Does Geology shows YEC, OEC, or GAP?

JohnR7 · #1 24th June 2003, 10:21 AM

We were talkihg about geology & some areas that point to an older model of creationism. One is the organic oil, coal, and limestone deposits. Most people question that they could have been created in the amount we find them, using a YEC model.

Also, we had a discussion on sediment & conglomorate sediment rock. How could sediment rock be created in a earth that was less than 15,000 years old?

If we believe in the Ice age. Then the YEC model requires that the Ice age is the beginning of creation. Yet there is vast and overwelming evidence of a world that was here before the Ice age. Looking at the coal, oil, limestone & sediment rock deposits.

lucaspa · #2 24th June 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by JohnR7

We were talkihg about geology & some areas that point to an older model of creationism. One is the organic oil, coal, and limestone deposits. Most people question that they could have been created in the amount we find them, using a YEC model.

Also, we had a discussion on sediment & conglomorate sediment rock. How could sediment rock be created in a earth that was less than 15,000 years old?

If we believe in the Ice age. Then the YEC model requires that the Ice age is the beginning of creation. Yet there is vast and overwelming evidence of a world that was here before the Ice age. Looking at the coal, oil, limestone & sediment rock deposits.

The geological record does not support YEC nor does it support Gap Theory, since there is no indication anywhere that all life was wiped out at any time and then started over.

It does support OEC in that it supports an old earth, but it doesn't support OEC in that all species or kinds were suddenly created, since there are transitional series of individuals fossils linking species, and then through species linking genera, families, orders, and even classes. Therefore there is no definition of "kind" that will get around this.

The only version of "creationism" supported by the geological record is theistic evolution.

PhantomLlama · #3 24th June 2003, 11:10 AM

Your thread title poses an interesting question, but you should answer this one first: Have you stopped beating your wife?

Frumious Bandersnatch · #4 24th June 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by JohnR7

We were talkihg about geology & some areas that point to an older model of creationism. One is the organic oil, coal, and limestone deposits. Most people question that they could have been created in the amount we find them, using a YEC model.

Also, we had a discussion on sediment & conglomorate sediment rock. How could sediment rock be created in a earth that was less than 15,000 years old?

If we believe in the Ice age. Then the YEC model requires that the Ice age is the beginning of creation. Yet there is vast and overwelming evidence of a world that was here before the Ice age. Looking at the coal, oil, limestone & sediment rock deposits.

There is already more than one thread showing that geology falsifies YEC.
http://www.christianforums.com/showt...9&pagenumber=1

When it comes to ice ages there is overwhelming evidence of multiple ice ages and it was Agassiz's work on ice ages that finished off the worldwide flood as an explanation of the world's geology.

It seems to me that when geology and paleontology are taken togther they support either a totally natural old earth model or some form of theistic evolution. Regardless of the old earth model they support they totally falsify Young Earth Creationism.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

JohnR7 · #5 24th June 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomLlama

Your thread title poses an interesting question, but you should answer this one first: Have you stopped beating your wife?

Would the sysops please remove this slanderous post. It is clearly a personal attack on me in violation of the rules. Designed to try and undermine my influence here on the forum.

JohnR7 · #6 24th June 2003, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

The geological record does not support YEC nor does it support Gap Theory, since there is no indication anywhere that all life was wiped out at any time and then started over.

You need to take a course on remenant theology.

since there are transitional series of individuals fossils linking species,

Is this the one where you start off with a fruit fly, and five years later you still have a fruit fly, but he does not eat junk food anymore?

lucaspa · #7 24th June 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by JohnR7

You need to take a course on remenant theology.

In order to have "remnant theology" you need to have a remnant. However, the extinctions at the end of the Ice Age were extremely limited. 99.9% of the species on the planet were just fine and never went extinct. You can't have a "remnant" when nearly everyone is still there.

For the lurkers, John is providing an example of selected data or tunnel vision. Remnant theology -- as he has described it -- looks only at the large land mammals next to the glaciers and says that, since they went extinct, then nearly all life was destroyed.

The species in Africa -- including elephants, hippos, and rhinos -- were unaffected by the Ice Age. So were the animals in Australia, S. America, the Phillipines, etc. Not to mention fish and aquatic mammals worldwide. And, of course, John isn't even looking at the plants or the smaller animals. So, he is calling the extinction of less than 0.1% of all species "nearly all life".

Is this the one where you start off with a fruit fly, and five years later you still have a fruit fly, but he does not eat junk food anymore?

John, please read carefully. I said FOSSILS. The experiment you are referring to -- G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980 -- used living animals.

Also, since the flies were 1) now only ate meat or bread, you can't really call them "fruit" flies anymore, can you? 2) the new species differed from the old by 3% of the genes. Since humans and chimps differ by less than 1%, this means a much greater difference than between the supposedly separately created "kinds" of chimpanzee and human.

Again for the lurkers, note the debating tactics:

1. Distract from the subject, by deliberately misreading the post. That way you don't have to face evidence that falsifies your theory.

2. Use the old creationist duck of "they were still flies", thus hiding the large changes behind semantics.

lucaspa · #8 24th June 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by JohnR7

Would the sysops please remove this slanderous post. It is clearly a personal attack on me in violation of the rules. Designed to try and undermine my influence here on the forum.

LOL!! First, you have no influence on the forum to undermine.

Second, Phantomllama simply made a humorous comparison of your thread title to another misleading question. Just like "stop beating your wife" implies that you did/do so and is therefore unanswerable as phrased if you DO NOT beat your wife, so your title of the thread said that geology supports one form of creationism and there is no way to answer if geology doesn't support any of the three.

It's not about you personally, but about the "clever" way you posed the question. It was not a valid question to start.

Extirpated Wildlife · #9 24th June 2003, 02:54 PM

Just to answer the thread title....

I believe that geology doesn't neccesarily tell us any of those if you believe there is a God, because there is the issue of what state did God allow the planet to be in when he began creating life and when does a time table begin with God if there is no lifeforms that comprehend time.

Now, i think that there is a good chance from geology that the earth is older than we christians typically think.

lucaspa · #10 24th June 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by quizzler

Just to answer the thread title....

I believe that geology doesn't neccesarily tell us any of those if you believe there is a God, because there is the issue of what state did God allow the planet to be in when he began creating life and when does a time table begin with God if there is no lifeforms that comprehend time.

Now, i think that there is a good chance from geology that the earth is older than we christians typically think.

The geology tells you absolutely that the earth is NOT less than 20,000 years old.