Evolution/geology


#1

Would it be possible to limit this one thread to discussing the science of the following 2 things.
The first I’ve wondered about sometimes but never could find much or even any much, information on it.
The second I’ve never heard of before, and its source gives no references at all.

  1. Coal, sediments, and rocks are commonly cemented together in just a few years.
    Or, how much time, long or short, does it take to form solid rock.

  2. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly. First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more.

That is, of course, if anyone would like to discuss or give links to info. :banghead:


#2

I’ll give it a try for you.:slight_smile:

[quote=I Leatherman]1. Coal, sediments, and rocks are commonly cemented together in just a few years.
Or, how much time, long or short, does it take to form solid rock.
[/quote]

Well, there are several questions there, so I’ll take them one at a time.
Coal: Coal doesn’t form in just a few years. Coal is formed from organic material (ie plant remains) that accumulate over a period of time. In it’s very earliest stages, the organic material is called peat and can be used as a fuel then. Once it is buried by sediment, it begins the transition to coal if conditions are favorable. After a period of heating and de-watering, the peat transforms into coal. Different grades of coal are indicative of different formation tempertatures.

The youngest coal that I have heard of (not that I have payed much attention to coal over the years) is several million years old.

Sediment: Cementation can begin as soon as the sediments are deposited. However, it is most common for cementation to begin only after burial and at least some compaction. The cementing substance is carried by water through the sediment grains. As far as how long this takes, it really depends on the depositional environment. Some sediments never receive a large amount of cementation while others, deposited in an environment with a high mineral content in the groundwater, are cemented within a short period of time.

  1. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly. First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more.

Well, there are fossils in amber, but I wouldn’t consider it a large number. You are right that fossilization in amber (which is itself a fossil of sorts) does take time as well as temperature.

Peace

Tim


#3

What is the point of this thread? Catholics have no problem with the science of evolution.


#4

I think it depends on what type of rock you are talking about. Some volcanic rock forms pretty darn quickly as a lava flow cools. Sedimentary rock is basically other rocks getting pressed together, but without altering the makeup of the original rocks. Metamorphic rock is then temperature and pressure changes on igneous or sedimentary rock which alters the makeup. So how long it takes is going to depend on what type of rock you are talking about, what the temperatures, pressures, makeup, etc. are.

  1. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly. First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more.

Here is a page that has lots of links about amber where you should be able to find some answers.
JRM


#5

Thank you. I suppose thats answered that.
So, limestone or sandstone could harden immediately, provided:
there is water, dissolved minerals, and enough bulk to give pressure/temp if required.
Other types of rock need at least some time, metamorphic rock.
But how much time to recrystallize for the different types.


#6

Recrystallization depends on the source rock and the metamorphic conditions it’s being exposed to. Rock formation depends on time, source material, pressure, temperature, and erosional factors. Not to mention mineralogic makeup, catastrophic events, ice ages, continental collisions, etc.

If the conditions are met for limestone formation, it will start cementing “immediately”, in geologic time. Immediately in geologic time is usually a few hundres of thousands of years. Individual grains will begin the cementation process, but your limestone may not exist quite yet.

In the geologic circles, there is no “it takes 500 years to form rock X” that I know of. We can give time estiamtes based on the stratigraphic record, the fossils contained in the rock, and understanding how rocks in that area of the world are formed. And if the rocks are not ‘imported’ via continental collisions, glaciers, tectonic activity…


#7

[quote=I Leatherman]Thank you. I suppose thats answered that.
So, limestone or sandstone could harden immediately, provided:
there is water, dissolved minerals, and enough bulk to give pressure/temp if required.
Other types of rock need at least some time, metamorphic rock.
But how much time to recrystallize for the different types.
[/quote]

Well, yes, sort of. You need to understand that even though the “hardening” process begins immediately in some cases, the final product will generally take a long time unless you have a very extreme situation (geothermal deposits, for instance). Limestones and sandstones may have very different processes of formation. Some limestones are the product of a very long-term accumulation of calcareous microfossils (chalk) whereas others are made up of reef-building creatures and shells (coquinas or reefal limestones).

Peace

Tim


#8

Thanks.
Reading through it, I suppose its the chemistry of cementation (if there is such a thing) thats would interest me.


#9

Umm…actually coal can form in minutes if there is anough pressure, and temperature. That’s just basic physics. All over the world, an example being the Kettle coal mines in Tennessee, vertically standing trees over 30’ tall have been found completely petrified within coal mine deposits. Human artifacts, and fossilized fish/clams/animals have also been found within coal deposits. So lets say a giant flood occurred, it is easily possible to generate the criteria to produce coal in a very short time. This evidence would seem to support this theory.

P.S. You do realize that what you are saying is a THEORY, being that it has never been empirically verified.? and not a scientific fact. Mine is also a Theory. At least Ill tell him that.

And how do you know its millions of years old? Were you there? Please dont say radiometric dating. At least tell this guy what you are telling him is your or others’ theories and not proven facts. Well, I’ll tell him…HE IS SPECULATING AND GIVING YOU CURRENTLY MAJORITY ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY, such as when the top scientists all held the “PROOF” that the earth was the center of the universe.


#10

[quote=LatinCat]What is the point of this thread? Catholics have no problem with the science of evolution.
[/quote]

Ummm…I do, and the Catholic Church lets me have that position…so before you make generalized statements on all Catholics, read your Catechism.

I dont have a problem with science…I love science…I have a problem with evolutionists claiming that billion year evolution is a fact. It is far from it. Just so everyone knows…evolution is a THEORY. The Church had no problem with the Earth being the center of the universe, until it was proven otherwise. The Church does not make judgements on scientific theories until they are proven beyond doubt, and even then, it does not assure them with any infallible authority, unless it ties in with a decree of faith or morals.


#11

rheins << I have a problem with evolutionists claiming that billion year evolution is a fact. It is far from it. Just so everyone knows…evolution is a THEORY. >>

We’ve had this discussion at least 4.5 billion times. Anyone who makes the above statement does not understand science. Evolution is a fact and a theory, here is why.

Another good article on the scientific method is “Scientific Proof”

Scientific theories are in one sense a higher level of understanding than mere “facts” since theories explain facts: see Wikipedia on Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Germ theory of disease, theory of Gravity, theory of Electromagnetism, theory of Plate Tectonics. These are all “theories, not facts.” I hate when people make your statement since it is a classic misunderstanding of science.

Anyone who can read Dalrymple and still say the earth is not 4.5 billion but 10000 years old, I don’t know what else would convince them. The evidence is indeed overwhelming, and we’ve known the earth is very old well before Darwin. Study, read, learn why. If the geologist Dalrymple is too technical, read the same evidence from a Christian perspective.

Phil P


#12

[quote=rheins2000]Umm…actually coal can form in minutes if there is anough pressure, and temperature. That’s just basic physics.
[/quote]

Actually, that would be chemistry. And you don’t know what you are talking about.

All over the world, an example being the Kettle coal mines in Tennessee, vertically standing trees over 30’ tall have been found completely petrified within coal mine deposits.

So?

Human artifacts, and fossilized fish/clams/animals have also been found within coal deposits.

Fish/clams/animals I will accept. There are no human artifacts ever found in in-situ coal deposits. None.

So lets say a giant flood occurred, it is easily possible to generate the criteria to produce coal in a very short time. This evidence would seem to support this theory.

There is no evidence for a giant flood that created all coal deposits at the same time. None.

P.S. You do realize that what you are saying is a THEORY, being that it has never been empirically verified.? and not a scientific fact. Mine is also a Theory. At least Ill tell him that.

Except mine has evidence and yours has fantasy. Not quite the same criteria for acceptance.

And how do you know its millions of years old? Were you there? Please dont say radiometric dating. At least tell this guy what you are telling him is your or others’ theories and not proven facts. Well, I’ll tell him…HE IS SPECULATING AND GIVING YOU CURRENTLY MAJORITY ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY, such as when the top scientists all held the “PROOF” that the earth was the center of the universe.

Yes, let’s not confuse him with facts.:frowning: For I Leatherman, if you have any questions regarding dating of the earth, take a look at these two resources:
talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/how_old_earth.html
asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
You can either accept the views of a scientist when it comes to science or you can accept the word of rheims2000. Either way, the truth is is that the earth is old (~4.5 billion years old) and coal takes a long time to form.

