The geological layers and fossils

[nebula]

1. I wonder how many posts it will take to diverge from my intended question into the same old debates everyone has re-hashed time and time again?

2. I'm not sure how to present the best set-up for my question to get to what I'm looking for, but here's my try....

~~~~~

When we dig down through the earth, we find geologic layers. Each layer represent a different geologic era.

Why are there layers to begin with, rather than gradual transitionings?

Likewise with the fossil record - why do we see a group of fossils in one era, a group of fossils in another, etc? Why are there no fossils in between the major changes of the animals of each era?

(Note: I know of a couple Creationist theories regarding layering after the Great Flood, but I haven't heard the standard scientific explanation.)

[MorningGlory]

Creationist theories regarding layering after the Great Flood exist only in the minds of creationists and not in the observable evidence.

[MorningGlory]

Creationist theories regarding layering after the Great Flood exist only in the minds of creationists and not in the observable evidence.

Then your flood can explain this (those are dinosaur foot prints on a now vertical slab in case you missed it)

Not the Flood; earthquake.

[nebula]

This has to do with how rock is formed, when talking about the geologic column we are essentially dealing with two different types of formations: igneous and sedimentary with the vast majority of fossils being found in sedimentary rock. Igneous rock is basically volcanic - rock that has been melted into magma/lava an subsequently cooled. Sedimentary rock is formed from layers of sediment that get buried, heated, and compressed until they turn to rock. Sedimentary rock forms layers of different colors because of the different color of sediment being deposited, since that sediment can't begin to get compressed into sedimentary rock until it is buried by definition the period of deposition needs to end and another begin so that the original layer becomes entombed deeper and deeper relative to the surface.

OK, but I need to pick at this a bit more.

That can explain layering, but not how the layers define an era. I mean, lava covering a sedimentary layer, both metamorphosed, ought make up the same layer, correct, where lava flows over land with soil?

The eras we use to describe the past are artificial demarcations of time used to group vast ages together. While there are significant gaps in the fossil record of earth due to the constraints of the fossilization process (plants, for example, don't have many hard parts that are going to be preserved real well) and to geological phenomena such as continental drift, what we see in the fossil record is a progression along evolutionary lines with some overlap but also with clear adaptation that looks like this.

It seems like the layers and fossilization are associated with major disasters - lava flows, floods (i.e. dino fossil/bones contorted as if swept away by a wall of water), asteroids (i.e. the evidence of asteroid particles around the globe that evidenced the Yukaton asteroid crater theory for dino extinction), and such.

Have you heard about the petrified forest that has or is being formed from the Mt. St. Helen's eruption?

Creationist theories regarding layering after the Great Flood exist only in the minds of creationists and not in the observable evidence.

I know that's how you feel/think - I was just pointing out a note.

[rpfan76]

How many layers are there? Did I miss it in one of the previous posts? And are they the same worldwide?

[nebula]

Meh. . .not really. Modern geology incorporates both slow (uniformitarian) and fast (catastrophic) process' to explain formations but fossilization is not restricted to either. Some fossils show signs of having been buried rapidly, others show signs of having been deposited into an anoxic environment, for example, where their preservation took a long time.

That leads me to another question - about fossils.

I was doing a search on how old the youngest fossil found was, and I saw a mention that since it takes so many years for a fossil to be created that there can't be a fossil younger than that.

So, has anyone found dead plants or animals that were in process of fossilization?

[MorningGlory]

Really? Have you seen many earthquakes uplift hundred foot cliffs of strata 90 degrees without damaging the exposed formations? I'm very interested in this theory of yours, please do expound upon it.

Actually, I've not witnessed very many ancient earthquakes. Have you? But....common sense will tell you that when the dinosaur walked there, the rock was a softer consistency and was positioned horizontally. OR..said dinosaur was the primeval Spiderman.

You do realize that to get a formation like that you first need lower layers of sediment to be compressed into rock, then you would need mud to form on the surface, a dinosaur to step in it, that mud to then harden, be buried under enough other layers of dirt to be compressed into sedimentary rock itself, that rock would then need to undergo some kind of uplift (which is not caused by earthquakes on the scale we see here) and then exposed long enough for weathering to wear down the surrounding sedimentary rock layers and expose the footprints themselves.

You find the above to be hard to fathom and yet you believe your grandfather was a monkey? How curious.......

[MorningGlory]

Creationist theories regarding layering after the Great Flood exist only in the minds of creationists and not in the observable evidence.

Then your flood can explain this (those are dinosaur foot prints on a now vertical slab in case you missed it)

Not the Flood; earthquake.

Very interesting. MorningGlory, care to provide an explanation based on your understanding of Genesis? Are you saying a single earthquake produced the results we see here?

No; how would I know how many earthquakes produced this result? See my post to Lurker; common sense has to enter the picture at some point.

[nebula]

Yes, though we find more vertebrate animal remains than plants since plants have fewer hard parts.

OK, do you know where there's a good, simple link on this? (I've been having search problems finding stuff like that, which why I had to ask.)

[MorningGlory]

The vertical position of the formation in question was caused by uplift, a product of prolonged tectonic activity spanning millions of years. Earth quakes do not produce these kinds of formations anywhere ever.

How do YOU know that? Were you there?

The "above" is the actual explanation for how such formations occur instead of the ludicrous suggestion of an earthquake.

It was a ludicrous earthquake then.

The "above" also describes numerous process' requiring an excess of 10,000 years to happen. Additionally, all but one of my grandparents were martyrs who died trying to help people far from their homes so. . .maybe next time you could try not to insultingly and knowingly misrepresent evolutionary theory while at the same time taking swipes at my family history. Just a thought.

Swipes at your family? What are you...ten? I said nothing about your family....you really need to quit being so touchy. As for misrepresentation....I'm not the one peddling Darwin's drivel.