Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[Job 33:6]

Because that is the false evolutionary assumption of geology, the present is key to the past. So that you admit at least to rapid burial of layers this large and this amount?

‘If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100 000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous.

‘Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10 000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous’


Just curious on your formation of coal theory if this be the case. I dont really disagree with your post. I disagree on the circular reasoning used to create geological column [see op]. So than we can agree it points to rapid burial. Thousands are found in different locations and "geological ages" so than you would have to admit where they are found, it shows rapid burial.

This is just a misunderstanding of geology. Its the same thing with your erosion of continents statement. Nobody assumes constant rates of deposition or erosion over millions of years. The world cycles, just as water flows from rivers to oceans, evaporates and rains, and repeats...


An avalanche might occur, in which 50 feet of soil might be deposited in 10 minutes. But then afterwards, the avalanche is over.

When rivers erode, they erode at accelerated rates when land is uplifted, but at slower rates as water reaches equilibrium. Also adjustments occur based on rock densities. Hence why erosive resistant rocks often cap mountain tops.

And these trees can be found in various formations, but they arent present across more than a single period of time.

And these are all concepts confined within old earth geology. In present times we have floods and earthquakes and avalanches that create large deposits in a very brief amount of time. And so to would we in the past. But this is still far from young earth catastrophism.

But really this isn't really necessary in the case of coal formation because it looks like we have millions of years to work with.

 

[Job 33:6]

well I will take from Snelling.


The region around Grand Canyon is a great example showing how most of the earth’s fossil-bearing layers were laid down quickly and many were folded while still wet. Exposed in the canyon’s walls are about 4,500 feet (1,370 meters) of fossil-bearing layers, conventionally labelled Cambrian to Permia....

Layers Laid Down Quickly and Bent While Soft

Figure 1: The Grand Canyon now cuts through many rock layers. Previously, all these layers were raised to their current elevation (a raised, flat region known as the Kaibab Plateau). Somehow this whole sequence was bent and folded without fracturing. That’s impossible if the first layer, the Tapeats Sandstone, was deposited over North America 460 million years before being folded. But all the layers would still be relatively soft and pliable if it all happened during the recent, global Flood.

Tapeats Sandstone, which is 100–325 feet (30–100 meters) thick. It is bent and folded 90° (Photo 1). The Muav Limestone above it has similarly been bent (Photo 2).

Photo courtesy Andrew A. Snelling

Photo 1: The whole sequence of sedimentary layers through which Grand Canyon cuts has been bent and folded without fracturing. This includes the Tapeats Sandstone, located at the bottom of the sequence. (A 90° fold in the eastern Grand Canyon is pictured here.)

Photo courtesy Andrew A. Snelling

Photo 2: All the layers through which Grand Canyon cuts—including the Muav Limestone shown here—have been bent without fracturing.....the Tapeats Sandstone at the bottom would have dried out and the sand grains cemented together, especially with 4,000 feet (1,220 m) of rock layers piled on top of it and pressing down on it?

Rescuing Devices
What solution do old-earth advocates suggest? Heat and pressure can make hard rock layers pliable, so they claim this must be what happened in the eastern Grand Canyon, as the sequence of many layers above pressed down and heated up these rocks. Just one problem. The heat and pressure would have transformed these layers into quartzite, marble, and other metamorphic rocks. Yet Tapeats Sandstone is still sandstone, a sedimentary rock!



https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/2-bent-rock-layers/

And this is just completely wrong.

there are faults all throughout the formations present within and surrounding the east kaibab fault

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gs...re-of-the-east-kaibab?redirectedFrom=fulltext

http://archive.li.suu.edu/docs/ms130/AR/tindall.pdf

And as discussed before, rocks can be folded without faulting. The entire area you are referencing has been subject to uplift and orogenic processes. ie ductile deformation via the laramide orogeny.

And aside from there being faults throughout the paleozoic formations (see my first link)

there are propogating faults (with detailed maps) referenced in the second link there that pass through mesozoic rock which is above the layers you referenced above.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Just curious on your formation of coal theory if this be the case. I dont really disagree with your post. I disagree on the circular reasoning used to create geological column [see op]. So than we can agree it points to rapid burial. Thousands are found in different locations and "geological ages" so than you would have to admit where they are found, it shows rapid burial."

And I agree that rapid burial occurs. Its worth discussing what "rapid" means as well. What we would probably want to do is to pick an actual location where coal is present. Then we could discuss means of formation or rates. So, if you have a formation in mind where these polystrate fossils are present, feel free to mention it and we can look at research on it.

