Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[Job 33:6]

I multi quoted. It is actually 24.1 billion [not million] metric tons worldwide. Further you are calculating the time it would take to remove all rock into the ocean. you are assuming that the entirety of the sediment discharged into the ocean each year stays is composed of the same material. Much of it is sand, silt, clay and dirt rather than rock. Further once more uplift is not what is in question, what is in question is the claimed old ages applied to fossil bearing rock by evolutionist. Thus peer reviewed evolutionist doing the calculations would differ with your numbers and conclusions.

“if some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory”
-C R Twidale 1998 antiquity of landforms an “extremely unlikely” concept vindication Australian journal of earth sciences 45 ; 657-668

Page 83

https://books.google.com/books?id=DC4lDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA517&lpg=PA517&dq=Twindale+CR+and+Campbell+EM+Australian+Land+forms+Understandings+a+low,+flat,+arid+arid+or+a+landscape+Rosenberg+publishing+new+south+wales+Australia+2005&source=bl&ots=Yk-BllXIfo&sig=R0NzFRRVfBVabQqkIyC-pGSCpMc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw95X3qMncAhXJtlkKHULCDHEQ6AEwA3oECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=In geological terms, in other words, there ought to be no land forms or land surfaces of an age greater than 30MYA and certainly no older than the Cenozoic&f=false

“In geological terms, in other words, there ought to be no land forms or land surfaces of an age greater than 30MYA and certainly no older than the Cenozoic...yet many features that are several tens of millions, or even a few hundreds of millions of years old, remain....since these land forms exists, they must be possible.””
-Twindale CR and Campbell EM Australian Land forms Understandings a low, flat, arid arid or a landscape Rosenberg publishing new south wales Australia 2005



The average rate from a dozen studies of sediments delivered through rivers to the basins is from 8,000 million to 58,000 metric tones per year [low estimates the dont count catastrophes that speed up rates] at this rate within 10 million years the average height of the continents would erode away.

-Roth Origins linking science and scripture 1998 265 table 15.2

I found this chart from Roth's book

Table 1: Erosion rates of some major rivers of the world
Average lowering of the land surface within the drainage basin in mm (inches) per 1000 years

Wei-Ho 1350 (53)
Hwang-Ho 900 (35)
Ganges 560 (22)
Alpine Rhine and Rhone 340 (13)
San Juan (U.S.A.) 340 (13)
Irrawaddy 280 (11)
Tigris 260 (10)
Isere 240 (9.4)
Tiber 190 (7.5)
Indus 180 (7.1)
Yangtse 170 (6.7)
Po 120 (4.7)
Garonne and Colorado 100 (3.9)
Amazon 71 (2.8)
Adige 65 (2.6)
Savannah 33 (1.3)
Potomac 15 (0.59)
Nile 13 (0.51)
Seine 7 (0.28)
Connecticut 1 (0.04)

When you have a real argument, let me know.

You aren't making a technical case, you're just quoting some random book.

You're generalizing erosion into some kind of pre School, single statement argument, without actually building a case for the claim.

And what exactly are you quoting in your link? Your link takes me to a bibliography? The rest of the book doesn't say anything about continents eroding away actually it does just the opposite in discussing ancient landforms.

 

[Job 33:6]

Roth origins linking science and scripture?

Is this where you're getting these quotes?

 

[Job 33:6]

Bent Rock Strata

all these layers at certain spots are bent showing they all formed while wet around the same time otherwise they would have harden and broke.

“In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition”
-Austin, S.A. and J.D. Morris, ‘Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences’, Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986) pp.3–15. Address in ref. 12

Ill just pick another point here. The "Bent Rock" Topic.

Of course we know that rock bends when super heated and placed under extreme pressures.
Brittle versus ductile deformation is a well understood concept in which rocks take on a more pliable consistency when heated.

Just as when metal is heated, it can be bent easier than when its cold.

We also have strained bivalves, trilobites and other geologic features, in which originally bilaterraly symetric objects are strained by high pressures of surrounding rock, and are bent.

Was the trilobite wet and loose when it was bent? No of course not. And we can actually use the angles of deformation in bilaterally symetric features, to better understand deformation in rock as well. As both rock and features deform in the same directions and under the same pressures.

http://geologylearn.blogspot.com/2016/03/rock-deformation.html

You also have things such as fault breccias, propogating faults and cataclastic deformation, that do not form in soft sediment conditions.

And you get things like overturned angular unconformities, in which you have deposition, then orogenic offsetting of layers, erosion of those offset layers, deposition of new layers, then more orogenic offset.

And theres no real way for these kinds of concepts to be explained through the idea of rocks being soft during folding and deformation.

 

[Job 33:6]

And the last point there about the angular unconformity is one that ive given at least a couple times on this site.

Imagine you have bedding

==============
==============

It is originally deposited horizontally. Then its upturned...

/////////////////////////
////////////////////////

The top is eroded and a new layer is deposited on top.

============
============
/////////////////////
/////////////////////

So here you have your general every day textbook unconformity.

But now turn it again.

==========//////////////////////
==========/////////////////////

Now, the original upturned layers must have been hardened, else they wouldnt turn up vertically. A wet sand castle will fall into a blob, it wont turn up on its side.

The second layers is deposited on top. So you need time for the second layers to harden as well. The second layer and the first are separated by fragmented fault breccia, which forms basically when two massive and hard rock bodies grind against one another. Almost like hard glass breaks into shards, rock does the same thing when two rock bodies grint against one another. Shards of rock are captured between the two.

Then, after that, you take those two rocks, one horizontal on top of one that is vertical, and you push both of those hard layers on their sides, so that the original lower layer is back to being horizontal, with the newer layers being vertical.

Last but not least, take this formation, and plug it right in the middle of the paleozoic, and further in the middle of a depositional megasequence which records gradations from sandstone to siltstone to limestone and back to siltstone then sandstone and back and forth over and over again.


This can only be explained by hardened rocks being turned over by slow orogenic processes via plate tectonics, in conjunction with gradual sea transgression and regression patterns over many many years.

 

[Job 33:6]

https://slideplayer.com/slide/5275250/

http://pages.geo.wvu.edu/~jtoro/structure/ppt/04Strain2.pdf
Of course not, the horseshoe crab shell would shatter. And if the horseshoe crab shell were made of soft sediment, it wouldnt shear at all, the grains of sediment would just roll around because they arent welded or lithified together in any way.

So if you have sheared rock, you know that the sediment in which the rock is made of, must have been bonded to one another in order to shear, just as a horseshoe crab shell is bonded on a microscopic level. Thats what makes the shell hard, as is what makes a rock hard. If the particles or shell minerals were like wet loose sand and were not bonded, then they wouldnt shear. They would just fall apart in your hands.

 

[Job 33:6]

Regarding polystrate fossils. Polystrate fossils do not cross geologic timescale boundaries. For example, you wont find a polystrate fossil crossing from the devonian to the carboniferous, or the cretaceous to the tertiary. Doesn't happen.

Thats because trees can of course be buried within perhaps hundreds of years, in which they may cross hundreds of years of layers. But they dont traverse any extensive geologic distances that would make them an issue for modern geologic science.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Biblical Creation and the age of the Earth ...

A list of debunked decades ago young Earth creationist myths and lies, Tolkien R.R.J, in that and following posts.

Learn about science rather trusting assertions that you can easily find out to be wrong or even lies.

• Erosion is not the only geological process that exists !
• A lie by omitting processes that take salt out of oceans.
• A lie that astronomers consider spiral arms to be physical arms.
  This is the winding problem that caused astronomers to discard physical arms in 1925!
• Sedimentation is only geological process that exists !
• A lie that the Earth's magnetic field always decays when the evidence is that it fluctuates and reverses.
• A lie that the recession of the Moon from the Earth is a simple linear relationship using the current rate.
• A lie about the origin of comets.
  There are billions of potential comets that exist in the outer Solar System. This is a storehouse for the few active comets that approach the Sun.
• Stupidity that human population growth had a constant rate.
• The insanity that > 65 million old fossils can contain < 6000 year old tissues (which they do not!).
  What has been found is > 65 million year old, preserved soft tissue and we have a good mechanism for that preservation in rare cases (iron rich blood).
• Argument from ignorance about polystrate fossils.
• A "Bent Rock Strata" lie when rock can be flexible and bend as in geology textbooks.
• Some "Flat Gaps" nonsense.
• A blatant "Measurable C-14 Within Ancient Samples" lie.
  There have been insane attempts to C-14 date fossils which have resulted in the dating of the fossil preservatives or the expected of C14 dating.
• A list of "Radiometric Dating" ignorance and delusions about science.
• "Other dates" stupidity of citing radiometric dating of samples that are millions of years in age.
• A "Radiometric dating in support of a young earth" lie, starting with the insanity of C14 dating diamonds formed 150 to 250 kilometers under the ground away, from the continuous formation of C14 in the atmosphere.
• "Excessive decay in the past?" delusions and lies, "In lavatory experiments we have been able to produce billions of years of decay in hours."

Ken Ham’s 10 facts that prove creationism – Debunked

Ice cores are a simple example of how easy it is to understand evidence that the Earth is old. Anyone who can count up to 55,000 can physically count 55,000 years in ice cores ("For example, at Vostok, layer counting is only possible down to an age of 55,000 years").

Evidence against a recent creation

 

[RealityCheck01]

In a supposed 20 million year old granite received a uranium thorium lead date 97 million years and a zircon dat of 1,483 million years
- r.r parish 1990 u-pb dating of monazite and its applications to geological problems Canadian journal of earth sciences 27 1431-1450

Start with this item of the massive Gish gallop in the start of the thread.
3 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: You debunk a young Earth by citing a zircon date of 1,483 million years, monazite date of 97 million years and granite date of 20 million years!

ETA: Added the omission of a citation from that Gish gallop of YEC radiometric dating delusions.
u-pb dating of monazite and its applications to geological problems
This paper is that U-Pb dating of monazite with corrections can be used to date the formation of granite.

Granite is not a single monolithic compound. Granite is rock crystalized from magna. That magna contains zircon

Zircon has played an important role during the evolution of radiometric dating. Zircons contain trace amounts of uranium and thorium (from 10 ppm up to 1 wt%) and can be dated using several modern analytical techniques. Because zircons can survive geologic processes like erosion, transport, even high-grade metamorphism, they contain a rich and varied record of geological processes. Currently, zircons are typically dated by uranium-lead (U-Pb), fission-track, cathodoluminescence, and U+Th/He techniques. For instance, imaging the cathodoluminescence emission from fast electrons can be used as a prescreening tool for high-resolution secondary-ion-mass spectrometry (SIMS) to image the zonation pattern and identify regions of interest for isotope analysis. This is done using an integrated cathodoluminescence and scanning electron microscope.[19] Zircons in sedimentary rock can identify the sediment source.

Zircons from Jack Hills in the Narryer Gneiss Terrane, Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia, have yielded U-Pb ages up to 4.404 billion years,[20] interpreted to be the age of crystallization, making them the oldest minerals so far dated on Earth. In addition, the oxygen isotopic compositions of some of these zircons have been interpreted to indicate that more than 4.4 billion years ago there was already water on the surface of the Earth.[20][21] This interpretation is supported by additional trace element data,[22][23] but is also the subject of debate.[24][25] In 2015, "remains of biotic life" were found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks in the Jack Hills of Western Australia.[26][27] According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe."[26]

Granite contains monazite, also a good source for radiometric dating.

It does not take much to understand that when granite crystalizes from magna already containing zircon and monazite, the 2 minerals may have different formation dates - 1,483 million years and 97 million years - and those dates are irrelevant to the age of the granite.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Sorry Guys, once more this seems to be the thread that gets placed at the bottom of the barrel. I am trying to kill off a thread or two on another forum and jump over to this one to spend more time. I will get back to you and apologize for the wait.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is no 'true' amount of time, only elapsed time relative to another frame.

Not true. Your considering this frame as absolute while refusing to consider it relative to anything.

And your elapsed time was different while you spent time in that other frame then it is in this frame. So by ignoring the amount of time that lapsed while in the other frame you arrive at the wrong answers.

There is no unique or absolute 'actual' time that has passed, only time passed relative to another frame.

We have shown already you don’t believe that. You are treating this frame as absolute and not comparing it relative to any other frame.

You don't ignore it if you want the time difference relative to that frame. In all other respects, it's irrelevant.

It’s not irrelevant. You spent time in that frame previous to this frame. Your time elapsed differently while in that frame. It is absolutely required in order to calculate the true amount of time that has actually elapsed. Not only in this frame, but in the other frame where time was spent.

The rate of increase of distance between them is accelerating, but, because its due to scalar expansion of spacetime, they do not change inertial frames. It's not an easy concept to grasp, but most people can manage it. Consider that any observer in the universe will see galaxies moving away from her in every direction she looks.

It doesn’t matter if they change inertial frames or not. A boat being accelerated by water does not change inertial frames with respect to the water, but it still has the energy of the river imparted to it.

Epicycles work very well; they're just complicated. The boats are accelerating through spacetime; this is different from the spacetime around them expanding.

Agreed, your epicycles of magical expanding nothing work well, but has no actual laboratory verification of even being remotely possible. The boats are NOT accelerating through the water, they are stationary to the water. They are accelerating with respect to everything else.

I haven't refused to calculate anything, and I agree that if two objects start in the same frame, the one that subsequently accelerates ages slower than the other. But if you'd like to show me how the calculation is done, go ahead.

Then why do you refuse to consider the slower frame the galaxy started in, since you are aware our time has slowed?

An object is always moving with reference to some other frame; there is a potentially infinite number of other possible frames (velocities). The time dilation observed depends on the relative velocity between frames, so the observed time dilation varies according to the frame selected. For two objects in relative motion (i.e. separate frames), each will observe the other's time to run slow by the same amount.

Observation and reality are two different things. We agree the twin in motion believes the stationary twins clocks slowed. The problem is the stationary twin is stationary and his clocks never change at all. The twin in motion simply fails to understand that his zero points for his measuring devices are no longer the same.

Relative motion means that the motion of an object relative to you is the same thing as your motion relative to that object. Whether you consider yourself to be stationary with respect to that object or that object to be stationary with respect to you is an arbitrary choice (usually dependent on a wider context). For objects in uniform relative motion observations and measurements from either object give the same results and are equally valid. You see their time run slow, they see your time run slow.

We have already shown this to be false. The twin in motion can not perceive the correct rate of the stationary twins clocks. He thinks they have slowed, but in reality they haven’t slowed at all. The twin in motion simply can not detect his own movement, so applies his movement to the other twin relative to him, which leads to the incorrect perception of the stationary twins clocks slowing when they haven’t ever changed.

Argument by dictionary is weak - it ignores specific context; but if you want to be pedantic, acceleration is a physical quantity which gives the rate of change of velocity, and gravity is the force that acts between two bodies due to their mass. The effect of an accelerating force is indistinguishable from, and equivalent to, the effect of gravity. Gravity and acceleration are qualitatively different things.

Yes, I am aware you would rather make up definitions on the spot.

No, gravity is not a force according to all theorists, try again.

As an attractive force, electromagnetism dominates at small, e.g. molecular, scales; at large scales, e.g. cosmological, scales, gravity dominates, and the net electric charge of astronomical bodies is relatively insignificant.

That’s what you say, but then we observe electromagnetic interactions everywhere we send a probe and take measurements......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Once more I am unsure how this quote is out of context to how i used it, the materialistic worldview through witch observation is forced. I really think many people are thinking i am quoting these for reasons other than i am.

The data is irrelevant, they have their set of beliefs and nothing will ever persuade them otherwise. You can never convince the proponents of a theory, one must simply wait for them to die out and be replaced by those familiar with the new paradigm. Sadly this is difficult being those who’s views are incorrect, have enslaved the education system so that only their beliefs are taught.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not true. Your considering this frame as absolute while refusing to consider it relative to anything.

And your elapsed time was different while you spent time in that other frame then it is in this frame. So by ignoring the amount of time that lapsed while in the other frame you arrive at the wrong answers.


We have shown already you don’t believe that. You are treating this frame as absolute and not comparing it relative to any other frame.


It’s not irrelevant. You spent time in that frame previous to this frame. Your time elapsed differently while in that frame. It is absolutely required in order to calculate the true amount of time that has actually elapsed. Not only in this frame, but in the other frame where time was spent.


It doesn’t matter if they change inertial frames or not. A boat being accelerated by water does not change inertial frames with respect to the water, but it still has the energy of the river imparted to it.



Agreed, your epicycles of magical expanding nothing work well, but has no actual laboratory verification of even being remotely possible. The boats are NOT accelerating through the water, they are stationary to the water. They are accelerating with respect to everything else.


Then why do you refuse to consider the slower frame the galaxy started in, since you are aware our time has slowed?


Observation and reality are two different things. We agree the twin in motion believes the stationary twins clocks slowed. The problem is the stationary twin is stationary and his clocks never change at all. The twin in motion simply fails to understand that his zero points for his measuring devices are no longer the same.


We have already shown this to be false. The twin in motion can not perceive the correct rate of the stationary twins clocks. He thinks they have slowed, but in reality they haven’t slowed at all. The twin in motion simply can not detect his own movement, so applies his movement to the other twin relative to him, which leads to the incorrect perception of the stationary twins clocks slowing when they haven’t ever changed.


Yes, I am aware you would rather make up definitions on the spot.

No, gravity is not a force according to all theorists, try again.


That’s what you say, but then we observe electromagnetic interactions everywhere we send a probe and take measurements......

Most of this has already been addressed. I refer you to my previous answers.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

https://slideplayer.com/slide/5275250/

http://pages.geo.wvu.edu/~jtoro/structure/ppt/04Strain2.pdf
Of course not, the horseshoe crab shell would shatter. And if the horseshoe crab shell were made of soft sediment, it wouldnt shear at all, the grains of sediment would just roll around because they arent welded or lithified together in any way.

So if you have sheared rock, you know that the sediment in which the rock is made of, must have been bonded to one another in order to shear, just as a horseshoe crab shell is bonded on a microscopic level. Thats what makes the shell hard, as is what makes a rock hard. If the particles or shell minerals were like wet loose sand and were not bonded, then they wouldnt shear. They would just fall apart in your hands.

That is why thew argument applies to rock formations with no signs of any bending while hard. No one said rocks cannot break

Ill just pick another point here. The "Bent Rock" Topic.

Of course we know that rock bends when super heated and placed under extreme pressures.
Brittle versus ductile deformation is a well understood concept in which rocks take on a more pliable consistency when heated.

Just as when metal is heated, it can be bent easier than when its cold.


We also have strained bivalves, trilobites and other geologic features, in which originally bilaterraly symetric objects are strained by high pressures of surrounding rock, and are bent.

Was the trilobite wet and loose when it was bent? No of course not. And we can actually use the angles of deformation in bilaterally symetric features, to better understand deformation in rock as well. As both rock and features deform in the same directions and under the same pressures.

http://geologylearn.blogspot.com/2016/03/rock-deformation.html


You also have things such as fault breccias, propogating faults and cataclastic deformation, that do not form in soft sediment conditions.

And you get things like overturned angular unconformities, in which you have deposition, then orogenic offsetting of layers, erosion of those offset layers, deposition of new layers, then more orogenic offset.

And theres no real way for these kinds of concepts to be explained through the idea of rocks being soft during folding and deformation.

And the last point there about the angular unconformity is one that ive given at least a couple times on this site.

Imagine you have bedding

==============
==============

It is originally deposited horizontally. Then its upturned...

/////////////////////////
////////////////////////

The top is eroded and a new layer is deposited on top.

============
============
/////////////////////
/////////////////////

So here you have your general every day textbook unconformity.

But now turn it again.

==========//////////////////////
==========/////////////////////

Now, the original upturned layers must have been hardened, else they wouldnt turn up vertically. A wet sand castle will fall into a blob, it wont turn up on its side.

The second layers is deposited on top. So you need time for the second layers to harden as well. The second layer and the first are separated by fragmented fault breccia, which forms basically when two massive and hard rock bodies grind against one another. Almost like hard glass breaks into shards, rock does the same thing when two rock bodies grint against one another. Shards of rock are captured between the two.

Then, after that, you take those two rocks, one horizontal on top of one that is vertical, and you push both of those hard layers on their sides, so that the original lower layer is back to being horizontal, with the newer layers being vertical.

Last but not least, take this formation, and plug it right in the middle of the paleozoic, and further in the middle of a depositional megasequence which records gradations from sandstone to siltstone to limestone and back to siltstone then sandstone and back and forth over and over again.


This can only be explained by hardened rocks being turned over by slow orogenic processes via plate tectonics, in conjunction with gradual sea transgression and regression patterns over many many years.

https://slideplayer.com/slide/5275250/

http://pages.geo.wvu.edu/~jtoro/structure/ppt/04Strain2.pdf
Of course not, the horseshoe crab shell would shatter. And if the horseshoe crab shell were made of soft sediment, it wouldnt shear at all, the grains of sediment would just roll around because they arent welded or lithified together in any way.

