• On Monday (April, 26) the site will be down for maintanance for around 12 hours, starting at 11:00 pm UTC as we complete the sh.org archive with the missing threads. 1300 new or upgraded threads will be added, and there will be complete reply archives for 2500 threads, adding around 20,000 replies.

GEOLOGIC Column is wrong (part 3)

WorldWar1812

Deleted
Trusted Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
165
Reaction score
401
Location
Spain
Part 1: GEOLOGIC Column is wrong
Part 2: GEOLOGIC Column is wrong
Part 4: GEOLOGIC Column is wrong
Part 5: GEOLOGIC Column is wrong


WERE THE STRATA FORMED SLOWLY? One of the underlying basic assumptions in geological dating is that the strata were generated slowly over the course of hundreds of millions of years. People assume that the layers were gathered one on top of the next so that the lowermost strata can be tens or hundreds of millions of years older than the more recent ones on top.
This view is based on thoughts of British geologist Charles Lyell voiced out in his books Principles of Geology (1833) and Element of Geology (1838). In these books, he describes his well-known principle of the present being a key to interpret the past. His principle states that strata have always been formed in the same way as now, as the result of slow processes. Thus, we can deduce what has happened in the past by studying the current geological processes. According to Lyell, there have occurred no major cataclysms in nature.
But were the strata formed slowly? Several pieces of evidence contradict Charles Lyell’s idea that the layers were generated by slow processes. Below are some examples.

Long trunk fossils in strata contradict the notion that strata were formed slowly over a period of millions of years. Fossils of tree trunks extending through several strata have been found in different parts of the world. An old photo taken at Saint-Etienne carbon mine (in France) shows how each of five separate fossilized trunks go through approximately ten strata or even more. Furthermore, a 24-metre tree trunk was found close to Edinburgh. It penetrates around a dozen layers, suggesting that the trunk was suddenly put into place. According to the evolutionary view, the strata should be millions of years old, yet all the trunks extend through them.
The examples below point out just how problematic the old view of slow settling is. The trees must have been buried quickly or their fossils would no longer exist.

Thick trunks that have remained in an upright position pierce through dozens of meters of soil, indicating how quickly everything has happened. The strata cannot be a result of slow formation of peat, as the supporters of evolution claim. (21)

Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University College of Swansea, gives some examples of multi-layer fossil tree trunks in his book.
“If we estimate that the total thickness of the British Carbon Measures mineral coal stratum is 1000 meters and if we assume that it was buried over the course of around ten million years, it would have taken 100,000 years for the ten-meter tall tree to be completely buried, assuming that the deposition took place at a constant speed. This is ludicrous.
Alternatively, if the ten-metre tree was buried in the course of ten years, it would mean 1,000 kilometers in a million years or 10,000 kilometers in ten million years. This is just as ludicrous, and we cannot avoid the conclusion that the deposition sometimes took place very quickly... (22)

Fossils in strata. One of the most glaring pieces of evidence of a fast stratification of the strata is provided by the fossils found inside the layers of soil. The fossils found inside the strata can only have been generated by mud and silt slides that buried animals or plants very quickly. This also holds true for all tree trunk fossils.
Actually, the presence of fossils indicates that a rapid burial has taken place; these plants and animals were buried under silt and soil, and then soon transformed into a fossil. If the plants or animals had not been buried quickly, then they would have decayed or been eaten by other animals.
Thus, the fossils found these days only show that the stratum in which they were found must have formed over a short period of time – perhaps days or weeks -- not over millions of years. They were rapidly buried; otherwise, they could not have been fossilized. The process would not have been aided by the passage of millions of years.
Many researchers now acknowledge that strata and fossils can only be formed through sudden catastrophes. They cannot be formed in any other way. The best explanation for the existence of strata formation that suddenly buries plants and animals is the Flood, as described in the Bible. The idea that the layers were gathered on top of each other over the course of a long time should be rejected.
The comments below refer to this fast layering of the strata that leads to formation of fossils.

