In the Creation in the Classroom thread, we recognized that an important issue is to assess whether it is possible to present Creationism as science. We began such a discussion in the Global Flood thread, since the Flood figures into much of the Creationist interpretation of the data that are otherwise used to support evolution. Here, I've tried to tie our discussion together, and present the issues at the beginning of a thread where they will be easier to find and refer to.
The approach is to treat the Flood Model scientifically. It is the Creationist explanation for observations we make today. This makes it, in some sense, a Creationist hypothesis. To treat this hypothesis scientifically, we will apply standard scientific reasoning. First, what is the hypothesis? We will state our understanding clearly. Second, what predictions are made by this hypothesis? We will develop a set of predictions. Third, what tests or new observations can we envision that would assess the accuracy of these predictions? It is my hope that the Creationists among us will investigate these observations and report what they find.
For the non-Creationists, let me say that it is moot what the pre-flood conditions were, and whether the laws of physics were the same then as now. The model builds in the idea that things were, in fact, different. Since this is the model, we must take it at face value as part of the model. However, after the flood, it is said that the laws of physics were stabilized in the state that we can now measure. Thus, our predictions really must address the consequences of the flood, not the conditions prior to it.
The hypothesis, as presented here, derives from conversation primarily with otseng who first suggested working from Walt Brown's hydroplate idea. If it differs from your favorite scenario, it would be good to see what the differences are.
Note that a scientific treatment is to test the hypothesis. It is not adequate to look at existing structures in the world and say 'yeah, that can be explained by this hypothesis,' because this approach misses the fact that other hypotheses may also explain it. The key is to assess whether the clear predictions of our hypothesis are met.
HYPOTHESIS
1. Water welled up from the earth's interior, providing sufficient water to rain like mad and eventually to cover the earth's surface. Living things like Noah were protected from the physical effects that would occur today by supernatural means, or by virtue of the laws of physics being different pre-Flood.
2. The water was ejected through cracks in the earth's crust, with such force as to deform the layer below (in an upward direction) into a series of ocean ridges.
3. The upheaval created vast quantities of sediment, which settled out to form the geological strata that we now observe.
4. Vegetation was all covered by sediments, and subsequently converted to coal and oil. 'Stirring' of the Flood water resulted in non-uniform deposition of different species, and non-uniform sizes and locations of coal and oil deposits.
5. Plants and animals were covered by sediments, and subsequently fossilized.
6. Different kinds of rocks ended up in different strata due to differential rates of sedimentation, and to continued ejection of stuff from the underground chamber.
7. Continued ejection of stuff resulted in some interference with the ordered sedimentation ('stirring'), so that the some kinds of rock may be found in more than one stratum.
8. Different kinds of fossils ended up in different strata due to differential rates of sinking; i.e. the model called 'hydrogical sorting of ecological niches.' Again, there may have been some interference by continued ejection of stuff.
9. The flood covered 100% of the earth's surface, including the mountains, and receded only after complete destruction of all living things that were not on the ark (or could swim, or otherwise survive such a catastrophe).
10. After formation of the sediments, the crust slid downhill from the ocean ridges, causing compaction and stress, and eventually the uplift of the major mountain ranges that now exist.
11. Large canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, were carved by the rapid retreat of the flood waters from the mountains, while the sediments were still soft enough to erode quickly.
Fine. Here's a hypothesis. If it explains the way the world is now, its predictions should all be met. These are the ones we have previously agreed upon, with some clarification based on our prior discussions:
PREDICTIONS
1. Except in those areas that were rapidly eroded when the water went away (to wherever it went), surface rocks should be no older than the flood itself.
2. Basement rocks, that existed prior to the flood, should be older than the sedimentary layers deposited by the flood, but should be no older than their date of creation.
3. Basement rocks, that existed prior to the flood, should show no evidence of different strata.
4. Except for those areas that were rapidly eroded, and except for the vicinity of the ocean ridges, all of the earth's surface should be covered with sediments from the flood. This should be especially true in low-lying areas, where sediments would be more likely to accumulate without danger of being washed to a lower level.
5. The rock strata should vary in a consistent pattern, with more rapidly-sedimenting material at the bottom of the geological column, and more slowly-sedimenting material at the top. The few instances of repeating series of rock types would be dependent on the frequency with which 'burps' (if you will) of the ejection of water from the earth's interior caused stirring, or interference with sedimentation.
