On Sat, 24 Aug 1996 09:28:59, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>Morris spends the first part of his paper trying to show that
>the entire geologic column does not exist anywhere on earth. Morris
>says things like:
>
>"It has long been recognized that the geologic column is an
>arbitrary construct existing nowhere in full in any local
>geologic column. Various concepts were used in the early 19th
>century to combine all the scattered local columns into one
>global standard column."~Henry M. Morris, "The Geologic Column
>and the Flood of Genesis", Creation Research Society Quarterly
>33:1(June, 1996), p. 50
>
>This is factually wrong as the entire column in proper order exists at
>over 20 places on earth including North Dakota and many other places
>around the world. (see the Geologic Column article on my web page
>http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/geo.htm ). What is absolutely fascinating
>is that Morris contradicts himself. After saying it does not exist
>anywhere, he then cites an article by John Woodmorappe which admits that
>the entire column (10 eras piled on top of each other in proper order)
>exists in Poland. Morris writes:
>
>"More recently, in a very comprehensive study of all the
>local columns on all the world's continents everywhere,
>creationist geologist John Woodmorappe (1981) demonstrated that
>the standard column was actually non-existent anywhere. He
>concluded that:
> '. . .42% of earth's land surface has 3 or less geologic
> periods present at all; 66% has 5 or less of the 10 present;
> and only 14% has 8 or more geologic periods represented at
> all.'
>He also concluded that 'slightly less than 1% has all 10 periods
>simultaneously in place.(p. 67)'"~Henry M. Morris, "The Geologic
>Column and the Flood of Genesis", Creation Research Society
>Quarterly 33:1(June, 1996), p. 50
>
>So it exists. It is not a theoretical construct. This quotation is
>self-contradictory, saying first that it doesn't exist; then saying that
>it exists on 1% of the surface area.
>
>However, I have always thought that young-earth creationists who cite this
>article as proving that the geologic column is non-existent are being
>disingenuous. The actual article has a few NEVER quoted sections.
>Woodmorappe says:
>
>"There apparently are regions on earth where all ten
>geologic periods can be found superposd."~John Woodmorappe, "The
>Essential Non-existence of the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian
>Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment" Creation Research
>Society Quarterly, (18:1) June 1981, p. 67.
>
>and
>
>"All ten geologic periods are undoubtedly represented in the
>Swiety Kryzys (Holy Cross) Mountains of south-central Poland (20-
>22E and 50-52N) as is evident from the local map of the mountain
>region enclosed in the work of Ksiazkiewicz, Samsonowich, and
>Ruhle. In fact, the presence of all or almost all ofthe geologic
>column (in terms of sedimentary lithologies that are unambiguously
>biostratigraphically dated) can be shown to occur over much of
>Poland."~John Woodmorappe, "The Essential Non-existence of the
>Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative
>Assessment" Creation Research Society Quarterly, (18:1) June
>1981, p. 67
>
>How can an article that proves that the geologic column actually does
>exist, prove that it doesn't exist? This is a truly amazing contortion!!!
[...]
I believe I have explained a possible solution to this to Glenn
some time ago. The explanation appears to be in the concept of
"standard geological column":
"In spite of recent questionings, however, the geologic age system
still is accepted by most evolutionists as the basic framework for
interpreting the earth's assumed evolutionary history. Consequently
the problem of establishing and identifying the various geologic ages
is an important related issue. How, then, does one identify the
geologic age of any particular rock system? Further, how can one
confirm the correctness of the standard geologic column? The column
is supposed to represent a vertical cross-section through the earth's
crust, with the most recently deposited (therefore youngest) rocks at
the surface and the oldest, earliest rocks deposited on the
crystalline "basement" rocks at the bottom. If one wishes to check
out this standard column (or standard geologic age system), where can
he go to see it for himself? There is only one place in all the
world to see the standard geologic column. That's in the textbook!
. . . almost any textbook, in fact, that deals with evolution or
earth history. A typical textbook rendering of the standard column
is shown in Figure 44. This standard column is supposed to be at
least 100 miles thick (some writers say up to 200), representing the
total sedimentary activity of all the geologic ages. However, the
average thickness of each local geologic column is about one mile (in
some places, the column has essentially zero thickness, in a few
places it may be up to 16 or so miles, but the worldwide average is
about one mile). The standard column has been built up by
superposition of local columns from many different localities."
(Morris H.M. & Parker G.E., "What is Creation Science?", Master
Books, El Cajon CA, 1987, p230,232).
That is, Morris seems to be *now* saying that (while the entire
geological column may be found in some local columns), the *thickness*
of the standard column is not found anywhere on earth, but is a
theoretical construct.
This is borne out by Andrews:
"To emphasize this point further we may cite the calculation of rock
ages based on sedimentation rates. In this calculation the maximum
thicknesses of all the strata in the geological column are taken.
The argument is that the true depth of an deposit corresponds at
least to the maximum thickness observed anywhere on earth. Where the
particular stratum is shallow, or absent, this is attributed to
erosion or simply the absence of deposition. As a result, a virgin
geological column is constructed having a phanerozoic thickness of
some 500,000 feet, about ten times the thickness actually observed an
where on earth. The total thickness of the virgin geological column
is now divided by a fixed deposition rate to give the age of the
deepest sediment. Which particular deposition rate is chosen? A
very slow one, corresponding to the sedimentation rates estimated
today for the deep oceans, far from the silt-laden waters of the
continental shelf. Surely an average sedimentation rate would have
been more appropriate?" (Andrews E.H., "God, Science & Evolution",
Evangelical Press: Hertfordshire, 1980, p114)
I am not a YEC and I do not want to argue their case. No doubt
once the ICR argued that there was no complete geological column on
earth but now they are saying that the *thickness* of the standard
geolical column does not exist anywhere on earth.
I seem to remember Glenn coming back with the claim that there is no
such geological term as "the standard geological column", but a
few months later I was browsing through the prescribed Geology
textbook in the University of WA bookshop and I found that exact
term used. I can't afford the book and I can't remember its title now
(it was 6-12 months ago), so Glenn will have to take my word for it.
If he doesn't...then too bad! :-( It is not a major point with me.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------