Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Logical about the Geological Column

One of the tenets of the uniformitarians is that the earth's geological column required millions of years to be formed. It is absolutely necessary to Darwinists to begin with this premise. I intend to present evidence to make such a premise a laughable one.

Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D. is a starting point to understand how far off uniformitarians really are from the truth.

I quote from the article a header and paragraph that addresses a previous posting.

"Misconception No. 3. The strata systems of the geologic column are worldwide in their occurrence with each strata system being present below any point on the earth's surface.

The notion that the earth's crust has on "onion skin" structure with successive layers containing all strata systems distributed on a global scale is not according to the facts. Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten systems are poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth's surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata systems missing beneath; 94% of the earth's surface has three or more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing system.2 Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland). Even where the ten systems may be present, geologists recognize individual systems to be incomplete. The entire geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists!"

Read the article to see all ten misconceptions addressed.

One thing that puzzles me greatly is that we are talking about sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is laid down by water activity, not by a million years of topsoil accumulation. Dr. Henry Morris, Ph.D. (a respected hydrologist) says; "An obvious indication of global water activity is the very existence of sedimentary rocks all over the world which, by definition, were formed by the erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediments by moving water with the sediments gradually converted into stone after they had been deposited.

Similarly, an obvious indicator of catastrophism is the existence of fossils in the sedimentary rocks. The depositional processes must have been rapid, or fossils could not have been preserved in them."

He goes on logically..."The importance of this fact is obvious when one realizes that the identification of the geologic "age" of any given sedimentary rock depends solely upon the assemblage of fossils which it contains. The age does not depend on radiometric dating, as is obvious from the fact that the geologic age system had been completely worked out and most major formations dated before radioactivity was even discovered. Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age". It does not depend upon vertical position in the local geologic strata, since rocks of any "age" may and do rest horizontally and conformably on rocks of any other age. No, a rock is dated solely by its fossils."

Therefore; "...the existence and identification of distinctive geologic ages is based on fossils in the sedimentary rocks. On the other hand, the very existence of fossils in sedimentary rocks is prima facie evidence that each such fossiliferous rock was formed by aqueous catastrophism. The one question, therefore, is whether the rocks were formed by a great multiplicity of local catastrophes scattered through many ages, or by a great complex of local catastrophes all conjoined contemporaneously in one single age, terminated by the cataclysm."

The full article gives a nice historical overview of uniformitarianism versus catastrophism since the 18th century. I found one more quote worth highlighting...

"It is significant that this uniformitarian revolution was led, not by professional scientific geologists, but by amateurs, men such as Buckland (a theologian), Cuvier (an anatomist), Buffon (a lawyer), Hutton (an agriculturalist), Smith (a surveyor), Chambers (a journalist), Lyell (a lawyer), and others of similar variegated backgrounds. The acceptance of Lyell’s uniformitarianism laid the foundation for the sudden success of Darwinism in the decade following the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859. Darwin frequently acknowledged his debt to Lyell, who he said gave him the necessary time required for natural selection to produce meaningful evolutionary results."

When one studies the evidence, one finds that most early uniformitarians and Darwinists were actually amateurs who were enthused about the idea of evolution as a philosophy and sought verification by the evidence of the rock layers. Their depiction of a geological column of rock found throughout the world, with fossils nicely differentiated, is a fiction that has been disproven.


Juggling Mother said...

Do try to look at the social history of the the time you are denigrating. There were NO profesional geologists in the early 19th century. Yes all the greats were amateurs, because science was not a profession, and geology not recognised as a science until much later.

radar said...

Point taken, but I was quoting Dr. Morris and just commented on his quote.

Is it not interesting, though, that the geological column that the early scientists promoted has been shown to be largely imaginary?