YEC Flood Geology Revisted: Varves

ardipithecus · #11 23rd February 2003, 03:25 PM

There is a good article on the Green River and Varves at

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/greenriver.htm

Micaiah · #12 26th February 2003, 09:59 AM

There are several problems with the evolutionists view of varve formation. These are outlined in the following link:AIG on VARVES

notto · #13 26th February 2003, 11:07 AM

Geologist study formations like the Green River, not "evolutionists".

Your statement should be:
"There are several problems with the mainstream geologists view of varve formation."
or
"There are several problems with the mainstream sciences view of varve formation."

The link provided by ardipithecus looks critically at the evaluation of AIG and shows several flaws with it related to geology, not biology.

They make several critical errors in their analysis and use general observations to make particular assertions that do not hold true. They also omit several important observations from their discussion (like the actual locations of the fish bones and more importantly, where they are not found). They are only telling half of the story (as usual) and do not include in their critical analysis anything contrary to their pre-existing conclusion. They also do not provide an alternative hypothesis to how the formations were created. If they cannot do this along with describing all of the evidence that is present, their evaluation will fall on deaf ears.

Micaiah · #14 26th February 2003, 11:12 AM

Today at 11:07 PM notto said this in Post #13 (http://www.christianforums.com/showt...183#post677183)

Geologist study formations like the Green River, not "evolutionists".

Your statement should be:
"There are several problems with the mainstream geologists view of varve formation."
or
"There are several problems with the mainstream sciences view of varve formation."

The link provided by ardipithecus looks critically at the evaluation of AIG and shows several flaws with it related to geology, not biology.

They make several critical errors in their analysis and use general observations to make particular assertions that do not hold true. They also omit several important observations from their discussion (like the actual locations of the fish bones and more importantly, where they are not found). They are only telling half of the story (as usual) and do not include in their critical analysis anything contrary to their pre-existing conclusion. They also do not provide an alternative hypothesis to how the formations were created. If they cannot do this along with describing all of the evidence that is present, their evaluation will fall on deaf ears.

The theory of evolution is intertwined with the beliefs of OE geologists since fossils are often used to indicate dates of rocks. What are your beliefs on evolution? Do you think this theory explains the origin of man?

euphoric · #15 26th February 2003, 12:23 PM

Today at 03:12 PM Micaiah said this in Post #14

The theory of evolution is intertwined with the beliefs of OE geologists since fossils are often used to indicate dates of rocks. What are your beliefs on evolution? Do you think this theory explains the origin of man?

Paleontologists study fossils.  The old-earth model was developed long before evolution was proposed, so it has nothing to do with providing enough time for evolution to occur.  The two theories were developed at different times. 

And yes, evolution provides the best available explanation for the origin of man.  (Please note usage of the phrase "origin of man" rather than "origin of life on earth."  Any attempt to substitute the latter for the former will be treated with the scorn and ridicule such bait-and-switch trickery deserves.)

-brett

Mechanical Bliss · #16 26th February 2003, 02:50 PM

Today at 08:59 AM Micaiah said this in Post #12

There are several problems with the evolutionists view of varve formation. These are outlined in the following link:AIG on VARVES

It's interesting that you ask numerous questions that were answered in detail explaining the basics of how the varves in question form and why we know this and also explaining that the varve formation in question is a complex feature, yet you cannot do the same. Instead, you chose to want to play link tag. Not only does that link not demonstrate anything wrong with mainstream geological interpretation of this varve, but it does not provide any other explanation for its formation. Furthermore, it completely disregards several features I pointed out in my explanation as well as information from ardipithecus' detailed link which it would appear you didn't look at.

Did you just not read the responses to this thread just waiting for someone to respond so you could simply post a link to AiG without actually defending your position? That's not going to cut it.