 

[Job 33:6]

And really, you have to post large scale maps to understand deformation and how it was caused (like the ones I linked). You can't focus on a tiny picture when trying to understand orogenic processes at large and the respective causes of folding.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

This is just a misunderstanding of geology. Its the same thing with your erosion of continents statement. Nobody assumes constant rates of deposition or erosion over millions of years. The world cycles, just as water flows from rivers to oceans, evaporates and rains, and repeats...


An avalanche might occur, in which 50 feet of soil might be deposited in 10 minutes. But then afterwards, the avalanche is over.

When rivers erode, they erode at accelerated rates when land is uplifted, but at slower rates as water reaches equilibrium. Also adjustments occur based on rock densities. Hence why erosive resistant rocks often cap mountain tops.

And these trees can be found in various formations, but they arent present across more than a single period of time.

I agree, uniformitarnism is a misunderstanding of geology, good we agree. You said "Nobody assumes constant rates " be careful your talking like a YEC geologist. The only way we can assume the age of something we must assume consent rates from observation and assume back in time. I agree on the erosion rates as they are higher during storms/catastrophes, that is why the rates are generous to evolutionist.


An avalanche might occur, in which 50 feet of soil might be deposited in 10 minutes. But then afterwards, the avalanche is over

Honestly you sound like a flood geologist. I think we are not so apart you and I.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are we discussing geological fallacies today?

Some of the largest coal beds of Anthracite coal would require the compression and burial of 2,000 feet of plant matter. It must happen all at once, otherwise decay would set in and the plants would not form into coal. there can be no gradual formation of millions of years. This is confirmed by the fact that these beds do not show repeated covering and compression by separate layers, but are pure coal throughout. In fact, every single multiple sedimentary layer shows no weathering between the layers as would be expected if the process took millions of years.

Let me repeat that for those hard of understanding. No sedimentary multiple layers show weathering between the layers, instead they show the process happened suddenly, all approximately at the same time. If it occurred over millions of years, weathering would be the natural outcome.

Give up your false geological beliefs, they do the real science disservice.....

Ok, I await the double-talk and avoidance of the facts of geology as we observe them......

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

And this is just completely wrong.

there are faults all throughout the formations present within and surrounding the east kaibab fault

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gs...re-of-the-east-kaibab?redirectedFrom=fulltext

http://archive.li.suu.edu/docs/ms130/AR/tindall.pdf

And as discussed before, rocks can be folded without faulting. The entire area you are referencing has been subject to uplift and orogenic processes. ie ductile deformation via the laramide orogeny.

And aside from there being faults throughout the paleozoic formations (see my first link)

there are propogating faults (with detailed maps) referenced in the second link there that pass through mesozoic rock which is above the layers you referenced above.

And who would disagree? you will find that in snellings article. Are you aware of CPT?


https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Catas...890518742/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

"Just curious on your formation of coal theory if this be the case. I dont really disagree with your post. I disagree on the circular reasoning used to create geological column [see op]. So than we can agree it points to rapid burial. Thousands are found in different locations and "geological ages" so than you would have to admit where they are found, it shows rapid burial."

And I agree that rapid burial occurs. Its worth discussing what "rapid" means as well. What we would probably want to do is to pick an actual location where coal is present. Then we could discuss means of formation or rates. So, if you have a formation in mind where these polystrate fossils are present, feel free to mention it and we can look at research on it.

was was just thinking a more general idea on your opinions on the formation of coal specially the time it took for their formation. I was just thinking tou were closer to creationist than many evolutionist. At least in regards to catastrophic processes.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Are we discussing geological fallacies today?

Some of the largest coal beds of Anthracite coal would require the compression and burial of 2,000 feet of plant matter. It must happen all at once, otherwise decay would set in and the plants would not form into coal. there can be no gradual formation of millions of years. This is confirmed by the fact that these beds do not show repeated covering and compression by separate layers, but are pure coal throughout. In fact, every single multiple sedimentary layer shows no weathering between the layers as would be expected if the process took millions of years.

Let me repeat that for those hard of understanding. No sedimentary multiple layers show weathering between the layers, instead they show the process happened suddenly, all approximately at the same time. If it occurred over millions of years, weathering would be the natural outcome.

Give up your false geological beliefs, they do the real science disservice.....

Ok, I await the double-talk and avoidance of the facts of geology as we observe them......

ah you are a walt brown fan i see. I read his book enjoyed it. I dont really like CPT and i think multiple competing views are needed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

ah you are a walt brown fan i see. I read his book enjoyed it. I dont really like CPT and i think multiple competing views are needed.

