On Wed, 08 Jan 1997 17:37:22 -0600, Steve Clark wrote:
SC>If you wish to be a part of the discussion, it would be greatly
>appreciated if your responses were more timely and of reasonable
>length (if they were timely, then you would not need to respond to
>several posts in a single message. As it is, the length and number
>of these posts makes it impossible to respond to. If your intent is
>to have the last word, this works well. However, if you wish to
>engage in a give-and-take discussion, this modus is a hinderance.
I had already apologised in advance for the quantity and lateness of
my posts. My batch strategy has not worked. I will in future limit
my responses and post at least weekly.
Note. I have now finished responding to *only* those posts that had
my name in it (except for one that probably concerned me). I probably
did not answer every one. But that still left 15! It is a catch-22. If I
don't reply I am accused of dodging the issue. If I do reply, I am
accused of a `bombing mission'. I chose the latter as the lesser of
two evils.
But I am catching up. I have reduced the gap between receipt and
reply to a little over a week. I hope to improve on this, depending on
hoiw many messages I get on my next download.
On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:08:48, Glenn Morton wrote:
SJ>While these are in the same order as the standard geological
>column, they differ markedly in thickness, as per the maximums in
>British Museum of Natural History plate reproduced in Milton R.,
>"The Facts of Life", 1992, p144a):
GM>Milton is looking around the world and finding the very thickest
>deposit from each epoch. While the thickest Pliocene may be in the
>Gulf of Mexico it does not represent more days of deposition or a
>more complete record of the Pliocene than other, tinner sections
>elsewhere. If in the Gulf 15000 feet of section represents 3
>million years. This is 0.06 inches per year. But a section which
>only contains 7500 feet may represent deposition throughout the same
>time period day by day but at a slower rate. There is no "Standard
>geological column" Both represent the same period of deposition
I thank Glenn for this explanation but I think he misunderstands. It
is not "Milton" who is "looking around the world and finding the very
thickest deposit from each epoch", it is the *British Museum of
Natural History* who has done this. Milton has simply reproduced a
photographic plate that appears to be a lift-out from their
guide-book. At the foot of it the Museum says:
"The geological column of accepted dates for sedimentary rocks
forming most of the Earth's crust. Notice the slow rate of
sedimentation (averaging 0.2 millimetres per year)..."
(Natural History Museum)
(Milton R., "The Facts of Life", 1992, p144a)
[...]
SJ>The total of Glenn's table is 265,042 feet or 80,786m. The total
>of the Museum's table is 135,800m, a difference of 55 kilometres
>between Glenn's table and the Bristish Museum's...
[...]
GM>Oh my gosh. Stephen, you totally misunderstood the numbers. The
>footage I give is depth below the surface, NOT total thickness. To
>arrive at thickness subtract the upper number at each step from the
>one immediately below it. the total thickness of the column is NOT
>265,042 feet but 14945 feet.
OK, but now then there is an even bigger problem. "14945 feet" is only
4.5 km, yet the British Museum's standard geological column, which is
supposed to represent the average thickness around the world, shows
136.2 km! There is no question that the Museum is referring to
individual thickness of each Period because: 1. their totals are not
cumulative - lower strata often have smaller numbers than those above
them (eg. Cretaceous 15,500m is below Jurassic 13,400m, etc), and 2.
the Museum refers to a "rate of sedimentation averaging 0.2 mm per
year, which works out right to be 136,200m x 1000 / 0.2 = 681,000,000
years.
Here is a summary of Glenn's and the Museum's thicknesses in metres
(best read in a monospaced font):
Thickness (Metres)
Period/Era Glenn's Museum's Difference
Tertiary 30 31600 31570
Cretaceous 1734 15500 13766
Jurassic 274 13400 13126
Triassic 193 9100 8907
Permian 126 5800 5674
Carboniferous 763 14400 13637
Devonian 621 11600 10979
Silurian 69 10400 10331
Ordovician 551 12200 11649
Cambrian 27 12200 12173
Total 4388 136200 131812
As can be seen, Glenn's example of a complete geological column,
while it technically has every Period, seems to be missing huge
amounts of material within each Period, compared to the worldwide
average.
[...]
SJ>If these Epoch's and Ages are normally found globally but they are
>not all found in Glenn's North Dakota column, then it is incorrect for
>him to claim that it "represents rocks of all geologic ages piled up
>in proper order".
GM>They are found there. Nomenclature varies from continent to
>continent. In North America we normally use Lower Jurassic for
>Lias; Middle Jurassic for Dogger; and Upper Jurassic for Malm. The
>Kimmeridgian and most of the other ages are named after particular
>rock layers which are over there. The Kimmeridge is a clay which
>covers poarts of Europe and the East coast of the US. That clay is
>marine and does not cover Williston. But while the kimmeridge was
>being deposited in Europe another type of rock was being deposited
>there. We see this today. In the Bahamas, limestone is being
>deposited while in the Gulf of Mexico sands and shales are being
>deposited.
They must be pretty thin then. Glenn's North Dakota Tertiary
is only 30 m thick, while the British Museum's worldwide average is
31.6 kms thick! His Silurian is 69 m thick but the average is
10.4 kms. Glenn's Cambrian is a mere 27 m thick, while the Museum's
is 12.2km.
As I have pointed out to Glenn, YECs these days do not claim the
entire geological column does not exist anywhere on Earth. They
point out that where it does exist, it is incomplete:
"Furthermore, every local column is different from the standard
column-always grossly incomplete, frequently with missing ages, often
with the ages inverted, and sometimes even with the ages (as deduced
from the fossils) mixed together." (Morris H.M., "Scientific
Creationism", 1985, p.xi)
If this North Dakota column is Glenn's best example, then I'd say
that Morris would be more than happy with it.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------