Rethinking the Geological Layers

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 3/5/2004 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

[bondserv]

Rethinking the Geological Layers   03/05/2004
One of the most formative ideas in Darwin’s intellectual journey was the concept of gradualism, the principle of “small agencies and their cumulative effects.”  This idea became an overarching theme in his philosophy of life.  Describing how the assumption of gradualism permeated his last book (on earthworms) shortly before his death, Janet Browne, her acclaimed biography of Darwin, writes where the idea began:

He [Darwin] believed that the natural world was the result of constantly repeated small and accumulative actions, a lesson he had first learned when reading Lyell’s Principles of Geology on board the Beagle and had put to work ever since.  His interpretation of South American geology had been based on Lyell’s vision of little-and-often, and his theory of coral reefs too, each polyp building on the skeletons of other polyps, every individual contributing its remains to the growing reef.  Most notably, he had applied the idea of gradual accumulative change to the origin of species, believing that the preservation of a constant process of minor adaptations in individuals would lead to the transformation of living beings.  His work on barnacles, plants, and pigeons all supported the point.  No one, not even Lyell himself, or any of Darwin’s closest friends and supporters, accepted as ardently as Darwin that the book of nature was about the accumulative powers of the small. ¹  (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

It was the record of the rocks that led to Lyell’s uniformitarian principle, and from there, Darwin extended it to all of nature.  But do the rocks actually record a process of slow and gradual accumulation?
    In this month’s journal Geology, an earth scientist from the Netherlands makes a startling proposal: the record in the rocks is fractal, not necessarily gradual.  In fractals, a pattern on a small scale can look the same on large scales.  In other words, he seems to be saying, a large stratigraphic record might not be the gradual accumulation of small layers, but a fractal pattern on a large scale that could represent a rapid accumulation of a large quantity of material.
    Wolfgang Schlager² first debunks the conventional wisdom as being only, well, conventional – but not necessarily wise: “Orders of stratigraphic sequences are being used loosely and with widely varying definitions,” he says.  The orders seem to be subdivisions of convenience rather than an indication of natural structure.”  He proposes that rock layers may be not only scale invariant, but also time invariant: i.e., functions of the amount of material available for deposition.  He calls it a “well-known fact” that “sediment architecture is largely scale invariant over a wide range of scales in time and space.”
    Schlager criticizes the conventional wisdom of defining orders of strata by duration, even the practice is “almost universally followed.”  Thus, he seems to be proposing a radical reinterpretation of the record:

This essay presents a critique of the concept of orders in sequence stratigraphy and argues that the succession of sequences is fractal rather than a hierarchy of orders.  The argument rests on four components: (1) The duration of the presumed orders varies widely, even within one publication.  (2) Exposure surfaces and flooding surfaces as unit boundaries are both common in a wide range of temporal scales.  (3) Extensive studies on sea-level fluctuations and sedimentation rates have shown that the principal trends of both are fractal.  (4) Limited data on shelf edges that prograde and step up and down in response to sea level indicate that these traces, too, are fractal.

He provides examples of discordant measurements when geologists assume the rocks represent “categories in time.”  The confusion does not seem to dissipate with more examples, he says: “Moreover, the values do not seem to converge with time and improving data.”  But if the size of the deposit is a fractal rather than a measure of the passage of time, it could mean that giant deposits could have been laid down in short order, provided enough material were available:

Sedimentation and erosion, the processes that are ultimately responsible for the sediment record, operate in the same fashion over a wide range of scales.  It is characteristic of hydrodynamics that flow properties are largely determined by dimensionless ratios, and few characteristic scales enter in the analysis.  Depositional patterns have been found to be scale invariant over a wide range of time and space.

Schlagel points to examples covering a wide range of presumed depositional times, and strata that represent “energy-dissipation patterns that are scale-invariant over the range of centimeters to hundreds of kilometers.”  His model allows for slow and gradual deposition as well as fast and catastrophic, of course, but he suggests it is not always easy to tell:

In many sequence data sets, the impression of a hierarchy of cycles is very strong.  The model does not imply that this impression is false.  It is characteristic of fractals that the same pattern is repeated at finer and finer scales.  Consequently, any snapshot of the fractal taken at a certain resolution will show a superposition of coarser and finer patterns.  The crucial difference to an ordered hierarchy of cycles [which he disputes] is their lack of characteristic scales.  The fractal model proposed here predicts that the sequence record, like many other natural time series, has the characteristics of noise with variable persistence and thus variable predictability.

He seems to be saying it will be harder to claim that a large depositional unit would have necessarily been a function of long ages.  It’s just a proposal at this point, he admits: “The model is meant as a conceptual framework to steer future data analysis and to provide a basis for statistical characterization of sequences.”  He only speculates about the origin of the fractal patterns.  Nevertheless, this new way of looking at the rock record might cause rethinking of Lyell’s assumption that huge layers necessarily represent huge passages of time:

Stratigraphic sequences are essentially shaped by the interplay of rates of change in accommodation and rates of sediment supply.... As both rates show fractal properties, it is not surprising that the resulting sequence record inherits this attribute.  At a more fundamental level, it may be the complexity of depositional systems and their tendency to evolve toward conditions of self-organized criticality that give rise to fractal features in sequence stratigraphy.

The fact that Schlager’s proposal was published in the world’s leading geology journal indicates that other geologists are taking it seriously.

---

¹Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Princeton, 2002), p. 490.
² Wolfgang Schlager, “Fractal nature of stratigraphic sequences,” Geology Vol. 32, No. 3 (March, 2004), pp. 185–188, doi: 10.1130/G20253.1.

Although this is a technical subject for mathematically-inclined geologists, it seems to represent a daring break from conventional wisdom.  Some creationist geologists have already demonstrated with experiments that layered deposits can be laid down rapidly in horizontal fashion, forming what look like fractal patterns, in one stage (see the work of Guy Berthault, for example).  Similarly, fine-grained laminations have been found in thick deposits at Mt. St. Helens, where the rates of deposition were known (e.g., one day!).  The old thinking was that each layer represented a long passage of time.  Now, we have observed examples that this is not necessarily true.
    Schlager is clearly not proposing a young-age geology; his article assumes millions of years for some deposits.  Nevertheless, his model seems to reinforce the notion that a pattern in the rock layers, no matter how thick, could be a function of “rate of change in accommodation and rates of sediment supply,” not necessarily a long, gradual passage of time.  In simple, creationist-geology terms, were the layers of Grand Canyon laid down by a little water over a long time, or a lot of water over a little time?
    Look at the philosophical baggage that Lyell’s vision of gradualism generated.  It appeared intuitively obvious to him, and then to Darwin, that the rock layers must have required many millions of years for their formation.  Darwin’s philosophical voyage from Christianity to agnosticism floated on this belief, which subsequently flavored all his investigations and writings.  Now we see geologists questioning the basic assumption.  The Titanic had a lot of baggage, too.  When the hull was breached, it no longer mattered how ornate the furnishings.

[bondserv]

Thank you for your personal observations. They are perfectly to the point of the article.

It is strange how the forces of the enemy cause seemingly normal people to purposely overlook the truth to protect their agenda.

"The Passion of the Christ" presented this truth very clearly in the failure of Pilate. The truth requires a stand against the enemy of truth.

[VadeRetro]

You missed that the death of those dinosaurs were a result of Adam's sin.

You'd think we could find a reasonably human-looking fossil older than 2-3 million years, or a dinosaur younger than 65 million, if Adam was around before the dinosaurs went extinct. Please do not throw the bogus Paluxy tracks up to me. I know about them, you know about them, and they're not what you wish.

[Elsie]

No you don't...neither one of you!

How can you be so SURE?

[bondserv]

You'd think we could find a reasonably human-looking fossil older than 2-3 million years, or a dinosaur younger than 65 million, if Adam was around before the dinosaurs went extinct. Please do not throw the bogus Paluxy tracks up to me. I know about them, you know about them, and they're not what you wish.

Hello Vade.

You seem pretty certain of your assessment.

[Dimensio]

Not everyone can see the truth.

The "truth" in this case is that your conclusion (evolution is false) did not logically follow from your premesis.

More importantly Jesus personally died for your sins.

What has this to do with your inability to construct a logical argument? Moreover, what does any of this have to do with geological study?

[VadeRetro]

You seem pretty certain of your assessment.

Talk about a gap! There's a gap for you. Dinosaurs way down there and only way down there. Humans up here and only up here.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the pings!

[Doctor Stochastic]

...were the layers of Grand Canyon laid down by a little water over a long time, or a lot of water over a little time?

The results of these two processes look different. Apparently, Schlager is either ignorant about the processes or he is lying intentionally.

[Dataman]

I've read the script in English translation. I will eventually see the movie.

I see nothing relevant to this debate in the story.

So glad you asked...

Cobaltblue claims to be Catholic, if I correctly recall.

The RCC teaches that Jesus is God.

This means that God does indeed intervene in history.

The RCC teaches that God became a man to take the punishment we deserve because all of us have sinned against Him.

No Adam, no Eve, no sin, no need for a Savior.

The RCC teaches that Jesus is the Creator.

The Creator taught Adam, Eve and the flood.

So a viewing of The Passion might give CB a new insight into her own world view.

[Dataman]

I suspect you are not qualified either by knowledge or by intellect to speak about my relationship with God. I'll thank you in advance for not making further attempts.

I think you misread Bondserv.

One other thing that just doesn't quite work intellectually: If the Bible were to support evolution, I suspect evolutionists would use it as evidence for their view. But if the Bible supports special creation, somehow that is supposed to discredit creationism.

[Dataman]

I'm not sure where you studied logic, but where I learned it, this would be called a "non-sequitur".

I'm not sure where you studied logic, but a non sequitur means the conclusion does not follow from the premiss(es) not, as you used it, that you can't follow the argument.

[Theophilus]

No, I think discovering oil is a perfectly practical way to use geological knowledge. It certainly does a lot more for humanity than the satisfaction obtained by geologists shuffling strata based on the fossils and then classifying the fossils based on the strata in order to piece together a geological just-so story.

This is interesting because this week I observed a conversation between my boss, a MIT/then Stanford trained oil hunting geologist and another fellow about his experiences in geophysics. He said that the oil companies just go through the motions with the science and then management simply ignores the work and rolls the dice, usually in close proximity to a known oil field. That's why he revels in defense modeling where he gets to roll the dice and does not miss geophysics at all. I concur with you about the incestuous circular strata/fossil shuffling.

[Theophilus]

No, I think discovering oil is a perfectly practical way to use geological knowledge. It certainly does a lot more for humanity than the satisfaction obtained by geologists shuffling strata based on the fossils and then classifying the fossils based on the strata in order to piece together a geological just-so story.

This is interesting because this week I observed a conversation between my boss, a MIT/then Stanford trained oil hunting geologist and another fellow about his experiences in geophysics. He said that the oil companies just go through the motions with the science and then management simply ignores the work and rolls the dice, usually in close proximity to a known oil field. That's why he revels in defense modeling where he gets to roll the dice and does not miss geophysics at all. I concur with you about the incestuous circular strata/fossil shuffling.

[bondserv]

If death only began after Adam sinned, and Adam was the first man, then animals could not have evolved for millions of years prior to Adam's sin, for none of them would have died and the world would be full of trillions upon trillions of animals by the time man evolved to bring about death by his sin.

Hope this helps.

Sorry for abandoning you all, time with my wife took priority.

[bondserv]

I posted some Biblical grounds that support my contentions in #39. Scientific language defines the "curse" as the second Law of thermodynamics.

God's initial Creation was perfect, then it became cursed through the entry of corruption via Adam's sin. The genetic characteristics of life have been devolving ever since. Genetic characteristics cause similar kinds of animals to be suceptable to the same types of mutations. This is evident in the genetic code that is being revealed as we speak. Adaptations within the kinds are limited by the code to avoid rapid corruption and a quicker end to life.

Don't blame your hammer toe, or your bad back on God. The rightful blame goes to Adam and our sin, which wages death.

[Dataman]

I concur with you about the incestuous circular strata/fossil shuffling.

It is a big game, isn't it? The existence of oil fields is an argument for a young earth since there is no reason for porous rocks to hold the oil under pressure for more than a few thousand years let alone 65 million years.

[bondserv]

But keep in mind that the "instant canyons" carved by volcanic lahars are distinctly and recognizably different from the "amazing geological formations" that do indeed take "eons" to form.

You are limiting your perspective to ity-bity catastrophes. Try billions of tons of moving water, higher than the tallest mountains, on for size. We can only speculate as to the geologic ramifications of that kind of force applied to the earths crust, as well as the erosion footprints, and sedimentary deposits stacking up across large regions.

As this article shows, like our medical and health care scientists that say something different every day with their new studies, the "hard" sciences by their very nature exhibit the same types of confusion.