6. Fossils should show a consistent pattern in the geological column: heaviest on the bottom, lightest on the top (or some such thing). That is: similar kinds of fossils should not be found in widely separated strata. Again, this would be dependent on the frequency with which ejection of water stirred things up.
7. Because we cannot guess how often ejection of water stirred things up, and because it is likely to have been locally variable depending on local conditions, we cannot easily determine the local frequency of such stirring. However, we can predict that, in regions where little stirring occurred, and in regions where frequent stirring occurred, points 5 and 6 should lead to parallel repetitions of both rock types and fossil types in the strata.
8. No footprints of land animals should be found in strata that were eroded by the receding flood waters, since the land animals had been killed before the water receded.
9. Deep canyons that formed as the Flood water drained away from the uplifting mountains should be found primarily near mountains. Similar deep canyons should be rare in low-lying areas.
10. Canyons should follow the 'easiest line of descent' from the mountains, if they were formed by runoff as the mountains drained away. Water usually flows downhill, and is unlikely to flow uphill to carve a canyon through an impediment.
TESTS
Since the easiest way to test predictions is to see if any of them are not met, here are some tips, listed in order of prediction.
1. Are the ages of surface rocks in different locations consistent? Dating techniques have inherent degrees of error, so exact correspondence isn't to be expected. But we would certainly expect dates within, say, a factor of two (or even 10) of each other.
2. Within the error of measurement, is it possible to divide the ages of various rocks into two discrete categories: relatively old (pre-flood) and relatively new (post-flood)? We would not expect extensive variation in ages--more like 6000 years vs 4000 years.
3. Are the oldest rocks we can find uniform in their appearance, or is there evidence of sedimentary strata? Another way to phrase this is: are all sedimentary strata uniformly young, and all homogeneous rocks uniformly old (except, of course, for rocks formed by recent volcanic activity)? The Vishnu Schist in the Grand Canyon is suggested to be pre-Flood rock with no strata; are other Precambrian rocks of this age or older also without parallel strata?
4. Are there locations in the world, especially low-lying areas, with very different kinds of rocks on the surface? A corollary to this is the question: are there locations in the world in which rocks of the same type can be found on the surface in one location, and closely apposed to the basement (pre-flood) rocks in another location?
5. Are there any examples of repeated sedimentation patterns--like hundreds of repeats of alternating limestone and shale in very deep canyons? The number of repeats would indicate the number of 'stirring events' that occurred during the flood; the more sedimentation that has occurred below these strata, the less likely it is that many repeats should be found (as most of the sediment should have sedimented).
6. Are there any instances of similar fossils in widely separated strata? A good example might be bivalves (brachiopods, oysters, etc) of similar sizes. Again, some repeats might be expected if the flood involved a number of 'stirring events,' but toward the top of the geological column, after most sedimentation has occurred, certainly the heaviest fossils should have sedimented. At least, fossils near the bottom should not be at all similar (with respect to their hydrodymanic properties) to fossils at the top (again, bivalves are good examples: brachiopods, oysters, etc).
7. In regions with repeated series of strata, similar repeats of fossils should be found, since the repeats indicate 'stirring' events, which should apply to all of the suspended sediment, including dead animals that can be fossilized.
8. Are there animal footprints in any rock layers that should have formed only during the flood, and cannot have been exposed until after the flood receded?
9. Where do we find deep canyons (or any canyons) that would indicate large amounts of water flowing through them to carve them? Are they all near mountains, which could provide the source of the runoff?
10. Do canyons or current river valleys follow the easiest path of descent from the mountains that they drain?
If we agree with these statements of hypothesis and predictions, we should be able to look into the published literature, or make our own observations, to address the predictions. What do we find?
The Flood As Science
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
I don't know if this is significant to your hypotheses or predictions, but shouldn't there be a reasonable explanation for why the laws of physics would be different? I know you could say it's because things change, but I think a logical explanation would be in order.
Flood Myths
Post #3If the Deluge from which these hypotheses and perdictions are derived is from the Biblical account(s) in Genesis, is there any acknowledgement of the vast multitude of Deluge accounts (including the Babylonian account from which the Biblical account in derived) from greatly differing times in human history? If so, how does it resolve the many accounts spread temporally both long before and long after the Genesis Deluge account(s)? If not, why?