Vertebrate animals such as fishes, reptiles etc. decompose when their soft parts are removed. They must be buried quickly after death in order to avoid decay and being eaten by other animals. (James Dana, Manual of Geology, p. 141)

It is apparent that if the formation of strata were to take place at such a slow tempo, no fossils could be preserved, since they would not be buried under soil before being decomposed by water acids, or before being destroyed and broken into pieces by rubbing and hitting against the bottom of a shallow sea. They can be covered in sediment only in an accident in which they are buried quickly. (Geochronology or the Age of the Earth on grounds of Sediments and Life, Bulletin of the National Research Council No. 80, Washington D. C., 1931, p. 14)

A quote from a book called Maailman luonto refers to the same subject. The quote describes how the remains of large animals such as mammoths have been found in the ground in Siberia and Alaska, for example, all mixed together with different kinds of plants. It is difficult to explain such discoveries based on the slow processes Lyell taught us about. However, a global flood such as that described in the Bible, would be a good explanation. Large burial grounds of dinosaurs and horses as well as concentrations of millions of fish fossils are also well known. Such fossils cannot be formed under normal conditions; they can only occur if the animals are quickly buried in silt.

Of particular interest here is the fact that the permafrost in Alaska and in Siberia can include noticeable amounts of bones and meat, and half-rotted vegetation and other remains of the organic world. In some places, these add up to a notable part of the soil. A considerable part of the remains are from large animals, such as hairy rhinoceroses, giant lions, beavers, buffaloes, musk oxen, mammoths, and hairy elephants, which have become extinct. (...) That is why it is clear that the climate in Alaska was much warmer before it became frozen.

Human fossils and man-made items. We noted above that humanoid fossils have been found inside rock and in mineral coal strata (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115–116; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, pp. 36–39). Man-made items such as pots have also been found in strata classified as mineral coal. This proves that the layers cannot be tens- or hundreds of millions years old: they must have been generated in the recent past in terms of the geological time scale. Uuras Saarnivaara gives more examples:

Bones of humans that very closely resembled the modern man were found around 55 kilometres (34 miles) southeast of Moab, Utah. They were buried around 5 metres (16 feet) below the ground level. Around 1,5 meter (five feet) of the soil on top of them was hard rock. The stratum in which the bones were found was estimated to be at least 100 million years old. Scientists of the University of Utah studied the finding.
(...) Human and mastodon bones were found around 7 metres (23 feet) deep near Menlo Park around 45 kilometres (28 miles) south of San Francisco in a stratum that has been classified as a late Miocenic or around two to three million years old.
Two human skeletons were found in a copper mine about 57 kilometres (35 miles) from Moab, Utah, also in a stratum classified as Cretaceous.
Human footprints were found in Antelope Springs, Utah, in a stratum of trilobites. Trilobites were crustaceans that, according to the theory of evolution, became extinct during the Palaeozoic Permian period more than 200 million years ago.
(...) A gold chain was found in a mineral coal stratum in Morrisville, Illinois. The stratum was classified as Carboniferous, i.e. as 300 million years old.
(...) A slate wall with unknown but probably alphabetic writing on it was found in a mineral coal mine in Hammondsville, Ohio. It was classified as Carboniferous, i.e. as 300 million years old. (23)

Thickness of the strata. One assumption is that the time required for a geological stratum to be generated is directly comparable with the maximum thickness of strata. Total thickness of all the strata calculated was around 80 kilometers (48 miles) in 1913, 130 kilometers (81 miles) in 1937 and 140 kilometers (87 miles) in 1955. It has been estimated that it took hundreds of millions of years for these layers to be accumulated.
Darwin also stumbled across the idea of thick strata and their slow accumulation on top of each other. He wrote in his book The Origin of Species about what he thought of Lyell’s theories (p. 422): “He who can read Sir Charles Lyell's grand work on the Principles of Geology, which the future historian will recognise as having produced a revolution in natural science, yet does not admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of time, may at once close this my volume.” Darwin also wrote in the Origin of Species about the thickness of the strata (p. 426). He mentioned the following about strata in Britain that are almost 22 kilometres (14 miles) thick:

Professor Ramsay has given me the following information - mostly being based on real measurements - about maximum thickness of formations, which are one on top of the other in different parts of Great Britain; and this is the result:
Palaeozoic strata (not including igneous beds) 57,154 feet

Secondary strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,190 ”
Tertiary strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,140 ”
making altogether 72,584 feet; that is, very nearly thirteen and three-quarters British miles [almost 22 kilometres].