You have not provided any information that accurately explains how these varves form while taking into account that the layers alternate between a dark layer consisting of organic material and lighter layers consisting of silt and freshwater carbonate. Furthermore, there are other significant features here that don't put your model in a favorable position including large amounts of trona and halite. Additionally, one should point out that the fossils are of freshwater creatures and birds. If this was a feature created by a global flood, why don't we see any marine creatures preserved in these varves?

Unless you can answer your own questions giving a detailed explanation for how these varves formed without disregarding major features, evaporites, and the actual compositions of the laminae, I'd have to say that what you call "old Earth" geology, or rather mainstream geology that follows the scientific method rather than twisting and omitting evidence to fit a preconceived conclusion, clearly has claimed victory to this debate against young Earth creationism. The same applies to the Grand Canyon thread that you have now begun to ignore. There are also other threads in this forum that falsify YEC that have had no responses. It should be clear by now that YEC is simply not valid and is contradicted by reality.

notto · #17 26th February 2003, 03:15 PM

Today at 03:12 PM Micaiah said this in Post #14 (http://www.christianforums.com/showt...191#post677191)

The theory of evolution is intertwined with the beliefs of OE geologists since fossils are often used to indicate dates of rocks. What are your beliefs on evolution? Do you think this theory explains the origin of man?

Micaiah,

Many mainstream scientific theories involve aspects of all major fields of science including physics, biology, chemistry, geology.

This statement is like saying that :

"The theory of earth orbits is intertwined with the beliefs of physicists since laws of motion are often used to indicated orgits of planets."

"The theory of pharmacology is intertwined with the beliefs of chemists since chemicals are often used to create drugs and treat diseases".

So what? Even if evolution was wrong, the earth would still be old. Again, the young earth is falsified without reference to evolution. Geology can stand on its own just fine.

My guess is that the people who have discovered the most about the earth and formations such as the Grand Canyon or Green River and who study it as geologist do not depend, and possibly do not even understand the finer aspects of evolution.

Geology shows us that the earth is old. Astronomy shows us that the earth is old. And yes, biology shows us that the earth is old. There are independent lines of evidence for an old earth in each of these fields. None of which depend on the other for the falsification of a young earth.

You term "evolutionists" and the way you use it on these boards has no meaning, except as "someone who doesn't agree with a YEC interpretation of Genesis".

Why don't you say "mainstream science" when that is what you really mean. Why don't you say "geologist" or "physicist" or "biologist" when that is what you really mean. "Evolutionist" is meaningless in a discussion of geology, astronomy, and physics. All it does is make you sound like the conspiracy theorists and Hovind.

Morat · #18 26th February 2003, 04:06 PM

The theory of evolution is intertwined with the beliefs of OE geologists since fossils are often used to indicate dates of rocks. What are your beliefs on evolution? Do you think this theory explains the origin of man?

You mean index fossils? It's a quick and easy way to date strata in the field.

And is has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. You're not required to know, understand, or believe anything about evolution to date strata using index fossils. All you need to know is the simple geologic fact that certain fossils are only found in certain strata. What's that got to do with evolution? Sounds like simple observation to me.

However, since geologists data rocks by methods completely unrelated to evolution (radioactive decay), and only use index fossils for field identification, your point is moot.

lucaspa · #19 26th February 2003, 05:15 PM

Micaiah, you can also find the geologists view at http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/fin...ssion_3276.htm

lucaspa · #20 26th February 2003, 05:21 PM

Today at 10:12 AM Micaiah said this in Post #14

The theory of evolution is intertwined with the beliefs of OE geologists since fossils are often used to indicate dates of rocks. 

Sorry, Micaiah, but the professional creationists have misled you again.  The geological column was in place by 1820, before Darwin even started at Cambridge.  The use of index fossils to correlate strata from different parts of the world was worked out by creationist geologists in the period 1800-1820.  For geologists, index fossils simply serve the purpose of marks on rocks or colored rocks -- only blue rocks are found in these formations and only orange ones are found in these.  There is nothing about biological evolution at all.

What you object to is evidence that falsifies a young earth and a global flood.