Peace

Tim


#13

[quote=Orogeny]Actually, that would be chemistry. And you don’t know what you are talking about.
[/quote]

FROM THE DICTIONARY: physics., The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

For your theory: Since you are talking about matter(peat, organic materials, etc.) and the addition of energy in the system(heating, which would translate to the current state entropy of the thermodynamic system) and de-watering, it is more physics than chemistry. Looks like you need to research science a little more. Then you would find that chemistry and physics actually overlap in certain areas(this being one of them). So while your busy attacking semantics and telling me Im wrong calling it physics, maybe you should just focus on the facts and realize that you ARE DEAD WRONG SAYING ITS NOT PHYSICS. IT MIGHT ALSO BE CHEMISTRY, but it is also PHYSICS, as well as BIOLOGY, AND GEOLOGY. So, lay off the telling me I dont know what Im talking about, just because I dont fall like sheep for your evolution theory. Because as it appears by your above statement, you dont know what youre talking about.

For my theory(which was what I described as physics): Pressure, and heating(energy) and existing organic material(matter) and the interaction between them is what produces coal…same as your theory, but I theorize a smaller length of time needed to produce the coal. And once again, in relation to the comparison of time, pressure, and temperature, and transit energy this is more thermodynamics than chemistry.(And I hope you’re aware that thermodynamics is a branch of physics)

Thats just because you wont listen to any evidence except what appears to lend credence to your theory…but dont take my theory just from me…because Im just an old fashioned idiot and not a big time scientist like you…maybe youll take it from this guy:

RAPID COAL, GEORGE R. HILL Dean of College of Mines & Mineral Industries, on discovery of human artifacts in natural coal deposits: “A rather startling and serendipitous discovery resulted…These observations suggest that in their formation, high rank coals,…were probably subjected to high temperature at some stage in their history. A possible mechanism for formation of these high rank coals could have been a short time, rapid heating event.” [Six Hours], Chemtech, May, 1972, p. 292.

I just gave you some evidence. I have given you the evidence of fish, clams, animals, artifacts, and trees standing vertically, petrified in coal deposits. That is great evidence for my side fo this coin, because it absolutely proves that coal CAN form in a short period of time…otherwise you would not have the petrification of that wood, and fully fossilized animals.

One explanation of these phenomena can then be that, because there was a great flood(which the bible spends a great deal curtailing…Im guessing you have just thrown out that evidence, even though it is the oldest explanation of human events we have) the deposition of highly organic material occured(say, every human and animal save a few dying at the same time and all depositing at the bottom of the flood.). Then, after the heavier objects(being humans, animals, plant material) settled to the bottom, the rapid settlement of stratified layers of sedimentation occurred. Thats where your stratification comes into play. I hope your aware, that if there were a great flood that covered the earth for 40 days, the natural process of hydrological sorting would occur, in which particles would stratify according to their fineness. Then they would eventually deposit over the highly organic material. And with the earth covered with water, at certain locations, there would be tremendous pressure(of which would be uncomprehendable) If you then balance a simple physical equation, time would be directly proportional to pressure. Less pressure, More time…more time, less pressure.

Thats evidence that would support my side. But since most scientists throw the bible out…why think there was ever a great flood.


#14

rheins << One explanation of these phenomena can then be that, because there was a great flood (which the bible spends a great deal curtailing…Im guessing you have just thrown out that evidence >>

Some simple questions: why did Christian creationist geologists throw out all your “evidence” for a young earth over 150 years ago? Why did Christian creationist geologists come to understand, based on the geological evidence, that there was no worldwide flood a few thousand years ago, and that the earth was very old?

I’ll let Orogeny deal with your Flood Geology ideas. :thumbsup:

Phil P


#15

[quote=Orogeny]Except mine has evidence and yours has fantasy.
[/quote]

Well then heres some fantasy for you:

Sea originating fossils have been found at high altitudes of every continent.

The oldest known living trees, Bristlecone Pines in California, are about 5000 years old. This would coincide with the recovery of the earth after the flood.

The Origin of Civilization appeared near the resting place of the Ark at about the same time that the flood occurred.