Post #4
Thank you, palmera, for an important question. As you say, there are many other flood accounts. Different people interpret this in different ways (e.g. "floods happened locally in many places" and "this shows that there was a global flood"). What I'm trying to get at here, though, is not whether the Noachian flood was related to, or similar to, or the same as, or different from other Deluges. Instead, the point is to look at the Biblical Creationists' Flood Model scientifically. They would like it to be taught as part of the origin of life, in science classes. They would like it to be taught as an alternative to the evolutionary/geological explanations of the earth's strata, fossils, and history of life. Okay, let's give this model a fair test, and see how it stands up to impartial analysis. They didn't ask for a discussion of the other Floods in science classes; they have asked only for this one. So...does the science support the hypothesis? Does examination of God's Creation reveal evidence of the Genesis global flood? Does examination of the evidence leave us unable to decide one way or another? Or does examination of the evidence force us to conclude that the hypothesis fails?palmera wrote:If the Deluge from which these hypotheses and perdictions are derived is from the Biblical account(s) in Genesis, is there any acknowledgement of the vast multitude of Deluge accounts (including the Babylonian account from which the Biblical account in derived) from greatly differing times in human history? If so, how does it resolve the many accounts spread temporally both long before and long after the Genesis Deluge account(s)? If not, why?
deluge
Post #5My point was not to examine the other flood myths, nor was it to simply raise the issue of their existence; rather my response offered through those examples an idea to wrestle with: that the flood account in Genesis is metaphorical, not historical; and, that the presupposition that it is historical is dangerous when trying to test the event scientifically... before asking whether or not science can prove it, the question should be asked, Is "the Flood" account in Genesis metaphorical or historical? I argue that "the Flood" account (of which there are actually two interwoven) is not the historical account of the flood, but a reflection of post-exilic Hebrew experience?They didn't ask for a discussion of the other Floods in science classes; they have asked only for this one. So...does the science support the hypothesis? Does examination of God's Creation reveal evidence of the Genesis global flood? Does examination of the evidence leave us unable to decide one way or another? Or does examination of the evidence force us to conclude that the hypothesis fails?
Post #6
I believe you are right. The difficulty is that the Creationists who are pushing for introduction of Creationism in science classes do not consider it to be metaphorical. They consider it to be the literal history of the earth. For them, it is irrelevant what we non-believers think, because we are wrong, by definition. To address this belief, which is becoming more politically significant with the re-election of Bush through the help of fundamentalist Christians (who expect a return on their investment), we need to ask whether it is possible to consider their ideas as "science." The way to do so is to treat them scientifically, and see where the analysis leads. It's an easy thing to do, really. For those who consider the Flood account to be metaphorical, there should be no problem if the data rule out the hypothesis. For those who consider the Flood to be literal, it may present more of a problem--but offer a demonstration of the application of science to hypotheses concerning the history of the earth.palmera wrote: before asking whether or not science can prove it, the question should be asked, Is "the Flood" account in Genesis metaphorical or historical? I argue that "the Flood" account (of which there are actually two interwoven) is not the historical account of the flood, but a reflection of post-exilic Hebrew experience?
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #7
I'm not sure if this is relevant, but I'm a Christian and I don't push for the flood and creation to be taught in Science. What I want to push for is, that Christians have the choice of not learning about 'Evolution' in Science.
The thing is in my school we have Christian Studies classes which are compulsory from year 7 to 10, but anybody who doesn't believe in God or Creation can simply bring in a note from parents saying they don't believe in it and that person can then go to the library to study something else.
But when it comes to Science and learning about 'Evolution', we don't get the choice of bringing in a note from our parents saying we don't believe in this, we simply HAVE to learn about evolution. This is what I think is unfair and I want to push for Christians not having to learn about something they don't believe in if non-believers can choose not to learn about Creation.
The thing is in my school we have Christian Studies classes which are compulsory from year 7 to 10, but anybody who doesn't believe in God or Creation can simply bring in a note from parents saying they don't believe in it and that person can then go to the library to study something else.
But when it comes to Science and learning about 'Evolution', we don't get the choice of bringing in a note from our parents saying we don't believe in this, we simply HAVE to learn about evolution. This is what I think is unfair and I want to push for Christians not having to learn about something they don't believe in if non-believers can choose not to learn about Creation.
