How were the geological layers laid down?

[bob b]

The question of dinosaur remains on or near the surface raises the question of how the geological layers were laid down.

My theory is that most of them were probably laid down fairly rapidly during the year long global flood, while evolutionists (and geologists) apparently favor immense periods of time.

If my theory is correct this more easily explains why dinosaurs sometimes are found at or near the surface of the ground, although as we all know given enough time "anything can happen".

 

[noguru]

The question of dinosaur remains on or near the surface raises the question of how the geological layers were laid down.

My theory is that most of them were probably laid down fairly rapidly during the year long global flood, while evolutionists (and geologists) apparently favor immense periods of time.

If my theory is correct this more easily explains why dinosaurs sometimes are found at or near the surface of the ground, although as we all know given enough time "anything can happen".

And? Are you just going to restate your opinion from the other thread? Or are you going to give us some more information on why you believe this.

 

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

My theory is that most of them were probably laid down fairly rapidly during the year long global flood, while evolutionists (and geologists) apparently favor immense periods of time.
If my theory is correct this more easily explains why dinosaurs sometimes are found at or near the surface of the ground, although as we all know given enough time "anything can happen".

Well, that's a theory in the very loosest sense of the word. Usually when "theory" is used in conjunction with issues of a scientific nature, which is what bobby seems to be addressing, it takes on a more strict definition, such as: A theory is "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." (quickly lifted from Answers.com)

To my thinking, all bobby has done here is offered up a conclusion, which, while nice, is hardly debatable. He offers no evidence or argument to back it up other than his say so. So in opposition, my theory is that bobby is wrong. No better or worse a theory than his.

 

[bob b]

And? Are you just going to restate your opinion from the other thread? Or are you going to give us some more information on why you believe this.

Dr. H. is correct that I should have used a different word than "theory" for my "idea".

We do know from experience that "layering" of strata can occur very rapidly under catastrophic conditions. Mt. St. Helens demonstrated this, although on an admittedly relatively much smaller scale.

I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of how horizontal layering on a continental scale could occur on a slow, gradual basis. Yes, I have a number of geology books in my library. They seem to be content with saying that it happened. And no, I do not believe that "anything can happen given sufficient time". That was just my lame attempt at humor.

 

[Stratnerd]

I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of how horizontal layering on a continental scale could occur on a slow, gradual basis.

Could you?

 

[bob b]

Could you?

???????

 

[Stratnerd]

What could possibly be sufficient evidence that Genesis is wrong for someone that believes that Genesis can't be wrong?

 

[badp]

The question of dinosaur remains on or near the surface raises the question of how the geological layers were laid down.

My theory is that most of them were probably laid down fairly rapidly during the year long global flood, while evolutionists (and geologists) apparently favor immense periods of time.

If my theory is correct this more easily explains why dinosaurs sometimes are found at or near the surface of the ground, although as we all know given enough time "anything can happen".

Water? Flood? What's the matter with you, didn't you attend government school? The geological layers were laid down over QUAZILLIONS of YEARS! That's why the geological layers are ordered in such a way that supports evolution. Yes, it IS true that there are some very complex organisms way down at the bottom, but any good evolutionist knows that that's because the layers got turned upside down by an earthquake! DUH!

[/sarcasm]

 

[bob b]

What could possibly be sufficient evidence that Genesis is wrong for someone that believes that Genesis can't be wrong?

Some people believe that Genesis is correct because that was what they were taught and that is what they still believe.

In my own case however I was taught in Sunday School that Genesis was correct, but being a skeptic by nature I never believed it.

23 years ago I started reading in depth about these things and decided that much of what was being taught about evolution was obviously overstated if not flat out wrong.

Since that time I started entertaining the forbidden notion that some of the things mentioned in the Bible might actually have been reported correctly.

A few years ago I progressed in a similar manner to a consideration that Genesis itself might contain much truth. Some of the ideas there certainly make much more sense to me than the usual evolutionary propaganda we are inundated with constantly in our society.

Multiple "types" (kinds) in the beginning is one of those "forbidden" ideas. Another is a global flood. A third is a much younger timescale for the heavens and the Earth.

Are there some detailed "problems" in such ideas. Yes, but there are also detailed "problems" in the alternative scenarios.

Uncertainty abounds, yet we still must make decisions in the face of all of the uncertainties.

Such is life.

 

[Stratnerd]

yes but

What could possibly be sufficient evidence that Genesis is wrong for someone that believes that Genesis can't be wrong?

Are you saying that Genesis can be wrong?

 

[bob b]

yes but

What could possibly be sufficient evidence that Genesis is wrong for someone that believes that Genesis can't be wrong?

Are you saying that Genesis can be wrong?

I am a pragmatist.

As time goes on more and more of what I used to believe had to be wrong has turned out to make more sense than I ever expected.

I expect this trend to continue, but I can't really say for sure that it will.

If it does continue at the same rate as it did for the past several years then I might have more faith than it will.

 

[Stratnerd]

I'm looking for a yes or no.

Could Genesis be wrong?

If No. Then we're done.

If Yes. Then

What could possibly be sufficient evidence that Genesis is wrong for someone that believes that Genesis can't be wrong?

 

[bob b]

I'm looking for a yes or no.

Could Genesis be wrong?

