>Group
Too proud to speak to me directly, huh?
[snip]
Glenn Morton wrote:
>>
>>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.
>
Stephen there is absolutely NO geologist who believes that the geological
column must be 100 miles thick. There were some calculations made which added
from around the world in many different basins what the thickest sediment of
each age were. For example [numbers and places made up] they might take
20,000 feet of Cambrian strata from the Arbuckle mountains and add that to
25,000 feet of Ordovician strata from Bolivia etc. This then adds to 100
miles. Big deal. This is taking the most rapid sedimentation rates found on
earth and saying those rates must be found all over the earth everywhere. The
Mississippi River and the Amazon river pour lots of sediment into a limited
area. The rate of deposition is quite high. It is higher at the mouth of the
Mississippi than anywhere along the east coast of the United States. Yet
everyday new sediment is deposited at both places. Both places have an entire
record of sediment for the past 2 million years. The Mississippi mouth has
about 5000 feet and the Georges Bank region off Massachusetts has only about
100 feet (See Geological Studies of the COST Nos. G-1 and G-2 Wells United
States NOrth Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf US Geological Survey Circular
861, p. 46
>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)
>
Andrews simply does not know what he is talking about. The geologic column is
not and was not constructed in that fashion. I would bet that Andrews is not
a geologist either.
>I am not a YEC and I do not want to argue their case.
Then why are you doing it?
> 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.
You misunderstand what that author meant by the term standard geologic column.
He couldn't have meant a standard thickness because there is none.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm