Geology -Creationists WORST enemy-

The Lewis Thrust in Waterton (alberta) and Glacier (montana) National Parks has often been cited by creationists as being proof positive that evolution is false because older strata overlies younger strata. However the existance of this (and other) formations is no mystery or challenge to evolutionary theory.

I do BTW, have an amusing story regarding this particular bit of geology.

A friend's cousin visited from Germany and stayed with relatives (whom he had never met). His relatives brought him on a sightseeing trip to nearby Waterton NP, where he became very excited about prospect of seeing and photographing the Lewis Thrust (he was a geology student and had studied the formation). When his uncle inquired "why all the fuss", he was not impressed with the young mans answers about ancient geology. In fact, he became quite hostile, exclaiming that the earth is no older then 6KY, and he refused to stop and allow his nephew to take any pictures.

It was a few weeks later when he came to stay with my friend, and was quite relieved to find that not everyone around here shared his uncle's sentiments.

Because it makes a good story!

Geology seems to not be a nightmare for most creationists I know and read, so the title of this thread is misleading. A major misconception is: The strata system of the geologic column are worldwide in their occurrence with each strata system being present below any point on the earth's surface. Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten systems (or 12) are very poorly represented on a global scale:

1. Approximately 77% of the earth's surface area on land and under water has 7 or more 70% of the strata systems missing beneath.

2. 94% of the eath's surface has 3 or more systems missing.

3. Only .4% of the earth have been described with succession of the 10 beneath (West Nepal, West Bolivia, and Central Poland). Even where the 10 systems are present geologist recognize individual systems to be incomplete. The entire geologic column, composed fo compleste strat systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists.

This information is old and they may have found some more spots since this was published.

Hall, James L. History of Life, Hall Publication 1990.

This keeps getting said, and it keeps being false. The complete geologic column exists in at least 26 places on the planet. Here is a list of them. He discusses the complete geologic column in North Dakota, and then lists later the following 25:
Your other objections lend me to answer: So? Erosion, subduction, and a host of other geologic processes do happen, you know. The complete column should be rare. While layers build up, rains wash away, rivers cut through, mountains rise (and are eroded away), and plates move.

Your objections are only valid in the absence of place movement, water movement, and air movement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-Radio carbon dating of wood, which is accurate as far back as 50,000 years, has identified many wooden objects to be many tens of thousands of years old

No. Theoretically, C14 could date (relatively) accurately to, at most, 35000-40000 years. It is almost impossible to find the trace amounts of carbon-14 left after that. Second, C14 fails because the amount of C14 in the atmosphere isn't in equilibrium yet (suggesting that the earth's atmosphere can't be more than 30000), which makes C14 dating flat-out obsolete. Thirdly, how would even 50000 years prove the earth is 4550000000 years old?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-It takes thousands of years of below freezing temperatures to build a 100 foot layer of permafrost. But large areas in the north are permanently frozen to depths of almost one mile! This took many tens of millennia to accomplish.

You're assuming that the speed at which the ground freezes is linear. How about if we gave enough time, would the earth completely freeze up to the core? And you don't know the approximate temperature. I'm sure even five feet of ground couldn't be frozen at a constant temperature of -2 degrees Celsius. This argument proves nothing, since you have too much estimating ("thousands of years", "below freezing") and no definite variables. But i'll give you all that -- you still can't believe that the climate on earth has been always this way. It changes over time, obviously.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-The Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a method of measuring the length of time that surface rocks have been exposed to cosmic rays. Cosmic rays stream into the atmosphere from all directions in outer space and break neutrons free when they collide with air molecules. When these neutrons hit rocks on the ground, they react with a tiny number of mineral atoms which create radioactive isotopes. At sea level, a few hundred modified atoms are created each year in a gram of quartz which is near the surface of the ground. New measuring techniques can detect very small numbers of these atoms and thus estimate the number of years that the rocks have been exposed. Scientists have found ages of about 8,500 years for glacial moraines in Newfoundland and 830,000 years for extinct volcanoes in Nevada.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-Some bristlecone pine trees in the White-Inyo mountain range of California date back beyond 2000 BCE. One, labelled "Methuselah" germinated in 2726 BCE. But their tree rings have been matched with those of dead trees; this shows that the latter germinated about 6000 BCE, which predates the year 4004 BCE by 2000 years.