So if you have sheared rock, you know that the sediment in which the rock is made of, must have been bonded to one another in order to shear, just as a horseshoe crab shell is bonded on a microscopic level. Thats what makes the shell hard, as is what makes a rock hard. If the particles or shell minerals were like wet loose sand and were not bonded, then they wouldnt shear. They would just fall apart in your hands.

“In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition”
-Austin, S.A. and J.D. Morris, ‘Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences’, Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986) pp.3–15. Address in ref. 12


for what it is worth I emailed Tes walker [creationist] on your statments

"You also have things such as fault breccias, propogating faults and cataclastic deformation, that do not form in soft sediment conditions.

And you get things like overturned angular unconformities, in which you have deposition, then orogenic offsetting of layers, erosion of those offset layers, deposition of new layers, then more orogenic offset.

And theres no real way for these kinds of concepts to be explained through the idea of rocks being soft during folding and deformation."



he said

Thanks for your email. Many rocks did become hard during Noah’s Flood and they broke brittlely when they were deformed as was described to you by the person responding on that website. One situation where rocks become hard is when they are buried deeply and metamorphosed. However, there were other rocks that were plastic when they were deformed, as that article on our website described. So the argument in that article for rapid processes and not much elapsed time is valid. It is necessary to identify the areas where the rocks were still plastic and the argument is valid.



I think the article he was referring to was this one.

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

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Regarding polystrate fossils. Polystrate fossils do not cross geologic timescale boundaries. For example, you wont find a polystrate fossil crossing from the devonian to the carboniferous, or the cretaceous to the tertiary. Doesn't happen.

Thats because trees can of course be buried within perhaps hundreds of years, in which they may cross hundreds of years of layers. But they dont traverse any extensive geologic distances that would make them an issue for modern geologic science.

Could they for thousands or tens of thousands, that is the argument.


‘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’

Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University College of Swansea, trained under strict Lyellian uniformitarianism, describes some polystrate fossil tree trunks that he illustrated in his book:

Ager’s illustration—an old print showing fossil trees that appear to be in growth position at Nant Llech in the Swansea Valley, South Wales, UK. The trees are now preserved outside Swansea Museum.https://creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

A list of debunked decades ago young Earth creationist myths and lies, Tolkien R.R.J, in that and following posts.

Learn about science rather trusting assertions that you can easily find out to be wrong or even lies.

• Erosion is not the only geological process that exists !
• A lie by omitting processes that take salt out of oceans.
• A lie that astronomers consider spiral arms to be physical arms.
  This is the winding problem that caused astronomers to discard physical arms in 1925!
• Sedimentation is only geological process that exists !
• A lie that the Earth's magnetic field always decays when the evidence is that it fluctuates and reverses.
• A lie that the recession of the Moon from the Earth is a simple linear relationship using the current rate.
• A lie about the origin of comets.
  There are billions of potential comets that exist in the outer Solar System. This is a storehouse for the few active comets that approach the Sun.
• Stupidity that human population growth had a constant rate.
• The insanity that > 65 million old fossils can contain < 6000 year old tissues (which they do not!).
  What has been found is > 65 million year old, preserved soft tissue and we have a good mechanism for that preservation in rare cases (iron rich blood).
• Argument from ignorance about polystrate fossils.
• A "Bent Rock Strata" lie when rock can be flexible and bend as in geology textbooks.
• Some "Flat Gaps" nonsense.
• A blatant "Measurable C-14 Within Ancient Samples" lie.
  There have been insane attempts to C-14 date fossils which have resulted in the dating of the fossil preservatives or the expected of C14 dating.
• A list of "Radiometric Dating" ignorance and delusions about science.
• "Other dates" stupidity of citing radiometric dating of samples that are millions of years in age.
• A "Radiometric dating in support of a young earth" lie, starting with the insanity of C14 dating diamonds formed 150 to 250 kilometers under the ground away, from the continuous formation of C14 in the atmosphere.
• "Excessive decay in the past?" delusions and lies, "In lavatory experiments we have been able to produce billions of years of decay in hours."

Ken Ham’s 10 facts that prove creationism – Debunked

Ice cores are a simple example of how easy it is to understand evidence that the Earth is old. Anyone who can count up to 55,000 can physically count 55,000 years in ice cores ("For example, at Vostok, layer counting is only possible down to an age of 55,000 years").

