unconsolidated sedimentary layers', the same type of layers which were bent 90 degrees without cracking.
Mate are a little intellectually challenged or do you think I am? Oh sorry I am a creationist so by definition I must be a dumbo.
This world destroying flood was flowing back and forth over the land surfaces and you ask where the sediments were coming from?
Where do you live, not in the real world I think.
You are entertaining. I haven't had so much fun for years.
I'm about to head off to bed but would someone track down the video or paper by...can't remember the Frenchman's name...who showed that sediments are set down as the evolutionists believe, but by a sorting method. Too tired to elaborate.
You're getting confused Warwick.
According to your beloved bible (again, correct me if I'm wrong here) says that the waters burst forth from the deep, it rained for 40 days and nights, etc etc, til the earth was covered "even unto the highest mountains".
Now the peak of Everest sits at 8,848 metres above sea level. The Grand Canyon is on average (according to Wikipedia sorry) 2,438 metres above sea level.
So what turned into the grand canyon was covered by several kilometres of water (although I suppose you'll say Everest wasn't as high or wasn't around pre-flood). So ebbing and flowing, mostly driven by a) tidal forces and b) the sun wouldn't have had much impact on the grand canyon.
John, it was Guy Berthault. He showed that thin layers can form all at once by self-sorting, as long as there are particles of different sizes and horizontal flow.
This has been seen in the field, on a beach in QLD.
Healy, for goodness' sake man, try reading what creationists actually say:
The Bible refers only to ‘high hills’, and the mountains today were formed only towards the end of, and after, the Flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mt Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.
This uplift of the new continental land-masses from under the Flood
waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys
sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the floodwaters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today’s Earth surface.
Healey suggesting that someone is confused is a tactic which many of your kind use. It is an old and obvious ploy.
You say I am confused but it was you who wrote:
"How are these sediments being hardened in a few months'
AND
'How is it that one layer of sediment was laid down, then hardened in a few days...'
So what is is Healey a few months or a few days? And who claimed that? If anyone is confused it is you because at no stage did I say the sediments hardened in either time period.
Do you also notice you give nothing to the debate. You do not pose a counter view about how these features could have been formed. You just duck and weave trying, but failing, to bring up some point which in your limited imagination somehow disproves something. Very vague.
So Healey over to you: consider the Kaibab Upwarp alone. Let us keep it simple. There we have multiple deep layers of now sedimentary rock bent 90 degrees without cracking.
What is your suggestion as to how this rock could have been so bent without cracking?
Answer please!
Heating then gradual bending for one.
Your attitude isn't exactly helpful Warwick. I'm trying to get a better idea of what it is creationists actually believe and how they justify those beliefs, so try to calm down okay? That's why I'm asking questions instead of giving alternate view points. Settle down.
Thanks Kt.
And of course I shoud have written 'who showed that sediments are NOT set down as the evolutionists believe'
Healey what gives you the idea that I am less than calm?
It is true that I am a passionate and excitable man. You should see me on the race track in my sports car. But passion and excitement are natural emotional states for the liberated, and not to be equated with anger or such.
Actually I think I have a good attitude, patient and helpful. However it is true to say this wears thin with people who I discern are just playing games.
However if you truly want to see what the 'dark-side' believes I will do my best to assist. But when you can't understand what children easily grasp I begin to wonder.
Let us do this step by step:
If the long-ages (L-A) view is correct then these sediments at the Kaibab Upwarp would long ago have hardened into rock, as the belief is they were deposited over a period on 300 million years, finishing 250 million years ago.
In this same belief these ancient rocks were bent 70 million years ago. Therefore even the top layer-the Kaibab limestone had 180 million years to become rock.
At Mount St Helens eruption sediments hardened into rock in about 5 years.
So lets think in L-A terms:
If the rock bent 90 degrees, or less there is only two ways this could occur:
1) By cracking and recrystalizing of the 'cement' which bonds the grains together. Microscopic examination shows that this has not occurred
2) That the rock was heated sufficiently enough to allow the grains to bend when the underlying metamorphic Vishnu Schist was uplifted.
