On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:18:43 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>At 07:02 PM 1/18/98 -0600, Ron Chitwood wrote:
>RC>One among many works is call SCIENCE VS. EVOLUTION By Malcolm
>>Bowden pp2: "the first thing which must be emphasized is that
>>these charts are composed by piecing together the strata from
>>various continents. It has been estimated that only .04% of the
>>world's land surface have the main divisions in their correct
>>order, and even then a number ot the sub-divisions are missing.
>>77% has 7 or more of the strata missing, whilst 99.6% has at least
>>one missing system." As has been pointed out by others in this
>>group, there is fossil strata just as it is pictured in textbooks
>>in core drillings for oil in Williston basin of North Dakota, but
>>they fall into the .04%.
Thanks for this quote. This punctures Glenn's claim that YECs do not admit
that there are some examples of the complete geological column.
GM>I dispute the suggestion that the geologic column is cobbled together from
>various continents. That is absolutely false because if the entire column
>exists at just ONE point on the surface of the earth, it exists and is not
>pieced together.
I agree with Glenn that the entire geological column still exists in a
few places on Earth. Indeed, I cannot understand why Glenn, a
geophysicist, feels he has to defend the geological column existing
at one point on the surface of the Earth. It would not matter if it
didn't, and in fact the science of Geology developed its standard
geological column from partial local columns, hundreds of years
ago-well before Darwin (and certainly well before Glenn's entire
columns were discovered). It is so irrelevant to geologists that
Glenn has been unable to find a single quote from Geology texts
making that point. Indeed, it seems to me that the only way
geologists know that the few instances of a complete column really do
represent all the geological ages is because they agree with this
ideal standard column!
I actually have no problem with cobbling a standard idealised
geological column together from various continents. I can see how if
one has bits and pieces that match each other, and using the
common-sense Law of Superposition:
"In the seventeenth century, Nicolaus Steno, a Danish physician
living in Florence, Italy, formulated three axioms for interpreting
stratified rocks. The first is the principle of superposition, which
states that in an undisturbed sequence of strata, the oldest strata
lie at the bottom and successively higher strata are progressively
younger...This, of course, is a simple consequence of the law of
gravity..." (Stanley S.M., "Earth and Life Through Time", 1989, p15)
I can see how a valid model of how they all were once deposited can
be reconstructed. The following (thanks in part to Glenn), is my
understanding of how it is done (best read in monospaced font):
CONTINENT A CONTINENT B CONTINENT C PRESUMED
STANDARD COLUMN
/////////// /////////// /////////// ///////////
::::::::::: XXXXXXXXXXX ::::::::::: :::::::::::
########### ########### ########### XXXXXXXXXXX
ZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZ XXXXXXXXXXX ###########
ZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZ
As can be seen above, similar strata can be found on different
continents. Columns from continents A & B have strata missing, but
otherwise in the same order. The column from continent C has all the
strata found in columns A or B, but two strata (### and XXX) are in
the wrong order. But this is a case where the exception proves the
rule, because where the strata is out of order, *it is usually (if
not always) in exact reverse order*, indicating the anomalous strata
have been reversed by geological upheavals. AFAIK YECs never make
this very important last point. For example, Morris & Parker admit
that the "Principle of Superposition...seems obvious":
"Principle of Superposition. The fundamental principle of
stratigraphy is that the sediments on the bottom were deposited first
and are therefore older. This seems obvious. And yet there are
many, many regions where "old" formations are found deposited on top
of "young" formations...Such situations are commonly explained away
by saying that great earth movements (especially so-called
"overthrusts," also called "thrust faults," "nappes," or "low-angle
faults") have somehow gotten the original order inverted. Much of
the Cordilleran Range is in this condition, especially in the so-
called "overthrust belt" of the Rockies, and the same is true of the
Alps and of practically every major mountain range in the world."
(Morris H.M. & Parker G.E., "What is Creation Science?", 1987, p232)
Yet M&P just gloss over the fact that the "the original order" has
in fact been "INVERTED" (my emphasis). And instead of admitting
that this inversion of the "original order" (which they had earlier
conceded was "obvious"), is quite reasonably explained by "great earth
movements", they pejoratively say that this is "explained away". This
concealing of vital information from their layman readers could be
regarded as dishonesty, but I think the true explanation is paradigm
blindness, the same sort of blindness that affects zealous Darwinists
like Dawkins. They just do not see contrary evidence as important.
But, OTOH, as I pointed out some time ago, Glenn's chosen best
example, the North Dakota geological column, while all the major
systems may still be in place, has *huge* amounts of material within
those systems missing. The whole N. Dakota column is only 14,945
feet (706 metres), yet the British Museum of Natural History's
standard geological column, which is supposed to represent the
average thickness around the world, shows 136,200 metres! Glenn's N.
Daokota column is therefore only a fraction, eg. about 1/192 or half
of one-percent (0.52%), the thickness of what it once presumably was:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>
To: "evolution@calvin.edu" <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 97 06:03:29 +0800
Subject: Re: How long must we wait?
[...]
...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)
[...]
GM>...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.
[...]
...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 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------