Feedback to Tas Walker on Geological Columns

Geology series	Feedback to Tas Walker on Geological Columns If Tas Walker is right, Pius XII was not wrong to canonise Steno! Actually Steno was not canonised yet, only beatified, and by John Paul II, as stated in following: Creationism and Catholicism go well together (second example) Where do you find Dinosaurs over Trilobites? Steno and "Vertical Barbecue" contra John Laurie

his page on subject:
http://biblicalgeology.net/General/geologic-column.html

My feedback:

I did a wiki check on fossil digs. I saw no Cambrian digs that were also Jurassic or Triassic. And so on. Very few covered even two of those things.

At the utmost, I could imagine that bordering areas between Cambrian and something else in UK could show some overlap, but I have so far not found any wikipedia reference to such.

I did find a place or two were oldest and youngest are supposed to be 15 million years apart or something.

I read on some page (talkorigins?) that there were tow columns where more than one flooding must have happened, because there is more than one sea bottom type of layer with land layers between or some such reason. One of the two was Grand Canyon. The other - which I cannot remember - was also in the Americas.

OK, some places were flooded before or after the Flood as well as under, so what, no contradiction against the Bible only a possible confirmation of Atlantis (though I won't exclude it was an island that one of the 8 knew from before the flood, my fav in that and other non-Biblical connexions being Cham's wife).

Relying on internet for negative evidence is not quite bad. I mean internet is such a show-offy ground that some things (not all) if true would already have found their way to the internet. And, as said, I do not know of many double or triple rock age digs. Not from wikipedia, not from anywhere else, so far.

Consideration I forgot:

Exactly how many digs are above or below volcanic layers that have radioactive dating? And how much could radioactive rating of Uranium-Lead or Thorium-Lead be wrong if half lives are extrapolated from ages inferred from "geological column"?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Château d'eau Library,
Paris
S^t Barbara
4-XII-2012

Highlighting the reasonable doubt about so called "Geological Column" further, starting with an "enquiry" sent to flood geologist Tasman Walker:

did a wiki check on fossil digs. I saw no Cambrian digs that were also Jurassic or Triassic. And so on. Very few covered even two of those things.

et c. as posted above.

Tasman Walker:

Hi Hans-George,

By local column, Mike Oard means the area local to a region. It may involve an area of 100 km or more. We can be reasonable confident of the correlation of the various rock units with each other because we can use reasonably soundly based criteria. An example would be the correlation of strata at Grand Canyon where this can be done visually. That provides a sound basis for theorizing.

That contrasts with a synthesised column drawing on rock units separated by vast distances and correlated by criteria that are highly subjective, such as by fossils. In other words, we cannot be absolutely certain that the Triassic in Australia formed at the exact same time as the Triassic in Europe and the Triassic in the US.

Glad you are finding the articles stimulating. Check my blog too which is what I mainly use now. http://biblicalgeology.net/blog

All the best,
Tas Walker

Me again (impatient to get to the point, alas, and short in politesse, but he forgave that):

My point is that there are not all that many local columns where you even can find two of the larger periods above each other (like Triassic over Cambrium, I seem to recall, for instance).

Grand Canyon plus one more in the Americas are about what we have. As far as I know.

If you have other knowledge giving more cred than that to evolutionist geology, say so please.

Tasman Walker again:

Hi Hans-George,

This article (http://biblicalgeology.net/Geological-Histories/Sydney-geological-history.html) has a diagram at the bottom showing the various geological 'periods' in the Sydney area. There area quite a few that can be identified on the ground. But there is also a lot missing.

Similarly this article (http://biblicalgeology.net/Geological-Histories/Brisbane-Australia.html) has a diagram for the Brisbane area, which shows the same thing. That is what Mike Oard means by a local column.

God bless,

Tas

Me again:

I quite understood what was meant by local column, I just did not think there were any between the larger geological ages, except in GC and another place. Are there in those two? Will check./HGL

What would be very interesting to know, and which I suppose is not the case (but I might be in for a surprise), is whether Brisbane's column Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, Quaternary includes typical fauna fossiles from each of those. And if Ordovician et c. in Sydney includes fossiles typical of fauna for Ordovocian up to Quaternary.

Otherwise there is nothing very Ordovician about the Ordovician of Sydney. Or very Quaternary about the Quaternary of Brisbane.

That is my whole point: the periods are identified by their faunas. Their order is identified by columns, everywhere. But what if these columns never or hardly ever give faunas for more than one of them?

Tas Walker:

Hi Hans-George,

That is exactly the problem. How do we know that strata in one area were deposited at exactly the same time as strata in another? It is a highly subjective and a round-about process that is followed. Strata can be assigned to one age and then later changed to another. They are ordered by the fossils, but the fossil ranges keep changing.

Did you read this article? http://biblicalgeology.net/General/geologic-column.html

Search creation.com for "fossil ranges".

One interesting example is establishing the place on the column of strata in Australia. The column is a European construct mainly and the early geologists in Australia assigned the coal-bearing deposits to the Carboniferous. However, the fossils did not match very well and there was a major debate over decades before they decided the coal measures were mainly Permian. It is all very arbitrary and the evidence is conflicting and the solution is often chosen to minimise the conflicts.

Read this article on Tiktaalik to see the sort of options that geologists can use to resolve conflicting data and come up with a story that they like. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_1/j24_1_39-42.pdf

http://creation.com/tiktaalik-finished

http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/?s=tiktaalik

All the best,
Tas

Me again:

I did read that article. That is why I contacted you. I also searched "fossil ranges" on creation.com and found this:

http://creation.com/fossil-range-expansions

That is not what I am talking about. My point is that fossil ranges do not even exist locally, unless I am wrong.

If you look on wikipedia for Permian fossil digs, you will get a list of places, nearly none of which has fossils from other major perioods than the Permian. And so on.

"Everywhere the triceratops is above the trilobite and below the sabre toothed tiger" sounds fine until you ask yourself whether at any spot at all on earth you find the three of them together, on top of each other.

Tasman Walker, last word:

I agree with you.

Exchange from: December 4th to December 7th 2012.

Posted on this blog message, December 8th, Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.