First of all, i can't see how it's possible to date the tree so specifically. It seems that you're just accepting that without any support. Next, i fail to see the connection between dead trees and the living ancient trees that would lead someone to think that the tree is 8000 years old. Please explain that. Additionally, nobody can say that the world began exactly 4004 years before Christ. That's too specific, but i'm sure it was somewhere around there. Maybe 4000 or 5000 BC.
By the way, you know who started the current era?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-Geophysical surveys and borings show that the coral reef at Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean to have a thickness of up to 1380 meters. Even the most optimistic coral growth rates would require that the atoll be over 130,000 years of age.

That makes sense... under the current conditions of the earth. Today the atmospheric pressure at sea level is 101.3 kPa, and oxygen gas is only about 28% of the air. But if, like many people suggest, the oxygen was more plentiful and at a higher pressure before the flood, many land and sea creatures would grow a lot bigger and faster. Higher pressure and concentration of O2 would make the water more plentiful in oxygen. Another variable that was different before the flood is the water's salinity. Oceans were probably all fresh water back then, and after the flood, the oceans are getting saltier every day.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-Reversals of the earth's magnetic pole are recorded in the Atlantic Ocean sea bottom for the past 80 million years

There are NO reversals of the magnetic field! This idea was made up, without any proof, to cover up the embarassing problem that the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker. This fact shows that the earth can NOT be older than 25000 years. But the darwinists needed to hide this, so they said the magnetic fields "reverse" every couple thousand years. And how are the reversals "recorded?" On CD or floppy? Or maybe 8-track? Please defend your statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-Rate at which the continents are spreading apart from each other indicates that the Atlantic Ocean is about 200 million years old.

I don't have anything to say against the fact that the continents are moving. But it's downright unscientific to assume that they have been moving at that same rate for the whole life of the planet. It's possible that the flood triggered their movement. Please don't give me the deal about Pangea -- that goes beyond the realm of real science where you can observe things and record them. Pangea is nothing more than a belief without fact to support it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-Because of tides, the rotation of the earth is gradually slowing, by about 0.005 seconds per year. About 370 million years ago, each day would have been only 22.7 hours long! Studies of rugose coral fossils that were independently estimated to be 370 million years old revealed that when they were alive a day lasted about 22 hours. This relationship has been confirmed with other coral fossils. This is rather good evidence that the world was in existence a third of a billion years ago.

I've never heard of this. I know that the earth loses some time, but i heard something like a second per year. But i'll be generous and give you 0.005 seconds lost per year. And anyway, if you go back to 4000000000 years ago, the spin of the earth becomes significant. Winds would be a lot stronger than they are now. You mentioned this, but forgot one other thing -- the moon is slowly moving away. 4000000000 years ago, it would be close enough to cause global flooding (through tides) twice a day. It's hard to believe that something could have survived in a giant mess like this. You should think your idea over again, and see if it really makes sense.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-The "nuclide" argument is one of the best proofs of an "old earth". Nuclides are forms of matter that are radioactive. Each nuclide decays into another form of matter at a certain rate. After an interval of time equal to its half-life, only half of the original material is left. Scientists have found that:
o Every nuclide with a half-life over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth
o All Nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally
The only logical explanation for these observations is that the world formed billions of years ago. There are enough long-lived nuclides still around to be still detectable. The short-lived nuclides have long since decayed and disappeared. The only exceptions to the latter are short lived nuclides which are being continuously generated by the decay of long-lived nuclides.