The question is: how can we know of strata that are almost 100 kilometres (62 miles) thick or even the strata of almost 22 kilometres (14 miles) thick that Darwin mentioned? These figures are not based on any practical observations that could be visually detected; they are based on theoretical calculations and the thought of millions of years. The highly theoretical nature of these calculations is proven by the fact that the deepest hole drilled in 1909 was 2240 meters (7,349 feet) (Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 140), only a little over a tenth of the figure mentioned by Darwin. The deepest holes drilled in 1964 were only around 7,5 kilometers (4.7 miles) and the deepest hole in the late 1990s around 12 kilometers (7.5 miles). These are far from the figure mentioned by Darwin, not to mention the depth of more than 100 kilometers (62 miles).

No erosion. The fact that no erosion can be observed between the strata suggests that millions of years could not have been involved. This is because no signs of erosion have been found in global studies of different strata, not in the famous Grand Canyon or anywhere else. Quite the opposite: it seems that the layers are fairly uniform and they have gathered on top of each other without any pauses in between. The interfaces between strata should be more ragged and uneven if erosion had influenced them over a long period of time. This is not the case, however. For example, one rainstorm alone can make deep lines on the surface of stratum, not to mention being exposed to erosion for millions of years.
The best explanation on how the strata were formed is that water influenced their generation in a short period of time. For example, a sandstone stratum of around one meter (three feet) can be formed in 30- to 60 minutes. Geologists themselves admit that floods and bodies of water are the best vehicles in forming strata.

But a particular area of interest for Dr Roth is the existence of ‘flat gaps’ or ‘paraconformities’ in the fossil record. What on earth (literally) are they? Consider the geological column in many text books, where many rock layers are supposed to have formed over billions of years. Dr Roth explains that in many places:
‘First, there are major gaps in the layers; rock layers that should be present are missing at these localities. Second, the layers below and above the gaps are flat.
(…) So why is this a problem? First, he explains what we would expect if there really were millions of years between the two layers:
‘An outstanding feature of erosion is the highly irregular surface (topography) it creates as streams and rivers keep cutting deeper gullies, canyons, and valleys into the landscape. Even Australia, which tends to be very flat, has a lot of irregular topography in many areas. Erosion tends to produce highly irregular surfaces over most of our continents.’
(…) But what do we find instead?
‘The problem these flat gaps especially pose for the long geologic ages is the lack of erosion of the underlayer expected at these gaps. Over the many millions of years postulated for these gaps, you would expect pronounced irregular erosion, and the gaps should not at all be flat.
(…) Dr Roth explains further as:
‘The striking contrast between the flat pattern of the layers, especially the tops of the underlayers of the many paraconforities, compared to the eroded highly irregular topography of the present surface of the region, illustrates the problem these gaps pose for the long geologic ages. If the many millions of years had actually occurred, why are not the tops of the underlayers highly irregular as is the case for the present topography of the region? It looks like the millions of years suggested for the geologic column never occurred. Furthermore, if geologic time is missing in one locality, then it is missing around the whole earth.’ (24)

Quick formation of strata.
Some practical observations in which layers were formed quickly contradict Charles Lyell’s idea that the strata have been generated slowly over the course of millions of years. For example, when Mount St. Helena erupted in 1980, a stratum that is almost 200 metres (670 feet) thick was formed in the space of only a couple of weeks. This did not take millions of years: layers of different types gathered on top of each other in just a matter of days. What is most peculiar is that a canyon in which water started to flow was formed in the same area later. This process did not take millions of years either, like the believers in the theory of evolution would assume: it took only a couple of weeks. One can assume that the Grand Canyon and other major natural formations have been generated by similar, fast processes.

The island called Surtsey is another similar case. The island was formed when an underwater volcano erupted in 1963. New Scientist magazine described in January 2006 how canyons, ravines and other ground features appeared on the island in less than ten years. This did not take millions or even thousands of years:

“The canyons, ravines and other forms of the ground, which usually take tens of thousands or millions of years to form, have amazed geological researchers because they were created in less than ten years.” (25)

1607816756170.png
1607816737860.png
1607816718435.png
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top