Scientists Prove Limestone Can Form Quickly

Institute for Creation Research ^ | 6-7-18 | Tim Clarey, PhD

[dirtboy]

“Missing” layers beg more questions than answers and say nothing about the rest of the column. There should be gullies and channels throughout the column.

Eh, no. You keep making demands that do not meet geological realities. Just as there can be lack of deposition for millions of years, so can there also be continuous deposition for millions of years.

[hopespringseternal]

So you are expecting that for tens or even hundreds of millions of years, the surface remains unchanged? Through hundreds of ice age cycles?

Science advances most through questioning, not defending. Unfortunately science has now become “settled”. Beyond questioning or reconsideration. It has become dogma, not to be investigated and revised, merely accepted. Scientists have become invested in religious debate rather than scientific debate.

They are too afraid of questioning their own models because they fear ceding any ground to religion more than they fear the stagnation of science itself.

Science that isn’t changing is dead because it is not advancing.

“All models are wrong, but some models are useful.” You should always be open and accepting of challenges to your models, knowing beforehand they are incomplete and wrong, not confusing their utility with absolute truth.

[dirtboy]

Uh, no, only climate science claims being settled, for political reasons. And basic geology relies very little on models and more on scientists in the field mapping outcrops and collecting and analyzing samples. Your idea of science seems to be looking at formations from scenic overlooks and not even getting the basics right from that point of view.

You have demonstrated time and time again that you are abjectly ignorant on basic geology, and that is probably because you are chosing to be ignorant. I have demolished every opinionated strawman you have erected on this thread, and your continual response is to move the goal posts. Since you show no desire to learn anything, further discoure is useless.

[hopespringseternal]

Every science suffers from the “settled science” phenomenon. It is human nature. A real scientist should always have a keen awareness of the edge of what is known and expend efforts towards understanding past what is known. Time spent evangelizing and defending what is known against both the unknown and those who ask about the unknown is pointless and unscientific.

Retreating to your credentials is defensive behavior, not scientific behavior.

[dirtboy]

I’m sorry, you are lecturing from a point of demonstrated ignorance. Every time I rebut one of your points, you just create another nonsensical point. Now you are clamoring about settled science - which involves theories, not observations. Geological formations have been extensively mapped in the field, and correlated over time and extent, so your attempting to hold contrary positions to observations made over decades is just a will to hold on to your position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of that position.

[hopespringseternal]

Observations are used to create models. You can observe strata, but as soon as you start defining how they came to be you are creating a model. At that point it’s no longer an observation because you did not observe the deposition of the layers.

Newton could observe falling objects, but as soon as he devised laws of motion, he was creating a model. And that model was both very useful and wrong. It took a few hundred years for Einstein to improve that model and make it more useful, but in all likelihood still wrong in ways we can’t currently fathom.

We can’t even agree on observations because you keep backing into fake observations based on your flawed model.

[dirtboy]

You, saying I am backing into fake observations? That’s rich, given all the demonstrably false statements you have made on this thread.

[hopespringseternal]

Which ones would those be? I am just asking you how all those layers could be preserved through hundreds of millions of years of constantly changing climate.

You are equating your model of steady, undisturbed deposition over millions of years with the observation of the strata.

[dirtboy]

Let's see. Your core premise: "Millions of years of erosion and seismic activity would create massive differences in layer placement and thickness everywhere. Instead you see the opposite — layers are remarkably consistent in thickness and depth. Even your picture shows this."

And your claims about undisturbed deposition is a strawman. If you study a formation closely, you see paraconformities, or shifts in depositional environments due to either sea level change or lifting or dropping of platforms. When you step back, it looks like one uniform formation, but when you get your face right in front of the rock, you can see them clearly.

Also, erosion by its very nature leads to a flat surface. If you hike in the Wind River Range (I have), at 12,000 feet there is a level peneplain - when the Rockies were eroded to a near-level surface and later uplifted to their current elevation. So your observation about generally flat surfaces between formations is basic physics when the gradient goes away.

[dirtboy]

Oh, and there were hundreds of millions of years without ice ages - from the Silurian to the Pleistocene.

[hopespringseternal]

And yet the overall layer is well defined. Somehow, miraculously, all those individual layers level out at the transition.

And the lack of an ice age doesn’t help you much. The ice age is just an example of a changing climate. Water erodes and deposits as well as ice.

[dirtboy]

And yet the overall layer is well defined. Somehow, miraculously, all those individual layers level out at the transition.

Only when you look at them from scenic outlooks. I already showed you an unconformity at the top of the Redwall has deep channels and deep karst filled in with the formation below. You just refuse to acknowledge such and instead wave your postcard of the Grand Canyon around.

[hopespringseternal]

Post 35 or 50? I hope you can do better than that. In 35 the bottom layers are folded but the transition is flat. In 50 I see nothing that disagrees with what I have observed. And you pointing out a couple of layers that vary in thickness just begs the question of why every layer doesn’t. We are talking hundreds of millions of years here where one predominant material or set of materials is laid down without ever having major erosions that greatly affect that layer or the layers under it.

Deep water channels are utterly ubiquitous at the surface, even in dry areas, for example. Over hundreds of millions of years they should be cutting the layers over and over, extending through multiple strata just as canyons do today. You should see that evidence of erosion everywhere, not just in isolated locations that indicate very special circumstances.

[dirtboy]

You apparently haven’t even bothered to read what I have posted. I posted two consecutive comments about the Grand Canyon stratigraphic column. Go suck eggs. This has been a YUGE waste of time.