vendredi 7 octobre 2016

Oil Drillers See Several Sea Layers

I should have answered this one earlier.

Claim CD101:
The geological column is a fiction, existing on paper only. The entire geological column does not exist anywhere on the earth.

Huse, Scott, 1983. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, p. 15.

  • 1. The existence of the entire column at one spot is irrelevant. All of the parts of the geological column exist in many places, and there is more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts.

    Breaks in the geological column at any spot are entirely consistent with an old earth history. The column is deposited only in sedimentary environments, where conditions favor the accumulation of sediments. Climatic and geological changes over time would be expected to change areas back and forth between sedimentary and erosional environments.

  • 2. There are several places around the world where strata from all geological eras do exist at a single spot -- for example, the Bonaparte Basin of Australia (Trendall et al. 1990, 382, 396) and the Williston Basin of North Dakota (Morton 2001).

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments?

Morton, Glenn, 2001. The geologic column and its implications to the Flood.


  • 1. Morton, Glenn, 2001. (see above)
  • 2. Trendall, A. F. et al., (ed.), 1990. Geology and Mineral Resources of Western Australia, Memoir 3. Geological Survey of Western Australia. State Printing Division, Perth.

Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2005
created 2001-3-31, modified 2004-9-8

Now, how should I respond to this? Bonaparte Basin, which in some debate I sloppily renamed Napoleon Basin ... (I am as much a pastry pontiff as ever Mark Shea, here is a Napoleon pastry, which may have led my associations astray):

Av User E23 on sv.wikipedia - E23, CC BY-SA 3.0, Länk

... as said, the Basin, named for Napoleon Bonaparte, but unlike the Swedish pastry after his last name, not his first, has an elasmosaurus above a trilobite.

Despite some coral between, which Tony Reed admitted at last could have arrived in bits and pieces and which I reasoned could also have been a place where the trilobites scurried under previous to Flood, I think the elasmosaur and the trilobite were contemporary, and that their placing has more to do with habitat level in sea while living than with respective "geological timescale".

Now, more on that when my debate with Tony Reed will have been edited to more argument by argument and less combox per combox.

However, the other one seems to have an "upper Ordovician Brachiopod" somewhat above a "lower Ordovician trilobite". Well, again we are dealing with sea critters, in Williston Basin too. And the Palaeocene leaves could be early post-Flood - or even pre-Flood, if triloobites and brachiopods, meaning mussles, were beside some wood.

I wonder how many oil drillers are NOT getting trilobites. If all oil wells are with trilobite content, petrol could be some aquatic beast's remnants, and therefore not necessarily from human or nephelim corpses. Even by a statistic chance.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of Holy Rosary

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire