Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[Tolkien R.R.J]

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.

could you please tell me what post and what feature specifically you suggest cannot be exspalined by flood geology and why.

 

[Job 33:6]

could you please tell me what post and what feature specifically you suggest cannot be exspalined by flood geology and why.

Posts 203 and 204.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Posts 203 and 204.

I responded in 213 and 219. The argument applies only to rocks that show no signs of hardening. And unless you have the assumptions that no erosion happened during a worldwide flood on local scales, and no rocks can hardens sooner than uniformitarnism claims, than i am unsure how your argument goes against flood geology.

 

[Job 33:6]

I responded in 213 and 219. The argument applies only to rocks that show no signs of hardening. And unless you have the assumptions that no erosion happened during a worldwide flood on local scales, and no rocks can hardens sooner than uniformitarnism claims, than i am unsure how your argument goes against flood geology.

But then your response was for grand canyon paleozoic strata which is filled with hard angular thrust faults and propogating faults through the mesozoic.

This isn't a sufficient response.

 

[Job 33:6]

And further, you still aren't able to explain how the unconformity formed.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

But then your response was for grand canyon paleozoic strata which is filled with hard angular thrust faults and propogating faults through the mesozoic.

This isn't a sufficient response.

Agreed, while the sediments were soft.

 

[Job 33:6]

And, your kaibab fault has been reactivated prior to deposition of the cenozoic as well.

Collectively, this just can't be explained by a flood. Which is why I'm asking about it. The angular unconformity just simplifies the discussion.

 

[Job 33:6]

Agreed, while the sediments were soft.

Do explain how propogating faults occur in soft sediment

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

And further, you still aren't able to explain how the unconformity formed.

This thread is not so much on flood geology [that is coming] but on the age of the earth. Understanding how the flood produced features is a great topic that deserves it own thread. That is why i linked to a article that explains it if your interested.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

It seems you keep editing after my responses. For my sake, could you put everything from your post on one post, that you believe needs million of years or long ages to form.

Thanks.

 

[Job 33:6]

This thread is not so much on flood geology [that is coming] but on the age of the earth. Understanding how the flood produced features is a great topic that deserves it own thread. That is why i linked to a article that explains it if your interested.

You can't answer. And my comments are certainly in regards to the age of the earth. Which is why I am asking them.

Of course there is a correlation between orogenic processes and the history of geology

 

[Job 33:6]

It seems you keep editing after my responses. For my sake, could you put everything from your post on one post, that you believe needs million of years or long ages to form.

Thanks.

I want you to explain how a flood can form the unconformity I described, or if you would like the question rephrased, how do you think it could have formed in anything less than millions of years?

 

[SkyWriting]

There are about a hundred dating method that show the earth cannot be as old as the evolutionist need it to be. The data are well known in the scientific literature but do not make it to the school classrooms or on CNN. Here are some examples.

Genesis 49:26 Your father's blessings are greater than the blessings of the ancient mountains, reaching to the heights of the eternal hills.

Deuteronomy 33:15 with the choicest gifts of the ancient mountains and the bounty of the eternal hills

Habakkuk 3:6 When he stops, the earth shakes. When he looks, the nations tremble. He shatters the everlasting mountains and levels the eternal hills. He is the Eternal One!

Psalm 76:4 You are shining and full of glory, more than the eternal mountains. Thou
enlightenest wonderfully from the everlasting hills.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

I want you to explain how a flood can form the unconformity I described, or if you would like the question rephrased, how do you think it could have formed in anything less than millions of years?

You can't answer. And my comments are certainly in regards to the age of the earth. Which is why I am asking them.

Of course there is a correlation between orogenic processes and the history of geology

I want you to explain how a flood can form the unconformity I described, or if you would like the question rephrased, how do you think it could have formed in anything less than millions of years?

Rather, you are claiming that these features need long ages using evolutionary assumptions. That is why I am having a bit of a hard time and trying to pin down why you see an issue with these features because of your old age assumptions. I gave a link for you from a flood geologist that explains these features from the flood perspective [a future threads topic]. If you are interested you can read it and these kind of things will be great for the upcoming thread.


But unless you can give me a specific reason as to why the features take long ages, your objection is based on assumptions and assumptions that the flood could not produce hard rocks in short time or seemingly, that creationist deny any plate movement.

So i ask once more, what from observation and not assumption do you point to that you believe indicates long time.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok. Im going to conclude that you're incapable of responding.

As I've said before, giving me a random link is not a response. A website cannot respond when spoken to. You are the voice for this website and I am speaking to you. And you aren't responding.

 

[Job 33:6]

Once you have some technical knowledge of geology, and are able to actually talk about geologic features, let me know. Until then, you're just posting random websites without knowledge of the topics in which they discuss .