There are a few adjustments that need made, knowledge progresses, but I've yet to see a competing view that fits the facts as observed to such a high degree.

geologists also attacked harlen Bretz for his catastrophic theory as well, simply because it could lead to a Biblical flood theory.

Bretz was vindicated and all who opposed him found to be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Harlen_Bretz

Once again as happens every time in history, the majority believes wrongly and an individual overturns accepted theory... Over and over and over.....

Like Bretz, a theory just needs to be actually understood and be given access to. A competing theory is not competing unless many know of it....

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

There are a few adjustments that need made, knowledge progresses, but I've yet to see a competing view that fits the facts as observed to such a high degree.

geologists also attacked harlen Bretz for his catastrophic theory as well, simply because it could lead to a Biblical flood theory.

Bretz was vindicated and all who opposed him found to be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Harlen_Bretz

Once again as happens every time in history, the majority believes wrongly and an individual overturns accepted theory... Over and over and over.....

Like Bretz, a theory just needs to be actually understood and be given access to. A competing theory is not competing unless many know of it....

But boy is truth resisted is it not?

“The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.”
-H. L. Menck

 

[Astrophile]

‘If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100 000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous.

In fact, the maximum thickness of the British Coal Measures is more than 2000 metres. According to the regional geology handbooks published by the British Geological Survey, in South Wales, the Lower and Middle Coal Measures combined are about 850 metres thick, and the Upper Coal Measures are about 1500 metres thick. Near Manchester, in Lancashire, the Lower and Middle Coal Measures are about 1300 metres thick and the Upper Coal Measures are about 850 metres thick. Combine the Lower and Middle Coal Measures of Manchester with the Upper Coal Measures of South Wales, and you get a total of about 2800 metres.

The Coal Measures form only part of the Carboniferous system. In the Pennines, the Millstone Grit, directly below the Coal Measures, has a maximum thickness of more than 3000 metres, and the underlying Carboniferous Limestone is up to 2500 metres thick. This yields a maximum thickness of more than 8000 metres for the whole Carboniferous system.

Do you seriously think that more than 8000 metres of sedimentary rock, including rocks of very different types and associated with different sedimentary environments, could be deposited by a single flood lasting less than a year? As you say, this is ridiculous.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

In fact, the maximum thickness of the British Coal Measures is more than 2000 metres. According to the regional geology handbooks published by the British Geological Survey, in South Wales, the Lower and Middle Coal Measures combined are about 850 metres thick, and the Upper Coal Measures are about 1500 metres thick. Near Manchester, in Lancashire, the Lower and Middle Coal Measures are about 1300 metres thick and the Upper Coal Measures are about 850 metres thick. Combine the Lower and Middle Coal Measures of Manchester with the Upper Coal Measures of South Wales, and you get a total of about 2800 metres.

The Coal Measures form only part of the Carboniferous system. In the Pennines, the Millstone Grit, directly below the Coal Measures, has a maximum thickness of more than 3000 metres, and the underlying Carboniferous Limestone is up to 2500 metres thick. This yields a maximum thickness of more than 8000 metres for the whole Carboniferous system.

Do you seriously think that more than 8000 metres of sedimentary rock, including rocks of very different types and associated with different sedimentary environments, could be deposited by a single flood lasting less than a year? As you say, this is ridiculous.

Allow me some time if you want an in depth response. . I will say studied done on major storm deposition and the rates recorded fit the flood. Both of your questions are addressed in the following books Snellings is great in this area and also challenging the traditional views on coal formation.


https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Catastrophic-Past-Geology-Creation/dp/0890518742

https://www.amazon.com/Geology-Desi...=1533413291&sr=1-1&keywords=geology+by+design

https://creationresearch.org/product/rock-solid-answers/


you could quick search.

Too much coal for a young earth?
https://creation.com/too-much-coal-for-a-young-earth


How Did We Get All This Coal?
https://answersingenesis.org/biology/plants/how-did-we-get-all-this-coal/

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In fact, the maximum thickness of the British Coal Measures is more than 2000 metres. According to the regional geology handbooks published by the British Geological Survey, in South Wales, the Lower and Middle Coal Measures combined are about 850 metres thick, and the Upper Coal Measures are about 1500 metres thick. Near Manchester, in Lancashire, the Lower and Middle Coal Measures are about 1300 metres thick and the Upper Coal Measures are about 850 metres thick. Combine the Lower and Middle Coal Measures of Manchester with the Upper Coal Measures of South Wales, and you get a total of about 2800 metres.

The Coal Measures form only part of the Carboniferous system. In the Pennines, the Millstone Grit, directly below the Coal Measures, has a maximum thickness of more than 3000 metres, and the underlying Carboniferous Limestone is up to 2500 metres thick. This yields a maximum thickness of more than 8000 metres for the whole Carboniferous system.

Do you seriously think that more than 8000 metres of sedimentary rock, including rocks of very different types and associated with different sedimentary environments, could be deposited by a single flood lasting less than a year? As you say, this is ridiculous.

It would indeed be ridiculous to believe that 2000 meters of coal requiring over 6000 to 15000 meters of dead plant life to be compressed was a slow and gradual process over millions of years. For one there is no evidence at all of repeated rapid burial - a requirement to prevent decay of the plant life, even more so than for fossilization to occur in animals. There are no signs of weathering between any layers of any sediments anywhere in the world in fact. Absolutely and utterly impossible if the process took millions of years.

We all agree the story of vast ages for these formations to occur is indeed ridiculous, being there is no evidence of any weathering, nor of multiple repeated burial to prevent decay.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But boy is truth resisted is it not?

“The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.”
-H. L. Menck

Isn't it! Notice their main reasons for disputing Bertz's excellent investigations.

"Bretz encountered resistance to his theories from the geology establishment of the day. The geology establishment was resistant to such a sweeping theory for the origin of a broad landscape for a variety of reasons, including lack of familiarity with the remote areas of the interior Pacific Northwest where the research was based, and the lack of status and reputation of Bretz in the eyes of the largely Ivy League-based geology elites. Furthermore, his theory implied the potential possibilities of a Biblical flood, which the scientific community strongly rejected. The Geological Society of Washington, D.C invited the young Bretz to present his previously published research at a 12 January 1927 meeting where several other geologists presented competing theories. Bretz saw this as an ambush, and referred to the group as six "challenging elders". Their intention was to defeat him in a public debate, and thereby end the challenge his theories posed to their conservative interpretation of uniformitarianism."

But Bertz prevailed even if he had to fight another 40 years....

"Bretz defended his theories, kicking off an acrimonious 40 year debate over the origin of the Scablands. As he wrote in 1928, "Ideas without precedent are generally looked upon with disfavour and men are shocked if their conceptions of an orderly world are challenged."

Both Pardee and Bretz continued their research over the next 30 years, collecting and analyzing evidence that eventually identified Lake Missoula as the source of the Spokane Floods and creator of the Channeled Scablands. Research on open channel hydraulics in the 1970s further vindicated Bretz's and Pardee's theories"

The good ole boys club didn't want an outsider coming in and destroying their laid out ideas of uniformitarianism with ideas that implied the potential possibilities of a Biblical flood...... But since Bertz was vindicated, the ideas that imply the potential possibilities of a Biblical flood were vindicated as well....

What they believed to have taken eons in reality was discovered to have occurred rapidly..... yet they resisted any ideas that might upset their views of long eons of time..... They preferred their mistakes over the truth....

 

[Job 33:6]

I just want to point out that my original responses were never addressed. I'll await a response regarding the angular unconformity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I just want to point out that my original responses were never addressed. I'll await a response regarding the angular unconformity.

My response is included in the video, which I am sure is generally in line with your view. We may disagree on a few minor details, but that's probably about it. Of course time being one of those minor details.....

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

I just want to point out that my original responses were never addressed. I'll await a response regarding the angular unconformity.

Not sure if this was for me but I did link a article and sent a short email from the author he sent me. If you are interested here is the link.


https://creation.com/unmasking-a-long-age-icon

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not sure if this was for me but I did link a article and sent a short email from the author he sent me. If you are interested here is the link.


https://creation.com/unmasking-a-long-age-icon

Isnt it amazing how you can with a simple incorrect belief about vast time blind yourself to the reality that all the geological features require short amounts of time and vast amounts of water? It's convenient that geological students and teachers alike can't see the sharp edged rocks in the sediment layers and realize they were formed quickly, before "time" had a chance to weather them into rounded forms..... "Time" is the flaw in all their arguments, from sharp stones, to no weathering, to the formation of fossils due to rapid burial..... "Time" is the one thing that is clearly missing.....

 

[Job 33:6]

Not sure if this was for me but I did link a article and sent a short email from the author he sent me. If you are interested here is the link.


https://creation.com/unmasking-a-long-age-icon

This isnt a response, this is just you feeding me links. A website cannot converse with me. If I say something about how the website is incorrect, it cannot respond.

But you can. And I responded describing an overturned angular unconformity. And I am waiting for you to explain how it is that you believe such a formation was constructed in a flood.