Geologist classify rock formations by the type of rock they contain. A layer of the same type of rock is called a stratum. Many scientist believe that certain types of stratum originated in certain time periods such as the Eocene, Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods of time. There are many places on the earth where the order of these strata in reversed. Examples of this are the Matterhorn and Mythen peaks in the Alps. The order of the strata has been completely reversed in respect to the earth around it. Though many explanations have been offered for this phenomenon, the catastrophic effects of a flood as described in the Bible is still the best explanation.

                Sedimentary deposits cover large parts of the  earth.  These are the type of deposits that result from movement of water.

#16

And some more fantasy:

An analysis of 30,000 radiocarbon dating results published in the “Radiocarbon” journal shows an unmistakable spike in the death of living things about 5,000 years ago.
Fossils of once living organisms have been found in places not suitable for their habitat:

In Lincoln County, Wyoming fossils have been found of an alligator, deep sea bass, sunfish, crustaceans, and palm leaves. Obviously these would not grow well in Wyoming’s climate. It also suggest that at one time Wyoming was covered water. The fossils of the life found in this vicinity are very well preserved indicating a fast burial and preservation.

The Florissant, Colorado fossil beds contain fossilized insects that are preserved remarkably well. In addition, the remains of giant sequoia trees have been found here. The sequoia trees and many of the types of insects do not exist in this region today.

(1)Volcanic rocks are found interbedded with sedimentary rocks of all supposed geologic ages. This correlates with the Biblical implication that the “fountains of the great deep” poured out their contents throughout the flood (Genesis 8:2).

(4)Radiometric dating performed on volcanic rocks from the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1986 indicated that the rocks were between .34 million years to 2.8 million years old. This suggests that the radiometric dating methods to determine the earth are at the best inaccurate.

The shape of the continents hints that they may have been connected at one time. The fossil records of mountain ranges seem to indicate that the mountains were created by the collision of two continents. It is also noted that earthquakes are caused by movement of continents along fault lines. This supports the theory of plate tectonics. A catastrophe such as a the Biblical flood would create enough force to rearrange continents. In fact a flood of these proportions easily becomes a “best fit” for the geological data that exist today.

I guess if it doesnt fit your preconceived position its fantasy.

Im quite sure you will just call all of this bunk and give no credence to it, except for calling it a tool of crackpot creationists.

I, however, am a student of science and not an agenda pusher, so I like to see both sides of an issue:

THATS WHY I REALIZE BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE HAVE VALID EVIDENCE ON THEIR SIDE…AND THATS WHY THEY ARE BOTH THEORIES, NOT EMPIRICAL FACTS (you do know what empirical means, right?)


#17

[quote=Orogeny]if you have any questions regarding dating of the earth, take a look at these two resources:
talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/how_old_earth.html
asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

[/quote]

Here are a few of your scientists excerpts:

“The ages of the various rock formations, the Earth, the Moon, and meteorites have been measured using radiometric (also called isotopic) dating techniques”

see this link:
geocities.com/stuball127/dating.html

"
Figure 1: Simplified geological time scale. The relative order of the eras, periods, and epochs was determined on the basis of stratigraphy and paleontology. The time scale was independently confirmed and quantified by radiometric dating. After Harbaugh (61). Ages are based on the new decay constants adopted by the International Union of Geological Sciences."

Hmmm…He uses radiometric dating to discredit the creation scientists’ criticism of the effectiveness of radiomettric dating. That seems a little circular to me. He does this by starting to prove his point with the above figure.

Sorry friend, but your stratigraphy and paleontology used to write this table is the problem. And then he of course gives you big names of institutions that accept this. Probably just like all of the scientists at Galileos time did to him.

“No technique, of course, is ever completely perfected and refinement continues to this day, but for more than two decades radiometric dating methods have been used to measure reliably the ages of rocks, the Earth, meteorites, and, since 1969, the Moon.”

That was my point to start with. Thank you for clearing that up. Thats your source, not mine. Im still not seeing empirical proof. A technique which he himself discredits is not empirical proof

"One of the primary functions of the dating specialist (sometimes called a geochronologist) is to select the applicable method for the particular problem to be solved, and to design the experiment in such a way that there will be checks on the reliability of the results. Some of the methods have internal checks, so that the data themselves provide good evidence of reliability or lack thereof. Commonly, a radiometric age is checked by other evidence, such as the relative order of rock units as observed in the field, age measurements based on other decay schemes, or ages on several samples from the same rock unit. "

So, to check a rocks age, we compare it to other rocks, whos age we have already established by our preconceived notions of its age, using a method that gives us ages for the same dinasaurs that range millions of years…yes MILLIONS of years.