Post #8
I believe I hear what you are saying, Todd. Unfortunately, we're up against two different things. Christian Studies is, by definition, religion. This makes it appropriate for any school that teaches it to allow students of other religions to opt out. Evolution, by contrast, is science. It is a fundamental part of biology. It simply isn't possible to teach biology without it--except in a superficial, meaningless way. It is unfortunate that the small percentage of Christians who are fundamentalists object to it on religious grounds, but that seems to be the situation we are in. It is also unfortunate that there isn't enough time in science classes to do justice to the teaching of evolution, because more time, and more depth, would make it more clear what we are really talking about.
A great many people leave their high school biology classes with prior misconceptions intact, or with new misconceptions. My guess right now is that many of the complaints about evolution are focused on misunderstandings about what it is and how it works. Or, at least, people find it easy to support their religious objections by claiming the science does not support the theory--where their interpretation of the theory is incorrect. Of course the data do not support the misinterpretation.
But, back to the Flood. It has been said that we should "teach the controversy" surrounding evolution. Alternative models should be presented. The Flood is part of the preferred alternative model. Since we are talking about science classes, and not Christian Studies classes, we have to assess whether this part of Creationism can be taught scientifically...hence, this thread.
It would be good to have threads dedicated to the things that Creationists claim are false aspects of evolution, or what they see as problems with the teaching of evolution. There are probably many that could be developed. In response to a concern of Daystar's, suggesting that the Polonium Halo story would blow evolution out of the water, I started the Polonium Halo thread...which, you'll note, has not had much discussion. Nor have we had many Christians responding to these scientific aspects of the Flood model. I begin to worry that, when we get to the actual science surrounding the issues, Creationists tend to back away. This does not bode well for teaching the controversy, or for providing any scientific alternatives to evolution. If evolution is the only scientific explanation for what we see in the world, we may have no choice but to teach it without alternatives.
A great many people leave their high school biology classes with prior misconceptions intact, or with new misconceptions. My guess right now is that many of the complaints about evolution are focused on misunderstandings about what it is and how it works. Or, at least, people find it easy to support their religious objections by claiming the science does not support the theory--where their interpretation of the theory is incorrect. Of course the data do not support the misinterpretation.
But, back to the Flood. It has been said that we should "teach the controversy" surrounding evolution. Alternative models should be presented. The Flood is part of the preferred alternative model. Since we are talking about science classes, and not Christian Studies classes, we have to assess whether this part of Creationism can be taught scientifically...hence, this thread.
It would be good to have threads dedicated to the things that Creationists claim are false aspects of evolution, or what they see as problems with the teaching of evolution. There are probably many that could be developed. In response to a concern of Daystar's, suggesting that the Polonium Halo story would blow evolution out of the water, I started the Polonium Halo thread...which, you'll note, has not had much discussion. Nor have we had many Christians responding to these scientific aspects of the Flood model. I begin to worry that, when we get to the actual science surrounding the issues, Creationists tend to back away. This does not bode well for teaching the controversy, or for providing any scientific alternatives to evolution. If evolution is the only scientific explanation for what we see in the world, we may have no choice but to teach it without alternatives.
Panza llena, corazon contento
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20534
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
- Contact:
Post #9
First off, I appreciate Jose starting this thread and allowing the topic to be treated seriously. I realize that many people consider the global flood to be at best a mythical tale and to treat such a subject with any scientific approach might be unacceptable to some. But Jose has demonstrated patience with us creationists by allowing us to present our case scientifically.
For those wishing to join the discussion here, it is best to review the Global Flood thread prior to posting here. It explains in detail about the hydroplate hypothesis. In this thread, I (and I hope others as well) will attempt to present evidence to support the predictions of the hypothesis.
I have reviewed Jose's hypothesis, predictions, and tests above and accept it as a starting point for the discussions.
One thing I would disagree with is that the laws of physics were different prior to the flood. I do not believe this to be the case. And our discussions should assume that physics (as well as all other natural laws) were the same prior to the flood, during the flood, and after.
The only point where the natural laws might be different is prior to Adam sinning. Since that is outside the scope of the discussions here, we can assume that all natural laws that we see in effect today hold valid for discussions on the flood.
This is a big subject and breaking new ground for me. So, I will ask in advance for patience for me as I research this and present my case. And given that numerous things are demanding my attention, responses might not be as frequent as people would like. But, I appreciate this opportunity to present this case and look forward to the discussions.