Under my plan we put the confusion in the God lock-box, under your plan you remain confused. However, I do find science entertaining and sometimes helpful.

[BMCDA]

Scientific language defines the "curse" as the second Law of thermodynamics.

Ahh! So there was no time's arrow before the fall (or it pointed to the future as well as the past if these terms make any sense in such a world).

[bondserv]

Ahh! So there was no time's arrow before the fall (or it pointed to the future as well as the past if these terms make any sense in such a world).

The Holy Spirit (Inspired the authorship of the scripture) has you covered. Notice the descriptive language He chose to use.

Gen 4:5
5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

The Holy Spirit never misses a chance to thwart the wiles of Satan.

[Ichneumon]

A short drive from my city is a Dino wonderland known as Drumheller.

Calgary, Bannf, or Red Deer? I meet my wife in Calgary.

South of it runs several badlands environs..again..Dino wonderland...bones and fossils everywhere. Drumheller used to be near the edge of the inland sea wich overlay North America from the Gulf of Mexico. One can easily find the KT boundry running like a contractors snap line on the cliff wall contours. Dated at 65 million yrs ago..or so they say : ) Well..one quick visual..and noting the short descent distance down in the canyon one goes to find the KT boundry..and immediately an inquisitive mind ponders that this dating run must be faulty.

Okay, I'll bite -- how do you figure that?

What is said to be the millions of years below KT and the short interval above of terain visually doesn't jive.

Jive is for swing music...

Why exactly do you think they don't jibe? The KT boundary is less than 2% of the age of the (solid) Earth ago. Exactly how deep did you expect it to be? Yes, 65 million years ago is a long time in absolute terms, but relative to the age of the Earth, it's just a few pages out of the whole book.

Even in a canyon cutting to just the top of the precambrian rock, the KT boundary would be only 10% of the way down the canyon wall.

And that's presuming no erosion, no periods of nondeposition, and no uplift, which is certainly *not* the case for southern Alberta. Adding in those factors, the KT boundary could be found at any relative depth, including at the surface, as it is in some parts of Alberta.

Here's a stratigraphic cross-section of Alberta:

Note the Coalspur/Scollard formation -- it straddles the KT barrier. Also note that it reaches the *surface* at *several* places aross Alberta, and even disappears entirely for the eastern half of the province.

Here's an overview of the coal formations at the surface and subsurface across southern Alberta:

As you can see, the Scollard formation, which includes the KT boundary, reaches the surface around the Red Deer/Calgary area. So of course you'll find the KT boundary at a very "shallow" location (i.e. high up) on any canyon wall in that area.

So please tell me why you think that the relative position of the KT line in a particular canyon cut somehow doesn't jibe with the terrain and how you conclude that "this dating run must be faulty"?

In the Atlas mountains of North Africa is a slab of rock hundreds of feet long..at a high inclination angle. The rock has Dinosaur tracks ..they go upward the distance of the angular slab..and are easily seen..and have depth to their imprint. Supposedly..the Atlas maountains were worn down over eons..and now these tracks are at the surface after the erosion action. again..the tracks a clear..and uniform allong the slab. the slab is as flat and clean as a marble face on a downtown office building. so then.,if erosion is the action over eons..why then are the tracks so clear...should they not have been worn away by the power of what eroded the mighty Atlas mountains ?

No, because they were preserved by overlying layers for the last ~65 million years, and those layers, which included a softer layer than the print-bearing strata, have now worn away, exposing the dinosaur tracks. In another few hundred thousand years the tracks will likely be worn away as well.

That's how most fossils are preserved and then exposed at present day (not counting the vaster numbers which are still buried under strata, or long since eroded away to nothing). This is basic stuff.

Again..one see's the visual presentation and ponders that this cannot be countless millions of years.

One might ponder that if one hasn't taken beginner's courses in geology and paleontology.

Call it common sense...

That's not quite what I'd call it.

a thought rational the academic should get in touch with.

They do. That's why they study and learn about things before making conclusions about them.

[bondserv:] It is strange how the forces of the enemy cause seemingly normal people to purposely overlook the truth to protect their agenda.

Oh, right, geologists make maps of coal formations because *Satan* causes "seemingly normal people" to "purposely overlook the truth" that the KT boundary *can't* be found near the surface. Right. Got it. Whatever you say.