And notice he says, “Design the experiment” Yes…design it to give you the results you want.

Here’s another link to another “crazy” creationist scientist:

cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Why%20K-Ar%20dating%20is%20inaccurate

And another:

icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842


#18

"There can be no doubt about the Earth**’s antiquity; the evidence is abundant, conclusive, and readily available to all who care to examine it."**

Oh really…no doubt…how about these scientists who doubt you:

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit
expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering,
Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in
supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry &
Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of
Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his
testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S.,
Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist

Let me guess, they are all just crackpots with no evidence.

By the way, what is your scientific doctorate in?

And thats only the one list I found up to the C’s…I could post the rest, but the list would take up 6 posts…there are only 200 more.


#19

[quote=rheins2000]FROM THE DICTIONARY: physics., The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

For your theory: Since you are talking about matter(peat, organic materials, etc.) and the addition of energy in the system(heating, which would translate to the current state entropy of the thermodynamic system) and de-watering, it is more physics than chemistry. Looks like you need to research science a little more. Then you would find that chemistry and physics actually overlap in certain areas(this being one of them). So while your busy attacking semantics and telling me Im wrong calling it physics, maybe you should just focus on the facts and realize that you ARE DEAD WRONG SAYING ITS NOT PHYSICS. IT MIGHT ALSO BE CHEMISTRY, but it is also PHYSICS, as well as BIOLOGY, AND GEOLOGY. So, lay off the telling me I dont know what Im talking about, just because I dont fall like sheep for your evolution theory. Because as it appears by your above statement, you dont know what youre talking about.

For my theory(which was what I described as physics): Pressure, and heating(energy) and existing organic material(matter) and the interaction between them is what produces coal…same as your theory, but I theorize a smaller length of time needed to produce the coal. And once again, in relation to the comparison of time, pressure, and temperature, and transit energy this is more thermodynamics than chemistry.(And I hope you’re aware that thermodynamics is a branch of physics)

Thats just because you wont listen to any evidence except what appears to lend credence to your theory…but dont take my theory just from me…because Im just an old fashioned idiot and not a big time scientist like you…maybe youll take it from this guy:

RAPID COAL, GEORGE R. HILL Dean of College of Mines & Mineral Industries, on discovery of human artifacts in natural coal deposits: “A rather startling and serendipitous discovery resulted…These observations suggest that in their formation, high rank coals,…were probably subjected to high temperature at some stage in their history. A possible mechanism for formation of these high rank coals could have been a short time, rapid heating event.” [Six Hours], Chemtech, May, 1972, p. 292.

I just gave you some evidence. I have given you the evidence of fish, clams, animals, artifacts, and trees standing vertically, petrified in coal deposits. That is great evidence for my side fo this coin, because it absolutely proves that coal CAN form in a short period of time…otherwise you would not have the petrification of that wood, and fully fossilized animals.

One explanation of these phenomena can then be that, because there was a great flood(which the bible spends a great deal curtailing…Im guessing you have just thrown out that evidence, even though it is the oldest explanation of human events we have) the deposition of highly organic material occured(say, every human and animal save a few dying at the same time and all depositing at the bottom of the flood.). Then, after the heavier objects(being humans, animals, plant material) settled to the bottom, the rapid settlement of stratified layers of sedimentation occurred. Thats where your stratification comes into play. I hope your aware, that if there were a great flood that covered the earth for an entire year, the natural process of hydrological sorting would occur, in which particles would stratify according to their fineness. Then they would eventually deposit over the highly organic material. And with the earth covered with water, at certain locations, there would be tremendous pressure(of which would be uncomprehendable) If you then balance a simple physical equation, time would be directly proportional to pressure. Less pressure, More time…more time, less pressure.

Thats evidence that would support my side. But since most scientists throw the bible out…why think there was ever a great flood.
[/quote]


#20

MISTAKE CORRECTION:

In my earlier post, I said “if water covered the earth for 40 days…”

It should read “if water covered the earth for over a year…”


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.