For those wishing to join the discussion here, it is best to review the Global Flood thread prior to posting here. It explains in detail about the hydroplate hypothesis. In this thread, I (and I hope others as well) will attempt to present evidence to support the predictions of the hypothesis.
I have reviewed Jose's hypothesis, predictions, and tests above and accept it as a starting point for the discussions.
One thing I would disagree with is that the laws of physics were different prior to the flood. I do not believe this to be the case. And our discussions should assume that physics (as well as all other natural laws) were the same prior to the flood, during the flood, and after.
The only point where the natural laws might be different is prior to Adam sinning. Since that is outside the scope of the discussions here, we can assume that all natural laws that we see in effect today hold valid for discussions on the flood.
This is a big subject and breaking new ground for me. So, I will ask in advance for patience for me as I research this and present my case. And given that numerous things are demanding my attention, responses might not be as frequent as people would like. But, I appreciate this opportunity to present this case and look forward to the discussions.
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20534
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
- Contact:
Post #10
I will first approach this discussion by looking into the basement rocks. (Predictions 1 and 2 touch upon dating techniques. And I will defer that discussion until later.)
The composition of the Precambrian rocks is generally composed of granite, schist, or gneiss. 1 Granite is igneous rock and is formed by solidified magma. Schist is metamorphic rock with flakes visible to the naked eye. Gneiss is metamorphic rock characterized by light and dark alternating bands.
Since Precambrian rocks are deep under the surface, very few parts of it are exposed in the world. In Ohio for example, no Precambrian rocks are exposed. However, measurements indicate that the depths of Precambrian rocks in Ohio range from 2500 feet to 13,000 feet deep. “These rocks are collectively referred to by geologists as the "basement" because they form the foundation for the overlying Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. Drillers commonly refer to the Precambrian rocks as the "granite," in reference to a common rock type found below the Paleozoic rocks.” 2
Since very few parts of basement rocks are exposed, it is difficult to ascertain its specific nature. I have not been able to find many diagrams of basement rocks, but below is one illustration and one photograph.
Below is a cross diagram of the Grand Canyon. Rocks at the lowest parts contain no parallel stratifications.
Here is an image of an Archean rock. 3 Though it is only a small fragment, it demonstrates the lack of parallel strata that are found in sedimentary rock.
(If others are able to gather more images of basement rocks, feel free to post or link them.)
Basement rocks are also often large masses of rocks and form the continental masses. Such large masses of rock are referred to as cratons (or shields if exposed). 4
During a drilling in Ohio in 1912, “at a depth of 2,770 feet the drill bit reached granite gneiss and continued for another 210 feet into this Precambrian rock. The Norris well seemed to confirm the 1890 prediction of third State Geologist Edward Orton that "The granite of Plymouth Rock underlies the continent." 2
Some examples of the size of a shield is demonstrated in the Baltic shield and the Canadian shield.
The Baltic Shield represents a large part of Scandinavia, northwestern Russia and the northern Baltic Sea with a thickness of 250-300 km. 5
The Canadian shield “covers much of Greenland; Labrador; all of Quebec north of the St. Lawrence River; much of Ontario outside the southern peninsula between the Great Lakes; the Adirondack Mountains of northern New York; parts of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota; the central portion of Manitoba away from Hudson Bay and the Great Plains; northern Saskatchewan; a small portion of north-eastern Alberta; and the mainland northern Canadian territories to the east of a line extended north from the Saskatchewan/Alberta border (Northwest Territories and Nunavut). In total it covers approximately 8 million square kilometers.” 6
So, basement rocks lack the parallel stratifications found in the sedimentary strata found on top of basement rocks. Its composition is generally igneous and metamorphic. And its size spans a large area and often is quite thick.
Thus, the basement rocks are quite distinct from the sedimentary strata found above it.
Some thoughts for uniformitarian proponents. Why do the basement rocks differ from the sedimentary rocks above it? Why is the basement rock so large and relatively homogeneous (compared to sedimentary strata)? Would not rain, snow and erosion still take place on earth over 500 million years ago? What is the link between the emergence of rock stratifications and the rapid appearance of life in the fossil record? If anyone would like to tackle these questions, please start a thread to present your case.