If No. Then we're done.

If Yes. Then

What could possibly be sufficient evidence that Genesis is wrong for someone that believes that Genesis can't be wrong?

It is obvious that Genesis is wrong.

On the other hand it is also obvious that Genesis is right.

In other words I am not a big fan of "inerrancy".

I see no compelling reason that scripture has to be "perfect".

To me this is making the mistake of Galileo who believed that because God is perfect that planets have to orbit in circular paths (perfect circles).

God reportedly answered Paul's request for relief from his "thorn" by saying "My Grace is sufficient.

Scripture is sufficient.

But since the three main ideas I have mentioned in Genesis make more sense to me than the currently popular alternatives I will continue to favor them until or unless someone is able to convince me otherwise. I will be quite surprised if anyone can.

BTW, I have already read essentially all of the articles on the atheist website, talk.origins, as well as many other similar articles on other atheist websites. This has only strengthened my belief that there are major "problems" in the "bacteria to Babe Ruth" hypothesis, especially the belief that "random mutations plus natural selection" can do what is typically claimed.

 

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

BTW, I have already read essentially all of the articles on the atheist website, talk.origins, as well as many other similar articles on other atheist websites. This has only strengthened my belief that there are major "problems" in the "bacteria to Babe Ruth" hypothesis, especially the belief that "random mutations plus natural selection" can do what is typically claimed.

*SIGH* I don't know if you characterize these websites as "atheist" because you have simply fallen for creationist hyperbole, or that you are actually so ignorant of evolution, evolutionists, and religion that you can't conceive of a theist believing in evolution. Either way, I suggest you wise up. There are many, many theists and, in particular, Christians, who subscribe to evolution, and actively work in fields employing evolutionary concepts.

 

[eisenreich]

If my theory is correct this more easily explains why dinosaurs sometimes are found at or near the surface of the ground, although as we all know given enough time "anything can happen".

Bob, have you ever read, "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller?

 

[noguru]

Bob, have you ever read, "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller?

I think he has. I think Bob sees people like that as compromising the "plain reading" of Genesis for man made or even satanically influenced ideas. But I could be wrong.

 

[aharvey]

The question of dinosaur remains on or near the surface raises the question of how the geological layers were laid down.

My theory is that most of them were probably laid down fairly rapidly during the year long global flood, while evolutionists (and geologists) apparently favor immense periods of time.

Bob,

Did you not understand in the faintest the implications of that Georgia stratigraphic map to which I linked? Did you not notice that the surface progression from east to west matches exactly the order of vertical geologic stratigraphic layers? This is hardly restricted to Georgia! It's not a "simple" matter of sediments being "laid down." Would you mind explaining how a single flood event can first deposit these loose sediments in this order, one atop the next, on a global scale, harden them to rock, and then systematically erode and expose these newly deposited and hardened layers, all within a (more or less) one-year interval? And this unimaginably vast amount of eroded material, swept away in a matter of months; where did it get swept away to?

You can't simply accelerate currently proposed geologic processes by 9 orders of magnitude and expect the same results, any more than you'd expect the same outcome whether you bumped into that wall at 1 mph or 4,000,000,000 mph.

If my theory is correct this more easily explains why dinosaurs sometimes are found at or near the surface of the ground, although as we all know given enough time "anything can happen".

Would you mind explaining how your "theory" explains why T-rex bones, for example, are found on the surface only in areas that have been independently dated at around 65 million years, and have only been found in subsurface strata similarly dated? And don't bother with the circular logic argument, as I'm sure you're aware that T-rex bones are far too rare to be any use as index fossils!

 

[aharvey]

Hmm, am I playing the role of "thread-ender" again?

 

[Jehu]

Would you mind explaining how your "theory" explains why T-rex bones, for example, are found on the surface only in areas that have been independently dated at around 65 million years, and have only been found in subsurface strata similarly dated? And don't bother with the circular logic argument, as I'm sure you're aware that T-rex bones are far too rare to be any use as index fossils!

I'd love to read your source claiming that all T-Rex fossils are found in layers which give dates of ONLY ~65 millions years. Talk about a circular argument... no lab is going to date rock layers containing dino bones as older or younger than the accepted range... they will just assume error in their dating technique and choose another one.

 

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

I'd love to read your source claiming that all T-Rex fossils are found in layers which give dates of ONLY ~65 millions years. Talk about a circular argument... no lab is going to date rock layers containing dino bones as older or younger than the accepted range... they will just assume error in their dating technique and choose another one.

What is it, simply a problem of reading comprehension? Aharvey's use of "only" modifies the area, "T-rex bones, for example, are found on the surface only in areas that...," not the date, 'which give dates of ONLY ~65 millions years," as you put it. Sloppy thinking here, Jehu,--do you even grasp the distinction?--or is it an intentional attempt to misstate his meaning?

T-rex's reign lasted anywhere from a maximum of 70 to 85 million years ago to about 65 million years ago. So aharvey's "around 65 million years," is a pretty fair description, particularly when one considers most T-rex skeletons are dated to the later years.

Then there's your strange (ignorant?) idea that paleontologists take their finds to labs and have the accompanying matrix dated. Almost all strata in which fossils, T-rex and otherwise, are found have been dated long before any digging for them began.