A

I'm a skeptic about earth layer formation and timeline strata data. Explain if you will..

10 Answers
How you think the layers originally formed and why science thinks that the deeper the layer the older the fossil. What I'm getting at is if a million year old fossil (debatable) is found at say 200 feet down in rock explain the how the 200 feet of earth got piled on top. Is the earth magically swelling or growing layer by layer?
B

All I know is that it just takes a few decades to form a fossil. So, you know, it isn't that big a deal. It probably only takes a few thousand years to form oil from a buried forest as well. http://www.icr.org/article/3267/

However, I still support separation of church and state as fusing them has no New Testament sanction whatsoever.

...
M

The earth surface is constantly being eroded and that material is constantly going someplace ellse and being deposited.
Rarely are fossils formed near the earths surface. For rock to form it usually takes pressure from overlaying strata. Or volcanic eruption. Unless you live at the peak of the tallest montain there is dirt and rock above you that is washed down and will cover you with time. Furthermore since mountains are constantly being pushed up while other areas are subsiding the surface of the earth is not flat and it is unlikely that all the high places will be eroded and all the low places filled (smooth surface).
-Then fossil formation is not the norm. In fact rarely are fossis formed by nature. Of the milliens of individuals from any specific land species only a fraction may be fossilized. While more species that live in water may be fossilized that is even a rare occurence. Because fossilisation requires that the remains be covered quickly in a low oxygen environment. so deep mud flows were the most common form of covering. Then the mud gets buried even further and finally becomes a rock. By this time the rock is buried so deep it would not be found.
-But since mountains are still growing that burid rock is sometimes pushed up higher in the earths surface and the overlaying material is eroded away finally bring to(or near) the surface the older layers.
-You can be a skeptic all you want yet, since the layering of the earth is observable and repeatable if the scientist says there is going to be a flood I would go to higher ground so you do not become fossilized. It would really be depressing being more proof to the theory rock is layed down in layers.

...
M

The geologists and archelogist do not "think" they know the age of a srat, they KNOW, through the use of carbon dating. With that information vast memorilizations of data and descriptions are carfeully compiled sometimes using known mathematic calculations, articiles and textbooks are written using known factors and the known data. When new serches are began, the new data is compared with existing knowledge, and conclusions are formed about the new "site". This is basically the same in any scholarly endeavor: as known factors are compared to new data, and the body of that field of knowledge expands.
As far as the layers themselves are concerened, some are created by volvanic / earthquake movement, detrioration of the rock ( like the decomposing granite here where I live over the New Madrid fault, and many places in California,wind plays a huge part on soil composition and making lush forests into deseats and vice versa, and finally water also plays significant role.
I cannot understand why you "doubt" the age of the earth or the fossil record. If the subject of earth sciences interst you, I suggest you visit a Unviversity , and ask one of teh professors teaching any of the earth acience subjects if you can "audit" the course. You will not be allowed to ask questions , but you can sit in, and listen to the lectures. No one can explain the earth's history in a couple of paragraphs. Geology and archeology are my avocations, not my profession.

...
S

I have thought about this as well, and one thing that comes to mind is the added layering has a plausible explanation. I have thought about archeologists digging down to unearth whatever treasures they find, and how it could be buried so deep.

I suspect at least part of the reason is simply due to the cycle of life. If you consider all the plant life cycles, and as they die off, they form layers that add up in depth over time. The animal life also contributes as they die off, and then, this is where I kinda think the archeologists have something to think about....

Every living creature on the planet eats something, mostly every day, and the inevitable discharge has to go someplace. That is billions of dumps every day around the globe.

At any rate, all of that added matter from whatever source is covering the globe, layer by layer over the years. It all gradually disintegrates back into soil, but over the centuries, I don't see why it would even be a question that it can get pretty deep.

Just look at one single compost heap. It is layered on top of and tilled into the soil. Even though we don't see much of a difference during one lifetime, it has to add some depth. Whether created and tended, or natural formation, composting is worldwide as part of the planet life cycle. It is eventually going to add up to a noticeable depth. It is not magic but does have a logical explanation.

...
M

" and have found fossils in riverbeds and the whole process looks fairly recent to me."
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
These river beds- are they cutting or depositing? Gary, you sound like you are trying to be contrary yet give no facts. fossils exposed in a cutting river bed would be exactly what would support the scientific view. While fossils exposed in a new deposit would not be in stone, thus not fossils. although you can find foot prints and the remains of currently living organisms that are being deposited in those layers of mud.
-Looking at those current mud deposits also tells us what and how the creatures in the fossil record lived. Comparing the plants tells of weather conditions. Just as the mechanics of bone structure can give hints of the iving animals they belonged to.
-True science welcomes those that question the common wisdom. But just questioning with out supporting evidence is given short shrift.

...
C

If you ever go looking for them, historical items from the past - minie balls from the Civil War, arrowheads from American Indians, tombs in Egypt - are all buried. You don't find them just laying around on the surface, even in areas that are completely empty of human activity and abandoned. Question is, why?

One reason is the earth's gravity is always pulling in material from space. According to folks at the US Geologic Survey, approximately 1,000 tons of space dust and debris lands on the planet every single year. So, after a hundred, or a thousand, or five thousand years, that can add up to a real load.

...
A

I'm looking for thought outside the box. Not the typical pseudo-science answers with the "carbon dating" (completely unreliable) and the so called "facts".
These fields of science are unproven beyond a doubt. Consensus is NOT of scientific significance. Just because everyone agrees that the earth was flat does that mean it is?
The only exact fields of science are physics and mathematics.
So come on and question boldly the status quo.
Does it really make sense to you if you're truly a thinker?

...
B

I question the accuracy of carbon dating. I also believe that when dinosaur bones are constantly found at ground level something is goofy in the scientific veiwpoint. I have roamed around the coast range of California and have found fossils in riverbeds and the whole process looks fairly recent to me.

I think the idea that fossils are formed at very deep levels in the ground to be silly. I realize this goes against the scientific community but they have an agenda and have to build facts so called to support the agenda.

...
M

"All I know is that it just takes a few decades to form a fossil. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------
Almost 3 decades and still no fossils from the trees at Mnt St Helen. while there are some Tree shells made by ash Hardening around trees and some deposits of charcoal these are not fossils nor coal.
-Your guys need to do some more research. furthermore they left out some important details.
http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/ua_st_helens.htm

...
A

I can't answer your question Apengu35 like your name) because I am a skeptic also.I just keep in mind,that a very large part of science,in all fields,is theory.Which to me means,someone (thinks) it may be true,or,maybe not. Maybe some scientific type will theorize (answer) your question for you. I hope so,it will be an interesting read.

...