Granted there are some rocks, such as rock salt which can flow under such conditions. However consider the bottom-most layer, Tapeats sandstone, which is a very hard and brittle rock which if bent always shows bent sand grains,or broken cement crystals. Neither of which are seen here, under microscopic inspection.
So the L/A view fails this clear test.
But this evidence supports the Biblical flood view in which the various layers would have been deposited in a relatively short time-frame, then bent while still plastic. This alone removes hundreds of millions of years from the L-A view of the age of the earth.
I trust you understand that this is consistent evidence and not proof as no one can go back and see this happening.
Whether a person believes in the L-A-evolutionary view or the Biblical view it is a position of faith. However when analyzed I see the evidence, here and elsewhere better supporting the Biblical view.
BTW I can only speak for what my research has shown. I cannot speak for all creationists.
Of course what you're saying is "easy to understand" for children Warwick. Probably because children aren't able to properly process what it is you're feeding them. They say they understand, but they're more than likely missing the deeper insight.
From my years of presenting to children Healey you can guage the depth of their understanding of the message by the questions they ask.
They sometimes would says such as -you said a & b therefore c must be so? Very perceptive because they process the information, for what it is, not interpreting it through a world-view.
But you see my point regarding the Kaibab Upwarp don't you?
So Healy you've gone quiet on the subject!
How could the sedimentary rock at the kaibab Upwarp bend 90 degrees without cracking?
You say you are just seeking to understand creationist thinking so having had this evidence so carefully explained where does that leave you? Do you now accept this situation contradicts the long-age evolutionary story, and supports the creationist view?
Nothing you've said to me "supports the creationist view" Warwick :) You may think it does but none of it has convinced me. All I've seen is attempt after attempt to make a claim to science by finding apparent holes in modern evolutionary theory and geology. Of course "creation science" (which fails by the very definition of science) can't poke holes in everything. Like the distant starlight problem. Or the fact that we don't see evidence of a world wide flood "world wide".
Now, your Kaibab example - unfortunately all I am able to find on the matter is a bunch of creationist websites that just say it proves creationism. None of them (that I've found yet) actually argue against whatever it is modern geology says about the formation (and none of them [so far] even show the scientific view) so I can't give you an exact answer. It could have been wet and therefore more plastic during formation of the bend, or it could have simply been like silly putty - bend it slow no problem, fast and it snaps. Or something else, no idea I'm not a geologist.
I still can't imagine how all those layers were put down, solidified, put down and solidified over the course of a single year. With your "knife edge" example you said it couldn't have been millions of years otherwise there'd be erosion, yet you say things like the grandcanyon was eroded in one single event. How does that in any way explain there being very little erosion between strata in one location? If it carved the grand canyon in a few months....
Anyway I might look into it more later. And speaking of looking into things did you look into the albedo of the moon?
Healy the creationist view put forward by geologists is that the various layers were deposited each in a single event, under deep flowing water. The first was deposited then later the next layer was deposited under the same conditions, until the whole depth of layers, now visible were in place. At the top of the canyon there is much erosion, because it has been exposed to the elements. The layers below have no erosion therefore they were not exposed to the elements. I know this because I have visited it and of course seen many documentaries.
Further the creationist view is that the still soft sediments were cut through, as a flow breaking through an earth wall. This is consistent with the evidence as there is little sediment at the mouth of the canyon, as you would expect to see if the Colorado River had slowly cut through over hundreds of millions of years,grain by grain.
What do you mean by the layers all being consolidated within one year?
Neither am I a geologist but I know quite a few and they say that hard sedimentary rock can only be bent in three ways:
1)If the cement holding the sedimentary grains together has been cracked and recrystalized-it hasn't.
2) If the sedimentary grains were heated enough so that they could bend, under pressure- they are not bent.
3) That the sedimentary rock was subjected to great
pressure/heat which melted it, allowing it to become plastic and flow. If the sedimentary rock was heated this much it would have become metamorphic rock, therefore no longer sedimentary rock-but it still is sedimentary rock.
The only conclusion which fits the available evidence, and geological knowledge is that these deep layers were bent while still wet and plasitc. This contradicts the long-age view as in that belief the various layers had hundreds of millions of years to harden.
Conversely this fits with the Biblical view of them being deposited during the flood and therefore able to be bent while still plastic.