The fact that you haven't responded, tells me that you don't have the knowledge necessary to hold this conversation, let alone the knowledge necessary to judge my responses.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Again, what makes all of you so sure sedimentary rock can not form quickly besides preconceived beliefs?

As the article debunking your unconformity noted, which I'm sure none of you actually read....

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

"The lower rocks are composed of grey vertical beds of alternating greywacke and shale.10,11 Greywacke is a type of sandstone which indicates that it was deposited very rapidly. It is composed of particles with a range of sizes, from very coarse sand to fine clay. This means that the sediment was transported and deposited so rapidly that it did not have time to sort into different sizes (as occurs on beaches and in rivers today).

Also, the grains of sand in greywacke are not rounded, but jagged, indicating again that the sand was transported rapidly. If it had been transported slowly in a river, the sharp edges would have been worn smooth as the moving sand particles rubbed each other"

Also if it took millions of years to form, the grains would have been rubbed smooth by continued water action, being it requires a fast turbulent current capable of mixing the aggregates.

And there are not a single weathered aspect between layers.

It's not that creationists need explain how it got there, it's evolutionists that need to explain how it formed so rapidly with no signs of the weathering we see all around us in between the layers if it took the claimed amount of time to form each layer?

And no, please do not try the pitiful excuse that it was an ongoing process, because then the aggregates would have been worn smooth by the current creating the turbulence.

The only thing we can not observe in the unconformity or any other geological sedimentary layer is geological time......

 

[USincognito]

could you please tell me what post and what feature specifically you suggest cannot be exspalined by flood geology and why.

This is a very incomplete list I have compiled myself. None of these things are compatible with the Flood or Flood geology.
--------------------------
How does a Flood explain subaerial igneous deposits?
How does a Flood address all the heat that would be produced by the formation of limestone?
How does the Flood explain trace fossils?
How does the Flood explain faunal succession?
How does the Flood explain 60,000 varve layers in Lake Suigetsu and hundreds of thousands of layers in ice cores?
How does the Flood explain glacial erosion and deposits?
How does Flood explain eolian deposits and paleosols?
How does the Flood explain meanders like Horseshoe bend?
How does the Flood explain the different states of erosion exhibited by different mountain ranges?
How does the Flood explain batholiths?

 

[RealityCheck01]

The data is irrelevant, they have their set of beliefs and nothing will ever persuade them otherwise.

6 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: A belief that the ability to count is a belief and a "data is irrelevant" lie !
We see that each year a dusty layer of snow is deposited. We see that snow is compacted into ice with dark layers. We count that there are hundreds of thousands of these layers recording hundreds of thousands of years.
There is a couple of assumptions. Summer happens once a year. God has not created a lying universe.

That is a tiny bit of the empirical data that shows that the Earth is much older than 6000 years. We have tree growth rings data. We have varve data. We have carbon dating. We have many other radiometric dating methods. We have the deposition of sediments and other geological evidence.

The "data is irrelevant" lie is totally ignorant because the history of science is full of empirical data changing scientific theories. It was Christian geologists who first realized that geological evidence suggested a millions of years old Earth.

It is Christians and non -Christians who believe the Earth is old so that "set of beliefs" is wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is a very incomplete list I have compiled myself. None of these things are compatible with the Flood or Flood geology.
--------------------------
How does a Flood explain subaerial igneous deposits?

What's to explain? The flood only lasted a year.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes32.html#wp17931950

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches3.html

How does a Flood address all the heat that would be produced by the formation of limestone?

What heat? Don't see our waters boiling today, do you?

How does the Flood explain trace fossils?

The fact they are even rarer than fossiils just shows the sedimentary layer was still in the process of hardening after the flood.

[/quote]
How does the Flood explain faunal succession?[/quote]
Read and find out. Might do you some good.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

How does the Flood explain 60,000 varve layers in Lake Suigetsu and hundreds of thousands of layers in ice cores?

The question is how do YOU explain hundreds of thousands of layers in ice cores????

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a18943/glacier-girl-p-38-fighter/

"The planes had been carried two miles from their original location, and by the time they were found, they were under 264 feet of solid ice."

So in 50 years 264 feet of solid ice containing thousands of layers were deposited. But I notice no one likes to discuss this fact........

How does the Flood explain glacial erosion and deposits?

They occurred after the flood. Read and learn and your questions will be answered.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

How does Flood explain eolian deposits and paleosols?
How does the Flood explain meanders like Horseshoe bend?
How does the Flood explain the different states of erosion exhibited by different mountain ranges?
How does the Flood explain batholiths?

Read and learn. The problem is you have closed your mind to other possibilities so are actually unaware of what different theories really say, or your questions would have been answered already.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

I am a firm believer that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

There are your answers. One learns best by having to glean the knowledge for themselves....