References:
1 http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0840029.html
2. http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/geosurvey/oh ... ecambr.htm
3. http://profharwood.x10host.com/GEOL102/ ... rchean.htm
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craton
5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Shield
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield
7. http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/Rogu ... brian.html
Basement rocks will be defined for this discussion as the rocks that were not deposited during the flood. This generally would be what is considered the Precambrian (or Cryptozoic) rocks. Or more specifically, the Proterozoic and Archean rocks, with the Archean rocks being found below the Proterozoic rocks. 1Jose wrote: Prediction:
3. Basement rocks, that existed prior to the flood, should show no evidence of different strata.
Test:
3. Are the oldest rocks we can find uniform in their appearance, or is there evidence of sedimentary strata? Another way to phrase this is: are all sedimentary strata uniformly young, and all homogeneous rocks uniformly old (except, of course, for rocks formed by recent volcanic activity)? The Vishnu Schist in the Grand Canyon is suggested to be pre-Flood rock with no strata; are other Precambrian rocks of this age or older also without parallel strata?
The composition of the Precambrian rocks is generally composed of granite, schist, or gneiss. 1 Granite is igneous rock and is formed by solidified magma. Schist is metamorphic rock with flakes visible to the naked eye. Gneiss is metamorphic rock characterized by light and dark alternating bands.
Since Precambrian rocks are deep under the surface, very few parts of it are exposed in the world. In Ohio for example, no Precambrian rocks are exposed. However, measurements indicate that the depths of Precambrian rocks in Ohio range from 2500 feet to 13,000 feet deep. “These rocks are collectively referred to by geologists as the "basement" because they form the foundation for the overlying Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. Drillers commonly refer to the Precambrian rocks as the "granite," in reference to a common rock type found below the Paleozoic rocks.” 2
Since very few parts of basement rocks are exposed, it is difficult to ascertain its specific nature. I have not been able to find many diagrams of basement rocks, but below is one illustration and one photograph.
Below is a cross diagram of the Grand Canyon. Rocks at the lowest parts contain no parallel stratifications.
Here is an image of an Archean rock. 3 Though it is only a small fragment, it demonstrates the lack of parallel strata that are found in sedimentary rock.
(If others are able to gather more images of basement rocks, feel free to post or link them.)
Basement rocks are also often large masses of rocks and form the continental masses. Such large masses of rock are referred to as cratons (or shields if exposed). 4
During a drilling in Ohio in 1912, “at a depth of 2,770 feet the drill bit reached granite gneiss and continued for another 210 feet into this Precambrian rock. The Norris well seemed to confirm the 1890 prediction of third State Geologist Edward Orton that "The granite of Plymouth Rock underlies the continent." 2
Some examples of the size of a shield is demonstrated in the Baltic shield and the Canadian shield.
The Baltic Shield represents a large part of Scandinavia, northwestern Russia and the northern Baltic Sea with a thickness of 250-300 km. 5
The Canadian shield “covers much of Greenland; Labrador; all of Quebec north of the St. Lawrence River; much of Ontario outside the southern peninsula between the Great Lakes; the Adirondack Mountains of northern New York; parts of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota; the central portion of Manitoba away from Hudson Bay and the Great Plains; northern Saskatchewan; a small portion of north-eastern Alberta; and the mainland northern Canadian territories to the east of a line extended north from the Saskatchewan/Alberta border (Northwest Territories and Nunavut). In total it covers approximately 8 million square kilometers.” 6
So, basement rocks lack the parallel stratifications found in the sedimentary strata found on top of basement rocks. Its composition is generally igneous and metamorphic. And its size spans a large area and often is quite thick.
Thus, the basement rocks are quite distinct from the sedimentary strata found above it.
Some thoughts for uniformitarian proponents. Why do the basement rocks differ from the sedimentary rocks above it? Why is the basement rock so large and relatively homogeneous (compared to sedimentary strata)? Would not rain, snow and erosion still take place on earth over 500 million years ago? What is the link between the emergence of rock stratifications and the rapid appearance of life in the fossil record? If anyone would like to tackle these questions, please start a thread to present your case.
References:
1 http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0840029.html
2. http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/geosurvey/oh ... ecambr.htm
3. http://profharwood.x10host.com/GEOL102/ ... rchean.htm
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craton
5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Shield
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield
7. http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/Rogu ... brian.html