Evidence against a recent creation

A list of debunked decades ago old earth myths and lies.

Learn about science rather trusting assertions that you can easily find out to be wrong or even lies. So lets lok at your claims.

• Erosion is not the only geological process that exists !

Agreed. Due tell why this goes against the argument for a young earth.

• A lie by omitting processes that take salt out of oceans.

Shows you did not read my op but blindly believe your article by faith alone. My op reads

"Many processes continually add salt to the oceans and seas, but salt is not removed as easily from the sea , resulting in a steady increase of salt in the oceans." and

"The rate of sodium output is only 27% of the input. Or 122 million tons each year using the most generous assumptions to evolutionist the maximum possible amount is 206 million tones each year"

• A lie that astronomers consider spiral arms to be physical arms.
  This is the winding problem that caused astronomers to discard physical arms in 1925!

??????

• Sedimentation is only geological process that exists !

who said that?

• A lie that the Earth's magnetic field always decays when the evidence is that it fluctuates and reverses.

yes reverses, but overall decay see op.

• A lie that the recession of the Moon from the Earth is a simple linear relationship using the current rate.

and any reason why not? if so you go against the heart of old earth methods, uniformitarnism.

• A lie about the origin of comets.
  There are billions of potential comets that exist in the outer Solar System. This is a storehouse for the few active comets that approach the Sun.

This is based on faith. Never observed further my op preads

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical ‘Oort cloud’ well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.4 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the ‘Kuiper Belt’, a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. [For more information, see the detailed technical article Comets and the Age of the Solar System.]


Steidl, P.F., ‘Planets, comets, and asteroids’, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73–106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983) 5093 Williamsport Dr., Norcross, GA 30092

• Stupidity that human population growth had a constant rate.

once more what reason not to? further are you saying uniformitarnism assumptions are false? i agree.

• The insanity that > 65 million old fossils can contain < 6000 year old tissues (which they do not!).
  What has been found is > 65 million year old, preserved soft tissue and we have a good mechanism for that preservation in rare cases (iron rich blood).

Due tell your secret knowledge. How do you preserve tissue that has been observed to decay at a certain rate even when frozen in a fossil in the dirt.

• Argument from ignorance about polystrate fossils.

seems to be just what this is. Do people believe this stuff. due tell what we need to know to make this no longer an argument.

• A "Bent Rock Strata" lie when rock can be flexible and bend as in geology textbooks.

no one disagrees. But they show sighs of being bent, others do not.

• Some "Flat Gaps" nonsense.

In other words, no answer for it.

• A blatant "Measurable C-14 Within Ancient Samples" lie.
  There have been insane attempts to C-14 date fossils which have resulted in the dating of the fossil preservatives or the expected of C14 dating.

Yes its all a lie one big conspiracy even peer reviewed evolutionist are in on this lie. Evolutionist sound more like flat earthers ever day.


Paul Giem, “Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon,” Origins 51 (2001): 6–30.
-R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287
J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research InitiativeHYPERLINK "http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/carbon-14#fnMark_1_14_1", eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630. D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.

• A list of "Radiometric Dating" ignorance and delusions about science.
• • "Other dates" stupidity of citing radiometric dating of samples that are millions of years in age.
  • A "Radiometric dating in support of a young earth" lie, starting with the insanity of C14 dating diamonds formed 150 to 250 kilometers under the ground away, from the continuous formation of C14 in the atmosphere.

in other words evolutionist must ignore published dates in journals to hold on to their "ignorance and delusions about science."

• "Excessive decay in the past?" delusions and lies, "In lavatory experiments we have been able to produce billions of years of decay in hours."

Lies yes its all lies they are all in on it, those fundamentalist Christians are putting the boggy man all over observational science and evolutionist journals. The earth is flat, evolution is true, just ignore it all its lies i tell you lies.


Ice cores are a simple example of how easy it is to understand evidence that the Earth is old. Anyone who can count up to 55,000 can physically count 55,000 years in ice cores ("For example, at Vostok, layer counting is only possible down to an age of 55,000 years").