See, there could be (and are) substances with high half-lives. But there is no reason the half-life can't exceed the age of the world. The element just decays slowly. Why can't a 6000-year-old world have elements that have 80000000 year half-lives? Finding the half-life is complicated. Scientists observe the substance for a few days in the lab, at the most. Then they assign a number for it, like 80000000 years. Kind of a skewed method, isn't it? How accurate can it be? But i trust the number is pretty close -- can't be more than a 200% error. One thing you said that i question. Carbon-14 is used, supposedly, to date many things. Carbon is very abundant -- all living things are mainly carbon. It's half-life is about 5270 years. Then how can it even exist if it's less than 80000000 years?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

These and many others are all pointing in one direction, an old earth!

Man, that is a dogmatic and biased statement! You didn't have many arguments, and half of them were weak. You only have a couple good hypotheses If you think this points to an "old earth," i can't help comparing you to a blind sheep. By the way, i believe in an "old earth" too. 6000 years is waaaaaay longer than i've been around.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is another problem Creationists must address. The fact that the crust of the earth contains ancient geographies, whole ecosystems fossilized, evidence of surface existence below the surface (i.e. cave systems with surface identities, footprints, rain drops, forests both layered and not layered, ecologies where different weather zones exist stacked atop one another, glaciation, tar pits and lakebeds, meteor craters below the surface, etc)…

Explain what you mean by "ancient geographies". Ecosystems being fossilized is no surprise. So many animals died in big groups in the flood. But how does "surface existence below the surface" disprove or even contradict Creation?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, i'm done here for now.

Alex

In general, Alex, your claims are factually false and/or completely illogical. I'll pick this one example:

If you had done some research, you would understand how the field reversals have been identified. From the following web page:

http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/reversal.htm

Pretty simple, huh? Maybe you should stop reading so much creationist propaganda and start reading some actual science textbooks.

LiveFreeOrDie,

I knew about basalt and that it gets magnetic when heated. When you check the magnetism on an oceanic ridge, you will find that some lines have stronger magnetism than others. But like i said above, there is NO place where there is negative or reverse magnetism. What did i say wrong? Why did you "correct" me if your correction didn't in any way conflict with my original statement?

I'm pretty observant at times, so i'll tell you what i observed here. Darwinists like yourself are arrogant folks, looking down their noses at Creationists. And it's funny that you call evidence for creation "propaganda." What, are you afraid that your theory will be proven wrong? And why do you call darwinism "science?"

I have a Bible verse for you: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..." (ROMANS 1:22) Take this into account, because it refers to people who walked and talked as self-proclaimed wise men.

I don't know about you, but i rest in God. He protects His children in this world. What satisfaction do you get from confiding in the ideas of a dead-and-buried man? I trust in the Word of the Everlasting God.

God asks, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding." (JOB 38:4) Like Job, we can't answer. God was there, however, and He laid the foundations of this universe. Our little squabbles and arguments are in vain. The Bible tells us everything that happened. Why don't we listen?

I call it "nonexistent."

Bzzzt. Wrong. Please see the following illustration:



Apparently you're not observant enough to read a simple graph.

I'll tell you what I'm sick of - average Joes with no scientific education, training, or expertise claiming to have profound insights that overturn the work of thousands of professional scientists. Don't talk to me about arrogant until you've looked yourself in the mirror.

I'll tell you what I'm afraid of - narrow-minded religious thinkers like you exploiting political power to stamp out freedom of thought. The last thing we need it a bunch of Christian Taliban running things.

Well, because it IS.

Maybe you should think before calling the kettle black, pot.

Fine with me. But maybe you should just admit that your beliefs on origins are based solely on your religious views and have no basis in science.

I'll tell you what I'm afraid of - narrow-minded religious thinkers like you exploiting political power to stamp out freedom of thought. The last thing we need it a bunch of Christian Taliban running things.


This has nothing to do with the debate at hand, and is an attack against Christians. Please just present your evidence, because this is offensive. To compare Christians to the Taliban is very offensive, and is based on a bias, not facts.