BTW how does creation science fail by the very definition of science and the evolutionary hypothesis pass?
BTW I think I already told you of Dr John Hartnett's book: 'Starlight, Time and the New Physics' it will give you an answer to the distant starlight question. It is up to you whether you wish to read the book however if you are not prepared to do so then you should not continue to bring it up as a problem for creationists.
A little on Dr Hartnett follows.
Dr John Hartnett
John received both his B.Sc. (hons) and his Ph.D. with distinction from the Department of Physics at the University of Western Australia (UWA). He is currently an Associate Professor with the Frequency Standards and Metrology research group. John's work involves the European Space Agency's atomic clock ensemble in space. His research interests include the development of ultra-stable cryogenically cooled microwave oscillators based on a sapphire crystal, ultra low-noise radar, tests of fundamental theories of physics such as Special and General Relativity and measurement of drift in fundamental constants and their cosmological implications. John has a keen interest in cosmology and how it applies to the creationist world-view. He is developing new theories in physics that have established that there is no need to assume the existence of dark matter in the universe. He has published more than 120 papers in scientific journals and holds 2 patents.
John is an effective communicator on the relevance of creation and the Bible and has developed cosmological models to explain the creation of 'the heavens' during creation week. These models also seek to explain the question of how we can see distant starlight from sources that are millions of light-years away, in a young universe, which the Bible infers is only 6,000 years old. He has co-authored the book Dismantling the Big Bang that reveals the scientific and philosophical weaknesses at the core of big-bang thinking. It shows that the cosmological evidence points to a biblical view of history. John’s most recent publication, Starlight, Time and the New Physics is a bold new answer to the distant starlight issue.
John speaks part-time for Creation Ministries International, and has contributed to their Journal of Creation (formerly TJ).
3) That the sedimentary rock was subjected to great
pressure/heat which melted it, allowing it to become plastic and flow
It doesn't have to be melted to become more malleable.
I'm sorry you think that Newton being a creationist has some sort of relevance to modern science. You can keep on thinking that if you want no one is ever going to stop you. And that link you sent me to was bullshit, sorry. It waffles on without saying very much unfortunately.
Now you say something about "if there was proof, why would an evolutionist of such repute say otherwise". Okay so you have one "evolutionist" that says there's no proof for evolution - first why the hell is he an "evolutionist" if he can't see any proof? Second, that's one out of a few hundred thousand that do see proof.
Healy your reasoning is poor. You are ducking and weaving in the face of evidence which contradicts your belief.
If the grains were softened enough to bend then microscopic analysis would show them bent. They aren't.
If they were subjected to such heat as required to melt the quartz grains they would no longer be sedimentary rock- they are.
Get over it and move on!
You can't be so silly as to reject the known historical fact that men such as Kepler, Bacon, Pascal,Boyle, Ray, Steno, Burnet, Kircher, Wilkins, Charlton, Petty, Barrow et al were the fathers of modern science.
Following them were Newton, Whiston, Woodward, Linnaeus, Edwards, Herschel, Harris, Leibnitz, Flamsteed, Derham.....Creationists to a man.
Since the beginning of modern science creationists have been there working in every field of science, and still are.
Once again if anyone, no matter how qualified, disagrees with your ignorant view they are talking BS. Your are truly pathetic.
Healy as I carefully explained as to a child, Denton with whom I have talked 'believes' in evolution but readily admits there is no proof for it. Do you understand-he believes in it but knows there is no proof. The only difference between him and you, other than scientific qualifications, is that he has first-hand research experience and has found no proof. Nor has any other evolutionist been able to provide him with proof. I do not know how I can make it any simpler for you.
It is obvious that you hold us in contempt which is totally consistent with many who hold to your god-less faith. No tolerance and even the hint of what you would do if you were in control.
Since the beginning of modern science creationists have been there working in every field of science, and still are.
I never disputed that Warwick. What I am wondering is how you think that that has any relevance to 21st century science.
Already answered Healey. As the judge said- asked and answered, move on.
If you still don't understand that indicates very poor reading skills or the fact that you have not in reality applied yourself to read what has been carefully explained.
Post a Comment