• 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 5)

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 3: GEOLOGIC Column is wrong
Part 4: GEOLOGIC Column is wrong


The strata have formed quickly

One axiom of geological dating is that the strata formed slowly over hundreds of millions of years. It has been assumed that they accumulated on top of each other so that the lowest of these strata can be up to tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years older than the more recent top layers. This so-called geological column is believed to describe the order in which the strata appear in the ground.

However, there are many points against so long periods. It was stated earlier that the appearance of radiocarbon in fossils of Cambrian period and in other old strata points to periods of thousands, not millions, of years. Radiocarbon could not appear if the fossils and strata were hundreds of millions of years old.

Next we will consider other evidence that contradicts the notion that strata have formed over a period of millions of years. The evidence is based on the following:

- Long trunk fossils in strata
- Fossils in strata
- No erosion
- Fast creation of strata at St. Helens during our time




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. For example, an old photo taken at Saint-Etienne coal mine (in France) shows how each of five separate fossilized trunks go through approximately ten strata or even more. According to the evolutionary view, the strata should be millions of years old, yet all the trunks extend through them.

Are the trees millions of years old, or did strata form very quickly? Both cannot be true. The latter alternative is certainly more probable, since trunk fossils cannot be created in any other way than by being buried quickly:



Many signs refer to several overlapping strata being formed as a consequence of a continuous and world-wide process, since the fossils of many plants and large animals in an upright position penetrate several different strata without any signs of being exposed to erosion over thousands of years at their upper or lower end. Therefore, a trunk has remained in an upright position in the middle of quickly accumulating layers of sediment. Large dinosaurs have also been found in similar positions. A 24-metre-tall tree trunk going through more than ten strata was found near Edinburgh, and everything indicated that the trunk had been quickly carried in place. Neither have any signs indicating erosion between various geological periods been found between the different strata. (30)



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. (31)



Fossils in strata. One of the most glaring pieces of evidence of a fast stratification of the strata is the fossils inside the layers of soil. The fossils inside the strata can only have been created by mud and sludge slides burying an animal or plant very quickly. This holds true also for all leading fossils and the trunk fossils mentioned above.

Actually, whenever we find fossils, they indicate that a plant or an animal has been rapidly buried under sludge and land, and then soon transformed into a fossil. (The fossilization event itself does not even have to take a long time: fossilized trees have been prepared in just a few days under laboratory conditions.) If the plant or animal had not been quickly buried, it would have quickly decayed or been eaten by other animals.

Thus, the fossils found these days only indicate that the stratum where they were found must have been born over a short period of time or within a couple of days or weeks, and not over a period of millions of years. They were rapidly buried in the soil, as they could not otherwise have become fossils. Millions of years would not help the birth process. Many researchers also admit that several strata and fossils can be created only due to quickly occurring catastrophes. They cannot have been formed any other way. The best way to explain such sludge and mud strata that have buried plants and animals is the Flood mentioned in the Bible.

The next comments also refer to the fast stratification that enabled creation of fossils. They show that the strata were not born as a consequence of long and slow processes:



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)



No erosion. If the strata were born slowly over a period of millions of years, we should see very clear signs of erosion between the strata. However, as different strata have been examined globally, it has been impossible to find these signs between the strata – they have not been found even in the famous Grand Canyon. On the contrary, it seems more likely that the strata are quite uniformly connected to each other and that they were formed continually on top of each other:



In addition to this, we cannot find any signs of worldwide erosion between different periods, but only worldwide stratification of rock types. So, it seems that the stratification of strata has been a continuous, almost incessant process.

The fact that we cannot find worldwide signs of weathering between strata and see the consuming effects of the forces of nature on the soil over different eras is very significant. This indicates that no erosion of the soil has occurred over “millions” of years. The only explanation for this phenomenon, observed in nature, is quick stratification of the strata on top of each other. (32)



The lack of erosion between the strata suggests three points:



1. It has not taken millions of years for the strata to be formed; rather, they were formed in quite a short time, perhaps in a couple of days or weeks.



