On Mon, 02 Sep 1996 20:29:14, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>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!!!
[...]
SJ>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":
GM>"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.
GM>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....
Glenn has simply confirmed Morris' point! :-) Read what he says
again. He is talking about an idealised "standard geologic column"
that can be only found in "the textbook".
SJ>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...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." (Andrews E.H.,
>"God, Science & Evolution", Evangelical Press: Hertfordshire, 1980,
>p114)
GM>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.
Glenn is shifting arguments here. I am not claiming that Morris or
Gish are necessarily right, just trying to set the record straight on
what the latest YEC arguments are about the geological column to
answer Glenn's puzzled question:
--------------------------------------------------------
GM>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!!!
--------------------------------------------------------
SJ>I am not a YEC and I do not want to argue their case.
GM>Then why are you doing it?
Glenn seems to believe that it is impossible to clarify a position without
holding that position? My reasons for clearing up a possible misconstrual
of YEC positions on the geological column was for the same reason that Del
Ratzsch has a chapter in his book titled"Creationist Theory: Popular
Evolutionist Misunderstandings", in which he says:
"As we saw in chapter four, creationist criticisms of evolutionary
theory are often irrelevant simply because they are based on
misunderstanding of that theory. But creationists are not alone here.
Arguments raised against creationism also often rest on misconstruals
of the targeted positions, and such arguments are often likewise
irrelevant." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is
Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate", InterVarsity Press: Downers
Grove, Ill., 1996, p86)
SJ>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.
GM>You misunderstand what that author meant by the term standard
>geologic column. He couldn't have meant a standard thickness because
>there is none.
I made no claim that Geology textbook did mention "a standard thickness".
I merely claimed that it said there was a "standard geological column".
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------