You spend time above denying science, observation and unifomtraian, than turn around and claim uniformitarnism is true when it comes to ice cores. Interesting. Since you copy paste and did not even read my op i will just link you information on ice cores and how easy it is to show ice cores do not prove an old earth.


https://creation.com/do-greenland-ice-cores-show-over-one-hundred-thousand-years-of-annual-layers
https://creation.com/greenland-ice-cores-implicit-evidence-for-catastrophic-deposition
https://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Start with this item of the massive Gish gallop in the start of the thread.
3 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: You debunk a young Earth by citing a zircon date of 1,483 million years, monazite date of 97 million years and granite date of 20 million years!

Granite is not a single monolithic compound. Granite is rock crystalized from magna. That magna contains zircon

Granite contains monazite, also a good source for radiometric dating.

It does not take much to understand that when granite crystalizes from magna already containing zircon and monazite, the 2 minerals may have different formation dates - 1,483 million years and 97 million years - and those dates are irrelevant to the age of the granite.

It was quoted to show the variation in dating methods when applied to the same rock. But I have no issues with that, it falsies that first assumption in radiometric dating.

 

[Job 33:6]

That is why thew argument applies to rock formations with no signs of any bending while hard. No one said rocks cannot break






“In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition”
-Austin, S.A. and J.D. Morris, ‘Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences’, Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986) pp.3–15. Address in ref. 12


for what it is worth I emailed Tes walker [creationist] on your statments

"You also have things such as fault breccias, propogating faults and cataclastic deformation, that do not form in soft sediment conditions.

And you get things like overturned angular unconformities, in which you have deposition, then orogenic offsetting of layers, erosion of those offset layers, deposition of new layers, then more orogenic offset.

And theres no real way for these kinds of concepts to be explained through the idea of rocks being soft during folding and deformation."



he said

Thanks for your email. Many rocks did become hard during Noah’s Flood and they broke brittlely when they were deformed as was described to you by the person responding on that website. One situation where rocks become hard is when they are buried deeply and metamorphosed. However, there were other rocks that were plastic when they were deformed, as that article on our website described. So the argument in that article for rapid processes and not much elapsed time is valid. It is necessary to identify the areas where the rocks were still plastic and the argument is valid.



I think the article he was referring to was this one.

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

Name the formation and locality of where you think, rock has been deformed, that has no evidence of orogenic deformation.

Your response is just rhetoric, you arent actually giving a technical explanation for the unconformity i described.

"Many rocks did become hard during Noah’s Flood "

Feel free to apply this statement to the unconformity I described, and expound.

 

[Job 33:6]

Could they for thousands or tens of thousands, that is the argument.


‘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.

Why would you assume a constant rate of deposition over 10 million years?

You even quoted the same person saying:
" 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"

the conclusions of the person you quoted, goes against your position.

If this were a real argument, you wouldnt have these trees confined to one section of a formation.

If you found trees spanning geologic periods, for example, having a tree begin in the cretaceous and span into the cenozoic. That would be significant. Or a tree in running from the late ordovician into the silurian. Or really there are many periods of time in which polystrate trees could hypothetically exist, but they dont. We just find them confined to single, uniform sections of rock, indicating rapid burial, while confined to a geologically short period of time.

But the fact that you are looking at a single location, tells us that these trees are not spanning long periods of time at all. Rather theyre a product of rapid burial, fossilization of a tree, then the tree just exists alongside the formation throughout its history.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Name the formation and locality of where you think, rock has been deformed, that has no evidence of orogenic deformation.

Your response is just rhetoric, you arent actually giving a technical explanation for the unconformity i described.

"Many rocks did become hard during Noah’s Flood "

Feel free to apply this statement to the unconformity I described, and expound.

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/

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Why would you assume a constant rate of deposition over 10 million years?

You even quoted the same person saying:
" 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"

the conclusions of the person you quoted, goes against your position.

If this were a real argument, you wouldnt have these trees confined to one section of a formation.

If you found trees spanning geologic periods, for example, having a tree begin in the cretaceous and span into the cenozoic. That would be significant. Or a tree in running from the late ordovician into the silurian. Or really there are many periods of time in which polystrate trees could hypothetically exist, but they dont. We just find them confined to single, uniform sections of rock, indicating rapid burial, while confined to a geologically short period of time.

But the fact that you are looking at a single location, tells us that these trees are not spanning long periods of time at all. Rather theyre a product of rapid burial, fossilization of a tree, then the tree just exists alongside the formation throughout its history.

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.