2. The topmost strata are almost the same age as the lower strata, suggesting that they quickly accumulated over the lower strata. Previously mentioned trunk fossils are a clear indication of this, since they penetrate more than ten strata. The difference in time between the uppermost and the lowermost stratum is not necessarily more than a few hours or days.



3. The birth of strata very strongly suggests a catastrophe model: a flood piled strata on top of each other. Even geologists admit that strata are best formed by floods and water, so what could be a better alternative than a world-wide flood that moved the strata upon each other over a very short period of time? In the Biblical record of the Great Flood, waters flooded the Earth for 150 days.

The next quotation from a school biology textbook (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 176,177) refers to the same issue. The text refers to the creation of mineral coal that is assumed to have occured in the Carboniferous period when forests were left under layers of water and sludge. However, a more probable explanation is the Flood, during which the very same events occurred. The Flood would also explain the existence of fossils, because they can be created only by being buried quickly:



The most significant mineral coal deposits of the Earth were created approximately 300 million years ago. This time is called the Carboniferous period. During this period, the climate was warm and damp. Vegetation was more luxuriant than ever in history, at least in low swamp areas. It is assumed that the atmosphere contained more carbon dioxide than nowadays. Treelike ferns, horsetails, and club mosses grew into forests. Mineral coal was created when these forests – as the climate sometimes became warmer and the ice sheets melted – were buried by water and silt.



Mount Saint Helens, new strata and canyons. It has been shown that strata can be created very quickly. At the time of the volcanic eruption of Mount Saint Helens in 1980, a series of overlapping strata were formed. These strata were more than a hundred meters thick at most – and were created over a period of just a few weeks. Millions of years were not required: different kinds of strata accumulated atop one another in a few days.

About two years later, after some landslides had taken their toll, canyons were formed in the same area and water soon began to flow in the canyons. These canyons did not form gradually over a period of millions of years as a result of flowing water – as the birth of Grand Canyon has been explained – but were formed quickly, and water started to flow in them very soon afterwards. It is probable that other large canyons were born in the same way. Let’s look at the following quote that describes the issue well. First, the text describes how a series of overlapping strata were formed in the Mount Saint Helens area. The text also describes how a canyon later formed in the same area and water started to flow in the canyon. This process did not take millions of years, as evolutionists would have expected. All of it took place over a short period of time:



In some places, the ground was now covered by a new multiple-layer surface that was almost 200 meters thick. Over a million tree trunks, without branches or bark, lay on large areas and covered the surface of a lake that once was so beautiful. All vegetation had disappeared. The view was like from a dead planet. (…)

This is real evidence of how strata can be born in just a few moments. But more evidence supplied by nature was on its way. Less than two years after the explosion, in March 1982, the surface strata that had been formed again started to move. They formed an enormous mudslide, which irresistibly made its way towards the lower areas. The mudslide destroyed everything in its path. Trees stood in the slide with their roots pointing up. Houses and bridges were no problem for the mudslide. New strata were created again, but now they were lower than the previous destruction area. However, what interested researchers the most was what was left over in the previous destruction area. Only a part of the layers had started to move. Now there were huge canyons whose walls were in places more than 50 meters tall. In photographs, this area now looked exactly like the Grand Canyon in Colorado.




Researchers, who had for decades studied the birth of the Grand Canyon and the composition of its strata, were extremely grateful. The natural forces had, in a startling way, supported their catastrophe theories. (…)

The strata of the canyon formed without interruption by the powerful movement of water and volcanic eruptions. The strata had simultaneously been soft and covered by water. When the water then flowed away, during the following years, several collapses in the area took place – extensive mudflows that, as watery landslides, formed large canyon areas. Only the strata that had solidified enough to become hard were left. In the case of St Helens, this theory was supported by actual evidence. In a couple of years, over a hundred meters of strata that were formed in the eruption hardened and started to transform to stone. Some of the strata contained materials whose hardening resembled that of concrete. Small streams were formed onto the bottom of the canyon, and then grew into rivers. The picture was now even more complete: the water streams did not form canyons. Instead, the bottoms of the canyons were well suited as beds for the flows. The theory of the birth of canyons over millions of years created by Darwin was proven incorrect by nature itself. (33)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top